Value Co-Creation Roadmapping with Stakeholders for Creating Innovative Technologies

Abstract

Roadmapping is widely used as a collaborative management tool for innovation planning; however, how stakeholders co-create value throughout the roadmapping process remains insufficiently evidenced and operationalized. Drawing on service-dominant (S-D) logic and stakeholder integration, this study examines how stakeholders co-create value in planning innovative technologies through a roadmapping process. We conducted an interpretive single-case study in a technology-oriented organization using seven facilitated workshops with 36 stakeholders, and analyzed workshop artefacts, facilitator notes, and follow-up communications captured via collaboration platforms. The findings show that stakeholder value co-creation is enacted through recurring interaction patterns observed across W1–W7 and across initiation, development, and integration, supported by collaboration platforms that enable continuity, transparency, and traceability from early ideation to integrated roadmap outputs. This study contributes an empirically grounded, traceable process model linking S-D logic to roadmapping practice and provides actionable guidance for organizations orchestrating stakeholder participation in innovation planning.

1. Introduction

The capability of organizations to create knowledge during the innovation process has been identified as a key resource in competitive advantage (Kazadi et al., 2016; Kerr et al., 2013; Kandampully et al., 2016). The role played by people in competitiveness and collaboration for technology and service management is increasing (Jonas & Roth, 2017; Pera et al., 2016; Stephen et al., 2016; Kazadi et al., 2016; Nardelli & Broumels, 2017; Romero & Molina, 2011).

Organizations face increasing uncertainty in technology and market trajectories, making innovation planning and resource alignment more difficult. Roadmapping is widely adopted to support strategic planning by coordinating perspectives, priorities, and timing across multiple stakeholders and by translating dispersed knowledge into shared strategic directions.

For organizational strategic planning, roadmapping is a technique that enables different groups to gain a consensus (Kerr et al., 2017). Many organizations take a roadmapping approach to improve decision-making for planning innovative technologies. Multiple players and stakeholders from different types of organizations who have varying perspectives, disciplines, and potentials contribute to the planning process (Carayannis et al., 2016). They expect to generate ideas for innovative technologies throughout the roadmapping process. This is because roadmapping relies heavily on the stakeholders’ knowledge, skills, expertise, and insights (Ho & O’Sullivan, 2017). The collaboration between multi-sector stakeholders that creates mutual benefits under the principles of value co-creation (VCC) (Sukholthaman & Shirahada, 2016) can be applied to the roadmapping process. VCC and resource integration among stakeholders promote the planning of innovative technologies, products, and services.

Roadmapping requires the sharing of perspectives, knowledge, and expertise among stakeholders, leading to new creativity and knowledge (Phaal et al., 2005). Participants’ behaviors and co-creation activities lead to knowledge creation (Ma et al., 2007). Roadmapping is a participant-centric strategic management tool that provides the opportunity for participation and engagement aimed toward co-created solutions and that enables different stakeholder groups to achieve consensus on how to appropriately move forward with a vision given the particular situation being addressed (Kerr et al., 2013, 2017). In practical roadmapping, Gerdsri et al. (2009, 2010) proposed an activity guideline for dealing with the dynamics of technology roadmapping implementation. For practical customer VCC in S-D logic, McColl-Kennedy et al. (2012) proposed customer VCC activities while Botti et al. (2018) and Tommasetti et al. (2017) proposed a framework for measuring VCC.

Prior research on early-stage product–service system development highlights the need for early multi-stakeholder input and for translating stakeholder interests into design requirements (Yip et al., 2012). Complementarily, stakeholder-focused reviews of innovation management techniques emphasize selecting and combining methods with explicit attention to stakeholder management when linking collaborative practices to innovation outcomes (Albors-Garrigos et al., 2025). Yet organizations still lack empirically grounded guidance on how stakeholder value co-creation is enacted across roadmapping stages and how co-created insights can be made traceable from early ideation to integrated roadmap outputs.

To address this gap, we adopt service-dominant (S-D) logic, which views value as co-created through interactions among actors who integrate resources (e.g., knowledge, skills, relationships, and enabling platforms) rather than being produced unilaterally by a firm. In this study, stakeholder value co-creation refers to observable activities and interaction patterns through which stakeholders jointly shape the content, priorities, and logic of an innovation roadmap.

This study aims to operationalize S-D logic and stakeholder integration in roadmapping by examining how stakeholder value co-creation unfolds across roadmapping stages and by developing a traceable process model grounded in empirical workshop artefacts and stakeholder interactions. Methodologically, we adopt an interpretive single-case study and analyze facilitated roadmapping as a situated meaning-making practice, which is well suited for examining enactment in context and for supporting analytical generalization.

The research question addressed in the study reported here is the following: How do stakeholders co-create value in planning innovative technologies through a roadmapping process?

This paper contributes by (i) providing an empirically grounded and traceable process model of stakeholder value co-creation during roadmapping; (ii) clarifying stage-specific patterns of stakeholder interaction and the enabling role of collaboration platforms for continuity and transparency; and (iii) offering practical guidance on roles, tools, and workshop deliverables to improve stakeholder roadmapping in organizations.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 reviews the theoretical background and develops the analytic lens linking S-D logic, stakeholder integration, and roadmapping. Section 3 describes the research design, data sources, and analysis procedure. Section 4 presents the proposed value co-creation roadmapping model. Section 5 reports the example application, Section 6 summarizes the results, and Section 7 discusses theoretical and managerial implications, followed by limitations and future research directions.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Value Co-Creation

VCC is a central concept of service-dominant logic (S-D logic) and is accomplished through resource integration (Vargo & Lusch, 2004, 2008; Vargo et al., 2008; Ostrom et al., 2015). The concept of VCC has been extensively studied in the service field. McColl-Kennedy et al. (2012) defined VCC as “benefit realised from integration of resources through activities and interactions with collaborators in the customer network”. For an organization, VCC refers to collaboration between the organization and customer. Both parties are identified as resource integrators, implying that each party benefits from the service of the other through the integration of resources. Activities are defined as the interactions between individuals as they work with others in their network to integrate resources.

Galvagno and Dalli (2014) identified three different theoretical perspectives of VCC, service science, innovation and technology management, and marketing and consumer research, and six common themes: co-creating value through customer experience and competence, S-D logic, service innovation, the development of service science, online and digital customer involvement, as well as individual consumers and communities collaborating with organizations. VCC has emerged as a multidisciplinary field, receiving attention from both academics and practitioners, as evidenced by the number of VCC studies in many areas: service ecosystems (Beirão et al., 2016), library and information service (Braun et al., 2015; Rahman et al., 2017), healthcare (McColl-Kennedy et al., 2012), service marketing (Plé, 2016), stakeholder management (Jonas & Roth, 2017; Merrilees et al., 2017; Nardelli & Broumels, 2017), social commerce (Yu et al., 2018), social innovation (Polese et al., 2018), service innovation (Fu et al., 2017), leadership (Nie et al., 2013), and strategic partnerships (Dibley & Clark, 2011).

The VCC process involves three elements: service provider, receiver/user, and resources. The provider arranges resources and proposes value through its skills, knowledge, and expertise, thereby facilitating VCC through the integration and application of resources and the invitation to the receiver/user to engage in VCC activities. Stakeholder involvement and interaction are important in the VCC process as they enhance user value (Rahman et al., 2017). Stakeholder interaction with the service provider resources co-creates value by utilizing their competences. Stakeholder VCC for organizational innovative technology creation requires further study.

