Technological Forecasting & Social Change 110 (2016) 213225

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

Methodology for the of building process integration of Business Model

Canvas and Technological Roadmap
Miguel Angel Toro-Jarrn, Idalia Estefania Ponce-Jaramillo, David Gemes-Castorena
Center for Quality and Manufacturing, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Campus Monterrey, Monterrey, NL, Mexico

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The importance of linking efciently the outputs of R&D processes with the business world has become evident.
Received 24 May 2015 Researchers and practitioners have developed tools to help build business from a starting point (business idea/
Received in revised form 13 January 2016 product concept) to the description of elements that make the business possible. The Business Model Canvas
Accepted 14 January 2016
identies the essential parts of a business; it's applicability and simplicity has given it greater acceptance and dis-
Available online 1 February 2016
semination. Furthermore, the Technology Roadmap is presented as a valuable tool to visualize the relationships
Keywords:
over time of the market, technology and product strategies; TRMs allow decision makers to identify gaps be-
Methodology tween the current and the future business strategy.
Integration BMC and TRMs have been used independently of each other. This work has the objective to present a methodol-
Business Model Canvas ogy of the building process integration of these two tools, to provide a business model and a technology roadmap
Technology Roadmap for the business idea or new product concept that are aligned to the current and future business needs. Then, it is
explained and described in a practical manner by a case of study. One of the benets of using this methodology is
that a business constructs a BMC and TRM with two different approaches giving the process the perspective of
future analysis and also visualizing elements for the current business. It was found that the building integration
process allows constructing a robust business strategy proposal in a structured mode taking into account the ben-
ets of each tool and reducing the disadvantages.
2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In a world where the changes occur so fast, a look into the future is
not only an additional tool for strategic planning but an essential exer-
cise for every company. Rohrbeck and Schwarz (2013) appointed that
the early acknowledge and visionary anticipation of the technological
potential play a key role in a globalized world which is characterized
by the improvement of competitiveness. They also observed that ignor-
ing changes in business environment often results in losing opportuni-
ties or failing in responding threats. For Makridakis (Godet, 2010) the
role of visioning the future is to provide managers and government pol-
icy maker's different ways to comprehend the future and help them
have a total understanding of possible implications of social and techno-
logical changes.
The technology development and market demands accelerate
changes in the world. In literature is found frequently that technology
innovation is a key successful factor for performance improvement
and survival of the enterprise, besides it is a determinant factor for sus-
tainable economic development of nations and quality life improve-
ment of their people (Keupp, Palmi, & Gassmann, 2012). According
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: matoro81@hotmail.com, a00618402@itesm.mx, guemes@itesm.mx
(D. Gemes-Castorena).
to Rohrbeck and Schwarz (2013), rms suffer blindness caused by fo-
cusing mostly on the inside of the company and reinforcing practices
that made the company successful in the past thus, it becomes evident
that rms need to dedicate efforts to look outside the company and to
be aware of the coming changes.
For this purpose, academics and practitioners have presented differ-
ent alternatives to explore the future systematically. For example, Phaal,
Farrukh and Probert (2004b) states that in order that technology man-
agement benets a business it is required effective process and systems
that guarantee that the existing and potential technological resources
are aligned with its needs now and in the future.
On the other hand, if a rm has hints of trends that could drive future
customer's behavior, and also technology development, the next stage
is to envisioning the business that adapts better to those trends by
using new technologies advantages. However, it is not easy to structure
a business for the present scenario and it is more complicated to con-
struct for a future scenario.
The objective of this study is to facilitate to managers, policy makers
and practitioners the creation of a business model for both current and
future scenario. In order to achieve this objective Technology Roadmap
(TRM) and Business Model Canvas (BMC) are developed in a structured
manner at the same time to construct a robust business strategy propos-
al taking into account the pros and reducing the cons of each strategic
tool.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.01.009
0040-1625/ 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
214 M.A. Toro-Jarrn et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 110 (2016) 213225
2. Framework
The business strategy involves all the plans needed to create and de-
liver value to the customer. It denes: what segments the rm will at-
tend; the means to deliver value to the segments identied; the
manufacturing strategy; R&D strategy and the way the rm is presented
to the public (Chungyalpa & Bora, 2015).
There are a number of tools to help organizations to manage resources
more effectively in order to create value and explore the future, for exam-
ple Pillkahn (2008) uses these tools for strategy development. According
to Ringland (2010), these tools are valuable not only for the outputs gen-
erated at the end of the process but for the interaction between the team
members because they improve organizational knowledge.
In this section, rst previous integration works will be described, and
secondly concepts that help forming the methodology of building the
integration process will be dened.
2.1. Previous BMTRM integration works
The use of BM and TRM certainly has many advantages, but a strate-
gic business link is missing if it is used independently. Strategic manage-
ment practitioners and researchers have combined BM and TRM to
achieve a more robust strategy, the combination of these tools generates
a new and more powerful tool for exploring the current and the future
business and their parts (Pillkahn, 2008). Following, three studies that
combined these tools will be analyzed.
1. Five Porter's forces: Many authors (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010;
Abe, Ashiki, Suzuki, Jinno, & Sakuma, 2009; Abe, Shinokura, Suzuki,
Kubo, & Sakuma, 2006) have used the ve Porter's forces in order
to integrate BM and TRM. According to Porter (2008), understand-
ing the competitive forces, and their underlying causes, reveals the
roots of an industry's current protability while providing a frame-
work for anticipating and inuencing competition (and protability)
over time. For helping construct the rm political strategy, studies
based on the Porter's forces have been developed (Vining, Shapiro,
& Borges, 2005), and for helping to apply the ve forces analysis,
Dobbs (2014) presents ve templates to quantied the threats levels.
2. Abe, Shinokura, Suzuki, Kubo, and Sakuma (2006) found common
parts in the generation of BM and TRM in a study named Smart-In-
novation Planning Method. The main purpose of the study was to
use the output of BM as input for strategic roadmapping (SRM).
The integrated these two tools by introducing further steps at the be-
ginning and in the end of the process to generate BM and TRM in one
single procedure. The methodology consists in 5 steps: 1) combina-
tion of business ideas and database, 2a) analysis of value chain, mac-
roscopic environment, PEST and business environment, 2b) scenario
forecasting, 3a) scenario planning, 3b) do explorative roadmapping
using the reference scenarios, 4a) integration of result of step 3b
and SRM, 4b) conrmation of target customer, product, supply meth-
od and prot model; and 5) decision making based on the valuation
of factors.
3. Abe, Ashiki, Suzuki, Jinno and Sakuma (2009) reported a new busi-
ness strategic planning method for the integration of BM and strate-
gic roadmapping (SRM) named Innovation Support Technology.
The methodology is applied using three stages:
a) Product concept and business idea based on R&D outputs are de-
scribed. Market and customers are pictured and determined based
on this product concept and this business idea. The aim of this
stage is to generate the technological scenario.
b) Planning of the business scenario with two objectives: To design and
to obtain the business target of the company in the future, and
roadmapping the product function and the enabling technology to
achieve the business target in the future.
c) Contents of company technology roadmapping and discoveries
through these roadmapping workshops are reected to the business
model. Target customers, value propositions, supply method, and
prot model according to scenarios are conrmed. This stage bene-
ts to discover bottle necks through milestone gaps between layers
discover, also investment timing are investigated and veried and,
business strategy is evaluated.
Abe, Ashiki, Suzuki, Jinno and Sakuma (2009) analyzed BM and SRM
and summarized pros and cons (see Table 1).
4. de Reuver, Bouwman and Haaker (2013) developed a study on core
concepts from business model and technology roadmapping. They
concluded that business model roadmap obtains how operational
actions and business model impacts are consistent, it means that if
an organization has to choose between different business models,
business model roadmapping helps to identify overlapping routes,
route dependencies and points of return.
2.2. Business Model Canvas (BMC)
Zott and Amit (2010) dene a business model as the content, struc-
ture, and governance of transactions designed so as to create value
through the exploitation of business opportunities. Chesbrough
(2010) mentions that some of business model functions are: to identify
market segment, to specify revenue generation mechanism, to dene
the structure of the value chain, to describe rm's positions within
value network and to formulate a competitive strategy that gain and
hold advantage over competitors.
According to Osterwalder and Pigneur (2009) a business model is
representation of how an organization creates, delivers and captures
value from a product or service. BMC is a graphical approach that de-
scribes nine elements needed to dene a business model (see Fig. 1).
An abridged description of each element of the business model is
shown in Table 2.
2.3. Technology Roadmap (TRM)
Phaal et al. (2004a) dene technology roadmap as a exible tech-
nique used to support strategic and log-term planning, providing a
structured relationships between evolving and developing markets,
products and technology over the time. The TRM process addresses
the identication, selection, acquisition, development, exploitation
and protection of technologies (product, process and infrastructural)
needed to achieve, maintain and grow a market position and busi-
ness performance in accordance with the company's objectives.
The TRM aims to support the start-up of company-specic TRM pro-
cesses as: 1) to establish key linkages between technology resources
and business drivers; 2) to identify important gaps in market, product
and technology intelligence; 3) to develop a rst-cut technology
roadmap; 4) to support technology strategy and 5) to plan initiatives in
the rm to support communication between technical and commercial
functions.
Phaal, Farrukh, and Probert (2004b) appoint that it is important
that the technology strategy should not be developed independently
from the business strategy, instead technological resources should
be considered as an integral part of business plan. A successful TRM
helps to establish a balance between market pull and technology
push (see Fig. 2).
According to Phaal et al. (2004a), the following factors contribute to
a successfully and sustainable roadmapping initiative:
- Clear business need, tangible benets and appropriate timing for
each activity.
- Good architecture that reects the structure of the organization and
the issue at hand.
- Strong commitment and ownership from senior management and a
supporter in order to drive the process forward, perhaps supported
by external independent facilitation.
 M.A. Toro-Jarrn et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 110 (2016) 213225 215

