Wie können Unternehmen die Roadmap zu einem noch besseren Instrument des Technologie- und Innovationsmanagements entwickeln? Dieser Frage widmet sich die Konferenz »Roadmapping in der Praxis«. Auf dem Programm unter der Überschrift Roadmapping in der Praxis stehen psychologische Aspekte der Strategieerstellung, der Einsatz spezifischer Softwareinstrumente sowie Best Practices und die aktuelle Forschung führender Institute.
Aus der 2015 gemeinsam vom Fraunhofer IAO und TIM Consulting durchgeführten »Praxisstudie Roadmapping« lässt sich ableiten, dass eine Vielzahl von Unternehmen bereits eine hohe Reife beim Einsatz von Roadmapping entwickelt haben. Die Roadmap ist durch die Anbindung an vor- und nachgelagerte Methoden tief in das Technologie- und Innovationsmanagement sowie strategische Prozesse integriert. Im globalen Wettbewerb und insbesondere im Rennen um die Technologievorherrschaft stellt eine kontinuierlich aktualisierte Roadmap einen grundlegenden Erfolgsfaktor dar. Um aber in zunehmend dynamischen Märkten die eigenen Wettbewerbsvorteile sichern und ausbauen zu können, ist die Synthese von immer größeren Informationsmengen notwendig. Auch gilt es, grundsätzlich unternehmensfremde Entwicklungen zu berücksichtigen, die zu Disruptionen in den eigenen Märkten führen können oder zukünftige Chancen für die Unternehmensentwicklung bieten.
Roadmapping und insbesondere die Integration unterschiedlichster Planungsebenen in Unternehmen ist nach wie vor eine wesentliche Herausforderung der strategischen Planung. Dies hat sich auch auf unserer Veranstaltung im April 2016 gezeigt, auf der das Themenfeld „Roadmapping“ sowohl aus praktischer als auch aus wissenschaftlicher Perspektive beleuchtet wurde. Damit die Inhalte und Visualisierungen der Veranstaltung sowohl den Teilnehmern als auch allen anderen zur Verfügung stehen, hier nun die Veröffentlichung mit Beiträgen von Rednern und beteiligten Organisationen.
Was beinhalten Roadmaps in Unternehmen und wo werden sie eingesetzt? Wie sind sie organisatorisch eingebunden? Welche Informationsquellen nutzen Unternehmen und durch welche Methoden werden Roadmaps ergänzt? Mit welchen Herausforderungen sehen sich Unternehmen konfrontiert und welche Empfehlungen haben sie für den praktischen Einsatz von Roadmaps? Um neue Erkenntnisse zu diesen Fragen zu gewinnen, hat das Fraunhofer IAO in Kooperation mit TIM Consulting von Juli bis September 2015 eine Online- Befragung durchgeführt. Von 156 Antwortsets wurden 81 für die Auswertung berücksichtigt – darunter ausschließlich Unternehmen, die zum Zeitpunkt der Studie Roadmaps einsetzten.
Ein Auschnitt der Ergebnisse ist in der Infografik „Praxisstudie Roadmapping“ zusammengefasst. Untenstehend findet sich darüber hinaus der Link zur Broschüre „Praxisstudie Roadmapping“, die im Januar 2016 veröffentlicht wurde. Die Ergebnisse werden auch auf der Veranstaltung „Roadmapping in der Praxis: Fahrplan zum Unternehmenserfolg“ am 21. April, Fraunhofer IAO in Stuttgart vorgestellt.
Firms are increasingly under pressure to create business advantage from their strategic innovation capacities, but few are realizing the potential of those investments. However, a key weakness in many innovation pipelines in the connection between front end processes and cultures, and the processes and cultures of product development. A key component in gaining the value of investment in innovation is to use a multi-dimensional approach to transitioning promising projects from concept development into implementation.
A welcome change in the recent years has been the ever-growing number of companies trying to better-accommodate the natural tensions between “exploration” and “exploitation,” which the Stanford University organizational behavior researcher, James G. March, so described so well in his article „Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning„.
