## 5 Discussion: Limitations and Future Works
### Limitations  
There are a few limitations to consider in this work. Firstly, the concept of the time perspective is less complex compared to more traditional roadmaps that heavily rely on temporal factors. Instead, the focus is placed on the logical evolutionary states of an artifact, system, or product. To incorporate temporal aspects, more intricate solutions can be devised, such as representing duration through arrow thickness or labels. Secondly, both pillars of the matrix (the Acatech level and TRL) are non-mainstream, requiring the alignment and clarification of terminology, especially when introducing them to stakeholders, particularly SMEs. While this may initially pose a challenge to immediate comprehension, it serves the purpose of fostering a shared understanding and establishing a common language. It also helps in setting expectations for deliverables, products, and prototypes, thus avoiding misalignments between different stakeholders' expectations. Then, in its initial design, our tool focuses on SMEs, particularly those facing resource constraints and operating with a fragmented digital infrastructure. As a result, the methodology may not directly capture the full complexity of digital transformation processes in larger or more diversified organizations. However, the tool is inherently modular and can be adapted to broader contexts. Organizations may calibrate the matrix by adjusting TRL benchmarks to align with industry-specific technology cycles and defining KPIs that reflect the strategic objectives and operational realities of the organization. At the same time, while the proposed tool offers a structured approach to aligning technological and organizational readiness, its application across diverse industrial sectors requires careful contextualization. The Technology Readiness Level (TRL) framework, originally developed for aerospace and defense, assumes a linear and well-documented progression of technological development. In sectors with more iterative or emergent innovation cycles--such as creative industries, agriculture, or low-tech manufacturing--some TRL stages may be less distinct or harder to quantify. Similarly, the Acatech study provides a generic model of digital transformation that may not fully capture sector-specific dynamics, such as the regulatory rigidity in pharmaceuticals, high customization in job shop manufacturing, or the prevalence of legacy systems in traditional industries. The interpretation of readiness thresholds (e.g., minimum levels of connectivity or concept formulation) may therefore need to be adjusted depending on the baseline digital infrastructure, workforce capabilities, and innovation culture of the specific sector. Furthermore, the KPIs associated with each axis of the matrix should be tailored to reflect industry-relevant metrics and benchmarks to ensure a meaningful assessment. However, we believe that these limitations do not undermine the framework's value. Instead, they highlight the importance of adapting it thoughtfully to the specific size and operational context of each domain. Moreover, while our matrix provides structured guidance for evaluating technological maturity and digital readiness, we recognize that its successful implementation also depends on external organizational factors. These include the level of employee engagement, resistance to change, the adaptability of existing business processes, and the presence of leadership support. Although these variables fall outside the immediate scope of the matrix, they can significantly influence outcomes. Lastly, the diagrams used in roadmapping activities may appear nested or complex, which may seem illogical upon first examination. However, this complexity is necessary because it is often revealed that the initial assumptions that push a company to work on a specific block of the matrix are not entirely accurate.