## 6 Implications of Findings  
The approach was verified within the respective phases of the research methodology. The identified assessment criteria were verified within a workshop including scientific experts. The resulting assessment approach was verified based on two expert interviews with members of the academic community and initially validated through one industrial use case. On this basis, a discussion of the results can be carried out, and perspectives for further research can be derived.  
Based on the expert interviews and the initial use case application, it can be concluded that the identified gaps in the state of research were sufficiently addressed. In contrast to existing MADM methods (e.g., [8; 39]), the method developed enables an evaluation of innovation projects within manufacturing in the early phases of the innovation process. The structuring of existing assessment criteria into potentials, efforts, and risks, as well as the inclusion of non-monetary criteria such as ecological or social impacts, state the first main contribution to the state of research within the innovation project assessment. In contrast to existing evaluation methods, which are mainly focused on technology assessments (e.g., [29; 31]), a consideration of the various relevant types of innovation in manufacturing is ensured by a comprehensive catalog of criteria, oriented towards the HTO concept according to [PERSON] [26]. Furthermore, a holistic evaluation is provided by considering potentials, efforts, and risks within the assessment criteria. Finally, the combination of AHP, TOPSIS, and Fuzzy approaches states the second contribution to the state of research, enabling an evaluation that operates in a structured manner, takes different dimensions and input variables into account, but is still practically applicable. The developed MADM method combines the strengths of the different approaches, transforming the problem into a hierarchic criteria structure and ranking the alternatives according to ideal solutions. This enables the user to evaluate different innovation projects through the company-specific selection and structuring of evaluation criteria. On the other hand, comparing the evaluation results with the ideal solution enables meaningful comparison of different projects within a company.  
Nevertheless, based on the application and the discussions with a plethora of different experts, three possible starting points for the further development and continuation of research activities could be identified:  
* Point 1--Extension and further specification of the assessment criteria: With the constant change and enhancement of target dimensions within manufacturing as well as the release of innovative and complex technologies the assessment criteria selection must be continuously adapted. Further, to enable the ongoing development of the Industry 5.0 concept, emerging potentials, efforts, and risks may need to be integrated into the assessment approach to enable an evaluation that not primarily aims at increasing cost-efficiency but also includes workers, consumers, society, and the environment. Additionally, Key Performance Indicators (KPI) could specify the assessment criteria. By setting up a KPI model for each criterion, the changes within the respective dimension could be indicated more precisely.  
Point 2--Further inclusion of cause-effect relationships: Cause-effect relationships between the potential or effort targets and the company's strategic goals could be integrated to elaborate the model perspective towards a broader, stakeholder-focused analysis.
* Point 3--Further industrial validation: The approach should be validated with the help of other use cases from different industries and the representation of group decision scenarios. On this basis, the theoretical strengths of the approach could be validated and potential starting points for further development work could be identified.