Chapter 6Analytical Attribute Approaches Introduction

Chapter 6
Analytical Attribute Approaches: Introduction and Perceptual
Mapping
What are Analytical Attribute Techniques?Basic idea: products
are made up of attributes -- a future product change must
involve one or more of these attributes.Three types of
attributes: features, functions, benefits.Theoretical sequence:
feature permits a function which provides a benefit.
*
Gap AnalysisDeterminant gap map (produced from managerial
input/judgment on products)AR perceptual gap map (based on
attribute ratings by customers)OS perceptual map (based on
overall similarities ratings by customers)
*

A Determinant Gap Map
Figure 6.2
1 2 3 .... Options .... X Ideal
1
2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
Attributes
Respondents
1
2
.
.
700
.
A Data Cube
Figure 6.3
Rate each brand you are familiar with on each of the following:
Disagree Agree
1. Attractive design 1..2..3..4..5
2. Stylish 1..2..3..4..5
3. Comfortable to wear 1..2..3..4..5
4. Fashionable 1..2..3..4..5

5. I feel good when I wear it 1..2..3..4..5
6. Is ideal for swimming 1..2..3..4..5
7. Looks like a designer label 1..2..3..4..5
8. Easy to swim in 1..2..3..4..5
9. In style 1..2..3..4..5
10. Great appearance 1..2..3..4..5
11. Comfortable to swim in 1..2..3..4..5
12. This is a desirable label 1..2..3..4..5
13. Gives me the look I like 1..2..3..4..5
14. I like the colors it comes in 1..2..3..4..5
15. Is functional for swimming 1..2..3..4..5
Obtaining Customer Perceptions
Figure 6.4
Snake Plot of Perceptions
(Three Brands)
Aqualine
Islands
Sunflare
Attributes
Ratings
Figure 6.5
*
Figure 6-5
Snake Plot of Brand Ratings
Data Reduction Using Multivariate AnalysisFactor
AnalysisReduces the original number of attributes to a smaller
number of factors, each containing a set of attributes that “hang

together”Cluster AnalysisReduces the original number of
respondents to a smaller number of clusters based on their
benefits sought, as revealed by their “ideal brand”
*
No. of Factors
Percent Variance
Explained
The Scree
Selecting the Number
of Factors
Figure 6.6
Factor
Eigenvalue
Percent Variance Explained
1
6.04
40.3
2
3.34
22.3
3
0.88
5.9
4
0.74
4.9

5
0.62
4.2
6
0.54
3.6
7
0.52
3.5
8
0.44
3.0
9
0.40
2.7
Factor Loading Matrix
Figure 6.7
Attribute
Factor 1 -- “Fashion”
Factor 2 -- “Comfort”
1. Attractive design
.796
.061

2. Stylish
.791
.029
3. Comfortable to wear
.108
.782
4. Fashionable
.803
.077
5. I feel good when I wear it
.039
.729
6. Is ideal for swimming
.102
.833
7. Looks like a designer label
.754
.059
8. Easy to swim in
.093
.793
9. In style
.762
.123
10. Great appearance
.758
.208

11. Comfortable to swim in
.043
.756
12. This is a desirable label
.807
.082
13. Gives me the look I like
.810
.055
14. I like the colors it comes in
.800
.061
15. Is functional for swimming
.106
.798
Sample calculation of factor scores: From the snake plot, the
mean ratings of Aqualine on Attributes
1 through 15 are 2.15, 2.40, 3.48, …, 3.77. Multiply each of
these mean ratings by the corresponding
coefficient in the factor score coefficient matrix to get
Aqualine’s factor scores. For example, on
Factor 1, Aqualine’s score is (2.15 x 0.145) + (2.40 x 0.146) +
(3.48 x -0.018) + … + (3.77 x -0.019)
= 2.48. Similarly, its score on Factor 2 can be calculated as
4.36. All other brands’ factor scores are
calculated the same way.
Factor Scores Matrix
Figure 6.8

Attribute
0.145
-0.022
2. Stylish
0.146
-0.030
-0.018
0.213
4. Fashionable
0.146
-0.017
-0.028
0.201
-0.021
0.227
0.138
-0.020
8. Easy to swim in
0.131
0.216

9. In style
-0.021
-0.003
0.146
0.021
-0.029
0.208
0.146
-0.016
0.148
-0.024
0.146
-0.022
-0.019
0.217
The AR Perceptual Map
Figure 6.9
Aqualine
Islands

Splash
Molokai
Sunflare
Gap 1
Gap 2
Fashion
Comfort
Dissimilarity Matrix
Figure 6.10
Aqualine
Islands
Sunflare
Molokai
Splash
Aqualine
X
3
9
5
7
Islands
X
8
3
4

Sunflare
X
5
7
Molokai
X
6
Splash
X
The OS Perceptual Map
Figure 6.11
Aqualine
Islands
Splash
Molokai
Sunflare
Comfort
Fashion

Source: Adapted from Robert J. Dolan, Managing the New
Product Development Process: Cases and Notes
(Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1993), p. 102.
Comparing AR and OS Methods
Figure 6.12
AR Methods
OS Methods
Input Required
Brand ratings on specific attributes
Overall similarity ratings
Attributes must be pre-specified
Respondent uses own judgment of similarity
Analytic Procedures Commonly Used
Factor analysis; multiple discriminant analysis
Multidimensional scaling (MDS)
Graphical Output
Shows product positions on axes
Axes interpretable as underlying dimensions (factors)
Shows product positions relative to each other
Axes obtained through follow-up analysis or must be interpreted
by the researcher
Where Used
Situations where attributes are easily articulated or visualized
Situations where it may be difficult for the respondent to
articulate or visualize attributes
Failures of Gap AnalysisInput comes from questions on how
brands differ (nuances ignored)Brands considered as sets of
attributes; totalities, interrelationships overlooked; also

creations requiring a conceptual leapAnalysis and mapping may
be history by the time data are gathered and
analyzedAcceptance of findings by persons turned off by
mathematical calculations?
*
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
123456789101112131415
Factor
Eigenvalue
Percent Variance
Explained
1
6.04
40.3
2
3.34
22.3
3
0.88
5.9
4
0.74
4.9
5
0.62

4.2
6
0.54
3.6
7
0.52
3.5
8
0.44
3.0
9
0.40
2.7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
123456789
Attribute
Factor 1 --
“Fashion”
Factor 2 --
“Comfort”
.796
.061
2. Stylish
.791
.029

.108
.782
4. Fashionable
.803
.077
.039
.729
.102
.833
.754
.059
8. Easy to swim in
.093
.793
9. In style
.762
.123
.758
.208
.043
.756
.807
.082
.810
.055
.800
.061

.106
.798
Attribute
Factor 1 --
“Fashion”
Factor 2 --
“Comfort”
0.145
-0.022
2. Stylish
0.146
-0.030
-0.018
0.213
4. Fashionable
0.146
-0.017
-0.028
0.201
-0.021
0.227
0.138
-0.020
8. Easy to swim in
0.131
0.216
9. In style
-0.021
-0.003
0.146

0.021
-0.029
0.208
0.146
-0.016
0.148
-0.024
0.146
-0.022
-0.019
0.217
Aqualine
Islands
Sunflare
Molokai
Splash
Aqualine
X
3
9
5
7
Islands
X
8
3
4
Sunflare
X
5
7

Molokai
X
6
Splash
X
AR Methods OS Methods
Input Required
Brand ratings on specific attributes Overall similarity ratings
Attributes must be pre-specified Respondent uses own judgment
of similarity
Factor analysis; multiple discriminant a nalysis
Graphical Output
Axes interpretable as underlying dimensions
(factors)
Axes obtained through follow -up analysis or
must be interpreted by the researcher
Where Used
Situations where attributes are easily
articulated or visualized
Situations where it may be difficult for the
respondent to articulate or visualize attributes
PART THREE
CONCEPT/PROJECT EVALUATION

*
Concept/Project Evaluation
Figure III.1
*
Chapter 8
The Concept Evaluation System
*
The Evaluation System
Figure 8.1
*
Criteria for Early Stage Screening AssessmentUniqueness: Is
the idea original? Is it easily copied by competitors?Need
fulfillment: Does it meet a customer need?Feasibility: Can we

develop and launch it?Impact: How will our firm be
affected?Scalability: Can we become more efficient in
production?Strategic fit: Does it match with corporate strategy
and culture?
Sample Idea Screening Technique: UnileverUnilever requires
that a brief be written for each new idea under consideration,
including:Customer needTechnical specifications“ Idea solution”
(benchmarks and standards)“Must-haves” (minimum
requirements)“Killers” (what might cause it to fail)What is
already knownBudget and timeline
Cumulative Expenditures Curve
% of
expenditures
Time
Launch
Many high-tech
products
Many consumer
products
Figure 8.2
*
Risk/Payoff Matrix at Each EvaluationCells AA and BB are
“correct” decisions.Cells BA and AB are errors, but they have
different cost and probability dimensions.Usually BA (the “go”

error) is much more costly – but don’t forget opportunity
costs!Consider how “new-to-the-world” the product is as that
has an impact on the risk level.
Figure 8.3
*
Decision (
A
Stop the Project Now
B
Continue to Next Evaluation
A. Product would fail if marketed
AA
BA
B. Product would succeed if marketed
AB
BB
Planning the Evaluation System: Four ConceptsRolling
Evaluation (tentative nature of new products
process)PotholesPeopleSurrogates

