MEZIESBLOG

1. Introduction
   Roadmapping has been extensively applied over the past years, successfully supporting the formulation of integrated strategies and plans for technology and innovation (Phaal et al., 2010). An important factor in its growth trajectory has been the development of methodologies capable of introducing the roadmapping process to companies by using simple, visual and value-oriented approaches (Phaal et al., 2001a, 2001b, 2001c). Because of this, many companies have opened their doors to roadmapping.
2. 
   After the initial period in which roadmapping was commonly introduced as a stand-alone application, further support became necessary to enable its continuous development and maintenance within companies (Garcia and Bray, 1997; Phaal et al., 2010). However, most existing methodologies describing roadmapping processes lack information in this sense (Holmes and Ferril, 2006).
3. 
   The challenge is how to combine processes and people who are capable of inserting roadmapping as a continuous and living process, interconnected with the organizational routine or common usage business process. If this is not done, roadmapping will remain a stand-alone process, searching for its place after the first application and lacking opportunities to achieve continuous improvements of its results (Gerdsri et al., 2009).
4. 
   This paper presents a method to support the continuity of the roadmapping process in organizations, developed through action research in an innovative company. It supplements traditional processes focused on the introduction of roadmapping by adding a new roadmapping phase that implements a set of practices to integrate the roadmap with the regular and operational tasks usually performed in the enterprise. This method also considers competitive intelligence and agile project management techniques to update and coordinate people’s involvement. Thus, it allows for continuous improvement of roadmapping results, interconnected with the decisions regarding innovation made in the strategic planning process, leading to a new level of organizational commitment toward roadmapping performance.
5. Technology roadmap updating
   According to Phaal et al. (2001c), technology roadmapping (TRM) is an approach designed to support the planning and management of technology and is capable of taking advantage of technological directions and foreseeing future demands in uncertain environments (Lee et al., 2011). The objective of this integration is to align different visions to respond to three key questions:
   Q1.
   Where are we now?

Q2.
Where do we want to get to?

Q3.
How can we get there? (Oliveira et al., 2012)

By February 2010, more than 170 studies about the process, structure, tools and benefits of TRM had been published (Vatananan and Gerdsri, 2010). In the first published studies, the authors were concerned with presenting different types of roadmaps, as much from the point of view of the application as from the visual forms of representation (Phaal et al., 2001c). Later, efforts were concentrated on methods and instruction manuals for a fast-start approach, which gave rise to a fast-start manual, published by the Centre for Technology Management at Cambridge (Phaal et al., 2001a). The most recent studies deal mainly with the implementation of the strategy approach and factors that influence its acceptance and use by companies (Lee et al., 2011).

The problem with the updating of roadmaps has been addressed by the literature since it arose. Garcia and Bray (1997) note that the roadmap and its plans should be revised and updated frequently. A study of 2,000 British companies indicated that only 10 per cent of the companies (the majority of which were large) that had used the TRM approach continued to use the technique (Phaal et al., 2001b).
Although the TRM approach has been considered a success in several companies (e.g. Motorola, Lucent Technologies, Philips and ABB), its maintenance has been a challenge (Phaal et al., 2001a, 2001b, 2001c). The survey also identified that keeping the TRM process “alive” on an ongoing basis was the biggest challenge cited (50 per cent) and developing a robust process (20 per cent), which is connected with this problem, was in third place.

This continued throughout the 2000s when studies returned to the problem. According to Holmes and Ferril (2006), the literature on the problem of keeping roadmaps updated is scarce. The latest research indicating possible paths investigated the process of roadmapping as part of the existing processes in an organization (Brown and O’Hare, 2001; Wells et al., 2004; Phaal et al., 2010), the application of the process of roadmapping (Gerdsri and Assakul, 2007) and the understanding of critical issues involved in the implementation process (Lee et al., 2011). None of these articles, however, mentions changes in the procedures of roadmapping as a means to solve the problem (Brown and O’Hare, 2001; Wells et al., 2004; Phaal et al., 2010).

The integration of TRM with other business processes, so that its execution is no longer sporadic, is the most common solution mentioned. For example, Gerdsri et al. (2009) propose dynamic roadmapping for deployment, Phaal et al. (2010) highlight the need for integration of roadmapping with operational business processes and Caetano and Amaral (2011) advocate integrating roadmapping with open innovation.

Research by Holmes and Ferril (2006) shows that many of the organizations studied had review sections a few times a year, involving people from the tactical level. In these sections, the management team compared the development of the roadmap with what was planned. It was not proven to be an operational process, institutionalized in the company, but rather an indication of what is possible. Vatananan and Gerdsri (2010) note that it is necessary to monitor the status of the roadmap and take appropriate action before the roadmap becomes outdated.

It is concluded, therefore, that a possible solution is to develop a process capable of updating the roadmap and creating a feedback loop of the lessons learned for future formal updates, as suggested by Holmes and Ferril (2006). This would be a procedure performed by the company’s own staff, as part of their routine work. Agile management techniques could help with practices that provide flexibility for continuous updating.