{"id":6825,"date":"2017-12-05T00:01:43","date_gmt":"2017-12-05T05:01:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mgrush.com\/blog\/?p=6825"},"modified":"2026-04-21T13:18:42","modified_gmt":"2026-04-21T17:18:42","slug":"real-win-worth","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mgrush.com\/blog\/real-win-worth\/","title":{"rendered":"Advanced Real-Win-Worth Screening Method that Supports Strategic Decisions"},"content":{"rendered":"

Previously, we defined ‘best’ as projects that performed well in an innovation test, focusing on the relative technology and market risks associated with new ideas (e.g., processes, products, etc.). With the Real-Win-Worth framework\u2014designed for experienced facilitators and meeting designers, but equally valuable for beginners\u2014we take this a step further by isolating the most promising candidates for success.<\/h2>\n

The Real-Win-Worth Three-step Screening Approach:<\/span><\/h3>\n
    \n
  1. How\u00a0Real <\/strong>is the opportunity,<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. To what extent we can Win<\/strong> compared to competitive options, and<\/span><\/li>\n
  3. To what extent the opportunity is Worth <\/strong>doing?<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    MGRUSH<\/span><\/em> has been a long-term supporter of decision matrices<\/a>. With some leaning on George Day[1]<\/a>, the following questions provide the framework you can modify for your situation.<\/span><\/p>\n

    \u201cThe 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\u2019s capabilities and competition.\u201d \u2013 George Day<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    The Real-Win-Worth approach provides objective scores<\/a> but requires expert reviews<\/a> at each stage. If the idea is \u2018great\u2019, but we cannot win\u2014there is no need to go further. Even if we have the capacity to win, if the concept is not worth much, there is no need to go further. As a consensus-building<\/a> tool, the Real-Win-Worth approach provides a disciplined method for exposing assumptions while identifying knowledge gaps (and areas of superiority).<\/span><\/p>\n

    Successful screening depends upon the quality of the questions<\/a> you use. Therefore, to arrive at a consensual understanding of answers to the final question about each of Real-Win-Worth, develop a robust set of detailed questions<\/a>. Because neither Mr. Day nor MGRUSH<\/span><\/em> 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<\/a> during each of the three stages.<\/span><\/p>\n

    To what extent the opportunity is Real<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

    Consider two critical vectors. Value the feasibility<\/em> of the product, service, or solution and the extent to which it is attractive<\/em> (e.g., internal or external customers). Answer these factors by exploring the questions<\/a> they contain. Eight representative questions are provided below. Rarely should the questions be posed as close-ended<\/a>. Rather, by exploring the \u201cextent<\/a>\u201d or amount, you develop varying degrees across the vector.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Typically, your best (perhaps most innovative<\/a>) 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<\/a> could be . . . \u00a0Note 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.<\/span><\/p>\n

    To what extent we can Win<\/span> compared to competitive options<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

    After determining the extent to which your customer demand and solution are both real, assess your ability to succeed against competitive options. According to Day,<\/span><\/p>\n

    \u201cTwo of the top three reasons for new-product failures, as revealed by audits, would have been exposed by the\u00a0Can we win?<\/em>\u00a0analysis: Either the new product didn\u2019t 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.)\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Begin by reviewing the additional six questions that explain the two factors of synergies<\/em> and advantages<\/em>. 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,<\/span><\/p>\n

    To what extent the opportunity is Worth<\/span> doing<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

    Finally, the last stage addresses predictive factors including financial risk<\/a>\/ reward<\/em> and strategic<\/em><\/a> fit. Financial projections can be general or refined, but apply consistent 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 . . .<\/span><\/p>\n

    \u201cGiven 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.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    The ranges\u00a0you need to use should be modified for your scale. Remember that risk\/ reward factors while specific, are nevertheless projections<\/a>. Therefore, aggregate the group input for evaluation since the Wisdom of the Crowd<\/em>\u00a0suggests that nobody is smarter than everybody. Here are some illustrative<\/em> placeholders for one of the nine questions suggested below.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Facilitator Considerations<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

    Consider holding a facilitated session to collaboratively develop your evaluation criteria and key questions. You may find that having individuals score candidates privately, followed by aggregating the results, creates a strong foundation for decision-making. This approach ensures the session is grounded in collective understanding and diverse perspectives. Remember, the highest-scoring idea(s) may not automatically win, but it\u2019s essential to avoid overanalyzing suboptimal options. Instead, guide the group\u2019s focus toward the most promising candidates to make informed, effective final decisions.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Please consider the following Real-Win-Worth questions as guidelines, meant to be freely adapted and customized to fit your specific context. Additionally, toward the end of this article, you will find illustrative examples of questions along with a potential range of responses for each.<\/span><\/p>\n

    \""<yoastmark\"<\/span><\/p>\n

    Real-Win-Worth Nodes<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    \"Real-Win-Worth<\/a>

    Real-Win-Worth Illustration<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/div>\n

    \n

    [1]<\/a> See \u201cIs It Real? Can We Win? Is It Worth Doing? Managing Risk and Reward in an Innovation Portfolio\u201d which appeared in the December 2007 edition of the Harvard Business Review<\/span><\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    In a world where everyone can engage in decisions that affect them<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    ______<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

    Lead the Change\u2014One Meeting at a Time<\/b><\/b><\/span><\/h3>\n

    Are you ready to transform how decisions are made, problems are solved, and alignment is built in your organization?<\/span><\/p>\n

    True meeting leadership goes beyond setting an agenda.<\/b> It requires a facilitator who can navigate complexity, balance voices, and drive toward outcomes with clarity and consensus. Our Professional Meeting Leadership Workshop<\/b><\/a> and facilitation training equips you to do just that\u2014blending human-centric methods<\/b> with structured analytical tools<\/b> to foster rigor, inclusivity, and results that stick.<\/span><\/p>\n