Table 1
Pros and cons of BM and SRM (Hitoshi Abe et al., 2009).

Pros Cons

Business model
1. To know how to create company value from R&D outputs and provide an operation model
2. Modeling tool to create business concept from business idea
3. Help the modeling of the competitive strategy technology. How? What? And to whom?
4. Provide the service/product and how to win competition
1. Difcult to nd out market trends and opportunities
2. Difcult to make a decision of invest timing
3. Difcult to judge the choice of an alternative technology
4. Difcult to know when? And what? technology should be developed

Strategic roadmap
1. Roadmaps consist of layer, such as market, business, products, technology and resources.
1. Difcult to express a business attractiveness of R&D outputs
They are systematically expressed on a time-axis of R&D outputs
2. It can be utilized as a strategy planning tool, which supports, helps to explore opportunities,
2. Difcult to express a business system or operation model
permits the choice of alternative technologies, and associates the elements between layers
3. Knowledge creation for a better action: discovery of gaps, bottlenecks, technological defections, 3. It takes more time to create and maintain roadmap under satisfying
promotion of development and estimate the required resources comprehensiveness
4. Difcult to evaluate business value

- Effective process manager who collects relevant information by get-
ting multifunctional/multidisciplinary people with the expertise re-
quired to develop a wellfounded and creditable roadmap.
- Effective communication that ensures that the roadmap inuences
decision making.
- Appropriate culture for supporting collaboration and sharing in the
business, combined with a desired to develop and implement busi-
ness process.
In this study the methodology that will be used to build a technology
roadmap is: a three level roadmap; using four-workshop T-plan meth-
odology, and nishing with linking grids. These tools are used because
in practice they have proved to be practical and efcient in order to con-
struct a roadmap that ts to business prole and prospects future sce-
narios. Each tool and methodology is deeply described in the next
subsections.
2.3.1. Types and levels of roadmaps
According to Phaal et al. (2004b) identify eight types of graphical
roadmaps according to the specic needs each one is a useful and recur-
sive tool for strategic management. For study purpose, it was chosen
multiple layers type, which is the most common format for a TRM for
the analysis of the current and future situations related to three main
levels dened by Cosner et al. (2007): market, product and resources
(see Fig. 3).
Market level describes current and future customer needs along with
competitive strategies, regulatory environment, complementary prod-
uct evolution, substitute products, disruptive innovations, and other
factors. Strategic goals and market targets are often stated as milestones
or target dates for certain events; Product level documents performance
and product features' evolution, new-to-the-company products (in-
cluding services) and new-to-the-world products, and; Technology
level describes expected R&D products, their availability dates, the driv-
ing factors for the R&D, and related information.
2.3.2. Methods to construct a roadmap
Studies have dened different methods to construct a roadmap, they
differ on how the participants are organized. The three approaches con-
sidered are:
- Central Process, where the enterprise builds the roadmap using in-
formation provided by the business unit owners.
- Workshop Approach, where the roadmaps are built in collaborative
sessions with the business-unit content owners, facilitated by the
enterprise team.
- Distributed Approach, where roadmaps are built by the individual
business-unit and functional content owners in a manner that en-
ables subsequent integration based on guidelines provided by the
enterprise team.

