Hit papers significantly outperform the citation benchmark for their cohort. A paper qualifies
if it has ≥500 total citations, achieves ≥1.5× the top-1% citation threshold for papers in the
same subfield and year (this is the minimum needed to enter the top 1%, not the average
within it), or reaches the top citation threshold in at least one of its specific research
topics.
Technology roadmapping—A planning framework for evolution and revolution
2003792 citationsRobert Phaal, Clare Farrukh et al.profile →
A review of TRIZ, and its benefits and challenges in practice
2013271 citationsDavid Probert, Robert Phaal et al.profile →
Author Peers
Peers are selected by citation overlap in the author's most active subfields.
citations ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of David Probert's research. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by David Probert with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites David Probert more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by David Probert. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by David Probert. The network helps show where David Probert may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of David Probert
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of David Probert.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of David Probert based on the total number of
citations received by their joint publications. Widths of edges
represent the number of papers authors have co-authored together.
Node borders
signify the number of papers an author published with David Probert. David Probert is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
20 of 20 papers shown
1.
Mortara, Letizia, Robert Phaal, Clive Kerr, Clare Farrukh, & David Probert. (2014). Tool fingerprinting: Characterising management tools. Apollo (University of Cambridge).5 indexed citations
Phaal, Robert, et al.. (2014). Characterizing product-service systems in the healthcare industry. Apollo (University of Cambridge). 3450–3464.3 indexed citations
Phaal, Robert, et al.. (2012). Charting Exploitation Strategies for Emerging Technology: The Emergence Roadmapping Workshop Method Helps Organizations Clarify the Nature of a Potential Future-Value Opportunity and Articulate the Route towards It. Research-Technology Management. 55(2). 34.1 indexed citations
6.
Oliveira, Maicon Gouvêa de, Henrique Rozenfeld, Robert Phaal, & David Probert. (2012). Proposal of a method to clarify and enhance decision-making at the front-end of innovation. Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology. 600–610.1 indexed citations
7.
Phaal, Robert, et al.. (2011). Exploring the impacts of the interactions between lifecycles and other dynamics that influence the development of technology-based industries. Cambridge University Engineering Department Publications Database.5 indexed citations
8.
Probert, David, et al.. (2011). Towards a process framework for assessing the potential value of technologies. Cambridge University Engineering Department Publications Database.7 indexed citations
9.
Probert, David, et al.. (2011). Understanding and communicating the value of technology: A process perspective. Cambridge University Engineering Department Publications Database.2 indexed citations
10.
Ford, Simon & David Probert. (2010). Why do firms acquire external technologies? Understanding the motivations for technology acquisitions. Cambridge University Engineering Department Publications Database.
11.
Phaal, Robert, Clare Farrukh, & David Probert. (2010). Roadmapping for strategy and innovation - aligning technology and markets in a dynamic world. Cambridge University Engineering Department Publications Database.67 indexed citations
12.
Tietze, Frank & David Probert. (2009). Open Innovation and the CTO. SSRN Electronic Journal.2 indexed citations
13.
Phaal, Robert, et al.. (2009). Value Roadmapping: Here's a Systematic Approach to Supporting Early-Stage Technology Investment Decisions. Research-Technology Management. 52(6). 45.8 indexed citations
14.
Mortara, Letizia, Clive Kerr, Robert Phaal, & David Probert. (2007). Technology Intelligence - Identifying threats and opportunities from new technologiesŐ. Cambridge University Engineering Department Publications Database.2 indexed citations
15.
Fraser, Peter, Tim Minshall, & David Probert. (2005). Them and us - asymmetric dyads involving early-stage technology firms. Cambridge University Engineering Department Publications Database.3 indexed citations
Probert, David, et al.. (2005). Developing software content for manufactured products: inside or outside the firm?. East African Medical Journal. 66(3). 153–4.2 indexed citations
18.
Phaal, Robert, et al.. (2004). Technology Roadmapping for a Service Organization: Roadmapping Has Helped the Royal Mail to Prioritize Research Activities and Ensure That Technology Considerations Are Integrated into Business Strategies. Research-Technology Management. 47(2). 46.1 indexed citations
19.
Phaal, Robert, Clare Farrukh, Rick Mitchell, & David Probert. (2003). Starting-Up Roadmapping Fast: A Company-Specific Process for the Rapid Initiation of Roadmapping Encourages Learning and Staff Involvement, and Identifies Key Issues, Knowledge Gaps and Actions. Research-Technology Management. 46(2). 52.1 indexed citations
20.
Probert, David & Michael Radnor. (2003). Frontier Experiences from Industry-Academia Consortia: Corporate Roadmappers Create Value with Product and Technology Roadmaps. Research-Technology Management. 46(2). 27–30.20 indexed citations
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive
bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global
research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include
incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and
delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in
Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.