CLC Phase 1: Proposing, Evaluating and Selecting an Innovation

Proposing, evaluating and selecting an evaluation

Description of each team member’s ideas

The team is comprised of four members, and each member presented an idea of a project that the team could tackle. The first team member proposed that the team should produce and market transition windows and shades that would change their directional opacity based on the ambient light. Using intelligent tint technology, the windows and shades would control the amount of light that passes through into a room with the intention of ensuring that brightness is optimized for consistent visibility and temperature control. Besides that, the technology would ensure privacy by controlling conspicuousness on both sides so that persons inside the room can see those outside the room without those outside the room seeing them. The proposed idea was evaluated based on feasibility and success potential. Feasibility evaluation determined that the idea complies with the available laws and standards, is economically feasible based on cost-benefit evaluation, faces minimal market barriers, and is technically feasible. Evaluation for success potential determined that transition windows and shades have good sales potential, low differentiation potential, adds value for customers, and addresses an existing market need (Burrow & Kleindl, 2013; Kahle, 2017) CLC: Phase 1 – Proposing, Evaluating, and Selecting an Innovation.

The second team member proposed that the team should produce and market intelligent speed limit signs that would improve road safety by displaying optimized road speed limits based on the road conditions, traffic and time of the day. The idea focuses on developing a unique algorithm that intelligently incorporates values for the road conditions, traffic and time of day to identify a safe speed limit at which drivers are anticipated to have full control of their cars and capable to responding to emergencies. This is based on the awareness that road conditions, traffic and time of the day are factors that influence road safety. Road conditions influences road safety through determining the amount of control that a driver has over a car, capacity to slow down and stop, and even maneuver the vehicle. Traffic influences road safety through creating an interrelated network of cars whereby activities by one driver influence the responses of other drivers in the same grid. Time of the day influences road safety through determining outside light conditions that affect driver visibility. The proposed idea was evaluated based on feasibility and success potential. Feasibility evaluation determined that the idea complies with the available laws and standards, is economically feasible based on cost-benefit evaluation, and faces minimal market barriers. However, it faces questionable technical feasible since it requires complex algorithms to interpret the road conditions into speed limits. Evaluation for success potential determined that the idea has good sales potential, low differentiation potential, adds value for customers, and addresses an existing market need (Burrow & Kleindl, 2013; Kahle, 2017).

The third team member proposed that the team should create a warehouse boutique space where customers who have signed up with the warehouse are able to bring clothes forward to try on in person before purchasing them. This idea is intended to eliminate the chaos of having to shuffle through clothes that are not in the right boutique section, or are in different boutiques. The warehouse would have signed agreements with boutiques, and maintain a catalogue of the boutique stocks within a digital database so that customers simply need to identify the cloth design and size, selecting them for delivery to the warehouse to try out within a given time frame. This approach is expected to ease purchase for customers by helping them to narrow down what they are looking in seconds rather than spending minutes or even hours shuffling between different boutiques. The proposed idea was evaluated based on feasibility and success potential. Feasibility evaluation determined that the idea complies with the available laws and standards, is economically feasible based on cost-benefit evaluation, faces minimal market barriers, and is technically feasible. Evaluation for success potential determined that the idea has good sales potential, low differentiation potential, adds value for customers, and addresses an existing market need (Burrow & Kleindl, 2013; Kahle, 2017).

The final team member proposed that the team should create an application that automatically informs drivers when they enter into a school or speed zone area so that they apply the recommended speeds. The idea is based on the notion that drivers who are unfamiliar with a given area are likely to concentrate on navigating the road and ignore the road sights. This creates a high possibility of violating speed limits in protected areas such as school zones. The application is intended to send a notification that informs drivers when they are approaching speed zones so that they adjust their car speeds appropriately. The proposed idea was evaluated based on feasibility and success potential. Feasibility evaluation determined that the idea complies with the available laws and standards, is economically feasible based on cost-benefit evaluation, faces minimal market barriers, and is technically feasible. Evaluation for success potential determined that the idea has good sales potential, low differentiation potential, adds value for customers, and addresses an existing market need (Burrow & Kleindl, 2013; Kahle, 2017).

Identifying the selected idea

The four ideas were evaluated to determine the specific idea that the team of four members would explore and apply. The evaluations were based on feasibility and success potential with the results of the evaluation determining that the second idea was the most appropriate for the team to explore (see Table 1).

Table 1. Results of ideas evaluations for feasibility and success potential

Idea 1: Transition windows and shades
Idea 2: Intelligent speed limit signs
Idea 3: Boutique warehouse
Idea 4: School and speed zone notifications

Feasibility
Legal
10
10
10
10

Economic feasibility
8
8
7
6

Market entry
5
8
5
6

Technical feasibility
8
4
7
4

Success potential
Sales potential
6
8
6
7

Differentiation potential
5
8
6
7

Attractiveness to market
7
8
6
6

Added value
7
9
6
7

Market needs
7
8
6
7

Total scores⃰
63
71
59
62

⃰ Total scores are evaluated as (x/90) based on anticipated performance with the maximum score being 90.

