# Who are roadmaps for? The prompt for this question came specifically for the nanomodular electronics roadmap but it’s worth considering more broadly both for spec tech roadmaps and for roadmaps in general. The roadmap is meant for two broad categories of people: people who might want to support the technology and those who might want to build it. **Roadmap writers** **Supporters** Supporters fall into several potential categories — government funders with agency, philanthropists and people working at philanthropic organizations, and corporate sponsors. Each cares about slightly different things and parts of the roadmap: * Government funders with agency (program managers at ARPA agencies and committees that determine programs at other funding agencies) care about relevance to their agency’s mandate. *ARPA program managers* care about how big the impact could be so they’ will care particularly about the case made in “who cares?” For the particular concerns of their agency. Committees will generally care about feasibility more — the risks section and acknowledging differences between how its done today are for them. * Philanthropists themselves are busy and will probably only read the executive summary. They’re going to care about why their marginal dollar will make a difference for this technology and the magnitude of the effects if it succeeds. People who work at philanthropic organizations are going to first filter on whether the technology falls within their mandate, then impact and then the actionable pieces. * Corporate sponsors care about how much the work is going to affect their bottom line. **Builders** Builders also fall into several categories: * Enthusiastic potential performers/tight coordinators. These are folks who are on board with the big picture of the program and have a clear direct role in it. The detailed breakdown and milestones are most important to them. * Skeptical potential performers/tight coordinators. These are folks who have a clear direct role in the program but may not be sold on working on it. The “Why do we think this will work” section is probably most useful to them. * Loose coordinators. These are people who don’t have an obvious role in the program but who might find inspiration in it and shift their research towards avenues that directly benefit the program or do work that will be complementary to a successful program. These folks likely care about “what’s technically new in the approach” and the program’s detailed breakdown. * It is *not* for skeptical people in a field more broadly ### Related * [[§Program Design]]