Transcript Chapters 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.ppt
Hand In Midterm…
Please Place Your Group’s paper and Evaluations in the Envelopes in Front and Hand Them In to Me…
Open Floor
Midterm Discussion…
What Went Well?
What Was Difficult?
Suggestions/Questions?
Guest Speaker Thoughts…
Characteristics
Topics
Preview…
Concept Evaluation
(Chapters 8-12)
Concept Eval System
Concept Testing
Full Screen
Sales and Forecasting
Product Protocol Group Concept Evaluation Discussion
(Time Permitting)
PART THREE
CONCEPT/PROJECT EVALUATION
McGraw-Hill/Irwin
Copyright ©2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All right reserved.
Concept/Project Evaluation
Figure III.1
CHAPTER 8
THE CONCEPT EVALUATION SYSTEM
McGraw-Hill/Irwin
Copyright ©2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All right reserved.
The Evaluation System
Figure 8.1
Cumulative Expenditures Curve
% of expenditures Many high-tech products Figure 8.2
Time Many consumer products Launch
Risk/Payoff Matrix at Each Evaluation
Figure 8.3
Decision
A. Product would fail if marketed B. Product would succeed if marketed A Stop the Project Now
AA AB
B Continue to Next Evaluation
BA BB Cells AA and BB are “correct” decisions.
Cells BA and AB are errors, but they have different cost and probability dimensions.
Planning the Evaluation System: Four Concepts Rolling Evaluation (tentative nature of new products process) Potholes People Surrogates
Rolling Evaluation (or, "Everything is Tentative") Project is assessed continuously (rather than a single Go/No Go decision) Financial analysis also needs to be built up continuously Not enough data early on for complex financial analyses Run risk of killing off too many good ideas early Marketing begins early in the process Key: new product participants avoid "good/bad" mindsets, avoid premature closure
Potholes
Know what the really damaging problems are for your firm and focus on them when evaluating concepts.
Example: Campbell Soup focuses on : 1. Manufacturing Cost 2. Taste
People
Proposal may be hard to stop once there is buy-in on the concept.
Need tough demanding hurdles, especially late in new products process.
Personal risk associated with new product development.
Need system that protects developers and offers reassurance (if warranted).
Surrogates
Surrogate questions give clues to the real answer.
Real Question
Will they prefer it? after Will cost be competitive? Will competition leap in? Will it sell?
Surrogate Question
Did they keep the prototype product we gave them the concept test?
Does it match our manufacturing skills?
What did they do last time?
Did it do well in field testing?
An A-T-A-R Model of Innovation Diffusion
Figure 8.5
Profits = Units Sold x Profit Per Unit Units Sold = Number of buying units
x % aware of product x % who would try product if they can get it x % to whom product is available x % of triers who become repeat purchasers x Number of units repeaters buy in a year
Profit Per Unit = Revenue per unit - cost per unit
The A-T-A-R Model: Definitions
Buying Unit:
Purchase point (person or department/buying center).
Aware:
Has heard about the new product with some characteristic that differentiates it.
Available:
percentage).
If the buyer wants to try the product, the effort to find it will be successful (expressed as a
Trial:
Usually means a purchase or consumption of the product.
Repeat:
The product is bought at least once more, or (for durables) recommended to others.
Figure 8.6
A-T-A-R Model Application 10 million Number of owners of video cellphones x 40% Percent awareness after one year x 20% Percent of aware owners who will try product x 70% Percent availability at electronics retailers x 20% Percent of triers who will buy a second unit x $50 Price per unit minus trade margins and discounts ($100) minus unit cost at the intended volume ($50) = $5,600,000 Profits
Points to Note About A-T-A-R Model 1. Each factor is subject to estimation.
Estimates improve with each step in the development phase.
2. Inadequate profit forecast can be improved by changing factors.
If profit forecast is inadequate, look at each factor and see which can be improved, and at what cost.
Getting the Estimates for A-T-A-R Model
Figure 8.7
Item Market Units Awareness Trial Availability Repeat Consumption Price/Unit Cost/Unit Market Research
XX X X X
Concept Test
X X XX X X
Product Use Test
X X X XX X X
Component Testing
X X X
Market Test
X X X XX X XX XX XX
xx: Best source for that item.
x: Some knowledge gained.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin
CHAPTER 9
CONCEPT TESTING
Copyright ©2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All right reserved.
Many Ideas Are Eliminated Before Concept Testing PIC eliminates most new product ideas even before they are developed into concepts.
