Technology Roadmapping - Conceptual Tool or Practical Foresight for Innovation-Led Growth?

2. Aims for Technology Planning © 2016 nu Angle Aims for technology planning Technologies to develop further Technologies to hold down or phase out New technologies to acquire or grow New technologies to monitor or explore 2

3. Technology roadmap development process © 2014 nu Angle Define scope in relation to commercial needs Access technical expertise (internal/external/ supply chain) Create roadmap Translate roadmap into technology acquisition options Prioritize options and make investment choices Now 1 3 5 7 9 Year Technology Technology Technology Technology Technology Technology Technology Technology Technology Technology … SCOPE/NEEDS Now 1 3 5 7 9 Year Technology Technology Technology Technology Technology Technology Technology Technology Technology Technology … Context Context Context Context Context Context Context Context Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Base case Lead Defend Therapeutic Delivery & Bio-availability Prof. Bill Dawson Bionet Ltd., Cheviot, South Town Road, Alton, Hants Bionet advises companies and universities on exploitation of innovative research. At Lilly, Bill was in research management for almost 20 years, 14 as Director of Research in the UK and latterly as Director of Technology Acquisition, Europe. +44 (0) 1420 564 176 dawson@bionetonline.com Dr Sara Sleigh Dr Sara Sleigh is a freelance writer and editor with experience in writing for and about the pharma industry. Sara graduated from the University of York in 1997 with a DP hil in protein structure and biochemistry. Her doctorate characterised protein-ligand inter actions using x-ray crystallography and calorimetry. Sara Sleigh’s Specialties: Technologies for drug and biomarker discovery, including RNAi and stem cell research, drug delivery and personalised medicine. Dr Sara Sleigh - Writer and Editor Tel: +44 (0)115 846 9138 / +44 (0)7761 749444 Email: sara.sleigh@btopenworld.com Website: pharmavision.co.uk Dr. Louise Rosenmayr-Templeton Pharmaceutical consultancy that specialises in pharmaceutical product development and drug delivery researchkey strengths lie in the following areas: - Technology evaluation & benchmarking - Development of formulation strategies Service provider identification & evaluation - Management of outsourced projects +43 (0) 1 600 34 64 Tower Pharma Consulting Auhofstrasse 197/10 1130 Vienna, Austria Louise worked in various capacities for major pharmaceutical companies such as Abbott (UK, USA), the Élan Corpora - tion (Ireland) and Boehringer Ingelheim (Austria). Her experience spans the whole spectrum of product development from managing pre-clinical research projects, to the successful scale-up and technology transfer of products to manufacturing sites, and the preparation and review of regulatory documents Prof Robert S. Langer MIT, Langer Lab, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Room E25-342, Cam - Investigating the mechanism of release from polymeric delivery systems with concomitant microstructural analysis and mathematical modeling. Creating new approaches for delivering drugs such as proteins and genes across complex barriers in the body such as the blood-brain barrier, the intestine, the lung and the skin. Very expensive - $33K estimate Prof .Hans Lennernäs Dr. Hans Lennernäs is a full professor of Biopharmaceutics at Uppsala University since 1 July 2000, Sweden. Hans is also Associate Editor for Therapeutic Delivery and on the Editorial Advisory Board His research interest is focused on clinical significance of mechanisms and regulation of membrane transport and metabolism of drugs/metabolites in the gastrointestinal tract, hepatobiliary system and cancer tissues. This work is performed in vivo with clinical models in humans and in various tissue and cell culture models. His research aims to develop novel strategies of tissue drug targeting and delivery that aims to improve the clinical use and efficacy of drugs in various disease states Prof. Cameron Alexander Professor of Polymer Thera - peutics, Head of Division of Drug Delivery and Tissue Engineering, Faculty of Science. School of Pharmacy, University of Nottingham Research interests focus on the synthesis of polymers for biomedical applications, especially drug and gene delivery. Current projects are investigating controlled release of therapeutics from synthetic-bipolymer complexes and conjugates, targeted degradable polymers for gene therapy, and smart materials for protein and cell recognition in solution and at