WIN Final Report

BamNet
Sharon Ng
Not yet finalised
The new Gateway Building at J ubilee Campus, University of Nottingham:
Scheduled for completion Summer 2008, this building will be a business incubation
unit supporting University spinout companies.
For more information about courses in Business and Entrepreneurship, go to
www.nottingham.ac.uk/business
Institute for Enterprise and Innovation (UNIEI), Nottingham University Business School (NUBS)
University of Nottingham, Jubilee Campus, Wollaton Road, Nottingham NG8 1BB
The University of Nottingham 2008. All rights reserved.
What is Contained in the Evaluation?
Strongest Three
Criteria
The three strongest and three weakest criteria were selected after considering
each of the 44 criteria. These are brought to the front of the report for quick
reference. They will help to determine where future development should focus
resources, in both in building up strengths and in fixing problems.
Weakest Three
Criteria
If any of the weakest criteria are also in the Critical category, a decision will need
to be taken urgently as to whether to proceed or to abandon the project, at least
in its present form.
The Summary
Recommendation
At the end of the evaluation process, WIN evaluates each of the 44 different
responses and comes to a weighted "score". This is shown in terms of a
recommendation about further development of the project.
The Report This consists of:
Specifically, WIN selects one of six different ratings to describe the strength of
the recommendation.
You will note that this rating is based on a 50-point rather than 100-point scale.
This reflects the fact that it takes more than a good idea to be successful in the
marketplace. Solid research and development, good management, skilful
marketing, adequate financing and all kinds of venture-related issues contribute
to the chances of commercial success.
Unfortunately, many of these factors are unknown at the pre-market stage of the
innovation process. WIN does not have the capability to be able to offer a
judgement about this next stage. Accordingly, the second half of the scale is
reserved for these unknowns.
So 50 is the maximum possible score at the preliminary stage. In terms of our
colour coding, only a small percentage of submissions receive blue or lavender
ratings (42 or more). Even the best projects must recognise and manage the
substantial risk that remains.
The response selected to each of the 44 separate evaluation criteria
An indication of whether this response is either Critical or Possibly
critical (something such as a failure to meet a statutory safety standard
that could preclude any further development of the innovation, at least until the
deficiency is corrected)
What are the three criteria against which your project was judged most
positively?
and
Any thoughts, comments and/or questions that have been input and saved
during the assessment process.
What next? The final part of The Evaluation shows the overall comments and suggestions that
were entered at the final stage of the assessment.
Taken together, the criteria responses, the Summary Recommendation and the
three strongest and weakest criteria will provide a well-rounded appraisal of the
project at this stage, and a firm basis for development.
The WIN2 Evaluation
The University of Nottingham 2005. All rights reserved.
page 1
The WIN2 Evaluation
What are the three criteria against which your project was judged most
positively?
After assessing all the criteria, the three following criteria were identified as the relatively stronger aspects of your
project. These are intended to help you in building on your projects strengths but do not constitute an endorsement to
pursue the innovation.
The strongest 3
1. Criterion 15 - Trend of demand
2. Criterion 28 - Function
3. Criterion 29 - Durability (Select Not Applicable if the innovation is a Service)
15. Trend of demand
The market demand for innovations of this type appears to be:
Rapidly expanding significant growth opportunity
Critical? Risk: no
Innovators must possess adequate financial resources (working capital) to finance expanded business
opportunities. Often new or small businesses fail to realise a new products or service's potential for this
reason. In some cases they might have insufficient working capital to cover expenses and consequently
go out of business. In order for new technology to reach its fullest potential, the innovator might
maximise return by licensing to someone with the necessary resources to realise its potential even if
this entails accepting a smaller percentage of the expected profits.
Comments
Low
28. Function
Relative to relevant prior art, competing and/or substitute products, services or processes, the function
performed might be perceived by potential buyers as:
Very superior a significant competitive advantage
Critical? Risk: no
Very superior function can greatly facilitate market acceptance. Function takes on added importance when
both Need (criterion 21) and Visibility (criterion 23) are high. For example, if a new tyre and new petrol
were both introduced to the marketplace and both offered a bogus functional advantage of better
mileage, the rejection of the petrol would be faster and surer. However, if the functional advantages of
the new tyre and the new petrol were real and meaningful to the user, the petrol would probably be more
rapidly accepted, as it is the more visible of the two. In addition, the cost of introducing it would probably
be lower, especially when it meets a real or perceived need in the marketplace.