2.2. Roadmap and Roadmapping

A roadmap is a graphical representation of objects, such as markets, technologies, products, or resources, and their linkages over time (Cuhls et al., 2015); it is a metaphor for a graphic representation of routes or connections that show different developments over time and into the future (Linnenluecke et al., 2017).

A roadmap facilitates mutual understanding and visualizes complex operational strategies among stakeholders and works as a strategic management tool for an organization to integrate technology into business strategy and requirements (Vatananan & Gerdsri, 2012; Li et al., 2016; Gerdsri, 2013; Gerdsri et al., 2013).

Roadmapping is a human-centric strategic management technique that provides the opportunity to participate and engage with another person or group aimed toward co-created solutions (Kerr et al., 2013). It is also a collaborative approach to transforming organizational change (Linnenluecke et al., 2017) and managing R&D planning as well as identifying the future of technological progress at government agencies and organizations (Yonghee et al., 2016). In the context of supporting organizational activities, roadmapping acts as a focal point and promotes an organizational perspective.

Roadmapping also enables different stakeholder groups to reach a consensus on how to appropriately move a creative idea and vision forward (Kerr et al., 2017). Roadmapping facilitates mutual understanding and visualizes complex operational strategies among stakeholders, working as a strategic management tool for organizations to integrate technology into business strategy (Vatananan & Gerdsri, 2012; Li et al., 2016; Gerdsri, 2013) and changing business requirements (Gerdsri et al., 2013). The roadmapping process focuses on the sharing of perspectives among participants, leading to improved communication, new insights, creativity, learning, knowledge, and innovation (Phaal et al., 2005; Yoon et al., 2017).

The development of roadmaps is typically an iterative process involving periodic review and improvement based on human interaction through meetings and workshops. There are four stages in the roadmapping process: initiation and planning, input and analysis, roadmap synthesis and output, and roadmap implementation (Ilevbare et al., 2014; Gerdsri et al., 2009). The input and analysis stage is conducted in workshops for the purpose of capturing, sharing, and creating knowledge from multiple stakeholders. The roadmapping process can be customized to suit the particular application in terms of both architecture and process (Phaal et al., 2003) and requires collaborative planning for economically initiating organizational planning.

Typically, the roadmapping process is workshop-based, whereby the key stakeholders and domain experts are brought together in order to capture, share, and structure knowledge (Kerr et al., 2012). Contributions from individuals and teams are necessary to ensure the successful implementation of a project or process in an organization. Key stakeholders involved in roadmapping implementation come from different levels in their organization, have different areas of expertise, and come from both within and without the organization. Gerdsri et al. (2009) identified the important and influential players: idea champions, champion team, roadmapping operation team, support team, and in-house facilitator or external roadmapping consultation team.

2.3. Collaboration Platform

Not only does VCC refer to collaboration between an organization and a customer, but it also refers to collaboration between organizations and stakeholders, which are identified as resource and knowledge integrators. A common collaboration platform for integrating resources is required. A people–technology hybrid model can act as a key source for promoting organizational innovation and creativity by supporting technology (information technology and social media) and people (Kandampully et al., 2016).

Romero and Molina (2011) defined strategic networks, such as collaborative network organizations and virtual communities, as high-potential drivers. Mačiulienė and Skaržauskienė (2016) identified a networked collaboration platform as a source for improving and stimulating internal and external co-creation opportunities. A collaborative platform can be either a physical (face-to-face) or virtual (electronic) platform.

Lee et al. (2012) suggested that the use of social networking and web-based forms of collaboration would serve and enhance roadmap credibility. Information and communication technology (ICT)-based tools will be driving forces in the future development of foresight support systems (Keller & von der Gracht, 2014), and ICT-based roadmapping will enhance coordination, thereby increasing the productivity of planning activities (Rohrbeck et al., 2015). Raford (2015) suggested that the study of encouraging interactive socialization in face-to-face, online settings in the form of blended workshops or online engagement should be conducted. Additionally, Phaal (2018) suggested that research and development linked to work on application software and digital technologies should continue, which would support roadmapping and help balance the blend of human and digital work.

As shown in the previous studies mentioned above, the VCC process in roadmapping can be implemented using a collaboration platform, e.g., online communities and social networks. Electronic (e)-collaboration (Munkvold, 2018; Choi & Ko, 2012) with IT-enabled collaboration can promote innovative co-creation by using seamless collaboration and communication through online real-time tools, mobile applications, devices, and environments in the organizational innovation process (Wong et al., 2016; Boling et al., 2014). Therefore, e-collaboration and IT tools can be used to implement a collaborative platform for planning organizational innovative technology.

3. Methods

3.1. Research Design and Context

We adopt an interpretivist qualitative single-case study design to examine how a multi-stakeholder roadmapping process supports planning innovative technologies for assisted living/aging society solutions in a public R&D environment. The study combines structured workshops with e-collaboration to reduce time-and-place constraints and to maintain continuity of artefacts and decisions between sessions. The purpose is analytic rather than statistical generalization: to explicate how a value co-creation (VCC)-oriented roadmapping process mobilizes diverse stakeholders and generates a traceable set of roadmap elements across layers (market/policy, service, product, technology, and research).

Although the work is intervention-based and practice-engaged, we report it as an interpretivist qualitative single-case study (facilitated roadmapping field study) aimed at analytic generalization, rather than positioning it as full action research. The study does not follow repeated plan–act–observe–reflect cycles with formalized evaluation across multiple iterations; instead, it explicates mechanisms of stakeholder value co-creation evidenced in a traceable artefact trail, facilitator recap notes, and documented revisions across workshops.

The unit of analysis is the end-to-end roadmapping process (W1–W7), including how shared artefacts and decisions evolved across workshops and were consolidated into an integrated roadmap. The case was selected because assisted living/aging society innovation planning requires coordination among heterogeneous actors spanning policy, service delivery, product development, enabling technologies, and research investment, making it suitable for observing stakeholder value co-creation in a real-world setting.

The author team acted as facilitators and participant–observers. We designed the workshop protocol, guided discussions using structured templates, and documented decisions and revisions in shared artefacts. To enhance transparency and mitigate potential facilitator bias, we maintained reflexive notes during data collection and interpretation and report boundary conditions relevant to transferability.

3.2. Participants and Recruitment

Thirty-six stakeholders were purposively invited to ensure cross-sector representation across seven groups: (1) advisory panel, (2) government agencies related to elderly affairs, (3) public R&D organizations, (4) academics, (5) technology service providers, (6) healthcare providers, and (7) user representatives (older adults, family members, and caregivers). Invitations described objectives, expected contributions, time commitments, and data use. All participants provided informed consent for participation and for the use of anonymized materials for research purposes. Participation was voluntary with the right to withdraw at any time. No personal identifiers are reported in the findings.

This stakeholder set intentionally combined decision-making, technical, delivery, and user perspectives to surface needs, constraints, implementation considerations, and acceptable trade-offs during roadmap development. Sample adequacy was assessed in relation to the study purpose (interpretive explanation and traceability). Coverage across key stakeholder groups and repeated engagement across sessions enabled recurring co-creation patterns to be examined through the artefact trail rather than relying on statistical representativeness. To mitigate potential power imbalances, facilitation emphasized balanced participation (e.g., structured turn-taking, prompt-based elicitation, documenting disagreements alongside agreements, and explicitly inviting user- and provider-side viewpoints before finalizing priorities).

