WO2009117275A2 - Système et procédé permettant d’optimiser des portefeuilles de développement de produits et l’alignement de stratégies de produits, de marque et de la technologie de l’information - Google Patents

Système et procédé permettant d’optimiser des portefeuilles de développement de produits et l’alignement de stratégies de produits, de marque et de la technologie de l’information Download PDF

Info

Publication number
WO2009117275A2
WO2009117275A2 PCT/US2009/036574 US2009036574W WO2009117275A2 WO 2009117275 A2 WO2009117275 A2 WO 2009117275A2 US 2009036574 W US2009036574 W US 2009036574W WO 2009117275 A2 WO2009117275 A2 WO 2009117275A2
Authority
WO
WIPO (PCT)
Prior art keywords
initiative
user
brand
assessment
portfolio
Prior art date
Application number
PCT/US2009/036574
Other languages
English (en)
Other versions
WO2009117275A3 (fr
Inventor
Steven M. Cristol
Original Assignee
Cristol Steven M
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by Cristol Steven M filed Critical Cristol Steven M
Publication of WO2009117275A2 publication Critical patent/WO2009117275A2/fr
Publication of WO2009117275A3 publication Critical patent/WO2009117275A3/fr

Links

Classifications

    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
    • G06Q10/06—Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling

Definitions

  • Embodiments of the invention relate to enhancing business performance, market impact, and brand equity by optimizing product development portfolios and information technology ("IT") portfolios and better integrating and aligning product strategy and IT strategy with brand strategy.
  • IT information technology
  • Brand equity is a significant contributor to the financial value of most successful firms.
  • Brand equity represents the value inherent in the ability of a firm's brands to command premium prices for goods and services.
  • the premium prices that customers are willing to pay for branded goods and services as compared to identical non-branded goods and services, and the incremental demand that strong brands generate, can account for more than half the value of a firm.
  • intangible brand equity can be worth even more than a firm's tangible assets.
  • Growing brand equity requires a strong brand image - the meaning of the brand in the minds of targeted customers - and managing brand equity requires extensive coordination between various organizations within a firm such as marketing, sales, product management, research and development, and information technology.
  • the business and software method includes defining in detail the product and service attributes that characterize the ideal customer experience, categorizing the attributes, assigning a numerical value of importance to the attributes, and applying those values to statistical analyses of each assessed product development initiative or IT initiative in terms of alignment with ideal experience and potential competitive impact relative to the resources and risks required to bring each initiative to market.
  • a prioritization for product development/IT resource allocation is developed based upon these analyses.
  • the prioritization is presented in the form of decision intelligence tools for an organization to use and reach informed judgments concerning resource allocation to develop, maintain, or optimize a given product development/IT portfolio and/or to terminate, suspend, or reduce the scope of certain initiatives.
  • the decision intelligence tools serve to improve business performance, increase market impact, and build brand equity for products and services of a given organization by improving alignment between what the organization promises customers and what it actually delivers.
  • the method and these tools may be applied to initiatives in a product development portfolio, an IT portfolio, or both. Just as the former improves alignment between product strategy and brand strategy, the latter improves alignment between IT strategy and brand strategy - in part due to improved integration between IT and product development since products and services are increasingly enabled by technology platforms which facilitate product/service delivery. Though each application (product development or IT) independent of the other is a valid and productive employment of the method, both applications together yield improved alignment and integration across all three strategies: brand, product, and IT.
  • FIGURES 1-43 illustrate particular embodiments of systems and methods for optimizing product development portfolios and aligning product, brand, and information technology strategies.
  • FIGURE 1 depicts a method flowchart of master algorithm 10 to deliver decision intelligence to a client for making resource allocations for product development/IT portfolio and alignment with brand strategy;
  • FIGURES 2A-D depicts expansion of method sub-algorithms contained with the processing blocks of master algorithm 10 of FIGURE 1;
  • FIGURE 3 depicts an alternate embodiment of the general method
  • FIGURE 4 depicts another embodiment of the general method
  • FIGURE 5 depicts an entity relationship of brand strategy architecture
  • FIGURE 6 illustrates an example of a Brand Strategy Architecture in the first embodiment for an iMac® brand strategy
  • FIGURE 7 is an expansion of the Level 2 entity relationships of the iMac® Brand Strategy Architecture of FIGURE 6;
  • FIGURES 8A-B depict sections or portions of a Strategic Harmony® example of Level 2 driver listings with identifiers and association factors similar to those described in FIGURES 6 and 7;
  • FIGURE 9 depicts an expansion of another Strategic Harmony® example for prioritizing Level 2 drives of brand choice using the Application Consensus Builder tool in the case of applications related for use by a network IT manager;
  • FIGURE 10 depicts a screenshot tabular illustration of examples of enterprise software having simplicity factor level association defined by numerical correlation coefficients as inputs to the Strategic Harmony® product development/IT portfolio analysis;
  • FIGURES 1 IA-F depict sections or portions of a screenshot illustration from the first embodiment that shows how the output of the Consensus Builder tool displayed in a spreadsheet;
  • FIGURE 12A-D depict sections or portions of a screenshot example of results obtained for product development initiatives' alignment with key drivers of brand choice and distributed among cells of a spreadsheet by category, numerical scores, and alignment level classification determined from conducting an Alignment Assessment of a product development/IT portfolio;
  • FIGURE 13 is a screenshot depiction of the "Pacing Guide— Strategic Harmony Proof Points Session" that Application workshop facilitators use to set workshop pacing targets;
  • FIGURE 14 is a screenshot depiction from the first embodiment of the "Pacing Guide — Strategic Harmony ® Portfolio Session" that Application workshop facilitators use to set workshop pacing targets;
  • FIGURE 15 is a screenshot depiction of the templates used for capturing Proof Points Workshop output described as a Proof Points Inventory/Audit and Competitive Assessment;
  • FIGURE 16 is a screenshot depiction of the templates used for capturing Product Development/IT Portfolio Workshop output in the form of a Development Initiatives Assessment;
  • FIGURE 17 is a depiction from using whiteboards in facilitating required team discussions during Proof Points and Product Development/IT Portfolio Workshops;
  • FIGURE 18 is a tabular illustration of Proof Points Inventory template designed for output to a spreadsheet program
  • FIGURE 19 is another tabular illustration for entry of driver dimensions distributed among proof points for control by factor name field that is changeable with each sheet of the Proof Points Inventory workbook;
  • FIGURE 20A-B depict sections or portions of a screenshot example from a completed page of a Proof Points Inventory for a fictitious enterprise software company
  • FIGURE 21 is a screenshot example of a "current competitive situation" baseline inventory of product characteristics distributed among key factors that drive brand choice and further classified against competing entities according to whether the client's product is superior to, at parity with, or inferior to competitors' products;
  • FIGURE 22 A-B depict sections or portions of a screenshot example of how results display from an Alignment Assessment of a product development/IT portfolio
  • FIGURE 23 is a screenshot illustrating a bar chart display from calculating the attribute-specific impact of the collective initiatives in a product development/IT portfolio;
  • FIGURE 24A-D depict sections or portions of a screenshot example of results obtained for product development initiatives' potential competitive impact on key drivers of brand choice and distributed among cells of a spreadsheet by category, numerical scores, and competitive classification determined from conducting a Competitive Impact Assessment of a product development/IT portfolio;
  • FIGURE 25 is a screenshot example of a Competitive Impact Assessment showing the potential competitive impact of one selected initiative from a product development/IT portfolio;
  • FIGURE 26 is a screenshot example a total portfolio view of Competitive Impact Assessment results that shows the collective potential competitive impact of all initiatives in a product development/IT portfolio;
  • FIGURE 27 A-B depict sections or portions of a screenshot example of a compressed view of the Strategic Harmony® Competitive Impact Dashboard that hides the rating rationales text;
  • FIGURE 28 is a screenshot example of how results are displayed from a Manageability Assessment
  • FIGURE 29 is a screenshot example how a Product Development/IT Portfolio Assessments Recap is displayed
  • FIGURE 30 is a screenshot example of Overall Strategic Importance rankings and indices that shows each importance index's Alignment and Competitive components
  • FIGURE 31 is a screenshot tabular example of a Strategic Harmony ® Priority Guide is displayed to provide a rationale for overall strategic importance;
  • FIGURE 32 is another screenshot tabular example of balancing strategic importance against development burden / manageability
  • FIGURE 33 presents a tabular screenshot graphic of a tiered approach to categorizing development priorities via integrated assessments
  • FIGURE 34 presents a screenshot graphic, as delivered to a client, of a three-dimensional Strategic Harmony® Quadrant Map integrating Alignment, Competitive Impact, and Manageability scores;
  • FIGURE 35 depicts a screenshot graphic concerning inputs, consensus, and deliverable outputs to show key phases of how the method is implemented in a typical client consulting engagement;
  • FIGURE 36 depicts an Application screenshot of an inputs master for use by consultants before project-specific date is entered
  • FIGURE 37 depicts another Application screenshot of an inputs master for use by consultants after the consultant enters project-specific data
  • FIGURE 38A-F depict sections or portions of an Application screenshot concerning alignment with drivers of brand choice and illustrates a region denoted "Back Room: Consultants Only” where Strategic Harmony® mathematical formulae are applied to produce various metrics;
  • FIGURE 39A-B depict sections or portions of a screenshot graphics of a two-dimensional Strategic Harmony® Quadrant Map integrating Alignment and Competitive Impact scores, and a three-dimensional Quadrant Map integrating Alignment, Competitive Impact, and Manageability scores;
  • FIGURE 40A-C depict sections or portions of an Application screenshot showing details operating or associated with the "Back Room: consultants Only” in arriving at numerical descriptors for manageability of designated portfolio initiatives;
  • FIGURE 41 depicts an Application screenshot graphic of bar graphs describing alignment with brand choice, competitive impact, and manageability
  • FIGURE 42A-B depict sections or portions of an Application screenshot of scores, ranks, and indices of alignment, competitive impact, and manageability for designated portfolio initiatives, plus conversion ratios and reference metrics ranges for consultants;
  • FIGURE 43 presents a screenshot graphic, as delivered to a client, of a two- dimensional Strategic Harmony® Quadrant Map integrating Strategic Importance and Manageability scores.
  • Described herein are business and software methods for cost-effectively optimizing product and/or service development portfolios related to IT (information technology) portfolios and portfolios other than IT, accelerating market entry, and optimizing product/service IT strategy, brand strategy, and product/service development initiatives.
  • Product and service attributes are assigned, characterized, categorized, and assigned important numerical values amenable to statistical analysis of each assessed product development/IT initiative in terms of alignment with ideal experience and potential competitive impact relative to the resources and risks required to bring each initiative to market.
  • Methods further include prioritization in the form of applied decision intelligence tools to allow an organization to use and reach informed judgments concerning resource allocation to develop, maintain, or optimize a given product or service portfolio or IT portfolio to improve business performance, increase market impact, and build brand equity.
  • Other embodiments disclosed herein include business and software methods to cost-effectively optimize product and/or service development portfolios and/or IT (information technology) portfolios, to accelerate time to market for products and time to completion for IT initiatives, and to better integrate and align product or service strategy, IT strategy, and brand strategy.
  • the business and software method includes defining in detail the product and service attributes that characterize the ideal customer experience, categorizing the attributes, assigning a numerical value of importance to the attributes, and applying those values to statistical analysis of each assessed product development/IT initiative in terms of alignment with ideal experience and potential competitive impact relative to the resources and risks required to bring each initiative to market.
  • a prioritization for product development/IT resource allocation is developed based upon these analyses.
  • the prioritization is presented in the form of decision intelligence tools for an organization to use and reach informed judgments concerning resource allocation to develop, maintain, or optimize a given product or service portfolio or IT portfolio.
  • the decision intelligence tools serve to improve business performance, increase market impact, and build brand equity for products and services of a given organization by improving alignment between what the organization promises customers and what it actually delivers.
  • Yet other particular embodiments are directed to a business method that improves business performance and strengthens brands by prioritizing product development and/or IT projects based on a systematic approach of defining assumptions that drive brand choice and assessing a product development/IT portfolio thereon - resulting in more effective allocation of development resources.
  • consultants or consulting firms are principally employed to advise their client companies.
  • Other particular embodiments may also be employed directly by client companies without the use of consultants.
  • Yet other particular embodiments prioritize or reprioritize initiatives within a product development/IT portfolio based on each initiative's relative alignment with ideal customer experience (and, therefore, likely relative contribution to brand equity), relative potential competitive impact, and the resource requirements, risks and complexities involved in successfully completing the initiative.
  • Prioritization is accomplished by performing and integrating assessments of the client company's proposed development initiatives. . These can include 1) a baseline assessment of the current competitive situation for a client company's brand and current in- the-market products or services ; 2) an assessment of each initiative's relative alignment with key drivers of brand choice that define the ideal customer experience; 3) an assessment of each initiative's likely competitive impact in terms of strengthening the client company's brand where it most needs strengthening vs. competitor brands; and 4) an assessment of the relative manageability, or development burden, of each initiative including human and financial resources, risk, and complexity.
  • the assessments are then integrated to produce decision intelligence for strategically prioritizing initiatives within product development/IT portfolios, identifying gaps in the portfolios, and reallocating development resources accordingly.
  • the client company's current situation can determine which implementing approach of particular embodiments is most appropriate: 1) the full method or 2) the streamlined method.
  • the full method is most appropriate when the company's brand strategy is either underdeveloped or in need of updating or significant refinement. It includes a process for developing a "Brand Strategy Architecture" that encompasses multiple elements optionally advantageous as inputs to the product development/IT portfolio assessment.
  • the streamlined method is most appropriate when the client company already has the serviceable equivalent of a "Brand Strategy Architecture" and/or the drivers of brand choice have been adequately identified and prioritized. Alternatively, any method in between the streamlined and full method may be utilized or a combination of methods may be utilized.
  • the decision on which method to utilize can be based on an assessment of the client company's current level of sophistication on brand strategy or the availability of recent brand choice research that adequately identifies and prioritizes drivers of brand choice.
  • the application software provides a means to implement the particular embodiments of the system and business methods in the form of computer readable media containing executable instructions to implement particular embodiments described herein.
  • the application software specification explains details of particular embodiments of the business method employed using particular system embodiments described below in business related "use case" scenarios, references as Use Case Nos. 1-10.
  • the RFP is primarily to insure development of a brand choice research proposal designed specifically to produce data amenable for entry into application software-provided screenshot interfaces to culminate in the generation of decision intelligence as regards product development/IT portfolio assessments.
  • the software may be adaptable to enterprise-related applications and non-enterprise applications executed from standalone personal computers configured to run separately from enterprise software housed applications. Executed from non-enterprise computers, the software of the particular embodiments may be used more productively to help a company decide how to reprioritize and/or redefine its development portfolio and allocate resources within it. [0059] 1.2 Terms and Definitions.
  • product development initiative is used throughout this document in lieu of “product development project” to eliminate confusion, so that the word “project” can refer exclusively to the software development project described herein - and not to projects in the companies whose strategies are being assessed.
  • product is also inclusive of services and/or customer service initiatives to the degree that these define aspects of the ideal customer experience and are competing for development resources inside the client company.
  • client company is used to indicate a business client of a consulting firm using this software, as distinguished from a “client” that refers to a client computer in a client-server computing environment.
  • Assessment Metrics and Outputs - Application assessment outputs are a combination of qualitative judgments made by experienced consultants - transcending the software application itself - and quantitative outputs generated by the software application's use of best practices templates, specified strategic filters, and prescribed underlying mathematics to assess and prioritize various inputs.
  • Quantitative output is used primarily to prioritize specific variables within selected sets of attributes, projects, or resource burdens.
  • the quantitative outputs calculated by the software are expressed as the following nine metrics (definitions of each follow). These manifest as indices and/or rankings representing the relative importance of variables assessed within each metric: 1. Category Adoption Drivers Importance Index; 2. Brand Choice Drivers Importance Index; 3. Alignment of Product Development/IT Initiative with Category Adoption Drivers; 4.
  • Category Adoption Drivers Importance Index is the considerations in the minds of a client company's customers that drive their decision to adopt or not adopt a product or service category that they have not yet purchased. In other words, what factors make a product or service category attractive enough to merit customers' serious purchase consideration - before they ever get to the stage of evaluating specific brands? For example, in the category of color laser printers for businesses, category adoption drivers may include the need to save money over the long haul by reducing outsourcing of color printing jobs or the desire to make a small business look more professional by cost- efficient use of color in documents intended for their customers. Understanding the relative importance of what is usually a multitude of such drivers is a key to both effective product development and marketing communications, and particularly important in emerging, less mature categories. The Category Adoption Drivers Importance Index expresses this relative importance for each driver, from a customer perspective.
  • Brand Choice Drivers Importance Index are the considerations in the minds of a client company's customers that determine (once they decide to adopt a category or repurchase within a category already adopted) how they differentiate between Brand X and Brand Y.
