A sectoral strategic roadmapping framework for combining regulatory and industry perspectives: the case of Advanced Air Mobility in Canada
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/aviation.2026.26878Abstract
This paper presents a sectoral roadmap development framework-testing process for the Canadian Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) industry, to evaluate a methodology for expanding technological roadmaps into comprehensive sectoral frameworks. The procedural framework incorporates the regulatory perspective to the technological, infrastructural, social, and economic ones, using the S-PLAN framework to identify important strategies and practical actions. Insights were gathered from interviews with cross-disciplinary experts in the public (regulatory) and private (industry) sectors across the industry using the Delphi method to consolidate strategic topics and crucial tactical insights for the sector evolution. The research aims at proposing a methodology for broadening the scope of existing technological roadmaps, applying it in the case of Canada. This methodology is then illustrated in its application to establish the foundation for iterative advancements in the AAM sector, emphasizing a collaborative approach to address the identified challenges. The concluding strategic topics, classified by Advanced Air Mobility Maturity Levels, serve as foundations for the ongoing transformation of Canada’s aviation landscape from its current state towards a more autonomous and expansive future. While this study focuses on the AAM sector, the framework’s design offers broader applicability, providing a valuable tool for other emerging, complex, and rigidly regulated industries.
Keywords:
strategic roadmapping, regulatory framework, advanced air mobility, sectoral strategic planning, aviationHow to Cite
Share
License
Copyright (c) 2026 The Author(s). Published by Vilnius Gediminas Technical University.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Amutha, C., Gopan, A., Pushbalatatha, I., Ragavi, M., & Reneese, J. A. (2024). Nanotechnology and governance: Regulatory framework for responsible innovation. In S. C. George & B. Tawiah (Eds), Nanotechnology in societal development. Advanced technologies and societal change (pp. 481–503). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-6184-5_14
Andersen, K., Frederiksen, M., Knudsen, M. P., & Krabbe, A. D. (2020). The strategic responses of start-ups to regulatory constraints in the nascent drone market. Research Policy, 49(10), Article 104055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104055
Beiderbeck, D., Frevel, N., Gracht, H. A. von der, Schmidt, S. L., & Schweitzer, V. M. (2021). Preparing, conducting, and analyzing Delphi surveys: Cross-disciplinary practices, new directions, and advancements. Methods X, 8, Article 101401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2021.101401
Birinci, F., Yilmaz, M. F., Alpaslan, E., Maraş, E. E., & Aydin, M. M. (2025). Above-building parking area and urban plan arrangement proposal for civil aircraft: The case of Türkiye. Aviation, 29(2), 118–128. https://doi.org/10.3846/aviation.2025.23652
BIS Research. (2019, March). Global UAS traffic management (UTM) system market. https://canadianaam.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/ES-Global-UAS-Traffic-Management-UTM-Market.pdf
Blind, K. (2010). The influence of regulations on innovation: A quantitative assessment for OECD countries. Research Policy, 41(2), 391–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.08.008
Booz-Allen & Hamilton. (2018). Urban air mobility (UAM) market study. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20190001472
Bradfield, R., Wright, G., Burt, G., Cairns, G., & Heijden, K. V. D. (2005). The origins and evolution of scenario techniques in long range business planning. Futures, 37(8), 795–812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2005.01.003
Canadian Advanced Air Mobility Consortium. (2021). CAAM resources. https://www.pnwer.org/uploads/2/3/2/9/23295822/white_paper_vancouver_aam_-_fall_2020.pdf
Cortez, N. (2014). Regulating disruptive innovation. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 29(1), 175–228. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2436065
Ford, C. (2021). Making regulation robust in the innovation era. In M. Maggetti, F. Di Mascio & A. Natalini (Eds), Research handbook on regulatory authorities. Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3839865
Fu, M., Rothfeld, R., & Antoniou, C. (2019). Exploring preferences for transportation modes in an urban air mobility environment: Munich case study. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2673(10). https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198119843858
Geum, Y., Farrukh, C., & Lee, S. (2023). An integrated framework for assessing the technology roadmapping process from multiple perspectives: The case at the sector level. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 67(3), Article 101732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2023.101732
Goodrich, K. H., & Theodore, C. R. (2021). Description of the NASA Urban Air Mobility Maturity Level (UML) scale. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2021-1627