*
Mortality of New Product Ideas: The Decay Curve
Rolling Evaluation (or, "Everything is Tentative")Project is
assessed continuously (rather than a single Go/No Go
decision)Financial analysis also needs to be built up
continuouslyNot enough data early on for complex financial
analysesRun risk of killing off too many good ideas
earlyMarketing begins early in the processKey: new product
participants avoid "good/bad" mindsets, avoid premature
closure
*
Potholes
Know what the really damaging problems are for your firm and
focus on them when evaluating concepts.
Examples:Campbell Soup focuses on manufacturing cost and
taste.Drug companies focus on FDA approval.Software
developers may focus on customer unwillingness to learn how
to use complex software.
*

PeopleProposal may be hard to stop once there is buy-in on the
concept.Need tough demanding hurdles, especially late in new
products process.Personal risk associated with new product
development.Need system that protects developers and offers
reassurance (if warranted).
*
SurrogatesSurrogate questions give clues to the real answer.
Real Question Surrogate Question
Will they prefer it? Did they keep the prototype product we
gave them after the concept test?
Will cost be competitive? Does it match our manufacturing
skills?
Will competition leap in? What did they do last time?
Will it sell? Did it do well in field testing?
*
An A-T-A-R Model of Innovation Diffusion
Profits = Units Sold x Profit Per Unit
Units Sold = Number of buying units
x % aware of product

x % who would try product if they can get it
x % to whom product is available
x repeat measure (what is the average number of units bought
per person per year, including repeats)
x Number of units repeaters buy in a year
Profit Per Unit = Revenue per unit - cost per unit
Figure 8.5
*
The A-T-A-R Model: DefinitionsBuying Unit: Purchase point
(person or department/buying center).Aware: Has heard about
the new product with some characteristic that differentiates
it.Available: If the buyer wants to try the product, the effort to
find it will be successful (expressed as a percentage).Trial:
Usually means a purchase or consumption of the
product.Repeat: The product is bought at least once more, or
(for durables) recommended to others.
Figure 8.6
*
A-T-A-R Model Application
10 million Number of owners of video cellphones
x 40% Percent awareness after one year
x 20% Percent of aware owners who will try product
x 70% Percent availability at electronics retailers

x 1.20 Measure of repeat (20% of customers buy a second
phone)
x $50 Price per unit minus trade margins and
discounts ($100) minus unit cost at the
intended volume ($50)
= $33,600,000 Profits
*
Points to Note About A-T-A-R Model
1. Each factor is subject to estimation.
Estimates improve with each step in the development phase.
2. Inadequate profit forecast can be improved by changing
factors and doing a “what-if” analysis.
If profit forecast is inadequate, look at each factor and see
which can be improved, and at what cost.
In our example, could retail margins be increased to increase
distribution? Could more advertising spending lead to more
awareness?
Consider qualitative issues as well (advertising theme or
execution).
*
Key Definitions in A-T-A-R ModelBuying unit: person, home,
purchasing manager, family, etc.Awareness: is the buying unit
sufficiently informed to stimulate trial (i.e., are they
knowledgeable enough?)Trial: can be actual in-home trial, on-

site trial, vicarious trial (triers share results with non-triers) –
depending on the product type.Usually requires some expense to
get the trial supply, and enough time to decide whether the
product was any good.
*
Key Definitions (continued)Availability: can the buyer easily
get to the new product? Can be percent of outlets carrying
product, or ACV (all commodity volume) which is the
percentage of the market that has access to the product in local
distribution channels.Repeat: is actually a measure of how
successful the trial was and how pleased the buying unit is.Can
be the actual repeat rate, or a proxy could be a statement of
satisfaction level or how likely the buying unit would
recommend it to others.
*
Decision
à
A
Stop the Project Now
B
Continue to Next Evaluation
A. Product would fail if
marketed
AA
BA
B. Product would succeed if
marketed

AB
BB
Chapter 7
Analytical Attribute Approaches:
Trade-Off Analysis and Qualitative Techniques
*
Trade-Off (Conjoint) AnalysisPut the determinant attributes
together in combinations or sets.Respondents rank these sets in
order of preference.Conjoint analysis finds the optimal levels of
each attribute.
*
Conjoint Analysis Input: Salsa Example
Figure 7.2
*

Thickness
Spiciness
Color
Actual Ranking*
Ranking as Estimated by Model
Regular
Mild
Red
4
4
Regular
Mild
Green
3
3
Regular
Medium-Hot
Red
10
10
Regular
Medium-Hot
Green
6
8
Regular
Extra-Hot
Red
15
16

Regular
Extra-Hot
Green
16
15
Thick
Mild
Red
2
2
Thick
Mild
Green
1
1
Thick
Medium-Hot
Red
8
6
Thick
Medium-Hot
Green
5
5
Thick
Extra-Hot
Red
13
13

Thick
Extra-Hot
Green
11
11
Extra-Thick
Mild
Red
7
7
Extra-Thick
Mild
Green
9
9
Extra-Thick
Medium-Hot
Red
14
14
Extra-Thick
Medium-Hot
Green
12
12
Extra-Thick
Extra-Hot
Red
17
18

Extra-Thick
Extra-Hot
Green
18
17
* 1 = most preferred, 18 = least preferred.
Regular Thick Ex-Thick
UTILITY
2
1
0
-1
-2
Mild Medium-Hot Ex-Hot
Red Green
Thickness Spiciness Color
0.161 0.913 -1.074 1.6670.105-1.774 -0.161
0.161
Conjoint Analysis: Graphical Output
Figure 7.3

*
Conjoint Analysis:
Relative Importance of Attributes
0 20 40 60 80 100 %
Spiciness
Thickness
Color
59.8%
34.6%
5.6%
Figure 7.3
(cont’d.)
*
Is Conjoint The Right Method?Must be able to break the
product down into discrete attributes.Customer must combine
these features rationally when evaluating brands (do you buy a
Smart Car because it’s practical and gets good mileage, or
because it’s cool?)Complex products may have too many
attributes to consider – be sure the important ones are selected.
Purchase occasion not considered.Joint decisions not considered
(does the husband or wife make the car purchase
decision?)Assumes some familiarity with the product category;
may be less useful for new-to-the-world products.Firm must be
able to act on the results!

Conjoint Analysis for More Complex ProblemsThe above
example was a full-profile conjoint analysis (all possible
combinations were included).For larger problems, a fractional
factorial design may be used (not every combination is
included, but a subset of the combinations in which each level
and each attribute is used at least a few times). Rankings and
results are similar to the full-profile analysis.More advanced
methods are needed for very complex problems, and also to
handle interactions among attributes.
*
Commercially Available Conjoint MethodsAdvanced conjoint
analysis methods available commercially include:Adaptive
conjoint analysis (respondent judges the importances of the
attributes, then responds to options that focus on the most
important attributes and levels).Choice-based conjoint analysis
(the respondent is shown several choices in combination and
asked which is preferred)Both of these procedures reduce the
number of attributes to which the respondent is exposed.
*
Virtual Prototypes in Concept TestingInformation Acceleration
(IA): applied by GM to test new electric car concepts.Uses
virtual buying environment that simulates the information
available in a purchase situation.Uses surrogate travel

technology to allow the customer to virtually walk around the
showroom and look at computer-generated car prototypes.
Some Qualitative Attribute Analysis TechniquesDimensio nal
AnalysisChecklistsRelationships AnalysisAnalogyThere are
many others.
*
A Dimensional Attribute ListWeightRust
resistanceLengthColorWater
resistanceMaterialsStyleDurabilityShock resistanceHeat
toleranceExplosivenessFlammabilityAromaTranslucenceBuoyan
cyHangabilityRechargeabilityFlexibilityMalleabilityCompressib
ility
Figure 7.4
*
An Idea Stimulator Checklist
for Industrial ProductsCan we change the physical/chemical
properties of the material?Are each of the functions really
necessary?Can we construct a new model of this?Can we change
the form of power to make it work better?Can standard
components be substituted?What if the order of the process

were changed?How might it be made more compact?What if it
were heat-treated/hardened/cured/plated?Who else could use
this operation or its output?Has every step been computerized as
much as possible?
Figure 7.5
*
Templates for CreativityAttribute Dependency: Find a
functional dependency between two attributes. Ex.: color of ink
on coffee cup is sensitive to heat and can reveal message if
coffee is too hot.Replacement: Remove a component and replace
with one from another environment. Ex.: antenna is replaced by
headphone cord on Walkman.Displacement: Remove a
component and its function to change the product. Ex.:
Removing floppy drives resulted in ultra-thin PCs.Component
Control: Find a new connection between a component internal
to the product and one external to the product. Ex.: Toothpastes
with whiteners, suntan lotions with skin moisturizers.
Source: Jacob Goldenberg and David Mazursky, Creativity in
Product Innovation, Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Figure 7.6
*

Relationships AnalysisForce combinations of dimensions
(features, functions, and benefits) together.Techniques:Two-
dimensional matrixMultidimensional (morphological)
matrixTwo-dimensional example: person/animal insured and
event insured against.Household cleaning products example
used six dimensions:Instrument used, ingredients used, objects
cleaned, type of container, substances removed, texture or form
of cleaner
*
Another Form of Dimensional Analysis
Two key dimensions for winning new product ideas:
Utility lever: How the product will affect the customer’s life
(such as simplicity, fun/image, environmental friendliness,
reduced risk, convenience, and productivity).
Buyer’s experience cycle: The stage when/where the product
will affect the customer (purchase, delivery, use, supplements,
maintenance, disposal).
Source: W. C. Kim and R. Mauborgne, “Knowing a Winning
Business Idea When You See One,” Harvard Business Review,
Sept.-Oct. 2000, pp. 129-138.
Figure 7.8
*