  • These choice-driving attributes also sometimes referred to as "vendor preference drivers" in a business-to-business context) define the characteristics of the "ideal brand" as perceived by the customer. In the business color laser printer example, such attributes cluster under high-level factors such as performance, reliability, simplicity, and value.
  • Each of those abstract, high-level factors has multiple dimensions that are more concrete; for example, simplicity may comprise specific attributes, or choice drivers, such as easy to purchase, easy to install, easy to use, easy to upgrade, and easy-to-manage supplies.
  • attributes such as easy to purchase, easy to install, easy to use, easy to upgrade, and easy-to-manage supplies.
  • a customer's perceptions of each brand on brand choice drivers, then, will determine whether HP, Lexmark, Canon, or some other brand of color printer is actually purchased.
  • each of the client company's planned product development/IT initiatives can be assessed in terms of how well aligned it is with those considerations that are driving the customer toward category adoption. This assessment is ideally provided by client company primary research, but in the absence of such research may be supplied by consensus among internal company experts on customer needs and market conditions. Regardless of input source, each development initiative may be determined to have one of five levels of impact on how the client company's brand may be perceived as providing the customer benefits implied in each specific adoption driver. These five possible impact levels (“Alignment Ratings”) are expressed subjectively as: high impact, moderate impact, low impact, no impact, or negative impact. In the software, different quantitative values may be assigned to each of those five levels and an Alignment Index may be calculated.
  • each of the client company's planned product development/IT initiatives can be assessed in terms of how well aligned it is with characteristics of the "ideal brand.” This assessment is also ideally provided by client company primary research, but in the absence of such research may be supplied by consensus among internal company experts on the degree to which a particular development initiative would likely impact customer perceptions of their brand. Regardless of input source, each development initiative may be determined to have one of the same five levels of impact ("Alignment Ratings") described above on how positively the client company's brand may be perceived on each brand attribute that drives brand choice. In the software, different quantitative values may be assigned to each of those five levels and an Alignment Index may be calculated for each product development/IT initiative.
  • Manageability of Product Development/IT Initiative comprises two measures: resource requirements and complexity. Both of these measures are defined below, and are weighted in combination with each other to produce the Manageability measure.
  • Each product development/IT initiative carries a projected resource requirement of people and money.
  • the resource requirement may be as straightforward as X number of internal developer weeks or as complex as some combination of outsourcing and technology acquisition.
  • Client company internal consensus within the product development/IT organization can determine whether the resource requirement of any one development/IT initiative, relative to the other planned initiatives, is very high, high, moderate, or low. A relative quantitative value is assigned accordingly.
  • This resource measure along with the relative complexity (defined below), provides a picture of overall resource burden of one initiative vs. another - a burden that can be revisited for resource allocation purposes in light of each initiative's overall strategic contribution as assessed by the alignment and competitive impact measures above.
  • the alignment assessment, competitive assessment, and manageability assessment may be all be integrated to produce an overall recommendation of relative priority among the initiatives in the product development/IT portfolio.
  • this is in part a subjective process driven by experienced consultants who are users of the software, it is based substantially on underlying mathematics that the software can automate to produce a master Application Priority Guide that the consultant may modify as subjectivity dictates.
  • an optional Application Composite Priority Score (“CPS") takes the overall strategic priority (alignment plus competitive impact) of each initiative and modifies it by counterbalancing the development burden to produce one composite score for each product development/IT initiative, reflecting full integration of all three types of product development/IT portfolio assessments.
  • CPS is the highest-level Application metric in that it reflects the results of all assessments in a single comparative score for each initiative in a portfolio. It is alternately referred to as a "Leverage Score" since it provides an indication of how relatively well or poorly leveraged the development investment is for any initiative in terms of the degree to which the development burden translates to strategic contribution (customer and competitor impact).
  • Support Tools Three software tools can support the consultant in collecting required inputs to feed Application assessments: (1) a Consensus Builder tool, (2) a Proof Points Inventory tool, and (3) a Facilitator Support toolset.
  • a fourth tool, the Interactive Methodology Flowchart, helps the consultant find his or her way through the overall input, assessment, and analysis phases of Application administration. Additional tools include a ROI analysis tool, a customer research Request For Proposal tool, and a reference library containing best practices information and training tutorials. These are not discussed immediately below but are described in more detail in relevant Section 2 uses cases below. Consensus Builder Tool. In some client company circumstances where there is no existing quantitative research that provides the coefficients required to determine the first two indices listed above, "proxy" coefficients can be substituted.
  • Proxy coefficients are determined by use of a tool called the Consensus Builder.
  • This tool designed to harness internal knowledge within the client company organization and drive consensus regarding the relative importance of certain variables, using a multi-voting technique, is currently modeled in Microsoft Excel and is to be rebuilt as an integrated, native part of Application software.
  • the Consensus Builder may be used on an alternative path that occurs when proxy coefficients are required. Since a Strategic Harmony® implementation can be completed without Consensus Builder when proxy coefficients are not required, this document does not include Consensus Builder specifications.
  • a Consensus Builder use case may be prepared to append to this document and, based on software developer feedback, decisions may be made on how to handle inclusion of Consensus Builder in the system and/or whether to link to the standalone Excel version in some way.
  • Proof Points Inventory Tool Integral to assessment of a client company's existing product portfolio - which in turn serves as a baseline for assessing the competitive impact of product development/IT initiatives - is a tool called the Proof Points Inventory.
  • the template currently exists in Microsoft Excel.
  • Consultants administering Application may, in most cases, be required to facilitate in-person work sessions with teams from the client company to gather inputs for analysis.
  • the information that may be gathered is very specific; the process for gathering it is highly structured in both sequence and format, based on field-tested facilitation experience.
  • a Facilitator Support Center in the software can provide various templates for formatting easel pads and/or whiteboards to capture the required inputs in each client company work session. Once printed to hardcopy, these can then be enlarged or manually copied by a graphic artist for use in the actual session. Or, the templates can be used on a laptop computer by a keyboard recordist to make a digital record of the session in real time.
  • the tool also provides a timings worksheet for planning out a detailed schedule of events, and their pacing, in each client company work session.
  • Interactive Methodology Flowchart Tool The Strategic Harmony methodology is graphically represented by a process flowchart that is conducive to interactivity - whereby a consultant could click on any box on the flowchart and see the steps involved, prescribed sequence, and any best practices templates or information available for those steps.
  • FIGURE 1 depicts a flowchart from the first embodiment showing where the nine basic use cases in the Strategic Harmony® application software specification fit in the context of the overall business method process flow.
  • the flowchart provides the software developer with an overview of Application process flow and provides visual context for the first nine use cases contained in this document.
  • Technology Requirements - Basic assumptions for particular embodiments of the software include: (1) that the software may be used by the consultant on a client computer running any operating system that supports use of a Web browser, with the application engine and business logic residing on a server, and (2) that a Web browser may be used on the client to navigate the application.
  • Server platform may be based on considerations of developer preferences, efficiency, and effectiveness, and modified to the needs of a given user consulting firm.
  • FIGURE 1 is a method flowchart of master algorithm 10 to deliver decision intelligence to a client for adjusting resource allocation for product/IT portfolio development and brand strategy purposes.
  • Master algorithm 10 presents in flowchart form a particular embodiment showing where the nine basic use cases (discussed above and referenced below) in the Strategic Harmony® application software specification presented in the context of an overall business method.
  • Master algorithm 10 begins with process block 1, assess state of client's brand strategy, and continues with process block 16, assess client's brand choice modeling research. Thereafter, at process block 40, master algorithm 10 continues with ascertaining and/or developing the client's brand strategy architecture, followed by process block 60, conducting Strategic Harmony® assessment workshops. Master algorithm 10 then continues with process block 80, analyzing and integrating product development/IT portfolio assessments. Thereafter, master algorithm finishes with performance of the completion of process block 120, generate and transfer decision intelligence report to client.
  • FIGURES 2A-D depicts expansion of method sub-algorithms contained with the processing blocks of master algorithm 10 of FIGURE 1.
  • FIGURE 2 A is an expansion of sub-algorithm 16.
  • decision diamond 20 is reached with the query "Does client have brand choice modeling?". If the answer is negative, sub-algorithm 16 routes to process blocks 22, generate Request for Research Proposal or, alternatively, to block 28, run Consensus Builder tool. From process block 22, the negative route continues to process block 24, field new brand research, and thereafter to process block 26, analyze new brand research. If the answer is positive, sub-algorithm 16 routes to process block 25, analyze relevant research. The negative branches from process blocks 26 and 28 converge with the positive branch 25 at process block 30, identify drivers. Thereafter, at process block 32, identified drivers are then prioritized as to importance and sub algorithm 16 exits to process block 40.
  • FIGURE 2B is an expansion of sub algorithm 40.
  • decision diamond 42 is reached with the query "Does client need brand strategy architecture?". If the answer is positive, sub-algorithm 40 routes to process blocks 44, build brand strategy architecture. If the answer is negative, sub-algorithm 40 routes to process block 46, input drivers of brand choice.
  • the positive branch from process block 44 converges with the negative branch at process block 46 and continues to process block 50, prepare client workshops. Thereafter, three workshop products are generated respectively at process blocks 52, generate workshop briefing presentation, 54, generate facilitator's pacing guide, and 56, generate pre-formatted easel pads or wall charts.
  • sub algorithm 40 continues with process block 60, conduct first client workshop. Sub algorithm 40 is completed and then exits to process block 80.
  • FIGURE 2C is an expansion of sub algorithm 80.
  • sub algorithm 80 begins with process block 84, conduct current product portfolio assessment. Refer to use case #4 as a representative example. Thereafter, at process block 88, enter measurement inputs are performed using screenshots interface described in the figures below. Outputs generated from blocks 60 and 84 are then combined to produce output blocks 92, generate proof points inventory, and 96, generate situation map. In view of the proof points inventory and generated situation maps, at process block 100, a second workshop is conducted on the client's behalf by the consultants. From the second workshop, at process block 104, other inputs are entered to produce a product development/IT portfolio assessment. Sub algorithm 80 is completed and then exits to process block 120.
  • FIGURE 2D is an expansion of sub algorithm 120.
  • sub algorithm 120 begins with entry into process blocks 122, perform alignment assessment, 124, perform competitive impact assessment, and block 126, perform manageability assessment. From the alignment assessment, an alignment index is determined at process block 132. Similarly, a competitive impact index is determined at process block 134 obtained from the competitive assessment, and a manageability index is determined at process block 136 obtained from the manageability assessment. The alignment and competitive impact indices from process blocks 132 and 134 are combined to determine a strategic importance index at process block 140. The strategic importance and manageability indices from process blocks 140 and 136 are combined or integrated together to determine a balanced strategic importance index at process block 144. With the balanced strategic importance index, at process block 150, a presentation for the client is built using prior use cases. Thereafter, sub algorithm 120 and master algorithm 10 is completed process block 156 with the production of a decision intelligence report for use by the client.
  • FIGURE 3 depicts a general method to develop the inputs required for product development/IT portfolio assessments and alignment of product/IT strategy and brand strategy.
  • the user of the method is orientated to the application model and methodology in the form of a visual interactive map of the process for implementation and shows beginning with a process overview and monitoring.
  • a tracking visual can be used to monitor the progress of a particular implementation. Clicking on any text box can link to an explanation of that part of the process, as well as any associated inputs, outputs, and examples.
  • FIGURE 4 depicts an alternate embodiment of the general method.
  • the alternate embodiment provides a "streamlined" version of the Application model, which is used for client companies that may not need a Brand Strategy Architecture and prefer to proceed directly to product portfolio assessment after identifying and prioritizing drivers of brand choice.
  • This screen may be used in the same ways as FIGURE 3, as an alternative version that may be selected by the user in Use Case #1.
  • Inputs Administration This feature set enables users to collect, archive, and access all the client company inputs required for Application implementation as detailed in Section 2 use cases. It allows users to: (1) enter the consulting client's specific market segment names and profile characteristics, where applicable; (2) administer the Consensus Builder tool; (3) import a client-specific Brand Strategy Architecture from Microsoft PowerPoint; (4) import or manually enter drivers of brand choice and/or category adoption and, if available, their correlation coefficients, as well as linking to any customer research studies or excerpts approved as input to a particular implementation; (5) administer the Facilitation Support tool to select and populate pre-formatted templates for use in facilitating the in-person team work sessions designed to capture client company inputs; (6) administer the Proof Points Inventory tool; (7) enter the client company's product development/IT portfolio, including each initiative being assessed; (8) enter the client company R&D experts' estimate of resource requirements and task complexity. This feature set also defines the means by which the parameters for every input can be added, modified or deleted. Where specific display formats are important to the functions listed above
  • Assessments Administration This feature set allows the user to manipulate the inputs above to conduct Application assessments. It enables administration of the four different assessments referenced previously, known to users by the following "shorthand" labels and based on inputs as noted below: Baseline Assessment - Current Products' Alignment. (Based on drivers of brand choice entered in Inputs Administration.) Assessment 1 - Product Development/IT Portfolio Alignment. - Based on drivers of brand choice entered in Inputs Administration.) Assessment 2 - Product Development/IT Portfolio Competitive Impact. (Based on competitive assessment derived from Proof Points Inventory data entered in Inputs Administration). Assessment 3 - Manageability.
  • Analysis Administration This feature set assists the user in integrating the assessments completed in Assessments Administration to produce a consolidated set of outputs and insights that can ultimately be used in presentation building. Analysis Administration can provide users with a best-practices Q&A format for deriving conclusions and recommendations, and for optimal use of the dashboard display formats shown in the accompanying drawings.
  • Presentation Administration This feature set enables the user to build a Web-based or standalone PowerPoint presentation to the client company containing results and recommendations from the Application implementation. It also provides access to a sample presentation prepared by Strategic Harmony® Partners, which may serve as an editable template for the user.
  • Identification of Actors For the alternate software embodiments, focus is on users and not on those responsible for installation and maintenance.
  • Administering Consultant This is the principal consultant responsible for managing an Application implementation. Though s/he may, on a large-scale implementation, designate certain consulting team members as responsible for managing different portions of the implementation and different subordinate use cases for the software, the alternate embodiment system presumes that the Administering Consultant can provide all inputs to the system, conduct all manipulations of outputs and analysis, and build the presentation of results and recommendations without delegating specific software uses.
  • Team members can simply be able to access the system from inside the consulting firm's firewall to observe implementation status and retrieve information.
  • Consulting Team Members - Team Members are those consulting firm employees authorized by the Administering Consultant to log on to the system to observe implementation status, inputs and outputs. Alternate software embodiments make team access functional to meet the eventual access needs of authorized external contractors such as marketing research firms.
  • Consultant Facilitators - these actors are members of the consulting team - and in some cases may be the same person as the Administering Consultant - who serve as facilitators of in- person Application work sessions with client company personnel. Facilitators may need to access the templates for the easel pad and whiteboard formatting optionally advantageous to capture specific client company inputs to the system during these work sessions.
  • keyboard recordists may need to access the Consultant Facilitator templates in Section 2's Use Case #3 via the Internet, to make a real-time digital record of the client company work sessions if the Facilitator chooses not to use physical easel pads or whiteboards in the session conference room. Recordist access is not required in alternate software embodiments.
  • Client Company Managers Selected client company managers in geographies around the world may be asked to provide inputs to the system via the Consensus Builder tool. Until such time as this tool can be integrated into Application software, client company managers may be asked to enter inputs into an Excel version of Consensus Builder that may be distributed via e-mail as an Excel file attachment.
  • Consensus Builder forms via the Internet - connecting to a password-protected Web page on the Application server.
  • Consensus Builder tool in Excel and has been field tested by Strategic Harmony® Partners with client company managers on four continents using Microsoft Outlook for distribution.
  • Alternate software embodiments provide formulae for underlying mathematics may be programmed into Excel and/or performed manually.
  • Section 2 Use Cases - This Section contains the ten basic use cases to be demonstrated via alternate software embodiments. Use cases reference certain accompanying drawings in which prescribed use of color is of material significance in communicating selected information, and such use of color is described in the text herein; the accompanying drawings are printed in black and white, but are available electronically in color. Ultimately, fully developed software can enable several variations and multiple subordinate use cases, depending on client company circumstances and project complexity.
