Concept To Commercialization: Comparing Commercial Formulas To Gold Standards

956 views

Published on

Concept To Commercialization:Comparing Commercial Formulas To Gold Standards

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Concept To Commercialization: Comparing Commercial Formulas To Gold Standards

  1. 1. Comparing Commercial Formulas to Gold Standards Getting the Most from Product Research
  2. 2. 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
  3. 3. 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
  4. 4. Is there a “gold standard” at each step of the evolution? Which one is being compared? To What?
  5. 5. Comparisons take place everywhere <ul><li>Competitor, gold standard, prototype variations, plant produced </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Against each other </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Between samples </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Formal & informal </li></ul><ul><li>Opinions, guidance, decisions </li></ul><ul><li>The all mighty WHY!!! </li></ul>
  6. 6. WHY leads to everything <ul><li>Knowing WHY leads to all the necessary answers surrounding the comparison! </li></ul><ul><li>Where are you in the process </li></ul><ul><li>Who’s opinion you require </li></ul><ul><li>What you should compare it to </li></ul><ul><li>What method you should use to compare the products </li></ul><ul><ul><li>i.e. Research, Product testing </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. Example Why’s <ul><li>I want to know if the product produced for the HUT has the same critical characteristics as the product previously tested. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Late in development but prior to go, no go </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Descriptive profiling </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Trained panelists </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Representative samples from both runs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Does the consumer prefer my product to the leading QSR meal when taking into consideration concept, cost, convenience, nutrition etc? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>After development has been completed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Concept led preference test </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Consumers of both products </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>All consumer relevant data and representative products </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. Types of Product Testing (for comparisons) <ul><li>Sensory Research & Market Research </li></ul><ul><li>Outcomes important to developer with an eye to improving/changing a product </li></ul><ul><li>vs. </li></ul><ul><li>Outcomes to identify the consumer to which the product appeals and what is important to them (Stone & Sidel, 1993) </li></ul><ul><li>Cutting/Tastings </li></ul><ul><li>Qualitative </li></ul><ul><li>Descriptive profiling </li></ul><ul><li>Discrimination </li></ul><ul><li>Acceptance/ Preference </li></ul>
  9. 9. Cuttings/Tastings <ul><li>Informal, internal reviews and comparisons of products </li></ul><ul><li>Method: Products presented blind, participants allowed to experience products and make notes followed by discussion on product </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Can take the format of almost any other kind of research technique </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Why: Increase awareness/understanding, communicate situations, update, gain buy-in </li></ul><ul><li>Subjects: Management, buyers, sponsors, team (undefined) </li></ul><ul><li>Product comparison: Any set of products chosen due to the state objective </li></ul><ul><li>Outcome: Varied on objective going in </li></ul>
  10. 10. Qualitative Research <ul><li>Consumer interactions focused on the quality of insight gained through the discussion; not necessarily able to be duplicated nsight into perspectives, behaviors, reactions </li></ul><ul><li>Method: In-depth interview, ethnographies, focus groups, diads/tiads, conflict groups, etc. </li></ul><ul><li>Why: 1 st half of process; Early exploratory, deeper understanding </li></ul><ul><li>Product comparison: Initial reaction, creative descriptions, wishes and wants </li></ul><ul><li>Subjects: Consumers/customers (8 – 40) </li></ul><ul><li>Outcome: Gain insights into perspectives, behaviors, reactions, habits; develop, strengthen, challenge hypothesis </li></ul>
  11. 11. Descriptive Profiling <ul><li>Description of sensory characteristics; a blue print or finger print of a product based on the intensity of key characteristics </li></ul><ul><li>Method: Highly trained panel utilizes a pre-determined lexicon to rate the intensities of each product. Statistics are applied to determine confidence in difference. </li></ul>
  12. 12. One type of visual result from Descriptive profiling
  13. 13. Descriptive Profiling <ul><li>Description of sensory characteristics; a blue print or finger print of a product based on the intensity of key characteristics </li></ul><ul><li>Method: Highly trained panel utilizes a pre-determined lexicon to rate the intensities of each product. Statistics are applied to determine confidence in difference. </li></ul><ul><li>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 </li></ul><ul><li>Product comparison: Competitive products, prototypes within a stage, samples from different stages </li></ul><ul><li>Subjects: Trained specialty panel (internal or external) (6-8) </li></ul><ul><li>Outcome: Repeatable, statistically defined data able to be used in the decision process. </li></ul>
  14. 14. Discrimination Testing <ul><li>Defining if two products are the same or different from each other or a control </li></ul><ul><li>Method: Paired comparison, Duo-Trio, Triangle </li></ul><ul><li>Why: Determine if two products are different (or similar) </li></ul>
  15. 15. Which one is Sweeter? Which one is Different?
  16. 16. Discrimination Testing <ul><li>Defining if two products are the same or different from each other or a control </li></ul><ul><li>Method: Paired comparison, Duo-Trio, Triangle </li></ul><ul><li>Why: Determine if two products are different (or similar) </li></ul><ul><li>Product comparison: Confirm that the differences between two products are negligible: difference should be VERY difficult to perceive, if at all </li></ul><ul><li>Subjects: Trained panel screened for their sensory acuity and attention to detail (30 responses for difference test) </li></ul><ul><li>Outcome: Confidence level (statistically backed) that the products are different or not. Data which can help in decision making. </li></ul>
  17. 17. Acceptance/Preference <ul><li>Estimates the consumer acceptance of a product based on it’s specific sensory characteristics – overall or for specific aspects individually </li></ul><ul><li>Method: Consumers are queried on their acceptance or rating of an intensity, many different scales are used; performed in laboratory, CLT, In-home use </li></ul><ul><li>Why: gain as much information as possible on consumer’s perspective on a product and it’s characteristics; compare product results </li></ul><ul><li>Types: Variety of designs, uses: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Preference tests – Appeal of one product over another, direct or implied </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Guidance test – Smaller “N” acceptance test, comparison of products with known variation, trend perspective </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Market tests – larger “N” testing; gives statistically confident comparisons </li></ul></ul>
  18. 18. Acceptance/Preference – cont. <ul><li>Uses: Liking, intensity, diagnostics, ranking, forced choice, quality rating, relationships </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Scales, questions used </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Statistical analysis used </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Products compared: Any 2 or more products </li></ul><ul><li>Subjects: Target consumers (30 – 100+) </li></ul><ul><li>Outcome: Increased understanding of which products are liked and for what reasons; used in conjunction with other research bring more insight </li></ul>