surfaces. Prof. Dr. Fritz Sörgel Institute for Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Research, Nuremberg-Heroldsberg , ”. Executive Editor for Journal of Bioequivalence & Bioavailability Experimental studies on the biochemical and pharmacological characterization of diuretics in humans and animals. E xecutive Editor for Journal of Bioequivalence & Bioavailabilit y. Conference Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of Chemotherapy No reply Prof David Brayden Professor of Drug Delivery at the School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine and a Principal Investigator at the Conway Institute in UCD.School of Agriculture, Food Science & Veterinary Medicine, Veteri - nary Science Centre, Belfield Dublin. Associate Editor of Therapeutic Delivery Research includes improving macromolecule delivery across intestinal epithelia using in vitr o and in vivo bioassays. Polymeric peptide conjugates. Epithelial ion transport. Nanoparticle transport across Peyer's patch M cells . Interaction of human and veterinary drugs with efflux transporters. Mr Guy Furness Guy Furness is an indepen - dent publisher specialising in the global drug delivery industry. Founder of Freder - ick Furness Publishing, Hove, East Sussex, BN3 2RW, United Kingdom Prior to launching ONdrugDelivery in 2004, he wo rked as a freelance drug delivery journalist and, before that, he was Editor of a drug delivery newsletter from Scrip. Mr Furness has written for leading industry magaz ines and journals, business reports and national newspapers, including four publications in The Times newspaper (UK). He has also occasionally written on behalf of industry, including f or leading US and Euro pean drug delivery and related co mpanies. Ajay K. Banga Professor and Chair in the Depart - ment of Pharmaceutical Sciences at the College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Mercer University, Atlanta His research expertise is in non-traditional approaches for transdermal drug delivery, especially for water soluble drugs including small conventional molecules and macromolecules. Editor in Chief of Therapeutic Delivery Journal 3001 Mercer University Drive, DV-103 Atlanta, GA 30341 (678) 547-6243 banga_ak@mercer.edu Prof Tom Anchordoquy Associate Professor, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Colorado Denver School of Pharmacy on the Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora, Colorado Synthetic delivery systems for use in nucleic acids-based therapies (e.g., gene, siRNA, antisense, aptamers). Most recent work utilizes an unconventional approach toward developing lipid-based delivery systems that possess prolonged circulation lifetimes and target tumors. Studies on our delivery systems include biophysical characterization , pharmaceutical optimization , cell culture assessment, and ultimately testing in animal models. Voice: 303-724-6113 Lab: 303-724-6114 tom.anchordoquy@ucdenver.edu Prof John Carpenter Professor of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Co-Director of the Center for Pharmaceuti - cal Biotechnology University of Colorado Denver 1250 14th Street Denver, Colorado Study the mechanisms by which proteins are damaged in liquid and dried formulations, and the mechanisms by which additives inhibit this damage. The work on protein aggregation includes not only studies on therapeutic proteins, but also investigations into the amyloid fibril formation by proteins involved in human diseases such as systemic amyloidosis and Parkinson's disease. In addition, he is studying the use of high hydrostatic pressure to disaggregate and refold proteins. Voice: 303-724-6110 Lab: 303-724-6111 E-Mail: John.Carpenter@ucdenver.edu Very expensive/too narrow Prof Catarina Reis Professor of Pharmaceutical Technology and Drug Delivery in the Department of Health Sciences, Universidade Lusófona de Hu- manidades e Tecnologias , Portugal Work in the design and evaluation of nanoparticles and microparticles for peptide drug and gene delivery. She is author or co-author of several articles, book chapters and inventor of 2 patents Cant travel, suggested Ron Neufeld from Queen’s University Prof Ronald J. Neufeld Professor of Biosciences, Bioscience Complex Room 1443A, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, K7L Biochemical reaction engineering, Bioencapsulation solutions for bioprocessing, Bioactives processing and controlled release, Micro and nanoencapsulation of biologicals +1 (613) 533-2827 ron.neufeld@chee.queensu.ca Key &{MAP_NAME} - 07/ 02/ 2011 - IN MAYBE OUT Technology Plan