Sampling strategy and inclusion criteria. We used purposive sampling to maximize heterogeneity across the roadmapping ecosystem (e.g., policy/industry/technology/service roles). Stakeholders were invited if they (1) had decision authority, domain expertise, or operational responsibility relevant to the roadmap layers; (2) could contribute resources/constraints/needs from their organizational perspective; and (3) committed to participate in workshops and/or asynchronous reviews. To protect confidentiality and because some partner organizations request anonymity, we report stakeholder roles by group rather than detailed organizational profiles.

3.3. Workshop Protocol (W1–W7)

We executed seven structured workshops (W1–W7), each lasting approximately two hours. Workshops W1–W5 were conducted online (Zoom and/or Skype), while W6–W7 were held face-to-face to support resource/partner alignment and final integration. Google Docs/Sheets were used for shared working artefacts, and outputs were consolidated and visualized in SharpCloud Version 11 to support integration and traceability.

Each session followed a standardized agenda (briefing → structured elicitation → prioritization/linking → recap and actions), with timeboxing to maintain focus and comparability across workshops.

Between-workshop workflow. After each workshop, the facilitation team consolidated the artefacts in shared documents and circulated a short recap to participants for asynchronous validation (member checking) and refinement. Revisions were tracked through document version histories and dated updates, enabling traceability from early drivers and assumptions to later roadmap elements.

• W1 Market/Policy.
  Inputs: Environmental scanning notes and policy materials.
  Activities and tools: Driver brainstorming, clustering, card-sorting and voting to produce a weighted driver list with short rationales.
  Outputs: Ranked market/policy drivers and assumptions to be validated.
• W2 Value Proposition.
  Inputs: W1 drivers.
  Activities and tools: Value web mapping and desirability/feasibility/viability checks in shared spreadsheets.
  Outputs: Co-created value matrix linking stakeholder needs/offers to drivers.
• W3 Service.
  Inputs: Value matrix.
  Activities and tools: Service ideation and a service × driver linking grid with impact–uncertainty ratings.
  Outputs: Shortlisted service concepts with impact ranks and dependency notes.
• W4 Product.
  Inputs: Service shortlist.
  Activities and tools: Feature extraction and a product × service linking grid to translate services into product features/sets.
  Outputs: Product feature sets and inter-feature dependencies.
• W5 Technology.
  Inputs: Product feature sets.
  Activities and tools: Capability mapping and a technology × product grid with maturity/TRL annotations.
  Outputs: Required technology capabilities, maturity gaps, and preliminary TRL targets.
• W6 Research and Partners.
  Inputs: Capability gaps and partnership needs.
  Activities and tools: Resource/skills/partner canvas; scan for coopetition opportunities (complementary rivals).
  Outputs: Research themes, competencies, potential partners/consortia, and boundary conditions for collaboration. Decisions and rationales from this face-to-face session were captured in shared Google Docs/Sheets and summarized by facilitators, then consolidated in SharpCloud to maintain traceability to earlier workshop outputs.
• W7 Charting and Integration.
  Inputs: Artefacts from W1–W6.
  Activities and tools: Milestone layering, inter-layer linking, and capture of risks/assumptions.
  Outputs: An initial multi-layer roadmap (market/policy → service → product → technology → research) and a prioritized action list (owners/tentative timelines), with wrap-up/appraisal confirmations and outstanding items for follow-up.

The protocol is grounded in a layered roadmapping logic. Early workshops elicit and align on contextual drivers and stakeholder value; mid-stage workshops translate articulated value into service, product, and technology options; and later workshops integrate resources, partnerships, and commitments into a consolidated roadmap. This staged design enables us to observe value co-creation as it unfolds over time and supports iterative refinement and validation of intermediate artefacts, rather than relying on a single, one-off workshop—thereby providing a clear methodological rationale for the W1–W7 structure.

The workshop procedures and session outputs are summarized in

Table 1. Workshop topics, activities, collaboration tools, and outputs.

Workshop Topics	Activities	Collaboration Tools	Instrument/ Template Used	Data Captured	Outputs
W1: Market/policy	Identify and prioritize market segments Prioritize market and business drivers Focus on the most important market segments and competitors Consider competitors’ strengths and weaknesses Consider strategic implications for business, products, and technologies	Web conference Facebook group Line (SNS) Google Docs/Sheets	Driver shortlist + card-sorting/voting sheet; driver weighting rubric (0–10)	Ranked driver list; voting/weights; rationale notes; assumptions log	Business strategy Market drivers
W2: Value proposition	Segment possible stakeholders Create empathy map Formulate value propositions	Web conference Facebook group Line (SNS) Google Sheets	Stakeholder value matrix template; value web prompt	Matrix entries (needs/offers); consolidated web; revision notes	Value propositions
W3: Service	Brainstorm service feature concepts Group concepts Ranking the groups on basis of potential impact	Facebook group Line (SNS) Google Docs/Sheets	Service × driver linking grid; impact–uncertainty rating guide	Grid scores; shortlist; dependency notes	Service strategy Service solutions Service attributes
W4: Product	Brainstorm product feature concepts Group concepts Ranking the groups on basis of potential impact	Facebook group Line (SNS) Google Docs/Sheets	Product × service linking grid; feature extraction prompt	Feature sets; grid scores; inter-feature dependencies	Product strategy Product features Attribute of products
W5: Technology	Brainstorm possible technology solutions Group solutions into technology areas/routes	Google Docs	Technology × product grid; TRL/maturity annotation guide	Capability list; TRL gaps; preliminary targets	Technology trends Technology features
W6: Research	Identify key resources (skills, competencies, alliances, knowledge, and capital investment)	Face-to-face workshop + Google Docs/Sheets (shared canvas & notes)	Resource/skills/partner canvas, collaboration boundary checklist	Candidate partners; required resources; boundary conditions; decision rationales; tentative owners/next steps	Key R&D areas Target partners for open innovation/collaboration
W7: Charting	Define the focus and format of the route map Chart market milestones Chart evolution of product features Chart preferred technology solutions Chart other resources Draw linkage between levels	Face-to-face workshop SharpCloud	Layered roadmap charting template; milestone & dependency checklist; risk/assumption log; wrap-up appraisal prompt	Integrated roadmap; action list (owners/timeline); wrap-up confirmations; outstanding items	Integrated multi-layer roadmap (first draft) + action list (owners/timeline) + outstanding items log

, while Section 5.2 provides a concise narrative of how the procedure unfolded across initiation–development–integration in the example application.

3.4. Data Sources and Instruments

(1)

Data sources

Data were collected throughout W1–W7 from multiple sources to capture both the content of roadmapping outputs and the interaction context in which value co-creation occurred.

The primary dataset comprised the following:

• Workshop artefacts and working files produced and iteratively revised during the seven workshops (e.g., canvases, matrices, prioritization lists, and roadmap drafts created in shared workspaces).
• Facilitator/researcher notes documenting key decisions, assumptions, disagreements, and follow-up actions.
• Platform-based process records that supported continuity between sessions, including online meeting records and follow-up clarification messages exchanged through communication and collaboration channels (e.g., Zoom/Skype, LINE/Slack, and a closed Facebook group).
• The consolidated roadmap model maintained in SharpCloud, which served as the integrative repository for multi-layer roadmap elements and versioned updates.
• Wrap-up/appraisal note from W7 (including confirmations, action items, and outstanding issues).

The corpus is organized by workshop stage and artefact type, and all substantive edits to shared artefacts were retained via platform version histories. The wrap-up/appraisal note from W7 was retained as part of the primary dataset and used in the analysis to confirm key decisions, action items, and unresolved issues.