Fig. 1. Representation of a Business Model Canvas (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2009).

216 M.A. Toro-Jarrn et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 110 (2016) 213225

Table 2
Elements to dene Business Model (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2009).

Element Description

Customer segment (CS)
Value propositions (VP)
Channels (CH)
Customer relationships (CR)
Revenue streams (RS)
Key resources (KR)
Key activities
Key partnerships (KP)
Cost structure (CS)
The organization serves one or several customer segments which are separated in order to satisfy their needs.
Identication of how the rm manages to solve customer's problems and how to satisfy customer's needs. It is the bundle of products and
services that creates value for a specic customer segment.
Interface between company and customer. Value propositions are delivered to customers through communication, distribution and sales channels.
Relationships established and maintain in each customer segment, conferring to customer segment characteristics.
Description of how economic revenue is generated as a result of bringing value to customer.
Resources required making and delivering value proposition, they can be physical, nancial, intellectual or human.
Activities that the company must do to make its value proposition and working model.
Description of suppliers and partners network that helps the company optimize their business model, reduce risk and /or acquire resources.
Report of all operation costs of a business model, they are calculated summarizing key resources, key activities and key partnerships.

The workshop approach will be used in this study because the meth- with product features and technology solution all in one single chart,
od promotes the team interaction, improve communication and owner- linking grid is performed to relate the levels in the TRM (See Fig. 5).
ship of plans within the building process. (Cosner et al., 2007; de
Reuver, Bouwman, & Haaker, 2013). 3. Methodology

2.3.3. The T-plan
The T-plan is a guide developed by Phaal, Farrukh, and Probert
(2004b), to create a TRM in an organization it consists in the application
of four workshops; one for each level of the TRM and one more to link
them all in a time chart (see Fig. 4). So as to relate the levels and direct
the efforts of the company to the market pull, the T-plan uses the linking
grid tool (dened in the next section), although the technology push is
also considered because its aim is to generate new technology solutions.
2.3.4. Linking grids
Given that, the constitutive parts of a TRM are the layers, it is recom-
mended to develop their relation from the beginning. Phaal, Farrukh
and Probert (2003) noted that the market business drivers and product
feature concepts together dene a simple grid that can be used to inves-
tigate the relationships between features and drivers. The product fea-
ture concepts are grouped and their impact ranked for each market
and business driver, and alternative product strategies considered (in
response to combinations of market and business drivers). According
to Phaal, Farrukh and Probert (2006) for each market driver could be
one or several product features, and for each product feature could
have one or several technology solutions. The TRM allows the combina-
tion of as many business and market drivers as possible and the link
In the literature there are many tools successfully applied for strate-
gy, innovation and business modeling and the question comes: would it
be possible to join these tools BM and TRM to achieve the same out-
puts but with a different and new perspective? The aim of this paper is
to present the result of a building process integration study of this two
broadly applied management tools. The research approach is based in
three main parts:
- Literature review for each strategic tool, (BMC and TRM) and for pre-
vious studies. The aim of this part is to have a clearer idea of the key
concepts and to establish the state of art for the integration tools,
which were discussed already.
- Create a methodology that integrate both (TRM linking process and
BMC integration process) in one single building process integration,
starting with a BIPC and pursuing the structured BMC for each time
step of the TRM.
- Illustration of a case of study in order to validate the methodology
presented in the previous part.
One of the most important contributions that this work pursues is to
help envisioning future BM's in the mid and long term but taking into
consideration market trends and technology changes that the TRM pro-
vides, it means, to obtain two products that are strategically aligned at
the same time, and use both tool benets to accomplish business

