Multiple convergent process model

(1)

Multiple convergent process model

(

Hart S.J. and Baker M.J. The Multiple Convergent Processing Model of New Product Development.

International Marketing Review 1994; 11 (1): 77-92)

(2)

Blocks model

Saren M. Reframing the Process of New Product Development: from ‘Stages’ Models to a ‘Blocks’ Framework.

Journal of Marketing Management 1994; 10: 633-643

(3)

Development stages and evaluation gates

Tzokas N, Hultink EJ, Hart S. Navigating the New Product Development Process. Industrial Marketing Management 2004; 33: 619-626

(4)

Tzokas N, Hultink EJ, Hart S. Navigating the New Product Development Process. Industrial Marketing Management 2004; 33: 619-626

(5)

Templates redesign

(6)

Operating procedure Page 1 Innovation process

Innovation process

Purpose

The purpose of defining the structure is to provide a guideline that will put into effect a phase model with decision gates which will lead to a better screening of ideas and will result in the most sufficient product concepts.

This part will describe the innovation process. It is the process between idea generation (HAG-SOP 0008) and the product development process (HAG-SOP 0007). It will start when ideas are generated and will finish with a decision to go to product development where the project is placed in the product/technology roadmap.

The process is structured in a way that a rough idea at the end becomes a product concept.

The idea is pushed forward by the idea generator or product management and the innovation team decides in between if the idea should be further processed To make clear why it makes sense one idea becomes a product concept and another one doesn’t the next stages have to be followed.

Phases Pre-scan

Generated ideas will come into the pre-scan stage. Here information on the ideas will be provided for the idea screening (gate 1). It will be a quick information gathering phase. This results in a pre-scan template. Product management/Idea generator (PM/IG) must involve the advanced & technology (A&T) and development (D) department when a technical evaluation is necessary. When production feasibility is unclear it is PM/IG responsibility to ask the department in question. The pre-scan phase is placed before the first innovation team (IT) meeting because the decision in gate 1 will be based on some information and not on gut feeling as in the current situation.

Gate 1

This is the first idea screening stage. The pre-scan template will be presented to the innovation team and the ideas are screened on ‘must have’ and ‘should have’ criteria. Based on this outcome the ideas will be prioritized and three decisions are possible. The idea will continue to the idea valuation for a better valuation, the idea will be ‘killed’ or the idea will be put on hold.

Idea Valuation

The ideas that pass the idea screening stage need a better idea valuation. More specific information will be gathered about technical and market merits. It is again PM/IG responsibility to get the information gathered. The first preliminary market/technical/financial assessment will be made which will result in an idea valuation template.

Gate 2

Based on the idea valuation template the IT will screen the idea on ‘must have’ and ‘should have’ criteria with additional criteria regarding the extra information that is given. The idea will continue to the advanced development or will be ‘killed’ or the idea will be put on hold.

The decision will be made if the idea should be technically developed. Finance/Controlling

(7)

should be involved from this stage cause especially with advanced technologies more than 60 percent of the costs will be spend in advanced development.

Advanced Development

A project team is made to develop a functional prototype and an advanced development template will be made. The product will be defined and the attractiveness will be verified A virtual gate is possible in this stage. When the functional prototype needs to change radically and it is not realistic anymore in the market point of view, an IT meeting can be arranged.

This is only necessary in extreme cases. PM will be responsible for the template while A&T/D is responsible for developing the product concept depending if it is opto-electronics or opto-mechanics.

Gate 3

The final decision of the process has to be made. The result is a ‘go’ to product development or a ‘kill’ based on the template and the feasibility proof. The idea also could be put ‘on hold’

in case of one of the components makes the product too expensive. In time it could be that the costs of this component will be lower and the product is realise-able at that time.

Idea Pool

Ideas that are placed on hold or are killed should be gathered in an idea pool. A ‘Kachel’(tile) in Lotus Notes could be used for this. All the ideas that have passed this process and didn’t go through for any reason should be placed in it. Every quarter of the year these ideas should be reviewed to see if some changes occurred and that the idea can re-enter the process. In this way for every idea information has been documented and with the periodic review these documents can be analysed to see if the reason why it had been removed from the process still exist. If the reason is solved the idea can flow back in the process and become a successful product.

