## 5 Developing the Approach for the Assessment of Innovation Projects in Manufacturing  
### Phase I: Criteria Derivation for Innovation Project Assessment in Manufacturing  
As a first step, the results of the systematic literature analysis presented in Section 3 were used as a scientific basis for deriving the relevant criteria for innovation assessment in manufacturing. According to the guidelines for a literature review [27], research categories and keywords were derived from various scientific contributions (see Table 1 Section 3). A detailed explanation of the systematic literature analysis approach, the used keywords, and the applied limitations can be obtained from Section 3. After performing the two-step analysis presented in Section 3, the remaining 121 pertinent publications were used to identify relevant innovation assessment criteria. Table 3 shows an excerpt of the identified 121 publications and the included evaluation criteria. The reader should note that the list of criteria presented in this table is the first one that was released while developing the holistic innovation assessment approach, before the expert review. With the help of the identified sources, relevant descriptive criteria were derived, collected, and combined into groups. Based on the investigated scientific literature, three main criteria groups for innovation assessment were derived: potentials, efforts, and risks. Figure 2: Methodical procedure to derive a holistic assessment approach. Potentials determine the prospective evaluation of the change impacts caused by the innovation project [31]. The second criteria group describes efforts related to an innovation project, as innovation projects are associated with a significant expenditure of resources and time [68]. Due to uncertainties within the innovation process, risk states, the third criteria group, are necessary for a holistic assessment of manufacturing [69]. The three main criteria groups were further specified using relevant scientific contributions. In this way, further groups and sub-groups of criteria could be identified, containing detailed assessment criteria. In Figure 3, a schematic structure of the catalog after the expert review is displayed. The criteria catalog was not detailed further to provide a catalog which, on the one hand, enables a company- and use-case-specific application and, on the other hand, provides a sufficient level of detail to cover all relevant criteria for project assessment in manufacturing. In addition, eight expert interviews were conducted with representatives from the manufacturing industry. The industrial experts were involved in the production management of an internationally active construction materials and tools manufacturer and two SMEs manufacturing machines, to include both small and large companies in the panel. Figure 3 provides a more detailed insight into the profiles of the interviewed experts. The interviews were conducted using a guideline to carry out semi-structured systematizing expert interviews [70]. By applying this systematic and theory-based procedure, the model was supplemented with exclusively available knowledge and validated already in the first stage. For the data collection within every single semi-structured systematizing expert interview, a three-step procedure was chosen. First, the research methods and the evaluation criteria already identified were presented to the expert. Secondly, the already identified criteria were discussed individually with the expert and, if necessary, supplemented or questioned until a new criteria basis was created that additionally represented the expert's views. In the last step, the results were processed and made available to the expert. These results then constituted the input for the next expert interview. As an outcome, it could be determined that the detailing of the detailed criteria mentioned above could be improved compared to the initial results of the literature analysis.