Morphological Matrix:
New Coffee Maker
Heating:
Heating element in pot
Open flame under pot
Microwave unit
Adding Coffee:
By spoon
Built-in measuring cap
Automatic feed
Filtering:
Filtering paper
Porous ceramic filter
Centrifuge method
Keeping Coffee Warm:
Thermal insulating technology
Warming unit in put
External heat source
Pouring Coffee:
Valve under pot
Pump in lid of pot
Espresso-like jets
*
AnalogyAirplane food systems: analogous to preparing, serving
and consuming food at home, suggesting adaptations of food
processes and furniture.Amusement park lines: park designers
were inspired by watching cattle being herded.Bicycle:
analogous to driving a car (steering, moving, turning) but key
differences suggesting new types of bicycles (e.g., electric

bikes).
Criteria for Selecting Analogous ProductsAnalogy should be
vivid and have a life of its own.It should be full of concrete
images.It should be a happening – a process of change or
activity.It should be a well-known activity and easy to visualize
and describe.
Other Methods:
Lateral Search TechniquesFree associationStereotype
activityLateral thinking -- avoidanceCreative stimuli
wordsStudying “big winners”Use of the ridiculousForced
relationships
*
Lateral Thinking -- Avoidance
Keep an idea from dominating thinking as it always has in the
past by asking avoiding questions.Ask “Is there another way of
looking at this?”Ask “Why?”Focus on an aspect of the problem
other than the “logical” one.List all possible alternatives to
every aspect of the analysis.Break apart aspects (concepts) of
the problem, or combine them to create even more concepts.
*

Some Creative Stimuli WordsGuest starsAlphabetTruthOuter
spaceCharityHis and
hersStyleNationFamilyVideotapePhotographyTestimonialsDecor
ateFantasyHobbiesHolidaysWeatherCalendarPush buttonSnob
appeal
*
Use of the RidiculousHow can you join two wires together?Hold
them with your teeth.Use chewing gum.Can you think of
others?Do any of these ridiculous ideas suggest a not-so-
ridiculous solution?
*
Thickness
Spiciness
Color
Actual
Ranking*
Ranking as
Estimated
by Model
Regular
Mild
Red
4
4

Regular
Mild
Green
3
3
Regular
Medium-Hot
Red
10
10
Regular
Medium-Hot
Green
6
8
Regular
Extra-Hot
Red
15
16
Regular
Extra-Hot
Green
16
15
Thick
Mild
Red
2
2
Thick
Mild
Green
1
1
Thick

Medium-Hot
Red
8
6
Thick
Medium-Hot
Green
5
5
Thick
Extra-Hot
Red
13
13
Thick
Extra-Hot
Green
11
11
Extra-Thick
Mild
Red
7
7
Extra-Thick
Mild
Green
9
9
Extra-Thick
Medium-Hot
Red
14
14
Extra-Thick
Medium-Hot

Green
12
12
Extra-Thick
Extra-Hot
Red
17
18
Extra-Thick
Extra-Hot
Green
18
17
* 1 = most preferred, 18 = least preferred.
Chapter 5
Finding and Solving Customers’ Problems
*
Problem-Based Concept Generation
Figure 5.1
*

Problem Analysis: General Procedure
1. Determine product or activity category for study.
2. Identify heavy users.
3. Gather set of problems associated with product
category.Avoid “omniscient proximity” -- rate importance of
benefits and levels of satisfaction.
4. Sort and rank the problems according to severity or
importance.
*
Gathering the ProblemsInternal records (routine contacts with
customers).Direct inputs from technical and marketing
departments.Problem analysis with customers (ask them what
are the problems with the current product, not what they want).
Problem Analysis Applied to the SmartphoneKeeping the unit
clean.Breaks when I drop it.Battery doesn’t stay charged l ong
enough.Finding it in dark.Battery dies in mid-conversation.Who
“out there” hears me?Dropped calls.Looking up numbers.Voice
fades in and out.Hard to hold.Health risks?Can’t cradle between
ear and shoulder.Disruptive instrument.Can’t see facial/body
language.Rings too loud/too soft.Wrong numbers.Fear of what
ringing might be for.Difficulty in looking up numbers.
Figure 5.2
*

The Bothersomeness Technique of Scoring Problems
Figure 5.3
*
List of pet owners' problems:
A
Problem Occurs
Frequently
B
Problem is
Bothersome
A x B
Need constant feeding
98%
21%
.21
Get fleas
78
53
.41
Shed hairs
70

46
.32
Make noise
66
25
.17
Have unwanted babies
44
48
.21
Problem Analysis: Sources and Methodologies ExpertsPublished
SourcesContacts with Your Business Customers or
ConsumersInterviewingFocus groupsObservation of product in
useRole playing
*
Example of Problem Analysis: Dyson’s Air Multiplier
FanConventional fan problems:Spinning blades chop
airflowHard to cleanBlades can be dangerous to childrenFan
tips overEnergy inefficient Air Multiplier: bladeless (uses
technology adapted from hand dryers), and attractively
designed.Airstream is smooth and danger is eliminatedLow
center of gravity eliminates tippingMuch more effective and
efficient coolingNo blades to clean

*
Typical Questions for Problem Analysis Focus GroupsWhat is
the real problem here – what if the product category did not
exist?What are current attitudes and behaviors of focus group
members toward the product category?What product attributes
and benefits do the focus group members want?What are their
dissatisfactions, problems, and unfilled needs?What changes
occurring in their lifestyles are relevant to the product
category?
*
Observation and Role Playing in Problem AnalysisCarmakers
send their designers out to parking lots to watch people and how
they interact with their cars (Ford called this “gorilla
research”).Honda got insights as to how large the passenger
compartments of their SUVs should be by observing U.S.
families.Bausch and Lomb generated ideas on making contact
lenses more comfortable by getting pairs of executives to act
out skits in which they played the eyeball and the contact lens.
*

Problem Analysis in ActionToyota pickups were perceived as
too small for North American tastes. Redesigned with a V8
engine and a much roomier passenger compartment.Domino’s
Pizza, for years known for average quality but fast delivery,
found that taste was frequently mentioned as a problem in focus
groups. Intense product development led to a better pizza
which is Domino’s new competitive position.
*
Scenario Analysis“Extending” vs. “leaping”Using seed trends
for an “extend“ scenarioTechniques: Follow “trend
people”/”trend areas”“Hot products”Prediction of technological
changeoverCross-impact analysis
*
Relevance Tree Form of Dynamic Leap Scenario
Figure 5.4
*
Wild Card Events and

Their ConsequencesNo-Carbon Policy: Global warming may
cause governments to put high taxes on fossil fuels, shifting
demand to alternative sources of energy. This changes the
allocation of R&D investment toward alternative energy,
possibly causes new “energy-rich” nations to emerge, and
ultimately may lead to a cleaner environment for
everyone.Altruism Outbreak: This is the “random acts of
kindness” movement – solve social problems rather than leaving
it up to the government. Schools and other institutions will
revive due to community actions, and perhaps inner cities would
be revitalized.Cold Fusion: If a developing country perfects free
energy, it becomes prosperous overnight. It gains further
advantages by becoming an energy exporter.
Figure 5.6
*
Solving the ProblemGroup Creativity
Methods/BrainstormingPrinciples of Brainstorming:Deferral of
JudgmentQuantity Breeds QualityRules for a Brainstorming
Session:No criticism allowed.Freewheeling -- the wilder the
better.Nothing should slow the session down.Combination and
improvement of ideas.
*
Brainstorming TechniquesBrainstorming circleReverse
brainstormingTear-downPhillips 66 groups (buzz groups)Delphi

method
*
Electronic BrainstormingSupported by GSS (group support
systems) software.Overcomes many drawbacks of brainstorming
(only one can talk at a time, fear of contributing, “social
loafing”).Participants sit at networked terminals.Contributions
are projected on screen, and also recorded (so no errors are
made in transcription).Can be done over multiple sites via
computer linkups or videoconferencing.Can handle larger size
groups (into the hundreds).
*
Online CommunitiesAny group that interacts using online social
networking or a similar medium.Open online communities
(Facebook)Lead user communities (tivocommunity.com)Firm-
organized communities (J&J’s babycenter.com)Private online
communities set up by service providers like MarketTools
(under 500 members)Proprietary online communities (thousands
of members that statistically represent a target market)
*

Use of Online CommunitiesListen to the voice of the
customerMonitor public communities and blogs to spot new
trends and opportunitiesEstablish rapport with customers and
enable customer supportBuild emotional bonds with the
customer
*
Online Community in Action: Del Monte Pet Food
DivisionWorking with MarketTools, analyzed data from
millions of blogs, forums, and message boards,Identified
biggest concerns of pet owners.Identified new customer segment
(“Dogs Are People, Too”)Created invitation-only online
community to encourage customer innovation (500
consumers)Community generated and refined ideas for new
breakfast product.New product, Sausage Breakfast Bites,
launched in half the normal time.
*
Drawbacks to Online CommunitiesThey are hard workCostly
and time consuming (hire moderators and facilitators)Takes
time for the community to matureOrganizing the content so it is
easy for the members to findMember privacy, confidentiality,
content ownership, and other legal issues