Responsibilities

All the functional departments can be asked for information regarding an idea when necessary. Depending on the type of product the project team will be organized. All functional departments are available for this.

Innovation Team

The innovation team will meet every 6 weeks to monitor the current projects and finance / controlling should be added to the innovation team in gate 2.

The team members are:

CEO, Marketing, Product Management, A&T, Development, Marketing US, Marketing Switzerland and Finance / Controlling (from gate 2)

Result

The result of the innovation process will be a:

•

Functional prototype

•

Advanced development template

(8)

IG/ PM

Idea Valuation Decision

Decision to go to Product Development

R

IT

IG/ PM

IT

M/ PM

IT Innovation Process

PM A

All

M, AT/ D,

other

M AT/ D,

FC, other

AT/ D M, PM,

Ma, FC, O,

SP, QM,Pu, S

AT/D

Idea Generation (SOP 0008)

1 Idea Decision

Pre Scan

Idea valuation

2

Pre-Development & Idea specification

Advanced development

template

Idea valuation template

3

Start Produkt Development SOP 0007 Pre-scan

template

Functional Prototype

Productroadmap Technology- Roadmap

Product Concept Idea Pool (PM)

(Lotus Notes) - On hold - Killed

Periodic Review

Pre ScanIdea ValuationAdvanced Development

Project Team

(9)

Legend:

A&T Advanced & Technology Ma Manufacturing

D Development O Operations

PM Product Management FC Finance/Controlling

IG Idea Generator SP Special Parts

M Marketing IT Innovation Team

QM Quality Management Pu Purchasing

S Sales

(10)

Pre-scan Page 1 - Project name -

Pre-Scan

Title: - Project name -

Version:

Version date:

Responsible: Name: Date: Signature:

Prepared by PM/ IG

Assistance:

(11)

Changes

Version Date Originator / dep. Page Change and reason

(12)

1 Idea and Product Definition 4

2 Strategic Alignment 4

3 Market Risk / Attractiveness 4

4 Potential End-Users 5

5 Competitive advantage 5

6 IP / Project Feasibility 5

7 Cost-time frame 5

8 Killer Variables / Risks 5

Table of Figures

Figure 1: Product Roadmap ...4

(13)

1 Idea and Product Definition

1.1 General idea

1.2 Main functionalities of the idea

2 Strategic Alignment

2.1 Fit

BU-CZ Strategy / Strategic importance Reputation (dis)advantage

2.2 Fit in product portfolio

2004 2005 2006

Calend ar

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Product Zeiss

BY

03/0 4

04/0 5

05/0 6 Riflescop

es

Conquest X Conquest Y Diavari Z

Victory V

Victory LRF

Legend:

Existing products New Products Technology Needed

Phase in / Sunrise Phase out /

Sunset

Figure 1: Product Roadmap

3 Market Risk / Attractiveness

3.1 Market risk: market - product (existing/new – existing/new)

3.2 Market attractiveness (trend)

(14)

4 Potential End-Users

4.1 Target End-User

4.2 Advantage / Benefit for the End-User / Problems solved

5 Competitive advantage

5.1 Key Competitors 5.2 Competitive advantage (idea compared with competitors products)

6 IP / Project Feasibility

6.1 IP / Patent possibility 6.2 Technical opportunity

6.3 Likelihood of product development and production 6.4 Likelihood of technical development or outsourcing

6.5 The ability to leverage technical and marketing competencies

7 Cost-time frame

8 Killer Variables / Risks

- Strategic

- Technical feasibility - Resources

- Legal & safety issues

(15)

Idea Valuation Page 1 - Project name -

Idea Valuation

Title: -Project name -

Version:

Version date:

Responsible: Name: Date: Signature:

Prepared by PM / IG

Assistance:

(16)

Changes

Version Date Originator / dep. Page Change and reason

(17)