Fig. 2. Generalized technology roadmap architecture (Phaal, Farrukh, & Probert, 2004b).
 M.A. Toro-Jarrn et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 110 (2016) 213225
Fig. 3. A multilayer TRM for market, product and technology analysis (Phaal, Farrukh, &
Probert, 2004b).
strategic plan. To accomplish this objective, the case of study uses the
methodology described in this document to test how BM gives TRM
the elements to materialize the strategic vision and how TRM gives
BM the perspective of the future and their changes.
The integration of the BMC and TRM is not only the integration of
space and time while developing the outputs for each steps, but an
amalgamation of the ideas generated. The BMC and TRM are normally
presented in separated graphical representations, however, one can
provide feedback to the other, and, if made at the same time, they are
more valuable for managers, not only at the end of the process, but dur-
ing the process, because the team debates with two different ap-
proaches giving the process the perspective of future analysis and also
visualizing elements for the current business.
The main inputs for the whole process are the business idea and/or
the product concept. BI and PC are dened during the preparatory
phase, in order to accomplish that, this study assumes that the organiza-
tion already has some ideas for the new product, and with it, the task
will be to develop the business model and best product development
plan for the business.
Therefore, the outputs of the process are two, the BMC and the TRM.
The methodology is structured by one preparatory stage at the be-
ginning of the process for establishes goals and boundaries and ve dif-
ferent stages (See Fig. 6). The main goal is to identify the business blocks
to construct the BM and the levels of (1) market, (2) product and
(3) technologies of TRM in one single process across the ve stages.
This is possible given that the debate created among the team members
can be addressed by the need to dene specic outputs in the process,
so that they are focused on how to build product value and bring it to
the customer. This analysis is extrapolated to the future and the changes
that the business would face in order to satisfy the trends that the mar-
ket follows through the time.
The methodology is based on the workshop approach; every phase
of the methodology corresponds to a suggested one day four-hour
workshop, except for the preparatory-stage (which can be performed
by the business idea owner and the champion himself/herself). To
Fig. 4. T- plan: standard process (Phaal et al., 2004a).
217
Fig. 5. Schematic of a linking grid analysis (Phaal R., Farrukh, Mitchell, & Probert, 2003).
facilitate the analysis of each stage, they are divided into topics and
more specics issues. During discussion the team will identify which
issue would be used for construct the TRM and which for creating
the BM. Some of the issues are presented using questions. These ques-
tions are answered by the team members using research and any infor-
mation available. (For detailed information about the questions see
Appendix 1).
At the end of phases 2, 3 and 4 is suggested to generate the business
strategy elements; the team will have important information to dene
all aspects of the company strategy. It is not the purpose of this study
to develop the strategy itself but certainly the debate generated, the
ideas and the cognitive process assemble the perfect scenario to dene
or check the rm strategy.
Next, we describe each phase in detail. For each one, it is established
the purpose, inputs, expected outputs, specic issues and references for
further research.
3.1. Phase 0: Preparatory phase
In the Preparatory phase (see Fig. 7) only few members of the team
participate, especially business idea owner and/or top business man-
agers. This phase is for dening the goals pursued (creating a new busi-
ness, reinforcing an existing unit, growing the market share, etc.) It is
important to dene the most important issues for the new product/
business as well as having a picture of how it may look like. In this
phase is dened the time frame for the analysis, meaning what period
of time correspond to short, medium and long term.
The managers also need to determine (a) where does the rm want to
go? (b) Where are they now? And (c) how can they get there? (2003).
This helps to dene the horizon frame time. The expertise and knowledge
of different team members is critical for success especially from top man-
agement members so as to create legitimacy (Osterwalder & Pigneur,
2010), so in this phase the team members are selected according to
their qualications and backgrounds.
3.2. Phase 1: Value proposition identication
This phase gathers useful information to dene value proposition of
BM (see Fig. 8). The team identies objectives to be pursued in the po-
tential market (satisfy, bring to, improve or create), and they test the
BIPC using the story telling technique. According to Osterwalder and
Pigneur (2010) the goal of telling a story is to introduce a new business
model in an engaging, tangible way. Choosing the right ideas for a busi-
ness starting is crucial, and giving them a pitch of reality before the im-
plementation by telling the audience how it may work, might be very
useful. This technique helps to identify the potential customers
218 M.A. Toro-Jarrn et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 110 (2016) 213225
Fig. 6. Building Process Integration BMC TRM.
segments, the way the rm creates value, and the way to deliver it to
customers.
Afterwards, the team uses the Kill/thrill session for testing prelimi-
nary ideas. Kill/thrill sessions advice about the risk of overestimate the
initial ideas and recommend mitigate this risk by doing kill/thrill ses-
sions. The aim of these sessions is to brainstorming the reason why
the idea won't work (kill) and why the idea would work (thrill).
These sessions are necessary to avoid the risk of overestimation of ini-
tial rough ideas.
At this point there is available a rough idea of potential segments and
is possible to determine their main characteristics (e.g. ethnographic,
gender, etc.); the team can start investigating how the customer feels
about the BIPC using the empathy map which aims to have an in-
sight to the customer feelings, preferences and thinking and try to
keep into the process the pain avoided and the gain provided by
the business products or services.
When the team has claried the BIPC by using story-telling and
they have understood the customer's feelings, it is possible to dene
what will be offered to the client and what the client expects to receive.
The analysis of this relation would guide to reformulate, if needed, the
BIPC from the beginning.
Finally, with the information available and with the debate and anal-
ysis during the process, the team can clearly state the value proposition
offered to the customer (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010).
3.3. Phase 2: Market analysis
In this phase the team performs a series of analyses (see Fig. 9),
which include the following:
- Political strategy: Addressed to dene the political environment and
the strategy needed to face it. The analysis is aimed to distinguish be-
tween government actions that would threat all the rms from those
that would affect some industries. The team identies environmen-
tal regulations that would create enter barriers, regulations that af-
fect research and development, taxation, tariff, safety health,
Fig. 7. Phase 0: Preparatory phase.
intellectual property and general regulations policy. It is also an ex-
ploration of how the government policy is affecting the customer
protection legislation, product disclosure requirements, advertising
regulation, product testing for safety and health controls, and price
controls (Vining, Shapiro, & Borges, 2005).
- Macroeconomic forces: The aim is to analyze the forces that guide
the market from the macroeconomic point of view. This will help
to identify market facts such as: general market sentiments, employ-
ment rate, how easy is to obtain funding, what kind of funding is
available, and how costly is the funding.
- Key trends: The team identies the societal trends that shift cultural
values that would affect business model and the trends that might
inuence buyer behavior.
- Market forces: After this analysis the rm will be aware of the crucial
issues affecting customer landscape, shifts underway and where the
market is heading. The team identies the most important market
segments, and where the biggest potential growth is, what segments
are declining and what peripherals segments deserve attention.
- Industry forces: The team should consider elements such as: com-
petitors, shareholders, workers and government, in order to identify
the competitive rivalry (Dobbs, 2014) of the industry. A SWOT anal-
ysis (Porter, 2008) is suggested to identify where the company is
and how the industry forces are shaping the competition.
- Customer Relationships: The questions suggested in this topic are
used to help shaping the strategy that creates a long term relation
with the customer.
- Business strategy: Consists of coding market drivers, key trends,
threats and opportunities, among other valuable information into
the strategy. The team is ready to construct the Market level for
the TRM. It can also serve to complement the business strategy in
BM, which is incomplete so far. For a complete denition it will be
needed to nish all the stages.
- Performance dimension: Finally, the team identies the characteris-
tics that the market would appreciate which will be used to translate
the markets needs and trends to product specications.
It is important to notice that, even though it is not until the last
stage when the features and attributes of the product/service are iden-
tied, the team is asked to pre-dene them during this phase. The dy-
namic for doing it, is to identify them in the value proposition phase
but conrm them later with all the new information available. The
BM and the TRM are constantly in review even after the process has
 M.A. Toro-Jarrn et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 110 (2016) 213225
Fig. 8. Phase 1: Value proposition identication.
