Open Access

Context: Organizations are increasingly challenged by high market dynamics, rapidly evolving technologies and shifting user expectations. In consequence, many organizations are struggling with their ability to provide reliable product roadmaps by applying traditional roadmapping approaches. Currently, many companies are seeking opportunities to improve their product roadmapping practices and strive for new roadmapping approaches. A typical first step towards advancing the roadmapping capabilities of an organization is to assess the current situation. Therefore, the so-called maturity model DEEP for assessing the product roadmapping capabilities of companies operating in dynamic and uncertain environments has been developed and published by the authors. Objective: The aim of this article is to conduct an initial validation of the DEEP model in order to understand its applicability better and to see if important concepts are missing. In addition, the aim of this article is to evolve the model based on the findings from the initial validation. Method: The model has been given to practitioners such as product managers with the request to perform a self-assessment of the current product roadmapping practices in their company. Afterwards, interviews with each participant have been conducted in order to gain insights. Results: The initial validation revealed that some of the stages of the model need to be rearranged and minor usability issues were found. The overall structure of the model was well received. The study resulted in the development of the version 1.1 of the DEEP product roadmap maturity model which is also presented in this article.

The emergence of agile methods and practices has not only changed the development processes but might also have affected how companies conduct software process improvement (SPI). Through a set of complementary studies, we aim to understand how SPI has changed in times of agile software development. Specifically, we aim (a) to identify and characterize the set of publications that connect elements of agility to SPI, (b) to explore to which extent agile methods/practices have been used in the context of SPI, and (c) to understand whether the topics addressed in the literature are relevant and useful for industry professionals. To study these questions, we conducted an in-depth analysis of the literature identified in a previous mapping study, an interview study, and an analysis of the responses given by industry professionals to SPI related questions stemming from an independently conducted survey study. Regarding the first question, we identified 55 publications that focus on both SPI and agility of which 48 present and discuss how agile methods/practices are used to steer SPI initiatives. Regarding the second question, we found that the two most frequently mentioned agile methods in the context of SPI are Scrum and Extreme Programming (XP), while the most frequently mentioned agile practices are integrate often, test-first, daily meeting, pair programming, retrospective, on-site customer, and product backlog. Regarding the third question, we found that a majority of the interviewed and surveyed industry professionals see SPI as a continuous activity. They agree with the agile SPI literature that agile methods/practices play an important role in SPI activities but that the importance given to specific agile methods/practices does not always coincide with the frequency with which these methods/practices are mentioned in the literature.

Context: Companies in highly dynamic markets increasingly struggle with their ability to plan product development and to create reliable roadmaps. A main reason is the decreasing lack of predictability of markets, technologies, and customer behaviors. New approaches for product roadmapping seem to be necessary in order to cope with today's highly dynamic conditions. Little research is available with respect to such new approaches. Objective: In order to better understand the state of the art and to identify research gaps, this article presents a review of the scientific literature with respect to product roadmapping. Method: We performed a systematic literature review (SLR) with respect to identify papers in the field of computer science. Results: After filtering, the search resulted in a set of 23 relevant papers. The identified papers focus on different aspects such as roadmap types, processes for creating and updating roadmaps, problems and challenges with roadmapping, approaches to visualize roadmaps, generic frameworks and specific aspects such as the combination of roadmaps with business modeling. Overall, the scientific literature covers many important aspects of roadmapping but does provide only little knowledge on how to create product roadmaps under highly dynamic conditions. Research gaps address, for instance, the inclusion of goals or outcomes into product roadmaps, the alignment of a roadmap with a product vision, and the inclusion of product discovery activities in product roadmaps. In addition, the transformation from traditional roadmapping processes to new ways of roadmapping is not sufficiently addressed in the scientific literature.

Through increasing market dynamics, rapidly evolving technologies and shifting user expectations coupled with the adoption of lean and agile practices, companies are struggling with their ability to provide reliable product roadmaps by applying traditional approaches. Currently, most companies are seeking opportunities to improve their product roadmapping practices. As a first challenge they have to assess their current product roadmapping capabilities in order to better understand how to improve their practices and how to switch to a new approach. The aim of this article is to provide an initial maturity model for product roadmapping practices that is especially suited for assessing the roadmapping capabilities of companies operating in dynamic and uncertain market environments. Based on interviews with 15 experts from 13 various companies the current state of practice regarding product roadmapping was identified. Afterwards, the model development was conducted in the context of expert workshops with the Robert Bosch GmbH and researchers. The study results in the so-called DEEP 1.0 product roadmap maturity model which allows companies to conduct a self assessment of their product roadmapping practice.

Software development in highly dynamic environments imposes high risks to development organizations. One such risk is that the developed software may be of only little or no value to customers, wasting the invested development efforts.Continuous experiment ation, as an experiment-driven development approach, may reduce such development risks by iteratively testing product and service assumptions that are critical to the success of the software. Although several experiment-driven development approaches are available, there is little guidance available on how to introduce continuous experimentation into an organization. This article presents a multiple-case study that aims at better understanding the process of introducing continuous experimentation into an organization with an already established development process. The results from the study show that companies are open to adopting such an approach and learning throughout the introduction process. Several benefits were obtained, such as reduced development efforts, deeper customer insights, and better support for development decisions. Challenges included complex stakeholder structures, difficulties in defining success criteria, and building experimen- tation skills. Our findings indicate that organizational factors may limit the benefits of experimentation. Moreover, introducing continuous experimentation requires fundamental changes in how companies operate, and a systematic introduction process can increase the chances of a successful start.