*
A
Problem Occurs
Frequently
B
Problem is
Bothersome
A x B
98%
21%
.21
Get fleas
78
53
.41
Shed hairs
70
46
.32
Make noise
66
25
.17
44
48
.21
PART TWO

CONCEPT GENERATION
*
Concept Generation
Figure II.1
*
Chapter 4
Creativity and the Product Concept
*
Genius Thinking StrategiesGeniuses find many different ways
to look at a problem. Einstein, for example, and da Vinci,
looked at problems from many different perspectives.Geniuses
make their thoughts visible. Da Vinci’s famous sketches, and
Galileo’s diagrams of the planets, allowed them to display
information visibly. Geniuses produce. Thomas Edison had a
quota of one invention every 10 days. Mozart was among the
most prolific composers during his short life.Geniuses make

novel combinations. Einstein found the relationship betw een
energy, mass, and the speed of light (the equation E =
mc²).Geniuses force relationships. They can make connections
where others cannot. Kekulé dreamed of a snake biting its tail,
immediately suggesting to him the circular shape of the benzene
molecule. Geniuses think in opposites. This will often suggest a
new point of view. Physicist Neils Bohr conceived of light as
being both a wave and a particle.Geniuses think metaphorically.
Bell thought of a membrane moving steel, and its similarity to
the construction of the ear, leading to the telephone
earpiece.Geniuses prepare themselves for chance. Fleming was
not the first to see mold forming on a culture, but was the first
to investigate the mold, which eventually led to the discovery of
penicillin.
Source: Michael Michalko, “Thinking Like a Genius,” The
Futurist, May 1998, pp. 21-25.
Figure 4.1
*
Historic Roadblocks to Creativity
“I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.”
Thomas Watson, Chair, IBM, 1943.
“Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons.”
Popular Mechanics, 1949.
“I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won’t last
out the year.” Business books editor, Prentice-Hall, 1957.
“So we went to Atari and said, ... ‘We’ll give it to you. We just
want to do it. Pay our salary, we’ll come work for you.’ And
they said no. So then we went to HP, and they said ‘We don’t
need you, you haven’t got through college yet.’” Steve Jobs, co-
founder, Apple Computers.

“640K of RAM ought to be enough for anybody.” Bill Gates,
Microsoft, 1981.
*
Historic Roadblocks to Creativity
“Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?” H.M. Warner, Warner
Bros., 1927.
“Stocks have reached what look to be a permanently high
plateau.” I. Fisher, Prof. of Economics, Yale, 1929.
“We don’t like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out.”
Dick Rowe, Decca Records executive, rejecting the Beatles’
demo tape, 1962.
“This ‘telephone’ has too many shortcomings to be seriously
considered as a means of communication [and] is inherently of
no value to us.” Western Union, 1876.
“Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.” Lord Kelvin,
President, Royal Society, 1895.
“Everything that can be invented has been invented.” C. H.
Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899.
*
Obstacles to Idea GenerationGroup think: We think we are
being creative, when in reality we are only coming up with
ideas that our group will find acceptable. Targeting error: We
keep going back to the same simple demographic targets (for
example, the under-35 or under-50 markets. Poor customer

knowledge: Lavish research spending doesn’t guarantee that
customer research was done well.Complexity: Creative types
within organizations, as well as senior management, often think
that the more complex the idea, the better it is (or the smarter
and more promotable they seem). Lack of empathy: These same
managers are also well-educated, high-income individuals
accustomed to an upscale lifestyle. They may simply not
understand the “typical” customer.Too many cooks: A small
new product team works fine, but large companies especially
are prone to internal competition for power and influence.
Source: Jerry W. Thomas, “In Tough Times, “Hyper-Creatives”
Provide an Advantage,” Visions, 33(3), October 2009, 24-26.
Figure 4.2
*
Barriers to Firm CreativityCross-functional diversity: Diversity
leads to more creative stimulation but also to problem solving
difficulties.Allegiance to functional areas: Team members need
to have a stake in the team’s success, or won’t be loyal to the
team.Social cohesion: If interpersonal ties among team members
are too strong, candid debate may not occur, resulting in less
innovative ideas.Role of top management: Management should
encourage the teams to be adventurous, otherwise only
incremental changes will occur.
Figure 4.3
*

The Role of Management in Stimulating CreativityRecognize
individualityBe tolerant of mistakesBe supportive under
stressTechniques include:Competitive teamsIdea bank of unused
ideas for possible reuseEncourage interaction – even in how
offices are laid out
*
Required Inputs to the Creation ProcessForm (the physical thing
created, or, for a service, the set of steps by which the service
will be created)Technology (the source by which the form is to
be attained)Benefit/Need (benefit to the customer for which the
customer sees a need or desire)
Technology permits us to develop a form that provides the
benefit.
*
Some Patterns in Concept Generation
rm
tests with customer to see what benefits are delivered
Note: the innovation process can start with any of the three
inputs.

*
What is a Product Concept?A product concept is a verbal or
prototype statement of what is going to be changed and how the
customer stands to gain or lose.Rule: You need at least two of
the three inputs to have a feasible new product concept, and all
three to have a new product.
*
Why Do You Need a Product Concept and Not Just an
Idea?Needed to judge whether it is worthy of
developmentPotential customers do not have enough
information to judge the worthiness of an idea: the product
concept gives them the required information.Ex.: Would a taxi
operator like cars with a 10 cents per mile operating cost?
(need)Not if it used Caterpillar tractor technology instead of
wheels! (need plus technology)
*
New Product Concepts and the
New Product

Need
Form
Technology
New
Product
“C”=
Concepts
C
C
C
Figure 4.4
*
The Designer Decaf ExampleBenefit: “Consumers want
decaffeinated espresso that tastes identical to regular.”Form:
“We should make a darker, thicker, Turkish-coffee-like
espresso.”Technology: “There’s a new chemical extraction
process that isolates and separates chemicals from foods; maybe
we can use that for decaffeinating espresso coffee.”
Why would each of these taken individually not be a product
concept?
*

The Toilet Brush ExampleIdea: A new and improved toilet
brush.Concept: A toilet brush that contains detergent, refillable,
and easy for the customer to attach to the handle.Product
(executions of this concept):Lysol Ready BrushScrubbing
Bubbles Fresh BrushClorox Toilet WandOthers?
*
What a Concept Is and Is Not
IS: “Learning needs of computer users can be met by using
online systems to let them see training CDs on the leading
software packages.” (good concept; need and technology clear)
IS NOT: “A new way to solve the in-home training or
educational needs of PC users.” (need only; actually more like a
wish)
IS NOT: “Let’s develop a new line of instructional CDs.”
(technology only, lacking market need and form)
*
Methods for Generating Product Concepts
Two Broad Categories of Methods:Gathering Ready-Made
Product ConceptsUsing a Managed Process Run by the New
Products Team

*
Best Sources of Ready-Made New Product ConceptsNew
Products EmployeesTechnical: R&D, engineering,
designMarketing and manufacturingEnd UsersLead
UsersResellers, Suppliers, VendorsCompetitorsThe Invention
Industry (investors, etc.)Idea exploration firms and consulting
engineersMiscellaneous (continued)
Figure 4.5
*
Best Sources of Ready-Made New Product Concepts
(continued)Miscellaneous CategoriesConsultantsAdvertising
agenciesMarketing research firmsRetired product
specialistsIndustrial designersOther
manufacturersUniversitiesResearch
laboratoriesGovernmentsPrinted sourcesInternationalInternet
Figure 4.5
*
Toolkits for User InnovationA set of design tools that customers
can use to customize a product best suited to them.Can
incorporate CAD/CAM or rapid prototyping.Example:
International Flavors and Fragrances: Internet-based toolkit that

provides a database of flavor profiles and rules on how to
combine them. Customer can specify flavor mixes that are
immediately made into samples; customer can then make
adjustments until the desired flavor is obtained.Product
configurators are a kind of user toolkit.
*
Crowdsourcing as a Creative Source
Crowdsourcing: open idea solicitation from customers.Dell’s
Idea Storm: encouraged customers to submit ideas for new
products and improvements to existing products online. Over
10,000 ideas were obtained from sources around the world.
Apple used crowdsourcing in generating ideas for the iPad.
Apple monitored reviews and blogs and also obtained Voice of
the Customer data to understand the needs of potential users.
Fiat solicited design ideas via their website when relaunching
the 500 subcompact, and claims 500,000 combinations in their
car configurator.Threadless invites contributors for T-shirt
designs, encourages users to vote for favorite designs, and
produces and sells the favorites.
*
Drawbacks of User Toolkits and CrowdsourcingMost likely to
generate modest product improvements rather than new-to-the-
world products.Typical user less likely to come up with ideas
that are easily developed into real products.Professionals, or

experienced users may have a more realistic view of what is
feasible.
Lead Users as a Creative SourceAn important source of new
product ideas.Customers associated with a significant current
trend.They have the best understanding of the problems faced,
and can gain from solutions to these problems.In many cases,
have already begun to solve their own problems, or can work
with product developers to anticipate the next problem in the
future.Example: X-Games athletes for new high-performance
snowboards.They provide design requirements and also are
early adopters and good at stimulating word-of-mouth.
*
What Should You Ask Lead Users (or Any Users)?Ask for
outcomes – what they would like the product to do for
them.Don’t ask what product improvements they
want!Customers say they want low-salt canned soup or low-fat
fast food but don’t buy them!Be “informed” by
customers.Kawasaki Jet Ski: customers said they wanted
padding and other comfort improvements for the standing rider.
But by focusing on the outcome (comfort), competitors found a
better solution (add a seat).
Open InnovationThe process by which a firm searches for
research, innovation, technologies, and products.Increases speed
of research and innovation, cuts risks, and generates new

