A diagnostic tool to guide innovators through a fast-tracked process of validating inherent risks by linking their progress to customer-acceptance and customer-commitment, and thereby evaluating the true market potential of product innovations.
For any Product Innovation, Validation Risk is associated with the following factors:
#1 Problem definition & Customer selection and specificity
#2 Problem significance & magnitude
#3 Motivation level of target customer to solve the defined problem
#4 Quantification & its acceptance by the target customer of the Value Proposition offered by the innovation
#5 Adoption barriers that will prevent target customer from experiencing the value proposition
Higher the Validation Risk, lesser the possibility that this product innovation can succeed in the market. To reduce Valuation Risk the innovator is expected to demonstrate ‘traction’ and that requires a market-ready product and money to market, sell, distribute, acquire customers, and generate revenues. However to reduce Validation Risk, one requires much less money, but sure needs skills, tools, and a structured process.
Design Thinking — a scientific approach to innovating solutions, is easily the most popular, and Steve Blank — referred to as the Father of Modern Entrepreneurship has created a rich body of knowledge on the science and strategies of converting product innovations into high-growth enterprises.
In FORGE, inspired and guided by the resources of such thought leaders, we have focused our efforts in developing a rigorous process of managing innovations. This process along with the attendant tools, techniques, and milestones, guides innovators to systematically address each of the factors and to neutralise the Validation Risk inherent in their product innovations.
Innovators come up with innovative ideas to solve real-world problems, and they would use tools enabled by fundamental science or applied technology to do so. From the earliest ideation stage onwards it is essential to profile/measure the Validation Risk inherent in product innovations, and work meticulously to neutralise the risk.
To aid this process, make it competitive, fun and effective, we have come up with Product Innovation Score — a point score on a scale of 0 to 100, consisting of 5 equal weightage factors with a max score of 20 points each. Each of the 5 factors in turn have qualified or descriptive sub-levels that indicate a measure of the Validation Risk as measured by the corresponding factor.
NOTE: To help you understand the different terms used in the rubric in the exact same way that I have meant, I would recommend that you quickly skim through the User Guide for Product Innovation Rubric.
#1 Problem definition & Customer selection & specificity (20 points)
- Unable to understand the problem statement, very poorly described; (0)
- Vague definition of the problem but unable to understand a real-world use-case/scenario and end-users that face the problem; (2)
- Only a generalised problem statement without any indication of a real-world use-case/scenario and end-users; (4)
- A technical challenge in the form of a gap in existing systems/solutions/processes is described but without any specific description of a real-world use-case/scenario and end-users that face the problem; (6)
- A novel idea but purely technical in nature without a strong case for it being applied in a real-world problem/use-case scenario; (10)
- Clearly defined problem statement as it is experienced by the beneficiary (beneficiaries) in the real-world but without a description or indication of significance/magnitude; (14)
- Clearly defined and validated problem statement with description of the significance and magnitude of the problem along with profile of different types of beneficiaries impacted by the problem; (20)
#2 Problem significance & magnitude (20 points)
- Unable to understand the problem statement therefore unable to assess the potential; (0)
- Idea is about offering a very conventional product done several times before; (2)
- A technical challenge in the form of a gap in existing systems/solutions/processes is described but without any specific description of a real-world use-case/scenario and end-users that face the problem; (4)
- Conventionally solved problem but idea is about solving some minor gaps in the existing solutions; (8)
- Unsolved problem but with limited problem significance/magnitude; (12)
- Higher degree of problem significance/magnitude but relates to gaps/issues in the existing solutions in the market today; (14)
- Unsolved problem with very high degree of significance/magnitude impacting multiple beneficiaries; (20)
#3 Customer Motivation (20 points)
- Only a vague description of the target customer; (0)
- A generalised description of the beneficiary without any indication of a specific target-customer; (4)
- A weak profile of the target customer is indicated along with a generalised description of use-case (problem scenario); (6)
- The target customer (profile) selected for validation is not aware or convinced that the problem is critical to solve; (8)
- The selected target customer has tried solving the problem and is actively looking for more effective/complete solutions; (14)
- The selected target customer has expressed interest to actively co-create an innovative solution; (20)
#4 Value Proposition — Definition, Quantification & Validation (20 points)
- Unable to understand the value proposition as the problem statement and beneficiaries are poorly defined; (0)
- Vague description of the end-user but unable to understand how solving this problem offers any benefits; (2)
- A generalised description of the beneficiary without indication of specific target customer but the benefits offered are too minimal or insignificant; (6)
- A generalised description of the beneficiary without indication of specific target customer with reasonable benefits offered but not quantified; (10)
- A compelling value proposition targeting a specific target customer but lacks any validation in the form of user/customer feedback; (12)
- A strong value proposition with quantified gains backed by strong validation from a reasonable number of target users/customers; (20)
#5 Effectiveness of MUP Concept in testing Value Proposition (20 points)
- Unable to understand how the problem is solved by the solution described; (0)
- Vague definition of the solution without a specific set of outcomes that prove that the problem has been solved; (2)
- Solution is presented purely from a technical point of view and will work in the lab but looks impractical for end-user adoption; (6)
- Solution defined fits the tag of MUP in terms of offering only the core feature/functionality to test/prove the value proposition, but has not been designed to overcome adoption barriers; (12)
- A very cost effective MUP that can be prototyped rapidly to test the value proposition and shall overcome the adoption barriers; (20)
