Heilmeier's Catechism is a set of questions that any research project or product development project should be able to answer to assess its feasibility.
So far I've found this example.
Specifically, I was wondering if it's possible these partially overlap:
- Who cares?
- If you're successful, what difference will it make?
- What are the risks and the payoffs?
If you state who is affected by the project in the first point (the stakeholders), I think you should avoid commenting on the positive effects until the second point and simply mention how they are involved in the project.
In the second point, I would mention how these stakeholders would be affected (positively and negatively) if the project were a success.
The third point allows you to mention any effects if the project fails, but I think the payoffs have already been discussed in the second point.
Is this a good argument to only consider risks in the third point?
Also, the first question in the full series is:
What are you trying to do? Articulate your objectives using absolutely no jargon.
The example I provided uses technical jargon specific to neurology. If I need to use technical concepts, can I introduce them with a definition which doesn't contain any jargon? Otherwise, its difficult to describe a problem without introducing the problem domain.
Finally, are citations permitted for referencing any previous research, as well as backing any claims?