1003 Product Evaluation Framework


Published on

Slides from the Mar'10 presentation to the Cambridge Product Management Network, by Louise Mendelsohn.

1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

1003 Product Evaluation Framework

  1. 1. Product evaluation framework Louise Mendelsohn
  2. 2. Presentation objective <ul><li>To demonstrate how to design a product evaluation process to facilitate maximum product success. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Problem definition </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Problem analysis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Structured, gated product evaluation framework </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Component parts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Phase 1 evaluation </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Market and customer research </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Phase 2 evaluation </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Implementation </li></ul></ul></ul>
  3. 3. Problem definition <ul><li>Define reasons for product failure(s). </li></ul><ul><li>Analyse each issue. </li></ul><ul><li>Identify any commonality if relevant. </li></ul><ul><li>Distil into root causes and outcomes if relevant. </li></ul><ul><li>Ensure any issues identified here are catered for in the final solution – check back. </li></ul>
  4. 4. Problem analysis <ul><li>Product A </li></ul><ul><li>Brainstorm issues. </li></ul><ul><li>Bulleted list. </li></ul><ul><li>Identify commonalities. </li></ul>Product B Product C
  5. 5. Root cause of failures Outcome Outcome Common issue A Common issue B
  6. 6. Speed of adoption Benefit to adviser Ease of accessing benefit L H L H SLOW FAST
  7. 7. Implementation Rework #2 Rework #1 Common weakness IDEA
  8. 8. Implementation Market research Phase 1 evaluation Phase 2 evaluation Structured framework IDEA
  9. 9. Phase 1 evaluation - rationale <ul><li>High level data capture for initial market analysis. </li></ul><ul><li>Provides enough information for senior management or a product evaluation board to make a decision to proceed or not. </li></ul><ul><li>Gated process, so formal sign-off must happen before proceeding to next stage. </li></ul>
  10. 10. Phase 1 evaluation - content <ul><li>Product name </li></ul><ul><li>Description </li></ul><ul><li>Target segments </li></ul><ul><li>Value proposition </li></ul><ul><li>Market credibility </li></ul><ul><li>Market size </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Existing customers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>New with current solution </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>New with no solution </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Growth potential </li></ul><ul><li>Competition </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Who are they? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What do they offer? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Customer research </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Are they interested? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How is their problem solved now? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What is their willingness to pay? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>User business case </li></ul></ul><ul><li>ROM dev costs </li></ul><ul><li>Key dates </li></ul><ul><li>Fit to portfolio </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Strategic fit </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Price point fit </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Portfolio coherency fit </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Recommendations </li></ul><ul><li>Sign off </li></ul>
  11. 11. Phase 1 evaluation - report
  12. 12. Phase 2 evaluation - rationale <ul><li>Much more detailed market analysis than in Phase 1 with more facts and figures. </li></ul><ul><li>Significant customer input: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Face-to-face visits with all key segments. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Prototype or wire frame to show customers. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Structured set of questions for customers. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Results in detailed report incorporating </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Business case. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Market requirements. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Recommendations. </li></ul></ul>
  13. 13. Phase 2 evaluation - content <ul><li>Product </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Name, description </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Value proposition </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Key benefits </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fit to portfolio </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Market analysis </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Target segments </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Market credibility </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Market size </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Growth </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Customer research </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Customer segmentation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Research summary (based on structured questions) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>High level service requirements </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Commercial </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Technical </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Financials </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Pricing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Revenue and costs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Customer business case </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Competitor analysis </li></ul><ul><ul><li>List of competitors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>SWOT analysis on each </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Competitor product analysis </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Risk analysis </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Delays </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Market changes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Competitive threats </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Critical success factors </li></ul><ul><ul><li>SMART objectives for launch </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Conclusion </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Key dates </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Recommendation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Outcome and sign off </li></ul></ul>
  14. 14. Phase 2 evaluation - report
  15. 15. Conclusion <ul><li>Highly successful core service, but new products can underperform initially. </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation of existing products established a pattern. </li></ul><ul><li>Designed a structured, gated product evaluation framework. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Phase 1 evaluation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Market and customer research </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Phase 2 evaluation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Implementation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>A significant outcome was the need for clear success criteria with SMART objectives followed by post-launch reviews against objectives. </li></ul>
  16. 16. Post launch review <ul><li>Positives </li></ul><ul><li>Text book process. </li></ul><ul><li>Delivered on target and within budget. </li></ul><ul><li>Won “Best Technology Provider” at industry awards. </li></ul><ul><li>Negatives </li></ul><ul><li>Time from verbal agreement to proceed to official sign-off took too long (18 months). </li></ul><ul><li>After 18 months the assumptions/business case no longer held true (time to market, remove competitive threat etc). </li></ul><ul><li>Lost big customer to competitor, which gave them traction in the market (we have now regained the customer). </li></ul><ul><li>The market has changed dramatically (over 50% of lenders have withdrawn from the market and remaining product ranges have been cut). </li></ul>