This document discusses the development of a new product called the microwave pod, which is intended to provide an easy and safe way for consumers to clean their microwaves. Market research was conducted through surveys of 47 microwave users to identify key needs and opportunities. The research found that consumers place high importance on ease of use, performance and safety features of microwaves. They were least satisfied with the ability to clean stuck-on food and adjust noise levels. Based on this, the document proposes that a microwave cleaning pod could address unmet needs around cleanliness and safety.

1. 1
of
30
Prepared
by:
70263132,
27722107
34856096,
71130132,
7141513
University
of
British
Columbia
Sauder
School
of
Business
March
27,
2014

2. Executive
Summary
Microwaves
have
been
around
for
quite
some
time
yet
there
has
been
very
little
innovation
in
past
years
both
in
terms
of
the
microwave
itself
and
complementary
products.
Food
heating
is
sometimes
a
messy
operation
and
the
fact
is
most
users
do
not
know
what
the
most
efficient
way
of
cleaning
their
microwaves
is.
Current
products
do
not
meet
their
needs
and
there
is
no
formal
solution
available,
which
explains
why
some
consumers
have
reverted
to
homemade
solutions.
With
this
in
mind,
we
have
developed
the
microwave
pod:
a
safe,
convenient
and
easy-­‐to-­‐use
solution
for
microwave
cleaning.
This
product
is
highly
innovative
and
does
not
resemble
any
product
currently
available
in
the
market.
It
applies
pod
technology,
which
consumers
are
already
familiar,
to
the
kitchen
appliance
cleaning
segment
therefore
reducing
behavioural
barriers
to
product
adoption.
The
Product:
The
microwave
pod
can
be
described
as
a
plastic
container
filled
with
an
all-­‐natural
liquid
or
gelatine
containing
vinegar,
lemon
juice,
or
citrus
oil.
The
user
will
just
have
to
place
the
pod
inside
the
microwave
and
remove
the
plastic
cover
before
turning
the
heating
on
for
three
minutes,
allowing
the
liquid/gelatine
to
vaporize
through
the
small
punctured
holes
under
the
cover
and
fix
itself
on
the
inside
of
the
microwave.
After
that,
the
user
just
has
to
let
the
pod
cool
off
two
minutes
before
removing
it
and
wiping
off
the
vaporized
liquid.
This
constitutes
a
much
safer
alternative
to
the
consumer
practice
of
boiling
water
or
vinegar
in
a
bowl
to
clean
their
microwaves.
The
pod
will
have
a
distinctive
lemon
shape
serving
a
twofold
purpose:
first,
it
will
enhance
brand
recognition
and
secondly,
it
will
convince
consumers
that
the
microwave
pod
contains
100%
natural
products
therefore
eliminating
the
risk
of
toxic
chemicals
getting
into
their
food.
Total
Market:
Microwaves
are
found
in
over
95%
of
homes
in
the
United
States
and
Canada,
and
have
significant
growth
potential
in
developing
countries
(Euromonitor,
2013).
This
high
penetration
rate
makes
the
development
of
a
complementary
product
highly
appealing,
as
opposed
to
developing
a
new
type
of
microwave.
Furthermore,
the
Canadian
microwave
industry
is
an
attractive
market
to
enter
because
of
its
huge
size,
low
investment
costs
and
recent
consumer
trends:
In
2012,
1.7
million
units
were
sold
in
Canada
and
lifestyle
trends
indicated
a
shift
towards
convenience
and
subsequently
microwaveable
meals
(Euromonitor,
2013).
2
of
30

3. Target
market:
There
are
two
different
target
markets
according
to
where
the
microwave
is
used:
in-­‐home
users
and
out
of
home
users.
In
our
new
product
proposal,
we
decided
to
focus
on
the
in-­‐home
segment
as
consumers
in
this
segment
display
a
behaviour
that
matches
our
solution
(they
are
the
owners
of
the
microwave
and
are
therefore
more
inclined
to
take
care
of
it,
clean
it
etc.).
This
includes
landlords,
students,
families,
bachelors
and
professionals.
Part
1:
Trade-­‐Off
Decisions
&
Final
Concept
Formulation
a)
Trade-­‐Off
Matrix
Alterations
made
to
different
need
areas
will
often
have
various
effects
on
one
another.
An
in-­‐
depth
analysis
of
possible
trade-­‐offs
was
conducted
in
order
to
determine
the
impact
of
changing
different
microwave
need
areas.