4. Tungsten Carbide (WC)* Polycrystalline diamond (PCD)* Cubic Boron Nitride (CBN)* Ceramic tools* Alternative superhards* Powder processing* Managing contamination* Bulk material of cutting tool FEA modelling* Advanced modelling* Application modelling PVD coatings* CVD coatings* Cutting tool coatings Insert geometry* Green shaping* Sintering* Edge generation* PCD tooling* Forming the cutting edge Validating the cutting edge* The cutting edge (16) Tool body design* Tool cartridges* Surface geometry solutions* Milling Drilling* Precision adjustment of cutting tips* Self-adjustment of bore tool* Hole finishing Tapping* Insert design for turning*Turning Additive manufacturing* Geometric tolerance control* Hybrid tool material design* Good chip evacuation* Asymmetric cutting* Heat management* Common to all machining methods Machining solutions (14) Reconditioning customer information* Reconditioning competitor tools* Reconditioning common factors PCD/PCBN Tool assessment* Cutting damage repair (PCD)* Laser tip refurbishment (PCD)* Automated brazing (PCD)* PCD/PCBN reconditioning Carbide recycling* Tool repair (9) Lubrication for MQL* Improved environmental impact* Digital art to part* Machining trends Matching tool to machine settings* Simple tool adjustment & setup* Machine tool use monitoring & cutting tool optimization* Machine tool adaptive machining* Fault diagnosis* Reduced skill of machine operators Custom product design* Custom product delivery* Custom tool solution design In use factors (15) Needs (not scored) Combined automotive needs map Build a technology map from scope definition Note: Confidential map details concealed • Basic map built from understanding of needs/or functional requirements • Map restructured as necessary to provide improved coverage and coherency • Technologies to be used in assessment selected (*) © 2016 nu Angle 4

5. Detailed criteria used to score technologies 1. Business impact 2. Ability to create competitive advantage 3. Market impact 4. Probability of success of technology 5. Match with client capabilities 6. Cost to achieve gate 4 7. Timescale to achieve gate 4 8. Potential for client IP © 2016 nu Angle Score Label Explanation 1 Weak Technology can’t be achieved in house or by current suppliers. No competencies in this technology 2 Tenable Technology available but being used by others more effectively 3 Favorable Technology available and being used effectively 4 Strong Has exclusive rights with/for technology or is patented and can set new directions but selected others can match your capability (maybe from another sector) 5 Clear leader Technical development has long term exclusivity. You are world class in this technology Label Explanation Base (or enabling) Need to have the technology to be in business, but has only small impact on market needs. All players have this technology either internally or outsourced Key (or critical) Technology well embodied in products and/or processes. High competitive impact on market needs. Key technologies degrade without continual investment and become base or not relevant. If you are the only one owning this technology it is ‘differentiating’ Pacing (or disruptive) Technology under experimentation in your industry and the competitive impact likely to be high. These can often leapfrog current technology developments or be disruptive, replacing current key technologies Emerging (research with potential) At early research stage, or entering other industries. The competitive impact unknown, but could be high. In their growth mode (see maturity) these technologies could rapidly disrupt and its crucial to watch these Score Label Explanation 1 No Impact Negligible opportunity, technology would have no contribution to the improvements required 2 Enabling Incremental, will have only a small impact on some product elements 3 Directly relevant Respectable size opportunity with measurable impact likely on a reasonable number of products 4 Breakthrough Large opportunity, providing a large impact on key components 5 Breakout Game changer – could shift customer behaviour and approach to buying, could also open up new markets 5

6. Technology status analysis & commentary • Scored technologies are plotted for each main branch of the mind map • Each set of graphs are analyzed and commentary built – this includes some initial thoughts on actions © 2016 nu Angle 6

7. Moving beyond technology status • The technology status analysis provides insight into the following: – Overall priorities via weighted criteria scores – Likely priorities and gaps to fill via the multiple plots that can be created • Next steps can include one or both of the following (slides 8 & 9) – Technology discipline-based analysis to support R&D planning  Group technologies according to discipline – materials science, software…  Build plans to get each technology to ‘gate 4’ status  Consolidate plans and build investment scenarios – level of spend, phasing of effort, capability requirements – Roadmap creation of ‘potential products’ (slides 8, 10 - 13)  Group technologies that are required to deliver specific potential product (e.g. sensors combined with software and tool cartridge design to produce self-adjusting tools)  Build plans to get each technology to ‘gate 4’ status  Consolidate plans and build investment scenarios – level of spend, phasing of effort, capability requirements • Current automotive project will take Technology discipline-based approach (scope constraint of current budget) © 2016 nu Angle 7

