A worked industrial example

Follow the reasoning behind a technology choice.

A fictional pump manufacturer is choosing a retrofit monitoring approach. The next commitment is a field pilot, subject to bench qualification and installation evidence.

Illustrative scenario. Select a card to trace its connections and inspect the evidence. This is an interactive method example.

Why: customer needs

What: product functions

How: technology options

Evidence and next decisions

N1 · Customer need

Reduce unexpected stoppages

Maintenance teams need enough warning to intervene before a developing fault causes a stoppage. The benefit needs checking with representative customers.

Evidence to check

Customer interviews and maintenance records are needed. No benefit has been validated in this example.

Ownership and connections

Owner: Service lead

Connects to: F1 · Detect developing deterioration

Evidence and relationships

The example remains readable below. Enable JavaScript to highlight connections and explore capacity.

N1: Reduce unexpected stoppages. Customer interviews and maintenance records are needed. No benefit has been validated in this example. Owner: Service lead. Connections: F1.
N2: Fit equipment with little disruption. Confirm access, mounting surfaces and installation conditions at a representative site. Owner: Operations lead. Connections: F2.
N3: Dependable field operation. Specify exposure, vibration and temperature limits before qualification. Owner: Product lead. Connections: F3.
F1: Detect developing deterioration. Representative fault trials; detection performance and false-alert limits remain to be agreed. Owner: Product engineer. Connections: T1, T2.
F2: Install during a short access window. An installation trial should check access time and measurement repeatability. Owner: Mechanical engineer. Connections: T3.
F3: Operate in the specified environment. Environmental conditions and test criteria need an owner and an approved specification. Owner: Product engineer. Connections: T4.
T1: Accelerometer sensing. Compare representative faults and false alerts in bench trials; no performance claim is assumed. Owner: Sensing specialist. Connections: A1.
T2: Ultrasonic sensing. Bench comparison and field access assessment are needed before selection. Owner: Sensing specialist. Connections: A1.
T3: Removable magnetic mounting. Mounting repeatability and retention tests; relationship to detection quality is currently unknown. Owner: Mechanical engineer. Connections: A2.
T4: Sealed enclosure. Qualification against the agreed environment; do not infer certification from this example. Owner: Product engineer. Connections: A2.
A1: Compare and qualify the sensing options. Decision gate: no field commitment until the bench evidence is reviewed. Owner: Engineering lead. Connections: A2.
A2: Run a bounded installation pilot. Depends on A1 qualification and site access. The pilot is an option, not a confirmed rollout. Owner: Pilot lead. Connections: A3.
A3: Decide on rollout and service readiness. Review trigger: poor repeatability, excessive false alerts or changed site access. Owner: Product director. Connections: Final review decision.

The resource check

Two good projects. One engineering team.

Monitoring pilot preparation needs four engineer-months in Q1. A competing seal redesign needs three. Change the available capacity and see whether both fit.

One engineer-month means one person working full time for one month. Real planning also needs a check of specific skills and other commitments.

Available Q1 capacity: 6 engineer-months

Explore a constraint; these are illustrative estimates.

Also start the seal redesign in Q1 (3 engineer-months; €35,000).

Q1 demand

4 engineer-months

Illustrative Q1 budget

€60,000

Within capacity: 2 engineer-months remain.

When demand exceeds capacity, agree whether to change scope, sequence or qualified capacity. The model does not choose for you.

Use the example with your team

Free workshop pack

A decision brief, evidence register, linking grid and resource worksheet.

How the linking grid works

Separate a product function from the technology that may deliver it.

Method sources

Phaal, Farrukh and Probert (2001). T-Plan: The fast start to Technology Roadmapping. IfM, University of Cambridge. Original source
Phaal and Muller (2009). An architectural framework for roadmapping: Towards visual strategy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(1), 39-49. Original source
Phaal, Chaskel, Gonzalez Nakazawa and Ross (2024). Roadmapping Roadmapping: Strategic planning for roadmapping systems. Frontiers of Engineering Management, 11, 516-527. Original source

The drawings, scenario and worksheets are original InnovationFlow material informed by these sources.

Explore your own roadmapping question

Book a 45-minute discussion about your product and technology roadmap. Tell us which decision or dependency your team is working through.

Your enquiry goes to our InnovationFlow team. We discuss the right support with you and coordinate the next steps.

Prefer email? Write to hello@innovationflow.app.