There are many reasons for this. First, the target evolves, which means that development of a technology roadmap should be an ongoing process. To continue the analogy, we are forever “traveling” but never “arriving.” Second, technology has many different masters.
Vendors, trade associations, standards-setting boards, alliance and/or trade partners, mergers and acquisitions, growth and expansion, strategic directional change, new technological development, and economic shifts (e.g., price performance, adoption patterns, and obsolescence) are all continuously influencing where companies want to go with technology. -> Third, unexpected roadblocksoccur (e.g.
, the company that produces the application platform that runs your business declares bankruptcy). If building and evolving a technology roadmap were easy, it would always be done well…….
..111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111112222222233333333333333333There are numerous purposes behind this.
To start with, the objective advances, which implies that improvement of an innovation guide ought to be a progressing procedure. To proceed with the similarity, we are everlastingly “voyaging” however failing to arrive.” “Second, innovation has a wide range of bosses. Sellers, exchange affiliations, measures setting sheets, organization together or potentially exchange accomplices, mergers and acquisitions, development and extension, key directional change, new innovative advancement, and monetary movements (e.
g., value execution, selection examples, and out of date quality) are for the most part consistently impacting where organizations need to run with innovation. – > Third, surprising roadblocksoccur (e.g.
, the organization that creates the application stage that maintains your business bows out of all financial obligations). In the event that building and developing an innovation guide were simple, it would dependably be done well.