Comments
Lower
The University of Nottingham 2005. All rights reserved.
page 2
The WIN2 Evaluation
What are the three criteria against which your project was judged least
positively?
29. Durability (Select Not Applicable if the
innovation is a Service)
Relative to relevant prior art, competition and/or substitutes, durability of the innovation might be
perceived by potential buyers as:
Very superior easily promoted as a major improvement
Critical? Risk: no
The very superior durability should be highlighted in the firms promotional messages. Less risk and
perhaps less cost incurred.
Comments
Lower
The University of Nottingham 2005. All rights reserved.
page 3
The WIN2 Evaluation
What are the three criteria against which your project was judged least
positively?
After assessing all the criteria, the three following criteria were identified as the relatively weaker aspects of your project.
These do not necessarily constitute a block to any further development, but it is important to address these issues before
proceeding.
The weakest 3
1. Criterion 7 - Stage of Development
2. Criterion 8 - Investment Costs
3. Criterion 32 - New Competition
7. Stage of Development
Based on available information, there is:
An idea only, with sketches/diagrams/drawings and/or description
Critical? Risk: no
Commercialisation might require a great deal of work and investment. Innovations at this stage are
viewed as risky and are difficult to license. Most firms prefer projects that are further along in the
innovation process as this reduces costs and cuts perceived risks.
Comments
High
8. Investment Costs
The amount of capital needed for commercialisation is likely to be:
Moderate may require participation of formal investors
Critical? Risk: no
There is a risk in involving others. The risk of rejection increases with the size of the required investment.
The only safe alternative is to fund entirely development and commercialisation. Consider the
interrelationship with other criteria: Payback period (9) and Profitability (10). When formal investors are
involved, the project competes with all other available investment opportunities. No matter how virtuous,
projects with long payback periods or low profitability are not likely to interest formal investors.
Comments
Manageable
32. New Competition
Competition from new entrants or competitive reaction to the innovation is expected to be:
Moderate market share can be maintained
Critical? Risk: no
A normal situation, but it can be a problem for those who not recognise the possibility of new competition.
Comments
Manageable
The University of Nottingham 2005. All rights reserved.
page 4
The WIN2 Evaluation
The Summary Recommendation
Note
The ratings below show the overall evaluation of the commercial potential of your
innovation. The result can only reflect the information that has been provided during
the assessment. If the project is in the very early stages, there may be areas which
need much more development before a definitive decision on whether to proceed
can be reached. A high preponderance of criteria responses of dont know for
example would indicate this, but responses to individual criteria will also remind you
where more effort is needed.
The level achieved reflects:
Its functional merits
Relevant competitive issues
Market structure issues
Thus, this rating reflects not only the relative merits of your project but also the risks
involved in investing any further time, money and effort.
Two ratings may be given: the first one is that produced by the assessment system
purely based on the responses made by the assessor. The second will show the
assessors own judgement of the rating. There may be a difference between these,
and this would arise because between individual projects, different criteria will be
more important. The WIN system uses average weights to perform its evaluation,
whereas an experienced assessor can incorporate the impact of higher or lower than
average importance of some of the criteria.
If any of the responses were rated as Critical YES then a RED rating is automatic,
but bear in mind that if the problem causing the Critical rating is solved, the final
score would be increased to reflect the increased chance of successful
commercialisation.
The rating is based on a maximum score of 50 out of 100 to reflect the unknown risk
factors inherent in the later stages of the innovation process.
The University of Nottingham 2005. All rights reserved.
page 5
The WIN2 Evaluation
RED Is not recommended for further development < 30
ORANGE Very cautious and limited development may be warranted 30-33
YELLOW 34-37
GREEN
Is recommended for limited development and/or
commercialisation following further work
38-41
BLUE recommended for moderate development and commercialisation 42-45
LAVENDER
Is recommended for significant development and/or
commercialisation
46-50
This score is reserved for the unknown risk factors associated
with the market phase of the innovation process. In other words,
the potential obstacles that you may face when and if you launch
your project in the marketplace.
50-100

Cautious and limited development may be warranted

The Report
The Summary Recommendation
WINs overall rating
If you or your assessor disagreed with WINs overall rating, your personal rating and your reasoning are
shown below:
Very cautious and limited development may be warranted. ORANGE
Reason: Preliminary research and development costs are uncertain.