nished in order to have all the information gathered reected in busi-
ness strategic.
The capacity for bringing value to the customer is strongly related
with the technology development. The technology trend analysis gives
the rm hints on how the new transportation and information system,
publicity, etc. are evolving. All these technologies improve the service
the CH provide. We suggest identifying CH identication in this phase,
but there is not enough information, so, it is suggested to return to
this phase after completing Technology Phase, with the purpose of
clearly dene them.
3.4. Phase 3: Product analysis
In the product analysis phase (see Fig. 10), the team studies the
products that satisfy the market preferences, including:
- New entrants: This is the analysis of new entrants to the industry by
analyzing the differences with the own portfolio, competitive advan-
tages/disadvantages, their value proposition and customer seg-
ments.
- Substitutes: The same treatment that new entrants have to be carry-
ing on the substitutes products: the team answers questions ad-
dressed to explore what products would replace theirs and how
easy is for customer to switch to the new ones.
- Product strategy: It takes into account: product key differentiators,
expected price, product platform and how the product family
might look like.
- Identify the product: Finally the product that will be the focus of the
roadmap is dened: a description of the product brochure includ-
ing its features and attributes. To validate this, it is crucial to compare
quantitatively the products attributes with the market requirements
previously found.
The output of this phase is positions in TRM product area, and in-
cludes elements for product strategy and, value proposal of features
and attributes that the new product should have. Once the value pro-
posal features and attributes are identied, a feedback is suggested to
the value propositions phase; the team will incorporate them into the
value proposition to strengthen it.
3.5. Phase 4: Technology analysis
The technology analysis phase looks for the trends that would guide
the technological changes, and how these changes could modify the
business model (see Fig. 11). This phase analyzes the following forces
and trends:
Fig. 9. Phase 2: Market analysis.
219
- Industry forces: The team identies who are the key players in the
value chain, and performs a quantitative analysis to evaluate the
suppliers' threat level. This analysis is important for shaping the
technological strategy.
- Technology forces: The commodities needed for re-shaping the
value proposal come into account at this stage; the team describes
how the market for these technologies is, the cost structure and
cost trends.
- Operational and technological strategy: At the end of this stage the
rm is able to dene an OperationalTechnological strategy, i.e. the
level of investment, mayor technological areas, technological trends,
where they are headed, technological alternatives, etc.
- Key trends: The team investigates what are the mayor technological
trends and how they represent opportunities or disruptive threats.
The analysis is addressed to discover emerging technologies and
how possible it is for them to be adopted in the future.
- Technological features: Finally the team raises questions about the
critical systems required to produce a specic feature and attributes
that will be appreciate by the market.
Currently the team has identied all the important activities and re-
sources needed to create value. It is not a specic topic neither a specic
stage but is all the debate developed until now what makes easy to de-
ne KA and KR. The KP are also identied given that the team is now
aware who the most important stakeholders are. The team has run
threat analysis and can tell who the most important partner is to be con-
sidered. The cost structure can be performed when the KA and KR are
identied the level of detail is not important for the moment and an
approximation of cost is enough at this stage.
This phase helps to ll up technology layer in both, BM and TRM,
with the same operation strategy, making them to be correlated and
aligned to business goals and product strategy.
3.6. Phase 5: TRM link & BMC integration
The nal stage takes into consideration all the information retrieved
until now (see Fig. 12). The team has developed the market, product
and, technology levels for both tools, BM and TRM. What is needed
now is to link TRM levels, using linking grids, and to make the integra-
tion of BMC according to each period of time.
The team has identied all the blocks needed to integrate the busi-
ness model; it is recommended to generate several possible BMCs for
each period of time (now, mid-term and long-term) with variations be-
tween blocks, patterns, customers segments, etc., then evaluate them. It
is possible to test the BMC's using the story telling tool.
220 M.A. Toro-Jarrn et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 110 (2016) 213225
Fig. 10. Phase 3: Product analysis.
With all the information available, each BMC formulated should
have much more detail and perspective. Finally, an analysis of the align-
ment between the created models and the strategy of the company is
performed (Pillkahn, 2008).
It is important for the team members to keep in mind what outputs
are expected to have at the end of each stage; this is not only to keep
focus on the relevant points, but to ensure that at the end of the
whole process the team will have the blocks and levels for BMC integra-
tion and the TRM linking. It is desirable to re-check BMCs periodically
with the purpose of track changes and evaluate goal achievement and
progress.
3.7. Building process integration tool
For the application of the methodology, an automated tool was
developed that makes the analysis simpler through all the phases
its purpose was helping the team leader to guide the process by tell-
ing him/her the next topics to be discussed. The tool was created
using and datasheet, that have the description of all the questions
for each phase, after the leader answers all the questions, it con-
structs both tools following the methodology described above.
(For more information about the tool, contact the corresponding
author).
4. Case study
The case study presents the analysis developed in a medium size
manufacturer and marketer of beverage dispensing systems (approxi-
mately 1500 associates). The company has facilities in United States,
Mexico, Australia, and Europe. The dispensing systems are a machine
with technology to mix water and syrup to deliver beverage like soft-
drinks, juice, and coffee.
The team explored possible BI's and chose the one that repre-
sents a new and unexplored business for the rm. The company
looked for reaching the growing segment of people that care about
their health using gym facilities and consuming supplements. This
segment was divided in two main groups; high performance ath-
letes and occasional athletes; the rsts are people that train their
bodies as part of a preparation plan for high competence at all kind
of sports. The seconds are people that train with the health-care
purpose.
Experts collaborated in the process by using the methodology de-
scribed in this study. After all the relevant information was collected,
the integration tool was used to obtain the BMCs and TRM. Following
is presented, step by step, how the integration tool was applied to the
case study.
Fig. 11. Phase 4: Technology analysis.
4.1. Phase 0: Preparatory phase
Given that the company has the expertise for developing this type of
product the goal is to explore a new and innovate line to deliver value to
a growing segment. Also, the integration tool helped the rm to identify
issues to address, this means issues that the rm has inuence and
should take actions to have the products and technologies on time
when the markets will need them. The questions asked give the rm a
general view of how the outputs of this process would look like at the
end; they could see a landscape for the company for the next two
years and all the elements for running the business unit.
As it was told before, at this point it is crucial to dene the general
architecture for TRM. On this specic case, the company wants: to pro-
vide the product to high performance athletes (medium term one
year), and to expand the business to occasional athletes (long term
two years).
This study revealed that for the market level, it is important to con-
sider that nutritional product market is growing and an alternative
product could increase the sales creating a new business unit. For the
product level analysis the rm considered exploring new technologies
that help customers (gyms and sport clubs) to provide an easy and
clean solution for the nal user (athletes); and the rm should care
about developing and selecting the right operation technologies and
manufacture activities.
4.2. Phase 1: Value proposition identication
The main purpose of this phase was to use the methodology for
obtaining ideas from team members through discussion, and gathering
the useful information to create value proposition.
The team state the objective pursued by the BIPC. The BIPC chosen
for the case was to deliver products that provide customers nutritional
beverages before and after work out, the objective was to offer new prod-
ucts for a different market segment from current business model. The BI
PC chosen was proved using the tools suggested by Osterwalder and
Pigneur (2010), the results were:
a) Storytelling helped the team to visualize the scenario when the
product nally reached the market.
b) Kill/thrill sessions gave a new perspective and brought into discus-
sion important issues to consider.
Using this methodology, the team was able to identify the potential
segments and concentrated efforts over the one that would be the target
for the current business. Finally, the contrast between customer feelings
and expectations and what the rm was willing to achieve, helped them
to dene the value proposal, which was: to deliver athletes a high qual-
ity automated machine which provides a supplementary beverage to
 M.A. Toro-Jarrn et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 110 (2016) 213225 221