Gössling, S., & Humpe, A. (2024). Net-zero aviation: Transition barriers and radical climate policy design implications. The Science of The Total Environment, 912(8), Article 169107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.169107
Government of Canada. (2023, June). Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 157, Number 25: Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (RPAS – Beyond Visual Line-of-Sight and Other Operations). https://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2023/2023-06-24/html/reg6-eng.html
Henderson, I. (2022). Aviation safety regulations for unmanned aircraft operations: Perspectives from users. Transport Policy, 125, 192–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2022.06.006
International Forum for Aviation Research. (2023). Scientific assessment for Urban Air Mobility (UAM). https://www.fuave.fi/wp-content/uploads/2023-03-IFAR-Scientific-Assessment-for-UAM.pdf
Jittrapirom, P. M., Marchau, V. A. W. J., Heijden, R. E. C. M. van der, & Meurs, H. (2018). Future implementation of mobility as a service (MaaS): Results of an international Delphi study. Travel Behaviour and Society, 21, 281–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2018.12.004
Kasliwal, A., Furbush, N., Gawron, J., McBride, J. R., Wallington, T. J., De Kleine, R. D., Kim, H. Ch., & Keoleian, G. A. (2019). Role of flying cars in sustainable mobility. Nature Communications, 10, Article 1555. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09426-0
Kim, Y. H., Sting, F. J., & Loch, Ch. H. (2014). Top-down, bottom-up, or both? Toward an integrative perspective on operations strategy formation. Journal of Operations Management, 32(7–8), 462–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2014.09.005
Kluge, U., Ringbeck, J., & Spinler, S. (2020). Door-to-door travel in 2035 – A Delphi study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120096
Landeta Rodríguez, J. (2006). Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(5), 467–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2005.09.002
Le, H., & Lappas, I. (2015). Continuing airworthiness: Major drivers and challenges in civil and military aviation. Aviation, 19(4), 165–170. https://doi.org/10.3846/16487788.2015.1126909
Leypoldt, L., Dienhart, Ch. D. F., Caferoglu, H., & Salge, O. (2024). The hydrogen field in 2035: A Delphi study forecasting dominant technology bundles. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123593
Liimatainen, H., Kallionpää, E., Pöllänen, M., Stenholm, P., Tapio, P., & McKinnon, A. (2014). Decarbonizing road freight in the future – Detailed scenarios of the carbon emissions of Finnish road freight transport in 2030 using a Delphi method approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 81, 177–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.03.001
Lind, J. (2015). Boeing’s global enterprise technology process. Research-Technology Management, 49(5), 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2006.11657396
Madusanka, N., Kulasooriya, Th., & Ruwanpathirana, A. (2022). The legal frameworks governing unmanned aerial vehicles. Interdisciplinary Studie in Society, Law, and Politics, 1(1), 39–48. https://doi.org/10.61838/kman.isslp.1.1.6
McKinsey & Company. (2018, November). Urban air mobility (UAM) market study. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20190002046/downloads/20190002046.pdf
Melander, L., Dubois, A., Hedvall, K., & Lind, F. (2019). Future goods transport in Sweden 2050: Using a Delphi-based scenario analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 138, 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.08.019
Nakamura, H., & Kajikawa, Y. (2018). Regulation and innovation: How should small unmanned aerial vehicles be regulated? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 128, 262–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.06.015
National Research Council Canada. (n.d.-a). Drone cargo delivery study (1/2) – Canadian regulatory framework and requirements assessment. https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/home/
National Research Council Canada. (n.d.-b). Drone cargo delivery study (2/2) – technical gaps assessment and roadmapping. https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/home/
NAV Canada. (2023, December). RPAS traffic management (RTM) system: Concept of operations. https://www.navcanada.ca/en/rpas-conops.pdf
Nelson, T. (2017). Redesigning a 20th century regulatory framework to deliver 21st century energy technology. Journal of Bioeconomics, 19, 147–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10818-016-9216-9
Park, H., Phaal, R., Ho, J.-Y., & O’Sullivan, E. (2020). Twenty years of technology and strategic roadmapping research: A school of thought perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 154, Article 119965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119965
Phaal, R., Farrukh, C., & Probert, D. (2004). Technology roadmapping – a planning framework for evolution and revolution (Vols. 1–2). Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 71(1–2), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1625(03)00072-6