1 Preliminary Market Assessment 4

1.1 Idea / Strategic alignment 4

1.2 Market risk, attractiveness, growth, access 4 1.3 End-user Analysis / Market acceptance 5

1.4 Competitors 5 1.5 Product Definition 5

2 Preliminary Technical Assessment 6

2.1 Technical Feasibility 6

2.2 Competences, producing or outsourcing 6 2.3 IP / Patents 6

2.4 Risks (CQP 0029) 7

2.5 Technical Definition 7 3 Preliminary Financial Assessment 8

3.1 Financial 8 3.2 Business 8 Table of Figures Figure 1: Product Roadmap ... 4

Figure 3: Sales year 1-3 ... 4

Figure 3: Technology Roadmap... 6

Figure 4: Financial figures and launch date... 8

(18)

1 Preliminary Market Assessment

1.1 Idea / Strategic alignment 1.1.1 Fit product roadmap 1.1.2 Fit strategy

2004 2005 2006

Calendar Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Product Zeiss

BY

03/04 04/05 05/06

Riflescopes

Conquest X Conquest Y Diavari Z

Victory V

Victory LRF

Legend:

Existing products New Products Technology Needed Phase in / Sunrise Phase out / Sunset

Figure 2: Product Roadmap

1.2 Market risk, attractiveness, growth, access

1.2.1 Market risk; which market/segment – product (existing – new) 1.2.2 Market attractiveness, growth

(size, market potential, goals regarding price and sales, probability of demand fluctuation, growth)

Amount Product X

1. Year 2. Year 3. Year

Total in 3 years

Figure 3: Sales year 1-3

(19)

(Required sales channels and access to these, ease of entry / exit, barriers, planned launch, first in the market)

1.3 End-user Analysis / Market acceptance

1.3.1 Potential end-users (End-user familiarity) 1.3.2 End-users needs, wants, preferences 1.3.3 Benefits for the end-user

1.3.4 Economic Value for the end-user

1.4 Competitors

1.4.1 Competitors and their solutions

1.4.2 Cost and profit structure of the competing products 1.4.3 Product of the competitors at the time of launch

1.4.4 Competitive advantage (also advantage compared to competitors products)

1.5 Product Definition

1.5.1 Advantage compared to current CZ products

1.5.2 Marketing ability and capacity to continue processing this idea/product

(20)

Product Spotting Scopes

Binoculars

Platform

Enhancements

Electronical Technologies

Platform generation 1 Platform generation 2

2 Preliminary Technical Assessment

2.1 Technical Feasibility

2.1.1 Likelihood of technical feasibility (Feasibility proof, technologies at CZ or Sports Optics)

2.1.2 Fit with technology roadmap

Figure 4: Technology Roadmap

2.1.3 Opportunity for extra product options and extended product families

2.2 Competences, producing or outsourcing

2.2.1 Main technical competences / building blocks of the product

2.2.2 Competences available at Sports optics/ CZ vs Core competences of competitor 2.2.3 Technical alternatives

2.2.4 Competencies produced/developed internally versus outsourcing 2.2.5 Main partners in this area (CQP 0018)

2.3 IP / Patents

2.3.1 What IP / patent(s) is involved

2.3.2 Development of possible patents (progress) (CQP 0027)

(21)

2.5 Technical Definition 2.5.1 Realise-ability

2.5.1.1 Time and cost of functional prototype 2.5.1.2 Necessary resources

2.5.1.3 Work package

(22)

3 Preliminary Financial Assessment

3.1 Financial

3.1.1 Revenues, ROI, launch

Concept Total

Price xxx Quantity Revenues (price * quantity) xxx

Development Costs

Special requirements & New material, machines

Return (Revenues – Costs) xxx Concept/Market Launch (date)

Figure 5: Financial figures and launch date

3.1.2 Is this a reasonable projection of the revenue analysis 3.2 Business

3.2.1 Product regulatory issues (CQP 0008 / 0026) 3.2.2 Best – Worse case scenario

3.2.3 Killer Variables

(23)