8. Activity planning • Resource planning process simplified through use of six ‘standard’ activities • Each technology has a small number of activities planned that aim to get to the stage where that technology can be integrated into a stage-gate product development process • The planning iterated along the following lines – Initial planning where each technology is planned to be worked on as soon as possible (based on TR level score) – 1st adjustment to take into account likely preferred sequence of technologies – 2nd adjustment to incorporate timing based on overall portfolio balance © 2016 nu Angle Type Comment Time, Sporlan effort, money* Explore This will typically be a focused piece of work, taking up half someone’s time in a 3-month period 3 mth, 2 days a week, $0 Watch Low-level search-based approach to watching. This does not include working with an expert (retained) network to advise on developments in a particular area. 3 yr, 1 day per month, $5,000pa R1 Research (post grad/doc) Sponsoring a PhD student 1 yr, 1 day per week, $50,000pa R2 Research PH collaboration Direct contract with an academic, usually means that they will engage a post-doc to undertake the work 9 mths, 1 day per week, $100,000 R3 Research (external contract) Engaging an external technology provider to deliver Proof of Principle 9 mths, 1 day per week, $150,000 Go for it Internal work to deliver Proof of Principle (TR 6+) 12 mths, 2.5 days per week, $25,000 8

9. Technology timeline & initial investment scenarios • Technology roadmap and investment scenario based on individual high & medium priority technologies • Resources mapped by: – Type of resource – Type of activity © 2016 nu Angle 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Q1 16 Q2 16 Q3 16 Q4 16 Q1 17 Q2 17 Q3 17 Q4 17 Q1 18 Q2 18 Q3 18 Q4 18 Q1 19 Q2 19 Q3 19 Q4 19 FTE Elapsed time Commitment: High and medium priority MECH ELEC MTRL ALGO OTH Misc Total Cost ($k) Cost Technology roadmap established… …use to build a more product-oriented perspective 9

10. Working session to build propositions • ’Solution’ briefing, providing ‘directional’ instruction on what is important for the business going forward • Working session to develop product propositions based around the technologies in the roadmap • Product propositions are indicative of what might be achievable, they are not early stage product specifications • The propositions provide a concrete description of how the technology investment can translate to real revenue • They form the basis of the product roadmap © 2016 nu Angle 10

11. Combine technologies - create product propositions • Objective – statement about the overall commercial objective about the product • Technologies to validate – List of technologies that can be combined to drive the product proposition • Advantages – what the product provides customers, selling proposition • Scale of opportunity – qualitative and quantitative commentary of the upside Product E - XXXXX © 2016 nu Angle 11

13. Resources and costs Expanders PH Sensor FTE (Average) $’s FY16 1.5 $330k FY17 2.5 $800k FY18 1.0 $400k $1,530k Cost Breakdown by technology area Variable Pin/Port - Orifice, Expanders/Ejectors, MEM’s and Smart Materials Multi-temp, Energy harvesting, MEM’s sensor arrays, PH sensor and Smart Sensors Wireless, Networked Preventative prognostics, Self Learning algorithms Metal, plastic, ceramics PWM, Close on power Resources and costs to deliver roadmap • Scenario plans shows: – Resource type and amount – Financial investment – Effort and cost per technology investment area – Effort and cost by potential product • Creates platform for development of a phased pipeline of products • Investment can be tied back to potential sales volumes © 2016 nu Angle 13

