University of Hertfordshire · 5CTA2035 Concept to Customer · Week 3 · FILLED EXAMPLE
Put your hero product on the chain: a filled example
This is what a strong worksheet looks like. Answers are in blue italic; amber boxes explain why each answer works.
Example only. NOVA LDN and Arcadia Games are made-up brands, and every name and number on this sheet is invented for teaching. Use the shape of the answers, not the content.
NameExample pair: Jo and Sam
Hero productReversible bomber jacket with a removable embroidered patch; the patch’s QR code unlocks the same jacket as a skin in the game
Fashion brandNOVA LDN (fictional London streetwear label)
Non-fashion partnerArcadia Games (fictional game studio)
Step 1 · 13:30 Mark your image
On your image, label each part: I = imagined, S = specified, T = tested. Circle every place a maker would have to guess.
ImaginedThe shimmering iridescent sleeve panels. The zip pulls that float in mid-air. The neon arcade scene behind the model.
SpecifiedBomber shape, rib cuffs and hem, two-way front zip, patch about 8 cm wide on the left chest.
TestedOnly the basic bomber pattern from last season, which was fitted on a real model. Nothing new is tested yet.
Your image suggestsSeams that move between the front and back views. A shimmer that changes colour. Floating zip pulls. A partner logo on the chest.
A maker would needFront and back flats with seam lines and a size chart. A fabric name, weight and a real swatch. A real zip: brand, length, puller shape. Arcadia’s approved logo artwork: size, colour, position.
Why this is a good answer: it is honest that almost nothing is tested yet, and every ‘suggests’ item has a matching ‘needs’ item a maker could act on.
Step 2 · 13:45 The handover map
For each stage: digital, physical or both? What is handed over, and to whom? What is the risk? What evidence would settle it?
| Chain stage | Digital, physical or both? | Handed over, to whom? | Risk or untested assumption | Evidence, test or source |
|---|
| 1 AI concept and design intent | Digital | Mood board and three AI images, to our design lead | The images show details nobody can make (the floating zip pulls) | My Step 1 mark-up: every imagined part circled |
| 2 Technical definition and digital sample | Digital | Tech pack and 3D sample, to the manufacturer’s pattern cutter | The 3D sample uses a generic nylon, not our real fabric | Fabric test data from the supplier (stretch, bending, weight) |
| 3 Material and fit review | Both | Fabric swatches and avatar fit screenshots, to our product manager | The iridescent colour looks different on screen and in daylight | A real swatch approved under a daylight lamp |
| 4 Physical sample and validation | Physical | First sample, to the fit model and quality team | The game patch peels off after washing | Five-wash test on the patch; fit session notes |
| 5 Showroom or buyer review | Both | 3D renders plus the one real sample, to buyers | Buyers order a colour that has not been sampled yet | Every unsampled colour labelled “not yet sampled” |
| 6 Product page or pre-order | Digital | Render and product copy, to customers | The render looks better than the real jacket (misleading ad) | Photo of the real sample next to the render; AI label |
| 7 Production and quality checks | Physical | Approved sample and tech pack, to the factory | The factory swaps in a cheaper zip | Pre-production sample sign-off and quality report |
| 8 Delivery, use, repair and resale | Both | The jacket and its QR code to the customer; the game skin to Arcadia’s servers | Arcadia shuts the game skin down after a year | A written agreement: Arcadia runs it for three years, the skin stays with the owner on resale |
Physical test we must not skipWashing the patch five times, and checking the shimmer colour on real fabric in daylight.
Next handover and approverTech pack and fabric data to the pattern cutter. Approved by our product manager.
Cost or timing still unknownPrice per metre and minimum order of the iridescent fabric.
Why this is a good answer: each row names a real role, keeps the risk (a guess) apart from the evidence (a test or a document), and the evidence is something you could actually get.
Step 3 · 14:20 Scenario card
Swap maps. The other pair picks a card for your product.
Card number and the failed handoverCard 8, “The service shuts down”. It breaks stage 8: we never agreed who keeps the game skin running after the jacket is sold.
Who acts, and the evidence they needOur partnerships lead and Arcadia’s producer. Evidence: a signed term saying Arcadia runs the skin for three years and it moves to a new owner on resale, plus a customer FAQ saying so.
Why this is a good answer: it points to one stage on the map, one named person on each side, and one document that would prove it is fixed.
Step 4 · 14:50 Evidence and one honest claim
Add a source for two risks on your map and label each one.
| Risk | Source (who, date) | Type |
|---|
| The 3D drape will not match the real shimmer fabric | MAS Holdings and Browzwear case film, July 2024: real fabric is measured before simulation | Vendor |
| A render on the pre-order page could mislead buyers | ASA guidance on AI in advertising, 29 May 2025 | Official (regulator) |
Rewrite it. Example: not “digital sampling cuts emissions by 75%”, but “Perry Ellis reported over 50% fewer physical sales samples (Browzwear case study, 2024, vendor evidence)”.
Your claim, rewritten
Before: “Our digital process is zero waste.” After: “We will review extra colours on screen and make one real sample per colour family, the approach Perry Ellis described (Browzwear case study, 2024, vendor-reported). We have not measured any waste saving.”
Why this is a good answer: the claim now says exactly what you will do, where the idea comes from, what kind of source that is, and what you have not proved.
Step 5 · 15:20 Partner and promises
Who approves what, in each organisation? What may an influencer say about a product that does not exist yet?
| Decision | Approver, fashion brand | Approver, partner |
|---|
| Hero product and where both logos sit | NOVA head of design | Arcadia brand licensing manager |
| Campaign images (same product, honest) | NOVA marketing lead | Arcadia brand team |
| Any digital extra, and who runs it after launch | NOVA partnerships lead | Arcadia live-ops producer, for three years |
Seeding rule: what an influencer can and cannot say before a physical sample exists
They can show the concept and say “coming soon, AI-assisted concept”. They cannot say they have worn it, or describe how it fits or feels.
Why this is a good answer: every box has a job title, not ‘the brand’, and the seeding rule says clearly both what is allowed and what is not.
Step 6 · 15:45 Explain it, then your next step
Our next handover is the tech pack and fabric data to the pattern cutter; we must verify the shimmer fabric’s drape and colour on a real swatch before we approve the 3D sample.
Theory sentence: Using [theory], we will change [one decision], because [evidence].
Using diffusion of innovations, we will release the game skin first to Arcadia’s 500 most active community creators, because early adopters persuade the majority (Rogers, 2003) and not every gamer is an early adopter.
Why this is a good answer: one theory, one specific decision it changes, and a reason with a citation. It does not just name the theory.
Label every AI image in your pitch: “AI-assisted concept visual; product not yet manufactured.”