The University of Nottingham 2005. All rights reserved.
page 6
The WIN2 Evaluation
The Report
The assessors evaluation of the 44 WIN criteria
In terms of applicable laws (particularly product liability), regulations and
product standards, WIN evaluates ideas ranging from those that will not
meet legal standards, even with changes, to ones that will meet the
standards without any changes.
In making this assessment, it was judged that the innovation will
meet the standards without any changes
Critical?
Customer use should be monitored to ensure there are no potential
problems.
no
1. Legality
In considering the potential hazards and side effects resulting from the use of
any proposed innovation, WIN evaluates ideas covering a range from those
that are very unsafe even when used as intended to ones that are very safe
under all conditions, including misuse.
In making this assessment, it was judged that the innovation might
be safe when used as intended, with no foreseeable hazards
Critical?
Problems can have serious consequences if unattended. Customer use should
be monitored to ensure there are no problem areas.
no
2. Safety
In terms of pollution, litter, misuse of natural resources etc., WIN evaluates
ideas ranging from those that violate environmental regulations or have
dangerous environmental consequences to ones that have a positive effect
on the environment.
In making this assessment, it was judged that the innovation might
have a positive effect on the environment
Critical?
A positive response might influence agencies or legislative bodies to endorse
the innovation particularly if the degree of environmental concern is high.
But this does not guarantee success, it simply enhances it.
no
3. Environmental
Impact
In terms of the impact on the general welfare of society, WIN evaluates ideas
ranging from those that have a substantial negative effect to ones that have
a positive effect on society.
In making this assessment, it was judged that the innovation might
have no effect on society
Critical?
No impact on commercial potential the innovation will either succeed or fail
on its own merits.
no
4. Societal Impact
The University of Nottingham 2005. All rights reserved.
page 7
The WIN2 Evaluation
In terms of whether an innovation will actually do what it is intended to do,
WIN evaluates ideas ranging from those that are not sound and cannot be
made to work to ones that will work with no changes being necessary.
In making this assessment, it was judged that the innovation will
work, no changes are necessary
Critical?
Functional feasibility is necessary, but does not guarantee market
acceptance. The target market must want the function. Use should be
monitored for possible improvements in performance.
no
5. Functional
Feasibility
With regard to the technical processes or equipment required for the
production of an innovation, WIN evaluates ideas ranging from those that are
impossible to produce now or in the foreseeable future to ones that have no
production problems.
In making this assessment, it was judged that the innovation might
have no problems
Critical?
There is no particularly strong impact upon commercial feasibility, but the
number of potential manufacturers is greatly increased. Such innovations can
form the basis of a small non-technical business.
no
6. Production
Feasibility (Select Not
Applicable for
Services)
WIN evaluates ideas ranging from those that are simply an idea with
drawings or a description but with no prototype to ones where there is a
market-ready prototype.
In making this assessment, it was judged that the innovation is an
idea only, with drawings and/or description
Critical?
Commercialisation might require a great deal of work and investment.
Innovations at this stage are viewed as risky and are difficult to license. Most
firms prefer projects that are further along in the innovation process as this
reduces costs and cuts perceived risks.
no
7. Stage of
Development
In terms of the amount of capital needed for commercialisation, WIN
evaluates ideas ranging from those where investment costs are likely to be
very heavy and will require the resources of a major corporation to ones
where the capital required is very low and where personal resources may be
sufficient.
In making this assessment, it was judged that the amount of capital
needed for the innovation is likely to be moderate it may require
participation of formal investors
Critical?
There is a risk in involving others. The risk of rejection increases with the
size of the required investment. The only safe alternative is to fund entirely
development and commercialisation. Consider the interrelationship with other
criteria: Payback period (9) and Profitability (10). When formal investors are
involved, the project competes with all other available investment
opportunities. No matter how virtuous, projects with long payback periods or
low profitability are not likely to interest formal investors.
no
8. Investment Costs
The University of Nottingham 2005. All rights reserved.
page 8
The WIN2 Evaluation
Given adequate financing, WIN evaluates ideas where the time required to
cover the initial investment after full market introduction ranges from those
where the payback period will be five years or more to ones where it will be
less than one year.
In making this assessment, it was judged that the payback period for
the innovation is likely to be one to two years (13-24 months)
Critical?
Venture capital may be possible. Prospects for licensing improve as payback
period becomes shorter. Careful financial planning is still essential
no
9. Payback Period
Profitability is defined as the extent to which anticipated revenues will cover
direct, indirect and capital costs. WIN evaluates ideas ranging from those
that cannot expect to cover any of the relevant costs to ones that will cover
direct and indirect costs and easily exceed capital costs.