14. Technology roadmap development process © 2016 nu Angle Define scope in relation to commercial needs Access technical expertise (internal/external/ supply chain) Create roadmap Translate roadmap into technology acquisition options Prioritize options and make investment choices Now 1 3 5 7 9 Year Technology Technology Technology Technology Technology Technology Technology Technology Technology Technology … SCOPE/NEEDS Now 1 3 5 7 9 Year Technology Technology Technology Technology Technology Technology Technology Technology Technology Technology … Context Context Context Context Context Context Context Context Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Base case Lead Defend Therapeutic Delivery & Bio-availability Prof. Bill Dawson Bionet Ltd., Cheviot, South Town Road, Alton, Hants Bionet advises companies and universities on exploitation of innovative research. At Lilly, Bill was in research management for almost 20 years, 14 as Director of Research in the UK and latterly as Director of Technology Acquisition, Europe. +44 (0) 1420 564 176 dawson@bionetonline.com Dr Sara Sleigh Dr Sara Sleigh is a freelance writer and editor with experience in writing for and about the pharma industry. Sara graduated from the University of York in 1997 with a DP hil in protein structure and biochemistry. Her doctorate characterised protein-ligand inter actions using x-ray crystallography and calorimetry. Sara Sleigh’s Specialties: Technologies for drug and biomarker discovery, including RNAi and stem cell research, drug delivery and personalised medicine. Dr Sara Sleigh - Writer and Editor Tel: +44 (0)115 846 9138 / +44 (0)7761 749444 Email: sara.sleigh@btopenworld.com Website: pharmavision.co.uk Dr. Louise Rosenmayr-Templeton Pharmaceutical consultancy that specialises in pharmaceutical product development and drug delivery researchkey strengths lie in the following areas: - Technology evaluation & benchmarking - Development of formulation strategies Service provider identification & evaluation - Management of outsourced projects +43 (0) 1 600 34 64 Tower Pharma Consulting Auhofstrasse 197/10 1130 Vienna, Austria Louise worked in various capacities for major pharmaceutical companies such as Abbott (UK, USA), the Élan Corpora - tion (Ireland) and Boehringer Ingelheim (Austria). Her experience spans the whole spectrum of product development from managing pre-clinical research projects, to the successful scale-up and technology transfer of products to manufacturing sites, and the preparation and review of regulatory documents Prof Robert S. Langer MIT, Langer Lab, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Room E25-342, Cam - Investigating the mechanism of release from polymeric delivery systems with concomitant microstructural analysis and mathematical modeling. Creating new approaches for delivering drugs such as proteins and genes across complex barriers in the body such as the blood-brain barrier, the intestine, the lung and the skin. Very expensive - $33K estimate Prof .Hans Lennernäs Dr. Hans Lennernäs is a full professor of Biopharmaceutics at Uppsala University since 1 July 2000, Sweden. Hans is also Associate Editor for Therapeutic Delivery and on the Editorial Advisory Board His research interest is focused on clinical significance of mechanisms and regulation of membrane transport and metabolism of drugs/metabolites in the gastrointestinal tract, hepatobiliary system and cancer tissues. This work is performed in vivo with clinical models in humans and in various tissue and cell culture models. His research aims to develop novel strategies of tissue drug targeting and delivery that aims to improve the clinical use and efficacy of drugs in various disease states Prof. Cameron Alexander Professor of Polymer Thera - peutics, Head of Division of Drug Delivery and Tissue Engineering, Faculty of Science. School of Pharmacy, University of Nottingham Research interests focus on the synthesis of polymers for biomedical applications, especially drug and gene delivery. Current projects are investigating controlled release of therapeutics from synthetic-bipolymer complexes and conjugates, targeted degradable polymers for gene therapy, and smart materials for protein and cell recognition in solution and at surfaces. Prof. Dr. Fritz Sörgel Institute for Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Research, Nuremberg-Heroldsberg , ”. Executive Editor for Journal of Bioequivalence & Bioavailability Experimental studies on the biochemical and pharmacological characterization of diuretics in humans and animals. E xecutive Editor for Journal of Bioequivalence & Bioavailabilit y. Conference Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of Chemotherapy No reply Prof David Brayden Professor of Drug Delivery at the School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine and a Principal Investigator at the Conway Institute in UCD.School of Agriculture, Food Science & Veterinary Medicine, Veteri - nary Science Centre, Belfield Dublin. Associate Editor of Therapeutic Delivery Research includes improving macromolecule delivery across intestinal epithelia using in vitr o and in vivo bioassays. Polymeric peptide conjugates. Epithelial ion transport. Nanoparticle transport across Peyer's patch M cells . Interaction of human and veterinary drugs with efflux transporters. Mr Guy Furness Guy Furness is an indepen - dent publisher specialising in the global drug delivery industry. Founder of Freder - ick Furness Publishing, Hove, East Sussex, BN3 2RW, United Kingdom Prior to launching ONdrugDelivery in 2004, he wo rked as a freelance drug delivery journalist and, before that, he was Editor of a drug delivery newsletter from Scrip. Mr Furness has written for leading industry magaz ines and journals, business reports and national newspapers, including four publications in The Times newspaper (UK). He has also occasionally written on behalf of industry, including f or leading US and Euro pean drug delivery and related co mpanies. Ajay K. Banga Professor and Chair in the Depart - ment of Pharmaceutical Sciences at the College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Mercer University, Atlanta His research expertise is in non-traditional approaches for transdermal drug delivery, especially for water soluble drugs including small conventional molecules and macromolecules. Editor in Chief of Therapeutic Delivery Journal 3001 Mercer University Drive, DV-103 Atlanta, GA 30341 (678) 547-6243 banga_ak@mercer.edu Prof Tom Anchordoquy Associate Professor, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Colorado Denver School of Pharmacy on the Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora, Colorado Synthetic delivery systems for use in nucleic acids-based therapies (e.g., gene, siRNA, antisense, aptamers). Most recent work utilizes an unconventional approach toward developing lipid-based delivery systems that possess prolonged circulation lifetimes and target tumors. Studies on our delivery systems include biophysical characterization , pharmaceutical optimization , cell culture assessment, and ultimately testing in animal models. Voice: 303-724-6113 Lab: 303-724-6114 tom.anchordoquy@ucdenver.edu Prof John Carpenter Professor of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Co-Director of the Center for Pharmaceuti - cal Biotechnology University of Colorado Denver 1250 14th Street Denver, Colorado Study the mechanisms by which proteins are damaged in liquid and dried formulations, and the mechanisms by which additives inhibit this damage. The work on protein aggregation includes not only studies on therapeutic proteins, but also investigations into the amyloid fibril formation by proteins involved in human diseases such as systemic amyloidosis and Parkinson's disease. In addition, he is studying the use of high hydrostatic pressure to disaggregate and refold proteins. Voice: 303-724-6110 Lab: 303-724-6111 E-Mail: John.Carpenter@ucdenver.edu Very expensive/too narrow Prof Catarina Reis Professor of Pharmaceutical Technology and Drug Delivery in the Department of Health Sciences, Universidade Lusófona de Hu- manidades e Tecnologias , Portugal Work in the design and evaluation of nanoparticles and microparticles for peptide drug and gene delivery. She is author or co-author of several articles, book chapters and inventor of 2 patents Cant travel, suggested Ron Neufeld from Queen’s University Prof Ronald J. Neufeld Professor of Biosciences, Bioscience Complex Room 1443A, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, K7L Biochemical reaction engineering, Bioencapsulation solutions for bioprocessing, Bioactives processing and controlled release, Micro and nanoencapsulation of biologicals +1 (613) 533-2827 ron.neufeld@chee.queensu.ca Key &{MAP_NAME} - 07/ 02/ 2011 - IN MAYBE OUT Technology Plan 14