The business cycle velocities that characterized the time of March’s landmark publication on this topic seem quaint and very-distant from what we experience today: Now it’s possible for a company to go from market-definer to dominating market leader to yesterday’s news in the span of just a few years, as recently evidenced by companies such as MySpace, Nokia, Palm and RIM. The rapidity, and unpredictability, of these business cycle trajectories have created a tremendous amount of incentive and pressure for companies to create- and implement innovation processes which act as sources of competitive advantage for them. There are very many key points in the design of successful innovation processes and cultures, but a key source of discontinuity always seems to be what my clients and research subjects describe as “the handoff” between exploration-focused front end teams and implementation-focused product development teams.
First of all, the use of the term “handoff” already implies that one type of discontinuity is embedded into the culture: That is the idea that there is a standalone, completely-documented, self-explanatory “something” that can passed from one group of people to another, on a monotonic “playing field.” In reality, all successful innovation processes act more like transportation systems, wherein people, information and content move from vehicle-to-vehicle along their way to a destination. Using the transportation metaphor, we can imagine that many different types of teams of experts interact with-, and are responsible for-, successfully-delivered concepts.
When planning the interface points between a strategic innovation environment and an exploitation-focused product development organization, I think it’s useful to repurpose the concept of “compatibility,” that Everett M. Rogers describes in his work “Diffusion of Innovations”. Roger’s concept of compatibility holds that innovations must be consistent with the values, usages, experiences, and needs of potential adopters, in order to be successful. To summarize further, this means that innovations that can be accepted and implemented by a potential user or system must be designed so that they are recognizable and usable by that user or system. In our case, this means means that the output of a strategic innovation group must be made understandable, relevant, and acceptable to an implementation group.
Product Development managers, with the dominant proportion of their work in implementing iterative projects, face extra work in accommodating occasional projects like this within their processes and culture.Nonetheless, this work has now taken on a heightened level of importance: Companies who have difficulty doing this, or can’t, or won’t do it, will fall behind and quickly become irrelevant.
Companies which are consistently successful at gaining value from their front end innovation pipelines take a particular approach to this: Rather than thinking about the transition of an innovation from conceptualization to implementation, as a “handoff” in a relay race, I believe that it’s metaphorically more-appropriate to think of this multi-dimensional process as similar to docking a space ship to the International Space Station (you can get an idea of the complexity, and amount of planning and communication involved in this, through this video of the Soyuz TMA-15 docking to the ISS).
Just as is the case with docking these two space vehicles, companies that handle the transition from concept development to implementation well tend to spend a lot of time in planning and communication, so that teams, goals and approach are aligned, before the actual transition event occurs. I believe that these following dimensions need to be negotiated and planned:
Velocity (speed): How quickly can the respective entities process information and concepts? how can their speeds be matched?
Orientation: What properties and features does something need to have, in order for it to be accepted and recognized?
Proximity (nearness): How far away is the incoming project? When will it arrive?
Contour: What resources and capacities must be planned, in order to implement the idea?
Size: How much human and capital resources will the project require?
Consistency (hard/soft): How far along are the concepts? Are they “hard” and ready for implementation? Are they “soft,” requiring collaboration between the front end team and the implementation team?
Resolution (texture): How well is the market defined? Is it still rough, or even “wooly,” requiring a multiple pilots and quantitative work? Is it well-structured, arriving with a solid segmentation?
Identifying the gaps between what an innovation group can deliver and what an implementation group needs, in order to execute is a key step taken by top innovation companies. Recognizing these gaps, negotiating the differences and planning the needs of each innovation program, so that it can be implemented are key steps in the business model for sustainable modern companies.
V. Govindarajan & C. Trimble 2010: The other side of innovation – solving the execution challenge
Through the analysis of various industrial cases, the authors extract and describe major recommendations for successful innovation projects. These recommendations are reflected in the chapters of the book and complemented by assessment tools providing critical questions for planning or analysing innovation activities. Providing generally accepted principles of Project, Innovation and R&D Management, the authors underline these with an impressive number of industrial cases and translate these principles into relatively concrete recommendations. The following recommendations create the baseline for the table of content:
1) Build the Team – Divide the labor.
– Assemble the dedicated team.
– Manage the partnership.
2)Run a Disciplined Experiment – Formalize the experiment.
– Break down the hypothesis.
– Seek the truth.
By providing the underlying case studies on the Internet (theothersideofinnovation), the credibility of the authors can hardly be topped. This book is recommendable for all, who like straightforward messages underlined by numerous (different) industrial examples.