Advanced Development Page 1 - Project name -

Advanced Development

Title: - Project name -

Version:

Version date:

Responsible : Name: Date: Signature:

Prepared by PM

Assistance:

(24)

Changes

Version Date Originator / dep. Page Change and reason

(25)

1 Detailed Market assessment 4

1.1 Market risk, growth, access 4

1.2 End-user analysis / market acceptance 5

1.3 Competitors 5

1.4 Product Definition 6

2 Detailed Technical assessment 7

2.1 Producing / Outsourcing 7

2.2 Technical Solution 8

2.3 IP / Patents 8

2.4 Risks 8

2.5 Technical Definition 8

3 Detailed Financial Assessment 9

3.1 Financial 9

3.2 Business 10

Table of Figures

Figure 1: Sales year 1-3 ... 4

Figure 2: Product Life Cycle... 4

Figure 3: Carl Zeiss versus Competitors ... 5

Figure 4: Price-Performance Carl Zeiss versus Competitors... 6

Figure 5: Criteria’s for development / production partnership ... 7

Figure 6: Technical data: preferences – realizable - fulfilled ... 8

Figure 7: Added Value ... 9

Figure 8: Impact on revenues ... 10

Figure 9: Break Even Analysis ... 10

Figure 10: Price-sensitivity analysis ... 10

(26)

1 Detailed Market assessment

1.1 Market risk, growth, access

1.1.1 Market risk; which market/segment – product (existing – new) 1.1.2 Market growth

(size , potential, stability regarding production, goals, growth, product life cycle)

Amount Product X

1. Year 2. Year 3. Year

Total in 3 years

Figure 6: Sales year 1-3

Figure 7: Product Life Cycle

1.1.3 Market access

(Power of buyer / supplier, after-sales / service requirements, sales channels and access to

them, ease of entry / exit, barriers, planned launch, first in the market)

(27)

1.2.1 Key benefits 1.2.2 Economic Value

1.2.3 End-user problem solving

(Likes / dislikes, ‘musts’, ‘nice to have’, ‘no’s’)

1.3 Competitors

1.3.1 SWOT of Carl Zeiss and competitors 1.3.2 Competitors products at the time of launch 1.3.3 Competitive advantage

Zeiss A B C Max

Equipment, Accessories

Carrying strap 2 2 1 1 2

Carry Case 2 2 2 2 2

………….

10 9 7 8 10

Ergonomics, Handling comfort

One hand handling 2 2 1,5 1 2

Grip Coating 2 1 1 2 2

………..

10 8,5 7,1 9 10

Weight, Stability, Density

Stability 5 5 5 4 5

Density (Focus- or Diopteradjustment at Ocular?) 5 5 5 3 5

………..

20,0 19,7 19,5 15,6 20

Field of vision

Field of view without glasses 9,9 10,0 9,5 9,7 10

Field of view wit glasses 19,2 20,0 17,3 19,5 20

29,0 30,0 26,8 29,3 30

Image Quality

Resolution 4 4 4 4 4

Contrast 4 4 4 4 4

……….

20 19 19 19 20

Dawn achievement

Image brightness (Transmission, dawn index) 7 5 5 5 7

False light 3 2 2 2 3

10 7 7 7 10

Total: 99,0 93,2 86,4 87,9 100

Price

1536 ,-

1672,

-

^1078,-

976,-

Figure 8: Carl Zeiss versus Competitors

(28)

xxx

Figure 9: Price-Performance Carl Zeiss versus Competitors

1.4 Product Definition

1.4.1 Advantage compared to current CZ products 1.4.2 Usage of functions

1.4.3 Product description

(29)

Technical Aspects

Experience with color digital still camera HW development Experience with modular camera SW architecture

Experience with embedded SW for target platform (4mp + TI/ Intel CPU) Reference Platform / Evaluation System available for selected CPU?

