Technology roadmapping – part 2
A few weeks ago, the first part of Dr. Sergey Yatsunenko’s article on technology roadmaps was published on our blog. As announced, we are pleased to invite you to read the second part. Let us recall that both texts were originally prepared for the Polish magazine “Production Manager”.
Technology roadmaps…
… how to transform strategy into protected technological assets
What we didn’t tell you about Samsung
In the previous article, we showed how Samsung defeated Kodak in the OLED display market. Sixteen years of technological advantage – and the American giant with a nuclear reactor in its basement went bankrupt, while the Korean company captured 85 percent of the global market. We explained this through the power of technology roadmaps (TRM): Samsung planned twenty years ahead, methodically progressing through successive stages.
All of that is true. But not the whole truth.
We didn’t ask the key question: why did Samsung’s technology roadmaps work, while similar maps gathered dust in cabinets at hundreds of other companies? Kodak had roadmaps too. So did Nokia. Motorola, which invented the TRM method itself in the 1970s, also had them. Where are these companies now?
The answer lies in data we’re presenting for the first time. And this isn’t external analysis – one of the authors of this article worked directly with Samsung and Hyundai-Kia teams.
In 1997, Samsung launched a large-scale program implementing the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ) and Design for Patentability (DFP) [1]. Look at the curve. Before 1997 – approximately five hundred US patents per year, practically flat dynamics. After implementation – exponential growth. By 2014 – over five thousand patents annually.
A tenfold increase.
In parallel – brand value. From five billion dollars to forty-five billion. Also a tenfold increase.
The first project using TRIZ and DFP brought Samsung one hundred million dollars in return on investment. The second – another hundred million. These aren’t consultant estimates – this is data from the company’s internal reporting.
A random coincidence? Let’s look at another Korean conglomerate.
Hyundai-Kia implemented TRIZ and DFP in 2007 [1]. Previously – approximately one hundred patents per year for a decade. A stable, unremarkable curve of an average company.
After implementation – an explosion. Six hundred patents by 2014.
A sixfold increase. Brand value – from four billion to ten billion dollars. A threefold increase.
But the most telling figures are the ROI of individual projects. Year 2008: twenty projects, eighty-one patents, return on investment – one hundred twenty million dollars. Year 2009: twenty projects, one hundred twenty-two patents, return on investment – two hundred forty-five million dollars.
In two years – forty projects, two hundred three patents, three hundred sixty-five million dollars. And this was just the beginning of the exponential curve.
Two Korean giants. One pattern. Implementation of systematic methods for creating and protecting innovations – followed by technological breakthrough.
Let’s return to the question we’ve been avoiding: if Samsung and Hyundai-Kia had technology roadmaps even before implementing TRIZ and DFP, why did the breakthrough occur precisely after?
Because classical TRM answers the question where to go but doesn’t answer the question how to create what doesn’t yet exist, and how to protect it.
The technology roadmap trap
This doesn’t mean TRM is useless. It means it’s insufficient.
A technology roadmap is like navigation that shows you the route but doesn’t teach you how to drive. You see the destination, you see the turns. But if you don’t know how to drive a car – the map won’t help.
Kodak saw digital photography on its maps twenty years before its mass arrival. They saw OLED. They saw everything. The maps were excellent. But the company didn’t know how to transform vision into protected technological assets. Every turn on the map required solving technical contradictions that nobody knew how to resolve systematically. Every fork required patent protection that nobody was building.
Three fundamental weaknesses of classical TRM become critical for companies that cannot afford unlimited R&D budgets.
The first weakness is the subjectivity of expert assessments. TRM relies on expert opinions about the future. But experts are shaped by the paradigm of existing technologies. When Nokia planned mobile phone development, the industry’s best minds worked from the logic of perfecting what exists: better screen, better battery, better interface. The iPhone appeared not because Apple forecasted better – but because they created a fundamentally new architecture that wasn’t on any expert map.