  • Use Case #10 When implementing a Application project, the first nine of the following ten use cases can generally occur in the same sequence - except for Use Case #10, which may occur at any time (and therefore does not appear on FIGURES 1 or 2A-2D process flows, since Use Case #10 provides random access to a variety of tools that may be used at any point in the process flow rather than at a prescribed point or in a prescribed sequence.) Use cases are identified and described below:
  • Use Case #1 Input Brand Drivers Identification. Enter/change identification, description, and categorization of drivers of brand choice (or, alternatively, drivers of category adoption) In practice, except when the client company's product/service competes in a category that is mature, many customers' behavior may be driven by some combination of category adoption drivers and brand choice drivers rather than by brand drivers exclusively. For clarity and simplicity throughout this document, however, primary focus is on drivers of brand choice. Since drivers of either kind may be handled in nearly identical ways by the software, separate use cases are not presented here for category adoption drivers. Rather, where small differences may exist, these are covered in the "Alternative Paths" section of each relevant Section 2 use case.. Use Case #2 - Input Brand Drivers Prioritization.
  • Use Case #3 Prepare for Client Workshops. Access facilitator support tools, such as templates for easel pads/whiteboards to capture optionally advantageous assessment inputs, to assist Consultant Facilitator in preparing for client workshops.
  • Use Case #4 Perform Current Product Portfolio Assessment. Access and populate template for Proof Points Inventory and generate current Competitive Situation Dashboard.
  • Use Case #5 Perform Strategic Alignment Assessment. Assess each product development/IT initiative's alignment with drivers of brand choice.
  • Use Case #6 Perform Competitive Impact Assessment. Assess each product development/IT initiative's likely competitive impact.
  • Use Case #7 Perform Manageability Assessment. Assess the relative burden of each product development/IT initiative.
  • Use Case #8 Integrate Individual Assessments.
  • Use Case #9 Build Presentation. Input conclusions and recommendations based on all prior use cases, select outputs from prior use cases for inclusion in presentation to the client company, and draft/complete the presentation.
  • Use Case #10 Access Management Tools. Monitor project status and access ROI tool, Request For Proposal (RFP) tool, Consensus Builder tool, Reference Library (including best practices and Application tutorials), and archived projects. Management Tools provides a selected "placeholder" function in alternate software embodiments.
  • Drivers of brand choice provide the user with the fundamental building blocks for most of the subsequent Application use cases. These drivers are perceived brand attributes (see definition on page 14 under "Brand Choice Drivers Importance Index") that constitute the user's first and most critical set of inputs to the system after each new project is set up. These drivers can come from one of three sources outside the system: customer research studies, driver lists supplied by the client company or consulting firm, or directly from the Application Consensus Builder tool (as it currently exists in Excel, though this tool ultimately may be integrated into the software system as a Web-based set of data entry forms and analytics). Accordingly, for purposes of alternate software embodiments, these drivers may be manually entered into the system by the Administering Consultant regardless of which data source is used.
  • Use Case #1 Pre-Conditions - 1.
  • a valid user has logged on to the system.
  • User has been authenticated as Administering Consultant (authorized to enter data, make changes, perform analyses, etc. - vs. other users who are limited to "read- only" browsing access except as specifically indicated in selected use cases).
  • a consulting project has been previously set up and assigned a name and Project ID code.
  • the consulting firm and/or client company has identified, defined, and categorized relevant drivers of brand choice (or, alternatively, drivers of category adoption) to be used in this particular Application implementation. 5. If the client company has a Brand Strategy Architecture (see FIGURES 5, 6 and 7 below), it has been input to the system and is accessible to users in an appropriate graphics compression format.
  • Use Case #1 Flow of Events - 1.
  • User (Administering Consultant) enters Project ID code. Code is alphanumeric, eight characters, and formatted as XXX-I 111 - where the three letters are the client company's name abbreviation or stock symbol, the first two digits signify the year, and the last two digits signify project sequence (example: HPQ- 0501, which signifies the first Application implementation conducted for Hewlett-Packard in 2005).
  • User navigates to project home page - the page from which all other basic use cases for this project are accessible via individual links.
  • From a list of use case events (regardless of whether designed as navigation bar, drop-down menu, etc.), user selects "Drivers of Brand Choice.” 4.
  • User preferably may enter the Driver Name for each driver.
  • Maximum number of drivers allowable for one project is 40; each driver name is a maximum of 40 characters. Examples of drivers names are: “Interoperable,” “Delivers on commitments,” “Easily accessible service and support,” “Demonstrable ROI,” etc. 5.
  • user may [optional] enter a Driver Description. The Driver Description elaborates on Driver Name, providing contextual meaning when the name alone is not confidently self- explanatory.
  • Driver Description might be "Works with existing infrastructure and other vendors' applications.” Though Driver Description can usually be just a phrase, occasionally a couple of sentences (maximum 400 characters, including spaces) may be required if driver dynamics are unusually complex. User may be able to hold the cursor over or, alternatively, click on "Driver Description” and see a help balloon or pop-up window that contains the text of the first three sentences in this paragraph (beginning with "For each Driver Name entered, Obviously). 6. For each Driver Name entered, the user may preferably enter the driver's Factor- Level Association.
  • Factor-Level Association can usually be only one word (e.g., "Reliability,” “Performance,” “Simplicity, “Value,” etc.), though may occasionally require up to 30 characters.
  • “Reliability,” “Performance,” “Simplicity, “Value,” etc.” it would be helpful to users if the four to eight factors were readily available in a drop-down menu, which would necessitate giving users the opportunity to manually enter the factors earlier in this use case. 7.
  • user may need to sort drivers in three possible ways: (1) in the original order as entered into the system, (2) alphabetically by driver name, or (3) grouped by Factor-Level Association.
  • the second sort simply displays the drivers alphabetically by Driver Name as entered; the third sort displays, for example, all drivers associated with the "Simplicity” factor, followed by all drivers associated with each of the other factors.
  • the software may sequentially assign a lower-case Driver ID that displays preceding the first character of the Driver Name (whether or not it appears as a separate column or field). For example, if "Interoperable” was the first driver entered into the system and "Easy to use” was second, they would always appear in any sort as "a. Interoperable" and "b.
  • FIGURE 8 illustrates how an "as entered" sort currently appears in Excel. 9.
  • User may need to add, change, or delete drivers, descriptions, or factor associations at any time after initial completion of Use Case #1 data entry. User may need to save different iterations or sorts.
  • driver list by combining certain drivers - sometimes creating a new driver name and/or description in the process. 10.
  • user may now choose a default display from the three types of sorts (Driver ID, Driver Name, Factor Association). In the next visit, if the user has skipped this step, data can display in the same sort last used.
  • Step 2 user may wish to click on "Brand Strategy Architecture" to view the architecture if there is one (see #5 in Pre-Conditions above, and sample architecture in FIGS. 6 and 7). If so, the architecture displays as in the FIGURE 6 example. Also after Step 2, user may wish to enter, edit, or view market segment profiles. If user chooses to enter, system presents three fields for each segment (maximum eight segments): a "Segment Name” field (maximum 25 characters), a "Segment Profile” field (maximum 400 characters), and a "Source Research” field, in which the user enters the name of the source segmentation study (maximum 100 characters) where more information can be found. System may also allow user to enter a link to the segmentation study, which may be external to the system or, in the alternate software embodiment's application, may be stored within it. (Research storage not required in alternate software embodiments.)
  • Step 3 user selects "Drivers of Category Adoption” in lieu of “Drivers of Brand Choice.” All subsequent data entry is the same from a software standpoint. Only the display heading changes ("Drivers of Brand Choice” becomes “Drivers of Category Adoption”). The finished application can allow the user to enter both sets of drivers separately and then combine them in different ways but this is not required in alternate software embodiments. [0096] At Step 5, if user chooses not to enter Driver Descriptions (or if they are entered but later deemed inconsequential for certain purposes), user will want the flexibility to hide the Driver Description column when displaying and/or printing the data.
  • Step 6 user may wish to use the Brand Strategy Architecture interactively - to the extent that the user could click on any of the factor-level drivers of brand choice that appear in the architecture's center box ("Promise Components") and see a balloon or pop-up that lists the dimensions of that driver. For example, a user could click on (or hold the cursor over) "Performance” in the example in FIGURE 5 and see that "Performance” consists of several specific driver dimensions (FIGURE 7) such as speed, memory, and smooth running of software applications.
  • the system can already have this factor association data stored after Step 6 is completed, since Factor-Level Associations may have been entered then (e.g., in Step 6 Performance would have been entered by the user in the Factor-Level Association field for each driver).
  • Use Case #1 Post-Conditions All use case data entry is saved in the system, available for Administering Consultant to access, add to, modify, sort, or delete, and is accessible to other valid users on a read-only basis. When this use case ends, user may either log off or proceed to other use cases.
  • Use Case#2 Input Brand Drivers Prioritization - With brand drivers now in the system - coded, named, described (where applicable), and linked to factors, they now may be prioritized in terms of strategic importance to the client company's brand.
  • Use Case #2 enters inputs from sources external to the system and then calculates the Brand Choice Drivers Importance Index (as defined in "Terms and Definitions").
  • Application software may be able to import the correlation coefficients described below directly from Excel (see FIGURE 10) or other data file formats commonly used by marketing research firms in generating these coefficients, but for alternate software embodiments all data in Use Case #2 may be manually entered.
  • Use Case #2 Pre-Conditions - The first three pre-conditions of Use Case #1 are also applicable here. Alternatively, the Administering Consultant user may be coming to Use Case #2 directly from other use cases (especially Use Case #1) without logging off and back on. Additional pre-conditions: 1. All relevant data from Use Case #1 have been previously entered and stored in the system. 2. Outside the system, the consulting firm and/or client company has prioritized the brand choice drivers (or, alternatively, drivers of category adoption) either by: (1) calculating brand choice correlation coefficients for each driver in a brand choice modeling research study, or (2) driving consensus internally among client company managers, with proxy correlation coefficients derived from use of the Application Consensus Builder tool.
  • Consensus Builder is not included in this document; prototype Strategic Harmony® software may initially show a non-functional Consensus Builder as a placeholder in navigation, and as a fixed sample template for display purposes as described in this use case. Future versions of the Master Use Case can provide feature specifications for all uses of the Consensus Builder tool, with appropriate subordinate use cases. Consensus Builder is currently prototyped in Excel as shown in FIGS. 8, 10, and 11. Either in lieu of, or in addition to, coefficients, the consulting firm or client company may also have assigned each driver a simple importance ranking and/or an "importance tier" - e.g., sorting the drivers into four quartiles that are simply called "Tier I, "Tier II,” etc.
  • Use Case #2 Flow of Events - 1.
  • User (Administering Consultant) enters Project ID code.
  • User navigates to project home page and selects "Drivers of Brand Choice.”
  • the data entered in Use Case #1 displays.
  • User is presented with option to either "Configure relative importance of drivers” or "Skip relative importance.”
  • option to configure user is presented with three choices: (1) "Enter correlation coefficients,” (2) “Enter proxy correlation coefficients from Consensus Builder,” or (3) "Skip coefficients to enter importance rankings or assign importance tiers.” 4.
  • Importance tiers may be expressed in Roman numerals, from “Tier I” through “Tier IV.” (User may be able to specify using fewer than four tiers when the list of drivers is relatively short, but four tiers may be the maximum.)
  • the software may automatically assign the appropriate tier to each driver by dividing the total number of rankings by four. For example, if there are 32 drivers in total, ranked 1 through 32 in importance, the software may automatically assign drivers ranked 1-8 to Tier I, drivers ranked 9-16 to Tier II, etc.
  • user may be able to override automated tier assignments after they occur, as occasionally circumstances can suggest that tiers may not be evenly divided - requiring a manual adjustment.
  • Step 4 If correlation coefficients or proxy coefficients were entered into the system in Step 4, user may now want the software to translate coefficients into a Brand Driver Importance Index for each driver - with the highest coefficient translating to an index of 100 and all other drivers' coefficients indexed against that. If no coefficients were entered, this Step 8 is skipped. 9. To see a high-level recap of results of this use case, user may select "Display Brand Driver Importance Indices.” System then displays all Driver Names and the corresponding Brand Driver Importance Index, sorted by the index in descending order, and with the option to display Factor-Level Association as a third column if user desires.
  • Step 5 user mayn't have to enter importance rankings if correlation coefficients were already entered in Step 4 - since correlation coefficients provide the best basis for rankings, the software may be able to automate Step 5 by supplying rankings based on the coefficients. The higher the coefficient value, the higher the ranking.
  • Use Case #2 Post-Conditions All use case data entry is saved in the system, available for Administering Consultant to access, add to, modify, sort, or delete, and is accessible to other valid users on a read-only basis. When this use case ends, user may either log off or proceed to other use cases.
  • the Facilitator may typically conduct two workshops (the number depends on client company circumstances) to capture inputs that may be entered into the system prior to Uses Cases #4 - #7, in which the core Application assessments may be generated.
  • the first workshop is referred to by the consulting team as the "Proof Points Session,” and the second as the “Portfolio Session” (shorthand for "Product Development/IT Portfolio Assessment Session”).
  • This Use Case #3 describes the flow of events required when the Facilitator accesses the system to prepare workshop agendas, work out precise timing and pacing targets (for what is typically a very time-constrained session in which a lot of material is covered), and prepare the easel pads and/or whiteboards that may be used in the workshop conference room.
  • the Facilitator accesses pre-formatted templates as well as content already entered into the system in Use Cases #1 and #2.
  • the Facilitator may access sample materials and the templates for the easel pads/whiteboards, along with instructions for their use.
  • alternate software embodiments may largely automate the process of populating those templates with selected content from the first two use cases (and, alternatively, may offer the option of manual entry), and may perform timing and pacing calculations based on the workshop agenda and on the number of brand drivers and product development/IT initiatives to be assessed. But these functions are not required in the alternate software embodiments.
  • Use Case #3 Pre-Conditions - The first three pre-conditions of Use Case #1 are also applicable here; however, Facilitator may have been authenticated as either: (1) Administering Consultant, if the same person, or (2) "Facilitator," in which case s/he has read-only access to all other use cases but has full access to this Use Case #3. In either instance, the Facilitator may be coming to Use Case #3 directly from other use cases (especially #1 or #2) without logging off and back on. But the flow of events below presumes that the Facilitator is logging on to engage directly in Use Case #3, which is more likely. Additional pre-conditions: 1. AU relevant data from Use Cases #1 and 2 have been entered and stored in the system. 2.
  • System presents three options: (1) Half-Day Proof Points Session Agenda, (2) Half-Day Portfolio Session Agenda, (3) Full-Day Combined Session Agenda.
  • system presents a sample agenda (which currently exists as a one-page Microsoft Word document).
  • User may be able to edit each agenda, save edits to the system, e-mail agenda to client company for approval (though actual e-mail functionality is not required in alternate software embodiments), and print hard copies for distribution in the actual workshop.
  • System presents three options: (1) Half-Day Proof Points Session, (2) Half-Day Portfolio Session, (3) Full-Day Combined Session.
  • system asks user if s/he has already stored a client-approved agenda for this workshop. If "No,” system retrieves the default sample agenda (as in Step 4) of the type selected; if "Yes,” system retrieves the most recently saved agenda for this Project ID.
  • Session Timing Guidelines which also instruct the user on what inputs s/he may need in using the Pacing Calculator to create "Pacing Guides," user clicks on Pacing Calculator button/link.
  • the Proof Points Session Pacing Guide requires entry of (1) Number of Drivers (numeric field, maximum two digits) and (2) Driver Name for each driver (maximum 40 characters) System may be able to supply Driver Names automatically from Driver Names entered in Use Case #1, Step 4, and drivers may display here in order of Importance Rankings (i.e., driver ranked #1 in importance displays first) entered in Use Case #2, Step 5.;
  • the Portfolio Session Pacing Guide requires (3) Number of Product Development/IT Initiatives (numeric field, maximum two digits) and Initiative Name (maximum 40 characters) for each initiative.
  • system may ask user "Are you sure?" if the product of multiplying Number of Drivers times Number of Development/IT Initiatives entered by user is greater than 72. User may either respond “No” and re-enter one or both inputs, or may respond “Yes.” User may then have the option to select "Generate Pacing Guide” for any of the three types of work-shop sessions, as shown in the examples below.
  • Development/IT Initiative names may each display with a letter ID, sequentially - i.e., A, B, C, etc.).
  • User may be able to edit pacing guides and save edits, since client company circumstances sometimes dictate spending a little more or a little less time on certain drivers and initiatives rather than spending equal time on each one (equal time being the default that the Pacing Calculator would automatically prescribe, since it divides a fixed amount of time by a fixed number of drivers/initiatives). 7.
  • User returns to facilitator support menu and selects "Workshop Briefing Presentation Builder.” Sample briefing presentation (referenced in Pre-Condition #2, which currently exists in MS PowerPoint) displays.
  • Alternate software embodiments do not require a fully functional wizard, manual preparation instructions, or data entry for manual preparation by the user, but it may indicate the presence of all three.
  • a query box may ask the user a series of questions if wizard has been selected and may produce completed templates - by importing data stored from other use cases - that can be printed to hard copy for offline use by a graphics person who may then reproduce/recreate them on the actual easel pads and whiteboards prior to the workshops.
  • alternate software embodiments may provide optionally advantageous data entry fields to users selecting manual preparation.
  • Use Case #3 Post-Conditions - All use case data entry is saved in the system, available for Consultant Facilitator or Administering Consultant to access, modify, or delete, and is accessible to other valid users on a read-only basis. When this use case ends, user may either log off or proceed to other use cases.
