Discover a powerful yet straightforward approach to evaluating new ideas by balancing desirability, viability, and feasibility. Learn how to make informed decisions using the Weighted DVF model, which combines design thinking principles with lean business and new product development practices.
Introduction
To survive or even thrive in today’s fast-paced business environment, we need to be looking for new ideas, opportunities, and innovations all the time. These might be small enhancements and continual improvements, but they might equally include the next groundbreaking idea.
With so much we could do and with limited capacity to do them all, the challenge lies not so much in generating ideas, but in how we evaluate and prioritize them. How might we assess which ideas are worth pursuing and which should be set aside? This is where the Weighted DVF model comes into play, offering a simple yet powerful approach to idea evaluation.
The Weighted DVF model:
- is based on the well-established Design Thinking model of Desirability, Viability, and Feasibility (DVF)
- adds a crucial twist by incorporating the concept of Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)
- combines this with the Product Development approach of Weighted Shortest Job First (WSJF) — also known as Cost of Delay Divided by Duration
- extends this into a simple, rapid prioritization model
This approach allows decision-makers to quickly assess not only how much an idea is wanted or needed, but also how practical and sustainable it is in the long run.
This article (originally published on Medium) is intended to give you a clear understanding of how you might use Weighted DVF in your own decision-making processes. Whether you’re an entrepreneur weighing new product ideas, a product manager prioritizing features, or a business leader evaluating strategic initiatives, this model will provide you with a structured approach to make more informed, balanced decisions.
Let’s dive in and explore how Weighted DVF can provide a transformative approach to idea evaluation and prioritization.
The Classic DVF Model: A Quick Refresher
The classic DVF model is a cornerstone of design thinking and innovation processes. It provides a holistic approach to evaluating ideas by considering three crucial aspects:
- Desirability: focuses on the human element. It asks whether the idea meets a real need or want in the market. An idea scores high in desirability if it resonates with the target audience, solves a significant problem, or creates a meaningful experience. This factor is often assessed through user research, market analysis, and customer feedback. It can also be used to indicate how well an idea aligns with current strategy and short-term priorities (on the basis that these should also be desirable). If the idea is desirable, then it is worth considering whether it is viable.
- Viability: examines the business aspect of an idea. It considers whether the idea can be turned into a sustainable business model. This includes factors such as potential revenue streams, cost structure, market size, and long-term profitability. A viable idea should have a clear path to generating value for the organization. Assuming the idea is both desirableand viable, then we should consider whether it is feasible.
- Feasibility: addresses the technical and operational aspects. It questions whether the idea can be implemented with current capacity, technology, and capabilities. This includes considerations such as technical complexity, required skills, regulatory constraints, and scalability. A feasible idea is one that can be realistically brought to life within the given constraints, although this does not have to mean it has to be built in-house. If the desirability and viability of an idea are strong enough, it may be worth out-sourcing its development (though that reduces the feasibility slightly).
The power of the classic DVF model lies in its ability to balance these three factors. An ideal solution sits at the intersection of desirability, viability, and feasibility, ensuring that it not only appeals to users but also makes business sense and can be practically implemented. By systematically evaluating ideas through these lenses, teams can make more informed decisions and increase their chances of successful innovation.
Note: More recently, people have been extending classic DVF with a fourth concern of Sustainability (see Human Digital article on DVFS). I will be exploring how this might be incorporated into Weighted DVF — my current thinking is that it could be used to weight the Desirability factor. I’d be keen to hear your thoughts on this.
Introducing Weighted DVF
The Weighted DVF model extends the classic DVF model. While that helps identify ideas that balance user needs, business goals, and technical feasibility, Weighted DVF takes this a step further by quantifying these factors and their relationships.
Weighted DVF recognizes that not all aspects of an idea carry equal weight in decision-making. So, we need a scoring system and a method to calculate a single, comprehensive score, that allows for more objective comparisons between different ideas. Allowing us to compare apples and oranges — or small quick wins with large disruptive changes.
The model puts more emphasis on the the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) by combining the assessments of viability and feasibility. This approach ensures that ideas that are both easier to implement and operate are given due consideration, even if they might not be the most desirable at first glance.
