Examples of anchored scales for rating “Knowledge Building”, “Fuzzy Front End (FFE)” or “New Concept Development Model (NCD)” projects on their pathway to technical and commercial success follow.

Fuzzy Front End (FFE) Activities can be segmented into 20 areas. Anchored Scale Metrics for each of these 20 Fuzzy Front End (FFE) Activities can be summarized as:

  • Engine
    • 1. Internal Resources & Capabilities
    • 2. Motivation and Innovation Culture
    • 3. Communication of Strategy
  • Influencing Factors
    • 4. External Resources Availability (Science, People, $)
    • 5. Legal Hurdles (Patents & Regulations)
    • 6. Public Opinion
  • Opportunity Identification
    • 7. Degree of Potential Innovation
    • 8. Number & Variety of Approaches
    • 9. Knowledge of Un met Needs
  • Opportunity Analysis
    • 10. Alignment with Business Strategy
    • 11. Quality of Extremal Information – Technical Plan
    • 12. Timeliness
  • Idea Genesis and Enrichment
    • 13. Number and Variety of Approaches for Idea Generation & Enrichment
    • 14. Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Quality of Germination and Enrichment Processes
    • 15. Quality of Ideas
  • Idea Selection
    • 16. Effectiveness, Efficiency, Quality, and Speed of Processes
    • 17. Value of Ideas (Fit with Strategy, Goodness)
  • Concept Definition
    • 18. Clarity of Value Proposition
    • 19. Clarity and Quality of Technical Path
  • Output from NCD Model
    • 20. Output from NCD Model

Details of the Anchored Scale Metrics for measuring performance on each of the 20 Activity Metrics are:

1. Internal Resources & Capabilities: Availability of necessary resources (diversity, competencies, production, third parties), presences and availability of entrepreneurs/champions and gatekeepers, effectiveness of sponsors and champions.
Anchoring Statements:
1-5. Resources for Front End activities are actively planned for, provided, and supported. All employees are expected to spend some time exploring unassigned ideas that may benefit the company. Project champions are formally trained to help them improve their effectiveness. Core competencies are managed towards achieving diverse skill sets needed to address future needs. Learnings from all projects become part of a knowledge management system.
1-4. Some resources are dedicated to Front End activities. Some employees are assigned to spend time exploring unassigned ideas that may benefit the company. Value of championing projects is recognized and encouraged. Core competencies are actively managed to assure availability. Learnings from successful and cancelled projects are formally analyzed and documented.
1-3. Some resources are available for Front End activities. A few employees are encouraged to spend time exploring unassigned ideas. A few projects have champions. Core competencies are recognized but not actively maintained. Reasons why projects succeeded and failed are discussed.
1-2. The need for Front End work is recognized but resources are not easy to get. Must justify in writing and seek formal approval to explore new ideas. Project champions are considered too pushy and self-centered. Core competencies are not recognized. Projects are documented but no analysis of success and failures.
1-1. Technical support and incremental development consume all available resources. Exploring new ideas outside of assigned projects are openly discouraged. There is no history of project champions in the company. Core competencies are not valued. No formal documentation of projects.

2. Motivation and Innovation Culture: Reward system in place/feedback to individuals, upper management articulation of need for new ideas and “holy grails,” encouragement by management for risk taking.
Anchoring Statements:
2-5. Risk taking is part of corporate culture and is expected behavior. Senior executives personally acting as champions of high-risk projects. Personal wealth creation is possible through sharing of profits from innovation. Individuals in organization encourage each other to be creative and innovative. In-house grants available to pursue new ideas with no strings attached.
2-4. Risk taking is recognized as necessary for company’s success and openly supported. Senior executives routinely emphasize need for technical innovation by everybody in organization. Significant part of compensation and bonuses are tied to Front End activities. Most in the organization are personally excited about their contributions to innovation. In-house grants frequently given to help explore new ideas.
2-3. Risk taking is often talked about and encouraged but rarely acted on. Senior management likes to project the image of being supportive of risky projects. Significant financial rewards are sometimes given for technical innovations. It seems that always the same individuals are active in higher risk projects. Funding for high risk efforts are available but must be rigorously justified.
2-2. Risk taking tolerated but not encouraged. Senior management appears reluctantly supportive of risky projects. Token financial awards are sometimes given for technical innovation. Some individuals are involved in “secret” high-risk projects. Funding for risky projects must be obtained from outside sources.
2.1. Failed efforts openly criticized. Senior management known to be skeptical of the need for innovation. No formal financial incentives for innovation. Individuals avoid becoming involved in risky projects. No in-house financial support of any kind for high-risk projects.

