Evaluation Criteria.pdf

Page 1 of 2 ® 2011 - 2024 Valid Evaluation, Inc. All rights reserved.

HDTX Industry Day JPEO CBRN v0-1 Evaluation Criteria Defined

DEFINITION

INTRODUCTION weight 5% Write a clear, concise description of what problem your innovation address and how you (aim to) solve that problem.

COMPETITIVE

ADVANTAGE GAP ANALYSIS

Define the gap between today's status quo and what your solution aims to deliver. How "painful" is today's status quo for your (potential) customers relative to what you offer? Is this a need they are ready to spend money to address?

SOLUTION'S

ADVANTAGES

Prove your prospective customers will choose you given limited resources and myriad choices.

Have you accounted for indirect substitute products as well as direct competitors?

DEGREE OF

INNOVATION

Prove that your solution is truly innovative. How big a departure from existing technical and/or operational approaches is your solution?

weight 15% DATA QUALITY, COMPETITIVE

Use data to substantiate your claims of competitive superiority. You're pitching to some of the Army's top technologists. They live and breathe data! Show us quality data attributed to reliable, credible sources.

POTENTIAL FOR IMPACT OPERATIONAL IMPACT

This Dimension is for the Army judges to figure out. It is their job -- not yours! -- to connect the dots and determine how your innovation can impact the Army. At the scale of a single Army end-user, how would their jobs or lives will be significantly improved if this solution were adopted? What is the impact of this solution for a soldier/Army civilian vs. today's solutions?

weight 25% SCALE OF IMPACT

This Dimension is for the Army judges to figure out. It is their job -- not yours! -- to connect the dots and determine how your innovation can impact the Army. If you have direct knowledge of your potential within DoD, please _briefly_ make your case. Otherwise, don't spend your valuable time on this one)

CLINCIAL RISK SCIENTIFIC FEASIBILITY Is the science behind the solution sound? Convince readers who don't have deep expertise in your field that your innovation is built atop sound scientific and engineering principles.

ENABLING

TECHNOLOGIES

Point to the foundational technologies that you rely on to deliver your solution. Do the required enabling technologies introduce added risk? Using proven (and ideally Army-fielded) underlying technologies and techniques helps to lower technical risk.

RISKS AND MITIGATION

PLANS

Prove that you understand the technical risks that still exist between you and a fully mature solution. What are your top areas of risk, why, and what is your plan to mitigate those risks?

weight 35% DATA QUALITY, TECHNICAL

Use data to substantiate your claims that your technical risk mitigation plans are credible. You're pitching to some of the Army's top technologists. They live and breathe data! Show us quality data attributed to reliable, credible sources.

COMMERCIAL RISK COMPETITIVE EDGE

Why will you win? A small company needs to have a Competitive Edge in the marketplace:

Something you do better than anyone else. This might be intellectual property, unmatched relevant expertise, a novel business model, channel partners, network effects, etc.

TEAM QUALIFICATIONS

Do you have the key people and core capabilities you need? The Qualifications include not only the ability to perform the research and development but also to successfully commercialize the results.

weight 15% COMMERCIALIZATION

POTENTIAL

Is there a commercial market for this solution that the DoD can build upon? Dual use technologies tend to advance at a faster pace, which can be helpful. If your solution is dual use, please explain.

Give the judges a clear sense of your past success and future potential in commercial applications.

SUBMISSION QUALITY weight 5% Prove you write clearly. Prove you argue convincingly.

XLS filename: CBRN Industry Day - Round 1 - v1-0.xlsx

VE SuperA name: HDTX Industry Day JPEO CBRN v0-1

Page 2 of 2 ® 2011 - 2024 Valid Evaluation, Inc. All rights reserved.

HDTX Industry Day JPEO CBRN v0-1 Evaluation Criteria

CBRN Industry Day - Round 1 - v1-0.xlsx UNSATISFACTORY MARGINAL SATISFACTORY SUPERIOR

INTRODUCTION weight 5% Ineffective introduction.

Failed to provide concise innovation proposition.

Adequate introduction.

Gradually conveyed innovation's purpose and value. Should be more crisp.