In making this assessment, it was judged that anticipated revenues
for the innovation might cover direct and indirect costs, and meet
capital costs
Critical?
There are varying degrees of risk because required Return on Investment
(ROI) or costs may increase. Unanticipated costs and reductions in price are
always factors.
no
10. Profitability
In terms of the time and cost involved, WIN evaluates ideas ranging from
those where the market research required for commercialisation of the
innovation is estimated to be extremely difficult, complex and costly to ones
where the market research will be very simple, straightforward and
inexpensive.
In making this assessment, it was judged that the market research
required for the innovation could be relatively easy, simple and
inexpensive
Critical?
Easy does not mean unimportant. If needed, help should be obtained.
no
11. Market Research
With regard to the research and development required to reach the
production-ready or service/process launch stage, WIN evaluates ideas
ranging from those where it will be extremely difficult, complex and costly to
ones where the research and development will be very simple,
straightforward and inexpensive.
In making this assessment, it was judged that the research and
development for the innovation might be moderately difficult and
costly
Critical?
Smaller enterprises and individuals should seriously examine their capability
to complete needed R&D. Licensing/joint venturing may be better options.
no
12. Research and
Development
The University of Nottingham 2005. All rights reserved.
page 9
The WIN2 Evaluation
WIN evaluates ideas ranging from those where the total market for
innovations of its type are very small and very specialised or local in nature
to ones where the market is very large with an extensive national and
possible international market.
In making this assessment, it was judged that the total market for
this type of innovation might be large
Critical?
Reaping the full benefits may require infusion of capital during growth
periods. But growth consumes capital: it is possible to lose the market to
competitors by losing momentum due to lack of capital.
no
13. Potential Market
Given alternative or competitive products or services and the current market
situation, WIN evaluates ideas ranging from those where the expected sales
are likely to be very small (and with a very low level of resource
requirement) to ones where expected sales could be very large (and with a
very large resource requirement).
In making this assessment, it was judged that the expected sales of
the innovation might be large
Critical?
Large sales require significant resources and abilities. It is easy for smaller
firms to fail in mid-growth if not prepared. Often, it is better to license to
someone who has the necessary resources and capabilities. Sales potential
may be sufficient to interest large firms.
no
14. Potential Sales
WIN evaluates ideas ranging from those where the market demand for
innovations of a given type is rapidly declining and the product or service
might become obsolete to ones where the market is rapidly expanding and
there is significant growth opportunity.
In making this assessment, it was judged that the market demand
for this type of innovation appears to be rapidly expanding there is
significant growth opportunity
Critical?
Innovators must possess adequate financial resources (working capital) to
finance expanded business opportunities. Often new or small businesses fail
to realise a new products or service's potential for this reason. In some
cases they might have insufficient working capital to cover expenses and
consequently go out of business. In order for new technology to reach its
fullest potential, the innovator might maximise return by licensing to
someone with the necessary resources to realise its potential even if this
entails accepting a smaller percentage of the expected profits.
no
15. Trend of demand
In terms of the fluctuation in demand for proposed products or services, WIN
evaluates ideas ranging from those where the demand is highly unstable and
subject to severe fluctuations to ones where the demand is highly stable with
little susceptibility to fluctuations.
In making this assessment, it was judged that the fluctuation in
demand for the innovation is likely to be predictable variations can
be foreseen with reasonable accuracy
Critical?
Risk will be very much present if the firm does not track market conditions,
carefully monitor sales, and conduct relevant market research.
possibly
16. Stability of
Demand
The University of Nottingham 2005. All rights reserved.
page 10
The WIN2 Evaluation
WIN evaluates ideas ranging from those where the product life cycle is likely
to be short, perhaps less than two years, to ones with a long life cycle of
eight years or more.
In making this assessment, it was judged that the life cycle for the
innovation is likely to be six to eight years
Critical?
Long life generally means greater expected value because of a longer stream
of earnings and a lower perceived risk. But not all firms know how to manage
mature products or services profitably, and this can abbreviate the PLC.
no
17. Product Life Cycle
WIN evaluates ideas ranging from those where the potential for additional
products or differentiated services is very limited, perhaps to a single product
or service, to ones where the potential for additional products or
differentiated services is very high.
In making this assessment, it was judged that the product line
potential for the innovation is likely to be high new product/service
spin-offs are likely
Critical?