(2)

Instruments and templates (see Table 1)

To ensure consistent elicitation and documentation across workshops, we used a set of structured templates and facilitation prompts adapted from established roadmapping practice and tailored to the study context. These instruments guided participants to articulate drivers and needs, define stakeholder value, explore service–product–technology options, identify resources and partners, and integrate intermediate outputs into a consolidated roadmap. Table 1 summarizes the key instruments, their intended roles in the process, and the type of data captured, supporting replicability in comparable organizational settings.

Core structures (e.g., layered roadmap architecture and linking grids) were adapted from established roadmapping practice, while context-specific prompts (e.g., assisted living stakeholder value prompts and partner/resource canvases) were developed for this case.

(3)

Traceability, inclusion/exclusion, and anonymization

To support an auditable chain of evidence, workshop outputs were captured contemporaneously in shared documents/spreadsheets and subsequently consolidated into SharpCloud with version histories and links back to their originating artefacts where applicable. Inclusion criteria covered artefacts and records that materially informed roadmap content (e.g., additions/edits to roadmap elements, prioritization decisions, assumptions, risks, ownership, and implementation constraints). Exclusion criteria removed purely administrative or logistical communications that did not affect content decisions. For reporting, all excerpts and examples were de-identified and anonymized to protect participants and partner organizations.

We did not rely on verbatim workshop transcripts. Instead, the analysis was grounded in the evolving artefact trail (versioned documents/spreadsheets, facilitator notes, and roadmap revisions), which captured decisions, rationales, and changes across W1–W7. Therefore, coding relied on artefact revisions, facilitator notes and discussion summaries. Discrepancies in coding and interpretation were resolved through discussion within the author team and, when needed, by returning to the facilitation recap notes and artefact revision history to confirm interpretive fidelity.

3.5. Data Analysis

We conducted a three-stage thematic analysis. Firstly, two researchers from the author team independently open-coded workshop artefacts and fieldnotes to identify stakeholder activities contributing to roadmap content. Secondly, codes were axially grouped into three temporal themes—co-initiating, co-acting, and co-evolving. Thirdly, selective coding yielded nine activity categories (hereafter, the “9C” activities):

(1)

Contract commitment—Agreeing on scope, roles, and decision rules to initiate joint work.

(2)

Collation—Pooling and organizing dispersed information and evidence.

(3)

Combination—Recombining resources to generate new options or configurations.

(4)

Co-learning—Updating shared understanding through reciprocal sense-making.

(5)

Co-production—Jointly producing artefacts (e.g., linking grids, canvases) that encode decisions.

(6)

Cooperation—Aligning tasks and hand-offs to progress work across layers.

(7)

Coopetition—Leveraging complementary rivals for capability or market access under clear boundaries.

(8)

Connection—Bridging organizational and digital boundaries via sustained human–digital interaction.

(9)

Collaboration change—Adapting governance, cadence, and artefacts as the process evolves.

We then undertook two mappings: a theory mapping from the 9C activities to service-dominant (S-D) logic/value co-creation and stakeholder integration/coopetition constructs, and a trace mapping from activities to the five roadmap layers.

The coding unit was a meaningful activity segment evidenced in (a) fieldnote excerpts, (b) discussion summaries, and/or (c) changes in artefacts (e.g., edits in a linking grid). Discrepancies were resolved through discussion and, when needed, consultation with the facilitation log to preserve interpretive fidelity. The finalized codebook was then applied to the full dataset, and coding memos were maintained to document analytic decisions.

We enhanced credibility through (i) triangulation across artefacts, fieldnotes, and asynchronous revisions; (ii) member checking by circulating interim summaries after each workshop and confirming contentious interpretations; (iii) an audit trail comprising versioned artefacts and coding memos; and (iv) peer debriefing within the research team.

4. Value Co-Creation Roadmapping with Stakeholders for Creating Innovative Technologies

4.1. Concept

A stakeholder VCC roadmapping approach aims to capture and meet the requirements and to provide innovative ideas in a participant-centric approach. This means facing problems and identifying opportunities to provide understanding, service strategies, product features, and solutions to build better futures. We incorporated the VCC concept and a collaboration platform into the roadmapping process, thereby enabling the effective planning of innovative technologies.

A process combining stakeholder co-creation activities with copoiesis (Bouncken et al., 2016) as mutual knowledge creation among stakeholders in roadmapping process is applied. Kazadi et al. (2016) and Romero and Molina (2011) defined stakeholder co-creation as collaborative activities involving multiple external stakeholders contributing to an organizational innovation process. For practical customer value co-creation in S-D logic, McColl-Kennedy et al. (2012) proposed customer value co-creation activities, while Botti et al. (2018) and Tommasetti et al. (2017) proposed the framework of value co-creation measurement. Copoiesis facilitates the use and exchange of knowledge and its knowledge combination among organizations in ways that encourage innovation (Bouncken et al., 2016).

The collaboration between stakeholders that creates mutual benefits under the principles of VCC (Sukholthaman & Shirahada, 2016) can be applied to the roadmapping process. VCC and resource integration among stakeholders promotes the planning of innovative technologies, products, and services. Roadmapping requires the sharing of perspectives, knowledge, and expertise among stakeholders, leading to new creativity and knowledge (Phaal et al., 2005). Alegre et al. (2013) defined roadmapping as a knowledge creation process for strategy and innovation that can serve as a method of knowledge management supporting scientific research, technology development, and creativity support (Ma et al., 2006, 2007; Yan et al., 2005). Lastly, ICT, internet, software and social media tools can be alternative supported tools to enable roadmapping in the organization and need to be integrated with participant aspects of roadmapping.

4.2. Implementation

Roadmapping is a human- or participant-centric strategic management technique that provides the opportunity to engage with another person or group (Kerr et al., 2013) aimed toward co-created planning. Typically, the roadmapping process is workshop-based, whereby the participants are gathering in order to capture, share, and structure knowledge (Kerr et al., 2012).

To implement stakeholder VCC roadmapping, we propose conducting seven workshops. The workshops are based on the T-plan “fast-start” technology roadmapping approach (Phaal et al., 2001). They begin by bringing together stakeholders to form a cross-functional team to develop an initial roadmap that aligns with a five-layer (market/policy, service, product, technology, and research) roadmap structure implemented in the seven workshops. Each workshop has a specific purpose:

(1)

Discuss market/policy: External markets, social drivers, and internal business strategy drivers are identified, categorized, and prioritized for key market segments. The business strategy is reviewed.

(2)

Discuss value proposition: Value proposition among the stakeholders is defined, including the value proposition offered to the customer and the value the customer expects to receive.

(3)

Discuss service: Service solution concepts are defined. Potential service solutions, functions, and attributes are identified and prioritized with respect to how strongly they address the drivers.

(4)

Discuss product: Product concepts are defined. Potential product features, functions, and attributes are identified and prioritized concerning how strongly they address the services.

(5)

Discuss technology: Technology capabilities are identified. Potential technological solutions for developing product features are identified and prioritized.

(6)

Discuss research: Knowledge sources and strategic partners are identified. Necessary R&D, knowledge sources, and potential partners for R&D coopetition—R&D activities can be carried out in cooperation with a competitor (Bengtsson & Kock, 2000; Gnyawali & Park, 2011) and collaborations are identified.

(7)

Charting: Linkages among milestones, services, products, technologies, and partners are drawn. Initial roadmap linking markets, services, products, technologies, and resources is developed based on outputs from the previous six workshops. A decision is made, and actions are agreed upon.