Platform roadmap / longtime availability Partnership experience with Zeiss Communication / Reaction Time

Development result ownership / rights for use

‚Off the Shelf’ product availability

Complexity of development + series production (3rd party involvement) Consumer market experience

Technical Performance (TI versus Intel) SW Component spectrum (‚Microsoft World’)

Commercial Aspects

Development costs Module costs (HK)

Market differentiation from CZ Economical situation

Longterm strategic potential for cooperation

Prioirity for Partner (Reliability of resource allocation + economical dependencies from CZ)

Cost transparency (Open book calculation)

Criteria ^Weighting

Factor

Organization

# Y

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Organization X

S c o r e

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

SUM # #

Minimum = 60 Maximum = 300 Score is on a 1-5 scale

At the organization’s column the score will be multiplied with the weighting factor. In the end the Sum of all criteria is shown

2 Detailed Technical assessment

2.1 Producing / Outsourcing

2.1.1 Possible development partners & suppliers and responsibilities (McoB decision based on scorecard, figure 5, and/or McoB excel sheet)

Figure 10: Criteria’s for development / production partnership

2.1.2 Manufacturability assessment 2.1.3 Produce-ability assessment

(production implications, production adjustments; already start necessary production adjustments?, new material / personnel)

2.1.4 Options for extra product options, new platforms / families

(30)

2.2 Technical Solution

2.2.1 Technical solution (Requirements of the functional prototype, not end product)

OPTICAL Data Preferences

(PM) Realized (AT) Can be fulfilled?

IMAGEQUALITY

MECHANICAL DATA

HANDHABUNG UND BEDIENUNG

Figure 11: Technical data: preferences – realizable - fulfilled

2.3 IP / Patents

2.3.1 IP / patents strategy (CQP 0027)

2.4 Risks

2.4.1 Risks and handling of them (CQP 0029) 2.4.2 Alternative solutions

2.5 Technical Definition 2.5.1 Work package

(time, costs, personnel requirements, manufacturability; ‘resource planning, allocation,

production route’, global project planning)

(31)

3 Detailed Financial Assessment

3.1 Financial

Added Value

End-user selling price (Gross)

Taxes [%] 16,00

End-user selling price (Net)

Discount (WER) [%] (Average after sales unit)

Ex CZ (WER)

Discount Ex HAG (Sum) [%]

Ex HAG

Manufacturing costs Purchasing Fall out costs materials Overhead costs, buyers, storage , etc.

Costs

Marge WER [ ]

Marge WER [%]

Gross profit HAG [ ]

Gross profit HAG [%]

Costs after Gross profit

Sales, Marketing (% v. Costs) [ ] 25%

Administration, Calc..Costs (% v.HK) [ ] 8%

Value Added [ ]

Value Added [%]

Figure 12: Added Value

Start of Merch and. Type

Pieces / 1^st Year

Target Price

Dealer Margin

Target Revenue

Revenue 02/03 1)

Impact on Revenues SO

E: Extension Average Extend

S: Successor EUSP [ ] Secure

(32)

Product Line Product

(incl 16%

VAT) [%] [ ] [ ]

BY

05/06 BY 06/07 BY 07/08 BY 08/09

Product x Product y

Sum

Figure 13: Impact on revenues

xxx

Figure 14: Break Even Analysis

xxx

Figure 15: Price-sensitivity analysis 3.2 Business

3.2.1 Product regulatory issues (CQP 0008 / 0026)

3.2.2 Industry standards, Environmental, health, ergonomic, quality, globalization 3.2.3 Best-worse case scenario

3.2.4 Killer Variables

(33)

Scorecard gate 1 Page 1 - Project name -

Scorecard gate 1

Title: - Project name -

Version:

Version date:

To idea valuation / idea pool :

Release: Name: Date: Signature:

Innovation team leader

(34)

Changes

(35)

The innovation team first have to fill in the ‘must meet’ scorecard to see if there are possible killer variables which make the idea (at the moment) not worth for further investigation. In periodic reviews these ideas have to be evaluated to see if the killer variable(s) still exist.

Second, the innovation team fills in the scorecard.

The outcome shows the product attractiveness and a prioritization is made.

After every session three questions have to be asked when an idea came out negatively.

- Why did the project come out negatively?

- What were the killer factors, extreme low scores?

