Transcript Chap010.ppt

110-1
McGraw-Hill/Irwin
© 2003 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.
210-2
CHAPTER TEN
THE FULL SCREEN
310-3
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.
410-4
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.
• To help build consensus.
510-5
Screening Alternatives
• Judgment/Managerial Opinion
• Concept Test followed by Sales Forecast
(if only issue is whether consumers will like it)
• Checklists
• Scoring Models
• Grids or matrices
610-6
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
Answer: Go boating.
Values
2 Points
Little
2 to 3
Maybe
Some
Hiking
4
2
4
3
13
1 Point
None
Under 2
No
Little
Figure 10.2
710-7
Source of Scoring Factor Models
Figure 10.3
810-8
A Scoring Model for Full Screen
Figure 10.4
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...
910-9
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 (easy or hard grader)
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 or subject to “halo effect”
May lack detailed input
10-10
10
IRI Scoring Model
Figure 10.5
Technical success factors: Commercial success
factors:
•
•
•
•
Proprietary Position
Competencies/Skills
Technical Complexity
Access to and Effective Use
of External Technology
• Manufacturing Capability
•
•
•
•
•
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.
10-11
11
Alternatives to the Full Screen
• Profile Sheet
• Empirical Model
• Expert Systems
• Analytic Hierarchy Process
10-12
12
A Profile Sheet
Figure 10.6
10-13
13
Empirical Screening Model
Figure 10.7
(This example is based on Project NewProd database.)
Eight Significant Factors
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Product superiority
Overall firm/resource compatibility
Market need, growth, and size
Economic advantage of product to end user
Technological resource compatibility
Product scope (mass vs. narrow specialty)
Market competitiveness (-)
Newness to the firm (-)
10-14
14
Items Constituting the First Factor
Factor One: Product Superiority
1. Product is superior.
2. Product has unique feature.
3. Product is higher quality.
4. Product does unique task.
5. Product cuts user's costs.
6. Product is first of kind.
(There are about six items constituting each of the other
factors as well.)
10-15
15
Sample Items on Other Factors
Factor Two: Overall Company Project Fit
Good fit in terms of managerial, marketing, engineering skills;
financial, R&D, production resources
Factor Three: Market Need, Growth and Size
High need level by customers for this product class
Large, fast-growing market
Factor Four: Economic Advantage to User
Product reduces customer’s costs
Product is priced lower than competitors
10-16
16
Sample Items on Other Factors
Factor Five: Newness to the Firm
New product class, customer need served, technology,
production process, sales force or distribution
Factor Six: Technological Capability
Good fit in terms of R&D and engineering resources
Factor Seven: Market Competitiveness
Intense price competition, many competitors, many new product
introductions, changing user needs
Factor Eight: Product Scope
Market-derived new product idea, not a custom product (has
mass appeal), mass market exists for product
10-17
17
Sample Application of NewProd Screening
Model
Figure 10.8
Factor
Mean Evaluation
Project Superiority
Economic Advantage
Company-Project Fit
Tech. Compatibility
Newness to Firm
Market Need/Growth/Size
Market Competitiveness
Product Scope
1.19
-0.49
-0.16
-0.19
-0.24
0.88
-1.82
0.90
Impact
POSITIVE
negative
marginal (-)
marginal (-)
marginal (+)
POSITIVE
positive
marginal (+)
10-18
18
Pros and Cons of Project
• Pros
– 1. Product Superiority/Quality
– 6. Market Need/Growth/Size
– 7. Market Competitiveness
• Cons
– 2. Economic Advantage to User
• Marginals
– 8. Product Scope
– 5. Newness to Firm
– 4. Technology Compatibility
– 3. Overall Company-Project Fit
10-19
19
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
Figure 10.9
Goal: Select Best NPD Project
Market Fit
Tech. Fit
Dollar Risk
Uncer tainty
Prod
P
roduc
u ct tLi
Line
ne
Desi gn
P ay of fs
Unmit igated
Channel
Mat erials
Los ses
Mi tigat ed
Logis tic s
S uppl y
Tim ing
Mf g. Tec h.
P ric e
Mf g. Tim ing
S al es Force
Diff erential
A dv antage
Products 1, 2, 3, and 4
10-20
20
Partial Input to AHP
Figure 10-10
Compare Relative Importances With Respect to Goal
UNCERT
DOLLAR RISK
TECHNICAL FIT
DOLLAR RISK
(1.5)
TECHNICAL FIT
(1.6)
1.6
MARKET FIT
(1.3)
1.0
(1.4)
Legend: Row element is X times more important than column element unless enclosed in parentheses. X
can range from 1 to 9. Examples: DOLLAR RISK is 1.5 times more important than UNCERTAINTY;
DOLLAR RISK is 1.6 times more important than TECHNICAL FIT.
10-21
21
Abbreviated Output from AHP
Ranking of Alternatives:
Project Overall Weight
P1
0.381
P2
0.275
P3
0.175
P4
0.170
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Figure 10-11