NEW PRODUCTS MANAGEMENT Merle Crawford Anthony Di Benedetto 10 th Edition McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2011 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
PROJECT TITLE Project Leader: Team: Executive Project Sponsor (As Required): Date: Month/Day/Year 110/17/2014 V1.
Advertisements

PROJECT TITLE Project Leader: Team: Executive Project Sponsor (As Required): Date: Month/Day/Year 110/17/2014 V1.
Net Present Value and Other Investment Rules Chapter 5 Copyright © 2010 by the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Project Selection (Ch 4)
McGraw-Hill/Irwin Corporate Finance, 7/e © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 6-0 CHAPTER 6 Some Alternative Investment Rules.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2013 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2013 by The McGraw-Hill Companies,
Key Concepts and Skills
Chapter McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 9 Net Present Value and Other Investment Criteria.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin Corporate Finance, 7/e © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 6-0 CHAPTER 6 Some Alternative Investment Rules.
Project Selection and Portfolio Management
New Product and Service Development March 2007 PB.
Project Selection and Portfolio Management
LR NYU Fall 2007 Business Operations New Product Development Process.
1.
Sales Organization Structure and Sales Force Deployment Module Four.
Risk Management Chapter 7.
7-1. McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2005 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 7 Market Potential And Sales Forecasting.
14.1 © 2007 by Prentice Hall 14 Chapter Project Management: Establishing the Business Value of Systems and Managing Change.
© McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004 Information Systems Project Management—David Olson 4-1.
© 2003 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Net Present Value and Other Investment Criteria Chapter Nine.
6 Chapter Training Evaluation.
© 2002 McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., McGraw-Hill/Irwin DEVELOPING NEW PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2003 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.
Strategy Review, Evaluation, and Control
Designing Marketing Channels
Chapter 6 Designing the Marketing Channel.
NEW PRODUCTS MANAGEMENT Merle Crawford Anthony Di Benedetto 10 th Edition McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2011 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights.
Introduction to Hospitality, 6e
The New Product and Services Development Process By SK Winning Innovations for Tomorrow (WIT)
1 Copyright © 2000 by Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved. (1) 5 Module 5 Sales Organization Structure and Salesforce Deployment.
Project Selection and Portfolio Management
Role and Components of Project Evaluation
Measurement and Scaling
 Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall Chapter 7 Quality and Innovation in Product and Process Design.
© 2003 McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., McGraw-Hill/Irwin DEVELOPING NEW PRODUCTS AND SERVICES 10 C HAPTER.
Eleventh Edition 1 Introduction to Information Systems Essentials for the Internetworked E-Business Enterprise Irwin/McGraw-Hill Copyright © 2002, The.
International Business Fourth Edition.
NEW PRODUCTS MANAGEMENT Merle Crawford Anthony Di Benedetto
Chapter 13 Research and Metrics McGraw-Hill/Irwin Purchasing and Supply Management, 13/e © 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.
Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall o P.I.I.M.T o American University of Leadership Ahmed Hanane, MBA, Eng, CMA, Partner.
PROJECT TITLE Project Leader: Team: Executive Project Sponsor (As Required): Date: Month/Day/Year 6/25/2015 V2.
Implementing Strategies: Marketing, Finance/Accounting, R&D, and MIS Issues Chapter 6.
Copyright © 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Irwin/McGraw-Hill Copyright © 2001 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 1-1.
© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing Prentice Hall. Note 25 SWOT Analysis.
© 2006 McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., McGraw-Hill/IrwinSlide 10-1.
Formulating a Simulation Project Proposal Chapter3.
PROJECT TITLE Project Leader: Team: Executive Project Sponsor (As Required): Date: Month/Day/Year 16/25/2015 V2.
Strategic Management.
Copyright © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill/Irwin 11–1 CHAPTER OBJECTIVES Present a framework for evaluating alternative.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2010 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Evaluating a Company’s External Environment.
1: Marketing Research for Decision Making ESSENTIALS OF MARKETING RESEARCH Hair/Wolfinbarger/Ortinau/Bush.
The Business Plan: Creating and Starting the Venture
Supply Chain Management Purchasing/Inventory/Materials.
Chapter 3.
1 9-1 Many Ideas Are Eliminated Before Concept Testing PIC eliminates most new product ideas even before they are developed into concepts. Ideas of the.
Ashesi University COURSE TITLE : NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2008, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2008 by The McGraw-Hill Companies,
NEW PRODUCTS MANAGEMENT Merle Crawford Anthony Di Benedetto 10 th Edition McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2011 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights.
Copyright © 2007 McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited
Sales Organization Structure and Sales Force Deployment
Presentation on Project Selection
Project selection and portfolio management
Information Technology Universitas Komputer Indonesia
Measurable Organizational Value and the Business Case
Sales Organization Structure and Sales Force Deployment
Chapter 6 Designing the Marketing Channel.
Chapter 6 Designing the Marketing Channel.
6 Chapter Training Evaluation.
Chapter 6 Designing the Marketing Channel.
Presentation transcript:

NEW PRODUCTS MANAGEMENT Merle Crawford Anthony Di Benedetto 10 th Edition McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2011 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

Chapter 10 The Full Screen 10-2

Difficulties in Concept Selection One of the biggest challenges of product management. What if every project under consideration has passed all the hurdles so far? Lacking enough financial and human resources, the firm needs a good concept selection procedure, otherwise management must: –Guess (and select the wrong project) –Approve too many projects (and underfund everything). 10-3

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. 10-4

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. 10-5

Screening Alternatives Judgment/Managerial Opinion Concept Test followed by Sales Forecast (if only issue is whether consumers will like it) Scoring Models 10-6

A Simple Scoring Model Answer: Go boating. 10-7

Source of Scoring Factor Models 10-8

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

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 10-10

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

Alternatives to the Full Screen Profile Sheet Empirical Model Expert Systems Analytic Hierarchy Process 10-12

A Profile Sheet 10-13

Project NewProd Screening Model The idea is that by examining dozens of variables on real product successes and failures, one would be able to predict the likelihood of success of a new product at this early stage, and to identify weak spots that can be addressed before new product project approval. Current practices splits the screening model into two groups: must-meet and should-meet criteria. Must-meet are “yes-no” questions even one “no” screens the project out. Should-meet are scales, and high scores offset (compensate for) any low scores

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) 10-15

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) 10-16

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) An analytical technique that gathers expert judgment and uses it to make optimal decisions. In AHP screening models, the respondent identifies the key criteria in the screening decision, assessing which are the most important. Each choice (project) is rated on each criterion. The AHP software calculates scores for each project and ranks them in terms of preferability. AHP analytical models such as Expert Choice are commercially available

Diagram for Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) 10-18

Abbreviated Output from AHP Recommendation: P1 is preferred as it has the highest overall weight as calculated by AHP. How did this happen? P1 was ranked by the managers as among the highest on all of the most important criteria