• Save
Concept To Commercialization:  Comparing Commercial Formulas To Gold Standards
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Concept To Commercialization: Comparing Commercial Formulas To Gold Standards

on

  • 803 views

Concept To Commercialization:Comparing Commercial Formulas To Gold Standards

Concept To Commercialization:Comparing Commercial Formulas To Gold Standards

Statistics

Views

Total Views
803
Views on SlideShare
803
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Concept To Commercialization:  Comparing Commercial Formulas To Gold Standards Concept To Commercialization: Comparing Commercial Formulas To Gold Standards Presentation Transcript

  • Comparing Commercial Formulas to Gold Standards Getting the Most from Product Research
  • The Fried Chicken Dinner A fine dining Fried Chicken Dinner The Fried Chicken Dinner which defined a QSR A nationally branded Frozen Fried Chicken Dinner The original Fried Chicken TV Dinner
  • The evolution of a Gold Standard Chef Kitchen Best Ingredients By experience Exacting placement Only one Formulated Bench Industrial Ing. Bowls & Sauce pans Mass mftg in mind Careful placement Research Pilot plant Industrial Ing. Kettles & heat exchangers Controlled placement Production Mftg facility Industrial ingredients Batches Mass manufacture Efficient placement Recipe Kitchen Partial industrial ing. Weighed & measured Perfect placement Small scale
  • Is there a “gold standard” at each step of the evolution? Which one is being compared? To What?
  • Comparisons take place everywhere
    • Competitor, gold standard, prototype variations, plant produced
      • Against each other
      • Between samples
    • Formal & informal
    • Opinions, guidance, decisions
    • The all mighty WHY!!!
  • WHY leads to everything
    • Knowing WHY leads to all the necessary answers surrounding the comparison!
    • Where are you in the process
    • Who’s opinion you require
    • What you should compare it to
    • What method you should use to compare the products
      • i.e. Research, Product testing
  • Example Why’s
    • I want to know if the product produced for the HUT has the same critical characteristics as the product previously tested.
      • Late in development but prior to go, no go
      • Descriptive profiling
      • Trained panelists
      • Representative samples from both runs
    • Does the consumer prefer my product to the leading QSR meal when taking into consideration concept, cost, convenience, nutrition etc?
      • After development has been completed
      • Concept led preference test
      • Consumers of both products
      • All consumer relevant data and representative products
  • Types of Product Testing (for comparisons)
    • Sensory Research & Market Research
    • Outcomes important to developer with an eye to improving/changing a product
    • vs.
    • Outcomes to identify the consumer to which the product appeals and what is important to them (Stone & Sidel, 1993)
    • Cutting/Tastings
    • Qualitative
    • Descriptive profiling
    • Discrimination
    • Acceptance/ Preference
  • Cuttings/Tastings
    • Informal, internal reviews and comparisons of products
    • Method: Products presented blind, participants allowed to experience products and make notes followed by discussion on product
      • Can take the format of almost any other kind of research technique
    • Why: Increase awareness/understanding, communicate situations, update, gain buy-in
    • Subjects: Management, buyers, sponsors, team (undefined)
    • Product comparison: Any set of products chosen due to the state objective
    • Outcome: Varied on objective going in
  • Qualitative Research
    • Consumer interactions focused on the quality of insight gained through the discussion; not necessarily able to be duplicated nsight into perspectives, behaviors, reactions
    • Method: In-depth interview, ethnographies, focus groups, diads/tiads, conflict groups, etc.
    • Why: 1 st half of process; Early exploratory, deeper understanding
    • Product comparison: Initial reaction, creative descriptions, wishes and wants
    • Subjects: Consumers/customers (8 – 40)
    • Outcome: Gain insights into perspectives, behaviors, reactions, habits; develop, strengthen, challenge hypothesis
  • Descriptive Profiling
    • Description of sensory characteristics; a blue print or finger print of a product based on the intensity of key characteristics
    • Method: Highly trained panel utilizes a pre-determined lexicon to rate the intensities of each product. Statistics are applied to determine confidence in difference.
  • One type of visual result from Descriptive profiling
  • Descriptive Profiling
    • Description of sensory characteristics; a blue print or finger print of a product based on the intensity of key characteristics
    • Method: Highly trained panel utilizes a pre-determined lexicon to rate the intensities of each product. Statistics are applied to determine confidence in difference.
    • Why: To understand how two products differ; To increase understanding of characteristics important to acceptance; To determine impact of ingredient/process change on sensory characteristics
    • Product comparison: Competitive products, prototypes within a stage, samples from different stages
    • Subjects: Trained specialty panel (internal or external) (6-8)
    • Outcome: Repeatable, statistically defined data able to be used in the decision process.
  • Discrimination Testing
    • Defining if two products are the same or different from each other or a control
    • Method: Paired comparison, Duo-Trio, Triangle
    • Why: Determine if two products are different (or similar)
  • Which one is Sweeter? Which one is Different?
  • Discrimination Testing
    • Defining if two products are the same or different from each other or a control
    • Method: Paired comparison, Duo-Trio, Triangle