While
many
of
these
need
areas
seem
to
exist
independently,
positive
and
negative
relationships
are
apparent
(see
Appendix
A).
b)
Primary
Research
and
Opportunity
Scores
The
goal
of
this
research
was
to
identify
which
consumer
needs
were
not
being
met
based
on
the
importance
and
satisfaction
ratings
of
each
need
area.
Other
basic
questions
were
asked
in
order
to
obtain
further
insights
into
consumer
behaviour
and
microwave
usage.
We
conducted
a
survey
and
obtained
responses
from
a
sample
size
of
47
in-­‐home
users
who
varied
in
terms
of
demographics
and
user
segments
therefore
giving
us
a
reliable
overall
image
of
consumer
needs/desires.
Respondents
included
parents,
seniors,
students,
young
professionals,
and
single
bachelors
(See
Appendix
D).
Opportunity
scores
derived
from
survey
data
were
calculated
for
all
potential
need
areas
(Appendix
B).
The
highest
opportunity
scores
are
stated
below:
Importance+
Score
Ease3of3Use343easy3and3quick3to3choose3cooking3time
Ease3of3Use343easy3to3open3the3door
Cleanliness343ability3to3take3out3and3clean3turntable
Safety343risk3of3radiation
Safety343risk3of3fire3from3heating3of3metallic3objects
3
of
30
Satisfaction+
Score
Opportunity+
Score
8.49 8.43 8.55
8.49 8.36 8.62
8 7.24 8.76
8.29 7.76 8.82
8.27 7.6 8.94
8.08 7.1 9.06
8.51 7.95 9.07
8.41 7.71 9.11
8.1 6.88 9.32
8.92 7.52 10.32
USER+NEED
Cleanliness343ability3to3clean3newly3spilled3food
Ease3of3Use343easy3to3navigate3the3menu3options
Performance343high3speed3cooking/reheating
Cleanliness343ability3to3clean3stuck3on3food
Performance343even3cooking/reheating
Importance+Scale:+10+1+Very+Important,+1+1+Very+Unimportant
Satisfaction+Scale:+10+1+Very+Satisfied,+1+1+Very+Unsatisfied

4. c)
Trade-­‐Off
Matrix
and
Primary
Research
Implications
We
discovered
from
our
survey
that
people
do
not
have
particularly
strong
feelings/concerns
(positive
or
negative)
towards
the
various
microwave
need
areas.
All
features
listed
had
similar
importance
ratings
on
average
with
a
standard
deviation
of
only
0.89.
The
same
was
true
for
satisfaction
ratings,
for
which
the
average
standard
deviation
between
respondents
was
only
0.60.
There
was
slightly
more
variability
in
terms
of
the
ratings
of
each
individual
need
area:
the
average
standard
deviation
amongst
all
features
based
on
importance
and
on
satisfaction
were
2.30
and
2.20
respectively.
The
main
outlier
in
terms
of
variability
lied
within
the
importance
ratings
of
pre-­‐set
cooking
times.
That
being
said,
conclusions
can
be
drawn
regarding
what
respondents
consider
important
and
what
they
are
currently
not
satisfied
with.
Based
on
the
importance
rating,
respondents
indicated
that
they
consider
the
following
need
areas
most
important
in
microwaves:
·∙
Performance
-­‐
high
speed
cooking/reheating
·∙
Ease
of
Use
-­‐
easy
and
quick
to
choose
cooking
time
·∙
Ease
of
Use
-­‐
easy
to
open
the
door
·∙
Ease
of
Use
-­‐
easy
to
navigate
the
menu
options
·∙
Performance
-­‐
even
cooking/reheating
Based
on
the
satisfaction
ratings,
respondents
indicated
that
they
are
most
unsatisfied
with
the
following
need
areas:
·∙
Feature
-­‐
adjustable
noise/tone
volume
·∙
Microwave
Noise
-­‐
the
noise
level
·∙
Cleanliness
-­‐
ability
to
clean
stuck-­‐on
food
·∙
Feature
-­‐
food
specific,
pre-­‐set
cooking
times
·∙
Performance
-­‐
ability
to
prevent
food
odour
·∙
Cleanliness
-­‐
ability
to
clean
newly
spilled
food
·∙
Cleanliness
-­‐
ability
to
take
out
and
clean
turntable
The
features
considered
most
important
did
not
come
as
a
surprise
since
many
were
linked
with
the
primary
functions
of
the
microwave.