J.M. Morgan & J.K. Liker 2006: The Toyota product development system – integrating people, process, and technology
Lean development is nowadays a well established method to increase the productivity of R&D departments. Despite some problems in recent times, Toyota still represents the shining example and the reference for any other company using this method. The authors underline the principles of lean development through practical examples from Toyota and the comparison with the U.S. automotive industry. The overall book is based on their recommendations towards successful product development which is reflected in the table of content:
1) Process Subsystem
– Establish customer-defined value to separate value-added from waste.
– Front-load the product development process to explore alternatives thoroughly.
– Create a leveled product development process flow.
– Utilize rigorous standardization to reduce variation and create flexibility and predictable outcomes.
2) People Subsystem
– Create a chief engineer system to lead development from start to finish.
– Organize to balance functional expertise and cross-functional integration.
– Develop towering technical competence in all engineers.
– Fully integrate suppliers into the product development system.
– Build in learning and continuous improvement.
– Build a culture to support excellence and relentless improvement.
3) Tools and Technology Subsystem
– Adapt technology to fit your people and process.
– Align your organization through simple, visual communication.
– Use powerful tools for standardization and organisational learning.
This book is a great handbook on the principles of lean development including descriptions of various tools and techniques such as value-stream mapping, A3 problem solving and integration mechanisms. It is worth reading for all who want to get inspirational insights on how to improve product development underlined by industrial examples from the manufacturing (automotive) industry.
Recommendations on how to design the organisation and process structure of R&D and Innovation are becoming more and more common in management literature. They can be the source of great inspiration for improvement and are credible due to the link to „real“ industrial case studies. However, the major challenge lies in the identification of the tools and techniques that work in the own company and finally in leading these tools and techniques towards successful implementation.
We’re all familiar with the Ansoff Matrix, from Igor Ansoff, „The Father of Corporate Strategy.“ This broadly-used model for corporate strategy planning has been subtly iterated since its first publication back in 1957, as pace-of-change- and level-of-sophistication of business have increased. Now it’s most-commonly used in the below form, to help companies understand their existing portfolios, help plan where they can realistically extend and help think about how to build completely-new areas of business.
Most Firms now have a portfolio of R&D and Innovation investments, placed across these quadrants, with the grouping depending on their growth planning and tolerance for the various risks in each quadrant.
It’s probably fair to say that every company aspires for a big win in the “New Markets & Customers / New Products & Services” quadrant, but investment there is most-risky and outcomes can be most disruptive to company cultures, existing markets and existing business models.
For most companies, the main barriers to success in the “new / new” quadrant are modeling outcomes, building intermediate project metrics and justifying investments. Projects in this quadrant are the most-likely to be stopped, because the initial business models that have been developed often appear much-weaker than those of competing project investments in other quadrants of activity.
Usually, it’s the high risk in investing in the first few steps that kills a disruptive innovation project in its infancy—costs seem out of scale to the opportunity, level of resource commitment is usually very high, there can be disruptions to present business and time-to-profitability is uncertain.
The question that has often been posed is how companies can “let something grow a little longer,” before making a decision about its fate. Every company wants the growth that disruptive innovation brings, but they lack the tools to plan for it and measure its progress.
The Backcasting model is very powerful for planning investment in disruptive innovation. Using this tool, companies can envision a desired future, then plan backward to the present, making reasonable assumptions about evolving capabilities, resources and business conditions. Articulation of credible project stages and goals allows more-informed decisions about project trajectory, at each stage of its implementation.
This method differs from forecasting, since forecasting depends on assumptions of reasonable growth from existing conditions, based on historical performance and some “feel” from the forecaster. Forecasting can only ever be iterative, while Backcasting is used to build a roadmap, with checkpoints and metrics, to a completely-new future state.
Das Fraunhofer IAO veranstaltet am Mittwoch, 1. Juli 2009, in Kooperation mit Tantum, ein Abendsymposium für technologieintensive Unternehmen.
Ziel ist es zu zeigen, wie globale Unternehmen auf die Herausforderung des nachhaltigen Wachstums reagieren können. Dies wird anhand des praktischen Beispiels der Firma Embraco in Kooperation zwischen dem Fraunhofer IAO und Tantum dargestellt.
Informationen zu Programm und Anmeldung sind im Internet auf der Webseite des Fraunhofer IAOzu finden.