The second weakness is the gap between strategy and execution. The map says: “develop electromobility,” “enter the green technology segment,” “create IoT platforms.” Beautiful arrows, ambitious horizons. But how exactly do you create a solution that will be protected by your own patent and doesn’t depend on competitors’ licenses? Classical TRM doesn’t answer this question. The result is predictable: the map exists, but technological autonomy doesn’t.
The third weakness is the rigidity of the planning horizon. TRM establishes not only goals but also ways to achieve them years in advance. In a stable world, this worked. After 2020 – it stopped working. The energy crisis invalidated ten-year plans of German chemical giants within months. Broken supply chains turned maps based on Asian partners into waste paper. Geopolitics forced real-time revision of priorities.
What the integration changes
Korean companies sensed the solution empirically. Alongside technology roadmaps, they implemented tools for creating and protecting innovations. The graphs show the result.
But what Samsung and Hyundai-Kia did with enormous budgets and partially intuitively can now be done systematically. Integrating TRM with TRIZ and DFP isn’t a mechanical combination of three acronyms. It’s creating a unified system where each element reinforces the others.
- TRM answers the question where? – it defines strategic horizons, market priorities, timeframes.
- TRIZ answers the question how? – it provides tools for solving technical contradictions that block movement along the map. Not expert opinions, but algorithms derived from analysis of hundreds of thousands of patents [2].
- DFP answers the question how to protect? – it transforms every technical solution into a potential patent, forms an intellectual property portfolio, creates barriers for competitors [3].
Together they eliminate all three weaknesses of classical TRM.
Subjectivity is replaced by objective patterns. TRIZ contains trends of engineering systems evolution (TESE), derived from analyzing the evolution of hundreds of thousands of patents [2]. These aren’t expert opinions – they’re patterns that repeat regardless of industry. S-curves of development show when a technology will exhaust its potential. The main parameter of value (MPV) determines which characteristic will be decisive for the market – not according to consumer research, but according to the internal logic of technical system development.
The gap between strategy and execution is closed through comprehensive integration. Each point on the map is linked to specific technical contradictions. Each contradiction has a resolution algorithm. Each solution is analyzed for patent potential. Strategy ceases to be an abstraction – it becomes a sequence of engineering tasks with measurable results.
The planning horizon becomes flexible through a three-level structure. The short-term horizon of up to two years focuses on optimizing existing products, delivering quick improvements with IP protection potential that finance long-term projects. The medium-term horizon of two to five years involves creating new product platforms and building patent portfolios in key areas. The long-term horizon of five years and beyond prepares for technological transitions predicted by TESE and S-curves.
The market layer
A classical technology roadmap is built like a three-story building. At the top – market and strategy. In the middle – products and systems. At the bottom – technologies and resources. The structure is correct. The problem lies in the content.
In classical TRM, the top layer is filled with expert opinions and marketing research. The middle – with product concepts that look logical on slides. The bottom – with a list of technologies that “would be good to master.” Connections between layers exist but are theoretical. There’s only one way to verify them – spend years and millions on implementation.
Integrated TRM preserves the three-layer structure but radically changes the content of each layer.
The traditional approach to market analysis relies on voice of customer. We ask consumers what they want. We analyze the answers. We build strategy.
Sounds reasonable. But there’s a fundamental problem: customers formulate needs in terms of existing solutions and high-level needs – safety, efficiency, convenience, and so forth. When mobile phone users were asked in the early 2000s what they were missing, they answered: longer battery life, better sound, more convenient buttons. Nobody said: I want a full-fledged computer with a touchscreen that fits in my pocket. Because such a category didn’t exist in their consciousness.
The alternative approach is voice of product. Instead of asking people, we analyze the internal logic of technical system development according to TESE [2].
TRIZ shows that every technical system develops according to objective patterns. Not because managers decide so and not only because consumers want it – but also because these are the laws of evolution of human-made systems, derived from analysis of hundreds of thousands of patents. The main parameter of value is the central concept of this approach. It’s the characteristic whose improvement determines product competitiveness regardless of what focus groups say.
