User Guide for Forge Innovation Rubric
A guide to understand the terms used in the rubric, as well as a few Do’s & Don’ts to make sure you put the rubric to work as a rigorous diagnostic tool for product innovations
Product Innovation Hypotheses
In order to evaluate the potential of Product Innovations and to gauge the progress of the Innovator, the FIR serves as the diagnostic tool for continuously assessing the inherent risks, which can be mitigated only through a process of validation. Doing so requires a standardised input — set of facts or details, which can be prepared by the innovator and used as basis for the FIR assessment. Since the very crux of the rubric is validation of the core assumptions related to the most fundamental aspects of the product innovation, it is only logical that the input for the rubric should be those very assumptions, summarised cogently and succinctly. To facilitate this we came up with the Product Innovation Hypotheses canvas, and encourage the innovators to continuously refine their hypotheses as they go through the process of problem validation, customer discovery, crafting and testing value proposition, and conceptualising MUP.
Terms & Terminology
#1 Beneficiaries
It refers at a very broad level to the different persons (individual users or consumers) or organisations (entities or companies or businesses) who will directly benefit (through gains or savings or favourable changes or desirable outcomes in tangible or intangible ways) from having the target problem solved.
For example, by solving the problem of stroke patients unable to get access to reliable and affordable physiotherapy and thereby risk permanent limb failure, we can directly benefit:
- Patients — who can gain back their normal lives and avoid the risk of becoming a burden for their families, or in worst case suffer from stroke recurrence;
- Physiotherapists — who can now have ways to serve a larger number of patients more effectively and also generate more income;
- Doctors — who can now be assured of more reliable recovery and rehabilitation of stroke patients;
- Hospitals — who can now achieve better care outcomes as well as generate additional revenues from offering affordable treatment to patients who were otherwise ignored;
In the broadest sense, these beneficiaries could be thought of as different types of customers.
#2 Multiple Beneficiaries
As in the example above, a problem that ties with different types of beneficiaries does have a higher degree or measure of problem significance and magnitude, making it much more worthy of solving. In such cases the innovator has the option to monetise the value created to any or all of these different beneficiaries, which in effect translates to the product innovation having a much higher market/business potential.
#3 User v/s Customer
From the point of solving the problem, we talk in terms of USER as being that person (and even if the beneficiary is an organization, ultimately there will be a person) who is expected to use the solution to solve the problem. However when we talk in terms of not only using the solution but buying (or purchasing) the solution, then we refer to that person or the organization as the CUSTOMER.
#4 User v/s Buyer
In cases where the User person is also the Buyer person then we refer to that User-Buyer jointly as Customer. In the case of organizations, it is quite common to find that the User person and Buyer persons are different, with the User person being more involved in Technical/Operational aspects and Buyer person more on the Commercial/Financial aspects. However in such case we would refer to the organization overall as the Customer.
The distinction arises more sharply in cases where the User person is merely the one that uses the product whereas the revenues are generated through price paid by another Buyer person who is a different beneficiary altogether. For example, in the case of Google, the Users are those consumers of the various free digital/internet tools and services offered by Google, whereas the Buyers are those Advertisers that pay Google for posting their ads. In this case, the Buyer person should be referred to as Customer.
#5 Specific does not mean Single
The point about specificity is to bring a sharper focus in identifying who the target User/Customer is, so that the most effective value proposition can be defined, quantified and validated in that very specific context. This doesn’t mean a single User/Customer is sufficient but what is needed is validation of the problem, adoption barriers, value proposition, solution concept etc. with a reasonable number of Users/Customers that fit that specific profile.
Specific profile and a reasonable number of Users/Customers is recommended as opposed to Single User/Customer.
#6 Value Proposition Defined
Definition of value proposition is the identification of the various value elements such as Gains, Savings, Outcomes or Changes along with a description of the element in the context of the specific use-case and User/Customer.
#7 Value Proposition Quantified
Quantifying the specific value elements either as numerical metrics or as qualitative parameters or degrees/proportions of changes so as to measure or observe the impact of the innovative solution.
#8 Value Proposition Validated
User/Customer indicating strong/firm acceptance of both the defined value elements and the metrics/parameters identified. Going beyond acceptance at a conceptual level, the innovator has to achieve validation in terms of the User/Customer actually experiencing the value elements. The smartest innovators are those that are able to design and deploy/test prototypes in such a way that their target users/customers can experience the value elements with fewer features and functionalities, spending less time and money.