5. Example Application: Stakeholder VCC Roadmapping for Creating Innovative Technologies in the Technology-Oriented Organization

The epistemological foundation of the example application discussed here is based on the interpretive paradigm. The example application is particularly suitable for interpretivist research. To answer our research question (How do stakeholders co-create value in planning innovative technologies through a roadmapping process?), we observed the practices and operations in our example application (Yu et al., 2018; Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007) and generated useful findings to support our proposed roadmapping approach.

5.1. Research Target

The government of Thailand is promoting “Thailand 4.0” as a new economic model aimed at pulling Thailand out of the middle-income trap and pushing the country toward the high-income range. Science, technology, research, and innovation are essential tools for driving the economy and improving life for Thais in the 4.0 era. Therefore, the government expects research and development centers to focus on national problems and challenges, responding to business, industry, and citizen needs by innovating for the future. A model of collaboration and co-creation among multiple stakeholders for implementing flexible network platforms is needed in Thailand to obtain stakeholders’ knowledge and increase stakeholder involvement.

Roadmapping has been implemented in Thailand as a strategic management planning tool for constructing roadmaps at the industry, government, and R&D organization levels. We applied a stakeholder VCC roadmapping approach through an example application at a Thai technology-oriented organization in the context of technological innovation for improving well-being for the elderly.

This reflects the strong need to create innovative solutions for the elderly in line with Thailand’s increasingly aging society. We collaborated with the Institute of Technology for persons with Disabilities and Elderly Persons (ITDE), a research unit in a government R&D institute in Thailand. The ITDE’s objectives are to promote R&D for the disabled and the elderly toward commercialization of value-added products, promotions, and support for new industries and services for Thailand’s aging society. The ITDE was tasked with formulating a strategic research agenda roadmap entitled ‘Future services of assisted living technology for the elderly’. The objective of this roadmap was to represent the organization’s R&D capabilities for partners, technologies, products, and services. Each of these factors should respond to market needs, social drivers, and the elderly while linking to open collaboration among stakeholders.

5.2. Procedure

Data collection followed the end-to-end roadmapping process (W1–W7) and combined four complementary sources: (i) preparatory documentary inputs (institutional R&D plans and relevant public internet sources), (ii) facilitated multi-stakeholder roadmapping workshops delivered in mixed modes (online and face-to-face), (iii) a face-to-face wrap-up and appraisal workshop to validate interpretations and consolidate the integrated roadmap, and (iv) informal follow-up via email and phone calls to clarify and finalize minor unresolved items. The detailed workshop protocol, participant roles, instruments/templates, and traceability procedures are reported in Section 3.2, Section 3.3 and Section 3.4; this section summarizes how the procedure unfolded across the three stages (initiation, development, and integration) in the example application.

5.2.1. Initiation

The initiation stage assembled a cross-sector stakeholder team (N = 36) and established shared aims, boundaries, and working principles for the roadmapping process. Participants represented advisory panels, government agencies, R&D organizations, academia, technology and service providers, healthcare providers, and recipient groups (elderly/family/informal caregivers). Prior to the first workshop, we communicated the study objectives, expected outputs, confidentiality considerations, and participation procedures. Initial alignment was assessed through stakeholders’ agreement to proceed with the shared roadmap scope and the use of common templates and collaboration tools for subsequent sessions (see Section 3.2, Section 3.3 and Section 3.4).

5.2.2. Development

The development stage operationalized value co-creation through a structured sequence of workshops (W1–W6) to translate diverse stakeholder knowledge into traceable roadmap elements across layers (market/policy → service → product → technology → research/partners → integrated chart). Workshops 1–5 were conducted online, while workshops 6–7 were conducted face-to-face due to the need for final consolidation and partner/resource alignment. The procedures, collaboration tools, and key outputs for each workshop are summarized in Table 1. We treated “successful completion” of this stage operationally as (i) production of coherent and internally consistent artefacts across layers (e.g., completed and cross-checked linking grids and consolidated roadmap elements), and (ii) documented resolution of major disagreements through facilitated discussion and artefact revision logs (see Section 3.4 on traceability and audit trail).

5.2.3. Integration: Idea Convergence and Charting

In the integration stage, stakeholders jointly reviewed and consolidated the draft roadmap and agreed on milestones, inter-layer dependencies, and follow-up responsibilities. The integrated multi-layer roadmap was structured and visualized in SharpCloud to preserve cross-layer traceability (from workshop artefacts and linking grids to roadmap elements). We operationalized successful integration as (i) stakeholder validation of the consolidated roadmap during the wrap-up/appraisal segment, (ii) assignment of owners and action items for unresolved issues, and (iii) agreement that the roadmap would be used as an input to ongoing planning and periodic review.

5.2.4. Evaluation and Follow-Up

In W7 (Charting and Integration), we included a wrap-up and appraisal segment to evaluate both the roadmap content and the process quality. Evaluation focused on (i) completeness and internal consistency across layers (market/policy–service–product–technology–research), (ii) plausibility of milestones and dependencies, and (iii) clarity of roles and next-step actions. To support credibility, we conducted member checking through facilitated recap summaries and confirmation of key decisions during the wrap-up/appraisal segment. Minor clarifications and outstanding items were subsequently resolved through informal follow-up via email and phone calls; all changes were recorded in the shared artefacts and versioned files to maintain an auditable trail.

Due to scheduling constraints, the face-to-face wrap-up/appraisal segment was attended by seven representatives (covering the main stakeholder groups). A recap of confirmed decisions, action items, and outstanding issues was then circulated to the wider participant group for asynchronous confirmation, and any clarifications were incorporated into the versioned artefacts.

6. Results

We report the results in two parts. Firstly, we summarize the traceable workshop outputs in the order they were produced (W1–W7) and link each output to the corresponding roadmap layer, providing an auditable chain from early framing to the integrated roadmap (Section 6.1). Secondly, drawing on the artefact trail (versioned documents/spreadsheets, linking grids, and SharpCloud updates), facilitator notes, and wrap-up/appraisal records, we synthesize recurring patterns of stakeholder value co-creation observed during roadmapping and organize them into three themes and nine activities (

Table 2. Examples of stakeholder value co-creation activities.

