1.
Innovation Process & Design Thinking
Design Thinking is a human-centered, iterative, and flexible framework often
used to drive innovation. At its core, it focuses on understanding users deeply,
challenging assumptions, and rapidly iterating solutions.
The Five Key Stages:
1. Empathize
Understand users through direct observation, interviews, and immersive
experiences.
2. Define
Synthesize insights to shape a clear, human-centered problem statement.
3. Ideate
Generate diverse ideas through brainstorming and creative techniques;
encourage both divergent and convergent thinking.
4. Prototype
Build low- to high-fidelity representations of ideas to explore their viability.
5. Test
Validate prototypes with users, gather feedback, and refine. Iteration is
encouraged—even revisiting earlier stages based on new insights.
Alternate Frameworks:
[Link]’s Model:
Empathize → Define → Ideate → Prototype → Test (non-linear)
IDEO’s Cycle: Inspiration → Ideation → Implementation
Double Diamond (Design Council): Discover → Define → Develop →
Deliver—two cycles of diverging and converging thinking.
2. Discovering Areas of Opportunity (Needfinding)
Key to innovation is identifying gaps between what users say and what they
actually do. This helps surface latent, unarticulated needs—those true
opportunities waiting to be addressed.
Empathic observation—watching real behaviors in context—reveals pain points
and opens doors for creative intervention.
3. Interviewing & Empathy-Building Techniques
Building empathy is foundational. Here are powerful tools and methods to
understand users on a deeper level:
Techniques for Empathy-Building:
User Interviews: Conduct open-ended, conversational sessions. Ask
“why?” repeatedly and encourage storytelling. Listen deeply—even non-
verbal cues.
Observation & Immersion: Watch users in their natural contexts or bring
them into real-life scenarios; use photo/video journals.
Extreme Users: Engage with users at the fringes—those with amplified
needs—to uncover overlooked insights.
Empathy Maps: Visualize user perspectives across Says, Thinks, Does, and
Feels—optionally expanded with See and Hear.
Personas & Journey Maps: Create archetypal user profiles and map their
experience over time to highlight opportunities and pain points.
Structuring Insight Gathering:
Affinity Diagrams: Cluster qualitative data into themes to spot patterns
that inform problem definition.
Problem Statement / “How Might We”: Synthesize findings into focused,
human-centered framing. E.g., “A busy commuter needs an efficient way to
get to work because public transit is unreliable.”
4. Summary Table: Tools Across the Process
Phase Purpose Tools & Techniques
Understand users' Interviews, observation, immersion,
Empathize
unspoken needs empathy mapping, extreme users
Personas, journey maps, problem
Define Frame problem accurately
statements, affinity diagrams
Generate wide range of Brainstorming, mind mapping, SCAMPER,
Ideate
possible solutions "Yes, and...", sketching
Prototype Materialize ideas quickly Paper models, mockups, digital prototypes
Validate and refine with Usability tests, surveys, A/B testing,
Test
feedback interviews, iterative feedback loops
1. What is FIR (Forge Innovation Rubric)?
The Forge Innovation Rubric (FIR) is a diagnostic framework designed to
validate assumptions through customer-linked evidence, systematically
transforming speculative innovation assumptions into solid facts. It is particularly
useful in industrial or product innovation contexts, aiming to evaluate validation
risk—i.e., the risk that an innovation doesn't meet real customer needs—by
anchoring progress to customer acceptance and commitment
2. Mitigating Validation Risk with FIR
Validation risk refers to the uncertainty that a proposed solution will actually
resonate with or be adopted by target customers. FIR aims to reduce this risk by:
Demanding direct customer-linked evidence, such as feedback, trials, or
commitment signals.
Serving as a tool to diagnose and measure progress in customer
acceptance and commitment.
Encouraging a structured, assumption-to-fact validation pipeline, especially
useful when assumptions are numerous and untested
3. Case Studies or Examples (Related Context)
Unfortunately, there are no publicly documented case studies directly
referencing FIR’s detailed application or results. So, we'll turn to analogous case
studies from related domains (e.g., validation frameworks, model risk
governance, risk-based validation, etc.) to illustrate how FIR-like principles can be
applied in practice.
A. Risk Culture Framework Validation (Risk Leadership Network)
An ASX-listed tech company developed a risk culture maturity framework,
peer-validated with similar organizations.
This approach allowed validation of the framework against market
standards, identification of blindspots early, and budget-saving by
leveraging membership support rather than consultants
Insights for FIR usage:
Peer validation aligns with FIR’s evidence-driven ethos; benchmarking helps
validate assumptions before full rollout.
B. Model Risk Governance & Inventory (Crisil Case Study)
A major U.S. financial institution implemented a robust Model Risk
Management (MRM) platform across three lines of defense.
The system centralized model inventory, versioning, governance, validation
processes, tiering, and audit trails—all rolled out in months using a build-
operate-transfer model
Insights for FIR analogues:
Comprehensive tracking and documentation of model assumptions and validations
parallels FIR's structured evidence approach to mitigate innovation risks.
C. Model Validation Case—Inputs Misclassification (SOA Example)
A valuation model had swapped input rates for two products that were
deemed immaterial—but the error still materially impacted outputs.
The first line of defense (model owner) had to monitor outputs and perform
root-cause analysis; the second line (validation team) independently
reviewed inputs, catching the error
Insights for FIR analogues:
Even “non-critical” assumptions can yield major effects—highlighting the
importance of structured validation at all assumption levels, akin to FIR's
evidence-mapping approach.
4. Putting FIR into Practice: Hypothetical Application
Here’s an outline of how FIR could be applied using best practices inspired by the
above studies:
Related Example
Step FIR Implementation
Connection
Define List core innovation assumptions (e.g. Start of risk culture
Assumptions user need, usability, pricing). benchmarking
For each assumption, identify what
Model risk documentation
Map Evidence constitutes valid customer response
& tracking
(e.g., sign-up, pilot order).
Prioritize assumptions by risk or Model risk tiers in MRM
Tier By Impact
expected impact—High, Medium, Low. frameworks
Conduct interviews, pilot tests, Input validation and
Collect Evidence
demos, A/Bs to gather validation. iterative testing
Continuously review outcomes; Continuous MRM
Review & Iterate revalidate assumptions as data monitoring rather than
evolves. point-in-time checks f
Peer/External Benchmark evidence or assumptions Peer validation of risk
Validation against external peers or partners. culture
Summary
The Forge Innovation Rubric (FIR) is a structured validation framework
emphasizing customer-linked evidence to reduce innovation validation
risk
Though there's no public case specifically tagged as "FIR in action," its
principles are mirrored in:
o Peer-validated frameworks (risk culture case)
o Robust governance systems with centralized validation and
auditability (model risk platform)
o Input scrutiny and monitoring practices to catch overlooked but
impactful assumption errors
A hypothetical FIR deployment framework would: list assumptions →
attach evidence → tier risks → collect validation → iterate/refine →
possibly benchmark externally.