Phaal, R., Farrukh, C., & Probert, D. (2007). Strategic roadmapping: A workshop-based approach for identifying and exploring strategic issues and opportunities. Engineering Management Journal, 19(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2007.11431716
Pierre, C., Azzaro-Pantel, C., Bourjade, S., & Muller-Vibes, C. (2024). Beyond the “bottom-up” and “top-down” controversy: A methodological inquiry into hybrid modeling methods for hydrogen supply chains. International Journal of Production Economics, 268(26), Article 109091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2023.109091
Ranchordas, S., & Vinci, V. (2024). Regulatory sandboxes: Evolution, effectiveness, and implications. Italian Journal of Public Law, 1, Article 30. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4696442
Roca, J. B., Vaishnav, P., & Morgan, G. M., & Fuchs, E. (2021). Technology forgiveness: Why emerging technologies differ in their resilience to institutional instability. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 166, Article 120599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120599
Romasheva, N., & Ilinova, A. (2019). CCS projects: How regulatory framework influences their deployment. Resources, 8(4), Article 181. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources8040181
Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (1999). The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: Issues and analysis. International Journal of Forecasting, 15(4), 353–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2070(99)00018-7
SAE International. (2023, December). Guidelines for development of civil aircraft and systems – ARP4754B. https://www.sae.org/standards/content/arp4754a/
Schmalz, U., Spinler, S., & Ringbeck, J. (2021). Lessons learned from a two-round Delphi-based scenario study. Methods X, 8, Article 101179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2020.101179
Siqueira, G. de C., Caetano, M., Amaral, D., & Bidinotto, J. H. (2025). Component definition innovation plan as a tool to allow flight simulator training device roadmapping. Aviation, 29(1), 30–38. https://doi.org/10.3846/aviation.2025.23175
Skjong, R. (2009). Regulatory framework. In A. Papanikolaou (Eds), Risk-based ship design (pp. 97–151). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89042-3_3
Sluijs, J., van der, Saiet, E., Bakelaar, C. N., Wentworth, A., Fraser, R. H., & Kokelj, S. V. (2023). Beyond visual-line-of-sight (BVLOS) drone operations for environmental and infrastructure monitoring: A case study in northwestern Canada. Drone Systems and Applications, 11, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1139/dsa-2023-0012
Straubinger, A., Rothfeld, R., Shamiyeh, M., Bachter, K.-D., Kaiser, J., & Platner, K. O. (2020). An overview of current research and developments in urban air mobility – Setting the scene for UAM introduction. Journal of Air Transport Management, 87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2020.101852
Taibi, D., Lenarduzzi, V., Plociennik, Ch., & Dieudonné, L. (2015). Towards a classification schema for development technologies: An empirical study in the avionic domain. International Journal on Advances in Software, 8(1), 125–135.
Transport Canada. (2019, January). Safety assessment for automated driving systems in Canada. https://tc.canada.ca/sites/default/files/migrated/tc_safety_assessment_for_ads_s.pdf
Transport Canada. (2021a, June). AC 903-001: Remotely piloted aircraft systems operational risk assessment. https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/reference-centre/advisory-circulars/advisory-circular-ac-no-903-001
Transport Canada. (2021b, November). AC 922-001: Remotely piloted aircraft systems safety assurance. https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/reference-centre/advisory-circulars/advisory-circular-ac-no-922-001
von der Gracht, H. (2012). Consensus measurement in Delphi studies: Review and implications for future quality assurance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(8), 1525–1536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.04.013
Wiedemann, M., Liang, M., Keremane, G., & Quigley, K. (2024). Advanced air mobility: A comparative review of policies from around the world – lessons for Australia. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 24(9), Article 100988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2023.100988
Yang, H.-H., Chang, Y.-H., & Lin, C.-H. (2022). A combined approach for selecting drone management strategies based on the ICAO Safety Management System (SMS) components. Journal of Air Transport Management, 104(2), Article 102257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2022.102257
Zhao, D., Tang, Z., & He, D. (2024). A systematic literature review of weak signal identification and evolution for corporate foresight. Kybernetes, 53(10), 3160–3188. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-03-2023-0343
View article in other formats
CrossMark check
Published
Issue
Section
Copyright
Copyright (c) 2026 The Author(s). Published by Vilnius Gediminas Technical University.
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.