What sets Weighted DVF apart is its ability to balance the allure of highly desirable ideas against the practical realities of implementation and long-term sustainability.
It does this by borrowing from the Weighted Shortest Job First (WSJF) approach. In WSJF, an expression of an idea’s value is divided by a representation of its size. Where two items are the same size, the higher value item is done first. Where two items have the same value, the smaller item gets done first.
However, the size used in WSJF represents only the cost of developing and deploying an idea, whereas Weighted DVF incorporates the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO).
This approach helps decision-makers avoid the pitfalls of pursuing ideas that are appealing but impractical, while also preventing the overlooking of solid, implementable ideas that might not seem exciting at first glance.
I developed an earlier version of this model in 2010, while leading the new product assessment (Concept to Market) process at Telecom NZ (now Spark). We used it to make investment decisions in new product ideas: should we kill, rework, explore, or start development. We saved around NZD $500,000 annually just by choosing not to invest in products that would never be launched.
Breaking Down the Weighted DVF Model
Weighted DVF simplifies the evaluation process by using a straightforward scoring system and calculation method. Let’s break it down step by step:
1. Scoring Desirability, Viability, and Feasibility
Each factor — Desirability, Viability, and Feasibility — is scored on a three-point scale:
- Low = 1
- Medium = 3
- High = 9
Much like the Fibonacci scale used for sizing product backlog items in agile development, this non-linear scale (1–3–9) allows for more significant differentiation between high-performing ideas and others, making prioritization clearer.
For example, let’s consider the following idea.
New product feature ABC
- Desirability: High (9) — Our user research shows strong demand.
- Viability: Medium (3) — It fits our business model but requires some adjustment.
- Feasibility: Low (1) — It’s technically challenging or we might have to outsource its development.
2. Calculating Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)
The TCO represents the combined challenges of implementing and operating the idea. To keep it simple, this is calculated by adding the complements of the Viability and Feasibility scores:
TCO = complement(Viability) + complement(Feasibility)
The complements of the scores are:
- 9 becomes 1
- 3 stays 3
- 1 becomes 9
We use complements for Viability and Feasibility because a lower score is likely to increase the Total Cost of Ownership. This approach allows us to directly add these values to calculate TCO.
Using our example:
TCO = complement(3) + complement(1) = 3 + 9 = 12
3. The Weighted DVF formula
The final step is to calculate the Weighted DVF score, through dividing the Desirability score by the TCO.
DVF = Desirability / TCO
For our example:
Weighted DVF = 9 / 12 = 0.75
This score balances the high desirability against the significant implementation and operational challenges.
To put this in context, let’s compare it with another idea:
New product feature XYZ
- Desirability: Medium (3)
- Viability: High (9)
- Feasibility: High (9)
TCO = complement(9) + complement(9) = 1 + 1 = 2
Weighted DVF = 3 / 2 = 1.5
Despite being less desirable, this second idea scores higher due to its lower TCO, illustrating how the model balances appeal against practicality.
Using this model, you can quickly compare diverse ideas on a single scale, facilitating more objective decision-making in your innovation process.
Scoring approaches
Relative Scoring
To keep things simple, the recommended approach is to assess ideas relatively, against one another. Is the viability of idea ABC about the same, more, or less than idea XYZ — and if so, by how much?
When there are many ideas to assess against each other, quickly review to see what is the strongest idea in terms of Desirability, then find the weakest. Score these as 9 and 1 respectively, anchoring the top and bottom of the range. Then, compare other ideas to these two. If an idea is in the same ballpark as one of those, use the same score; however, if it sits somewhere between the two, score it as 3.
Repeat for assessing Viability and again for Feasibility.
When there are not many on the table for consideration right now, make the comparison to past ideas.
Detailed Scoring
When comparing larger ideas, where costs are likely to be higher, a more compelling case can be built by taking the time to aim for some sense of justification or accuracy in the scores. It should be noted, however, that it will take more effort to find and assess appropriate sources, so consider if the apparent reward justifies the additional work.
Where avoiding reliance on gut feel is important, base the assessment on a combination of quantitative data and qualitative insights. For example, when assessing Desirability, look for quantitative data sources, like survey results or usage statistics, and qualitative insights, like user interviews and customer feedback.