New products add to the stream of income and reduce the risk, as the risk
and investment costs can be shared with spin-offs.
no
18. 'Product-line'
Potential
In terms of compatibility with existing attitudes and methods of use, WIN
evaluates ideas ranging from those with a very low level of compatibility that
will block market acceptance to ones where compatibility is very high and will
give market acceptance a strong boost.
In making this assessment, it was judged that the compatibility of
the innovation is high the compatibility will aid marketing effort
Critical?
Ready consumer acceptance will smooth the path, but success is not
guaranteed. Proper design(for a product), pricing, financing, marketing and
planning will still be necessary.
no
19. Compatibility
WIN evaluates ideas ranging from those where the amount of learning
required to use the innovation will be very high and perhaps expensive or
time-consuming to ones where the learning is low and no instructions will be
needed.
In making this assessment, it was judged that the amount of
learning for correct use of the innovation is very low no
instructions are needed
Critical?
Low learning involves a minimal amount of cost, time and risk. There will be
greater flexibility for marketing. Generally products and services needing no
instructions do not require highly specialised distribution channels and
consumer products can be sold by mass merchandisers, who usually provide
little instruction or customer assistance.
no
20. Learning
The University of Nottingham 2005. All rights reserved.
page 11
The WIN2 Evaluation
In terms of the level of need or utility provided by a given innovation, WIN
evaluates ideas ranging from those that are very gimmicky and soon
forgotten to ones with a very high level of need that fulfils psychological as
well as physical needs.
In making this assessment, it was judged that the level of need
served by the innovation is high it fulfils either basic psychological
or physical needs
Critical?
The innovation may have a competitive edge. Appeals to basic needs can be
very effective, and the product life cycle tends to be longer.
no
21. Need
In terms of the degree to which the sale or use of a proposed innovation is
dependent on other products, processes or systems, WIN evaluates ideas
ranging from those with a very high degree of dependence (and therefore no
market control) to ones where there is very low dependence (and therefore
complete market control).
In making this assessment, it was judged that the degree to which
the innovation is dependent is moderate the innovation will have
reasonable market control
Critical?
A common situation would be any innovation likely to require service. Failure
to provide service can lead to a quick termination of the product life cycle.
no
22. Dependence
WIN evaluates ideas ranging from those where the advantages and benefits
of the innovation will be very obscure to potential buyers, to ones where the
advantages and benefits are very obvious and easy to understand.
In making this assessment, it was judged that the advantages and
benefits of the innovation are likely to be visible they will require
some explanation
Critical?
Necessity for some degree of explanation should not create problems, but
often does, as many firms fail to explain and promote their products
adequately.
no
23. Visibility
Taking into consideration the market environment, the costs and the effort
required to promote the advantages, features and benefits of a proposed
innovation, WIN evaluates ideas ranging from those where the cost of
promotion is very high and prohibitive in relation to expected sales, to ones
where the cost will be very low relative to expected sales.
In making this assessment, it was judged that the cost and effort of
promoting the advantages of the innovation are likely to be moderate
Critical?
Risk is a factor. The firm must have the appropriate skills in marketing or be
willing and able to obtain them. The cost/benefit ratio should be checked.
no
24. Promotion
The University of Nottingham 2005. All rights reserved.
page 12
The WIN2 Evaluation
WIN evaluates ideas ranging from those where the cost and difficulty of
establishing distribution or access channels are likely to be very high and
prohibitive in relation to expected sales, to ones where the cost and difficultly
will be very low relative to expected sales.
In making this assessment, it was judged that the cost and difficulty
of establishing distribution or access channels for the innovation are
likely to be moderate
Critical?
Small/ new firms may need some help in penetrating sophisticated buying
organisations.
no
25. Distribution
WIN evaluates ideas ranging from those where the cost and difficulty
associated with providing product service is likely to be very high, to ones
where the cost and difficulty of product service is very low.
In making this assessment, it was judged that the cost and difficulty
of providing service for the innovation is likely to be low the need
for service and parts will be infrequent
Critical?
Service provisions must still be in place. Where the risks associated with
service and barriers to market entry are low, it is easier to expand to meet
market potential. The intrinsic value of the innovation is usually greater.
Such products have more potential for introduction by entrepreneurs and
innovators with limited financial resources and undeveloped channels of
distribution.
no
26. Service (Select
Not Applicable if the
innovation is itself a
Service)
Relative to prior art, competition and/or substitutes and appearance, WIN
evaluates ideas ranging from those that might be perceived by potential
buyers as very inferior (with no customer appeal), to those that would be
seen as very superior (and having strong customer appeal).