3. Communication of Strategy: Clear communication of strategy and vision by upper management and effective communication throughout the organization.
Anchoring Statements:
3-5. Vision reflected in all actions by senior management. Stretch goals drive company strategic planning. Business and innovation plans are integrated into one plan and supported by all. Everybody’s behavior is consistent with company’s innovation goals.
3-4. Vision part of company culture. Innovation strategy is linked with business and strategic plans. Business and R&D managers openly support each other’s plans. Everybody in organization can describe what the company’s innovation goals are.
3-3 . Most of the employees know what the company vision is. Innovation targets mentioned briefly in business and strategic plans. Some technology plans are coordinated with business plans. General aspects of the innovation goals are understood by some in the organization.
3-2. Vision communicated during public appearances by senior management. The need for innovation formally recognized in strategic plans. Efforts are made to align innovation and business strategies. Everybody in organization has heard that there are innovation goals.
3-1. Company vision not well understood by employees. No mention of technical goals in strategic plans. Business and R&D managers often talk about the need to align strategies. Not much interest in innovation goals.

4. External Resources Availability (Science, People, $): Budget, manpower and commitment from top senior management for pursuing external new technology idea generation; research, development, and/or acquisition.
Anchoring Statements:
4-5. Same as statement 4-4 plus the following condition exists; Platform researchers have a budget to retain outside expert scientists. On a quarterly basis, these scientists evaluate internal and external platform research projects for sound science. These expert scientists also are retained as company spokes persons in the event independent third parties are needed to address public relations or government inquiries concerning a fuzzy front-end technology.
4-4. Same as statement 4-3 , plus the following condition exists; An internal technology scout continuously identifies candidate technologies that may fit into existing platforms or outside platforms, but are aligned with the strategic business plan. This is accomplished through the use of web based technology transfer sites, university sites, and attendance at technology shows. Technologies identified are evaluated for fit with the strategic business plan using an agreed to set of criteria and sent to platform leaders or the Director of R&D who then assign project managers to pursue projects.
4-3. The Vice-President or Director of R&D has overall responsibility for budget, execution and delivery of new technologies from outside resources. Platform leaders and the Vice-President or Director of R&D develop a budget for current platforms and an additional discretionary budget for exploratory pursuits that may generate new platforms, all of which are aligned with the corporate strategic business plan. The budget includes funds for technology idea generation, research, concept testing, and travel. Platform leaders manage the budget and prepare quarterly update reports to appropriate financial officer. Platform leaders sometimes retain outside consultants to hold outside expert panel idea generation sessions, continuously identify ideas from outside university or government researchers, and pursue research projects or programs with outside university, government, or industrial research laboratories. Researchers from each platform are assigned as project managers to monitor projects for adherence to budgets, timetables and work plans. Internal legal counsel works with project managers to secure confidential disclosure agreements, letters of intent, project contracts, joint development agreements, and joint research agreements etc. with external researchers or external sources of technology. Legal counsel and researchers have received some training in global negotiation skills to efficiently and effectively reach agreement with the other party regarding intellectual property ownership, royalties, regulatory requirements, criteria of success and other contractual details.
4-2. The Vice-President or Director of R&D has overall responsibility for budget, execution and delivery of new technologies from outside resources. On a case-by-case basis, this officer approves funding for platform and non-platform research based on priority related to near term product development needs. Platform researchers identify external research sources through literature reports or patents or by attending technical meetings. Projects are not closely monitored for adherence to work plans, timetables, or budget. Joint ventures are discouraged. Internal legal counsel reviews and approves research contracts. Negotiations may drag on because of poor training or overworked legal counsel.
4-1. The company has a philosophy to conduct all research and development internally.