Ideas of the following types are excluded: Ideas requiring technologies the firm does not have.
Ideas to be sold to customers about whom the firm has no close knowledge.
Ideas that offer too much (or too little) innovativeness.
Ideas wrong on other dimensions: not low cost, too close to certain competitors, etc.
Market Analysis and Initial Reaction Market analysis: in-depth study of market area that the PIC has selected for focus.
Conducted immediately after PIC approval.
Initial reaction: preliminary, inexpensive assessment of concepts, which may be flowing very quickly at this point.
Avoid “bazooka effect” (quickly blasting out concepts without forethought) Do not include idea source in initial reaction.
Respect the “fragility of ideas” -- have more than a single person involved.
Use more than pure intuition -- keep records and stay objective.
Suggested Questions for the Initial Reaction
Market Worth: new product to the targeted customer population?
what is the attractiveness of the Firm Worth: Is the new product project viewed positively by management? Does this new product project enhance the firm’s competencies?
Competitive Insulation: advantage be maintained against competitive retaliation?
Can the product’s
Concept Testing Cautions and Concerns
If the prime benefit is a personal sense (aroma, taste).
If the concept involves new art and entertainment.
If the concept embodies a new technology that users cannot visualize.
If concept testing is mishandled by management, then blamed for product failure.
If customers simply do not know what problems they have.
What Is a Product Concept Statement?
A statement about anticipated product features (form or technology) that will yield selected benefits relative to other products or problem solutions already available.
Example: “A new electric razor whose screen is so thin it can cut closer than any other electric razor on the market.” Recall the importance of getting responses to product concepts and not simply ideas (Chapter 4).
Note: Discuss ACR Category Info Here…
Purposes of Concept Testing
To identify very poor concepts so that they can be eliminated.
To estimate (at least crudely) the sales or trial rate the product would enjoy (buying intentions, early projection of market share).
To help develop the idea (e.g. make tradeoffs among attributes).
Procedure for a Concept Test
Prepare concept statement Clarify specific purposes Decide format(s) Select commercialization Determine price(s) Select respondent type(s) Select response situation Define the interview Conduct trial interviews Interview, tabulate, analyze
Some Key Issues in Concept Testing Concept statement: narrative, drawing, model?
Respondent group: Lead users? Large users?
Response situation: Where? How?
Interviewing sequence: Believable? Important? Interesting? Would it work? What problems do they see? Would they buy?
Test procedure, change and implement, study findings.
Mail Concept Test -- Verbal Description
Figure 9.1
Here is a tasty, sparkling beverage that quenches thirst, refreshes, and makes the mouth tingle with a delightful flavor blend of orange, mint, and lime.
It helps adults (and kids too) control weight by reducing the craving for sweets and between-meal snacks. And, best of all, it contains absolutely no calories.
Comes in 12-ounce cans or bottles and costs 60 cents each.
1. How different, if at all, do you think this diet soft drink would be from other available products now on the market that might be compared with it?
Very different ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Not at all different
2. Assuming you tried the product described above and liked it, about how often do you think you would buy it?
More than once a week ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Would never buy it
Mail Concept Test -- Sketch
Figure 9.2
Benefit Segmentation in Swimsuit Market
Figure 9.3
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Segment 2
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Segment 3 Segment 1
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Fashion
Joint Space Map Showing Ideal Points
3 2 Aqualine Figure 9.4
Islands Molokai 1 Splash Sunflare Fashion
Joint Space Map Showing Ideal Vectors
Aqualine Islands Molokai X Sunflare Fashion Splash Figure 9.5
McGraw-Hill/Irwin
CHAPTER 10
THE FULL SCREEN
Copyright ©2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All right reserved.
The Full Screen
A step often seen as a necessary evil, yet very powerful and with long-lasting effects.
Forces pre-technical evaluation, and summarizes what must be done.
Methods range from simple checklists to complex mathematical models.
Purposes of the Full Screen
To decide whether technical resources should be devoted to the project.
Feasibility of technical accomplishment -- can we do it?
Feasibility of commercial accomplishment -- do we want to do it?
To help manage the process.
Recycle and rework concepts Rank order good concepts Track appraisals of failed concepts To encourage cross-functional communication.
Screening Alternatives
Judgment/Managerial Opinion Concept Test followed by Sales Forecast (if only issue is whether consumers will like it) Scoring Models
A Simple Scoring Model
Factors:
Degree of Fun Number of People Affordability Capability
Student's Scores:
Fun People Affordability Capability Totals
4 Points
Much Over 5 Easily Very
Skiing
4 4 2 1 11
3 Points
Some 4 to 5 Probably Good
Boating
3 4 4 4 15
Values 2 Points
Little 2 to 3 Maybe Some
Hiking
4 2 4 3 13
1 Point
None Under 2 No Little
Answer: Go boating.