Fig. 12. Phase 5: TRM Link & BMC integration.

improve athlete's performance at gym, also to ensure that the delivered and revenue attractiveness. With all these elements identied, the
product is healthy and to provide continuous technical support. team was able to envision the business strategy, and to construct the
TRM market level. Also the methodology gave the necessary elements
4.3. Phase 2: Market analysis to identify the CR needed to integrate the BMC.

In this phase, the team discussed the political strategy the rm
could have in order to face government's policy; it is not an issue
that the company could inuence but the rm needs to be aware in
order to develop a proper business strategy. As well, the team
discussed the macroeconomic indicators (TRM market level), main
socioeconomic and societal trends and how they affect business. Af-
terwards, market forces were analyzed with different time spans,
also some topic concerning customers' landscape were discussed,
the team was able to distinguish many other potentials segments,
and identied which ones were growing and which one were declin-
ing. All this analysis and discussion helped to gather relevant infor-
mation for directing future efforts.
In order to clarify the level of competence threat, a specic analysis
was performed; the result was that there were only a few competitors
in the market and they already had the product. Then, a second threat
analysis was made for buyer's group. The threat level was considered
medium and the differentiator factor was the large quantity of informa-
tion the buyer had about these kinds of products.
The methodology provided information to shape the future custom-
er relationships, to be aware of the customer needs, to establish what
binds customers to a company's offer, and to identify switching cost
4.4. Phase 3: Product analysis
The main purpose in this phase is to study the products that satisfy
the market preferences, to do this the team rst quanties the level of
threat for new entrant and substitutes products, second they identies
the product brochure for next performed a market product grid anal-
ysis. Subsequently, the team developed the TRM for the features that
would impulse the characteristics that the market would appreciate,
and nally, they complemented the business strategy (developed previ-
ously), with the product strategy.
The new entrance product threat analysis made evident the medium
level of threat and also and more important that distributors and chan-
nels were easily accessible for the competence. This gave a hint of what
strategy the company should explore to have the distributors under
control; for example exclusivity on exchange or discounts or nancing.
The team identied that traditional brands could create a new business
unit and become an important new entrance product for the market
with strong advantage.
The developed tool helped the team identify the level of threat for
substitute products, which was considered high as buyer is price sensi-
tive and, depending on the moving cost, the customer change from one

Fig. 13. BMC for the case study.

222 M.A. Toro-Jarrn et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 110 (2016) 213225

product to a new product. The workshop and the discussion gave the
opportunity to understand what products or services can replace theirs,
and let them to consider different approaches for the same product with
different characteristics.
Once market trends and the desired product characteristics were
established, the team numbered the features areas (FA). They describe
the product attributes that the market would appreciate. The team de-
ned the future product and created their product brochure. After that,
it was determined what performance dimensions would be impacted
more for each FA using linking grids tool to make product market rela-
tionships, which allowed the team to construct the TRM product-level. A
feedback of these features and attributes was given to improve the value
proposition phase.
4.5. Phase 4: Technology analysis
The main objective of this phase is to look for the trends that would
guide the technological changes, and how these changes could modify
the business model, to accomplish this it was used the integration
tool. The building process integration tool was conducted in order to in-
vestigate about regulatory trends that could represent an opportunity
or a threat for the business.

Fig. 14. Final TRM for the case study.