In making this assessment, it was judged that the appearance of the
innovation might be perceived as superior it has customer appeal
Critical?
Superior appearance may help to gain a competitive edge, but ways to
improve design should still be sought. Competitive advantage may be
sufficient to help penetrate the market. In general, the more affluent the
market segment and the more likely the innovation is to be used in public
places, the more important its physical appearance will be. Frequently the
case with industrial and institutional products as well (engineers and
scientists are also interested in style and appearance!).
no
27. Appearance
(Select Not Applicable
if the innovation is a
Process or Service)
The University of Nottingham 2005. All rights reserved.
page 13
The WIN2 Evaluation
Relative to prior art, competing and/or substitute products services or
processes, WIN evaluates ideas ranging from those where the function might
be perceived by potential buyers as very inferior (and therefore a significant
competitive disadvantage), to those that would be seen as functionally very
superior (and having a significant competitive advantage).
In making this assessment, it was judged that the function
performed by the innovation might be perceived as very superior it
has a significant competitive advantage
Critical?
Very superior function can greatly facilitate market acceptance. Function
takes on added importance when both Need (criterion 21) and Visibility
(criterion 23) are high. For example, if a new tyre and new petrol were both
introduced to the marketplace and both offered a bogus functional advantage
of better mileage, the rejection of the petrol would be faster and surer.
However, if the functional advantages of the new tyre and the new petrol
were real and meaningful to the user, the petrol would probably be more
rapidly accepted, as it is the more visible of the two. In addition, the cost of
introducing it would probably be lower, especially when it meets a real or
perceived need in the marketplace.
no
28. Function
Relative to prior art, competition and/or substitutes, WIN evaluates ideas
ranging from those where the durability of the proposed product might be
perceived by potential buyers as very inferior (and therefore a significant
competitive disadvantage), to those that would be seen as very superior (so
that durability could easily be promoted as a significant competitive
advantage).
In making this assessment, it was judged that the durability of the
innovation might be perceived as very superior it could easily
promoted as a major improvement
Critical?
The very superior durability should be highlighted in the firms promotional
messages. Less risk and perhaps less cost incurred.
no
29. Durability (Select
Not Applicable if the
innovation is a
Service)
Relative to prior art, competition and/or substitutes, WIN evaluates ideas
ranging from those where the price is much higher than other products or
services (and therefore a significant competitive disadvantage), to those
where the price is much lower (and therefore a definite competitive
advantage).
In making this assessment, it was judged that in relation to the
competition the price of the innovation might be lower a
competitive advantage
Critical?
This price positioning should help establish a sufficient competitive edge, but
product or service appeal may also need to be based on other advantages.
no
30. Price
The University of Nottingham 2005. All rights reserved.
page 14
The WIN2 Evaluation
WIN evaluates ideas ranging from those where the existing competition (both
direct and indirect) is very high, making market entry difficult or expensive,
to ones where the competition is very low and market entry is easy or
inexpensive.
In making this assessment, it was judged that the existing
competition for the innovation appears to be very low entry might
be easy and/or relatively inexpensive
Critical?
With proper marketing, this might capture a dominant market position
relatively early. A better new-product opportunity for the emerging new
business. But very low levels of existing competition do not automatically
ensure low cost or easy entry. Other elements, such as Learning (criterion
20) or Service (criterion 26) may raise costly and difficult barriers to entry.
no
31. Existing
Competition
In terms of the competition from new entrants to the market or a
competitive reaction to the proposed product, WIN evaluates ideas ranging
from those where such competition is likely to be very high (making short
product lead time imperative) to ones where the competition may be very
low.
In making this assessment, it was judged that the new competition
for the innovation could be expected to be moderate market share
can be maintained
Critical?
A normal situation, but it can be a problem for those who not recognise the
possibility of new competition.
no
32. New Competition
Considering patents, prior art, copyright, technical difficulty, secrecy and
other bars to competitive reaction, WIN evaluates ideas ranging from those
where there is no meaningful route to protecting the product (legal or
otherwise), to those where a patent, copyright and/or trade secrecy are
already in place.
In making this assessment, it was judged that the prospects for
protection of the innovation indicate that patent, copyright and/or
trade secrecy is/are possible
Critical?