  • Use Case #4 Perform Current Product Portfolio Assessment. Once the first Application workshop - the Proof Points Session - has been completed, the consulting firm has the necessary inputs for performing an assessment of the client company's current product portfolio. In Use Case #4, those inputs are entered into the system and the Administering Consultant uses the system to prepare a Proof Points Inventory, perform the current portfolio assessment, and generate outputs to be used later in building a presentation of findings and recommendations. Entering inputs for this assessment (through Step 7 below) may be performed by either the Facilitator or the Administering Consultant, but only the Administering Consultant is authorized to actually perform the assessment (Step 8). [00111] Use Case #4 Pre-Conditions - The first three pre-conditions of Use Case #1 are also applicable here.
  • the Administering Consultant may be coming to this Use Case #4 directly from other use cases without logging off and back on. Additional preconditions: 1. All relevant data from Use Cases #1 and #2 have been previously entered and stored in the system. 2. Outside the system, the consulting firm has completed the Proof Points Session with the client company. The user in this use case now has in his/her possession the completed physical Easel Pads 1-A and 1-B from the workshop, as well as a hard copy of Whiteboard 1-C.
  • Use Case #4 Flow of Events - 1. User enters Project ID code. 2. User navigates to project home page and selects "Current Product Portfolio Assessment.” 3. User is presented with four options: (1) Enter/modify assessment inputs (2) Perform/update assessment (3) View assessment (4) Print assessment In the user's initial visit to this module for this Project ID, or unless this assessment has already been performed in a previous visit, user may select option #1. Once those inputs have been entered and stored in the system, user may alternatively select any of the other options. (In subsequent user visits to this assessment module, if user selects option #3 or 4 without yet having performed the assessment in option #2, user can still view or print just the inputs without a performed assessment.
  • the user may select any of the four options above in any sequence - option #1 to make changes in the inputs, option #2 to update the assessment based on those changes, or options #3 or 4 may be selected first to view or print the last assessment stored in a previous visit.
  • Users other than Administering Consultant are only allowed to access options #3 and 4; if they attempt to access either of these options before assessment inputs have been entered by the Administering Consultant, the system may inform them that viewing/printing is unavailable because assessment inputs are not yet entered. If inputs have been entered but the assessment (Step 8) not yet performed, users may view or print inputs but the system may inform them that the completed assessment is not yet available.) 4.
  • FIGURE 20 An example Proof Points Inventory format and content is shown in FIGURE 20 as prototyped in Excel.
  • FIGURE 18 shows the basic template structure before populating with content and design features.
  • the system may present a sequence of matrices as described below for the user to fill in, field by field.
  • FIGURE 19 shows each high- level driver of brand choice - i.e., each "factor,” such as “Control,” “Simplicity,” “Trust,” etc. - has its own inventory matrix, formatted as a separate page for each factor in the Excel workbook example shown).
  • the system may be first present to the user a menu that includes all "factors" (stored during Use Case #1, Step 6, as "Factor-Level Associations" assigned by the user); typically, four to seven factors may already be stored in the system. User may now select any of the factor matrices on the menu in any sequence.
  • Importance ranking and tier assignments may display as well. So, for example, if "Customizable” was the highest ranking driver assigned to the "Control" factor as entered in Use Case #1, it would display here in the first cell of Column A on the Control matrix as follows (in place of "CONTROL DIMENSION 1"): CUSTOMIZABLE [94/2/Tier I]. This indicates that "Customizable” has a Brand Driver Importance Index of 94 as calculated in Use Case #1 Step 8, has an Importance Ranking of 2 out of all the drivers ranked in Use Case #1 Step 5, and was also assigned to Tier I in that step.
  • the Administering Consultant user returns to the menu from Step 3 and chooses "Perform/update assessment.” User is prompted to "Create Competitive Situation Dashboard” (FIGURE 21) and chooses to proceed. (User may have the option to skip but, if skipping, may be prompted "Are you sure?" since this step may eventually have to be completed before the full assessment can be finished.)
  • the system derives the Dashboard content from a combination of data already used in Step 5 above plus data entered by the user in Step 6, and may automatically populate the Dashboard template.
  • the Dashboard consists of three content elements: (1) a list of brand drivers on the left; (2) a color-coded bar labeled "Superior,” “Parity,” or “Inferior” on the right, where green color bars are used for “Superior,” amber color bars for “Parity,” and red color bars for "Inferior;” (3) the factor-level association for each group of drivers (just to the left of the driver list).
  • the driver names already reside in Column A of each factor matrix in the Proof Points Inventory in Step 5 above (originating from the Driver Name field in Use Case #1).
  • the factor names also already reside in the heading of each factor matrix in Step 5.
  • results in this example might appear as follows (content, not design): PROOF POINT TALLIES TOTAL INVENTORY 215 By Factor: - CONTROL 73 - SIMPLICITY 62 - TRUST 48 - VALUE 32 By Driver: - Easy To Use 29 - Strong Track Record 27 - Interoperable 23 - Demonstrable ROI 18 - Integrated Solution 17, etc.
  • Results display includes a button to "Calculate pre-emptive language incidence.”
  • pre-emptive language refers to any of the following superlative words used in the entered text of the listed proof points (reasons for customers to believe that the client company excels on a particular brand driver): "best,” “most,” “first,” “fastest,” etc., plus other superlative words that the user may add to the list as described above.
  • Consultants are trained to urge the client company to strive for pre-emptive words in proof points language whenever they can be legitimately claimed; this incidence of superlatives is another data point for how strong or weak the client company's current story is on any specific driver of brand choice as well as across all drivers.
  • This function asks the system to search for specified superlative words in the text of the Proof Points Inventory User chooses to do so, and system presents a list of the following default superlatives - to which user may add custom words - that the system may search for in the bullet points text in the "Features,” "Service(s),” and “Other” columns (see FIGURE 20) within all drivers and across all factors: Best, First, Most, Only, Fastest, Easiest, Least, #1, or a specified other.
  • the user may choose to audit these results by asking the system to "Show me superlatives found.” Since words like "most” may occasionally occur in proof points in a context other than superlative (e.g., "most of the time,” rather than "rated the most effective product by customers"), user may be able to locate right on the inventory each superlative that was found and be able to manually exclude it from the incidence totals. After this is done, system can re-calculate and re-display results.
  • Step 3 menu's option #4 to do the same in future visits.
  • Alternative software embodiments may provide ability to e-mail PDFs to client company or consulting colleagues, via Microsoft Outlook, without having to manually open Outlook and attach file, but this is not necessary in the prototype.
  • Use Case #4 Post-Conditions All use case data entry is saved in the system, available for Administering Consultant to access, modify, or delete, and is accessible to other valid users on a read-only basis with the exception that the Consultant Facilitator may also modify or delete data through Step 7 (the Proof Points Inventory, but not the Dashboard).
  • Step 7 the Proof Points Inventory, but not the Dashboard.
  • user may either log off or proceed to other use cases. In future visits, any user may be able to access any of the different factor matrices in the Proof Points Inventory in any sequence.
  • Use Case #5 Perform Strategic Alignment Assessment - Use Case #5 performs the first of three Application assessments of the client company's product development/IT portfolio, in which each initiative - products, features, and/or services - is evaluated in terms of how much or how little it will likely improve customer perceptions of the company's brand on the most important drivers of brand choice.
  • Use Case #4 brought into the system the output of the offline "Proof Points Session" workshop conducted by the Facilitator
  • Use Case #5 may bring in certain outputs of the "Portfolio Session” (Product Development/IT Portfolio Assessment Session) workshop conducted by the Facilitator and described in Use Case #3.
  • the Administering Consultant may perform this strategic alignment assessment, which produces an Alignment Dashboard (FIGURE 22) and, for each product development/IT initiative, an Alignment Index as defined in "Terms and Definitions.”
  • Use Case #5 Pre-Conditions - The first three pre-conditions of Use Case #1 are also applicable here. Alternatively, the Administering Consultant may be coming to this Use Case #5 directly from other use cases without logging off and back on. Additional preconditions: 1. All relevant data from Use Cases #1 and #2 have been previously entered and stored in the system. 2. Outside the system, the consulting firm has completed the Portfolio Session with the client company. The user in this use case now has in his/her possession the completed physical Easel Pads 2 -A, 2-B and 2-C from the workshop, as well as a hard copy of Whiteboard 2-D.
  • Use Case #5 Flow of Events - 1.
  • User is presented with four options: (1) Enter/modify assessment inputs (2) Perform/update assessment (3) View assessment (4) Print assessment. In the user's initial visit to this module for this Project ID, or unless this assessment has already been performed in a previous visit, user may select option #1.
  • Step 5 Only after option #1 inputs have been completed (Step 5 below) may the user alternatively select options #2, 3 or 4. (Any attempt to select the latter three options before Step 5 has been completed may elicit a message such as, "Assessment inputs not yet complete.”
  • user if user selects option #3 or 4 without yet having performed the assessment (option #2), user can still view or print just the inputs without a performed assessment. If the assessment has already been performed in a previous visit (completion through Step 8 below), the user may select any of the four options above in any sequence - option #1 to make changes in the inputs, option #2 to update the assessment based on those changes, or options #3 or 4 may be selected first (to view or print the last assessment stored in a previous visit).
  • FIGURE 22 is designed to display the drivers of brand choice grouped according to Factor-Level Association (as entered in to the system in Use Case #1, Step 6), the system may now present those Factor-Level Associations (e.g., Control, Simplicity, Trust, Value) and ask the user to choose the order in which s/he would like the drivers displayed.
  • Factor-Level Associations e.g., Control, Simplicity, Trust, Value
  • System can abridge Driver Names in the column headings if necessary to have all drivers fit in uniform column widths on the dashboard, but for each heading the column width may accommodate at least two lines of up to 14 characters each.
  • Row headings automatically populated with the Initiative Names and their letter ID's, as retrieved from the system in Step 5 above, and a blank text box between each initiative that extends across all driver columns (as shown in FIGURE 22 after these text boxes have subsequently been selectively filled in with ratings rationales),
  • c For each initiative in the first column, looking across the row at the top of each blank text box in each Driver column, system automatically supplies the appropriate Alignment Rating color bar as shown in FIGURE 22 - using the Alignment Ratings that were just input by the user in Step 5 above.
  • System may translate these ratings from Step 5 as follows: each "High Impact” rating becomes a green bar containing the word “HIGH”; a “Moderate Impact” rating becomes an amber bar containing the word “MODERATE”; a “Low Impact” rating becomes a light grey bar containing the word “LOW” in black text; a "No Impact” rating becomes a white, or blank, bar with no text; a "Negative Impact” rating becomes a white bar containing the word “NEGATIVE” in red text. 7.
  • each "High Impact” rating becomes a green bar containing the word "HIGH”
  • a “Moderate Impact” rating becomes an amber bar containing the word “MODERATE”
  • a “Low Impact” rating becomes a light grey bar containing the word “LOW” in black text
  • a "No Impact” rating becomes a white, or blank, bar with no text
  • a "Negative Impact” rating becomes a white bar containing the word “NEGATIVE” in red text.
  • Entering rating rationales is an optional step, but rationales for all High, Moderate, and Negative ratings are strongly encouraged in consultant training. If user selects option #2 or attempts to leave this use case before entering rationales, system may show user how many High, Moderate, and Negative rationale cells remain blank and ask if user is sure s/he wants to skip entering ratings rationales for these cells. 8. To complete this assessment, user now wishes to calculate an Alignment Index (alternatively known as a Brand Equity Impact Index) for each product development/IT initiative as described in "Terms and Definitions”.
  • Alignment Index alternatively known as a Brand Equity Impact Index
  • calculating the alignment index may be required before Use Cases #8 or #9 can be completed. User elects to do that now, and the system may use the following underlying mathematics to produce a separate Alignment Index for each Initiative Name - reflecting how strongly aligned the initiative is with each of the drivers of brand choice on which it was rated, a. System first assigns to each HIGH rating a quantitative value of 3 points, to each MODERATE rating a value of 2 points, to each LOW rating a value of 1 point, to each NO rating a value of zero points, and to each NEGATIVE rating a value of -1 point.
  • System produces an Alignment Index equal to 100 for the Initiative Name that has the highest number of total weighted alignment points. For each of the other Initiative Names, system calculates its Alignment Index based on that initiative's total weighted points as a percentage of the total weighted points for the initiative that was indexed at 100. All Alignment Indices are expressed as whole numbers. [00128] System now displays the results, showing a prioritized list displaying Initiative Name and ID, rank, and index.
  • RANK INITIATIVE ALIGNMENT INDEX 1.
  • D Full internationalization 100; 2.
  • B Executive dashboard 94; 3.
  • F Real-time access to BMG database 87; 4.
  • A Auto-configuration 77; 5.
  • E Live chat tech support 58; 6.
  • C Integration with customer console 42. 9.
  • user may wish to examine collective results for the entire product development/IT portfolio - that is, if all initiatives are brought to market, what is the likely relative degree of impact on each driver of brand choice.
  • Steps 8 and/or 9 Upon viewing results from Steps 8 and/or 9, user may now elect to print or create PDF of the Alignment Dashboard and the display of index results (which can be combined in a single PDF), and/or the Total Portfolio Impact Summary By Attribute (FIGURE 23). Alternatively, user may use the Step 4 menu's option #4 to do the same in future visits. (Alternate software embodiments may provide ability to e-mail PDFs to client company or consulting colleagues, via Microsoft Outlook, without having to manually open Outlook and attach file, but this is not necessary in the prototype.)
  • Step 5 if the product development/IT portfolio was not already entered in Use Case #3, it is not yet in the system. User is prompted to "Define development/IT portfolio" before s/he can enter initiative descriptions.
  • user may preferably specify the number of initiatives in the portfolio; entry in this field may be an integer > 3 and ⁇ 12.
  • the system may provide an Initiative Name field for each — and each initiative may be coded with a letter of the alphabet to serve as an Initiative ID that follows that initiative through the remainder of the assessments.
  • the system may automatically provide the IDs and display them along with blank name fields and description fields for data entry: [00131] ID I INITIATIVE NAME
  • Initiatives are ID-coded alphabetically (e.g., A. B. C. D., etc.). User may now enter Initiative Names [mandatory] and Initiative Descriptions [optional, with prompt if skipped as described in Step 5 above].
  • Step 5 For example, for Initiative A above the user would type in "Auto-configuration” as the name and then enter the description, "Enabling Release 6.0 to configure itself through a simple auto-configuration wizard that requires the customer to answer only four questions.” Then user would proceed to enter the Initiative B description, and so on.) User may then complete Step 5 above, starting at the point where user is prompted to enter Alignment Ratings, and continuing through to use case completion from there.
  • Step 8b user may elect to perform the assessment on an unweighted basis. If user does so, then for each initiative the system simply adds together the initiative's total unweighted rating points across all drivers and proceeds to Step 8c to produce the Alignment Index based on unweighted points. On this alternative path, the Alignment Index column displaying at Step 8c would display with the modified heading, "Alignment Index (Unweighted)."
  • Use Case #5 Post-Conditions All use case data entry is saved in the system, available for Administering Consultant to access, modify, or delete, and is accessible to other valid users on a read-only basis - with the exception that the Consultant Facilitator may also add, modify or delete only the ratings rationales in the rationale text boxes in Step 7. (In some instances, Administering Consultant may ask the Facilitator to log on to the system and check/correct the rationale entries, or may have skipped entering the rationales and instead asked the Facilitator to make those entries.) When this use case ends, user may either log off or proceed to other use cases.
  • Use Case #6 Perform Competitive Impact Assessment - Use Case #6 performs the second of three Application assessments of the client company's product development/IT portfolio, in which each initiative - products, features, and/or services - is evaluated in terms of how much or how impact it will likely have on the client company's competitive situation (as expressed in the Competitive Situation Dashboard generated in Use Case #4, Step 8).
  • Use Case #5 brought into the system certain outputs of the "Portfolio Session" (Product Development/IT Portfolio Assessment Session) workshop conducted offline by the Facilitator
  • Use Case #6 brings in and uses other outputs from that same session.
  • the Administering Consultant may perform this competitive impact assessment, which produces a Competitive Impact Dashboard (FIGURE 24) and, for each product development/IT initiative, a Competitive Impact Index as defined in "Terms and Definitions.”
  • Use Case #6 Pre-Conditions - The first three pre-conditions of Use Case #1 are also applicable here. Alternatively, the Administering Consultant may be coming to this Use Case #6 directly from other use cases without logging off and back on. Additional preconditions: 1. Use Cases #1 through #6 have all been completed and their data stored in the system. 2. Outside the system, the consulting firm has completed both the Proof Points Session and the Portfolio Session with the client company.
  • each initiative Upon display, user selects each initiative in turn and, upon doing so, may enter three pieces of information for each driver of brand choice as it pertains to the initiative currently selected: (1) Type of impact [mandatory], (2) Competitive outcome [mandatory], and (3) Explanation [optional].
  • the system presents each Driver Name in the same sequence in which driver names appeared on the Proof Points Session Pacing Guide (FIGURE 13).
  • the Driver Name presented while the selected Initiative Name is still displayed
  • system prompts user to "Enter impact type" and presents a menu of twelve types from which to select:
  • Leapfrogs all key competitors The selected initiative, successfully executed, will likely move the client company's brand from being worst-in-class (or inferior to at least one brand) to best-in-class on this driver of brand choice.
  • Leapfrogs some competitors The selected initiative, successfully executed, will likely move the client company's brand from being worst-in-class to better than at least one key competitor but not all key competitors.
  • Unconditional move from parity to superior The selected initiative, successfully executed, will likely move the client company's brand from parity with one or more competitors to category superiority on this driver.
  • Unconditional move from inferior to parity The selected initiative, successfully executed, will likely move the client company's brand from being inferior to at least one competitor to being at parity (i.e., no longer inferior to any competitor) on this driver.
  • Conditional move from parity to superior Like "unconditional move from parity to superior" above, except that: (1) the initiative breaks parity with at least one competitor but not with all competitors, so client company brand still can't claim category superiority on this driver, and/or (2) the move to superiority may only be among some, but not all, key customer segments.