For automobile engines, MPV for decades was specific fuel consumption. Consumers might demand power, comfort, design – but at the moment of purchase, consumption proved decisive for most. Companies that understood this won. Those that chased only the voice of the customer lost.
Electrification changed the MPV. Now it’s battery energy capacity. Companies that were first to switch to the new value parameter – Tesla, BYD, Contemporary Amperex Technology (CATL) – captured the market. Those that continued perfecting fuel consumption found themselves playing catch-up.
Identifying MPV isn’t fortune-telling or marketing research. It’s functional analysis of the technical system: what main function it performs, which parameters critically influence purchasing decisions, improvement of which parameter gives maximum return at minimum cost.
The product layer
The middle layer of classical TRM usually contains pretty pictures of future products and general formulations: “create a competitive solution,” “enter the premium segment,” “develop a next-generation platform.”
In integrated TRM, the product layer is a machine for producing solutions that can be protected.
Innovative benchmarking doesn’t start with analyzing competitors in your industry. The task is to find the best solutions for each identified MPV regardless of source.
Tesla’s approach to battery thermal management demonstrates cross-industry benchmarking principles. The system uses solutions characteristic of aviation and space technologies, where maintaining electronics temperature in extreme conditions is critically important. The result is an architecture that competitors cannot easily copy because they don’t see its origins in their industry.
Systematic searching by MPV and main function regularly produces unexpected combinations. Damping principles from construction solve electronics protection tasks. Packaging technologies from the food industry provide hermetization of medical devices. Logistics algorithms optimize energy consumption in home appliances.
Innovative hybridization transforms benchmarking results into specific products. The process is iterative: each cycle focuses on one MPV and creates a solution that becomes the foundation for the next iteration.
The iPhone is the result of precisely such hybridization. Touch interface from industrial terminals. Operating system from personal computers. Radio modules from telecommunications devices. Each element existed, but their combination created a new category.
Critically important: each hybridization stage should yield a solution with patent potential. Not copying existing approaches – but creating new combinations that can be protected.
This is where patent mapping enters. “White spot” analysis shows where there’s demand but no protected solutions. Simultaneously, competitors’ patents that might block development are identified.
An area might look completely closed. But detailed analysis almost always reveals narrow corridors for alternative solutions. The necessity of working around someone else’s patent often leads to a more effective approach than the original.
The technology layer
The bottom layer of classical TRM is usually a list of technologies the company plans to master. “Artificial intelligence,” “additive manufacturing,” “Internet of Things.” Fashionable words that say nothing about when and how to apply them.
Integrated TRM replaces lists with trajectories. Because technologies develop according to predictable patterns.
Trends of engineering systems evolution (TESE) comprise eleven patterns derived from patent analysis [2]. They work regardless of industry and time.
The trend of increasing value: every system strives to increase the ratio of useful functions to costs in the broad sense of the word. An ideal system performs its function without physically existing. This pattern explains why GPS navigators as separate devices disappeared – their function transferred to smartphones and smartwatches.
The trend of transition to supersystem: having exhausted development possibilities, a system becomes part of a larger system. Separate players, phones, cameras, navigators merged into the smartphone. Understanding this pattern allowed predicting such a merger long before the iPhone.
S-curves of development specify TESE in relation to main parameters of value. Each MPV follows a characteristic trajectory: slow growth at the start, exponential growth in the middle, saturation when approaching physical limits.
For mobile phones, the MPV changed sequentially: battery life, connection quality, size and weight, computing power, camera quality. Each parameter went through its own S-curve. Companies that were first to switch to a new operating principle or the next MPV gained advantage. Those that continued optimizing a saturating parameter lost positions.
Determining the current stage of MPV on the S-curve defines strategy. At the birth stage – research projects with high risk. At the growth stage – concentration of resources on scaling. At the maturity stage – optimization and searching for the next value parameter or new operating principle.
Technology readiness level (TRL) completes the picture with an assessment of specific technology readiness [4]. Nine levels from basic research to serial production allow synchronizing technological capabilities with market windows.