Theme	Activity	Artefact Evidence	Recap-Note Excerpt	Example Output/W#
Co-initiation	Contract Commitment	▪ W1 kick-off notes/shared protocol sheet: agreed scope (assisted living focus), workshop cadence (W1–W7), decision rule (vote + rationale), roles (facilitator/contributors), and confidentiality boundary.	▪ (W1): “We confirmed the roadmap scope, participation expectations, and decision rule (vote + rationale). All parties agreed to use shared templates and versioned documents for traceability across workshops.”	▪ Scope & governance statement + workshop schedule + agreed working rules (W1; referenced again when resolving disagreements in W3–W5).
	2. Information Collation	▪ W1 driver list + source annotations; policy/market scanning notes consolidated into ranked drivers; assumptions log carried forward to W2–W3.	▪ (W1/W2): “Participants contributed policy/market evidence and constraints; the facilitator consolidated them into a ranked driver list and documented key assumptions to be used as baseline constraints in subsequent grids.”	▪ Ranked market/policy drivers + assumptions baseline (W1 → used in W2–W3).
	3. Activity Combination	▪ W2 value matrix + linked references to W1 drivers: consolidated stakeholder needs/offers into a single matrix anchored to the ranked driver list; the matrix was then used as the shared screening baseline for W3 service ideation (traceable via sheet links/version history).	▪ (W2): “We combined driver priorities with stakeholder needs/offers in one value matrix, so that the same references can be used to screen service concepts in the next workshop without losing context.”	▪ Value matrix bridging drivers → service ideation (W2 → W3).
Co-acting	4. Co-learning	▪ W3 service × driver grid: definitions of “impact–uncertainty” revised; ratings updated accordingly (visible in version history/change log).	▪ (W3): “After discussion, we refined the shared meaning of impact–uncertainty and updated several ratings to reflect the agreed criteria; changes were recorded in the linking grid history.”	▪ Revised criteria + updated rankings reflecting shared understanding (W3; echoed in W4–W5).
	5. Co-production	▪ W4 product × service grid + W5 technology × product grid jointly edited; dependency notes and rationale comments added; later consolidated into SharpCloud links.	▪ (W4/W5): “Stakeholders jointly created cross-layer links (service → product → technology) and recorded dependencies and rationales in shared grids; the consolidated elements were then transferred into SharpCloud with trace links.”	▪ Cross-layer linking grids + documented dependencies (W4–W5 → consolidated for W7).
	6. Cooperation	▪ W3–W5 action notes: agreed hand-offs (who refines which items), then verified next workshop by updated artefacts; convergence visible in shortlist narrowing.	▪ (W3–W5): “We assigned owners for refining specific items between sessions and confirmed updates in the subsequent workshop using the revised artefacts as shared reference points.”	▪ Task hand-offs + validated refinements across sessions (W3–W5; confirmed again in W7).
	7. Coopetition	▪ W6 resource/partner canvas + boundary condition checklist: documented feasible partner roles (including complementary rivals) and explicit “can/cannot share” boundaries; mapped into research themes and partner roles in the integrated draft.	▪ (W6): “Participants discussed potential partner roles including complementary rivals; we documented boundary conditions for collaboration (what data/knowledge can be shared) and translated them into feasible partner options supporting research themes.”	▪ Partner options + boundary conditions + research theme alignment (W6).
	8. Connection	▪ Between-session recap threads + versioned edits (W1–W7): clarification questions logged between workshops were resolved through documented edits in shared artefacts (dated updates + version history), preserving continuity across sessions.	▪ (between W#): “Questions and clarifications raised between sessions were incorporated into the shared documents; dated updates and version histories preserved continuity and reduced rework at the start of each workshop.”	▪ Asynchronous refinements + traceable revision trail (W1–W7).
Co-evolving	9. Collaboration Change	▪ W7 SharpCloud roadmap: integrated milestones + cross-layer dependencies; owners/next actions; wrap-up/appraisal confirmations & outstanding items captured as W7 wrap-up/appraisal note (data corpus).	▪ (W7 wrap-up/appraisal): “We validated the consolidated roadmap, agreed on milestone dependencies, assigned owners for follow-up actions, and recorded outstanding issues for resolution via email/phone—captured as part of the wrap-up/appraisal note.”	▪ Integrated multi-layer roadmap + action list + outstanding items log (W7; follow-up closure in Section 5.2.4).

), mapped across stages in Figure 1 and crosswalked to workshops and roadmap layers in

Table 3. Crosswalk of the 9C activities to theory, workshops, and roadmap layers.

9C Activity	Theory Linkage (S-D Logic/VCC/Stakeholder-Integration/Coopetition)	Primary Workshop(s)	Products/Informs	Roadmap Layer(s)
Contract Commitment	Shared purpose, role clarity, decision rules enabling resource integration	W1, W7	Scope, governance, cadence	All layers
2. Information Collation	Resource integration via information pooling and evidence consolidation	W1–W3	Ranked drivers, evidence base	Market/policy
3. Activity Combination	Re-bundling resources to generate options/configurations	W3–W4	Service, product link sets	Service, product
4. Co-learning	Reciprocal sense-making and knowledge updating	W2–W6	Revised assumptions/ratings	All layers
5. Co-production	Joint artefact creation encoding decisions (grids/canvases)	W3–W5	Linking grids, feature sets	Service, product, tech
6. Cooperation	Task alignment and hand-offs across actors	W3–W7	Validated cross-links	All layers
7. Coopetition	Complementary rivalry for capability/market access under clear boundaries	W6	Partner/consortium options	Research/partners
8. Connection	Human–digital boundary spanning via persistent collaboration channels	W1–W7	Traceable records, continuity	All layers
9. Collaboration Change	Adaptive governance and refresh cycles	W7	Action list, refresh plan	Integration timeline

(Section 6.2 and Section 6.3).

6.1. Traceable Workshop Outputs Across Roadmap Layers (W1–W7)

The seven workshops produced a sequence of intermediate artefacts that were iteratively refined and consolidated into a multi-layer roadmap.

• W1 (Market/policy layer): Ranked drivers and shared assumptions.
  Stakeholders identified and prioritized market/policy drivers relevant to assisted living/aging society innovation. The output consisted of a ranked driver list with brief rationales and assumptions, which served as the baseline reference for later cross-layer linking.
• W2 (Value layer feeding service): Co-created value matrix.
  Stakeholders co-developed a value matrix that linked key stakeholder needs, expected benefits, and constraints to the prioritized drivers. This artefact clarified “what value means” across heterogeneous actors and informed the subsequent service concept ideation and screening.
• W3 (Service layer): Service concepts and impact–uncertainty ratings.
  Candidate service concepts were generated, refined, and rated using a service × driver grid. The resulting ratings and discussion notes provided traceability for why specific services were prioritized under high-impact and/or high-uncertainty drivers.
• W4 (Product layer): Product feature sets via service–product links.
  Stakeholders translated prioritized services into product feature sets and dependencies, documented through product × service links. This created a traceable rationale for which product features were considered necessary (or optional) to deliver the selected services.
• W5 (Technology layer): Technology capabilities, dependencies, and TRL gaps.
  Technology options were linked to product features using technology × product links, and gaps were documented in terms of capability readiness and TRL constraints. This artefact clarified feasibility conditions and highlighted where additional R&D or external collaboration would be required.
• W6 (Research/partner layer): Research themes and partner options.
  Stakeholders consolidated technology gaps into research themes, discussed resourcing implications, and identified potential partner roles (e.g., knowledge holders, implementation partners, complementary technology providers). Output was captured in shared canvases and reflected in the emerging roadmap structure.
• W7 (Integration): Integrated multi-layer roadmap with milestones and cross-layer dependencies.
  Outputs from W1–W6 were integrated into a consolidated multi-layer roadmap (maintained in SharpCloud), including milestones, ownership considerations, and explicit cross-layer dependencies. This integration preserved traceability by linking roadmap elements back to earlier workshop artefacts and linking grids.

Together, these outputs provide a traceable chain of evidence showing how stakeholder inputs and negotiated decisions progressed from drivers (W1) to value framing (W2), to service–product–technology structuring (W3–W5), to research/partner alignment (W6), and finally to an integrated roadmap (W7).

Table 1 summarizes the workshop instruments and data captured per session, while the artefact links and version histories provide traceability from intermediate outputs (W1–W6) to the consolidated roadmap (W7).

6.2. Observed Stakeholder VCC Activities During Roadmapping (9 Activities Across 3 Themes)

Analysis of the artefact trail and process records indicates that stakeholders co-created value through recurring activities that clustered into three themes—co-initiating, co-acting, and co-evolving—and nine activities (Table 2). Figure 1 maps these themes and activities to the roadmapping stages (initiation, development, integration).

We treated each meaningful VCC activity segment as evidenced in (i) edits and annotations in the artefacts (e.g., linking grid revisions, dependency notes, prioritization changes), (ii) facilitator recap notes and decision logs, and (iii) wrap-up/appraisal confirmations and action items. Segments were coded and then grouped into the three temporal themes (co-initiating, co-acting, co-evolving). Table 2 provides illustrative evidence examples (artefact-based) for each activity with workshop references (W#), and Table 3 shows how each activity maps to theory, primary workshops, and roadmap layers.

