Requirements - Strategic Alignment, Vision, and Roadmap
-
S03 - Product Vision and Roadmap
A well-formed and maintained product vision and roadmap should exist with appropriate detail around architecture elements.
Requirement description
This requirement assesses whether the product has a clear future direction that is understood by stakeholders and supported by an actively maintained roadmap.
The product vision should explain why the product exists, what outcomes it is expected to deliver and how it supports strategic goals. The roadmap should describe how the product is expected to evolve over time, including major architectural changes, dependencies, risks and significant technical activities.
The roadmap should be actively used to guide delivery and architecture decisions rather than existing purely as a static document.
In simple terms:
Can the team clearly explain where the product is going, why it is going there, and how the architecture will evolve to support that journey?
Scoring rubric table – Product Vision and Roadmap
| Score | What it looks like | Typical evidence | Key gaps / risks |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | No documented product vision or roadmap exists. Future direction is unclear and architecture activities are reactive. |
No vision document. No roadmap. No evidence of long-term planning. |
Significant delivery and investment risk. Stakeholders may have conflicting expectations. Architectural decisions may be short-term and inconsistent. |
| 1 | There is limited evidence of a product vision or roadmap. Direction exists largely through verbal understanding or informal material. |
Meeting discussions. Slides or notes with high-level aspirations. Informal roadmap concepts. |
High-risk gaps in ownership, governance and planning. Architectural priorities are poorly defined. |
| 2 | Some elements of a vision and roadmap exist, but they are incomplete, outdated or only partially cover architecture considerations. |
Draft roadmap. Product strategy paper. Partial milestone planning. Limited architecture work packages identified. |
Significant notable gaps remain. Dependencies, technology changes or architectural debt may not be visible. |
| 3 | A documented vision and roadmap exist and are used by the team. Most major architecture activities and milestones are captured. However, notable gaps remain that require mitigation. |
Published vision statement. Roadmap covering near and medium-term delivery. Architecture workstreams and dependencies identified. Evidence of periodic review. |
Some roadmap items lack sufficient detail. Ownership, funding, dependencies or architectural outcomes may not be fully defined. |
| 4 | A maintained vision and roadmap are actively used to guide product, architecture and investment decisions. Architecture milestones are clearly defined and regularly reviewed. |
Approved product vision. Maintained roadmap with review dates. Roadmap linked to architectural artefacts. Identified dependencies, risks and architectural debt activities. Stakeholder review evidence. |
Only minor gaps exist. Risks are known and managed. Roadmap remains largely current and trusted. |
| 5 | The vision and roadmap are comprehensive, actively maintained and widely used. Architecture planning is fully integrated into roadmap governance and delivery. The roadmap is considered an exemplar. |
Executive or governance-supported vision. Multi-horizon roadmap. Architecture milestones linked to strategic objectives. Traceability to capability evolution, technical debt remediation and investment planning. Evidence of continuous review and improvement. |
Minimal gaps. Changes are managed proactively. Roadmap enables confident planning and governance decisions. |
What assessors should look for
- Documented vision – Is there a clearly articulated product vision explaining desired outcomes and future direction?
- Roadmap coverage – Does the roadmap describe how the product will evolve over time?
- Architecture content – Are significant architectural activities, dependencies, decisions and milestones represented?
- Maintenance – Is the roadmap regularly reviewed and updated?
- Governance and use – Is the roadmap used in planning, prioritisation, investment or governance discussions?
- Alignment – Is the roadmap consistent with wider organisational strategy and delivery objectives?
What separates a 3 from a 4 or 5
A score of 3 normally means that a vision and roadmap exist and are used by the team, but some areas lack detail, ownership, governance review or regular maintenance.
A score of 4 normally requires the roadmap to be actively maintained, linked to architectural planning and used to support delivery and governance decisions.
A score of 5 requires evidence that the vision and roadmap drive decision-making across stakeholders, architecture and investment processes and are continually reviewed and improved. The roadmap should demonstrate clear traceability between strategic outcomes and architectural evolution.
Suggested evidence examples (not SAF-mandated artefacts)
- Product vision documents
- Architecture roadmaps
- Capability evolution plans
- Quarterly planning roadmaps
- Architecture transition states
- Dependency maps
- Milestone plans
- Architecture debt remediation timelines
- Portfolio roadmaps
Updated: 04 September 2026 (SAF Version 1.1)