innovative ideas.Viewed by some as the dominant innovation
model of the 21st century.Inputs can come from internal sources
(marketing, strategic planning) and external ones (customers,
market information, etc.).Sources such as inventors, startup
companies, or university laboratories are actively sought out.
*
Principles of Open InnovationAccept that “not all the smart
people work for us.”Is both in- and out-bound: obtain knowhow
technology, patents, etc.) from external partners, and also
monetize technology (through licensing, sale, etc.) that is no
longer consistent with corporate strategy.It is not outsourcing!
The external sources are viewed as complementary to internal
sources so that innovation can be more efficient.Selecting the
best partners is critical, and mutual trust is important.
*
Open Innovation at Work: P&GP&G’s “Connect and Develop”
program, designed to allow for internal intellectual property to
be marketed outside, spun off, or licensed.Avoids the “not
invented here” syndrome.To execute Connect and Develop,
P&G assigned a team to find external partners, build brand
equity, access new technologies, and create new product
categories.Examples: SunHealth

Solution
s (a P&G partner) developed the UV sensing technology used in
Huggies swimpants with UV sensors, that help parents monitor
their child’s exposure to UV radiation.Mr. Clean scrubbing
brush uses technology originally used as insulation in the auto
industry.Magic Eraser cleaning pad was sourced from a German
chemicals company, and first noticed by P&G in use in Japan.
*
Open Innovation Success Stories: P&G and Clorox
Clorox and Procter & Gamble may be fierce competitors in the
cleaning-products arena, but are also open innovation partners
elsewhere. P&G had the intellectual property for plastic
technology, in particular strong plastic film, which is the
technology used in two Clorox products: Glad Press’n Seal and
also Glad ForceFlex plastic garbage bags. P&G also brought its
global marketing expertise to the table, while Clorox

contributed the Glad brand equity, its R&D knowhow in plastics
and resins, and its organizational structure suited to marketing
plastic film products. Due to this open innovation partnership
and the key contribution of P&G to the plastics technology,
Glad sales doubled within four years, and Glad has become the
second billion-dollar brand at Clorox.
Source: Jacquelin Cooper, “How Industry Leaders Find,
Evaluate and Choose the Most Promising Open Innovation
Opportunities,” Visions, 36(1), 2012, pp. 20-23.
Figure 4.8
Open Innovation Success Stories:
Kraft Foods and Bosch/SiemensKraft Foods sought open
innovation partners for its planned Tassimo Beverage System.
While they had the food knowhow, suppliers, and distribution
channel, they needed assistance in the development and
manufacture of the coffee maker. They assessed different home
appliance manufacturers for manufacturing and R&D
capabilities and competence in the appliance product category,
and also for brand value compatibility, cultural fit, and
compatibility of business strategies. In particular, they sought a

manufacturer that shared Kraft’s attitudes toward quality,
convenience, and responsibility. Ultimately, they selected the
Bosch and Siemens Home Appliance Group.
Source: Jacquelin Cooper, “How Industry Leaders Find,
Evaluate and Choose the Most Promising Open Innovation
Opportunities,” Visions, 36(1), 2012, pp. 20-23.
Figure 4.8
More Examples of Open InnovationLego: Web forum, sites, and
blogs for participants to share and improve proucts. Result: the
on-line community was instrumental in the development of the
LEGO robotics system.Philips: Specialized facility in Singapore
(“the Innohub”) that provides realistic environments for end
users and product developers to work on breakthrough
ideas.Some are completely online systems, like the Innocreative
web community.
*

Advantages and Risks of Open Innovation
Importing new ideas multiplies innovation building blocks—
ideas and expertise, resulting in more total sales generated from
new products.
Exporting ideas raises cash (IBM gets about $2 billion per year
in patent royalties), and improves employee retention, since
creative types know that good ideas will be exported and not
buried.
Exporting signals true worth of an innovation. Eli Lilly offers
pharmaceutical licenses, but if outsiders don’t bite it suggests
the value of the new drug is perceived to be low.
Exporting clarifies core business: Boeing sticks with design and
systems integration, and often finds partners for manufacturing.
Risk: deal is not structured in a way that captures the financial
value of your innovation – ask Xerox!
Proprietary secrets can be lost to a partner, even inadvertently.
Theft of technology, or poaching of top researchers, is a
concern.
Figure 4.9

Chapter 6
Analytical Attribute Approaches: Introduction and Perceptual
Mapping
What are Analytical Attribute Techniques?Basic idea: products
are made up of attributes -- a future product change must
involve one or more of these attributes.Three types of
attributes: features, functions, benefits.Theoretical sequence:
feature permits a function which provides a benefit.
*
Gap AnalysisDeterminant gap map (produced from managerial
input/judgment on products)AR perceptual gap map (based on
attribute ratings by customers)OS perceptual map (based on
overall similarities ratings by customers)

*
A Determinant Gap Map
Figure 6.2
1 2 3 .... Options .... X Ideal
1
2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
Attributes
Respondents
1

2
.
.
700
.
A Data Cube
Figure 6.3
Rate each brand you are familiar with on each of the following:
Disagree Agree
1. Attractive design 1..2..3..4..5
2. Stylish 1..2..3..4..5
3. Comfortable to wear 1..2..3..4..5
4. Fashionable 1..2..3..4..5
5. I feel good when I wear it 1..2..3..4..5
6. Is ideal for swimming 1..2..3..4..5
7. Looks like a designer label 1..2..3..4..5
8. Easy to swim in 1..2..3..4..5
9. In style 1..2..3..4..5
10. Great appearance 1..2..3..4..5
11. Comfortable to swim in 1..2..3..4..5
12. This is a desirable label 1..2..3..4..5
13. Gives me the look I like 1..2..3..4..5

14. I like the colors it comes in 1..2..3..4..5
15. Is functional for swimming 1..2..3..4..5
Obtaining Customer Perceptions
Figure 6.4
Snake Plot of Perceptions
(Three Brands)
Aqualine
Islands
Sunflare
Attributes
Ratings
Figure 6.5
*
Figure 6-5
Snake Plot of Brand Ratings
Data Reduction Using Multivariate AnalysisFactor

AnalysisReduces the original number of attributes to a smaller
number of factors, each containing a set of attributes that “hang
together”Cluster AnalysisReduces the original number of
respondents to a smaller number of clusters based on their
benefits sought, as revealed by their “ideal brand”
*
No. of Factors
Percent Variance
Explained
The Scree
Selecting the Number
of Factors
Figure 6.6
Factor
Eigenvalue
Percent Variance Explained
1
6.04

40.3
2
3.34
22.3
3
0.88
5.9
4
0.74
4.9
5
0.62
4.2
6
0.54
3.6
7
0.52
3.5

8
0.44
3.0
9
0.40
2.7
Factor Loading Matrix
Figure 6.7
Attribute
.796
.061
2. Stylish

.791
.029
.108
.782
4. Fashionable
.803
.077
.039
.729
.102
.833
.754
.059
8. Easy to swim in
.093

.793
9. In style
.762
.123
.758
.208
.043
.756
.807
.082
.810
.055
.800
.061

.106
.798
Sample calculation of factor scores: From the snake plot, the
mean ratings of Aqualine on Attributes
1 through 15 are 2.15, 2.40, 3.48, …, 3.77. Multiply each of
these mean ratings by the corresponding
coefficient in the factor score coefficient matrix to get
Aqualine’s factor scores. For example, on
Factor 1, Aqualine’s score is (2.15 x 0.145) + (2.40 x 0.146) +
(3.48 x -0.018) + … + (3.77 x -0.019)
= 2.48. Similarly, its score on Factor 2 can be calculated as
4.36. All other brands’ factor scores are
calculated the same way.
Factor Scores Matrix
Figure 6.8
Attribute

0.145
-0.022
2. Stylish
0.146
-0.030
-0.018
0.213
4. Fashionable
0.146
-0.017
-0.028
0.201
-0.021
0.227

0.138
-0.020
8. Easy to swim in
0.131
0.216
9. In style
-0.021
-0.003
0.146
0.021
-0.029
0.208
0.146
-0.016

0.148
-0.024
0.146
-0.022
-0.019
0.217
The AR Perceptual Map
Figure 6.9
Aqualine
Islands
Splash
Molokai
Sunflare
Gap 1
Gap 2
Fashion
Comfort

Dissimilarity Matrix
Figure 6.10
Aqualine
Islands
Sunflare
Molokai
Splash
Aqualine
X
3
9
5
7
Islands
X

8
3
4
Sunflare
X
5
7
Molokai
X
6
Splash
X

The OS Perceptual Map
Figure 6.11
Aqualine
Islands
Splash
Molokai
Sunflare
Comfort
Fashion
Source: Adapted from Robert J. Dolan, Managing the New
Product Development Process: Cases and Notes
(Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1993), p. 102.
Comparing AR and OS Methods
Figure 6.12
AR Methods
OS Methods