A technology with high TRL but aimed at a saturating MPV has limited potential. A technology of medium readiness level but addressing a growing MPV can become the foundation for breakthrough.
The three-horizon structure
Classical TRM usually operates with one planning horizon – five, ten, fifteen years. This creates an illusion of sequential movement toward the goal.
Reality is more complicated. Different types of projects require different approaches, different tools, different success criteria. Integrated TRM divides planning into three horizons, each with its own logic.
The first horizon spans zero to two years. The focus is optimizing existing products. The goal is generating cash flow to finance long-term projects and building a patent portfolio in current areas.
These aren’t “minor improvements.” This is systematic extraction of value from what already exists. Hyundai-Kia obtained two hundred three patents and three hundred sixty-five million dollars precisely on this horizon during their first two years.
The second horizon spans two to five years. The focus is creating new product platforms. The goal is building technological assets that reduce dependence on external licenses.
Critical here is the connection with the first horizon. Second-horizon projects are financed from first-horizon results. First-horizon patents create negotiating position for cross-licensing.
The third horizon spans five years and beyond. The focus is preparation for technological transitions. The goal is creating competencies for the next generation of technologies.
Pragmatic S-curve analysis shows when the current MPV will approach saturation. TESE indicate the direction of transition. A company that begins preparations five to seven years before the transition enters a new era with ready solutions. The rest enter empty-handed.
Practical steps
Theory is good. But what specifically should a manager of a manufacturing company do after reading this far?
The first step is auditing current position. Take your company’s main product. Ask three questions. Which parameter really determines customer choice at purchase – not according to surveys, but actually? How many patents protect key technical solutions of this product – your patents, not licensed ones? What portion of cost consists of license fees and components from a single supplier?
The answers will show the degree of technological dependence. For most manufacturing companies, the picture will be unpleasant. That’s normal. That’s the starting point.
The second step is MPV identification. For your main product, determine the parameter that really determines competitiveness and influences the customer’s purchasing decision. Not what’s written in marketing materials – but what decides the fate of transactions.
Build a simple graph: how this parameter changed for you and competitors over the last five to ten years. Is the curve growing? You’re at the growth stage of the S-curve. Is the curve plateauing? Saturation is approaching – time to look for the next MPV.
The third step is patent landscape analysis. Conduct basic patent analysis in your area. Who owns key solutions? Where are the white spots – areas where there’s demand but no protected solutions?
This can be done using open patent databases like Google Patents or Espacenet. Searching by keywords and classification will give an initial picture.
The fourth step is one pilot project. Choose one technical problem in an existing product. Not the hardest – medium difficulty. Apply a structured method of contradiction analysis to it. If TRIZ is unfamiliar – start with any systematic approach to solving technical problems. But TRIZ specifically gives predictable results thanks to algorithms verified on millions of inventions.
Analyze the obtained solution for protection possibilities. Are there analogues? Can it be patented? If so – file an application.
One project. One patent. Measurable result. Foundation for scaling.
An honest conversation about limitations
We’re not claiming that integrated TRM solves all problems. We’re claiming that each of its elements has proven effectiveness separately.
TRM as a strategic planning method has been used by leading corporations for over forty years [5]. TRIZ as an innovative problem-solving method has been used since the 1960s and underlies hundreds of thousands of patents [2]. DFP as a method for designing solutions with patent potential provided Samsung and Hyundai-Kia the results we showed at the beginning of this article [3].
Integrating these methods into a unified system is the next logical step. We’re formalizing what Korean companies did in parallel and partially intuitively.
This doesn’t mean integration is simple. It requires competencies in all three areas. It requires changing planning and development processes. It requires investment in training.
This doesn’t mean results will come immediately. Hyundai-Kia saw exponential growth two to three years after starting implementation. The first year was a year of learning and pilot projects.
This doesn’t mean the approach is universal. For a company that doesn’t conduct its own development work and doesn’t plan to, these tools are probably excessive. For a company without strategic ambitions, TRM isn’t needed. For a company satisfied with the role of contract manufacturer, all of this is unnecessary.