    • Why: Determine if two products are different (or similar)
    • Product comparison: Confirm that the differences between two products are negligible: difference should be VERY difficult to perceive, if at all
    • Subjects: Trained panel screened for their sensory acuity and attention to detail (30 responses for difference test)
    • Outcome: Confidence level (statistically backed) that the products are different or not. Data which can help in decision making.
  • Acceptance/Preference
    • Estimates the consumer acceptance of a product based on it’s specific sensory characteristics – overall or for specific aspects individually
    • Method: Consumers are queried on their acceptance or rating of an intensity, many different scales are used; performed in laboratory, CLT, In-home use
    • Why: gain as much information as possible on consumer’s perspective on a product and it’s characteristics; compare product results
    • Types: Variety of designs, uses:
      • Preference tests – Appeal of one product over another, direct or implied
      • Guidance test – Smaller “N” acceptance test, comparison of products with known variation, trend perspective
      • Market tests – larger “N” testing; gives statistically confident comparisons
  • Acceptance/Preference – cont.
    • Uses: Liking, intensity, diagnostics, ranking, forced choice, quality rating, relationships
      • Scales, questions used
      • Statistical analysis used
    • Products compared: Any 2 or more products
    • Subjects: Target consumers (30 – 100+)
    • Outcome: Increased understanding of which products are liked and for what reasons; used in conjunction with other research bring more insight
  • Back to the process: the fit Chef Formulated Research Production Recipe Scoping Development Testing/ Validation Launch Build Business Case Evolution of Gold Standard Stage Gate ™ Process Chef Formulated Research Production Recipe Product Comparison points
    • Chef Gold Standard
      • Defined the standarad
        • Cuttings/Tastings
        • Qualitative
        • Descriptive
    • Recipe standard vs Chef Gold Standard
      • Effect of “defined”/commercial ingredients, control, key sensory characteristic definition/comparison
        • Cuttings/Tastings
        • Qualitative
        • Descriptive profile comparison
    • Within different Recipe Standards
    Chef Formulated Research Production Recipe Product Comparison points
    • Formulated standard vs Recipe Standard
      • Effect of Industrial ingredients and manufacturing perspective
        • Acceptance - Guidance
        • Cuttings/Tastings
        • Qualitative - in conjunction with Acceptance, forward thinking usage
        • Descriptive profile comparisons, in conjunction with Acceptance
    • Formulated standard vs Chef (gold) standard
      • Reference check
        • Cutting/Tastings
        • Descriptive profile comparisons
    Chef Formulated Recipe Product Comparison points Research Production
    • Research Standard vs Formulated Standard
      • Effect of manufacturing processes and depositing, mass production
        • Acceptance – Market tests
        • Acceptance - Preference
        • Descriptive comparison
        • Cuttings/Tastings
    • Research standard vs Recipe standard
      • Reference check
        • Acceptance – Guidance
        • Descriptive comparison
        • Cuttings/Tastings
    • Research standard vs Chef (gold) standard
      • Reference check
        • Cuttings/Tastings
        • Descriptive comparison
    Chef Formulated Research Recipe Product Comparison points Production
    • Production standard vs Research standard
      • Effect of full manufacture, comparison of what was tested to what will be in the market
        • Descriptive comparison
        • Discrimination
        • Acceptance – market
    • Production standard vs Formulated standard
      • Reference check only, know “why”
    • Production standard vs Recipe standard
      • Reference check
        • Descriptive comparison
        • Cuttings/Tastings
    • Production standard vs Chef standard
      • Reference check only, know “why”
    Chef Formulated Research Production Recipe Product Comparison points
        • Acceptance – preference
        • Qualitative – in conjunction with Acceptance
  • Side Note: Defining the “Gold Standard”
    • Consumer input into defining the gold standard
      • Frame of reference
      • Perspective of market place, choices available
    • Product testing methods can be used here
      • Different kind of comparisons
    • Category Appraisal
      • Combination of Descriptive, Acceptance, statistics
      • Delivers factors influencing liking, purchase
    • Consumer integrated development
      • Qualitative, Acceptance – guidance, repetitive
      • Approaches are unlimited – innovative interaction
  • Comparison Comrades
    • Internal
      • Market Insights
      • Sensory Insights
      • Know the project, the methods and other resources
      • Budgets
    • External
      • Sensory consultants
      • Consumer experts
      • Market Research firms
      • New approaches, mixing of methods, perspective on overall approach
      • Speed
  • Getting the most from product research
    • Comparisons take place through out the process
      • What are you comparing?
    • Pivotal question “WHY?”
    • Answers leads to correct method
      • Qualitative
      • Cutting/Tasting
      • Descriptive
      • Discrimination
      • Acceptance
    • Why? = where in the process
      • Options exist
    • Utilize resources/references
      • Ask more questions!!!!
  • References
    • Used in presentation
    • Just good product research references
    • Moskowitz, Beckley, Resurreccion. 2006. Sensory and Consumer Research in Food Product Design and Development. IFT Press, Blackwell Publishing
    • Stone & Sidel. 1993. Sensory Evaluation Practices . Academic Press, Inc.
  • Thank you!!!! www.productdynamicsdivison.com