Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Earlier (see: Risk Analysis – Method and Questions to Facilitate a Portfolio of Projects) we defined “best” as projects that scored favorably in an Innovation test by looking at the relative technology and market risks associated with new ideas (eg, process, product, etc.). With Real-Win-Worth (geared for experienced facilitators and meeting designers, but beneficial to beginners as well) we go a step further and isolate the very best candidates.

The Real-Win-Worth Three-step Screening Approach:

  1. How Real is the opportunity,
  2. To what extent we can Win compared to competitive options, and
  3. To what extent the opportunity is Worth doing.

MG RUSH has been a long-term proponent of decision matrices. With some leaning on George Day[1], the following questions provide the framework that you can modify for your particular situation.

“The R-W-W (Real-Win-Worth) screen(ing) is a simple but powerful tool built on a series of questions about the innovation concept or product, its potential market, and the company’s capabilities and competition.” – George Day

The Real-Win-Worth approach provides objective scores but also requires expert reviews at each stage. If the idea is ‘great’, but we cannot win—then there is no need to go further. Even if we have the capacity to win, but the concept is not worth much, there is no need to go further. As a consensus-building tool, the Real-Win-Worth approach provides a disciplined method for exposing assumptions while also identifying knowledge gaps (or areas of superiority).

Successful screening depends upon the quality of the questions you use. Therefore, to arrive at consensual understanding about answers to the final question about each of Real-Win-Worth, develop a robust set of detailed questions. Because neither Mr. Day or MG RUSH can tell you how to modify the basic questions for your situation, first understand the intent and then determine what you need to make an informed decision during each of the three stages.

To what extent the opportunity is Real

Consider two critical vectors. Value the feasibility of the product, service, or solution and the extent to which it is attractive (eg, internal or external customers). Answer these factors by exploring the questions they contain. Eight representative questions are provided below. Rarely should the questions be posed as close-ended. Rather, by exploring the “extent” or amount, you develop varying degrees across the vector.

Typically, your best (perhaps most innovative) solutions will score higher relative to each other. For example, with question 2.2. (To what extent do we have the technology and expertise to make it?) your range could be . . .  Note the non-linear weighting suggested below, ranging from zero through nine. Ultimately the ideas that score best will pass on to the next phase or stage.

To what extent we can Win compared to competitive options

After determining the extent to which your customer demand and solution are both real, next assess your ability to succeed against competitive options. According to Day,

“Two of the top three reasons for new-product failures, as revealed by audits, would have been exposed by the Can we win? analysis: Either the new product didn’t achieve its market-share goals, or prices dropped much faster than expected. (The third reason is that the market was smaller, or grew more slowly, than expected.)”

Begin by reviewing the additional six questions that explain the two factors about synergies and advantages. Then, consider pulling in the results from any research efforts to help answer the questions. Focus on an open-ended answer of likely outcomes or projections. For example,

To what extent the opportunity is Worth doing

Finally, the last stage addresses predictive factors including financial risk/ reward and strategic fit. Financial projections can be general or refined, but apply a consistent level of rigor to everything you evaluate. Additionally, keep in mind that forecasts of financial returns from innovative solutions are notoriously unreliable. Day notes from his research that . . .

“Given the susceptibility of financial forecasts to manipulation, overconfidence, and bias, executives should depend on rigorous answers to the prior questions in the screen for their conclusions about profitability.”

The ranges you need to use should be modified for your scale. Remember that risk/ reward factors while specific, are nevertheless projections. Therefore, aggregate the group input for evaluation since the “Wisdom of the Crowd” suggests that nobody is smarter than everybody. Here are some illustrative placeholders for one of the nine questions suggested below.

Facilitator Considerations

Consider a facilitated session to build your questions in addition to your evaluation criteria. You may discover that by having individuals score the candidates privately and then aggregating results, you have a robust platform to launch a decision-making session because it is based on everyone’s understanding and collaborative perspective. Always keep in mind that the highest scoring idea(s) does not claim victory, but avoid spending too much time discussing sub-optimal ideas, allowing the group to focus on the best candidates for its final decision(s).

Please treat the Real-Win-Worth questions that follow as directional. They should be liberally modified. Finally, an illustrative example of some questions and potential range of responses for each is provided toward the end of this article.

"<yoastmark

Real-Win-Worth Illustration

Real-Win-Worth Illustration


[1] See “Is It Real? Can We Win? Is It Worth Doing? Managing Risk and Reward in an Innovation Portfolio” that appeared in the December 2007 edition of the Harvard Business Review

______

Don’t ruin your career or reputation with bad meetings. Register for a class or forward this to someone who should. Taught by world-class instructors, MG RUSH  professional facilitation curriculum focuses on practice. Therefore, each student thoroughly practices and rehearses tools, methods, and approaches throughout the week. While some call this immersion, we call it the road to building impactful facilitation skills.  #facilitationtraining 

Our courses also provide an excellent way to earn up to 40 SEUs from the Scrum Alliance, 40 PDUs from PMI, and 40 CDUs from IIBA, as well as 3.2 CEUs for other professions. (See individual class descriptions for details.)   #bettermeetings  

Want a free 10-minute break timer? Signup for our once-monthly newsletter HERE and receive a timer along with four other of our favorite facilitation tools, free.   #meetingdesignsolutions

blank

Facilitation Expert

Terrence Metz, CSM, PSPO, CSPF, is the Managing Director of MG RUSH Facilitation Training and Coaching, the acknowledged leader in structured facilitation training. His FAST Facilitation Best Practices blog features over 300 articles on facilitation skills and tools aimed at helping others lead faster, more productive meetings and workshops that yield higher quality decisions. His clients include Agilists, Scrum teams, program and project managers, senior officers, and the business analyst community among numerous private and public companies and global corporations. As an undergraduate of Northwestern University (Evanston, IL) and MBA graduate from NWU’s Kellogg School of Management, his professional experience has focused on process improvement and product development. He continually aspires to make it easier for others to succeed.

Visit Our Website

2 Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.