• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Concept To Commercialization:  Comparing Commercial Formulas To Gold Standards
 

Concept To Commercialization: Comparing Commercial Formulas To Gold Standards

on

  • 721 views

Concept To Commercialization:Comparing Commercial Formulas To Gold Standards

Concept To Commercialization:Comparing Commercial Formulas To Gold Standards

Statistics

Views

Total Views
721
Views on SlideShare
721
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