  • Conditional move from inferior to parity Like "unconditional move from inferior to parity" above, except that: (1) the initiative reaches parity with at least one competitor but not with all competitors, so client company brand still can't claim category parity on this driver, and/or (2) the move to parity may only be among some, but not all, key customer segments.
  • Lengthens lead where impending threat The selected initiative, successfully executed, will likely increase the degree of superiority and/or protect the superiority already enjoyed by the client company's brand on a driver for which the brand's lead is judged to be in jeopardy.
  • Strengthens parity (moves closer to superior) The selected initiative, successfully executed, may move the brand closer to superior on this driver, but not far enough to claim superiority.
  • FIGURE 22 (besides the title change at the top of the dashboard): (1) note that FIGURE 24 has two extra rows and row headings - one at the top, just below the column headings (see the "Current Product” row heading), and one at the bottom (see the "With ALL Initiatives” row heading); (2) when the product development/IT initiative names display in Column A, each name and letter ID is preceded by the word “With” and followed by the word “only”; (3) the color bars in all the driver columns contain different words than in FIGURE 24 (differences explained in the next paragraph). With these changes/additions, system now presents the FIGURE 24 template - and automatically provides the following: a. Column headings automatically populated with the Driver Names; Factor-Level Association also automatically appears as column footers as shown.
  • FIGURE 22 rules from Use Case #5 apply here as well.
  • Color bars displayed may correspond to the following color key as shown: "Superior” becomes a green bar containing the word “SUPERIOR”; “Parity” becomes an amber bar containing the word “PARITY”; “Inferior” becomes a red bar containing the word “INFERIOR,” and “Unknown” becomes a gray or transparent bar containing the word “UNKNOWN” (signifying inadequate competitive intelligence). Note that, since client company's current product was absent from Step 5 above when the competitive outcomes were entered, the color bars for the first row of FIGURE 24, "Baseline: Current Portfolio,” may come from Use Case #4, Step 8 - where these specific color bars for the current product were already created to build the Competitive Situation Dashboard (FIGURE 21) for the current product, d.
  • system automatically displays the Explanation text entered (if entered) by the user in Step 5 above. 7.
  • system displays the completed template as described above, user is ready to complete the competitive impact assessment by generating a Competitive Impact Index (as defined in "Terms and Definitions") for each product development/IT initiative and to see the initiatives ranked accordingly.
  • a Competitive Impact Index as defined in "Terms and Definitions”
  • User is now presented with the opportunity to optionally "Calculate Competitive Impact Index for each initiative.”
  • calculating competitive impact indices for each initiative may be required before Use Cases #8 or #9 can be completed.
  • Alternate software embodiments may allow user to manually override these value assignments for exceptional occurrences, entering a value to two decimal places in increments of +/-0.25 points. Examples of such occurrences requiring manual override are situations in which lengthening a lead is especially critical because of anticipated imminent innovation by a strong competitor, or situations in which leapfrogging is so extreme that it vaults the client company's brand from being the worst in the industry on a particular driver to being far superior to all competitors. Manual override is not required in alternate software embodiments.) b.
  • system For each competitive outcome, system multiplies the outcome's quantitative value by that particular driver's Brand Driver Importance Index (from Use Case #2, Step 8), thereby weighting each outcome and producing "weighted competitive outcome points" for each driver as it pertains to each initiative.
  • “Parity to Superior - unconditional” a value of 3 in the table above in Step 7
  • the system would multiply 3x80 to assign 240 weighted competitive outcome points to Initiative A for "Scalable.”
  • System produces a Competitive Impact Index equal to 100 for the Initiative Name that has the highest total number of weighted competitive outcome points.
  • system calculates the Competitive Impact Index based on that initiative's total weighted points as a percentage of the total weighted points for the initiative that was indexed at 100. All Competitive Impact Indices are expressed as whole numbers.
  • System now displays the results, showing a prioritized list displaying Initiative Name and ID, rank, and index. For example:
  • COMPETITIVE IMPACT INDEX are the three column headings displaying the following tabular data with Rank followed by initiative ID and name followed by Competitive Impact Index: 1.
  • User may now wish to selectively examine the competitive impact of individual initiatives in the portfolio, one at a time, without all the clutter of the full dashboard produced in Step 6. User is presented with option to "Display selected initiative only.” If option is selected, a drop-down menu presents with the ID and name of each initiative. User selects the initiative s/he wants displayed.
  • FIGURE 25 The system then produces the view shown in the FIGURE 25 example (in which only Initiative B appears, along with the client company's current competitive status for comparison) and vertical arrows indicate where the client company's competitive status will likely change (vs. current competitive status) as a result of bringing only this initiative to market.
  • Step 7, 8 and/or 9 Upon viewing results of Step 7, 8 and/or 9, user may now elect to print or create PDF of the competitive impact dashboard and the index results display (which can be combined in a single PDF) and/or any view of an individual initiative's impact (as in FIGURE 25 example) or total portfolio impact (FIGURE 26). Alternatively, user may use the Step 4 menu's option #4 to do the same in future visits.
  • Step 7c the Competitive Impact Index column displaying at Step 7c would display with the modified heading, "Competitive Impact Index (Unweighted)."
  • Use Case #6 Post-Conditions All use case data entry is saved in the system, available for Administering Consultant to access, modify, or delete, and is accessible to other valid users on a read-only basis - with the exception that the Consultant Facilitator may also add, modify or delete only the "Explanations" entered (or not yet entered) in Step 5. (In some instances, Administering Consultant may ask the Facilitator to log on to the system and check/correct the Explanation entries, or may have skipped entering the explanations and instead asked the Facilitator to make those entries.) When this use case ends, user may either log off or proceed to other use cases.
  • Use Case #7 Perform Manageability Assessment - Use Case #7 performs the last of the three Application assessments of the client company's product development/IT portfolio, in which each initiative - products, features, and/or services - is evaluated in terms of its development burden (i.e., human and financial resources required in, and the complexity of, and risks inherent in, bringing the initiative to market).
  • a development burden i.e., human and financial resources required in, and the complexity of, and risks inherent in, bringing the initiative to market.
  • Use Case #7 brings in and uses other outputs from that same session.
  • the Administering Consultant may perform this manageability assessment, which produces a Manageability dashboard (FIGURE 28) and, for each product development/IT initiative, a Manageability Index (as defined in "Terms and Definitions").
  • Use Case #7 Preconditions - The first three pre-conditions of Use Case #1 are also applicable here. Alternatively, the Administering Consultant may be coming to this Use Case #7 directly from other use cases without logging off and back on. Additional pre-conditions: 1. Use Case #3 or #5 has been completed and its data stored in the system. 2. Outside the system, the consulting firm has completed the Portfolio Session with the client company.
  • Step 5 Any attempt to select the latter three options before Step 5 has been completed may elicit a message such as, "Assessment inputs not yet complete.”
  • this assessment module if user selects option #3 or 4 without yet having performed the assessment (option #2), user can still view or print just the inputs without a performed assessment. If the assessment has already been performed in a previous visit (completion through Step 7 below), the user may select any of the four options above in any sequence - option #1 to make changes in the inputs, option #2 to update the assessment based on those changes, or options #3 or 4 may be selected first (to view or print the last assessment stored in a previous visit).
  • System now presents the FIGURE 28 template with column headings as shown, and automatically provides the following: a. System automatically populates row headings with the Initiative Names and their letter ID's, displaying alphabetically by letter ID. b. For each initiative in the first column, looking across the row at the top of each blank text box in the Resource Requirements and Task Complexity columns, system automatically supplies the appropriate burden level color bar as shown in the color version of FIGURE 28 - using the Resource Requirement Level and Task Complexity Level inputs entered by the user in Step 5 above.
  • System may translate these inputs as follows for FIGURE 28 display: each "Very high” level becomes a red bar containing the words, "VERY HIGH”; each "High” level becomes an amber bar containing the word “HIGH”; each "Moderate” level becomes a grey bar containing the word “MODERATE”; each "Low” level becomes a green bar containing the word “LOW.” c. In each text box in the Resources Required and Task Complexity columns, system automatically displays the appropriate Resource Explanation text and Complexity Explanation text that was entered (if entered) by the user in Step 5. 7.
  • System now offers user the choice of a default formula or custom formula in computing Manageability Indices. User chooses "Default" (see “Alternative Paths" below if user chooses "Custom”), and the system uses the following default formula.
  • System now displays the results, showing a prioritized list displaying Initiative Name and ID, rank, and index.
  • INITIATIVE MANAGEABILITY INDEX displaying in tabular form as 1.
  • Step 7 results Upon viewing the Step 7 results, user may now elect to print or create PDF of the Competitive Impact dashboard and the index results display (which can be combined in a single PDF). Alternatively, user may use Step 4's menu option #4 to do the same in future visits. (Alternate software embodiments may provide ability to e-mail PDFs to client company or consulting colleagues, via Microsoft Outlook, without having to manually open Outlook and attach file, but this is not necessary in the prototype.)
  • Alternative Paths At Step 7b, user chooses custom formula instead of default formula. User is prompted to enter weighting ratio [mandatory for custom formula] for Resources: Complexity (the numeric field on either side of the ratio colon may accommodate integers ⁇ 10; e.g., 5:2).
  • Use Case #7 Post-Conditions All use case data entry is saved in the system, available for Administering Consultant to access, modify, or delete, and is accessible to other valid users on a read-only basis - with the exception that the Consultant Facilitator may also add, modify or delete only the custom formula rationale text entered (or not yet entered) in Alternative Path Step 7b. (In some instances, Administering Consultant may ask the Facilitator to log on to the system and check/correct the rationale entry, or may have skipped entering the rationale and instead asked the Facilitator to make that entry.) When this use case ends, user may either log off or proceed to other use cases.
  • Use Case #8 Integrate Individual Assessments - In Use Case #8, the user brings together the inputs and analyses from Uses Cases #5, 6 and 7 to integrate these three standalone assessments into a more holistic picture of strategic priorities.
  • This Use Case #8 may: produce an at-a-glance visual recap of the three individual product development/IT portfolio assessments, side by side; combine the Alignment Rankings from Use Case #5 with the Competitive Impact Rankings from Use Case #6 to produce a blended ranking of Overall Strategic Importance; balance Overall Strategic Importance against Manageability (from Use Case #7) to produce a recommended list of strategic priorities; allow user to enter rationales for these recommendations that may be carried forward into presentation building in Use Case #9.
  • Use Case #8 Pre-Conditions - The first three pre-conditions of Use Case #1 are also applicable here. Alternatively, the Administering Consultant may be coming to this Use Case #8 directly from other use cases without logging off and back on. Additional preconditions: 1. Use Cases #1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 have all been completed and their data stored in the system. 2. Outside the system, the consulting firm has completed both the Proof Points Session and Portfolio Session with the client company.
  • Use Case #8 Flow of Events - 1. User enters Project ID code. 2. User navigates to project home page and selects "Integrate Assessments.” If Use Case #8 has already been completed in a previous visit, user may elect to view or print integrated assessment results and is presented with a menu of output displays from the previously completed Steps 3 through 7 below. If Use Case #8 was not completed previously, the Administering Consultant user is now taken to a page describing the six tasks that s/he may be asked to perform in Steps 3 through 7 below for assessment integration.
  • the system may create the recap's five columns using data from previous use cases as follows: a.
  • the first column "Product Development/IT Initiatives” displays the client company's initiative names and letter ID's exactly as they appeared in Step 6b of Use Case #5, so that the complete set of portfolio initiatives displays, b.
  • the second column "Alignment with Brand Drivers,” converts data from Use Case #5 to horizontal bar graph representation (the longer the bar, the better the alignment between the product development/IT initiative and that particular driver).
  • the value underlying each bar graph in this column is determined by the total "weighted alignment points" for each initiative - as calculated in Use Case #5, Step 8b - as a percentage of total possible points.
  • the system now calculates total possible points by first adding together the Brand Driver Importance Indices for all drivers included in Assessment 1 (Use Case #5, in which each driver is a separate column in the Alignment Dashboard), and multiplying that sum by 2 (2 points being the maximum total points for each rating, since HIGH rating equaled 2 as stipulated in Use Case #5). For example, if ten drivers were included in the Alignment Dashboard, and their respective 10 indices (each index, in this example, being between 50 and 100) added up to 800, total possible weighted alignment points would be 800 x 2, or 1,600. Next, each initiative's total weighed alignment points, as already calculated in Use Case #5, Step 8b, is divided by the 1,600 total points possible.
  • each bar graph in this column is determined by the total "weighted competitive outcome points" for each initiative - as calculated in Use Case #6, Step 7b - as a percentage of total possible points. Since each initiative's total weighted competitive outcome points has already been calculated, now the total possible weighted competitive outcome points may be calculated. Total possible points may vary from one Application project to the next, depending on the client company's current competitive situation as stored in the Competitive Situation Dashboard from Use Case #4, Step 8. The bigger the gap between the client company's current situation and attainment of superiority on a particular driver, the greater the number of possible competitive outcome points (i.e., the more room for improvement of competitive position on that driver).
  • total possible competitive outcome points are calculated as follows: - System assigns "gap" values to the current competitive situation. Each "SUPERIOR” on the Competitive Situation Dashboard, indicating the client company is already superior on that driver, is assigned 1 point. Each "PARITY” is assigned 3 points. Each "INFERIOR” is assigned 5 points. - Each gap value assigned above is now multiplied by the corresponding brand driver's Brand Driver Importance Index (from Use Case #2, Step 8). The products of this multiplication for all the brand drivers are then added together, and the sum produces the total possible weighted competitive outcome points.
  • total competitive outcome points would be derived as follows if the competitive situation and corresponding gap values are also as shown below (note: this is not a display of data for the user, but an example to demonstrate for the software developer how total possible weighted competitive outcome points are calculated) describing five columns of tabular data with the column headings DRIVER, COMPETITIVE SITUATION, GAP VALUE, BRAND DRIVER IMPORTANCE INDEX, and TOTAL POSSIBLE WEIGHTED POINTS.
  • the DRIVER column lists the drivers of brand choice used in the Alignment and Competitive Impact Dashboards; the COMPETITIVE SITUATION column indicates "SUPERIOR,” “PARITY,” or “INFERIOR” as the client's current competitive position on each driver; the GAP VALUE column indicated the statistical value of each gap as stipulated in Use Case #8, Step 3 c; the BRAND DRIVER IMPORTANCE INDEX column displays the indices per Use Case #2, Step 8; the TOTAL POSSIBLE WEIGHTED POINTS column displays the product of multiplying the Gap Value for each driver by that driver's Brand Driver Importance Index. The sum of all Total Possible Weighted Points displays at the bottom of the table as TOTAL POSSIBLE WEIGHTED COMPETITIVE OUTCOME POINTS FOR ALL DRIVERS.
  • the system now may divide each initiative's total weighted competitive outcome points by the total possible points. To derive each initiative's total, the system may first add together that initiative's total weighted competitive outcome points on each driver (as already calculated in Step 7b of Use Case #6). For example, let's say that in Use Case #6, Initiative D's total weighted competitive outcome points on the "Scalable" driver was calculated to be 200. The system adds this 200 to the same initiative's corresponding total points for each of the other nine drivers, bringing Initiative D's total weighted competitive outcome points for all ten drivers to 1,000.
  • the fourth column (or Column D in the Excel-modeled FIGURE 29), under the combined heading, "Manageability,” simply reprise the two columns of color bars already created in Use Case #7, Step 6b, for FIGURE 28 - one Resource Requirements color bar for each initiative and one Task Complexity color bar for each initiative - and displays them as here in FIGURE 29 column 4 as an aggregate metric for Manageability. With these color bars displaying for each initiative in the portfolio, the Assessment Recap is now complete. 4.
  • the system generates FIGURE 30 by combining the results of product development/IT portfolio Assessments 1 and 2 with equal weighting.
  • the system To derive the Overall Strategic Importance Ranking for each initiative relative to the others, the system first derives an Overall Strategic Importance Index (alternatively known as the "Aggregate Importance Index") for each initiative by adding together the initiative's Alignment Index from Use Case #5, Step 8c, and its Competitive Impact Index from Use Case #6, Step 7c, and then dividing the sum by 2.
  • an Overall Strategic Importance Index (alternatively known as the "Aggregate Importance Index”) for each initiative by adding together the initiative's Alignment Index from Use Case #5, Step 8c, and its Competitive Impact Index from Use Case #6, Step 7c, and then dividing the sum by 2.
  • the initiative "Full internationalization” had an Alignment Index of 100 and a Competitive Impact Index of 84, so its Overall Strategic Importance Index would be 92.
  • the system When the system has calculated this index for each initiative, it ranks them in descending order and displays the results as in FIGURE 30, showing - from left to right - the rank number, initiative letter ID and name, Overall Strategic Importance Index, Alignment Index, and Competitive Impact Index (the latter two columns are included so that the user can readily see the component parts of the Overall Strategic Importance Index and, therefore, the source numbers for the overall ranking). 5.
  • User is prompted to "Create Application Priority Guide (importance rationale summary”) [mandatory] as shown in FIGURE 31.
  • the system then generates FIGURE 32, using the Overall Strategic Importance rankings and indices from Step 4 above for the left side and the Manageability rankings and indices from Use Case #7, Step 7b, for the right side.
  • the user may study this display to consider the tradeoffs between which product development/IT initiatives are most crucial strategically and whether the required development resources are disproportionately high or low.
  • the system may automatically color code each initiative (so that, for example, Initiative A is yellow in both columns, regardless of its rank position, Initiative B is orange in both columns, etc.
  • Step 3 may display a color connecting line between Initiative A in the Importance column and Initiative A in the Manageability column (or may display both - whatever will help the user most readily compare the position of any single initiative in one column to that same initiative's position in the other column). 7. Based on data from Steps 3 through 6 above (if Step 3 was deferred by the user, it may be competed now), user is ready to suggest indicated actions for the client company in deciding how to allocate/reallocate product development/IT resources and how quickly or slowly to proceed on bringing each product development/IT initiative to fruition.
