Roadmapping Roadmapping: design the system before scaling the maps

Roadmapping Roadmapping, shortened to R2, applies the roadmapping framework to the organisation's roadmapping process and system. Instead of mapping a product, technology or market, participants map why roadmapping is needed, what activities and relationships it should contain, and how the required capability should develop over time. [1]

The recursion is intentional. Organisations often use the same word for very different practices: a product timeline, a technology workshop, a portfolio chart or a corporate planning process. R2 makes those expectations visible before they harden into incompatible templates and disconnected routines.

This follows a broader definition of roadmapping as a structured strategic lens, not only the production of a visual document. The method can therefore be applied to the design of a management process as well as to the strategic content that process will later address. [2]

The R2 paper identifies a persistent implementation problem. Roadmapping is simple in principle but difficult to deploy systematically and sustainably at scale. A successful workshop may still leave the organisation without ownership, decision links, resources, review mechanisms or a coherent approach across teams. [1]

Implementation research highlights factors familiar from other strategic change programmes: clarity of purpose, committed leadership, links to investment decisions, supportive culture, appropriate resourcing, flexibility, review and improvement. [4]

The implication is practical. Before selecting a template or tool, the organisation should decide what roadmapping is meant to change and how that change will enter normal governance and investment routines.

The published R2 template uses three strategic layers. Why do it covers business context, value, scope and ambition. What to do covers roadmapping activities, related processes, ownership and improvement. How to do it covers capabilities, resources, culture, skills, governance and digital support. [1]

Those layers are considered across past learning, initial implementation, continued development and a longer-term vision. The result is not merely a software rollout plan. It is a strategic narrative for how the roadmapping system should become useful and sustainable.

A roadmapping system includes the relationships between people, processes, structures and tools. R2 prompts participants to consider where to begin, which decisions roadmapping should enable, how roadmaps will be updated, who owns the process and how capability will be built. [1]

The R2 template was developed and refined through six industrial cases in different sectors and contexts. The paper reports that the rapid workshop format could produce a consensus-based, actionable first plan and that its evaluation scores were broadly comparable with a benchmark template process. [1]

The evidence is deliberately bounded. The authors report a small study, six trials in total, and subjective participant feedback. They do not claim statistical significance, universal implementation success or a comparative advantage over every alternative method. Further testing and longitudinal research are identified as necessary. [1]

The Star Rapid application illustrates the organisational commitment involved. The case included leadership time, cross-functional workshops, facilitation practice, repeated use and a later restart after a pause and management reorganisation. The system developed through use rather than appearing complete after one workshop. [1]

The R2 prompts explicitly include software and ICT infrastructure, while the paper identifies digital support, including artificial intelligence, as an area for future research. It does not evaluate an AI product or establish that AI causes better roadmapping outcomes. [1]

Research on digital roadmapping workshops shows that digital environments change participation, facilitation and information handling. Tool choice should therefore follow the roadmapping purpose and social process rather than being treated as a neutral replacement for paper. [6]

A digital system becomes useful when it reduces repeated transcription, preserves stable identity and relationships, supports several stakeholder views and makes review easier. It becomes counterproductive when a fixed interface silently defines the method or AI-generated material loses its origin and approval status.

InnovationFlow is designed as software for connected strategic and innovation work. Roadmap items can remain linked to signals, analysis, strategic choices, dependencies, resources, ownership, status and reasons for change. Different views can support visual roadmapping and editable table-based work without creating unrelated copies. [7]

AI can help extract candidate inputs from documents, propose an initial flow, suggest items and connections, identify gaps or duplicates and summarise context across connected tools. Those contributions remain proposals. People decide what is accepted, how relationships should be interpreted and what enters the organisational record. [7]

This is a product implementation inspired by the need for a sustainable roadmapping system. It is not part of the six-case R2 evaluation reported in the paper.

A first R2 discussion does not need to design the final enterprise system. Its purpose is to expose different expectations, agree an initial focus and create a credible learning pathway.