Input Required
Brand ratings on specific attributes
Overall similarity ratings
Attributes must be pre-specified
Respondent uses own judgment of similarity
Factor analysis; multiple discriminant analysis
Graphical Output
Axes interpretable as underlying dimensions (factors)
Axes obtained through follow-up analysis or must be interpreted
by the researcher
Where Used
Situations where attributes are easily articulated or visualized
Situations where it may be difficult for the respondent to
articulate or visualize attributes
Failures of Gap AnalysisInput comes from questions on how
brands differ (nuances ignored)Brands considered as sets of

attributes; totalities, interrelationships overlooked; also
creations requiring a conceptual leapAnalysis and mapping may
be history by the time data are gathered and
analyzedAcceptance of findings by persons turned off by
mathematical calculations?
*
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
123456789101112131415
Factor
Eigenvalue
Percent Variance
Explained
1
6.04

40.3
2
3.34
22.3
3
0.88
5.9
4
0.74
4.9
5
0.62
4.2
6
0.54
3.6
7
0.52
3.5
8
0.44
3.0
9
0.40
2.7

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
123456789
Attribute
Factor 1 --
“Fashion”
Factor 2 --
“Comfort”
.796
.061
2. Stylish
.791
.029
.108
.782

4. Fashionable
.803
.077
.039
.729
.102
.833
.754
.059
8. Easy to swim in
.093
.793
9. In style
.762
.123
.758
.208
.043
.756

.807
.082
.810
.055
.800
.061
.106
.798
Attribute
Factor 1 --
“Fashion”
Factor 2 --
“Comfort”
0.145
-0.022
2. Stylish
0.146
-0.030
-0.018
0.213

4. Fashionable
0.146
-0.017
-0.028
0.201
-0.021
0.227
0.138
-0.020
8. Easy to swim in
0.131
0.216
9. In style
-0.021
-0.003
0.146
0.021
-0.029
0.208

0.146
-0.016
0.148
-0.024
0.146
-0.022
-0.019
0.217
Aqualine
Islands
Sunflare
Molokai
Splash
Aqualine
X
3
9
5
7
Islands
X
8

3
4
Sunflare
X
5
7
Molokai
X
6
Splash
X
AR Methods OS Methods
Input Required
Brand ratings on specific attributes Overall similarity ratings
Attributes must be pre-specified Respondent uses own judgment
of similarity
Factor analysis; multiple discriminant a nalysis
Graphical Output
Axes interpretable as underlying dimensions
(factors)
Axes obtained through follow -up analysis or

must be interpreted by the researcher
Where Used
Situations where attributes are easily
articulated or visualized
Situations where it may be difficult for the
respondent to articulate or visualize attributes
Chapter 2
The New Products Process
*
The Procter & Gamble Cosmetics SagaStarting point: senior
management commitment to new products.P&G’s Cosmetics
business unit had no clear product strategy, unfocused product

initiatives, and too many customer segments being targeted – in
short, a lack of focus.P&G Cosmetics skillfully used all three
strategic elements and made the weak business unit profitable.
*
P&G Cosmetics and the PICSituation Assessment:Underserved
consumer market that wanted quality facial product such as
cleansers, eye products, etc.Supply chain was uncoordinated as
production and shipments were not tied to demand; market
forecasts were not driving shipping schedules.PIC recommended
a strategic focus on products for the face – other opportunities
would not be pursued.
*
P&G Cosmetics and the New Products ProcessP&G Cosmetics

used a phased process like that of Chapter 1.Project teams
established early in process.Consumer research done early and
used in the process (the voice of the customer).Tough
evaluation steps were carefully implemented as new products
were compared to best practices and benchmarks.
*
P&G Cosmetics and the New Product PortfolioP&G Cosmetics
systematically added new products such that maximum buzz and
excitement was created in the marketplace.If already several eye
makeup products on the market, they would not immediately
launch another. Management called this an “initiative rhythm”
for product launch.
*

P&G Cosmetics and the Role of Effective Team
ManagementSenior Cosmetics executives were committed to
success as was corporate level management.Initiative Success
Managers were hired to lead strategy development, manage
evaluation meetings, train employees, etc.The best team leaders
were sought and rewarded based on performance.
*
The Phases of the New Products Process
Phase 1: Opportunity Identification/Selection
Phase 2: Concept Generation
Phase 3: Concept/Project Evaluation
Phase 4: Development
Phase 5: Launch
Figure 2.1
The Evaluation Tasks in the New Products Process
Figure 2.2

Opportunity Identification/
Selection
Concept Generation
Concept/Project Evaluation
Development
Launch
Direction;
Where should we look?
Initial Review:
Is the idea worth screening?
Full Screen:
Should we try to develop it?
Progress Reports:
Have we developed it?
Market Testing:
Should we market it?
*
Phase 1: Opportunity Identification/Selection

Active and passive generation of new product opportunities as
spinouts of the ongoing business operation. New product
suggestions, changes in marketing plan, resource changes, and
new needs/wants in the marketplace. Research, evaluate,
validate, and rank them (as opportunities, not specific product
concepts). Give major ones a preliminary strategic statement to
guide further work on it.
*
Activities that Feed Strategic Planning for New
ProductsOngoing marketing planning (e.g., need to meet new
aggressive competitor)Ongoing corporate planning (e.g., senior
management shifts technical resources from basic research to
applied product development)Special opportunity analysis (e.g.,
a firm has been overlooking a skill in manufacturing process
engineering)
*

Sources of Identified OpportunitiesAn underutilized resource (a
manufacturing process, an operation, a strong franchise)A new
resource (discovery of a new material with many potential
uses)An external mandate (stagnant market combined with
competitive threat)An internal mandate (new products used to
close long-term sales gap, senior management desires)
*
Phase 2: Concept Generation
Select a high potential/urgency opportunity, and begin customer
involvement. Collect available new product concepts that fit
the opportunity and generate new ones as well.
*

Phase 3: Concept/Project Evaluation
Evaluate new product concepts (as they begin to come in) on
technical, marketing, and financial criteria. Rank them and
select the best two or three. Request project proposal
authorization when have product definition, team, budget,
skeleton of development plan, and final PIC.
*
Stages of Concept/Project EvaluationScreening (pretechnical
evaluation)Concept testingFull screenProject evaluation (begin
preparing product protocol)
The first stages of the new products process are sometimes
called the fuzzy front end because the product concept is
still fuzzy. By the end of the project, most of the fuzz should
be removed.

*
Phase 4: Development (Technical Tasks)
Specify the full development process, and its deliverables.
Undertake to design prototypes, test and validate prototypes
against protocol, design and validate production process for the
best prototype, slowly scale up production as necessary for
product and market testing.
*
Phase 4: Development (Marketing Tasks)
Prepare strategy, tactics, and launch details for marketing plan,
prepare proposed business plan and get approval for it, stipulate
product augmentation (service, packaging, branding, etc.) and
prepare for it.

*
Phase 5: Launch
Commercialize the plans and prototypes from development
phase, begin distribution and sale of the new product (maybe on
a limited basis) and manage the launch program to achieve the
goals and objectives set in the PIC (as modified in the final
business plan).
*
The Evolution from Concept to New Product
Figure 2.3
Corresponding New Products Process Phases:

*
Methods for Accelerating Time to MarketHave a clear product
innovation charter.Have a third-generation new products
process that permits overlapping phases.Use a new product
portfolio and careful project selection to allocate scarce
resources.Focus on quality: “get it right the first time.”Have an
empowered cross-functional team.
Source: Robert Cooper (1993).
*
Additional Techniques for Accelerating Time to Market
Organization: not just an empowered team, but also effective
team leadership and focus on organizational learning and
knowledge transfer.

Intensify Resource Commitments: Integra te vendors and
resellers, get users involved and capture the Voice of the
Customer.
Design for Speed: use computer-aided design, rapid
prototyping, common components, get fast trial.
Rapid Manufacturing: standard processes, computer-aided
manufacturing, just-in-time delivery.
Rapid Marketing: Use rollouts, spend as needed to generate
awareness, offer trial purchasing.
Figure 2.4
*
What About New Services?Successful new services tend to
come from firms that use a systematic process much like the
new products process – the tools all fit.Iterations may be more
frequent since they are less expensive.Unique, superior service
must be delivered, to achieve success.Speed to market with
services is important, especially in enhancing reputation, image,
and customer loyalty.Most important adjustments have to do
with the “customized” experience of each service

customer.Therefore the human interaction between service
provider and customer is of highest importance.Consider how
the customer evaluates the service: it may be viewed as the sum
of its parts.
*
New Service ExamplesJet Blue: focused on friendliness,
customized experiences, easy communication by website, stress
on safety, gathers much customer feedback.FedEx: customers
are co-creators and provide early input, ethnographic studies
suggest opportunities such as greater access, more digital
services, and service offerings such as photocopying (hence the
purchase of Kinko’s).
*

What About New-to-the-World Products?The challenges are
different, but the first phase remains the same: opportunity
identification and development of a strategic statement.Clear
connection required between the radical innovation and the
firm’s strategic vision.A firm may establish a transition
management team to move the R&D innovation project to
business operating status.The new products process is more
exploratory: need to bring in Voice of the Customer (VOC)
early.Lead users may be critical here (see Chapter 5 discussion).
*
Managing Breakthrough InnovationIncubation StageInvolves
customer and market interaction as well as technical
development.Tolerate failure but learn from it (Google claims a
60% failure rate on innovative products).Longer and much more
expensive than typical business development, but required for
breakthrough opportunities.Discovery-Driven PlanningForecasts
and plans evolve as more information becomes available.