- Can we do anything to improve these negative factors?

(36)

Must meet

Killer variables* YES NO

-

Strategic X

-

Technical feasibility X

-

Resources X

-

Legal & safety issues X

*

One or more times a ‘YES’:

Î to idea vault / pool

(37)

Carl Zeiss Sports OpticsVersion: Date: Scorecard gate 1 - Project name -

CriteriaWeight factorScoreWeighted result 0 - 5 1*Strategic importance50 2Possibility that product failure could damage CZ image10 3Market risk50 4*Market attractiveness50 5Perceivable benefits for end-users50 6Potential competitive advantage50 7Possibility of IP developing30 8Possibility of applying this technology in other products10 9Possibility of access to the technologies for this project30 10Possibility of access to marketing skills for this project10 11Attractive cost-time frame10 Sum (Idea0 attractiveness) Score is on a 1-5 scale. At the idea column the score will be multiplied with the weighting factor. At the end the Sum (idea attractiveness) is shown. Minimum0 *A score of "0" on criteria 1 and 4 will kill the ideaMaximum175

(38)

Criteri a

0 <- - - - > 5

1 No fit CZ Fit CZ strategy

2 Will damage CZ image Will not damage CZ image

3 Unclear Transparent

4 For end-users it doesn’t create extra benefits as shown right as an example

Minor change Product (quality, ease of use, etc.), Service (quality), company (reputation benefit), economic value, problems solved

5* Compared to competitors products it doesn’t create an advantage.

Idea creates only a small advantage

Idea creates a definite competitive advantage

6 New product in a new market

New product in existing market or visa versa.

Old product, old market 7 Competitors patent Possible patent

developing

Already CZ patent

8 One single solution Possibility of applying the

idea in other products, maybe new product family

9 Extern needed, unclear (no access)

Possible access Intern possible 10 Marketing need to get

new skills to continue processing this idea, unclear how

New skills needed but transparent

Marketing skills are available to continue researching this idea

11 Long term, extreme costs Short term, low costs

*

Rated on competitive advantage compared based on:

Differentiation: superior technology; which creates greater speed, accuracy, ease of use etc.

Marketing: high awareness, loyalty, superior market reach, innovative advertising Programs, knowledge, expertise

Cost

(39)

Scorecard gate 2

Title: - Project name -

Version:

Version date:

To Adv. Dev. / idea pool :

Release: Name: Date: Signature:

(40)

Changes

(41)

Process

The innovation team first have to fill in the ‘must meet’ scorecard to see if there are possible killer variables which make the idea (at the moment) not worth for further investigation. In periodic reviews these ideas have to be evaluated to see if the killer variable(s) still exist.

Second, the innovation team fills in the scorecard.

The outcome shows the product attractiveness and a prioritization is made.

After every session three questions have to be asked when an idea came out negatively.

- Why did the project come out negatively?

- What were the killer factors, extreme low scores?

- Can we do anything to improve these negative factors?

(42)

Must meet

Killer variables* YES NO

-

Does CZ has the resources to undertake the project? X

-

Is the necessary market information available? X

-

Is there a market need? X

-

Conform CZ image? X

-

Technical feasible? X

-

Does it meet the required legal policies? X

*

One or more times a ‘NO’:

(43)

CriteriaWeight factorScoreWeighted result 0 - 5 1Strategic importance50 2Market risk40 3Market attractiveness50 4Growth opportunities40 5Market access30 6Perceivable benefits for end-user50 7Potential competitive advantage50 8Product will be clearly superior compared to current Sports Optics products30 9Technical feasibility50 10Fit in technology roadmap30 11Technology basis for new platform10 12Getting access to competences50 13Potential technological competitive advantage50 14IP developing50 15Prospect of revenues50 16Attractive time frame40 17Attractive return on investment30 Sum (Idea attractiveness)0 Score is on a 0-5 scale. At the idea column the score will be multiplied with the weighting factor. At the end the Sum (idea attractiveness) is shown. Minimum0 Maximum325

(44)

Criteri a

0 <- - - - > 5

1 No fit CZ Fit CZ strategy

2 Losing share,

unpredictable demand, not first in the market, price positioning is unclear

No demand fluctuation, attractive price positioning (certain), first in the market.