Note: Look at “cars” Excel spreadsheet
Figure 10.2
Source of Scoring Factor Models
Figure 10.3
A Scoring Model for Full Screen Note: this model only shows a few sample screening factors.
Figure 10.4
Factor Score (1-5) Weight Weighted Score Technical Accomplishment:
Technical task difficulty Research skills required Rate of technological change Design superiority assurance Manufacturing equipment...
Commercial Accomplishment:
Market volatility Probable market share Sales force requirements Competition to be faced Degree of unmet need...
The Scorers
Scoring Team: Major Functions (marketing, technical, operations, finance) New Products Managers Staff Specialists (IT, distribution, procurement, PR, HR) Problems with Scorers: May be always optimistic/pessimistic May be "moody" (alternately optimistic and pessimistic) May always score neutral May be less reliable or accurate May be easily swayed by the group May be erratic
IRI Scoring Model
Technical success factors:
Proprietary Position Competencies/Skills Technical Complexity Access to and Effective Use of External Technology Manufacturing Capability
Figure 10.5
Commercial success factors:
Customer/Market Need Market/Brand Recognition Channels to Market Customer Strength Raw Materials/Components Supply Safety, Health and Environmental Risks Source: John Davis, Alan Fusfield, Eric Scriven, and Gary Tritle, “Determining a Project’s Probability of Success,”
Research-Technology Management
, May June 2001, pp. 51-57.
Alternatives to the Full Screen
Profile Sheet Empirical Model Expert Systems Analytic Hierarchy Process
A Profile Sheet
Figure 10.6
Criteria Based on the NewProd Studies
Must-Meet Criteria (rated yes/no): Figure 10.7
Strategic alignment Existence of market need Likelihood of technical feasibility Product advantage Environmental health and safety policies Return versus risk Show stoppers (“killer” variables)
Criteria Based on the NewProd Studies (continued)
Should-Meet Criteria (rated on scales):
Strategic (alignment and importance) Product advantage (unique benefits, meets customer needs, provides value for money) Market attractiveness (size, growth rate) Synergies (marketing, distribution, technical, manufacturing expertise) Technical feasibility (complexity, uncertainty) Risk vs. return (NPV, IRR, ROI, payback)
Figure 10.7
(cont’d.)
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
Figure 10.9
Market Fit Channel Logis tic s Tim ing P ric e S al es Force Goal: S elect Best NPD Project Tech. Fit Desi gn Mat erials S uppl y Mf g. Tec h.
Mf g. Tim ing Diff erential A dv antage Dollar Risk P ay of fs Los ses Uncer tainty Unmit igated Mi tigat ed Products 1, 2, 3, and 4
Abbreviated Output from AHP
Ranking of Alternatives:
Project Overall Weight
P1 0.381
P2 P3 P4 0.275
0.175
0.170
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Figure 10.9
McGraw-Hill/Irwin
CHAPTER 11
SALES FORECASTING AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Copyright ©2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All right reserved.
Why Financial Analysis for New Products is Difficult Target users don’t know.
If they know they might not tell us.
Poor execution of market research.
Market dynamics.
Uncertainties about marketing support.
Biased internal attitudes. Poor accounting.
Rushing products to market.
Basing forecasts on history.
Technology revolutions.
Forecasters Are Often Right
Figure 11.1
In 1967 they said we would have: Artificial organs in humans by 1982.
Human organ transplants by 1987.
Credit cards almost eliminating currency by 1986.
Automation throughout industry including some managerial decision making by 1987.
Landing on moon by 1970.
Three of four Americans living in cities or towns by 1986.
Expenditures 1986.
for recreation and entertainment doubled by
Forecasters Can Be Very Wrong They also said we would have: Permanent base on moon by 1987.
Manned planetary landings by 1980.
Most urbanites living in high-rises by 1986.
Private cars barred from city cores by 1986.
Primitive life forms created in laboratory by 1989.
Full color 3D TV globally available.
Figure 11.1
(cont’d.) Note: about two-thirds of the forecasts were correct!
Source: a 1967 forecast by The Futurist journal.