#9 Problem Significance & Magnitude
This relates to how severely the problem impacts or affects the beneficiary, and is a very good indicator of whether it is a critical need or not. In simple terms, think of a pain killer versus vitamin tablet, and you can relate to both the impact they will do to the person consuming them and also the price they will sell at.
In the case of the problem relating to the poor limb recovery and rehabilitation of stroke patients post surgery, if the end result is minor or infrequent issues with hand or finger movements, then the significance of the problem is low. But if the effect is potentially permanent disability of the limbs or recurrence of stroke then the problem is highly significant.
In terms of magnitude, we refer to being able to quantify the impact of the problem. In the case where there is permanent disability of the patient then the loss is much higher because the person is rendered unemployable or unproductive and the household incurs additional cost to care for the person. However with minor or infrequent issues the loss is negligible.
#10 Problem Incidence
Problem incidence is a measure of how widely is the problem encountered in its most serious/critical form within the universe of beneficiaries. In the case of stroke patients, let’s say only a small portion of patients end up suffering from permanent disability due to poor rehabilitation, then the incidence is low even if the significance is higher.
On the other hand if larger portion of stroke patients end up with permanent disability, then incidence and significance are both very high, making it a really critical problem.
#11 Unsolved Problems — What are they?
A problem can be claimed to be Unsolved if only a very small portion of the total addressable market (TAM) is being currently catered to by existing solutions — this is referred to as Serviced Market (SM). If the SM is less than 10% of the TAM, then it can be taken as a case Unsolved Problem. The fact that the SM is small compared to TAM is possibly an indicator that the current products are not affordable or usable/acceptable or both to the rest of the TAM.
#12 Co-creation
Developing the innovative solutions working with the target user/customer, is a strongest indicator of customer motivation. Early feedback on solution concept, strong validation of value proposition, and most importantly a more accurate description of adoption barriers and the feedback on the steps to be taken to overcome those barriers are key benefits of co-creation, that leads to the whole process of design, development and deployment getting fast-tracked. A strong testimonial from a co-creator customer can help the innovator convince other target customers, and this in the overall sense lowers validation risk.
#13 MUP — Minimum Usable Prototype
Problem solving is most effective when the prototyping process is agile and iterative. The natural tendency is to build a feature-rich solution and thereby delay end-user feedback. It is advised to avoid the creation of a more elaborate solution in the form of a full-fledged ‘Product’ that might end up with many useless and unusable features or functionalities. Therefore, it is imperative to focus the whole prototyping activity only towards building, testing and proving a smaller scope of solution called the Minimum Usable Prototype (MUP).
MUP is a ‘Good is Good Enough’ solution with the most important features that is enough to convince the end-user to use it, provide feedback, and understand/experience its worth. Product Innovators should rapidly design, develop and deploy/test their MUPs taking less time and money. MUP is to help the innovator quickly nail what the target customers accept as a permanent solution and how much are they willing to pay for it.
#14 Adoption Barriers
Innovations are de-risked by overcoming Adoption Barriers.
In attempting to solve real-world problems — specifically in the cases where current alternatives exist in the form of branded products/solutions in the organised market/sector, it is most important to study the adoption barriers that are preventing target customers/users from buying and using the product.
Adoption barriers are those perspectives (financial, technical, functional) of the target customers/users that prevent them from making the current solutions a part of their lives. The problems can be solved and outcomes/gains realised only if solutions can become part of lives — as in the everyday routines, behaviours, activities or tasks.
These user/customer perspectives tend to increase the perceived risk of buying/using the product. To overcome adoption barriers innovations should offer a significant gain realised with the least change in habit, lowest financial risk, minimal side effects etc.
Usability/deployment constraints indicate those features/attributes which are necessary to overcome the likely adoption barriers respectively.
Different Adoption Barriers:
- TCO — (Total Cost of Ownership)
- Maintenance/Service
- Skills/Expertise
- Installation/Integration
- Resources/materials
- Time consumption
- Physical/personal risk
- Product training
- Changes to habits/process
- Accessibility
- Inability to assess quality of the product/service [Risk Perception]
- Monitoring the usage/deployment