Transparent

3* No growth

opportunities, only substitute of current product (e.g. new innovative design), no extra growth

Growth opportunities

4* New product in a new market

New product in existing market or visa versa.

Old product old market 5* Unfamiliar

sales/distribution- channels/ end-user, ease of entry (uncertainty of regulations, high capital investment) / exit (large, not

‘salable’ new assets investments

Partly accessible Access to sales/distribution- channels, end-user familiarity, ease of entry (access inputs, familiar regulations, capital) /exit (little ‘salable’ asset investments).

6* For end-users it doesn’t create extra benefits as shown right as an example

Product (quality, ease of use, etc.), Service (quality), company (reputation benefit), economic value, problems solved

7** Compared to competitors products it doesn’t create an advantage.

Idea creates only a small advantage

Idea creates a definite competitive advantage

8 Idea isn’t superior at all compared with current Sports Optics products

Product is clearly superior to current Sports Optics products

9* No feasibility proof of the key

technologies

Investigation of the feasibility proof of the key technologies has been performed

Key technology already implemented in products of Sports Optics

10* Not fitting in Not in the roadmap but Planned in roadmap

(45)

Specific technology for this functionality

roadmap

11 Single solution New platform

12* External and no access

Carl Zeiss access Internal (Sports Optics) and full access

13* Key technologies are the competitors core competences

Key technologies are the core competences of the competitor and/ or CZ

Key technology is a core competence of Sports Optics 14 Competitors patent Technology open. Possible

patent developing. CZ patent

Already a Sports Optics available patent

15 Marketing- transferring CZ image (window dressing)

Significant source of future

revenues

16 Long term Short term

17 Unclear Transparent

*

Financial risks is not incorporated in the scorecard as a criteria because a low score on these criteria (*) automatically increases the financial risk of the idea/project.

**

Rated on competitive advantage compared with products, not company specific advantages.

Based on

Differentiation: superior technology; which creates greater speed, accuracy, ease of use etc.

Marketing: high awareness, loyalty, superior market reach, innovative advertising Programs, knowledge, expertise

Cost

(46)

Gate 3

Title: - Project name -

Version:

Version date:

To Product Dev. / idea pool :

Release: Name: Date: Signature:

(47)

Changes

(48)

Process

The innovation team first have to fill in the ‘must meet’ scorecard to see if there are possible killer variables which make the idea (at the moment) not worth for further investigation. In periodic reviews these ideas have to be evaluated to see if the killer variable(s) still exist.

Second, the innovation team fills in the scorecard (appendix excel sheet).

The outcome shows the product attractiveness and a prioritization is made.

After every session three questions have to be asked when an idea came out negatively.

- Why did the project come out negatively?

- What were the killer factors, extreme low scores?

- Can we do anything to improve these negative factors?

(49)

Must meet

Killer variables* YES NO

-

Does CZ has the resources to undertake the project? X

-

Is the necessary market information available? X

-

Is there a market need? X

-

Conform CZ image? X

-

Technical feasible? X

-

Does it meet the required legal policies? X

*

One or more times a ‘NO’:

(50)

CriteriaWeight factorScoreResult 0 - 5 1Market risk30 2Growth opportunities50 3Market access40 4Perceivable benefits for the end-user50 5Potential competitive advantage50 6Relative competitiveness against competitors30 7Price performance ratio40 8Product will be clearly superior compared to current Sports Optics products30 9Development partner selection50 10Dealing/ identified the main components and suppliers50 11Able to meet preferred functional prototype requirements50 12IP developing50 13Prospect of revenues50 14Attractive time frame40 15Attractive return on investment50 Sum (Idea attractiveness)0 Score is on a 0-5 scale. At the idea column the score will be multiplied with the weighting factor. At the end the Sum (idea attractiveness) is shown. Minimum0 Maximum280

Multiple convergent process model