15. Key points • Practical, business focused deliverables • Clear investment strategy based on – Broad view of potential technologies that support commercial aims – Objective prioritization via detailed criteria – Resources and financial requirements estimated for budget purposes using simple planning model – Needs-based and technology discipline oriented perspectives • Roadmap built from technology strategy analysis – Combines technologies to address commercial strategy – Provides a concrete perspective on the way forward – accessible to to technologists and business managers • Cross functional dialogue at all stages builds mutual understanding • Engaging experts strengthens opportunities for innovation • Creating roadmap of product propositions adds considerable value – Focuses team on direct application of the analysis – Helps decision makers get to grips with decisions © 2016 nu Angle 15

17. Roadmap Assessment Tool • For many, road-mapping is not a ‘greenfield’ endeavor • The assessment serves to identify – Areas of weakness in current efforts – Design requirements for an improved roadmap process – Potential roadblocks to delivering an executive decision tool from the roadmap work – Scope of effort likely to be require beyond what has already been undertaken • The assessment is divided into three sections: – Framing – how the roadmap is set up, the boundary conditions that are in place to make it relevant to the delivery of strategy – Delivery – how the roadmap is created, what expertise is used etc. – Application – how the roadmap information is used and what type and level of impact it has on the organization © 2016 nu Angle 17

