Option D: Replace Both
The Rationale
Bridge Point's R&D direction is genuinely uncertain. We have multiple potential innovations that could be developed and protected, but we don't yet know:
- Which capabilities deliver the most value to customers
- Which innovations warrant focused R&D investment
- What IP is worth protecting (and how)
The original CapDev commitments (Regulatory & Compliance + Information Management) made sense when we anticipated building proprietary AI models. The landscape has shifted, and so has our capability gap.
This option replaces both original categories with two that directly address our current uncertainty:
- Category 1: IP Capability - Understand what we can protect and how
- Category 8: Customer Input into R&D - Understand what we should build
Proposed Activities
A tailored series of half-day workshops upskilling Bridge Point's founders to recognise, protect and leverage the intellectual property created through R&D.
Programme Structure
Ground the founders in IP essentials and map where value lives across the business.
What can be patented and what is best kept as a trade secret.
How charging models and terms control who owns the IP you create.
Data agreements, licences and privacy obligations.
Protecting and licensing brand for a tech services firm.
Address matters surfaced and consolidate the IP roadmap.
Pricing
| Core Foundation (Workshops 1-4) | $20,000 |
| Complete Capability (Workshops 1-6) | $30,000 |
$5,000 per half-day workshop. Follow-up materials included.
Programme Lead
Kate Wilson - IP Strategist, Registered Patent Attorney (NZ & AU), Fellow NZIPA. First New Zealander named to IAM's global top-300 IP strategists. Kate leads every workshop, connecting each specialist session back to Bridge Point's strategy.
This is genuine capability building - the founders will develop internal understanding of how to identify, protect, and commercialise IP from R&D. This capability persists beyond this project.
Engage a specialist contractor to conduct customer and market research that directly informs R&D priorities - specifically, which of our potential innovations should receive focused development investment.
Why This Is Needed
Bridge Point is at an early stage with multiple potential IP pathways. Our R&D direction is genuinely uncertain. We cannot make informed decisions about where to focus development effort without understanding:
- Which customer problems are most acute and underserved
- What capabilities would deliver the highest value
- Where gaps exist in current solutions that our R&D could address
- What technical requirements emerge from real user needs
Scope of Work
The contractor will conduct research activities that build Bridge Point's capability to gather and use customer insights for R&D planning:
Phase 1: Research Design & Capability Transfer (Week 1-2)
- Develop interview protocols and question frameworks for healthcare sector SMEs
- Design survey instruments for gathering structured feedback on technical requirements
- Create competitor analysis methodology and templates
- Train Bridge Point team on research execution (capability transfer)
Phase 2: Primary Research (Week 3-6)
- Conduct 8-12 structured interviews with target customers and subject matter experts
- Execute customer survey (target: 30-50 responses from healthcare decision-makers)
- Perform competitor product analysis (3-5 competing solutions)
- Facilitate 1-2 ideation workshops with potential users to explore unmet needs
Phase 3: Analysis & R&D Input (Week 7-8)
- Synthesise findings into R&D priority matrix
- Map customer pain points to potential technical solutions
- Identify capability gaps and feature requirements
- Produce R&D Planning Input Report with prioritised development recommendations
Deliverables
- Research Methodology Toolkit - Interview guides, survey templates, analysis frameworks (reusable capability)
- Customer Insights Report - Findings from interviews, surveys, and workshops
- Competitor Gap Analysis - Where existing solutions fall short
- R&D Priority Matrix - Ranked list of development priorities based on customer value
- Technical Requirements Document - Customer-derived specifications for R&D planning
Why This Is Eligible
Per Callaghan's Category 8 guidance, eligible activities include one-off costs of learning how to:
- Facilitate customer focus groups
- Design effective customer surveys
- Conduct customer and SME interviews
- Undertake competitor product analysis
- Undertake rapid prototyping
- Run brainstorming/ideation workshops
The output must inform R&D priorities and plan - which is precisely the purpose of this engagement.
What This Is NOT
- General sales promotion or marketing activities
- Non-R&D related consumer surveys
- End product market research
- Market sizing, market testing, or commercialisation activity
- Go-to-market strategy or sales enablement
This engagement builds lasting capability: Bridge Point will have methodologies, tools, and experience to repeat this process for future R&D decisions. The contractor teaches us how to fish, not just delivers fish.
Budget Summary
| Activity | Estimated Cost | Category | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| IP Capability Building Programme James & Wells - 4-6 workshops | $20,000 - $30,000 | IP Capability | Quoted |
| Customer Research for R&D Prioritisation | $20,000 - $40,000 | Customer Input | To Quote |
| Total | $40,000 - $70,000 | 2 categories |
Note: Midpoint estimate of $55,000 exceeds the minimum 5% requirement (~$49,000).
What We're Replacing
| Original Commitment | Status | Proposed |
|---|---|---|
| Category 2: Regulatory & Compliance Healthcare data privacy standards | Overdue | Discontinue |
| Category 5: R&D Information Management Centralised research information system | In Progress | Discontinue |
| Category 1: Intellectual Property | Not committed | Add |
| Category 8: Customer Input into R&D | Not committed | Add |
Change Requests Required
RQ-IP
Discontinue Category 2 (Regulatory & Compliance), add Category 1 (IP Capability).
Requires Approval
RQ-IP-CI
Discontinue Category 5 (Information Management), add Category 8 (Customer Input into R&D).
Requires Approval
Summary
Pros and Cons
Pros
- Directly addresses genuine uncertainty (what to build, what to protect)
- Both activities have clear, defensible rationale
- Builds lasting capability for future R&D decisions
- Clean slate - no legacy commitments to justify
- IP lawyers may identify which innovations warrant focus
- Customer research validates IP investment priorities
Cons
- Requires TWO Change Requests (both original categories replaced)
- Must justify discontinuing Information Management (was "in progress")
- Customer Input category (8) may receive closer scrutiny
- Need to clearly demonstrate research informs R&D, not sales
- Dependent on Callaghan's appetite for full pivot
Comparison
| Option A | Option B | Option C | Option D | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Approach | Execute original | Re-evaluate all | Fresh package | Replace both |
| Total spend | $20-35K | $75K | $55K | $35-65K |
| Categories | 2 | 4 | 5 | 2 |
| Change Requests | No | Yes (1) | Yes (1) | Yes (2) |
| Original categories kept | Both | Some | 1 (Info Mgmt) | None |
| Strategic fit | Low | Medium | Medium | High |