However,
It
was
surprising
to
learn
that
microwave
aesthetics
and
the
ability
to
use
food-­‐specific
pre-­‐set
times
were
rated
as
relatively
unimportant:
secondary
research
from
a
Euromonitor
International
report
on
Microwaves
in
Canada
had
indicated
these
as
two
prevailing
trends
(Euromonitor
International,
2013).
It
was
also
surprising
to
discover
that
people
were
unsatisfied
with
the
noise
level
of
microwaves
(we
were
unaware
of
this
problem
as
cooking
times
are
relatively
short).
Finally,
it
was
surprising
to
learn
that
people
were
satisfied
with
the
amount
of
space
the
microwave
takes
up
as
this
was
expressed
as
an
area
of
concern
in
our
initial
primary
research
(see
interviews
in
Idea
Generation
report).
On
the
other
hand,
it
was
not
surprising
to
learn
that
people
were
least
satisfied
with
the
microwave
cleaning
process
as
there
is
no
formal
solution
available
in
the
marketplace
or
that
people
were
satisfied
with
clocks/timers,
which
are
commonly
used
in
the
kitchen.
4
of
30

5. The
opportunity
scores
calculated
also
demonstrated
limited
variability,
the
standard
deviation
across
all
need
areas
being
only
1.5.
We
still
managed
to
identify
a
few
need
areas
that
looked
more
promising
than
others
and
offered
room
for
improvement.
The
features
with
the
highest
opportunity
scores
were
the
following:
·∙
Cleanliness
-­‐
ability
to
take
out
and
clean
turntable
·∙
Safety
-­‐
risk
of
radiation
·∙
Safety
-­‐
risk
of
fire
from
heating
of
metallic
objects
·∙
Cleanliness
-­‐
ability
to
clean
newly
spilled
food
·∙
Ease
of
Use
-­‐
easy
to
navigate
the
menu
options
·∙
Performance
-­‐
high
speed
cooking/reheating
·∙
Cleanliness
-­‐
ability
to
clean
stuck
on
food
·∙
Performance
-­‐
even
cooking/reheating
Based
on
these
insights,
we
were
able
to
compare
the
need
areas
presenting
the
highest
opportunity
costs
with
other
need
areas
in
our
trade-­‐off
matrix.
This
helped
us
to
decide
on
which
need
areas
to
focus
on.
The
following
trade-­‐offs
were
of
particular
importance:
Cleanliness
–
Ability
to
clean
newly
spilled
food
vs.
cooking
chamber
size:
This
trade-­‐off
can
be
perceived
in
two
ways:
a
decrease
in
the
size
of
the
cooking
chamber
could
be
positive
as
there
is
less
surface
to
clean
or
it
could
negative
because
the
remaining
surface
is
more
difficult
to
clean.
Similarly,
as
the
cooking
chamber
gets
bigger,
this
can
translate
into
a
bigger
area
to
clean
(negative)
or
it
can
make
the
surface
easier
to
clean
due
to
increased
space
(positive).
Taking
a
cautionary
approach,
we
decided
to
consider
it
as
a
negative
relationship.
Cleanliness
–
Ability
to
clean
stuck
on
food
vs.
cooking
chamber
size:
Similar
to
the
trade-­‐off
discussed
above,
cleaning
can
get
easier
when
the
chamber
size
increases
because
the
space
is
less
confined,
or
it
can
become
harder
as
there
is
more
surface
area
to
clean.
The
opposite
is
true
is
the
chamber
size
decreased.
Taking
a
cautionary
approach,
we
decided
to
consider
it
as
a
negative
relationship.
Cleanliness
–
Ability
to
Clean
Newly
spilled
food
vs.
ability
to
take
out
turntable:
If
you
are
able
to
take
out
the
turntable
easily,
it
will
make
the
cleaning
of
newly
spilled
food
easier.
Hence,
these
two
need
areas
are
positively
related.
Cleanliness
–
Ability
to
clean
newly
spilled
food
vs.
ability
to
clean
stuck
on
food:
Being
able
to
clean
up
newly
spilled
food
makes
it
easier
to
prevent/clean
later
stuck-­‐on
food.
Similarly,
if
the
cleaning
of
newly
spilled
food
is
not
effective,
the
cleaning
of
later
stuck-­‐on
food
is
more
likely
to
occur.
Therefore,
these
two
need
areas
are
positively
related.