Protection must be worth the cost before pursuing. The commercial value of
protection depends on the strength of the protection, the need for protection
and the commercial potential of the intellectual property involved. Solid
protection generally reduces risk.
no
33. Protection
WIN evaluates ideas ranging from those where commercialisation requires a
very high level of marketing experience and sophistication, to ones where
commercialisation requires a very low level of experience
In making this assessment, it was judged that commercialisation of
the innovation may require a moderate degree of marketing
experience and sophistication
Critical?
The obvious solution for innovators who lack the necessary expertise is to
use outside consultants. However, many fail to do so and fall short.
no
34. Marketing
Experience
The University of Nottingham 2005. All rights reserved.
page 15
The WIN2 Evaluation
WIN evaluates ideas ranging from those where commercialisation requires a
very high level of technical experience and sophistication, to ones where
commercialisation requires a very low level of such experience
In making this assessment, it was judged that commercialisation of
the innovation may require a high level of technical experience and
sophistication
Critical?
Very small firms can often commercialise sophisticated technologies. Such
enterprises have pioneered many new technological breakthroughs, some of
which have been invented by individuals lacking in strong relevant
technological backgrounds. However, development to the market-ready stage
will require high levels of technological input. If the individual innovator or
the small firm does not have the necessary technical skills or resources,
licensing may be an option but consider the issues of Technology transfer
(criterion 38).
no
35. Technical
Experience
WIN evaluates ideas ranging from those where commercialisation requires a
very high level of financial experience and sophistication to ones where
commercialisation requires a very low level of such experience.
In making this assessment, it was judged that commercialisation of
the innovation may require a moderate degree of financial
experience and sophistication
Critical?
Entrepreneurs will probably have to turn to others for a significant portion of
the financial resources and/or advice required. In which case, they should be
prepared to part eventually with a corresponding portion of their equity to
start the new venture. Venture capital firms, sophisticated investors or other
formal sources of capital may be involved. These will demand complete
business plans, detailed sales forecasts and financial projections. Often, pre-
or new ventures do not have the necessary resources or abilities. Finding
available seed capital at the right price is one of the major barriers
experienced by many new ventures. Licensing is sometimes the only
alternative.
no
36. Financial
Experience
WIN evaluates ideas ranging from those where commercialisation requires a
very high level of management or production experience and sophistication,
to ones where commercialisation requires a very low level of such
experience.
In making this assessment, it was judged that commercialisation of
the innovation may require a high level of management or production
experience and sophistication
Critical?
Could be best left to those with substantial experience in managing an
ongoing enterprise, although a few smaller enterprises may have the plant,
equipment and experience to undertake such projects. But mistakes on the
production floor or in service management are very costly to correct in the
marketplace. Licensing may be the wisest option for many innovators.
no
37.
Management/Producti
on Experience
The University of Nottingham 2005. All rights reserved.
page 16
The WIN2 Evaluation
WIN evaluates ideas ranging from those where the potential for technology
transfer (or licensing) are very remote, to ones where the potential for
technology transfer are very good and therefore an attractive investment
In making this assessment, it was judged that the potential for
technology transfer of the innovation is modest it is worth a very
limited investment of personal time and effort
Critical?
Worth very limited investments of time and effort in terms of pursuing a
licensing deal. In modest situations, innovators should invest little money
and never make significant advanced payments for assistance in marketing
the innovation.
possibly
38. Technology
Transfer
WIN evaluates ideas ranging from those where the potential for using the
innovation as the basis for a new business is very poor (and should not be
considered), to ones where that potential is very good (and might attract
serious investment).
In making this assessment, it was judged that the potential for using
the innovation to start a new business is good it might attract
informal smaller investors
Critical?
May not attract large, more formal investors, particularly venture capitalists.
An informal investor may provide seed capital, but this doesnt come cheap if
the venture is high risk and at the early stages of development. More
conservative informal investors will look for projects that are further along,
but with modest needs so they will not run out of funds prematurely. They
will require a business plan and a management team to be identified, if not in
place. A good response does not indicate that an entrepreneur should
necessarily gear up to the maximum potential of his or her technology.
no
39. New Venture
The University of Nottingham 2005. All rights reserved.
page 17
The WIN2 Evaluation
Suitable distribution channels for introducing any innovation into the
marketplace differ. WIN evaluates ideas where the most suitable channels
range from highly localised ones to large industrial or government channels.
In making this assessment, it was judged that the optimum channels for
introducing the innovation into the marketplace are likely to be:
Critical?
Channels providing some specialised promotional support offer the
opportunity to substitute in-store promotion for mass media promotion and,
generally, more flexibility than mass-merchandise distribution. Better suited
to a roll-out strategy that matches distribution to available resources.