• Co-initiating (establishing readiness and shared working conditions).

• Contract commitment: Stakeholders aligned on scope boundaries, decision rules, workshop cadence, and participation expectations. Evidence is reflected in stable process conventions that were reused across sessions and referenced when resolving disagreements.
• Information collation: Stakeholders brought in and consolidated relevant information (e.g., policy drivers, domain constraints, and contextual assumptions) that later shaped prioritization and feasibility judgments. These inputs were carried forward as annotated assumptions in the shared artefacts.
• Activity combination: Stakeholders combined complementary tasks (e.g., framing drivers while clarifying “value”, or linking services while documenting dependencies) to maintain momentum and reduce hand-off loss between stages.

• Co-acting (jointly producing and refining roadmap content).

4.

Co-learning: Stakeholders negotiated shared meanings (e.g., what counts as impact, feasibility, readiness, or value) and adjusted evaluations accordingly. This is evidenced by revisions to definitions/criteria and corresponding changes in ratings within linking grids.

5.

Co-production: Stakeholders jointly created and iteratively revised artefacts (value matrix, linking grids, roadmap elements) in shared documents and SharpCloud. Evidence includes versioned changes and documented rationales that connect edits to stage objectives.

6.

Cooperation: Stakeholders coordinated roles and contributions to move from ideas to structured options (services/products/technologies), reflected in converging selections and documented agreements on dependencies and ownership considerations.

7.

Coopetition: Stakeholders faced overlapping interests and potential tensions (e.g., alternative solution pathways or partner roles) and negotiated acceptable trade-offs. Evidence is reflected in recorded alternatives, boundary conditions for collaboration, and partner option discussions that influenced research themes and integration choices.

8.

Connection: Stakeholders maintained continuity between workshops through familiar communication and collaboration channels, enabling clarification, follow-up edits, and consolidation. Evidence is shown in asynchronous revisions and the incorporation of between-session clarifications into the artefact trail.

• Co-evolving (integrating outputs and embedding the roadmap in ongoing planning).

9.

Collaboration change (creative-to-planning integration): Stakeholders translated creative workshop outputs into an integrated, actionable roadmap, making inter-layer dependencies explicit and preparing the roadmap for continued review and updating. Evidence is reflected in the final integrated roadmap structure, milestones, and traceable links back to earlier artefacts.

6.3. Wrap-Up Workshop Findings (Implementation-Oriented Observations)

In the face-to-face wrap-up session with seven representative participants, additional implementation-oriented observations were consolidated around four areas:

(1)

Organization: The need for visible senior sponsorship and an enabling culture that legitimizes cross-unit collaboration.

(2)

Facilitator: The importance of active synthesis, cadence management, and psychological safety to support productive negotiation.

(3)

Participants: The need for a purposeful mix of roles and willingness to engage in iterative refinement (including basic digital readiness for e-collaboration).

(4)

Collaboration platforms and tools: The value of combining familiar, low-friction communication tools (for continuity) with a single integrative repository (for cross-layer traceability and version control).

These implementation-oriented observations complement the 9C activity patterns by clarifying organizational conditions and tool choices that enable (or constrain) VCC-oriented roadmapping, which we discuss as boundary conditions and implications in Section 7.

7. Discussion

This study asked the following: How do stakeholders co-create value in planning innovative technologies through a roadmapping process? Across a seven-workshop sequence (W1–W7), we show that stakeholder value co-creation is not a single “workshop outcome” but an artefact-mediated and stage-dependent practice: stakeholders integrate resources (knowledge, constraints, legitimacy, relationships, and tools) through recurring interaction patterns that are captured and stabilized in shared templates and linking grids. The resulting roadmap is therefore traceable not only as a final chart but as a chain of negotiated decisions and revisions across layers (market/policy, service, product, technology, research).

Our discussion is grounded in an auditable chain of evidence rather than post hoc theorizing. Specifically, we link (i) traceable artefact outputs across W1–W7 (Section 6.1), (ii) artefact-based and recap note evidence of recurring stakeholder activities (Table 2), and (iii) the crosswalk from activities to workshops and roadmap layers (Table 3). This enables analytic generalization by showing not only what the roadmap contained, but how stakeholders’ interactions and revisions produced those outputs over time.

Importantly, the 9C activity patterns were derived inductively from the artefact revision trail and recap notes prior to theory mapping; the S-D logic lens was then used to interpret and position these empirically observed patterns rather than to pre-specify them.

7.1. Answering the RQ: How Stakeholders Co-Create Value During Roadmapping

Our results indicate three intertwined mechanisms through which value co-creation is enacted during innovation roadmapping.

(1)

Structured sense-making through staged templates.

Stakeholders co-create value by progressively translating broad drivers into actionable options (services–products–technologies) through workshop-specific templates (e.g., ranked driver list, value matrix, and linking grids). These templates reduce ambiguity and make assumptions explicit, allowing heterogeneous actors to compare alternatives and converge on priorities without requiring full consensus on every premise.

(2)

Artefact-mediated negotiation that makes decisions durable and traceable.

Value co-creation occurs through iterative proposing, challenging, revising, and validating intermediate artefacts. The key “co-creation moments” are evidenced by changes in the artefact trail—revised ratings in linking grids, edits to definitions/criteria, documented dependencies, and the consolidation of alternatives into an integrated roadmap. In this way, knowledge is not only exchanged but also encoded into objects that can be revisited, audited, and reused.

(3)

Continuity via hybrid collaboration that sustains engagement between sessions.

Stakeholders co-create value by maintaining momentum across workshops through a hybrid arrangement: synchronous meetings (online and face-to-face) combined with asynchronous clarification and revision. Familiar communication channels support coordination and follow-up, while the integrative repository (SharpCloud) preserves cross-layer alignment and traceability. This continuity is critical for moving from creative ideation to planning commitments.

Together, these mechanisms explain how stakeholders co-create value: they jointly shape what is prioritized, why it is prioritized, and how it is operationalized across roadmap layers through an iterative cycle of sense-making and artefact refinement.

Across these mechanisms, the key empirical signal is artefact-mediated change: prioritization shifts, revised criteria, documented dependencies, and consolidation decisions that can be traced from W1 drivers to W7 integration (Section 6.1). Table 2 provides illustrative artefact evidence and recap note excerpts for each activity, while Table 3 shows how these activities cluster by workshop and roadmap layer—thereby making the value co-creation process observable and auditable.

We observed recurring divergences in (i) prioritizing high-impact but high-uncertainty drivers, and (ii) feasibility constraints and ownership across service–product–technology links. These divergences were handled through facilitated negotiation and captured as alternatives, dependency notes, and boundary conditions in the linking grids and W7 wrap-up/appraisal records, rather than being forced into superficial consensus.

While the identified activity patterns provide a detailed interpretation of how value co-creation unfolds within the roadmapping process, their significance becomes clearer when situated in relation to existing studies on technology roadmapping and value co-creation. The following subsection therefore positions these findings within the broader scholarly discourse to clarify their theoretical contribution.

7.2. Theoretical Implications: Operationalizing S-D Logic in Roadmapping

Previous technology roadmapping studies have primarily focused on roadmap structures, layers, and alignment mechanisms that link technology, market, and strategy. While these approaches have established roadmapping as a powerful strategic artefact, they often underemphasize the interactional processes through which roadmaps are collectively produced. The findings of this study extend this literature by highlighting roadmapping as a value co-creation process, where strategic direction emerges through recurring stakeholder interactions rather than solely through predefined roadmap architectures.