5. Legal Hurdles (Patents & Regulations) : Availability of necessary resources (budget for legal opinions and searches on a global basis) and presence and availability of internal patent agents, intellectual property and regulatory legal counsel, and scientists with legal backgrounds, effectiveness in interpreting complex technical-legal issues, product/processes that are subject to food, drug, cosmetic or environmental regulations, and products/processes that may have partial or complete patent coverage by an outside party.
Anchoring Statements:
5-5. Computerized processes are used to scan all products, ideas and processes for compliance to all applicable regulations and potential patent infringements. Staff with regulatory responsibilities are frequently trained and tested for compliance to regulations (new and existing). Domestic and international legal counsel (internal or external) continuously search for and evaluate new regulations and recently issued patents and/or patent applications to avoid regulatory action and or lawsuits that could result in deleterious financial and for public relation results. Products/processes found to be out of regulatory compliance are documented and rectified in a punctual manner with full disclosure to senior management. Intranet based continuous resolution of patent offense and defense issues by an intellectual property committee composed of internal patent attorneys/patent agents, new technology development director, global and regional business directors, VP of R&D, and invited internal scientists. Outside patents that may present an infringement issue are reviewed with detailed searches for prior art in the patent or scientific literature, evaluated for patent life, breath of coverage, and prior art quality and quantity to determine risk and the need to either declare it invalid, avoid the patent or license it from the inventors.
5-4. Manual processes are used to scan all products, ideas and processes for compliance to all applicable regulations and potential patent infringements. Staff with regulatory responsibilities are routinely trained and tested for compliance to regulations (new and existing). Legal reviews are conducted at outside firms to semiannually evaluate new regulations to avoid regulatory action and or lawsuits. Products/processes found to be out of regulatory compliance are documented and rectified in a punctual manner with full disclosure to senior management. Monthly resolution of patent offense and defense issues by an intellectual property committee composed of internal patent attorneys/patent agents, new technology development director, global and regional business directors, VP of R&D, and invited internal scientists. Outside patents that may present an infringement issue usually resolved by avoidance or licensing.
5-3. Manual processes are used to scan products and/or processes just before commercialization for compliance to all applicable regulations and potential patent infringements. Staff with regulatory responsibilities are occasionally trained and tested for compliance to regulations (new and existing). Legal reviews are conducted at outside firms to annually evaluate new regulations to avoid regulatory action and or lawsuits. Products/processes found to be out of regulatory compliance are documented and rectified in a punctual manner with full disclosure to senior management. Quarterly meeting of an intellectual property committee composed of internal patent attorneys/patent agents, new technology development director, regional business directors, VP of R&D, and invited internal scientists review new ideas for fast track patent applications, create a strategy for filing a variety of patent applications to surround a fuzzy front end technology, patent applications for nationalization, nationalized patents for discontinuing annuity payment (cost savings), and new competitor patent applications and issued patents for action plans. Outside patents that may present an infringement issue are reviewed with detailed searches for prior art in the patent or scientific literature (conducted outside or internally), evaluated for patent life, breathe of coverage, and prior art quality and quantity. Typically, outside patents that may present an infringement issue are avoided by reformulation or changing a process.
5-2. Informal and occasional checks of products and/or processes just before commercialization are done for compliance to all applicable regulations and some known problem patents. Staff with regulatory responsibilities are sometimes trained and tested for compliance to regulations (new and existing). Products/processes found to be out of regulatory compliance are sometimes documented and rectified eventually with no disclosure to senior management. Infrequent meetings of an intellectual property committee composed of the VP R&D, patent attorney, and a corporate business director to review evaluated ideas; determine priority of patent filings, and filing strategy. Outside patents that they review that may present an infringement issue are sometimes ignored with risk accepted by management.
5-1. Laboratory notebooks and a computerized idea system are used to document and witness new ideas for future patent and new product opportunities. No formal review of patent filings or the company conducts potential infringement risk patents.

6. Public Opinion: As an Influencing Factor, Public Opinion relates to the public’s sensitivity, awareness, and perception of your company, your policies, your products, and your actions and how they relate to the changing array of local and current values, concerns, and issues. As a metric for the Front End of Innovation, you would want to know how well prepared you are to sense, react, influence, and respond to the relatively uncontrollable changes in public opinion and the public’s perceptions of your policies, procedures, products, and actions.
Anchoring Statements:
6-5. An on-going, active process to monitor, assess, communicate internally the public’s opinions of the company’s reputation as a respectable, ethical, compassionate corporate citizen in their country, their region, and their locality. The process also develops and disseminates information to proactively improve the public’s opinion of the company, its policies, and products. Company policies and procedures are adjusted in an appropriate manner relative to changes in public interests, values, and concerns when necessary. Should a problem arise, trained resources are prepared and in place to respond in such a way as to minimize damage to the company’s image and to reinforce its concern for its neighbors and its compliance with all regulations.
6-4. An on-going, active process to monitor and assess public opinions around the company’s reputation as a respectable, ethical, compassionate corporate citizen in their country, their region, and their locality. Information about public opinion is used by some individuals to influence decisions about potential new policies, procedures, products, and affiliations. The company is careful to comply with both the letter and the intent of all regulations and standards of ethical behavior.
6-3. An informal process to occasionally monitor public opinion, which does not share information widely across the company. If some company policy or activity produced a negative public response in the recent past, similar issues may be discussed relative to new products, services, processes, or business models. Information about public opinion is occasionally used by anyone when making decisions about potential new policies, procedures, products, and affiliations. Minimum compliance with all regulations is addressed when designing something new or when the regulations change.
6-2. An informal process to monitor public opinion only after an incident or issue arises. Public opinion is rarely considered when making decisions about new offerings. Minimum compliance with all regulations is addressed only when designing something new; there is no monitoring of changes in regulations.
6-1. Interest in public opinion is low and attention to it is only present after some part of the company’s business is negatively impacted by a news report or other public response. There is so much concentration on financial performance that public opinion is rarely considered. There is wide spread panic by most employees when the local news van pulls up in front of the building.