  19. 19. 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
  20. 20. <ul><li>Chef Gold Standard </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Defined the standarad </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Cuttings/Tastings </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Qualitative </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Descriptive </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Recipe standard vs Chef Gold Standard </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Effect of “defined”/commercial ingredients, control, key sensory characteristic definition/comparison </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Cuttings/Tastings </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Qualitative </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Descriptive profile comparison </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Within different Recipe Standards </li></ul>Chef Formulated Research Production Recipe Product Comparison points
  21. 21. <ul><li>Formulated standard vs Recipe Standard </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Effect of Industrial ingredients and manufacturing perspective </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Acceptance - Guidance </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Cuttings/Tastings </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Qualitative - in conjunction with Acceptance, forward thinking usage </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Descriptive profile comparisons, in conjunction with Acceptance </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Formulated standard vs Chef (gold) standard </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reference check </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Cutting/Tastings </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Descriptive profile comparisons </li></ul></ul></ul>Chef Formulated Recipe Product Comparison points Research Production
  22. 22. <ul><li>Research Standard vs Formulated Standard </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Effect of manufacturing processes and depositing, mass production </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Acceptance – Market tests </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Acceptance - Preference </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Descriptive comparison </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Cuttings/Tastings </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Research standard vs Recipe standard </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reference check </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Acceptance – Guidance </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Descriptive comparison </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Cuttings/Tastings </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Research standard vs Chef (gold) standard </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reference check </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Cuttings/Tastings </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Descriptive comparison </li></ul></ul></ul>Chef Formulated Research Recipe Product Comparison points Production
  23. 23. <ul><li>Production standard vs Research standard </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Effect of full manufacture, comparison of what was tested to what will be in the market </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Descriptive comparison </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Discrimination </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Acceptance – market </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Production standard vs Formulated standard </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reference check only, know “why” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Production standard vs Recipe standard </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reference check </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Descriptive comparison </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Cuttings/Tastings </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Production standard vs Chef standard </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reference check only, know “why” </li></ul></ul>Chef Formulated Research Production Recipe Product Comparison points <ul><ul><ul><li>Acceptance – preference </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Qualitative – in conjunction with Acceptance </li></ul></ul></ul>
  24. 24. Side Note: Defining the “Gold Standard” <ul><li>Consumer input into defining the gold standard </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Frame of reference </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Perspective of market place, choices available </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Product testing methods can be used here </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Different kind of comparisons </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Category Appraisal </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Combination of Descriptive, Acceptance, statistics </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Delivers factors influencing liking, purchase </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Consumer integrated development </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Qualitative, Acceptance – guidance, repetitive </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Approaches are unlimited – innovative interaction </li></ul></ul>
  25. 25. Comparison Comrades <ul><li>Internal </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Market Insights </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sensory Insights </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Know the project, the methods and other resources </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Budgets </li></ul></ul><ul><li>External </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Sensory consultants </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Consumer experts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Market Research firms </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>New approaches, mixing of methods, perspective on overall approach </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Speed </li></ul></ul>
  26. 26. Getting the most from product research <ul><li>Comparisons take place through out the process </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What are you comparing? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Pivotal question “WHY?” </li></ul><ul><li>Answers leads to correct method </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Qualitative </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cutting/Tasting </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Descriptive </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Discrimination </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Acceptance </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Why? = where in the process </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Options exist </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Utilize resources/references </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ask more questions!!!! </li></ul></ul>
  27. 27. References <ul><li>Used in presentation </li></ul><ul><li>Just good product research references </li></ul><ul><li>Moskowitz, Beckley, Resurreccion. 2006. Sensory and Consumer Research in Food Product Design and Development. IFT Press, Blackwell Publishing </li></ul><ul><li>Stone & Sidel. 1993. Sensory Evaluation Practices . Academic Press, Inc. </li></ul>
  28. 28. Thank you!!!! www.productdynamicsdivison.com

×