Note: Robin Wong’s Lean Business Scorecard article is a great example of balancing a more detailed assessment while still using simple scoring.
Alternative Scoring
While this model is based on a simple low-medium-high (1–3–9) range, to introduce more nuanced levels, adapt the model to longer number sequence. I’ve had some success working with clients to adopt 1–3–5–8–13 (five numbers from the Fibonacci range mentioned above).
Tips for Weighted DVF in Practice
While Weighted DVF is pretty straightforward, using it effectively requires thought and negotiation. This section looks at some key tips, best practices, and potential pitfalls to help you leverage the full power of this decision-making tool in your organization.
- Avoid over-emphasizing Desirability: While it’s easy to be drawn to highly desirable ideas, remember that the model is designed to balance desirability with practicality. Regularly review your scoring to ensure you’re not unconsciously inflating desirability scores for ideas you’re personally excited about.
- Balance short and long-term benefits: It can be tempting to increase the feasibility score by opting for simpler solutions. That’s normal, and part of the thinking that leads to Minimum Viable Product (MVP). However, if the simpler solution involves workarounds, this should be reflected in a decreased viability score (as this typically drives up the costs of operating the solution, or means further work should be done later to refactor the solution).
- Determining Feasibility: Feasibility assessment should involve key stakeholders from different departments. What seems highly feasible to management might pose significant challenges for the development or operations teams. Cross-functional input ensures a more accurate and holistic feasibility score.
- Involving stakeholders: Collaborative scoring can lead to more accurate results and better buy-in. However, be aware of potential biases and group dynamics. To mitigate these concerns, consider techniques like blind voting (e.g. Planning Poker) or scoring independently followed by group discussion.
- Regularly review and recalibrate: The business environment is dynamic, and scores can change over time. An idea that scored low on feasibility might become more feasible as your organization’s capabilities grow. Regular reassessment ensures your prioritization remains relevant.
- Adapt the model to fit the context: How we assess desirability, viability, and feasibility will likely vary depending on whether we’re evaluating product features, internal processes, or strategic initiatives. Develop clear guidelines for how to apply the model in different contexts within your organization.
Conclusion: Empower Decision-Making with Weighted DVF
Weighted DVF offers a powerful yet accessible approach to evaluating and prioritizing ideas in today’s fast-paced business environment. By balancing desirability against the total cost of ownership, it provides a nuanced perspective that can lead to more informed and effective decision-making.
Key takeaways
- Weighted DVF extends the classic DVF model by quantifying and balancing desirability, viability, and feasibility.
- The model’s strength lies in its ability to compare diverse ideas objectively, from quick wins to transformative innovations.
- Effective implementation requires thoughtful scoring, stakeholder involvement, and regular reassessment.
- While simple in concept, Weighted DVF can be adapted to suit various contexts and decision-making needs.
This should lead to a number of benefits, including: alignment on understanding, more transparent choices, better use of scarce capacity and resources, increased chances of successful implementation, and ultimately, more impactful innovations.
However, as with any model, Weighted DVF is a tool to aid decision-making, not to replace human judgment. Its true value lies not in the scores it produces, but in the conversations and insights it enables. Use it as a springboard for meaningful discussions about your ideas, their potential impact, and the realities of bringing them to life.
As you begin to apply Weighted DVF in your organization, remain open to refining your approach. The model’s flexibility allows for adaptation to your specific needs and context, ensuring its relevance across various decision-making scenarios.
By embracing Weighted DVF, you’re taking a significant step towards more structured, balanced, and effective innovation management. Here’s to making smarter decisions and bringing your best ideas to life!
- I have made an MS Excel and Google Sheets spreadsheet template freely available for this (see below).
- Ready to upgrade your decision-making process? Try out Weighted DVFand let me know your results in the comments.
- Do you think Weighted DVF could be useful? I’d love to hear your thoughts and suggestions for improvement. Drop a comment or reach out to me directly!
- If you want more content like this, don’t forget to follow me for regular updates on innovation and strategy!
Downloads
Notes
- Article first published on Medium on July 19th, 2024
- Edit (Sep 22, 2023): Added reference to where I first worked on the ideas that led to Weighted DVF.