From a value co-creation perspective, much of the existing literature conceptualizes co-creation as an abstract principle of multi-actor interaction. In contrast, this study empirically demonstrates how value co-creation is enacted through specific, observable activities embedded within the roadmapping process. By operationalizing value co-creation through the 9C activity patterns, the study bridges conceptual discussions with practice-based insights, thereby extending the current understanding of how co-creation unfolds within strategic innovation tools.

Prior work often treats multi-stakeholder participation as an inherent feature of roadmapping yet provides limited empirical specification of how value co-creation is enacted across stages and stabilized into traceable roadmap elements. Likewise, S-D logic is frequently invoked conceptually in innovation planning, but operational accounts that connect resource integration mechanisms to concrete roadmapping outputs remain scarce. By identifying recurring, stage-dependent activity patterns (9C) and evidencing them through an auditable artefact trail (Table 2 and Table 3), this study specifies the micro-foundations through which S-D logic becomes actionable in roadmapping practice.

This study advances the roadmapping and service-dominant logic (S-D logic) literature in three ways.

Firstly, it operationalizes S-D logic in an innovation planning context by specifying observable practices through which actors integrate resources during roadmapping. Rather than treating “co-creation” as an assumed feature of workshops, the study identifies recurring activity patterns (the 9C activities) that structure stakeholder interactions over time and connect them to concrete planning outputs.

Secondly, the findings extend stakeholder integration perspectives by showing that integration is stage-specific: early stages emphasize shared framing and information consolidation, mid stages emphasize co-production of cross-layer links, and late stages emphasize integration of resources/partners and governance for implementation. This helps explain why prior roadmapping accounts that focus primarily on workshop participation can under-specify how value is co-created across the end-to-end process.

Thirdly, the results clarify the enabling role of collaboration platforms as part of the resource integration arrangement: platforms do not “create value” by themselves, but they support continuity, transparency, and traceability, which in turn make multi-stakeholder coordination feasible across time and organizational boundaries. This complements prior calls for strengthening digital support for roadmapping by showing the mechanism by which hybrid collaboration sustains co-creation across stages.

7.3. Managerial Implications: Designing Roadmapping for Implementability

These managerial implications are derived from observed implementation-oriented issues consolidated in the wrap-up/appraisal (Section 6.3) and from the recurring activity patterns evidenced in the artefact trail (Table 2). Therefore, the recommendations below should be read as design principles supported by observed process evidence (e.g., documented disagreement resolution, dependency notes, owner assignments, and follow-up closures), rather than as universal prescriptions for all roadmapping contexts.

The findings suggest four actionable implications for organizations orchestrating multi-stakeholder roadmapping.

(1)

Deliberately design for traceability (not only participation).

Adopt an artefact-per-workshop logic—driver list, value matrix, linking grids, and an integration chart—so each workshop produces a clear output that can be validated and carried forward. Traceability reduces later disputes about “why this choice was made.”

(2)

Use purposeful stakeholder mix and facilitation to manage power asymmetries.

Include actors who collectively cover policy, delivery, technology, and user perspectives. Facilitation can explicitly surface disagreements and document boundary conditions alongside agreements, preventing dominance by a single expert group.

(3)

Blend online and face-to-face strategically.

Online workshops are effective for structured elicitation and ranking tasks; face-to-face sessions can be reserved for integration, negotiation of resourcing/partnerships, and final consolidation. The key is a stable workflow that supports between-session refinement.

(4)

Secure sponsorship and plan the refresh cadence early.

Visible sponsorship legitimizes participation and resource commitments. Establishing a refresh trigger (e.g., quarterly review or milestone-based updates) may help embed the roadmap into ongoing planning rather than treating it as a one-off deliverable.

These findings advance existing roadmapping research by shifting attention from structural representations toward process-level dynamics of value co-creation. Rather than proposing a new framework, the study contributes a practice-oriented understanding of how roadmapping activities enable shared sense-making and strategic alignment. These contributions should be interpreted within the boundary of an interpretive single-case design conducted in a public R&D context.

7.4. Limitations and Future Research

This study is based on a single case in a specific public R&D setting; therefore, transferability depends on similarity of context (multi-stakeholder innovation planning with heterogeneous actors and layered outputs). The analysis relied on an auditable artefact trail and facilitator notes rather than verbatim transcripts, which prioritizes traceability of decisions and revisions but may under-represent the nuance of conversational dynamics.

A potential rival explanation is that the observed patterns reflect facilitation effects rather than stakeholder co-creation per se. We mitigated this by preserving an audit trail of artefact revisions, recording rationales and disagreements, and conducting member checking through recap confirmations and the wrap-up/appraisal note. Another limitation is that the study prioritizes decision traceability over conversational granularity because it does not rely on verbatim transcripts; thus, subtle interaction dynamics (e.g., micro-turn-taking and affective cues) may be under-represented despite strong evidence of artefact-mediated negotiation.

Although the wrap-up/appraisal segment was attended by seven representatives, we circulated recap summaries to the wider participant group for asynchronous confirmation; nevertheless, some nuances from non-attending participants may be under-represented. We do not claim universal prescriptions; rather, we offer analytically generalizable mechanisms that are most transferable to multi-stakeholder, layered roadmapping settings where traceability across artefacts is critical.

Future research could (i) replicate the approach across multiple cases and sectors; (ii) incorporate complementary data (e.g., recordings/transcripts or systematic observation protocols) to deepen behavioral evidence; and (iii) evaluate outcome measures beyond process traceability (e.g., implementation follow-through, update frequency, and perceived decision quality). These extensions would strengthen the explanatory power and boundary conditions of stakeholder value co-creation in roadmapping.

8. Conclusions

This study examined how stakeholders co-create value in planning innovative technologies through a roadmapping process. Using an interpretivist single-case design and an auditable artefact trail across seven workshops (W1–W7)—including versioned workshop artefacts, facilitator recap notes, and wrap-up/appraisal confirmations—we show that stakeholder value co-creation is enacted through stage-dependent, artefact-mediated practices that translate high-level drivers into an integrated, multi-layer roadmap.

Value co-creation became observable through (i) staged templates that structured sense-making, (ii) iterative negotiation captured as traceable artefact revisions, and (iii) hybrid collaboration that sustained continuity between sessions.

The study makes two main contributions. Firstly, it operationalizes value co-creation in roadmapping by specifying recurring activity patterns (9C) and mapping them across initiation, development, and integration. Secondly, it demonstrates how a hybrid collaboration arrangement—combining workshops with e-collaboration tools and a single integrative repository—supports continuity and traceability across roadmap layers (market/policy, service, product, technology, and research) via intermediate artefacts (e.g., value matrices and cross-layer linking grids) that are consolidated into an integrated roadmap.

For practitioners, the findings suggest that effective multi-stakeholder roadmapping requires deliberate design for traceability (artefact-per-stage outputs), facilitation to manage heterogeneous viewpoints and power asymmetries, and early planning for integration and review cadence so the roadmap can function as a living planning input rather than a one-off deliverable.

This research has limitations. The findings are analytically generalized and their transferability depends on contextual similarity to multi-stakeholder innovation planning settings where layered roadmaps and cross-actor coordination are required. The analysis relied on the evolving artefact trail and facilitator notes rather than verbatim transcripts, which prioritizes decision traceability over conversational detail. Future research can strengthen the boundary conditions and explanatory power through multi-case replication, complementary observational data, and outcome evaluation beyond process traceability (e.g., implementation follow-through and roadmap update dynamics).