Commonly Used Forecasting Techniques
Technique
Simple Regression
Time Horizon
Short Multiple Regression Short-medium Econometric Analysis Simple time series Advanced time series (e.g., smoothing) Jury of executive opinion Scenario writing Delphi probe Short-medium Short Short-medium Medium Medium-long Long
Figure 11.2
Cost
Low Moderate Moderate to high Very low Low to high, depending on method Low Moderately high Moderately high
Comments
Easy to learn More difficult to learn and interpret Complex Easy to learn Can be difficult to learn but results are easy to interpret Interpret with caution Can be complex Difficult to learn and interpret
Handling Problems in Financial Analysis Improve your existing new products process.
Use the life cycle concept of financial analysis.
Reduce dependence on poor forecasts.
Forecast what you know.
Approve situations, not numbers (recall Campbell Soup example) Commit to low-cost development and marketing.
Be prepared to handle the risks.
Don’t use one standard format for financial analysis.
Improve current financial forecasting methods.
Forecasting Sales Using Purchase Intentions Use top-two-boxes scores obtained in concept testing, appropriately adjusted or calibrated.
Example: Recall for hand cleanser from Chapter 9: Definitely buy = 5% Probably buy = 36% Based on history, calibrate as follows: 80% of “definitelies” actually buy 33% of “probablies” actually buy Forecasted market share = (0.8)(5%) + (0.33)(36%) = 16%.
Forecasting Sales Using Purchase Intentions (continued) The 16% forecast assumes 100% awareness and availability.
Adjust downwards to account for incomplete awareness and availability.
If 60% of the market is aware of the product and has it available, market share is recalculated to (0.6) (16%) = 9.6%.
Forecasting Sales Using A-T-A-R Model Assume awareness = 90% and availability =67%.
Trial rate = 16% (16% of the market that is aware of the product and has it available tries it at least once).
R S R r = proportion who switch to new product = 70%.
= proportion who repeat purchase the new product = 60%.
R t = Long-run repeat purchase = R = 63.6%.
S /(1+R s -R r ) Market Share = T x R t x Awareness x Availability The following bar chart shows this procedure graphically.
A-T-A-R Model Results: Bar Chart Format
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0.9
0.603
0.0965
0.0614
Figure 11.3
Aware Available Trial Repeat
Bass Model Forecast of Product Diffusion
Figure 11.4
The Life Cycle of Assessment
Figure 11.5
Calculating New Product’s Required Rate of Return
Figure 11.6
% Return Reqd. Rate of Return Cost of Capital Avg. Risk of Firm Risk on Proposed Product Risk
Hurdle Rates on Returns and Other Measures
Figure 11.8
Product
A B C
Strategic Role or Purpose
Combat competitive entry Establish foothold in new market Capitalize on existing markets
Sales
$3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000
Hurdle Rate
Return on Investment
10% 17% 12%
Market Share Increase
0 Points 15 Points 1 Point Explanation: the hurdles should reflect a product’s purpose, or assignment. Example: we might accept a very low share increase for an item that simply capitalized on our existing market position.
Hoechst-U.S. Scoring Model
Figure 11.9
Key Factors
Probability of Technical Success Probability of Commercial Success Reward Business-Strategy Fit Strategic Leverage 1 ……….
<20% probability <25% probability Small R&D independent of business strategy "One-of-a-kind"/ dead end 4
Rating Scale (from 1 - 10)
……….
7 ………. 10 >90% probability >90% probability Payback < 3 years R&D strongly supports business strategy Many proprietary opportunities Source: Adapted from Robert G. Cooper, Scott J. Edgett, and Elko J. Kleinschmidt.
Portfolio Management for New Products
, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, 1997, pp. 24-28.
Specialty Minerals Scoring Model Management interest Customer interest Sustainability of competitive advantage Technical feasibility Business case strength Fit with core competencies Profitability and impact
Manufacturing Firm Scoring Model (disguised) Net Present Value Internal Rate of Return Strategic Importance of Project (how well it aligns with business strategy) Probability of Technical Success Note: how in each of these examples, the model contains financial as well as strategic criteria.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin
CHAPTER 12
PRODUCT PROTOCOL
Copyright ©2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All right reserved.
A Marketing-R&D Conversation
MKTG: We’re going to be needing a solar-powered version of our standard garage door opener, soon.
R&D: How reliable should it be? Should it be controllable from inside the house? Should we use new electronics technology? Should it be separate from the collector system already installed?
MKTG: Well, you’re the technical people, make some recommendations.
R&D: In other words, you don’t know what you want.
MKTG: Cripes, do we have to tell you everything? What do you do for a living? How should we know where the collectors should be located?