Ease
of
Use
–
ease
to
open
the
door
vs.
cooking
chamber
size:
This
trade-­‐off
is
very
dependent
on
the
design,
but
if
we
assume
that
a
large
door
is
easier
to
open,
then
there
is
a
positive
relationship
between
the
ease
of
opening
the
door
and
the
cooking
chamber
size.
5
of
30

6. Cleanliness
–
Ability
to
clean
newly
spilled
food
vs.
ease
of
use
–
ease
to
open
the
door:
The
easier
it
is
to
open
the
microwave
door,
the
easier
it
will
be
to
clean
the
microwave.
Hence,
there
is
a
positive
relationship
between
these
need
areas.
Ease
of
use
–
easy
and
quick
to
choose
cooking
time
vs.
feature
–
food
specific,
pre-­‐set
cooking
times:
The
presence
of
efficient
pre-­‐set
cooking
times
on
a
microwave
simplifies
the
choice
of
a
cooking
time:
these
two
need
areas
are
positively
related.
Ease
of
use
–
easy
to
navigate
vs.
feature
–
food
specific,
pre-­‐set
cooking
times:
If
a
microwave
is
difficult
to
navigate,
pre-­‐set
times
are
less
likely
to
be
used.
As
the
microwave
becomes
easier
to
navigate,
consumers
are
more
likely
to
take
advantage
of
pre-­‐set
cooking
times
(positive
relationship).
Cleanliness
–
ability
to
clean
stuck
on
food
vs.
ability
to
take
out
and
clean
turntable:
Improving
the
ability
to
take
out
and
clean
the
turntable
will
facilitate
the
cleaning
of
stuck
on
food
inside
the
microwave
chamber
(positive
relationship).
Feature
–
presence
of
clock
vs.
ease
of
use
–
easy
and
quick
to
choose
cooking
time:
Improvements
to
the
microwave
clock
will
make
the
choice
of
a
cooking
time
more
practical
due
to
increased
visibility
(the
time
selected
will
be
more
apparent).
If
the
ability
to
choose
cooking
time
improves,
the
clock
is
more
likely
to
be
clear,
visible,
and
fool
proof
(positive
relationship)
Feature
–
presence
of
clock
vs.
feature
–
presence
of
a
timer:
The
clock
and
timer
are
typically
integrated
into
the
same
system.
Hence,
making
improvements
(e.g.
increase
in
size
or
readability)
to
one
will
likely
yield
improvements
to
the
other
(positive
relationship).
Ease
of
Use
–
easy
and
quick
to
choose
cooking
time
vs.
ease
of
use
–
easy
to
navigate
menu
options:
The
ease
of
use
of
navigation
options
will
impact
how
easy
it
is
to
select
the
cooking
time.
As
a
result,
improvements
to
the
navigation
system
will
facilitate
the
choice
of
the
cooking
time;
the
relationship
between
these
two
need
areas
is
positive.
Ease
of
Use
–
easy
and
quick
to
choose
cooking
time
vs.
Performance
–
high-­‐speed
cooking/
reheating:
The
performance
and
usability
of
the
high-­‐speed
cooking/reheating
feature
implies
that
it
is
simple
to
choose
the
cooking
time
of
the
microwave
(if
consumers
are
satisfied
with
the
performance
of
their
microwave,
they
probably
know
how
to
use
the
cooking
time
feature).
Hence,
a
positive
relationship
is
apparent.
6
of
30

7. Ease
of
Use
–
easy
to
navigate
the
menu
options
vs.
Performance
–
high-­‐speed
cooking/
reheating:
Improving
the
ability
to
navigate
around
the
microwave
means
that
finding
the
high-­‐speed
feature
will
be
easier.
Similarly,
the
high-­‐speed
feature
must
be
easy
to
find
and
use
for
navigation
to
be
considered
simple.
Consequently,
these
two
need
areas
present
a
positive
relationship.
Performance
–
even
cooking/reheating
vs.
Performance
–
high-­‐speed
cooking/
reheating:
Increasing
the
speed
of
cooking
increases
the
chances
of
cooking
food
on
the
outside
more
quickly.
Hence,
increasing
the
speed
of
cooking
can
potentially
jeopardize
the
degree
to
which
food
is
cooked
evenly
(negative
relationship).
Performance
–
high-­‐speed
cooking/
reheating
vs.
Noise
Level:
Increasing
the
speed
of
cooking
will
most
likely
require
more
power,
which
in
turn
may
produce
a
higher
noise
level.
