1 10-1 mcgraw-hill/irwin © 2003 the mcgraw-hill companies, inc., all rights reserved
Post on 22-Dec-2015
221 views
TRANSCRIPT
1 10-1
McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2003 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.
2 10-2
CHAPTER TEN
THE FULL SCREEN
3 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.
4 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.• To help build consensus.
5 10-5
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
6 10-6
A Simple Scoring Model
ValuesFactors: 4 Points 3 Points 2 Points 1 PointDegree of FunNumber of PeopleAffordabilityCapability
MuchOver 5EasilyVery
Some4 to 5ProbablyGood
Little2 to 3MaybeSome
NoneUnder 2NoLittle
Student's Scores: Skiing Boating HikingFun 4 3 4People 4 4 2Affordability 2 4 4Capability 1 4 3 Totals 11 15 13
Answer: Go boating.
Figure 10.2
7 10-7
Source of Scoring Factor ModelsFigure 10.3
8 10-8
A Scoring Model for Full ScreenNote: 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
9 10-9
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
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
11 10-11
Alternatives to the Full Screen
• Profile Sheet
• Empirical Model
• Expert Systems
• Analytic Hierarchy Process
12 10-12
A Profile SheetFigure 10.6
13 10-13
Empirical Screening Model
(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 (-)
Figure 10.7
14 10-14
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.)
15 10-15
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
16 10-16
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
17 10-17 Sample Application of NewProd Screening Model
Factor Mean Evaluation Impact
Project Superiority 1.19 POSITIVE
Economic Advantage -0.49 negative
Company-Project Fit -0.16 marginal (-)
Tech. Compatibility -0.19 marginal (-)
Newness to Firm -0.24 marginal (+)
Market Need/Growth/Size 0.88 POSITIVE
Market Competitiveness -1.82 positive
Product Scope 0.90 marginal (+)
Figure 10.8
18 10-18
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
19 10-19
Products 1, 2, 3, and 4
Goal: Select Best NPD Project
Market Fit Tech. Fit Dollar Risk Uncertainty
Product Line
Channel
Logistics
Tim ing
Price
Sal es Force
Desi gn
Materials
Suppl y
Mfg. Tech.
Mfg. Tim ing
DifferentialAdvantage
Payof fs
Losses
Unmit igated
Mi tigated
Product Line
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)Figure 10.9
20 10-20
Compare Relative Importances With Respect to Goal
DOLLAR RISK TECHNICAL FIT MARKET FITUNCERT (1.5) (1.6) (1.3)
DOLLAR RISK 1.6 1.0TECHNICAL FIT (1.4)
Legend: Row element is X times more important than column element unless enclosed in parentheses. Xcan 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.
Partial Input to AHPFigure 10-10
21 10-21
Ranking of Alternatives:Project Overall WeightP1 0.381 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
P2 0.275 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
P3 0.175 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
P4 0.170 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Abbreviated Output from AHPFigure 10-11