Effective introduction.

Systematically conveys innovation's purpose and value.

Exceptional introduction.

Immediately conveys the target problem and solution.

COMPETITIVE

ADVANTAGE GAP ANALYSIS Current solutions deliver satisfactory outcomes.

Current solutions deliver mostly satisfactory outcomes.

Current solutions deliver mostly unsatisfactory outcomes.

Current solutions deliver completely unsatisfactory outcomes.

SOLUTION'S

ADVANTAGES

No evidence of competitive analysis.

Undifferentiated product.

Incomplete or too narrow competitive analysis. Weak product differentiation.

Thorough competitive analysis. Strongly differentiated product.

Accounted for most substitutes.

Persuasive competitive analysis. Highly differentiated, accounted for all substitutes, provides novel solution.

DEGREE OF

INNOVATION

No departure from existing technological or operational approaches.

Slight departure from existing technological or operational approaches.

Significant departure from existing technological or operational approaches.

Radical departure from existing technological or operational approaches.

weight 15% DATA QUALITY, COMPETITIVE

Poorly supported by data. Little to no data attribution.

Partially supported by data. Some data attribution.

Credibly supported by data. Adequate data attribution.

Persuasively supported by meaningful data.

Comprehensive data attribution.

POTENTIAL FOR

IMPACT OPERATIONAL IMPACT

If successful, no improvement vs.

existing technological approaches.

If successful, slight improvement vs.

existing technological approaches.

If successful, significant improvement vs.

existing technological approaches.

If successful, radical improvement vs.

existing technological approaches.

weight 25% SCALE OF IMPACT A fully deployed, mature solution could impact only niche use cases.

A fully deployed, mature solution could impact a

DOD organization.

A fully deployed, mature solution could impact several DOD organizations.

A fully deployed, mature solution could have impact across the entire DOD.

CLINCIAL RISK SCIENTIFIC

FEASIBILITY

No scientific basis for presented approach.

Incomplete scientific basis for presented approach.

Credible scientific basis for presented approach.

Convincing scientific basis for presented approach.

ENABLING

TECHNOLOGIES

Requires nonexistent or unavailable technology.

Requires emerging, cutting edge technology.

Requires proven technologies.

Requires Army-fielded technologies.

RISKS AND

MITIGATION PLANS

Failed to present challenges and risks.

Inadequate risk analysis.

Mitigation marginally addressed.

Credible risk analysis.

Mitigation effectively addressed.

Highly credible risk analysis. Mitigation convincingly addressed.

weight 35% DATA QUALITY, TECHNICAL

Poorly supported by data. Little to no data attribution.

Partially supported by data. Some data attribution.

Credibly supported by data. Adequate data attribution.

Persuasively supported by meaningful data.

Comprehensive data attribution.

COMMERCIAL RISK COMPETITIVE EDGE

Undifferentiated firm.

Fails to argue it has an advantage.

Weakly differentiated firm. Some evidence of an advantage.

Strongly differentiated firm. Credibly argues it has durable advantage.

Highly differentiated firm. Convincingly argues it has durable advantage.

TEAM

QUALIFICATIONS

Seriously flawed. Team requires new talent.

Capable of limited progress. Team recognizes gaps in personnel, but presents no plan to address needs.

Capable of significant progress. Team presents specific plan to address personnel needs.

Highly capable. Team with excellent composition. No near-term personnel gaps.

weight 15% COMMERCIALIZATION

POTENTIAL

Gov't-only technology. Marginal commercial adoption or potential.

Some commercial adoption or potential.

Impressive commercial adoption or potential.

SUBMISSION QUALITY weight 5%

Poorly written. Very difficult to impossible to follow argument.

Several spelling or grammar errors.

Moderately written.

Sometimes difficult to follow argument. A few spelling / grammar errors.

Effectively written.

Convincing, easy to follow argument. No spelling or grammar errors.

Clearly and persuasively written. Compelling arguments. No spelling or grammar errors.

VE SuperA name: Superior

XLS filename: CBRN Industry Day - Round 1 - v1-0.xlsx