  • the system presents the following menu of possible actions; user may select the one most appropriate action for each initiative: - Speed up development - Maintain development speed - Slow down development - Suspend/kill development immediately. If user selects actions that are variable ("Speed up” or "Slow down"), system presents user with a corresponding numeric field in which the user can enter the suggested intensity of that action; number entered may be a percentage ⁇ 1000%, with no decimal places.
  • all fields display as a summary of suggested indicated actions, in descending order from most positive to most negative recommendation, as shown in this example:
  • Step 3 if no driver correlation coefficients or proxy coefficients were stored in the system in Use Case 2's Step 4 (and, therefore, no weighted alignment points were calculated in Use Case #5 and no weighted competitive impact points were calculated in Use Case #6), Steps 3b and 3 c may use unweighted alignment points and unweighted competitive impact points, respectively, for the bar graphing calculations prescribed.
  • Step 7 user may wish to arrive at recommendations for indicated action through a less subjective method, and is therefore presented the option to "Calculate Application Composite Priority Scores" (a composite score for each product development/IT initiative based on a formula that weighs development burden against strategic importance, as described in “Terms and Definitions”).
  • CPS Composite Priority Score
  • the system uses the Overall Strategic Importance Index (alternatively known as the "Aggregate Importance Index”) from Step 4 above and the Manageability Index generated in Use Case #7, Step 7.
  • the default formula for calculating the Composite Priority Score for each initiative is (3x + y) / 4, where x is the initiative's Overall Strategic Importance (Aggregate Importance) Index and y is the initiative's Manageability Index.
  • x is the initiative's Overall Strategic Importance (Aggregate Importance) Index
  • y is the initiative's Manageability Index.
  • Composite Priority Scores may display to one decimal place.
  • System calculates Composite Priority Scores for all initiatives and displays the results in descending order in a table (which uses all the index values from the example in FIGURE 32 in which there are seven initiatives in the product development/IT portfolio) described as follows:
  • user may [optional] require the capability to override the default formula with a custom formula.
  • user is prompted to enter weighting ratio [mandatory for custom formula] for Importance: Manageability (the numeric field on either side of the ratio colon may accommodate integers ⁇ 10; e.g., 5:2).
  • the Importance: Manageability ratio was 3:1 as expressed in the formula 3x+y, where x equaled Importance and y equaled Manageability.
  • User is provided a text box to enter rationale [optional] for the custom formula. System then substitutes the numbers from the custom ratio for the multipliers in the default formula and substitutes the sum of those multipliers for the default divisor, which was 4.
  • the system may convert the default formula to the following custom formula: (2x + y)/3.
  • this custom formula would yield a Composite Priority Score of 64.6, the result of ((2*76)+42)/3, instead of the 67.5 yielded by the default formula.)
  • the score results may display with a footnote at the Composite Priority Score column heading indicating that "Scores are based on custom formula, weighting Importance:
  • system calculates the mean of all Composite Priority Scores in the portfolio, producing a "Portfolio Mean CPS"; (2) for each initiative, system calculates the variance vs.
  • Step 7 user may now complete Step 7 above by selecting appropriate actions (e.g., speed up, maintain, slow down, or suspend) and action intensity for each initiative.
  • appropriate actions e.g., speed up, maintain, slow down, or suspend
  • action intensity for each initiative.
  • the client company may want to speed up (assign more resources to) any initiative with a CPS significantly above the Portfolio Mean CPS and to slow down (assign less resources to) any initiative with a CPS significantly below mean, and suspend work on any initiatives with a CPS far below mean.
  • Future versions of software may include the algorithm that may convert these variances to specific actions and intensities (e.g., "Speed up Initiative D at 40% resource increase") that may balance the total product development/IT resource pool by moving resources to initiatives with higher CPS 's and away from initiatives with lower CPS 's - resulting in a more strategically effective reallocation of a fixed development budget.
  • the client company may elect to set targets for generating product development/IT cost savings at specifiable levels. For example, a client company asks to run the model so that a total resource reduction / cost savings of 10% is achieved and the remaining resources are reallocated across all initiatives that are not suspended.
  • Use Case #8 Post-Conditions All use case data entry is saved in the system, available for Administering Consultant to access, modify, or delete, and is accessible to other valid users on a read-only basis. When this use case ends, user may either log off or proceed to other use cases.
  • Use Case #9 Pre-Conditions - The first three pre-conditions of Use Case #1 are also applicable here. Alternatively, the Administering Consultant may be coming to this Use Case #8 directly from other use cases without logging off and back on. Additional preconditions: 1. Use Cases #1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 have all been completed and their data stored in the system. This is the only additional pre-condition for Use Case #9. Note: Administering Consultant may wish to begin presentation development before Use Case #8 has been completed. The system may allow this, although presentation cannot be completed in Use Case #9 without the prior completion of Use Case #8.
  • Use Case #9 Flow of Events - 1. User enters Project ID code. 2. User navigates to project home page and selects "Build Presentation.” To eliminate any user confusion (especially when Administering Consultant and Consultant Facilitator are not the same person) between the workshop briefing presentation discussed in Use Case #3 and the final results and recommendations presentation that is the focus of Use Case #9, system asks user to choose between "Workshop briefing presentation" and "Results and recommendations presentation.” If user chooses "Workshop briefing presentation,” s/he is routed directly to Use Case #3, Step 7. If user chooses "Results and recommendations presentation, s/he continues with this Use Case #9 and proceeds to Step 3 below. 3.
  • Use Case #9 has been started or completed in a previous visit, user may elect to view or print the unfinished draft presentation or, if completed, the finished presentation. If Use Case #9 has not been started (as assumed here and in Step 4 below), user is presented with option to view sample client presentation (which currently exists as a Cristol & Associates / Strategic Harmony® Partners MS PowerPoint file and may be provided to the software developer for storage in the system). 4. User is presented with two options: (1) "Customize sample presentation” or (2) "Build presentation from scratch.” Regardless of the user's selection, in the finished Application software application the system may export to MS PowerPoint all the output displays from Uses Cases #4 through 8 as individual slides that can be edited and pasted into either the sample presentation or a from-scratch presentation.
  • each system output display can be manually copied and pasted into PowerPoint. Then edits can be done offline within PowerPoint, and the final PowerPoint presentation can be brought back into the system when completed.
  • any content resident in the presentation build may be accessible to other users on a read-only basis.
  • Step 2 if user is not the Administering Consultant, s/he may choose to view client presentation. If Administering Consultant has not prohibited access in Step 7 above, the presentation in its most recently stored state displays as read-only and can, at the user's option be printed but not yet converted to PDF. If Administering Consultant has prohibited access to draft in progress or first draft, and either of those was selected in Step 7 above as the current status of the presentation, system presents message such as, "Draft presentation not yet complete or available for viewing.”
  • Use Case #9 Post-Conditions - All use case data entry is saved in the system, available for Administering Consultant to access, modify, or delete, and is accessible to other valid users on a read-only basis. When this use case ends, user may either log off or proceed to other use cases.
  • Use Case #10 Access Management Tools - In Use Case #10, which may occur at any time relative to all other use cases, users may monitor project status for any/all Application projects currently in progress within the consulting firm, or access any completed project. Users can also access the Consensus Builder tool, ROI analysis tool, and Customer Research RFP Builder tool - as well as the Reference Library, including an Application overview, tutorials, and best practices information. Management and reference tools as described below may only be placeholders in the alternate software embodiments, but fully functional in the finished application. All aspects of Use Case #10 are optional for the user, as it is possible to successfully complete all prior use cases without engaging in any of the activities described below.
  • Use Case #10 Pre-Conditions - L
  • a valid user has logged on to the system.
  • User has been authenticated as Administering Consultant (authorized to enter data, make changes, perform analyses, etc.) Other users are limited to read-only browsing access except as noted below in "Alternative Paths.
  • a consulting project has been previously set up and assigned a name and Project ID code.
  • Completion of Use Cases #1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 may be required only for portions of Steps 2 and 3 below as noted.
  • Use Case #10 Flow of Events - 1.
  • User navigates to project home page and selects "Management Tools.”
  • User is presented with six options and, within the sixth, three sub-options as shown: (1) Check status of projects in progress (2) Access completed projects (3) ROI Analysis tool (4) Consensus Builder tool (5) Customer Research RFP Builder (6) Reference Library - including Application Overview, tutorials. tutorials are subject-specific training aids with content beyond that contained in Online Help.
  • Online Help may always be readily accessible in any use case at any time without requiring the user to navigate through Management Tools.
  • Online Help is only a placeholder in alternate software embodiments, but its easy accessibility may be indicated throughout in prototype navigation, and Best Practices User may select any of the above options in any sequence.
  • user may proceed through the options sequentially. 2.
  • User selects "Check status of projects in progress" from Step 1 menu above.
  • a list or menu then displays all valid active projects with their respective Project ID codes.
  • the displayed project list may also automatically include any project that has been completed (presented to client company) within the last 90 days, and the project name may display with "(COMPLETED)" parenthetically following the project name.
  • the system may know if and when a project has been completed based on user action in Use Case #9, Step 6; there, if user selected "As presented to client" as the Presentation Status, the system considers that project complete as of the date of that action.) User then selects the in-progress project of interest. (If user selects a completed project, see "Alternative Paths" below.)
  • system reports which among Use Cases #l-#9 have been completed and which is in progress. For example, if selected project has been completed through Use Case #6 and Use Case #7 has been started (e.g., inputs entered, but assessment not yet performed), system would display project status as: "Completed through Competitive Impact Assessment.
  • Administering Consultant may also be provided with a "Comments” text box here to add other status information of potential interest to read-only users, such as more detail about the recently completed use cases and/or next steps, and projected timelines for completion. Alternate software embodiments may simply display sample results and a fictitious project list.
  • the finished application may not only include the functionality above, but also may display a monitoring map that plots the status of each active project on an Application process flowchart (described in Section 1.4 under "Process Overview and Monitoring”). 3. User selects "Access completed projects” from Step 1 menu above.
  • a list or menu displays showing all valid completed projects with their respective Project ID codes and date of completion (date that Administering Consultant selected "As presented to client" as the Presentation Status in Use Case #9, Step 6). Alternate software embodiments may only be required to display a fictitious project list.
  • the system regards that selection as entry of the Project ID (as if it had occurred as stipulated in Step 1 of all other use cases), and user may then proceed to any authorized use of any other use case connected with that project.4.
  • Consensus Builder tool presents three options: (1) explore Consensus Builder, (2) configure Consensus Builder, (3) view Consensus Builder results for specific project. This is all that may be required here as a placeholder in alternate software embodiments.
  • active use of the Consensus Builder is critical to Use Case #2, Step 4, in those instances (referenced in Use Case #2) when client company internal consensus may be used in lieu of customer research to provide proxy coefficients that prioritize brand choice drivers.
  • Complete Consensus Builder functionality may be required in the finished Application software application and may be specified in a future edition of this Master Use Case document. 5.
  • User selects "Customer Research RFP Builder" from Step 1 menu above.
  • System presents three options: (1) "View sample RFP,” (2) "Build Request for Proposal,” (3) "Retrieve saved RFP.”
  • Full RFP building functionality is not required in alternate software embodiments; the finished application, however, may provide a wizard that guides the user through questions enabling the system to generate a customized RFP in the format of the sample RFP, save it to the system, and e-mail it to selected marketing research firms. Meanwhile, alternate software embodiments can present the sample RFP (which currently exists as a Strategic Harmony® Partners MS Word file, which ultimately may serve as an editable template). 6.
  • System presents three options: (1) Application overview, (2) tutorials, (3) Best Practices. If user selects option #1, system presents the Application master flowchart (shown on page 12) and allows user to view the generic Application overview presentation used with prospective clients. If user selects option #2, a menu of pre-packaged tutorials may appear - but tutorial content is not required in alternate software embodiments. If user selects option #3, system may present a menu of Best Practices modules; as with tutorials, best practices content is not required in alternate software embodiments.
  • Step 2 the user sees that the project s/he wanted to check status of is now complete and, upon selecting that completed project from the project list, is taken directly to the point in Step 3 as if s/he had already chosen the "Access completed projects” option and selected the specific project of interest.
  • any data entry in using the Consensus Builder tool, ROI tool, or RFP tool is saved in the system, available for Administering Consultant to access, modify, or delete, and is accessible to other valid users on a read-only basis. (In alternate software embodiments, there may be no data entry with these tools as they are only placeholders.) When this use case ends, user may either log off or proceed to other use cases.
  • FIGURE 5 depicts an entity relationship of brand strategy architecture.
  • the brand strategy includes three levels — Level 1 defines brand promise, level 2 defines promise components, and level 3 defines proof points.
  • Level 1 brand promise defines what the brand stands for — its pledge to customers. This describes what to say, rather than how to say it (not usually an advertising execution).
  • the level 2 promise components comprise the key drivers of brand choice, which must be prioritized and dimensionalized into their specific sub-attributes.
  • the level 3 proof points provide reasons to believe why the brand excels on attributes that drive brand choice, and may include products and solutions, features, functions, support, services, attitude, reputation, endorsement, partners, return on investment (ROI) business cases, and/or pricing.
  • ROI return on investment
  • the brand strategy architecture includes 1, Brand Strategy Architecture template; 2, Brand Strategy Architecture completed example (see FIGURES 5, 6 and 7), 3; Drivers of Category Adoption rankings and correlation coefficients (not shown, but similar to FIGURE 9 in which "Category Adoption” is substituted for "Brand Choice”); 4, Drivers of Brand Choice rankings and correlation coefficients (see FIGURE 10); and 5, Proof Points Inventory (see FIGURES 18 and 20).
  • FIGURE 6 illustrates an example of a Brand Strategy Architecture in the first embodiment for an iMac® brand strategy referenced above.
  • the iMac® example brand strategy includes the three levels referenced in FIGURE 5, with specific applications relating to the iMac® brand.
  • the level 1 brand promise defines that iMac® brand stands for the simplest internet and computing experience.
  • the level 2 promise component defines the drivers for the iMac® brand to be ease of purchase, ease of use, and performance.
  • the level 3 proof points for the iMac® brand include providing an all-in-one-box/one-price entity that has the fastest setup and easiest to use computer system.
  • proof points include a less complex computer system with fewer parts to break, one-button Internet access, the legendary Mac® user interface, and the assurance of same by the Apple logo.
  • Proof point performance factors include speed, faster than comparable computer systems of its time, and ease of use of Internet based applications.
  • FIGURE 7 is an example expansion of the Level 2 entity relationships of the Imac® Brand Strategy Architecture of FIGURE 5.
  • the promise components of the Level 2 Imac® brand strategy architecture includes metrics for ease of purchase, ease of use, and performance.
  • Ease of purchase is further dimensionalized by sub-attributes including easy to select, easy to find, easy to order and/or purchase, and having flexible and simple financing.
  • Ease of use is further dimensionalized by sub-attributes including easy to setup, easy to get on the Internet, easy to perform basic tasks, an operating system having an intuitive interface, a computer system having good documentation, and a company having easy to reach and competent support.
  • Performance is further dimensionalized by sub-attributes including speed, sufficient memory, and smooth execution of software applications.
  • FIGURES 8A-B depicts sections or portions of a Strategic Harmony® example of Level 2 driver listings with identifiers and association factors similar to those described in FIGURES 6 and 7.
  • the driver listings are identified by driver name, defined by a description in those cases where the name is not self-explanatory, and qualitatively assigned to a factor-level association unless one is provided quantitatively through a common multivariate statistical technique known as factor analysis.
  • a representative driver name list in the example from an enterprise software market includes financially stable vendor, innovation, scalability, whether company is global, whether the company is cooperative in making a business case, whether the company or group has a strong track record for delivering on commitments, has a good reputation, provides support at all times during the year ("24 X & X 365"), provides trustworthy data, and engages in high-quality reporting.
  • Other driver names include products or services being customizable, interoperable, flexible easy to use and /or deploy, economical — including low cost of total ownership, saves time, easy to maintain, have performance characteristics compliant with regulatory agencies, and delivers a demonstrable ROI to the company or group. Additional driver descriptions includes customizable being defined to being customizable to a given infrastructure, organization, and/or industry.
  • Integrated solutions mean that the solutions are seamlessly combined from multiple points.
  • Trustworthy data means that the data is credible, current, global, and accurate, or at least a combination of any two or more of the preceding.
  • Interoperable means capability to work with existing infrastructure and/or with other vendor's applications, known and/or planned.
  • low cost of ownership is defined to mean having low software to hardware migration costs, and exhibit substantially resource efficiency.
  • factor-level association the drivers are qualitatively characterized to have trust, control, simplicity, and value.
  • FIGURE 9 depicts an expansion of another Strategic Harmony® screenshot example for prioritizing Level 2 drivers of brand choice using the Application Consensus Builder tool in the case of applications related for use by a network IT manager.
  • the prioritizing is presented in a focused questionnaire in which attributes are listed in random order within a series of queries.
  • the network IT manager provides answers to the queries in the form of an importance rating in a scoring range between 1 and 10 for each of the queried attributes.