 M.A. Toro-Jarrn et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 110 (2016) 213225
The team identied that even though the suppliers existed in an ac-
ceptable number, all of them were focus in a certain portfolio and there
were no new products available for the moment. Also, the team recog-
nized suppliers that could provide the syrup, instrumentation, casing,
technical service, transportation and distribution. The study permitted
to detect the importance of distributors and channels for the proposed
BM, and also helped to evaluate the current way the rm was delivering
their products.
After this, a brainstorming was made of all the technical features of
the future product including services and customer's support. Then, a
Product-Technologies Grid analysis was performed; using the integration
tool was possible to prioritize the technologies which improve the most
relevant product features for the market. The TRM product level was ful-
lled but only with the most relevant technology attributes. At last, the
team had elements to dene the technology strategy.
4.6. Phase 5: TRM link & BC integration
In this last phase, a general review analysis was performed with the
purpose of assessing all the phases and looking for the elements that
help to construct a proper BM. Also, all the information was added on
an empty TRM-template and the routes were identied.
Fig. 13 shows the integrated BMC for the case study considered only
for long-term period. It is suggested to elaborate one BMC for each peri-
od of analysis (now, mid-term and long-term), but in this case, the team
choose a short period of time (two years) for the building process inte-
gration, and they wanted to visualize only one BM. The gathered infor-
mation was used in the construction of the TRM, the nal product is
shown in Fig. 14.
5. Conclusions
The key ndings of this research complement those of earlier studies
(Abe, Shinokura, Suzuki, Kubo, & Sakuma, 2006; Abe, Shinokura, Suzuki,
Kubo, & Sakuma, 2006; de Reuver, Bouwman, & Haaker, 2013) that
state, BMC and TRM have the common objective of helping to increase
persuasive power for funding engineers/researchers to pursue the inno-
vative planning of research and development.
The building process integration proved that the strength of both
strategic management tools (BMC & TRM) can be complemented and re-
sulted in a more robust methodology, which took the pros of each tool
and produced two products strategically aligned. Also, the application
of the methodology helped to obtain the ideas from a group of people
with different expertise and knowledge within the rms, and trans-
formed them into a business model that responds to differ periods of
time, in order to achieve short, medium and long term objectives. In con-
clusion, during the building process integration, BMC is complemented
with time perspective the TRM has.
The methodology suggested the connection between levels can be
performed better by using the linking grid tool; it made possible to
Appendix A
Appendix 1
Issues that the team go through the building process integration.
Issues
Preparatory - What are the critical goals?
- What issues are important to address?
- What are likely to be the most interesting and important topics?
- What might the outputs look like? Will these meet the aims?
- Where do we want to go?
- Where are we now?
- How can we get there?
- Why do we need to act?
223
develop strongly related TRM-levels. This has an important implication
at the management level of the rm because R&D efforts would concen-
trate only on the product feature that would satisfy the characteristics
the market would appreciate.
The case of study helped to enhance the knowledge about how to
run cognitive processes, because the team talked about strategic issues
with a systematic guide allowing different perspectives. Also, the ap-
plication of the methodology makes evident that having a clear
business-need contributes to a successful roadmap. One of the most
important advantages of the building process integration is that it
made possible to create a BM for the current situation and also for
the medium and long-term; this would give to the rms hints of
which elements the business could change according to the required
conditions. At the same time the market, product and technology
strategies were created taking a close look to the necessities of the
business administration.
Even though the visualization of the business in the future is a very
valuable management capability, the robustness of the strategy created
is validated when the customer is considered in the process; having the
customer's opinion during the creation of the strategy validates the out-
puts. Furthermore, when the business is running and the value proposi-
tion has been tested with the client, then the success of the strategic
management tools are proved; before that, the target is to structure
the most robust proposal as possible. The awareness of the society pref-
erences in the market is the critical feedback for any BM or TRM created.
The application of the methodology proved to help in the identication
of the elements that assemble the BMC and also the levels needed to
structure the company strategy.
6. Future research
It is recommended for future research to evaluate the outputs
achieved; the following methods may be interesting topics to extend
this methodology;
(1) Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010) suggested a structured way to
evaluate the BMC created by comparing it with a matrix, which
has all the elements recommended for a robust model, and
(2) Jeffrey, Sedgwick, and Robinson (2013) set a roadmap evaluation
metrics focused on whether the objectives of the TRM have been
translated into actual programs and policies.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge SENESCYT Ecuador for the resources provided as
well as CONACYT Mexico for their support. An earlier version of this
paper was presented at the Portland International Center for Manage-
ment of Engineering and Technology 2015 Conference, August 26,
2015, Portland, USA
References
Fast-start Roadmapping Workshop Approaches (Phaal R.,
Farrukh, Mitchell, & Probert, 2003)/Mobilize (BMC). Framing the
project goals, planning the project, and assembling the team
(Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010)
(continued on next page)
224 M.A. Toro-Jarrn et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 110 (2016) 213225

Appendix 1 (continued)

Issues References

Preparatory - What should we do?

- How should we do it?
- Named and describe the expertise of the team's members

Value proposition - Describe the BIPC Mobilize (BMC). Testing preliminary ideas/Understanding
- Objectives pursued? (BMC). Developing a good understanding of the context in which
- Test preliminary BIPC the business model will involve (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010)
- Brainstorming the possible customer segments
- Empathy map
- What is offered to the client? (My will)
- What is the client expecting to receive? (My vision)
- Formulate the value proposal
Market analysis - Rivalry and government policy Building the rm's political strategy (5F's Porter) (Vining, Shapiro,
- Entry barriers and government policy & Borges, 2005)/(BMC) Strategy; macroeconomics forces, key
- Substitutes and government policy trends, market forces, industry forces (Osterwalder & Pigneur,
- Suppliers and government policy 2010)/Fast start roadmapping workshop approach (Phaal R.,
- Buyers and government policy Farrukh, Mitchell, & Probert, 2003)/T Plan (Phaal et al., 2004a)
- Current overall conditions from a macroeconomics perspective
- Current capital market conditions as they relate to your capital needs
- Economic infrastructure of the market in which your business operates
- Major societal trends that may inuence your business model
- Major socioeconomics trends relevant to your business model
- Key issues and transforming your market from customer and offer perspectives
- Major market segments, their attractiveness, and spotting new segments
- Incumbent competitors and their relative strength
- Market needs and analysis how well they are served
- Elements related to customers switching business to competitors
- Performance dimension (Dene the performance dimension: characteristics the
market would appreciate)
Product analysis - Who are the new entrants in your market? (BMC) Strategy, industry forces (Osterwalder & Pigneur,
- How are they different? 2010)/Fast start roadmapping workshop approach (Phaal R.,
- What competitive advantage or disadvantages do they have? Farrukh, Mitchell, & Probert, 2003)/Technology management and
- Which barriers must they overcome? roadmapping at the rm level (Moehrle, Isenmann, & Phaal, 2013)
- What is their value proposition?
- Which customer segments are they focused on?
- Which products or services could replace ours?
- How much do they cost compared with ours?
- How easy is for customers to switch to these substitutes?
- What business model tradition do these substitute products stem from?
- Identify the product
Technology analysis - What are the major technology trends both inside and outside your market? (BMC) Strategy, key trends, industry forces, macroeconomic
- What technologies represent important opportunities or disruptive threats? forces (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010)/Building the rm's
- What emerging technologies are peripheral customers adopting? political strategy (5F's Porter) (Vining, Shapiro, & Borges,
- What regulatory trend inuences your market? 2005)/Fast start (Moehrle, Isenmann, & Phaal, 2013)
- What rules may affect your business model?
- Which regulations and taxes affect customer demand?
- Who are the key players in your industry value chain?
- To what extend does your business model depend on other players?
- Are peripheral players emerging?
- Identify the critical system requirements and their targets
- Specify the major technology areas
- Specify the technological drivers and their targets
- Identify technological alternatives and their time lines
- Recommend the technology alternatives that should be pursued
Link & integration - Linking the three levels, market, product and technology; nd gaps and look for T Plan (Phaal R., Farrukh, Mitchell, & Probert, 2003)-
future actions /Technology management and roadmapping at the rm level
- Creation (Prototyping potential BM for exploring different direction for the nal (Moehrle, Isenmann, & Phaal, 2013)/(BMC) creation, design
BM. Change the blocks could give an opportunity to explore new ideas or a totally (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010)
different BM. Test preliminary BM. Storytelling. Select which of the potential BM
are more suitable with the strategic align)

