3 ms·
As a sometimes-student of such things, I noticed that their home-brewed, four part recipe for a good value proposition is basically Real-Win-Worth It in slightl
by timdellinger 11y ago
As a sometimes-student of such things, I noticed that their home-brewed, four part recipe for a good value proposition is basically Real-Win-Worth It in slightly different form.
I'm not criticizing: it can be a worthwhile endeavor re-invent the wheel a bit to find out what works for your organization and your markets. I see it as further evidence that the framework has utility.
(apologies for the corporate-speak.)
- doublerebel 11y agoIt looks like the Real-Win-Worth It paper [1] is from 2007? What is the history of this method? The OPs book [2] was released in 2006, similar timing. [1]: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18283921 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18283921 [2]: http://www.amazon.com/Innovation-Five-Disciplines-Creating-Customers/dp/0307336697 http://www.amazon.com/Innovation-Five-Disciplines-Creating-C...
- timdellinger 11y agofrom the text of your [1]: The second, the R-W-W (“real, win, worth it”) screen, sometimes known as the Schrello screen, can be used to evaluate individual projects. Versions of the screen have been circulating since the 1980s, and since then a growing roster of companies, including General Electric, Honeywell, Novartis, Millipore, and 3M, have used them to assess busi- ness potential and risk exposure in their innovation portfolios; 3M has used R-W-W for more than 1,500 projects. (I've never tried to dig any deeper than seeing mentions that Don Schrello seems to have put it together sometime in the 1960s/1970s as part of his marketing company.)