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