Desirable — Feasible — Viable, Do we need a fourth element “Sustainable”?
Even though sustainability is becoming an increasing factor for successful innovation, it should not be treated on the same level like the three pillars desirable, feasible and viable. Let me tell you why.
Sustainability is important
To make it clear: I truly believe that sustainability is important for innovation and must be at the front of innovators’ minds and I highly appreciate the fact that sustainability with all its facets (ecological, social, financial) is becoming an increasing priority.
With this being said I’ll share some insights I gained from discussions in the past months. The central question of these discussions was whether the innovation model “Desirable, Feasible, Viable” needs to be enlarged with a fourth circle “Sustainable”.
We all know that an innovation hast to fulfill the following three criteria
- It must meet a customer need (desirable) otherwise it will not be bought.
- There must be a technical solution (feasible) otherwise it stays a dream.
- It must create revenue (viable) otherwise your company will go out of business sooner or later.
Now should we add a fourth criteria “It has to be sustainable”?
There are good reasons to add the fourth circle:
- Sustainability is important
it is one of the major challenges we are currently facing and the more attention we give it the likelier we succeed. - Sustainability is a buzz word
it is very tempting to use it as often as possible.
But there are also good reasons NOT to add the fourth circle:
- It overlaps too much with the 3 other elements
Desirability, feasibility and viability are three independent variables whereas sustainability has too many overlaps with the other three. Let me explain:
The move towards sustainability
- changes what people want (desirability)
- changes legislation and willingness to pay (viability)
- redirects resources towards sustainable technologies (feasibility)
The DFV-model is so powerful because its elements are truly independent, it should not be watered down. - Keep it simple
The DFV-model is successful because people can easily remember and implement it.
The temptation is high to add more and more dimensions such as “sustainability” or “regulatory compliance” and so on.
There is a high risk to pack too much into one model and to overload it.
So my conclusion is to stay with the 3 circles and to treat the important topic of sustainability in one or both of the following ways:
1. Consider sustainability as a trend
Similar to other trends such as digitization, ageing society or urbanization, sustainability is heavily influencing desirability and viability.
All trends and mega-trends have to be taken into account when developing and assessing innovations.
2. Consider Sustainability as a Filter
Filters help you make a decision between several possibilities. The DFV-model answers the question “What is possible?”. Filters help you answer the question “Should we do it?”.
So if sustainability is truly one of your goals as a person or a company you will choose the sustainable solution out of all the desirable, feasible and viable options.
This is very similar to other filters such as ethical standards or your company’s strategy.
If you want to learn how to fill your innovation pipeline with sustainable innovations read my post on that where I explain a process to create truely sustainable AND successful innovations.