  • An adjacent column provides for optional comments from the IT manager.
  • this screenshot question 1 asks how important is a vendor company that provides enterprise security solutions to be financially stable, innovative, dependable, is global, is responsive to finding solutions to the IT managers business case, has competent and sophisticated people, and provides endorsements and testimonials from respected companies.
  • Question 2 asks how important a given enterprise security solution is scalable, provides early warnings, and is customizable to the IT manger's organizational infrastructure.
  • the "how important" answer to the queries attributes is provided by the IT manager's declaring a numeric value or ranking value between 1 and 10, along with any optional comments.
  • FIGURE 10 depicts a screenshot having a tabular illustration of examples of enterprise software having simplicity factor level association defined by numerical correlation coefficients. The correlation with brand choice varying between 0.09 and 0.56 is shown for attributes easy to deploy, interoperable, easy to use, easy to maintain, integrated solution, easily accessible support, runs from a single console, and easy to purchase and/or license.
  • FIGURES HA-F depicts sections or portions of a screenshot illustration from the first embodiment that shows how the output of the Consensus Builder tool displayed in a spreadsheet.
  • the output shows the 1-10 ranking value by IT manager respondent against queried attributes as a means for prioritizing drivers of brand choice. Adjacent to the queried attributes is the factor-level association of trust, control, simplicity, and value/ROI.
  • An average rating column, a top 3 bar incidence column, and an aggregate ranking column is filled with calculations derived from the numerical values provided by the IT manager respondents, hi this screenshot is partially shown an attributed rank by voter organization tab.
  • FIGURE 12A-D depict sections or portions of a screenshot example of results obtained for product development initiatives' alignment with key drivers of brand choice and distributed among cells of a spreadsheet by category, numerical scores, and alignment level classification determined from conducting an Alignment Assessment of a product development/IT portfolios a screenshot illustration of the Strategic Harmony® Alignment Dashboard showing of the assessment results for the relative impact that each product development/IT initiative will likely have on key drivers of brand choice.
  • FIGURE 13 is a screenshot depiction of the "Pacing Guide— Strategic Harmony ® Proof Points Session" that Application workshop facilitators use to set workshop pacing targets.
  • These screenshot present users with categorical and numerical information to permit editing pacing guides and to save edits under certain organizational circumstances that dictate spending a little more or a little less time on certain drivers and initiatives rather than spending equal time on each one.
  • the equal time being the default that the Pacing Calculator would automatically prescribe, since it divides a fixed amount of time by a fixed number of drivers/initiatives.
  • FIGURE 14 is a screenshot depiction from the first embodiment of the "Pacing Guide — Strategic Harmony ® Portfolio Session" that Application workshop facilitators use to set workshop pacing targets.
  • the Product Development/IT Initiative names may each display with a letter ID, sequentially - i.e., A, B, C, etc.
  • Use Case #3 if Use Case #3 was not completed, the list of initiatives displays, user may be prompted to enter: (1) Initiative Description [optional] and (2) Alignment Rating [mandatory], explained previously in “Terms and Definitions.” Though Initiative Description is optional, it is strongly encouraged in training - so skipping it may elicit a prompt such as "Skip description of Initiative A?” The Initiative Description field may accommodate text entry up to 700 characters, to insure that the scope of the initiative is sufficiently communicated to all users who may need to reference portfolio content. User is then prompted to enter Alignment Rating for each initiative on each driver of brand choice included in the assessment (as entered and stored in Use Case #1, Step 4, and presented here in order of Importance Ranking as stored in Use Case #2, Step 5).
  • FIGURE 15 is a screenshot depiction of the templates used for capturing Proof Points Workshop output described as a Proof Points Inventory/ Audit and Competitive Assessment.
  • Drivers of brand choice are entered, along with the brand that currently most excels on each driver. Then the client's most compelling proof points, or reasons to believe they excel on a particular driver, are entered in columns labeled FEATURES, SERVICE(S), and OTHER.
  • FIGURE 16 is a screenshot depiction of the templates used for capturing Product Development/IT Portfolio Workshop output in the form of a Product Development/IT Initiatives Assessment.
  • development/IT initiatives are summarized and consensus-rated on each driver of brand choice, with a client-supplied rationale entered for each rating.
  • FIGURE 17 is a depiction from using whiteboards in facilitating required team discussions during Proof Points and Product Development/IT Portfolio Workshops.
  • Consultants format the whiteboards to display product scope, competitors, brand choice drivers, and proof points categories.
  • Other whiteboards are formatted for portfolio sessions to display development/IT initiatives, brand choice drivers, brand(s) to beat, and competitive impact.
  • the whiteboards may be presented alternatively on easel pads, flat screen digital televisions, analog equivalents, or projected by computer-driven digital projectors.
  • FIGURE 18 is a tabular illustration of Proof Points Inventory template designed for output to a spreadsheet program.
  • Driver dimensions of "Control,” in this example for an enterprise software product, are set up to capture and display control proof points that provide reasons to believe that a client's brand offers customers excellent and/or superior control.
  • FIGURE 19 is another tabular illustration for entry of driver dimensions distributed among proof points for control by factor name field that is changeable with each sheet of the Proof Points Inventory workbook.
  • FIGURE 20A-B depicts sections or portions of a screenshot example from a completed page of a Proof Points Inventory for a fictitious enterprise software company.
  • the screenshot depicts simplicity proof points to delineate reasons for a client's brand being superior by features, services and solutions.
  • Note the tabs at the bottom indicating additional sheets in the workbook representing additional choice-driving attributes.
  • FIGURE 21 is another screenshot example of a "current competitive situation" baseline inventory of product characteristics distributed among - in this example of an enterprise software product - simplicity, control, trust, and value categories and further classified according to whether superior, parity, or inferior to competing entities on each key driver of brand choice.
  • FIGURE 22A-B depicts sections or portions of a screenshot example of how results display from an Alignment Assessment of a product development/IT portfolio. Displayed is the likely impact that each product development/IT initiative, as currently scoped, will have on each key brand choice driver and, therefore, to what degree each initiative is aligned with those aspects of ideal customer experience. Initiatives are rated according to whether their potential impact is high, low, moderate, negligible, or negative.
  • FIGURE 23 is a screenshot illustrating a bar chart display from calculating the attribute-specific relative impact of the collective initiatives in a product development/IT portfolio.
  • FIGURE 24A-D depict sections or portions of a screenshot example of results obtained for product development initiatives' potential competitive impact on key drivers of brand choice and distributed among cells of a spreadsheet by category, numerical scores, and competitive classification determined from conducting a Competitive Impact Assessment of a product development/IT portfolio.
  • FIGURE 25 is a screenshot example of a Competitive Impact
  • FIGURE 26 is a screenshot example a total portfolio view of
  • FIGURE 27 A-B depicts sections or portions of a screenshot example of a compressed view of the Strategic Harmony® Competitive Impact Dashboard that hides the rating rationales text.
  • FIGURE 28 is a screenshot example of how results are displayed from a Manageability Assessment.
  • FIGURE 29 is a screenshot example how a Product Development/IT
  • FIGURE 30 is a screenshot example of Overall Strategic Importance rankings and indices that shows each importance index's Alignment and Competitive components.
  • FIGURE 31 is a screenshot tabular example of a Strategic Harmony ®
  • Priority Guide is displayed to provide a rationale for overall strategic importance.
  • FIGURE 32 is another screenshot tabular example of balancing strategic importance against manageability.
  • FIGURE 33 presents a tabular screenshot graphic of a tiered approach to categorizing development/IT priorities via integrated assessments.
  • FIGURE 34 presents a screenshot graphic of a Strategic Harmony®
  • Quadrant Map integrating alignment, competitive impact, and Manageability scores into one graphical representation.
  • an alignment with ideal customer experience vs. competitive impact is plotted with a group of variably sized oval shaped spheres A-G.
  • the size of the oval shaped spheres A-G varies approximately in proportion to development burden in terms of resources and complexity.
  • the sphere size indicates relative development burden, comprising financial and human resources, complexity, and risk.
  • FIGURE 35 depicts a screenshot graphic concerning inputs, consensus, and deliverable outputs to show key phases of how the method is implemented in a typical client consulting engagement
  • FIGURE 36 depicts a spreadsheet screenshot of an inputs master for use by consultants before project-specific data is entered.
  • FIGURE 37 depicts another spreadsheet screenshot of an inputs master for use by consultants after the consultant enters project-specific data.
  • FIGURE 38 depicts a spreadsheet screenshot concerning alignment with drivers of brand choice and illustrates a region denoted "Back Room: Consultants Only” where Strategic Harmony® mathematical formulae are applied to produce various metrics.
  • Back Room appears in the software embodiment of the Application as a computation and reference area of the spreadsheet that is outside the visible print area accessible by client companies and is hidden in the final dashboards transmitted to clients. Consultants not only use this area to study relationships between selected data, but also use the reference value ranges as reminders on what degree of latitude they have to subjectively modify values based on a combination of their professional experience and any extenuating circumstances or unusual client company assumptions underlying the presence of certain data present there.
  • the foregoing description of "Back Room” applies to all subsequent mentions of "Back Room” in other applicable figures.
  • FIGURE 39A-B depict sections or portions of a screenshot graphics of a two-dimensional Strategic Harmony® Quadrant Map integrating Alignment and Competitive Impact scores, and a three-dimensional Quadrant Map integrating Alignment, Competitive Impact, and Manageability scores.
  • Both graphs are quadrant maps that illustrate a brand vs. competitive impact.
  • In the upper plot illustrate graphical locations of different management indices by differentially colored diamonds of approximately the same size.
  • the size of the circular spheres vary in color and size to illustrate relative development burden. That is, the size varies approximately in proportion to development burden of each initiative in terms of resources and complexity. That is, the larger the circular sphere or bubble, the greater the burden and the less manageable a given product development/IT initiative.
  • FIGURE 40 A-C depict sections or portions of an Application screenshot showing details operating or associated with the "Back Room: consultants Only” in arriving at numerical descriptors for manageability of designated portfolio initiatives.
  • FIGURE 41 depicts a screenshot graphic of bar graphs describing alignment with brand choice, competitive impact, and manageability.
  • FIGURE 42 A-B depicts sections or portions of an Application screenshot of scores, ranks, and indices of alignment, competitive impact, and manageability for designated portfolio initiatives, plus conversion ratios and reference metrics ranges for consultants.
  • Results depicted by FIGURES 15-42 are obtained by methods described in FIGURES 1 and 2A-D. Alternate embodiments to the methods are described below for developing and delivering a decision intelligence report to a client so that the client may make an informed decision regarding resource allocation.
  • the preferred embodiment involves certain disciplines that may intersect with those employed by other business strategy-related, marketing-related, product development- related, IT-related, and brand management-related business methods for which patents have been sought and/or granted, such as Enterprise Marketing Automation and related strategic marketing processes, product lifecycle management processes, computer-implemented product control centers, computer-based brand strategy decision processes, and IT transformation and enterprise strategy management systems.
  • the preferred embodiment differs significantly from all of these; some key differences are summarized below.
  • Enterprise Marketing Automation and related strategic marketing planning processes Application, the preferred embodiment, focuses on optimizing product development/IT priorities in the context of disciplined brand strategy; Enterprise Marketing Automation patents focus on software-centric approaches to developing brand strategy, executing marketing campaigns, and tracking results - with little to no focus on the specifics of product development/IT optimization as it relates to brand strategy.
  • the preferred embodiment takes some of the more common conceptual components of brand strategy and frames them in a "Brand Strategy Architecture" format, but even more significantly differentiates itself from Enterprise Marketing Automation inventions by linking that architecture to product development/IT portfolio assessment as well as assessment of current product portfolios (portfolios of products already available in the market).
  • Strategic Marketing planning processes that are not necessarily automated or technical in nature, and there are automated product development management tools.
  • Product Lifecycle Management Processes Such tools, if proprietary, are generally software-centric and software-dependent, and may pick up where Application leaves off- that is, once product development projects have been identified and prioritized by management decision-makers (whom the preferred embodiment is designed to influence and assist), other lifecycle management software helps optimize resource allocation and project management to get the development done more efficiently and effectively. As such, lifecycle management software would help execution of strategies that are in part the output of Application, with no overlap. In other words, while lifecycle management software assists in optimizing work on projects that are already included in a product development portfolio, Application helps determine what gets into that portfolio in the first place, and how to strategically prioritize the projects within the portfolio. Product lifecycle management processes typically do not directly address IT strategy or IT portfolio prioritization. Product Control Centers.
  • Patented computer-implemented "Product Control Centers" assist users through the process of developing a product. They do not, however, address brand strategy development or drivers of brand choice, whereas the preferred embodiment uniquely combines brand strategy with product development portfolio assessment and is strategic rather than technical. Further, Application provides value-added integration between product strategy and marketing strategy; a Product Control Center, which focuses on engineering rather than marketing, does not.
  • the preferred embodiment is not dependent upon proprietary software (implementations of particular embodiments have been successfully conducted for well-known companies using only off-the-shelf Microsoft Office with no proprietary software involved), nor is the preferred embodiment's value limited to improvements in product development logistical processes - as it reprioritizes the products and features to be developed by using specific aspects of marketing and brand strategy as guides.
  • Computer- implemented product control centers do not directly address IT strategy or IT portfolio prioritization.
  • Computer-Based Brand Strategy Decision Processes Such patented processes focus on allocating marketing resources multinationally to support a global brand. Unlike the preferred embodiment, they do not address product development / product strategies or IT strategies and the integration of those with brand strategy to provide decision intelligence on optimizing product development/IT resource allocation by strategically reprioritizing development/IT initiatives. Again, Application is strategically focused and not technically dependent on proprietary software (though its implementation may be supported by proprietary software over time).
  • IT Transformation and Enterprise Strategy Management Systems Such processes can provide analytics to inform decisions about which IT initiatives are most worthy of pursuit, but address neither product development portfolio assessment nor integrating and aligning IT strategy with product strategy and brand strategy in ways that the Application addresses these issues.
  • Alignment and Competitive Impact are both principal components of the Strategic Importance Index, for which the default formula weights them equally (50% Alignment, 50% Competitive Impact).
  • Flexible Weighting provides business logic for - and the capability for - Strategic Importance Indices to reflect variability in the importance of Competitive Impact (relative to the importance of Alignment) across different product development/IT portfolios. For example, one successful brand may already be the leader (best in class) on most of the attributes that drive brand choice; another brand may be inferior on most attributes that drive brand choice.
  • Manageability weighting (Manageability being the third of the principal Strategic Harmony® metrics, along with Alignment and Competitive Impact) may also be variable; the more similar each product development/IT initiative is to the others in manageability components (resource requirements and complexity/risk), the less manageability matters in the overall analysis. The more diverse the initiatives are in degree of manageability, the more manageability matters in the overall analysis.
  • a Composite Priority Score is comprised of Strategic Importance 75%, Manageability 25%.
  • Flexible weighting of the components of Strategic Importance - Alignment and Competitive Impact - may determine each of those components' weight relative to each other, but in every default case the aggregated Strategic Importance score may account for 75% of the Composite Priority Score. Specifically, this translates to a default in which Alignment accounts for 37.5%, Competitive Impact accounts for 37.5%, and Manageability accounts for the remaining 25%. However, there are cases in which it makes sense for Manageability to account for a greater or lesser portion of the total CPS.
  • Attribute names and factor names fields increase from 20 to 30 characters.
  • Alignmentlmpact conversions are included on Assessments Recap, transplanted from Scorecards Master, showing the degree to which Alignment of any assessed initiative converts to Competitive Impact (alternately referred to as Alignment- to-Competitive-Impact Throughput Rate.
  • Variable number of columns can be designated per factor; merge factor name and auto- adjust color formatting (more flexibility planned when reporting layer is added).
  • Rationale text fields wrap as single text entries.
  • variable number of columns can be designated per factor; factor names auto-merge and auto-adjust color formatting (more flexibility planned when reporting layer is added).
  • Boost'Vnormalize scores for mapping feature determines default position of X hand Y axes and automates compensation.
  • Sub-segment weighting capability to automatically modify all scores, dashboards, quadrant maps, and other relevant metrics/graphics outputs impacted by sub-segment weighting.
  • Average "headroom” (total possible Competitive Impact points for brand at parity with competitors on all attributes) is 65 points. Maximum headroom (inferior on all attributes) is 80 points. Minimum headroom (superior on all attributes, but opportunity to lengthen lead) is 35 points. The default Strategic Importance Index calculation, weighting Competitive Impact at 50%, assumes the average headroom of 65 points. When headroom is significantly more or less than that, the brackets below represent recommended adjustments:
  • FIGURE 43 presents a screenshot graphic, as delivered to a client, of a two- dimensional Strategic Harmony® Quadrant Map integrating strategic Importance and Manageability scores.
  • each plot point represents an assessed initiative's Strategic Importance score, comprising a weighted aggregation of Alignment score and Competitive Impact score, plotted on the y axis, and the initiative's Manageability score, comprising the initiative's financial and human resource requirements, complexity, and risk level.
  • this depiction provides high-level visibility into the relationship and trade-offs between importance and development burden, and is therefore one indicator of the relative efficiency of the investment in developing each initiative for commercialization.

