Strategise method guide
Linking Grid
Connect market drivers to product functions, and product functions to technology solutions, with positive and negative relationship assessments.
Beginner-friendly guide · 4 min read
What Linking Grid does
Connect market drivers to product functions, and product functions to technology solutions, with positive and negative relationship assessments.
The Linking Grid makes a conversation about contribution explicit. Rows might contain needs such as short service stops. Columns might contain functions such as replaceable modules. In a second grid, those functions become rows and candidate technologies become columns.
Each cell is a judgement about that pair. A positive contribution supports the row outcome; a negative one works against it. The tool keeps the assessment, rationale and source references so a score can be challenged later.
T-Plan, developed by Phaal, Farrukh and Probert at IfM, links market, product and technology perspectives. InnovationFlow provides a standalone relationship grid with a T-Plan calculation mode; it also supports generic relationship assessment.[1][2]
Illustrative signed 1/2/3 contributions, before weighting. A dash means unassessed; zero means explicitly no contribution.
| Outcome | Modular housing | Remote sensing |
|---|---|---|
| Short service stop | +3 | +1 |
| Lower energy use | 0 | +3 |
| Fewer sealing interfaces | −3 | 0 |
| Lower acquisition cost | −1 | – |
Positive: helps the outcome. Negative: works against it. Zero: assessed as no contribution. Dash: not yet assessed.
Original InnovationFlow illustration. Example values and software behaviour are explained in this guide; method sources are listed below.
Understand the method
The parts in plain language
Signed contribution
Choose a signed 1/2/3 or 1/3/9 scale deliberately. The scales are not interchangeable.
Illustrative example
Modularity may help repair time while adding sealing complexity.
Weight and scope
Driver weights express priorities. Select the assessment set separately from display filters.
Illustrative example
Hiding a row during discussion must not improve a technology score.
Review after change
Source changes flag affected assessments for review while retaining local judgements.
Illustrative example
Recheck the score when the service-time requirement becomes more demanding.
When to use it
- When translating product functions into technology options.
- When a roadmap needs a defensible link between demand and technical investment.
A practical workflow
- 1
Connect source tools and assign accepted items to rows or columns.
- 2
Choose all, starred or selected items and name the axes.
- 3
Set driver weights and assess positive, negative, zero or unassessed relationships, recording evidence and rationale.
- 4
Review the calculation breakdown and carry column scores into the next grid or roadmap.
Fictional worked example
From pump functions to technologies
This example is illustrative rather than a reported case. A fictional manufacturer compares routes to a more serviceable pump.
Observation:Shorten service stops, with an agreed weight.
Implication:Assess which functions address that outcome.
Observation:A detachable module improves access but adds joints.
Implication:Record both beneficial and detrimental contributions.
Observation:A function has a reviewed contribution score.
Implication:Map that score into the next grid driver weight and assess technologies.
From analysis to decision
How to interpret the result
- 1In T-Plan mode, the signed weighted total is normalised against the full-axis positive maximum and multiplied by 10.
- 2Incomplete, stale, all-zero or all-negative assessments need review. A calculated contribution does not prove technical feasibility.
Practical interpretation guidance from InnovationFlow. Refer to the method sources below for the underlying approach.
What a useful output looks like
Common pitfalls
- Unassessed is different from an explicit zero.
- Separate market and internal business priorities, and use a separate grid for each market segment.
- Changing the displayed filter does not change the calculation scope.
References and method basis
- [1]Phaal, R., Farrukh, C.J.P. and Probert, D.R. (2001). T-Plan: The fast start to Technology Roadmapping - planning your route to success. Institute for Manufacturing, University of Cambridge. Source ↗Original method source
- [2]Phaal, R. and Muller, G. (2009). An architectural framework for roadmapping: Towards visual strategy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(1), 39–49. Source ↗Peer-reviewed research
This guide synthesises the named sources into practical questions for strategy and innovation work. It does not claim that using a tool by itself produces a successful decision.