IDFV Assessment Canvas for System Innovations

By Martin Grant and Neil Shaw

Neil Shaw and I have been working within a group on several system-level innovation projects. As part of this work, we have been creating new structures, elements, and interventions in large, complex systems, like the work system, when considering harm to workers.

Ideas for system innovation need to be assessed at some point during the work, and it's useful to have a framework that is relatable and accessible to a broad range of people. The Intent - Desirability - Feasibility - Viability (IDFV) concept is one such framework.

Neil came across a DVF canvas created by Dan-Stefan Florescu at TU Delft. This canvas was informed by Calabretta et al.'s work in 2016, which discussed strategic design and thinking done by Tim Brown back in 2006. Neil adapted the canvas to include strategic intent, upon which time it became the IDFV canvas. This framework was familiar to me from my work with Stanford D-School as part of the NZTE Better by Design programme.

Neil and I tweaked the original canvas again and have used it on several projects to assess system-level innovations, such as new entities seeking system transitions. The great thing about the canvas is the sub-questions underneath the top four, and the 'so what' question if you get a "No" - what would have to be true (for it to pass this test)?

You can download a PDF here.

We have been using the canvas mostly on a Mural board for online workshops. Based on our experience, here are a few tips.

1. The discussion in each of the sub-question boxes provides good content for your final documentation of the innovation.

2. The "what would have to be true" question is critical to inform your next iteration of the idea.

3. We believe it's good to differentiate between the desirability for users versus the ultimate beneficiaries.

4. Introducing the idea of a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) in the feasibility stage is great to explore what could happen fast.

5. We have occasionally tailored the sub-questions in a minor way to suit the specific project context.

Reach out to us if you have any questions or need clarification. Otherwise, as is usual for all methods in this space, we'd love to hear your experiences using it and how it might be improved.

Martin Grant and Neil Shaw