18. Framing © 2016 nu Angle Elements Questions Requirement • How is commercial strategy/needs translated into scope for the roadmap? • What documents and techniques are utilized to develop these scope boundaries (What's in, out or maybe in)? • What timescales does the strategy cover? • How integrated are IP considerations within the scope? • What emphasis is given to competitors and trends within the scope? • What is the attitude to adjacent markets/technologies and the implications for managing risk? • Breadth vs. money (gearing issue) Resolve • Who sponsors the roadmap activity, and what is their span of control within the business? • How broad (organizationally) is the involvement in the sponsoring, scoping, delivery and implementation conclusions of the roadmap? • What level of investment (time, resources, external expense) has been made in the development of the roadmap? Ramifications • Has the aim for the roadmap been clearly articulated – is it (the aim) limited to technology? • How directly do the conclusions of the roadmap influence strategy? • Has the size of the size of the ‘prize’ for an accurate roadmap been articulated – if so how is it captured? • In what way is the roadmap regarded/configured as a knowledge asset? • How do we deal with adjacent markets/technologies 18

19. Delivery © 2016 nu Angle Elements Questions Collaboration • What is the balance of external/internal expertise for the roadmap? • How strong is the ‘voice’ of internal technology experts is assessing the relevance of external experts? • What is the balance between ‘complementarity’ and ‘overlap’ for the internal/external experts? • How are external (or even internal) experts selected? – What about outliers/disrupters • Are the experts close or global? Capture • How does the roadmap display time-based information? • How are the evolution of product requirements separated from the mapping of technology development over time? • How is additional technology content captured and how accessible is it to those viewing the roadmap (e.g. are there hyperlinks to more detailed documents)? . • What is the balance between desk-based analysis, face-to-face data acquisition, remote data acquisition (depends on time zones etc.) and workshops? • What is the medium for presenting the roadmap? • What, if any, collaborative tools are used to capture information and comment from experts? • How is IP information captured alongside the technology roadmap? Handling complexity • How is the technology roadmap information condensed into options that the broader (non technical) business can understand? • How are these options quantified in terms of implementation plans and costs? • How is IP strategy built into these option plans? Critical added value • How are the potential benefits for options captured – qualitative upside, NPV, Risk adjusted NPV, or something more complex? • How are these benefits translated into prioritization? 19

20. Application © 2016 nu Angle Elements Questions Insights • How is the roadmap used to create new insights for the business strategy/brand teams? • To what degree are potential technology disrupters identified and described? • Does the roadmap focus on preferred technical solutions, or provide a range of approaches with varying risks? Implementation • How are the results of the roadmap communicated – is the emphasis on choices or on the roadmap itself? • How are option plans built and costs developed? • How are option plans translated into a scenario tool for financial analysis of the downstream activities – in order to enable trade-off decisions? • How is IP strategy included? • How do the conclusions influence internal/external development choices? • How are key milestones, risks and potential disrupters indicated? • How are money and cashflow documented – relates to breadth, timescales vs. money (gearing issue) Internal leverage • How accessible are the conclusions for the key decision makers – i.e. is it summarized progressively, or do they have to dig into the details • Where are the conclusions deployed: R&D pipeline, Capabilities management, Open innovation management, Defensive (e.g. IP strategy), Feedback to technology strategy, Brand roadmap enhancement, M&A plans • Are the roadmap conclusions built in to investor relations information? 20

21. © 2016 nu Angle Technology & Innovation Management Technology Strategy Technology Watch Incubation of Early Stage Technology Technology Roadmapping Innovation Growth Platforms 21 • For further information, contact: – Dr. Bob Wasson, Senior Consultant / Business Development Email: robert.wasson@nu-angle.com Cell: 412 / 735-4300

Technology Roadmapping - Conceptual Tool or Practical Foresight for Innovation-Led Growth?

Technology Roadmapping - Conceptual Tool or Practical Foresight for Innovation-Led Growth?

Recommended

More Related Content

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded(20)

Featured

Featured(20)

Technology Roadmapping - Conceptual Tool or Practical Foresight for Innovation-Led Growth?