New Products Management - CHAPTER 10 THE FULL SCREEN pps

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 commerc

CHAPTER 10

THE FULL SCREEN

McGraw-Hill/Irwin 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

Values

Degree of Fun

Number of People

Affordability

Capability

Much Over 5 Easily Very

Some

4 to 5 Probably Good

Little

2 to 3 Maybe Some

None Under 2 No Little

Answer: Go boating.

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.

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

Figure 10.4

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 (Industrial Research institute) Scoring Model

Technical success factors:

 Proprietary Position

 Competencies/Skills

 Technical Complexity

 Access to and Effective

Use of External

Technology

 Manufacturing Capability

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.

Figure 10.5

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):

 Strategic alignment

 Existence of market need

 Likelihood of technical feasibility

 Product advantage

 Environmental health and safety policies

 Return versus risk

 Show stoppers (“killer” variables)

Figure 10.7

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.)

Products 1, 2, 3, and 4

Goal: Select Best NPD Project

Market Fit Tech Fit Dollar Risk Uncertainty

Prod uct Li ne Channel Logistic s Tim ing

P ric e

S al es Force

Desi gn Mat erials

S uppl y

Mf g Tec h.

Mf g Tim ing Diff erential

A dv antage

P ay of fs Los ses

Unmit igated

Mi tigat ed

P roduc t Line

Products 1, 2, 3, and 4

Goal: Select Best NPD Project

Prod uct Li ne Channel Logistics Tim ing

P ric e

S al es Force

Desi gn Mat erials

S uppl y

Mf g Tec h.

Mf g Tim ing Diff erential

A dv antage

P ay of fs Los ses

Unmit igated

Mi tigat ed

P roduc t Line

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

Figure 10.9

Ranking of Alternatives:

Abbreviated Output from AHP

Figure 10.9