Differential Canvas: A R&D Challenge Assessment Tool

An effective way to assess the degree of challenge (i.e., chance of commercial success) of a proposed R&D activity is to explicitly identify differences between a planned deliverable and its closest successful analog.? A 1-page “differential canvas”, like the one I propose below, can be a very useful aid for categorizing and communicating the differences to decision makers and sponsors.

If the deliverable being assessed is one in a series of deliverables, the closest successful analog may be the prior deliverable – e.g., a minimum viable product or pilot application.? Note that “success” of a potential analog must be judged from the customer’s point of view.? That is, success is not whether a potential analog product was delivered but whether the delivered product was in fact clearly attractive to the customer.? Attractiveness may be inferred by a substantial increase in the customer’s usage, support, or pull for the product.?

It is emphasized that the focus of the canvas is on differences rather than similarities to successes, mitigators to potential issues, or envisioned size of prize.? Focusing on differences helps counter the strong psychological bias (even among experts) to underestimate, sometimes dramatically, the challenge of new activities due to optimism, limited data availability, and inherent “unknown unknowns”. ??Although a “can do” attitude can aid the performance of an R&D team, bias in accessing the chance of success leads to poor allocation of limited resources and a non-optimal portfolio of R&D activities.

When assessing a physical technology, differences to consider versus its closest successful analog include:

• Physical Scale:? Enlargement or reduction in size
• Performance:? Improving efficiency, speed, reliability, or robustness; narrowing the distance to physical or engineering limit; changing from non-continuous to continuous operation
• Configuration:? Altering arrangement or spacing of subsystems; modularization
• Substitution:? Replacement of a subsystem with another which performs a similar function but has a different design or underlying physics
• Elimination:? Removal of one or more subsystems
• Integration:? Merging existing functions into a single subsystem; adding or increasing recycle or feedback loops
• Augmenting:? Adding features or capabilities into an existing system
• Inputs & Outputs:? Altering type, properties, or amount of a feed, product, or reject stream
• Control:? Automation; changing operation tolerances; changing operator interfaces
• Support & Logistics:? Remoteness; quality of existing and available infrastructure, logistic chains, and local talent
• Construction:? Applying an alternative manufacturing technique
• Surroundings:? Typical and extreme weather conditions; sensitivity of local environment

What methods have you found to work particularly well when assessing and communicating the challenge level of R&D projects?? What has been your experience with types of supposedly small design changes that have in fact proven quite challenging?