7. Degree of Potential Innovation: The “Degree of Potential Innovation” metric measures how ready a corporation is to accept and pursue Innovation.
Anchoring Statements:
7-5. Senior executives actively seek and embrace disruptive technologies as growth opportunities. The corporate portfolio of growth initiatives is continuously monitored to ensure a healthy balance of risk, reward, cash flow and growth into new markets. Corporate strategy is often developed or modified on the basis of emerging trends.
7-4. Growth opportunities are actively considered when they fit with corporate strategy. New competencies are added when required to support customer needs. Risk management is in place, and appropriate risk-taking is encouraged. Significant effort in R&D and business development exists.
7-3. Customer needs often drive new product development efforts, even when they go beyond traditional product and service offering.
7-2. Effort is spent on incremental expansion of new products and services, but with modest effort and risk taking.
7-1. Focus is on current products and services and proven technologies. Little time and patience is devoted to out-of-the-box concepts and emerging trends. Risk-taking is avoided.

8. Number & Variety of Approaches: The “Number and Variety of Approaches” metric measures the ability of a corporation to capture and understand opportunities for growth.
Anchoring Statements:
8-5. Long range forecasts are developed jointly with customers. VOC and QFD are routinely used with existing and potential new customers. Results of customer meetings are continuously communicated inside the company to feed new product planning efforts and to generate growth new product ideas. Teams are in place to examine future technology and market trends. R&D is part of an integrated business team working with a similar team at the customer.
8-4. Knowledge of customer needs is shared beyond the sales force. R&D has good exposure to customers. Regular meetings are held to capture and distribute knowledge of customer needs. R&D gets input from multiple functions at the customer.
8-3. A customer needs database is in place, and kept up to date. Customer needs are reviewed annually or semi-annually with rest of corporation as business planning occurs. R&D interfaces with only R&D at the customer.
8-2. Sales force is main contact with customers to identify needs and opportunities. Importance of customer needs is recognized but there is no support for addressing it. R&D is discouraged from customer contact.
8-1. The corporation has more of an internal focus. Sales must fit with existing assets and product catalogues offerings. Communications with customers is minimal. R&D is not trusted and prohibited from customer contact.

9. Knowledge of Unmet Needs: The “Knowledge of Unmet Needs” metric measures the ability of a corporation to find and communicate unmet needs.
Anchoring Statements:
9-5. Continuously exploring and forecasting the needs of current customers and industries, as well as potential new customers and industries. Formal knowledge management methods are routinely used to ensure that unmet needs are communicated within corporation as input to business planning.
9-4. Proactively attempting to understand unmet needs of your customer (and your customer’s customer) through multiple contact points, in order to determine both current and future unmet needs. Contacts often included R&D and advanced product-planning functions.
9-3. Frequent meetings with existing customers to assess their current unmet needs. Techniques such as Voice of customer employed to identify existing needs not yet recognized by the customer.
9-2. Receptive to customer input on problems and challenges. Maintains routine communication channels to permit customer input. Little proactive probing to learn customer’s unmet needs.
9-1. Focus is exclusively on providing current products and services to existing customers. Minimal communications with customers and no formal feedback methods are used. Customer complaints and comments are seldom examined in depth in order to understand the customer’s true unmet needs.

10. Alignment with Business Strategy: A product / process development opportunity is assessed to determine if it is worth pursuing. This element outlines but does not exhaustively address the technology and market uncertainty involved in innovation, but is intended to get enough of a grasp on a perceived opportunity to gauge whether other NCD elements should be pursued. The focus of this metric is not to evaluate the quality of the opportunity; it is to evaluate the quality of the process.
Anchoring Statements:
10-5. There is a clear and concise written process, used routinely, to assess the relationship between an opportunity and to determine the fit with the corporate and business unit strategies. – or – “typical project has a clear. … ” And the alignment is compelling enough to support immediately proceeding as proposed.
I 0-4. Alignment with business strategy is outlined but not compelling enough to make an immediate decision to proceed as proposed. Some discussion and a little further evaluation will be needed to assess the risks versus the rewards of developing this technology and/or offering before proceeding.
10-3. Alignment with business strategy is fairly clear but lacks details about a few key issues. More information is needed and much more work needs to be done to clarify the degree of alignment before making a decision to proceed.
10-2. There is a rough definition of the alignment with business strategy but there is not enough information to discuss or evaluate. Much more information is needed and significantly more work needs to be done to outline strategic alignment before a decision could possibly be made to proceed.
10-1. There is no written declaration of alignment with business strategy. No decision can be made as to the merits of this concept.