*
The Role of the Serial InnovatorMid-level, technical employees
who think and work differently and follow their own new
products process.Critical to firms being able to launch radical
innovations successfully and repeatedly over a long period of
time (Apple, P&G, Intel).Challenge: Identify, manage, and
properly reward the serial innovator (they are rare!).
What Does the Serial Innovator Contribute?Can bridge the gap
between technology and market, in iterative fashion.Begin by
understanding customer problem then discover technical
solutions to those problems.Oscillate between customer need
and technology solution.Can also bring in market information
(e.g., is the market demand large enough?).
The Serial Innovator “Process”Not really a process! (no steps or

fixed order).Activities include:Finding a problem important to
customers.Check potential market size and revenue
stream.Understand the problem: technology solutions,
competition, customer requirements.Determine if the problem is
interesting to customers (willing to pay) and to the firm (fit
with product strategy).Invent solution to problem and check
customer acceptance with a prototype.Get the product into
development and gain market acceptance for it.
Recognizing Serial Innovators: Innate CharacteristicsSystems
thinking (can connect disjointed information).High creativity
(though not exceedingly high).Curiosity in several areas of
interest.A knack for intuition based on expertise.A sincere
desire to solve customer problems.
Source: Griffin, Price and Vojak, Serial Innovators: How
Individuals Create and Deliver Breakthrough Innovations.
Spiral Development and the Role of PrototypesSpiral
development implies many iterations between firm and
customer. Useful for new-to-the-world products.“Build-test-
feedback-revise” process:Early non-working (focused)

prototype (e.g., cell phone made of wood or foam)Tested with
customersCustomer feedback obtained on what needs to be
changedBased on the feedback, the next prototype is prepared
and the cycle continuesNote: early prototypes may precede
customer specifications! The new products phases may be done
out of order.
Spiral Development in ActionFocused (limited-performance)
prototypesExample: Iomega Zip Drive: over 50 prototypes were
built to test out ideas with customers.Other terms
encountered:“Lickety-Stick” iterative process: non-linear, more
flexible process in which dozens of prototypes may be tried
(“lickety”) before settling on one that customers like
(“stick”).Also known as “probe-and-learn” process.
*

Chapter 3
Opportunity Identification and Selection:
Strategic Planning for New Products
*
The Strategic ElementsChapters 1 and 2 introduced the New
Products Process.This chapter presents both the Product
Innovation Charter (PIC) and the New Product Portfolio.The
PIC is a strategic plan for new products.The portfolio ensures
that products that meet financial and strategic criteria are
pursued.
*

The PIC: Why Does a Firm Need a New Products Strategy?To
chart the new product team’s directionWhat technologies?/what
markets?To set the team’s goals and objectivesWhy does it
exist?To tell the team how it will play the gameWhat are the
rules?/constraints?Any other key information to consider?
*
Figure 3-3
The Flow that Produces PICs -- Special Emphasis on Role of
Corporate and Platforms
The “Company Within A Company”This describes a new
products team as they do everything a firm does – develop a
budget, do financial analyses, assign tasks, and so on.They need
strategic direction on where they must, and must not,
go.Product team managers ask, “What sandbox should I be
playing in?” – before beginning to think of specific products.
*

Corporate Strengths Provide Direction for the Team
Figure 3.1
New products in this firm will:Use our fine furniture designers
(Herman Miller)Gain value by being bottled in our bottling
system (Coca-Cola)Utilize innovative design (Braun)Be for
babies and only babies (Gerber)Be for all sports, not just shoes
(Nike)Be for all people in computers (IBM)Be almost
impossible to create (Polaroid)Use only internal R&D (Bausch
& Lomb)Meet the needs of Ford engineers (Budd)Offer genuine
value (Lexus)
*
Product Platform Planning
Many firms find that it is not efficient to develop a single
product.
Platform: product families that share similarities in design,
development, or production process.Car industry: $3 billion
price tag on a new car platform is spread out over several

models.Sony: four platforms for Walkman launched 160 product
variations.Boeing: passenger, cargo, short- and long-haul planes
made from same platform.P&G: Liquid Ariel for European
market, Liquid Tide for North America, and Liquid Cheer for
Japanese market.Black & Decker: uses a single electric motor
for dozens of consumer power tools.
*
Opportunity Identification:
Greenfield MarketsFind another location or venue. Once
McDonald’s had taken up the best locations for traditional fast-
food restaurants, it continued its U.S. expansion by placing
stores inside Wal-Marts, in sports arenas, and elsewhere.
Starbucks Coffee complemented coffee-shop sales by selling its
coffee beans and ice creams in supermarkets.Leverage your
firm’s strengths in a new activity center. Nike has recently
moved into golf and hockey, and Honeywell is looking into
casino opportunities.Identify a fast-growing need, and adapt
your products to that need. Hewlett-Packard followed the need

for “total information solutions” that led it to develop
computing and communications products for the World Cup and
other sporting events.Find a “new to you” industry: P&G in
pharmaceuticals, GE in broadcasting (NBC), Disney in cruises,
Rubbermaid in gardening products – either through alliance,
acquisition, or internal development.
Source: Allan J. Magrath, “Envisioning Greenfield Markets,”
Across the Board, May 1998, pp. 26-30.
Figure 3.2
*
Opportunity Identification: Emerging Societal Trends“Just-in-
time” lifeSensing consumersThe transparent selfIn search of
“enoughness”Virtual made realCo-creation
Source: A. Hines, J. Calder, and D. Abraham, “Six Catalysts
Shaping the Future of Product Development,” Visions, 33(3),
October 2009, pp. 20-23.

Figure 3.3
*
What is the Product Innovation Charter (PIC)?It is the new
product team’s strategy.It is for Products (not processes).It is
for Innovation (think of the definition of new product).It is a
Charter (a document specifying the conditions under which a
firm will operate).Typically, it is a document prepared by senior
management designed to provide guidance to the strategic
business units (SBUs) on the role of innovation.
*
Do Many Firms Have a PIC?Most do, according to research,
even if they don’t call it by that name.PDMA study: 75% of
firms have a formal new product policy of some type (a partial

PIC)29% have a formal, written complete PIC. 80% of firms
have formalized at least a few of the phases in the new products
process.86% of the “Best” firms have a PIC and only 69% of the
“Rest.”According to an independent study:The more detailed
and specific the PIC, the higher are the firm’s innovation
rates.The more specific the corporate mission and senior
management direction is spelled out in the PIC, the better is the
performance of the firm’s new products.
*
The Contents of a Product Innovation Charter
Figure 3.5
*
Focus

At least one clear technology dimension and one clear market
dimension. They match and have good potential.
Guidelines
Any "rules of the road," requirements imposed by the situation
or by upper management. Innovativeness, order of market
entry, time/quality/cost, miscellaneous.
Goals-Objectives
What the project will accomplish, either short-term as
objectives or longer-term as goals. Evaluation measurements.

Background
Key ideas from the situation analysis; special forces such as
managerial dicta; reasons for preparing a new PIC at this time.
An Illustrative PIC for the Apple iPad
Focus: Technology strengths include Apple’s operating system,
hardware, applications, and services, product design and
development skills. Marketing requirements include products
on the “cutting edge” that offer seamless integration and high
performance, yet are intuitive, simple, and fun to use.
Goals: Revolutionary new products should also be platforms for
future products, due to the cost of “really new” product
development. New products should occupy the leadership
position in the market.
Special Guidelines: Apple aims to be the best, not necessarily

the first, in new product categories.
The Result: Apple’s first “tablet computer,” a revolutionary new
product seen by many at the time as the “next big thing.” No
one tablet computer had established a dominant position yet, so
Apple could be the standard bearer with the iPad. The plan for
the future was to add capabilities and applications to future
iPads.
Figure 3.6
*
Purposes of PICFocus and integrate team effortPermit
delegationEstablish the size and range of the “sandbox”
*
Risks of Poor PIC DevelopmentScope creep: Product definition

keeps changing: who is the customer? Is it a standalone product
or a platform?Unstable product specifications: Required
performance level keeps changing.
Both of these risks are elusive targets (“moving goalposts”) that
occur because the sandbox was never defined, or vaguely
defined.
*
PIC Steps: Background, Focus, and GoalsBackground: “Why did
we develop this strategy?”Focus, or Area: technology and
market drivers that (1) fit and (2) have good potential.Goals and
Objectives: profit, growth, market status.
*

PIC Steps: Special GuidelinesDegree of InnovativenessFirst-to-
marketAdaptive productImitation (emulation)TimingFirstQuick
secondSlowLateMiscellaneousAvoidance of competition with
certain firmsRecognition of weaknessesPatentabilityProduct
Integrity
*
Product Portfolio: The New Product’s Strategic FitStrategic
goals (defending current base of products versus extending the
base).Project types (fundamental research, process
improvements, or maintenance projects).Short-term versus long-
term projects.High-risk versus low-risk projects.Market
familiarity (existing markets, extensions of current ones, or
totally new ones).Technology familiarity (existing platforms,
extensions of current ones, or totally new ones).Ease of
development.Geographical markets (North America, Europe,
Asia).