But for a company that wants to move from producing others’ technologies to creating its own, from buying licenses to selling them, from technological dependence to technological sovereignty – integrated TRM provides a working route.
Conclusion: a choice that cannot be postponed
Let’s return to the beginning. Samsung and Hyundai-Kia had Technology Roadmaps long before they became technological leaders. Maps didn’t make them leaders. What made them leaders was the ability to transform strategic intentions into protected technological assets.
Kodak also had maps. Excellent maps that accurately predicted the future. But the company didn’t know how to create that future – and became its victim.
The question isn’t whether this approach works. The Samsung and Hyundai-Kia graphs answer that question unambiguously.
The question is who will be first to start applying it?
*
About the authors:
Dr Sergey Yatsunenko
PhD in physics, combining analytical thinking with a passion for innovation and technology. An expert in intellectual property and patent strategy. TRIZ Master, President and Board Member of MATRIZ. His commitment to market development is evident not only in his strong client relationships but also in his active support for startups, where he shares expertise and provides guidance to emerging businesses.
Prof. Sergei Ikovenko
Professor at MIT and Tufts University, TRIZ Master, creator of the Design for Patentability methodology. Has conducted over fifteen hundred workshops for Fortune 500 companies. Led implementation programs at Procter & Gamble, Samsung, Hyundai-Kia, Intel. PhD in engineering, Master’s in patent law.
*
Production Manager
https://production-manager.pl/
A Polish trade magazine focused on manufacturing and production management, aimed primarily at industrial managers and decision-makers. It provides in-depth analysis, trend insights, and practical guidance on modern manufacturing practices, digital transformation, smart technologies, and the management of teams and strategic business development in production companies. The magazine works closely with industry experts and recognized authorities, which gives its content strong professional credibility and supports production leaders in making informed decisions in a rapidly changing industrial environment.
References
- Internal reporting data from Samsung and Hyundai-Kia TRIZ/DFP implementation programs
- Altshuller, G. – The Innovation Algorithm: TRIZ, Systematic Innovation and Technical Creativity; MATRIZ methodology documentation:
https://matriz.org/methodology/ - Ikovenko, S. – Design for Patentability methodology, GEN3 Partners
- NASA Technology Readiness Level definitions:
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/somd/space-communications-navigation-program/technology-readiness-levels/ - Phaal, R. – Roadmapping for strategy and innovation, University of Cambridge:
https://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/uploads/Research/CTM/Roadmapping/roadmapping_overview.pdf
Glossary of key concepts
TRM (technology roadmapping): a strategic planning method visualizing the connection between market goals, products, and technologies over time. Developed at Motorola in the 1970s.
TRIZ (theory of inventive problem solving): a methodology for systematic solving of technical problems, created by Genrich Altshuller based on analysis of hundreds of thousands of patents. Includes trends of engineering systems evolution, algorithms for resolving contradictions, and databases of typical solutions.
DFP (design for patentability): a methodology for designing technical solutions considering patentability requirements. Allows creating solutions that can be protected by patents and that circumvent competitors’ existing patents.
MPV (main parameter of value): the product characteristic whose improvement determines competitiveness at a given stage of market development and influences the consumer’s final purchasing decision.
TESE (trends of engineering systems evolution): eleven objective patterns of technical system evolution derived from patent analysis. They allow forecasting directions of technology development.
S-curve of development: the characteristic development trajectory of any parameter of a technical system: slow growth at the initial stage, exponential growth in the middle, saturation when approaching physical limits.
TRL (technology readiness level): a nine-level scale for assessing technology maturity: from basic research (TRL 1) to serial production (TRL 9). Developed by NASA, widely used in industry and government programs.
Innovative benchmarking: searching for the best technical solutions by a given value parameter and main function of the technical system regardless of the industry of origin.
Patent mapping: analysis of the patent landscape to identify “white spots” (unprotected areas) and potential patents blocking competitors.