Landscapes

  • Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
  • Human Resources & Organizations (AREA)
  • Strategic Management (AREA)
  • Economics (AREA)
  • Entrepreneurship & Innovation (AREA)
  • Educational Administration (AREA)
  • Game Theory and Decision Science (AREA)
  • Development Economics (AREA)
  • Marketing (AREA)
  • Operations Research (AREA)
  • Quality & Reliability (AREA)
  • Tourism & Hospitality (AREA)
  • Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • General Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
  • General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
  • Management, Administration, Business Operations System, And Electronic Commerce (AREA)
  • Financial Or Insurance-Related Operations Such As Payment And Settlement (AREA)

Abstract

La présente invention concerne des procédés et logiciels commerciaux permettant l’optimisation de portefeuilles de développement de produit, des portefeuilles de développement de services, et des portefeuilles de la technologie de l’information, d’entrée accélérée sur le marché, et l’optimisation de l’alignement entre stratégie de produit, stratégie de technologie de l’information, et stratégie de marque. Des attributs de produits et de services sont caractérisés, catégorisés, et hiérarchisés avec des valeurs numériques susceptibles d’une analyse statistique de chaque développement de produits /d’initiative de technologie de l’information évalué en termes d’alignement avec une expérience de client idéal et d’impact compétitif potentiel par rapport aux ressources et risques nécessaires pour la mise de chaque initiative sur le marché. Des procédés comprennent également la hiérarchisation sous forme d’outils d’intelligence de décision appliquée pour permettre à une organisation de faire des jugements mieux informés concernant l’allocation de ressources pour développer, maintenir, ou optimiser un portefeuille de produits ou de services ou un portefeuille de technologie de l’information donnés pour améliorer la performance commerciale, accroître l’impact sur le marché, et construire une valeur de la marque.
PCT/US2009/036574 2008-03-19 2009-03-09 Système et procédé permettant d’optimiser des portefeuilles de développement de produits et l’alignement de stratégies de produits, de marque et de la technologie de l’information WO2009117275A2 (fr)

Applications Claiming Priority (2)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
US3800608P 2008-03-19 2008-03-19
US61/038,006 2008-03-19

Publications (2)

Publication Number Publication Date
WO2009117275A2 true WO2009117275A2 (fr) 2009-09-24
WO2009117275A3 WO2009117275A3 (fr) 2009-12-23

Family

ID=41091464

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
PCT/US2009/036574 WO2009117275A2 (fr) 2008-03-19 2009-03-09 Système et procédé permettant d’optimiser des portefeuilles de développement de produits et l’alignement de stratégies de produits, de marque et de la technologie de l’information

Country Status (1)

Country Link
WO (1) WO2009117275A2 (fr)

Cited By (2)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
WO2016122481A1 (fr) * 2015-01-28 2016-08-04 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development Lp Rationalisation de portefeuille produit
US20210012288A1 (en) * 2019-07-11 2021-01-14 David Mroczka Method and system for guidance of artificial intelligence and human agent teaming

Citations (4)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US20040068431A1 (en) * 2002-10-07 2004-04-08 Gartner, Inc. Methods and systems for evaluation of business performance
US20040093296A1 (en) * 2002-04-30 2004-05-13 Phelan William L. Marketing optimization system
US20050256844A1 (en) * 2004-02-14 2005-11-17 Cristol Steven M Business method for integrating and aligning product development and brand strategy
US20070192170A1 (en) * 2004-02-14 2007-08-16 Cristol Steven M System and method for optimizing product development portfolios and integrating product strategy with brand strategy

Patent Citations (4)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US20040093296A1 (en) * 2002-04-30 2004-05-13 Phelan William L. Marketing optimization system
US20040068431A1 (en) * 2002-10-07 2004-04-08 Gartner, Inc. Methods and systems for evaluation of business performance
US20050256844A1 (en) * 2004-02-14 2005-11-17 Cristol Steven M Business method for integrating and aligning product development and brand strategy
US20070192170A1 (en) * 2004-02-14 2007-08-16 Cristol Steven M System and method for optimizing product development portfolios and integrating product strategy with brand strategy

Cited By (3)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
WO2016122481A1 (fr) * 2015-01-28 2016-08-04 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development Lp Rationalisation de portefeuille produit
US10949785B2 (en) 2015-01-28 2021-03-16 Micro Focus Llc Product portfolio rationalization
US20210012288A1 (en) * 2019-07-11 2021-01-14 David Mroczka Method and system for guidance of artificial intelligence and human agent teaming

Also Published As

Publication number Publication date
WO2009117275A3 (fr) 2009-12-23

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
US7711596B2 (en) Business method for integrating and aligning product development and brand strategy
US20150032514A1 (en) System and method for optimizing product development portfolios and integrating product strategy with brand strategy
US20090254399A1 (en) System and method for optimizing product development portfolios and aligning product, brand, and information technology strategies
Poister et al. Strategic management in the public sector: Concepts, models, and processes
Langford et al. Strategic management in construction
Browning On the alignment of the purposes and views of process models in project management
US8200527B1 (en) Method for prioritizing and presenting recommendations regarding organizaion's customer care capabilities
US7664664B2 (en) Methods and systems for portfolio planning
US8032392B2 (en) Business enablement system
US20020042731A1 (en) Method, system and tools for performing business-related planning
Saleeshya et al. A model to assess the lean capabilities of automotive industries
US20050108082A1 (en) Marketing apparatus and methods
Forster et al. Critical success factors: an annotated bibliography
PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP et al. The e-business workplace: Discovering the power of enterprise portals
Kock et al. Redesigning acquisition processes: a new methodology based on the flow of knowledge and information
Pierce The effect of business and information technology strategic alignment on information technology investment returns and corporate performance
Parnaby et al. Managing by projects for business success
WO2009117275A2 (fr) Système et procédé permettant d’optimiser des portefeuilles de développement de produits et l’alignement de stratégies de produits, de marque et de la technologie de l’information
Vogel et al. Reengineering with enterprise analyzer
Rouse et al. Work, workflow and information systems
Elkington Transferring experiential knowledge from the near-retirement generation to the next generation
Keraminiyage Achieving high process capability maturity in construction organisations
Miller et al. Improving performance in service organizations: How to implement a lean transformation
Geisler Industrial Software Applications
Schön Organization and processes

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
121 Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application

Ref document number: 09722120

Country of ref document: EP

Kind code of ref document: A2

NENP Non-entry into the national phase in:

Ref country code: DE

122 Ep: pct application non-entry in european phase

Ref document number: 09722120

Country of ref document: EP

Kind code of ref document: A2