11. Quality of External Information – Technical Plan: How clearly defined are the hypotheses, the technical development path, the experimental paradigm, any rate limiting factors, and the plan to deal with any regulatory requirements and issues? Is this Concept attractive to the company from the standpoint of its contribution to and defensibility of Intellectual Property estate of the firm?
Anchoring Statements:
11-5. There is a clear and concise written definition of the Technical Path along with a compelling Business Case for the company to invest in the development of this technology and/or offering. The hypotheses are clearly stated and easily understood. Plans for dealing with regulatory and intellectual property issues are detailed and specific. It is so easy to comprehend the benefits of going down the Technical Path as proposed and the fact that those benefits far outweigh any costs or risks involved in development that the only logical decision is to agree with the plan as proposed, to resource the project per the recommendations in the document, and to immediately begin development work as outlined in the document.
11-4. The Technical Plan as written is mostly clear and concise despite issues with a few details. The hypotheses are understandable as stated but not much detail is provided. Plans for dealing with regulatory and intellectual property issues are not fairly detailed. The Technical Path appears attractive enough to be worthy of consideration for future work, but the Business Case is not compelling enough to make an immediate decision to proceed as proposed. Some discussion and a little further evaluation will be needed to assess the risks versus the rewards of developing this techno logy and/or offering before proceeding.
11-3. The Technical Path is fairly clear but may lack details about a few key issues. The hypotheses are not clearly defined and the plans for dealing with regulatory and intellectual property issues are not very detailed. If more information is needed and much more work needs to be done to clarify the Technical Path for going forward before making a decision to proceed. Significant discussion, investigation, and/or evaluation will be needed to assess the risks versus the rewards of developing this technology and/or offering.
11-2. There is only a high level, very rough description of the Technical Path. A decision cannot be made whether or not to begin development work of any kind. Much more information is needed and significantly more -work needs to be done to clarify the Technical Path before a decision could possibly be made to proceed.
II-1. There is no written definition or plan for the Technical Path. It is not clear what technology needs to be developed for the Concept. No decision can be made about the Technical Path.

12. Timeliness: The Timeliness metric characterizes how “up-to-date” the information is, which is used to assess an opportunity.
Anchoring Statements:
12-5. The information used was generated very recently (days to months, depending on the rate of technological and economic change in the opportunity area) and measures exactly the activity you are trying to assess. For example, a new release of data detailing the number of cable television subscribers on a metropolitan system (government data)
12-4. The data is reasonably current but may be aggregated in a way that requires some additional analysis or is not exactly what you are trying to measure. For example, weather data for a state may not describe precise1.y the weather conditions in a county.
12-3. The information used was generated a while ago, but is still useful for reckoning. For example, weather forecasts from the Farmers’ Almanac.
12-2. The information is old and updates are available, but could be reliably estimated. An exaI11ple of data in this category might include financial data from a publicly traded firm that is more than three quarters old, as those publicly traded firms release non-audited data more often.
12-1. The information was old and cannot be adjusted to aid reckoning. Examples of data in in is category might include full census data more than) 0 years old, any non-current legal information, and syndicated studies in which the source says a major update is available.

13. Number and Variety of Approaches for Idea Generation & Enrichment: New ideas documented as part of technical / marketing memos as well as a number and variety of new idea generation processes (brainstorm with customers, trade shows).
Anchoring Statements:
13-5. Many parallel and diverse approaches are used to generate and enrich ideas and the output is documented and shared widely. For example, an established, system for soliciting ideas exists on the company’s intranet; the database is searchable and individuals from throughout the company can “tag on” to other individual’s ideas; the system is continually improved through a cross-functional team that meets on a regular (quarterly) basis. Ideas are generated from a variety of sources (minimum of five); a cross-functional team evaluates where and how the most effective ideas are generated and make recommendations for change. Individuals or teams of experts exist that stay abreast of new techniques and train others on idea generation. New ideas are documented and shared openly and systematically as an integral part of visit reports and technical memos.
13-4. Experts exist within the company to give advice on gathering ideas. Brainstorming and other techniques are promoted, taught, and frequently applied within the company. Structured interaction between technical and sales and marketing personnel occur on a frequent basis. Regular, organized visits are made to universities, trade show and industry meetings.
13-3. More than one approach is used to generate and enrich ideas. Idea generation sessions are infrequent, but the output is documented and shared. Customer and supplier visits are documented and shared to extract ideas. Technical people are encouraged to travel with sales and marketing people to gather ideas.
13-2. Researchers are encouraged to visit trade shows and industry meetings to stimulate new ideas. Idea generation sessions are rare and there is limited sharing of ideas or output. Human resources has available methods and reference materials for seeking new ideas, but they are used infrequently.
13-1. There is no system for encouraging, soliciting, or sharing ideas. The generation is random and haphazard and results from individual initiative. There is no training for individuals seeking new ideas.

14. Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Quality of Germination and Enrichment Processes: Effectiveness of early evaluation/idea germination process; quality of ideas generated and efficiency of early evaluation/idea germination process.
Anchoring Statements:
14-5. Individuals or teams exist whose full-time job is to coach individuals on developing their ideas. Ideas are tracked from generation through implementation by a central group allowing analysis. Ideas are generated within a field (strategy) defined by management. Goals for new idea generation are included in performance management; individuals and teams receive rewards for generating ideas and greater financial rewards when their ideas are commercialized. A cross-functional team surveys individuals and teams that have generated and developed new ideas that have gone both gone into the NPPD (succeeded) or died (failed) to determine strengths and weaknesses of the process; recommendations are made to upper management for improvement.
14-4. Mentoring is provided by senior experts who have been successful in new product development. Individuals and teams that originate new ideas are recognized and rewarded. Benchmarking of idea generation processes are made with other companies. There is a formal idea tracking process at a business unit level. A high (15%) percentage of time is allowed to develop ideas. Strategies are developed that allow idea generation to be focused in fertile areas.
14-3. Time is allocated for “fleshing out” new ideas but time in reality the time is rarely available. Tracking is done at a functional level. Individuals and teams that originate new ideas are recognized after the product reaches commercialization. Ideas are aligned with the business strategy. Analysis of success/failure is done intermittently on an ad-hoc basis.
14-2. Time is not allocated for “fleshing out” new ideas. Sometimes acknowledgement or feedback is given to the person or team that originated the idea. Tracking of ideas is done intermittently. No monitoring of the quality of the ideas is made.
14-1. No help is provided to individuals or teams; only strong-willed idea-generators are successful. No tracking of ideas is done. No analysis is made of success versus failure. No acknowledgement or feedback is given to the person or team that originated the idea. Time is not allocated for developing new ideas. There is no system for encouraging or soliciting ideas.

15. Quality of Ideas: Number, Variety, Level (Platform versus One-Offering), and Blossoming of fertile platforms and sponsor ‘wow’ factor.
Anchoring Statements:
15-5. Such a large number of high-quality ideas are generated that the company has the flexibility to select only the best ideas and still fill their long and short-term portfolio needs. A targeted number of ideas evolve to be platform technologies and products that lead to many other new product offerings. A few ideas have to the potential to be disruptive and/or significantly impact the future of the company. Ideas often receive extraordinary attention from upper management; for example, eliciting phone calls and letters of congratulations. Ideas are useful and unique and result in strong patents that defend products or are marketable themselves.
15-4. New ideas originate within a variety of centers: research, sales, marketing, etc. Ideas are appropriately distributed within the four quadrants of marketing versus technical and new-to-the-company versus new-to-the-world. New product ideas are illustrated in the company’s annual reports and/or enhance the company image, and everyone generally agrees these are “real” rather than “superficial.” A big backlog of new ideas exists exceeding the number to fill the long and short-term needs of the portfolio. Portfolio of new ideas creates new platforms for the company.
15-3. Number of ideas is sufficient to challenge the new product teams and provides sufficient number of ideas to keep the pipeline filled with good ideas. A few of the ideas are out-of-the-box and stretch the marketing and/or technical capabilities of the company. New ideas are sources of potential patents.
15-2. Numerous ideas are generated but the process does not yield the number of new ideas required for your portfolio. Ideas are sound but rarely elicit upper management accolade. New ideas concentrate on a limited number of competencies. A relatively low number of people generate most of the ideas.
I5-1. Few ideas are generated; a high percentage of those get into the NPPD by default. Ideas are centered on existing business areas; only incremental improvements of existing products are envisioned. The incremental ideas generated are standalone and do not lead to other products. Ideas do not result in patents.

