Data-Driven AI Product Roadmap Prioritization for SaaS Companies: A Valuation-Based Framework

  • Authors

    • Bora Ozbayburtlu Department of Business Administration, Gebze Technical University, Kocaeli, Türkiye
    • Yavuz Selim Balcioglu Department of Management Information Systems, Doğuş University, Istanbul, Türkiye
    • Bulent Sezen Department of Business Administration, Gebze Technical University, Kocaeli, Türkiye
    https://doi.org/10.14419/k0sr8689

    Received date: October 2, 2025

    Accepted date: October 27, 2025

    Published date: November 9, 2025

  • Saas Valuation; AI Product Roadmap; Machine Learning; Enterprise Value Drivers; Strategic Product Management; Data Quality İn Financial Modeling; Company Archetypes.

  • Abstract

    This study develops a valuation-based framework for prioritizing artificial intelligence investments in Software-as-a-Service product ‎roadmaps by empirically examining the relationship between company fundamentals and market valuations. Using a dataset of 94 SaaS ‎companies across 82 industry classifications, the research employs machine learning techniques including ElasticNet and Random Forest ‎models to analyze valuation drivers and unsupervised clustering to identify company archetypes. The study successfully addresses research ‎questions concerning fundamental valuation patterns, company classification, and industry-level valuation dynamics. The clustering analysis ‎identified three distinct SaaS company archetypes with meaningful business model characteristics following resolution of data parsing errors ‎that initially produced implausible values. Archetype 0, designated Established Enterprises, comprises thirty companies averaging 5.25 bil-‎lion dollars in annual recurring revenue with 18,500 employees, including industry leaders such as Microsoft, Salesforce, and Oracle. Ar-‎chetype 1, representing High-Growth Scalers, contains fifty-seven companies averaging 842 million dollars in revenue with 2,400 employ-‎ees, demonstrating efficient unit economics with revenue per employee of approximately 351,000 dollars. Archetype 2, comprising Emerg-‎ing Ventures, includes seven companies averaging 135 million dollars in revenue with 450 employees, representing earlier-stage market ‎entrants establishing presence in specialized segments. These empirically validated archetypes provide a foundation for tailoring AI invest-‎ment strategies to company maturity stage and resource constraints‎.

  • References

    1. Arora, A., Branstetter, L., & Drev, M. (2019). Going soft: How the rise of software-based innovation led to the decline of returns to R&D. Man-agement Science, 65(2), 445-462.
    2. Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (2004). Knowledge spillovers and the geography of innovation. Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, 4, 2713-2739. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0080(04)80018-X.
    3. Babina, T., Fedyk, A., He, A., & Hodson, J. (2024). Artificial intelligence, firm growth, and product innovation. Journal of Financial Economics, 161, 103857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2023.103745.
    4. Blaszczyk, P., Gerdsri, N., & Damrongchai, N. (2021). Applying digital technologies in technology roadmapping to overcome individual-biased assessments. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 170, 120898.
    5. Bresnahan, T. F., & Trajtenberg, M. (1995). General purpose technologies: 'Engines of growth'? Journal of Econometrics, 65(1), 83-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)01598-T.
    6. Coad, A. (2010). Exploring the processes of firm growth: Evidence from a vector autoregression. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(6), 1677-1703. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtq018.
    7. Coad, A., Segarra, A., & Teruel, M. (2016). Innovation and firm growth: Does firm age play a role? Research Policy, 45(2), 387-400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.10.015
    8. Criscuolo, C., Martin, R., & Overman, H. G. (2019). Some causal effects of an industrial policy. American Economic Review, 109(1), 48-85. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20160034.
    9. D'Amour, A., Heller, K., Moldovan, D., Adlam, B., Alipanahi, B., Beutel, A., ... & Sculley, D. (2022). Underspecification presents challenges for credibility in modern machine learning. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23(226), 1-61.
    10. Damodaran, A. (2021). Investment valuation: Tools and techniques for determining the value of any asset (4th ed.). Wiley.
    11. Dichev, I. D., Graham, J. R., Harvey, C. R., & Rajgopal, S. (2013). Earnings quality: Evidence from the field. Journal of Accounting and Econom-ics, 56(2-3), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2013.05.004.
    12. Giglio, S., Kelly, B., & Xiu, D. (2022). Factor models, machine learning, and asset pricing. Annual Review of Financial Economics, 14, 337-368. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-financial-101521-104735.
    13. Gu, S., Kelly, B., & Xiu, D. (2020). Empirical asset pricing via machine learning. Review of Financial Studies, 33(5), 2223-2273. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhaa009.
    14. Hall, B. H., & Oriani, R. (2006). Does the market value R&D investment by European firms? Evidence from a panel of manufacturing firms in France, Germany, and Italy. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 24(5), 971-993. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2005.12.001.
    15. Huang, M.-H., & Rust, R. T. (2021). A strategic framework for artificial intelligence in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49(1), 30-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-020-00749-9.
    16. Huergo, E., & Jaumandreu, J. (2004). How does probability of innovation change with firm age? Small Business Economics, 22(3-4), 193-207. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SBEJ.0000022220.07366.b5.
    17. Jovanovic, M., Sjödin, D., & Parida, V. (2022). Co-evolution of platform architecture, platform services, and platform governance: Toward plat-form archetypes. Technovation, 115, 102466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102218.
    18. Martinsuo, M., & Geraldi, J. (2024). Project portfolio formation as an organizational routine. International Journal of Project Management, 42(7), 102-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2024.102592.
    19. Riasanow, T., Galic, L., Böhm, M., Krcmar, H., & Böhmann, T. (2021). Core, intertwined, and ecosystem-specific clusters in the digital transfor-mation of five ecosystems. Electronic Markets, 31, 235-253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-020-00407-6.
    20. Shaffer, M. (2024). Which multiples matter in M&A? An overview. Review of Accounting Studies, 29, 1343-1378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-023-09768-7.
    21. Vishnevskiy, K., Karasev, O., & Meissner, D. (2022). Technology roadmapping for digital transformation: A framework and case. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 174, 121288.

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    Ozbayburtlu, B., Balcioglu, Y. S., & Sezen, B. (2025). Data-Driven AI Product Roadmap Prioritization for SaaS Companies: A Valuation-Based Framework. International Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 14(7), 225-243. https://doi.org/10.14419/k0sr8689