The results of the evaluation reveals that idea 2 (intelligent speed limit signs) has the best comparative potential for success if actualized by the team. Idea 1 (transition windows and shades) has a total evaluation score of 63, scoring highly in legal aspects but scoring lowly in market entry and differentiation potential. The low score is based on the fact that similar products are already in the market and competing for the same market could be disastrous for a new product. The implication is that the product from idea 1 is likely to face stiff competition from the market, and this increases the possibility of market failure (Hussain & Coleman, 2015; Kubasek et al., 2016).

Idea 2 (intelligent speed and limit signs) has a total evaluation score of 71. This is the highest score among the four ideas thus objectively making it the most suitable idea to be explored by the team. This idea scores highly in legal aspects but scores lowly in technical feasibility, an acknowledgement of the difficulty in developing the technology and algorithms to actualize the idea. Developing this idea is expected to be particularly challenging, requiring complex technology that is expensive and takes time to develop and test. Still, it is expected that once the technical challenges are addressed, the idea will be very attractive to the market, capturing a large niche market and realizing higher returns. Another potential barrier that is likely to constrain the project is that the funding sources are limited and there are no contingencies to address removal of funding (Hussain & Coleman, 2015; Kubasek et al., 2016).

Idea 3 (boutique warehouse) has a total evaluation score of 59, the lowest score among the four ideas. It scores highly in legal aspects but scores lowly in market entry. It has close to average score in all other evaluation aspects. The average scores are because convincing boutiques and customers to sign up for the idea could be a challenge (Hussain & Coleman, 2015; Kubasek et al., 2016).

Idea 4 (school and speed zone notifications) has a total evaluation score of 62, a low score even among the four ideas. It scores highly in legal aspects but scores lowly in technical feasibility. Requiring this idea requires technical expertise, a challenge in terms of costs, knowledge and time. The idea has a high cost since technology must be bought to run the application. It requires unique technical knowledge to develop the application. It takes time to develop and test the application before release for the market (Hussain & Coleman, 2015; Kubasek et al., 2016).

Project plan

The project will be managed by the four team members who will be assigned the project tasks based on capabilities. The first project task is sponsorship with the four team members expected to equally contribute towards the project. Each of the four team members is expected to fund 15% of the project cost for a total of 60%. The remaining 40% will be sourced from lending venture capitalists who will fund the project in return for equity on the project. The project sponsorship and higher equity stake on the project will allow the four team members to be the ultimate decision makers and tie breakers in case of differences in opinions with other project sponsors. As the project sponsors, the four team members will also be expected to review and approve the project elements, and provide guidance and oversight for the project (West, 2012) CLC: Phase 1 – Proposing, Evaluating, and Selecting an Innovation.

The second project task is steering committee, which will engage all the four team members. As part of the committee, they will commit the required resources, approve resource and funding allocation strategies, resolving issues and conflicts arising, and review the project deliverables (West, 2012).

The third project task is project manager that will engage the four team members as co-project managers. The specific tasks will involve managing the project in accordance with the plan, supervising the technical consultants, suppliers and vendors, providing project direction, direct achievement of project objectives, handle problems resolutions, and manage the project budget (West, 2012).

The third project task is project participants, which will engage the four team members to test the project deliverables. This will require them to understand the user needs for the project deliverables, act as consumer advocates, communicate project progress, status and goals, and review and approve the deliverables. In addition, they will provide recommendations and knowledge, identify and remove the project barriers, assure quality, and coordinate participation of other stakeholders (West, 2012) CLC: Phase 1 – Proposing, Evaluating, and Selecting an Innovation.

The final project task is expert advice. This will involve the one of the team members who has technical knowledge. In addition, a subject matter expert will be engaged. They will be responsible for lending technical guidance and expertise as needed (Marsick, 2015).

References

Burrow, J. & Kleindl, B. (2013). Business management (13 th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western.

Hussain, T. & Coleman, S. (2015). Design and development of training games: practical guidelines from a multidisciplinary perspective . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Kahle, D. (2017). The Good book on business: lessons from the #1 best seller of all time . Washington, D.C.: DaCo Corporation.

Kubasek, N., Browne, N., Barkacs, L., Herron, D., Dhooge, L. & Williamson, C. (2016). Dynamic business law (4 th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

Marsick, V. (2015). Learning in the workplace . New York, NY: Routledge.

West, M. (2012). Effective teamwork: practical lessons from organizational research (3 rd ed.). New York, NY: BPS Blackwell. CLC: Phase 1 – Proposing, Evaluating, and Selecting an Innovation