References
Abe, H., Shinokura, K., Suzuki, A., Kubo, H., Sakuma, H., 2006. 2nd Generation business
modeling: smart innovation planning method managing the link to corporate value
creation for R&D outputs. PICMET, pp. 18 Istanbul.
Abe, H., Ashiki, T., Suzuki, A., Jinno, F., Sakuma, H., 2009. Integrating business modeling
and roadmapping methods the innovation support technology (IST) approach.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 76 (1), 8090.
Chesbrough, H., 2010. Business model innovation: opportunities and barriers. Long Range
Plan. 43, 354363.
Chungyalpa, M.W., Bora, B., 2015. Towards conceptualizing business strategies. Int.
J. Multidiscip. Approach Stud. 2 (1).
Cosner, R.R., Hynds, E.J., Fusfeld, A.R., Loweth, C.V., Scouten, C., Albright, 2007. Integrating
roadmapping into technical planning. Res. Technol. Manag. 50 (6), 3148.
de Reuver, M., Bouwman, H., Haaker, T., 2013. Business model roadmapping: a practical
approach to come from an existing to a desired busines model. Int. J. Innov. Manag.
XVII (1), 18.
Dobbs, M.E., 2014. Guidelines for applying Porter's ve forces framework: a set of indus-
try analysis templates. Compet. Rev. 24 (1), 3245.
Godet, M., 2010. Future memories. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 77, 14571463.
Jeffrey, H., Sedgwick, J., Robinson, C., 2013. Technology roadmaps: An evaluation of their
success in the renewable energy sector. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 80, 10151027.
Keupp, M.M., Palmi, M., Gassmann, O., 2012. The strategic management of innovation: a
systematic review and paths for future research. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 14, 367390.
Moehrle, M.G., Isenmann, R., Phaal, 2013. Technology Roadmapping for Strategy and In-
novation. Charting the Route to Success. Springer, Ed.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., 2009. Business Model Generation. Modderman Drukwerk,
Amsterdam.
 M.A. Toro-Jarrn et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 110 (2016) 213225 225

Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., 2010. Business Model Generation. John Wiley and Sons, New Zott, C., Amit, R., 2010. Business model design: an activity systems perspective. Long
Yersey. Range Plan. 43, 216226.
Phaal, R., Farrukh, C., Mitchell, R., Probert, D., 2003. Starting-up roadmapping fast. Res.
Technol. Manag. 46 (2), 5258.
Miguel Angel Toro-Jarrn earned the Electronic Engineering degree from the Escuela
Phaal, R., Farrukh, C.J., Probert, D.R., 2004a. Customizing roadmapping. Res. Technol.
Politcnica Nacional of Ecuador, in May 2005. He earned his M.Sc. in May 2015, at the
Manag. 47 (2), 2638.
Tecnologico de Monterrey, Campus Monterrey, Mexico. He worked at Siemens as a Tech-
Phaal, R., Farrukh, C.J., Probert, D.R., 2004b. Technology roadmapping a planning frame-
nical Manager and BU manager.
work for evolution and revolution. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 71, 526.
Phaal, R., Farrukh, C.J., Probert, D.R., 2006. Technology management tools: concept, devel-
Idalia Estefania PonceJaramillo is a doctorate student at Tecnologico de Monterrey,
opment and application. Technovation 26, 336344.
Campus Monterrey, Mexico, in industrial engineering. She earned the Biomedical Engi-
Pillkahn, U., 2008. In: Aktiengesellschaft, S. (Ed.), Using Trends and Scenarios as Tools for
neering degree from Tecnologico de Monterrey in May 2005. She earned the M. SC in
Strategy Development Shaping the Future of Your Enterprise. Publics Corporate
May 2014, at Tecnologico de Monterrey in Mexico. She made her master thesis in medical
Publishing, Erlangen, Germany.
technology management while working at the Mexican Institute of Social Security.
Porter, M.E., 2008. The ve Competitive Forces that Shape Strategy. Harvard Business Review.
Ringland, G., 2010. The role of scenarios in strategic foresight. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
David Gemes-Castorena is an Associate Professor of technology and innovation manage-
Chang. 77, 14931498.
ment, at Tecnologico de Monterrey, Campus Monterrey. He received his D.Sc. from The
Rohrbeck, R., Schwarz, J.O., 2013. The value contribution of strategic foresight: insights
George Washington University. His research interest involves technological strategy, and
from an empirical study of large European companies. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
applied technological foresight.
Chang. 80, 15931606.
Vining, A.R., Shapiro, D.M., Borges, B., 2005. Building the rm's political (lobbying) strat-
egy. J. Public Aff. 5, 150175.