Strategise method guide
Performance Profile
Compare current, required and target product performance with a spider chart and the raw measurements behind it.
Beginner-friendly guide · 4 min read
What Performance Profile does
Compare current, required and target product performance with a spider chart and the raw measurements behind it.
A product can be cheaper but harder to maintain, or lighter but less durable. Performance Profile puts those dimensions beside one another so the team can discuss what customers require and what the current design actually delivers.
The table keeps the measurements in their original units. The spider chart maps each dimension to a common 0 to 10 preference scale, reversing lower-is-better dimensions. Complete, valid profiles need at least three dimensions to form a polygon.
T-Plan connects market, product, technology and charting workshops. Developed at IfM by Robert Phaal, Clare Farrukh and David Probert, it provides the methodological context for comparing product performance. The controls described here are InnovationFlow capabilities.[1]
Illustrative normalised profiles. The table and evidence explain the shape; polygon area is not an overall score.
| Dimension | Current | Required |
|---|---|---|
| Energy efficiency | 5 | 8 |
| Serviceability | 4 | 8 |
| Throughput | 7 | 8 |
| Durability | 7 | 8 |
Teal: current. Purple dashed: required. Original units and evidence remain in the tool table. Missing values do not become zero.
Original InnovationFlow illustration. Example values and software behaviour are explained in this guide; method sources are listed below.
Understand the method
The parts in plain language
Dimension
One attribute with a declared unit, range and preferred direction.
Illustrative example
For replacement time, minutes are the unit and lower is better.
Required versus target
A requirement describes the needed outcome; a target describes an intended design result.
Illustrative example
A 20-minute service requirement can be compared with a 15-minute design target.
Missing measurement
An unmeasured attribute stays incomplete rather than being treated as a poor result.
Illustrative example
Do not enter zero energy use when the test has not happened.
When to use it
- When a product workshop needs a shared definition of required performance.
- When alternatives improve different attributes and a single headline score hides the trade-offs.
A practical workflow
- 1
Add dimensions, units, scale limits and whether higher or lower is better.
- 2
Add current, required, target or comparison profiles.
- 3
Enter raw measurements and inspect missing values before reading the spider chart.
- 4
Take the gaps into product-function and technology assessment, then the roadmap.
Fictional worked example
An industrial pump redesign
This example is illustrative rather than a reported case. Illustrative workshop data, not a measured customer case.
Observation:Replacement takes 45 minutes.
Implication:Record the measured baseline and conditions.
Observation:The maintenance window allows 20 minutes.
Implication:Agree who owns and verifies the requirement.
Observation:A modular design aims for 15 minutes.
Implication:Assess the enabling technologies and validate the target.
From analysis to decision
How to interpret the result
- 1Start with the gap that could change the product decision.
- 2Keep test conditions comparable and review the underlying numbers when a scale changes.
Practical interpretation guidance from InnovationFlow. Refer to the method sources below for the underlying approach.
What a useful output looks like
Common pitfalls
- A larger polygon is not automatically a better product.
- Changing scale limits changes the picture. Missing measurements are not zero.
References and method basis
- [1]Phaal, R., Farrukh, C.J.P. and Probert, D.R. (2001). T-Plan: The fast start to Technology Roadmapping - planning your route to success. Institute for Manufacturing, University of Cambridge. Source ↗Original method source
This guide synthesises the named sources into practical questions for strategy and innovation work. It does not claim that using a tool by itself produces a successful decision.