|
|
 |
Roadmaps and Roadmapping Technology Futures Strategy |
| Measuring the Value of Roadmapping
|
The Roadmapping Scorecard |
| The best measure of a roadmapping process
is the value created for society, an industry, or a corporation’s
shareholders by executing the plan incorporated in the roadmap, but the time delay is often very
long (sometimes measured in years or decades) and many other factors
during implementation of the plan can influence the outcome.
For example, external events may change the market environment or
internal changes or problems may affect the development
process. A short-term, forward looking measure is
provided by a roadmapping “scorecard” of the teams’ self-evaluation
of progress framed by the four-part architecture (see Roadmapping Frameworks). The
scorecard captures the teams’ perceptions and/or a facilitator’s
review of the completeness and quality of each part of the roadmap
as it is developed. It enables the team to conduct a
structured review of gaps and develop plans for closing those
gaps.
The scorecard tracks the team’s progress and confidence through
several roadmapping sessions. It can then be used to track
periodic updates as the team gains confidence in its plan or
recognizes the need for redirection.
For more detail on roadmapping scorecards, read
A Unifying Architecture
for Roadmaps Frames a Value Scorecard (PDF), presented at IEEE
Engineering Management Conference, October, 2003, Albany, NY.
|
|
| Constructing the Scorecard |
| A scorecard may be
constructed based on the common framework, and an example scorecard
is shown below. Each major section is weighted by its importance on
a relative scale. Within each section, the individual topics are
also assigned individual weights. In the example, a few topics of
the standard template are not used, so are given zero weights. All
others are weighted equally, and given weights of one.
The team that created the scorecard shown below created its
roadmap over a series of four sessions (one session devoted to a
section of the roadmap). At the end of each session, the members of
the team rated their confidence in the parts of the roadmap
completed to that point on a five point scale. The scorecard shows
the team’s progress in completing the roadmap both in the table and
the accompanying graph. In the first session, the team drafted a
Market and Competitive Strategy. At the end of the session, the team
was highly confident of its competitive strategy, and moderately
confident of the market definition, customer drivers, and
competitive landscape. This showed a completion score of about 16% –
good confidence in work completed so far, but lots more work to do.
As the team progressed through roadmapping sessions, the elements of
the market and competitive strategy were reviewed and revisited, and
the teams’ confidence in the initial sections increased as
additional parts of the roadmap were completed. The team’s progress
in developing the parts of the roadmap is evident as the sections of
the roadmap are scored.
The bottom line of the table and the bar chart show the progress
toward completion or 100% confidence. The confidence is computed by
weighting the scores for each topic by the section weights. At the
end of the first session, the team was 16% of the way to complete
confidence in their roadmap. By the end of the fourth session, the
team scored itself at 93% confidence. To reach confidence nearer
100%, the team will continue to work on the topics with the lowest
scores first to build their confidence in the quality of their
roadmap. |
|
| Roadmapping Scorecard |
|
| |
| |
© 2004 - 2011 The Albright Strategy Group,
LLC |