16. Effectiveness, Efficiency, Quality, and Speed of Processes: This metric pertains to the processes used to arrive at the final ideal selection.
Anchoring Statements:
16-5. Ideas are reviewed on a regular basis with consistent formats. There is a high quality of dialogue and clear decisions or constructive guidance are offered in all of the cases. Key parties (decision-makers) are present and represent all key stakeholders. All ideas are reviewed within three months or if necessary as required. Decisions include consideration for the rest of the business and the portfolio.
16-4. All ideas are reviewed on a regular and predetermined schedule. Clear decisions are made in all cases based upon good understanding of the value to the business and the benefit to the customer. Quality of dialogue is high. Key parties and Key stakeholders are always present. Completeness of review, consistency of criteria, and full stakeholder involvement are always evident.
16-3. Most ideas are reviewed on a regular basis with reasonably consistent formats. Clear decisions are made in half or more of the cases based upon an understanding of the value to the business and the benefit for the customer. Quality of dialogue varies by project and champion. Key parties are present but not consistently. Key stakeholders usually dealt with inside of the formal sessions. Completeness of review, consistency of criteria, and full stakeholder involvement are always evident.
16-2. Ideas are reviewed occasionally, but structure and content of the information varies and is of varying quality. Clear decisions are made only in some of the cases, but are not based on well-developed rationales. Operation is by a representative committee that does not include the key parties. Key stakeholders are dealt with outside of the formal sessions. Ideas are reviewed as desired by management or as a result of individual championship.
16-1. Ideas are not reviewed or are reviewed in inconsistent and incomplete ways. No clear decisions are made. Key stakeholders, if they are even identified, are involved only on an ad hoc and occasional basis.

17. Value of 1deas (Fit with Strategy, Goodness) : Idea Selection – as pertaining to absolute value of ideas that are approved by the NCD process – this metric characterizes the potential business impact of the idea, which ultimately is selected in terms of overall contributions.
Anchoring Statements:
17-5. Approved ideas are selected with processes that clearly balance short-term and long-term business objectives. Approved ideas typically are selected that will add significant new lines of business and/or rejuvenate/protect existing business strategies. The pipeline has a balanced mix that affords the company flexibility with a variety of options. Risks exist regarding success, but they are fully understood and are embraced by all key executives.
17-4. Approved ideas are selected with processes that begin to balance short-term and long-term business objectives. Several ideas provide the potential to add significant new lines of business and/or rejuvenate or protect existing business strategies. Expectations regarding approved ideas vary significantly in terms of the likely fit with and contribution to existing business strategies. A portfolio of ideas is selected with a healthy mix of possibilities and time frames. Its character and needs are only partially understood by key executives.
17-3. Approved ideas are selected with processes that take into account business strategies and commercial impact. However, they tend to be conservative and incremental in terms of their ability to add significant new lines of business and/or rejuvenate or protect existing business strategies. The risks involved relative to success are not appreciated and short-term results are emphasized.
17-2. Ideas are selected that are often the ‘flavor of the month’ or are the result of a single thought and are not evaluated consistently relative to the potential impact on business strategies and commercial impact. Ideas are selected due to personal preferences and biases.
17-1. Approved ideas have a distant or very uncertain relationship to the business strategies and commercial relevance.

18. Clarity of Value Proposition: How clear is the value proposition, including the consideration of alternatives? How much confidence is there in the projection of return and value over time?
Anchoring Statements:
18-5. Concept Definitions and Value Propositions are so clear and compelling that high quality decisions are made as to project selection. The assumptions, alternatives, and trade-offs are clearly documented, validated, and understood and facilitate meaningful discussion. For selected concepts, there is a clear and concise written definition of the Concept along with a Business Case for the company to invest in the development of this technology and/or offering. Note that “written” in this case does NOT necessarily mean a formal, “polished” report. It could refer to an electronic mail message, PowerPoint presentation, or even a handwritten set of notes, so long as it meets the needs of the business for clarity. It must be so easy to comprehend the benefits of this Concept and the fact that those benefits far outweigh any costs or risks involved in development that the only logical decision is to agree with the plan as proposed, to resource the project per the recommendations in the document, and to immediately begin development work as outlined in the document.
18-4. Concept Definitions are clear and concise despite issues with a few details. The Value Proposition provides sufficient information to determine the attractiveness of the concept and has been validated by objective and respected individuals, alternatives and trade-offs have been considered, but the Business Case is not enough to make an immediate decision to proceed as proposed. Some discussion and a little further evaluation will be needed to assess the risks versus the rewards of developing this technology and/or offering before proceeding.
18-3. Concept Definition is fairly clear but may lack details about a few key issues. The Business Case does not highlight or effectively communicate key issues and it may be difficult to understand some of the points that are made. The Value Proposition does not clearly indicate the attractiveness of the concept or highlight key risk factors. More information is needed and much more work needs to be done to clarify the concept, the Business Case, and/or the plan for going forward before making a decision to proceed. Significant discussion, investigation, and/or evaluation will be needed to assess the risks versus the rewards of developing this technology and/or offering.
18-2. There is a rough definition of the Concept but there is no Business Case or development plan to discuss or evaluate. A decision cannot be made whether or not to begin development work of any kind. Much more information is needed and significantly more work needs to be done to clarify the concept, the Business Case, the Value Proposition, and/or the plan for going forward before a decision could possibly be made to proceed.
18-1. There is no written definition, plan, or Business Case. It is not clear what the Concept even is. No decision can be made as to the merits of this concept.