However, new products must be capable of producing the higher margins
required by such channels. Channels with a high degree of potential for
personal selling would suit products (particularly special-use products) lower
in price and, perhaps, quality, but with good earnings potential. Impersonal
forms of communication tend to be used more than personal selling.
Channels providing some specialised promotional support offer the
opportunity to substitute in-store promotion for mass media promotion and,
generally, more flexibility than mass-merchandise distribution. Better suited
to a roll-out strategy that matches distribution to available resources.
However, new products must be capable of producing the higher margins
required by such channels. Electronic channels may be better suited to
general-use products that are lower in price and, perhaps, quality, but with
good earnings potential. Well suited to a roll-out strategy in which a new
product is introduced on a limited basis to specific internet or
television-viewing markets. This enables targeting of potential customers
who are most likely to be interested in the product. This limited market
testing avoids substantial investments in national advertising until after the
product has gained some market success. Smaller established distribution
channels offer the advantage of high volume, but may be a disadvantage to
smaller enterprises short on financial reserves. Smaller mass merchandisers
place less financial strains and frequently demand less stringent standards of
packaging, product testing and quality. Products suited to this channel must
either be supported by extensive promotion, or be capable of generating a
high level of demand without a formal introduction to the marketplace.
40. Initial Distribution
Strategy (Select Not
Applicable if the
innovation is a
Process or Service)
channels providing some specialised promotional support (specialist
outlets, specialist / trade catalogues)
smaller established distribution channels offering promotional support
electronic channels of distribution
direct to industry
In terms of the difficulties of establishing an innovation in the marketplace,
WIN evaluates ideas ranging from those where the barriers are very high
(and will require an established, well-financed and sophisticated product
champion), to ones where the barriers are very low so entry to the market is
easy.
In making this assessment, it was judged that the barriers to market
entry facing the innovation are very low entry should be easy; it
could be handled by a new-venture start-up if appropriate
Critical?
Outside experience may still be needed.
no
41. Overall Barriers to
Market Entry
The University of Nottingham 2005. All rights reserved.
page 18
In considering competition, the difficulty of establishing channels of
distribution, the cost of reaching the target market, the financial, technical
and other barriers, and the potential risk set against the potential profit, WIN
evaluates ideas ranging from those where the associated risk/profit ratio is
very weak to ones where it is very strong.
In making this assessment, it was judged that the overall risk/profit
ratio of the market opportunity for the innovation is very strong
Critical?
This is a good position to be in but other factors should be considered before
investing. The innovation must offer a better solution to the needs of the
marketplace. Projects that do not offer some clear-cut advantages on
appearance, function, durability or price, typically face high odds. Narrow or
minor advantages are usually insufficient to gain market share from existing
products, services or processes. In terms of military strategy, a rule of
thumb is that it requires a force three times greater to successfully invade
territory held by someone else. But even when the innovation has a superior
advantage and the market opportunity is attractive, risks still abound.
no
42. Overall Market
Attractiveness
Risk is inherent in every effort to commercialise new innovations. WIN
evaluates ideas ranging from those where the overall level of risk associated
with further commercialisation is so high that it fails the prudent person
test (and further investment is not warranted), to ones where that risk is
very low (and further investment is acceptable to prudent risk takers).
In making this assessment, it was judged that the overall level of
risk associated with further commercialisation of the innovation is
likely to be moderate a prudent person would be likely to seek
ways to reduce the level of risk before investing further in this
project
Critical? no
43. Overall Risk
Assessment
Expected value is defined as the anticipated return discounted by the degree
of risk associated with a venture. The known value is defined as the
estimated investment required for successful commercialisation. In
considering both the potential returns and the degree of risk associated with
a project, WIN evaluates ideas ranging from those where the expected value
is likely to be very low (the risk being too high and the returns too low), to
ones where the expected value is very high and the expected value exceeds
the known value (and investment is therefore recommended).
In making this assessment, it was judged that the overall expected
value of the innovation is likely to be high the expected value for
this investment may exceed the known value; investment should be
considered
Critical?
Further investment may be worth considering, but the willingness to take risk
is always at issue. Only the innovator knows his or her propensity to take
risks and only he or she can decide whether or not to invest further in the
project.
no
44. Overall Expected
Value
Thoughts, comments and questions to feedback
The WIN2 Evaluation
The University of Nottingham 2005. All rights reserved.
page 19