CHAPTER 10 CHAPTER 10 THE FULL SCREEN THE FULL SCREEN McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright ©2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All right reserved. The Full Screen 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 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 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 A Simple Scoring Model Values Factors: 4 Points 3 Points 2 Points 1 Point 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 Student's Scores: Skiing Boating Hiking Fun 4 3 4 People 4 4 2 Affordability 2 4 4 Capability 1 4 3 Totals 11 15 13 Answer: Go boating. Figure 10.2 Source of Scoring Factor Models Source of Scoring Factor Models Figure 10.3 A Scoring Model for Full Screen 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 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 IRI (Industrial Research institute) Scoring Model 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 Alternatives to the Full Screen  Profile Sheet  Empirical Model  Expert Systems  Analytic Hierarchy Process [...]... 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... Tim ing Tim ing Mf g Tec h Mf g Tec h P ric e P ric e Mf g Tim ing Mf g Tim ing S al es Force S al es Force Diff erential Diff erential A dv antage A dv antage Products 1, 2, 3, and 4 Products 1, 2, 3, and 4 Abbreviated Output from AHP Figure 10. 9 Ranking of Alternatives: Project Overall Weight P1 0.381 P2 0.275 P3 0.175 P4 0.170 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx... 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 Goal: Select Best NPD Project Goal: Select Best NPD Project Market Fit Market Fit Tech Fit Tech Fit Dollar Risk Dollar Risk Uncer tainty Uncer tainty P roduc Line Prod . CHAPTER 10 CHAPTER 10 THE FULL SCREEN THE FULL SCREEN McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright ©2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All right reserved. The Full Screen The Full Screen  A step. Project’s Probability of Success,” Research-Technology Management, May-June 2001, pp. 5 1-5 7. Figure 10. 5 Alternatives to the Full Screen Alternatives to the Full Screen  Profile Sheet  Empirical Model  Expert. boating. Figure 10. 2 Source of Scoring Factor Models Source of Scoring Factor Models Figure 10. 3 A Scoring Model for Full Screen A Scoring Model for Full Screen Note: this model only shows a few sample screening