19. Clarity and Quality of Technical Path: How clearly defined are the hypotheses, the technical development path, the experimental paradigm, any rate limiting factors, and the plan to deal with any regulatory requirements and issues? Is this Concept attractive to the company from the standpoint of its contribution to and defensibility of Intellectual Property estate of the firm?
Anchoring Statements:
19-5. Technical Paths are so clear and compelling that high quality decisions are made as to project selection. For all concepts, there is a clear and concise written* definition of the Technical Path along with go/no go milestones and deliverables and a Business Case for the company to invest in the development of this technology and/or offering. The hypotheses are clearly stated and easily understood, no important details are missing. Plans for dealing with regulatory and intellectual property issues are detailed and specific. It is so easy to comprehend the benefits of going down the Technical Path as proposed and the fact that those benefits far outweigh any costs or risks involved in development that {he only logical decision is to agree with the plan as proposed, to resource the project per the recommendations in the document and to immediately begin development work as outlined in the document.
19-4. The Technical Plan for all Concepts as written is clear and concise despite issues with a few details. The hypotheses are understandable as stated and some detail is provided. Plans for dealing with regulatory and intellectual property are well understood but implementation plans are not complete or fully detailed. Alternatives have been identified and fully explored and activity-based milestones and deliverables have been defined. The Technical Path appears attractive enough to be worthy of consideration for future work but the Business Case is not attractive enough to make an immediate decision to proceed as proposed. Some discussion and a little further evaluation will be needed to assess the risks versus the rewards of developing this technology and/or offering before proceeding.
19-3. The Technical Path for most Concepts is fairly clear but may lack details about a few key issues. The hypotheses are not clearly defined and the plans for dealing with regulatory and intellectual property issues are not very detailed and some milestones and deliverables have been defined. More information is needed and more work needs to be done to clarify the Technical Path for going forward before making a decision to proceed. Significant discussion, investigation, and/or evaluation will be needed to assess the risks versus the rewards of developing this technology and/or offering.
19-2. Most Concepts only have a high level, very rough description of the Technical Path and no alternatives have been identified. A decision cannot be made whether or not to begin development work of any kind. Significantly more information is needed and significantly more work needs to be done to clarify the Technical Path before a decision could possibly be made to proceed. No consideration has been given to competitive technologies or intellectual property.
19-1. In general, there is no written definition or plan for the Technical Path. It is not clear what technology needs to be developed for the Concept. No decision can be made about the Technical Path.

20. Output from NCD Model: The desired output from the New Concept Development Model is a dynamic portfolio of concepts whose overall purpose is to provide options for company growth and support of specific strategies. It also recognizes the importance of capturing the interest(s) and commitment of business managers in anticipation of (eventual) implementation. This element provides the only entree into the New Product, Process or Technology Development. The output is a Concept Definition, which requires a clear statement of the business case, customer needs, a definition of features and benefits, a broad understanding of the technology path, and risks, assumptions, and trade-offs. At this gate, a decision is made whether or not to launch a project and commit significant resources (time, money, and people).
Anchoring Statements:
20-5. The portfolio of projects output from the NCD efforts provides a healthy and balanced spectrum of growth options that accounts for resource availability, return on investment, risk, timing, and overall corporate strategy. The portfolio contains a robust balance of attractive business cases that provide the flexibility to grow the present businesses and/or to create new businesses. Business interest is shared by all key managers and stakeholders and alignment with business strategy is excellent.
20-4. The financial outcomes from the NPD efforts are clear and offer substantial benefit to the business and the customer when considered independent of other projects. The portfolio contains a balance of attractive business cases that range from easy fits with existing infrastructure to those requiring new investments. Business interest is shared by most key managers and stakeholders and alignment with business strategy is good.
20-3. The financial outcomes from the NCD efforts are clear and offer significant benefit to the business and the customer. There are a reasonable number of attractive business cases that range from easy fits with existing infrastructure to those requiring new investments. However, business interest varies based upon persona) interests of key managers.
20-2. The financial outcomes and benefits from the NCD efforts are clear. There are a small number of concepts with good business cases, but business interest is poor because the choices within the portfolio appear irrelevant, too meager in outcome, or too risky.
20-1. The financial outcomes and benefits from the NCD efforts are uncertain. The portfolio of choices looks risky at best to the existing businesses. Organization is not satisfied with the output of the NCD and constantly questions continued investment.