R&D: If we go electronic, you’ll say it’s too expensive. If we go electric, you’ll say we’re living in the 1930s. Wherever we put the collectors you will say we are wrong. If we guess, you second-guess.
MKTG: OK. Put the collectors on the garage roof.
R&D: That probably can’t be done.
Figure 12.1
Why Have A Protocol?
Also known as product requirements, product definition, etc.
Doesn’t it seem obvious and simple?
Actually is one of the top success factors distinguishing winning from losing projects.
Maybe because it involves more than technical aspects.
Purposes of Protocol
To determine what marketing and R&D groups need to do their work.
Think concept life cycle: this is more than a simple concept statement, yet less than we will have when the first prototype is available.
Try to identify the key deliverables at this point.
To communicate essential to all players and integrate their actions, directing outcomes consistent with the full screen and financials.
To set boundaries on development process or cycle time.
To permit the development process to be managed (i.e., what needs to be done, when, why, how, by whom, whether).
Contents of a Product Protocol
Target market Product positioning Product attributes (benefits) Competitive comparison Augmentation dimensions Timing Marketing requirements Financial requirements Production requirements Regulatory requirements Corporate strategy requirements Potholes
Narrow Version of Protocol: End-User “I Want” List This is the “I Want” list for a new lawn leaf blower /vacuum. These are benefits -- how they are achieved is determined during development.
Manufacturer stands behind product -- two year full warranty.
Electrically and mechanically safe. Good value and lasts a long time -- top quality component parts, state-of-the-art manufacturing.
Makes yard clean-up easier -- most powerful blower you can buy.
Converts from blower to vacuum without tools.
Electrical cord does not come loose.
Can be used with existing extension cord.
Easy to maneuver.
Clog-free vacuuming.
Tubes go together and stay together.
A Sample Protocol: Trash Disposal System Must automate trash disposal at factory cost not to exceed $800.
Figure 12.3
Clean, ventilated, odor-free, no chance of combustion.
Must be safe enough to be operated by children; outside storage safeguards against children and animals.
Size must be small enough to work as kitchen appliance, to provide easy access and eliminate need for double handling of trash.
Simple installation Decor adaptable to different user tastes.
If design requires opening of exterior walls, structural integrity and insulation against elements must be maintained.
User-friendly, automatic operation, easy to maintain by technical servicepeople.
Quality Function Deployment (QFD) A technique designed to insure that customer needs are focused on throughout the new product project.
First step is the House of Quality (HOQ): gathers desired attributes from customers and translates them to engineering characteristics.
Requires inputs from marketing and technical personnel; encourages communication and cooperation across the functional areas.
Technologies in QFD Example
Postscript compatible Resolution Edge sharpness Duplex printing Hours training required Speed (text) Speed (graphics)
QFD and Its House of Quality
Figure 12.4
Tradeoffs in QFD Example
Improving resolution slows down text printing and really slows down graphics printing.
Increasing edge sharpness slows down both text and graphics printing.
Duplex printing speeds up text and graphics printing.
Postscript compatibility improves resolution and edge sharpness.
Moving to Later Stages of QFD
Figure 12.5
House of Quality :
Customer Attributes
Converted to:
Engineering Characteristics
Parts Deployment :
Engineering Characteristics Parts Characteristics
Converted to:
Process Planning:
Parts Characteristics Process Operations
Converted to:
Production Planning:
Process Operations
Converted to:
Production Requirements Source: Adapted from John R. Hauser and Don Clausing, “The House of Quality,”
Harvard Business Review,
May-June, 1988.
QFD Realities
Substantial cost and time commitment.
Only mixed results in some applications.
Requires top management support and commitment.
Must be viewed internally as an investment.
Requires good functional integration.
May work better if the team members have a successful track record of working together before.
Improving QFD Efficiency
Concentrate on only some of the Engineering Characteristics: the most critical, or the ones where improvements are easy to accomplish.
Organize the Engineering Characteristics into groups, and designate responsibility to functional areas.
Do cost-benefit analysis on each Engineering Characteristic to determine which provide the greatest benefit relative to cost of improvement.
Review…
Concept Evaluation
(Chapters 8-12)
Concept Eval System
Concept Testing
Full Screen
Sales and Forecasting
Product Protocol
Preview…
Development
(Chapters 8-12)
Design
Development Team Mgmt
Product Use Testing
Next Week Midterm II…
Concept Eval/Development
Discussion…
Concept Evaluation for Our Group…
Direction/Customer
Questions