*
Objectives of Product Portfolio DevelopmentStrategic
alignment: mix of products reflects the PIC; new products are
“on strategy.”Assessing portfolio value: commercial value of
products in pipeline is maximized.Project balance: select
products that balance the existing product line.Number of
projects: in line with resource requirements; avoid
underfunding.
Strategic Portfolio Model for One SBU in Exxon Chemical
Figure 3.9
*
Low Market Newness

High Market Newness
Low Product Newness
Improvements to Existing Products
(35%)
Additions to Existing Product Lines
(20%)
Medium Product Newness
Cost Reductions
(20%)
New Product Lines
(15%)
High Product Newness
Repositioning

(6%)
New-to-the-World Products
(4%)
Source: Adapted from Robert G. Cooper, Scott J. Edgett, and
Elko J. Kleinschmidt. Portfolio Management for New Products,
McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, 1997, p. 63.
A Portfolio Diagram at a Hewlett-Packard Division
Figure 3.10
*
Strategic Decision Group Portfolio Evaluation Model
Figure 3.11

Expected Commercial Value
Low
High
Probability of Technical Success
High
Low
Pearls
Bread and Butter
Oysters
White Elephants
Source: Robert G. Cooper, Winning at New Products:
Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch, second edition.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1993, p. 185.

*
Portfolio of Product Types
Source: Adapted from Scott Edgett, “Portfolio Management for
Product Innovation,” in K. B. Kahn, S. E. Kay, R. J. Slotegraaf,
and S. Uban (Eds.), The PDMA Handbook of New Product
Development (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley), 2013, Ch. 9, p. 162.
Figure 3.12DISRUPTIVE
INNOVATION
(New-to-world or new-to-firm)TECHNOLOGY
UPGRADE
(Next-generation)PRODUCT LINE EXTENSION
(Additions to product line)INCREMENTAL INNOVATION
(Improvements to existing products)Number of
Projects10%12%32%46%Resource
Allocation18%22%25%35%Incremental
Sales22%40%15%23%
Background
Key ideas from the situation analysis; special forces such as
managerial dicta; reasons for

preparing a new PIC at this time.
Guidelines
Any "rules of the road," requirements imposed by the situation
or by upper management.
Innovativeness
, order of market entry, time/quality/cost, miscellaneous.
Goals-Objectives
What the project will accomplish, either short-term as
objectives or longer-term as goals.
Evaluation measurements.
Focus
At least one clear technology dimension and one clear market
dimension. They match and
have good potential.
Low Market Newness
High Market Newness
Low Product Newness
Improvements to Existing Products
(35%)
Additions to Existing Product Lines
(20%)
Medium Product Newness
Cost Reductions
(20%)
New Product Lines

(15%)
High Product Newness
Repositioning
(6%)
New-to-the-World Products
(4%)
Source: Adapted from Robert G. Cooper, Scott J.
Edgett, and
Elko J.
Kleinschmidt.
Portfolio Management
for New Products
,
McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, 1997, p. 63.
Chapter 5
Finding and Solving Customers’ Problems

*
Problem-Based Concept Generation
Figure 5.1
*
Problem Analysis: General Procedure
1. Determine product or activity category for study.
2. Identify heavy users.
3. Gather set of problems associated with product
category.Avoid “omniscient proximity” -- rate importance of
benefits and levels of satisfaction.
4. Sort and rank the problems according to severity or
importance.
*

Gathering the ProblemsInternal records (routine contacts with
customers).Direct inputs from technical and marketing
departments.Problem analysis with customers (ask them what
are the problems with the current product, not what they want).
Problem Analysis Applied to the SmartphoneKeeping the unit
clean.Breaks when I drop it.Battery doesn’t stay charged long
enough.Finding it in dark.Battery dies in mid-conversation.Who
“out there” hears me?Dropped calls.Looking up numbers.Voice
fades in and out.Hard to hold.Health risks?Can’t cradle between
ear and shoulder.Disruptive instrument.Can’t see facial/body
language.Rings too loud/too soft.Wrong numbers.Fear of what
ringing might be for.Difficulty in looking up numbers.
Figure 5.2
*

The Bothersomeness Technique of Scoring Problems
Figure 5.3
*
A
Problem Occurs
Frequently
B
Problem is
Bothersome
A x B
98%
21%
.21

Get fleas
78
53
.41
Shed hairs
70
46
.32
Make noise
66
25
.17
44
48
.21
Problem Analysis: Sources and Methodologies ExpertsPublished

SourcesContacts with Your Business Customers or
ConsumersInterviewingFocus groupsObservation of product in
useRole playing
*
Example of Problem Analysis: Dyson’s Air Multiplier
FanConventional fan problems:Spinning blades chop
airflowHard to cleanBlades can be dangerous to childrenFan
tips overEnergy inefficient Air Multiplier: bladeless (uses
technology adapted from hand dryers), and attractively
designed.Airstream is smooth and danger is eliminatedLow
center of gravity eliminates tippingMuch more effective and
efficient coolingNo blades to clean
*

Typical Questions for Problem Analysis Focus GroupsWhat is
the real problem here – what if the product category did not
exist?What are current attitudes and behaviors of focus group
members toward the product category?What product attributes
and benefits do the focus group members want?What are their
dissatisfactions, problems, and unfilled needs?What changes
occurring in their lifestyles are relevant to the product
category?
*
Observation and Role Playing in Problem AnalysisCarmakers
send their designers out to parking lots to watch people and how
they interact with their cars (Ford called this “gorilla
research”).Honda got insights as to how large the passenger
compartments of their SUVs should be by observing U.S.
families.Bausch and Lomb generated ideas on making contact
lenses more comfortable by getting pairs of executives to act
out skits in which they played the eyeball and the contact lens.

*
Problem Analysis in ActionToyota pickups were perceived as
too small for North American tastes. Redesigned with a V8
engine and a much roomier passenger compartment.Domino’s
Pizza, for years known for average quality but fast delivery,
found that taste was frequently mentioned as a problem in focus
groups. Intense product development led to a better pizza
which is Domino’s new competitive position.
*
Scenario Analysis“Extending” vs. “leaping”Using seed trends
for an “extend“ scenarioTechniques: Follow “trend
people”/”trend areas”“Hot products”Prediction of technological
changeoverCross-impact analysis

*
Relevance Tree Form of Dynamic Leap Scenario
Figure 5.4
*
Wild Card Events and
Their ConsequencesNo-Carbon Policy: Global warming may
cause governments to put high taxes on fossil fuels, shifting
demand to alternative sources of energy. This changes the
allocation of R&D investment toward alternative energy,
possibly causes new “energy-rich” nations to emerge, and
ultimately may lead to a cleaner environment for
everyone.Altruism Outbreak: This is the “random acts of
kindness” movement – solve social problems rather than leaving
it up to the government. Schools and other institutions will

revive due to community actions, and perhaps inner cities would
be revitalized.Cold Fusion: If a developing country perfects free
energy, it becomes prosperous overnight. It gains further
advantages by becoming an energy exporter.
Figure 5.6
*
Solving the ProblemGroup Creativity
Methods/BrainstormingPrinciple s of Brainstorming:Deferral of
JudgmentQuantity Breeds QualityRules for a Brainstorming
Session:No criticism allowed.Freewheeling -- the wilder the
better.Nothing should slow the session down.Combination and
improvement of ideas.
*

Brainstorming TechniquesBrainstorming circleReverse
brainstormingTear-downPhillips 66 groups (buzz groups)Delphi
method
*
Electronic BrainstormingSupported by GSS (group support
systems) software.Overcomes many drawbacks of brainstorming
(only one can talk at a time, fear of contributing, “social
loafing”).Participants sit at networked terminals.Contributions
are projected on screen, and also recorded (so no errors are
made in transcription).Can be done over multiple sites via
computer linkups or videoconferencing.Can handle larger size
groups (into the hundreds).
*

Online CommunitiesAny group that interacts using online social
networking or a similar medium.Open online communities
(Facebook)Lead user communities (tivocommunity.com)Firm-
organized communities (J&J’s babycenter.com)Private online
communities set up by service providers like MarketTools
(under 500 members)Proprietary online communities (thousands
of members that statistically represent a target market)
*
Use of Online CommunitiesListen to the voice of the
customerMonitor public communities and blogs to spot new
trends and opportunitiesEstablish rapport with customers and
enable customer supportBuild emotional bonds with the
customer
*

Online Community in Action: Del Monte Pet Food
DivisionWorking with MarketTools, analyzed data from
millions of blogs, forums, and message boards,Identified
biggest concerns of pet owners.Identified new customer segment
(“Dogs Are People, Too”)Created invitation-only online
community to encourage customer innovation (500
consumers)Community generated and refined ideas for new
breakfast product.New product, Sausage Breakfast Bites,
launched in half the normal time.
*
Drawbacks to Online CommunitiesThey are hard workCostly
and time consuming (hire moderators and facilitators)Takes
time for the community to matureOrganizing the content so it is
easy for the members to findMember privacy, confidentiality,
content ownership, and other legal issues

*
A
Problem Occurs
Frequently
B
Problem is
Bothersome
A x B
98%
21%
.21
Get fleas
78
53
.41
Shed hairs
70
46
.32
Make noise
66
25
.17

44
48
.21

Chapter 6Analytical Attribute Approaches Introduction

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Chapter 6Analytical Attribute Approaches Introduction

Similar to Chapter 6Analytical Attribute Approaches Introduction (20)

More from JinElias52

More from JinElias52 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Chapter 6Analytical Attribute Approaches Introduction