Therefore,
there
is
a
trade-­‐off
to
be
made
between
the
extra
power
required
for
faster
cooking
and
the
noise
level
of
the
microwave
(negative
relationship).
Performance
–
Energy
Efficiency
vs.
Performance
–
high-­‐speed
cooking/
reheating:
The
faster
a
microwave
cooks
using
current
technology,
the
more
energy
it
consumes
(negative
relationship).
Cleanliness
–
ability
to
clean
stuck
on
food
vs.
Performance
–
Ability
to
Prevent
Food
odour:
We
assume
that
an
increase
in
the
ability
to
clean
stuck
on
food
results
from
a
more
frequent
cleaning
of
the
microwave
therefore
minimizing
food
odour
(positive
relationship).
Cleanliness
–
ability
to
clean
newly
spilled
food
vs.
Performance
–
Ability
to
Prevent
Food
odour:
Being
able
to
clean
newly
spilled
food
will
increase
the
ability
to
remove
odours
from
the
microwave.
Hence,
a
positive
relationship
is
evident.
Cleanliness
–
Ability
to
Take
Out
and
Clean
Turntable
vs.
Performance
–
Ability
to
Prevent
Food
odour:
Similar
to
the
trade-­‐off
stated
above,
having
a
clean
turntable
will
likely
decrease
the
odours
in
the
microwave
as
well
as
their
diffusion
when
cooking/reheating
food.
The
ability
to
remove
and
clean
the
turntable
easily
and
the
ability
to
prevent
food
odour
are
therefore
positively
correlated.
Price:
Price
was
considered
to
be
a
trade-­‐off
in
comparison
to
all
other
need
areas:
as
new
features
are
added
or
existing
features
improved,
they
increase
the
value
of
the
microwave,
which
in
some
cases
justifies
a
price
premium.
A
higher
price
means
that
price-­‐sensitive
consumers
are
less
likely
to
buy
the
product.
Hence,
price
has
a
negative
relationship
with
most
other
need
areas.
7
of
30

8. In
the
end,
the
product
we
chose
to
develop
is
not
part
of
the
microwave
itself,
it
is
complementary
and
therefore
doesn’t
have
a
direct
impact
on
other
need
areas:
it
does
not
require
trade-­‐offs
between
performance,
cleanliness
or
basic
microwave
features,
which
can
be
considered
an
advantage.
It
allows
us
to
focus
on
the
quality
of
the
product
without
compromising
on
the
quality
of
microwaves.
Choice
of
Need:
The
need
we
have
chosen
to
focus
on
concerns
the
ability
to
clean
newly
spilled
and
the
ability
to
clean
stuck-­‐on
food.
This
need
area
has
the
advantage
of
presenting
mostly
positive
relationships
with
other
need
areas
(i.e.
ability
to
clean
and
take
out
turntable,
ability
to
prevent
food
odour
etc.).
However,
our
trade-­‐off
matrix
does
show
a
possible
negative
relationship
between
these
need
areas
and
the
chamber
size
of
the
microwave
but
this
relationship
is
not
relevant
as
we
intend
to
keep
the
chamber
size
of
the
microwave
constant.
The
ability
to
clean
stuck-­‐on
food
had
the
second
highest
opportunity
score
and
the
ability
to
clean
newly
spilled
food
scored
slightly
less.
These
scores
indicated
a
gap
between
their
importance
and
current
consumer
satisfaction,
which
can
be
capitalized
on.
Furthermore,
both
needs
can
be
met
with
a
technically
feasible
solution
that
is
relatively
easy
to
communicate
to
consumers:
people
are
used
to
struggling
while
cleaning
their
microwaves
and
there
is
no
formal
solution
available
on
the
market,
which
is
why
we
believe
microwave
users
would
be
very
receptive
to
a
new
product
meeting
their
needs.
The
survey
we
administered
is
what
ultimately
helped
us
to
decide
on
a
particular
need
area:
while
86%
of
respondents
said
that
they
do
take
measures
to
prevent
spills
in
the
microwave,
90%
indicated
that
they
cleaned
their
microwaves
regularly
meaning
spills
and
splashes
still
occurred.
Survey
respondents
also
showed
a
tendency
of
not
using
cleaning
products
for
the
microwave
because
they
wished
to
minimize
mixing/contact
between
their
food
and
chemicals
contained
in
these
products.
The
most
prominent
cleaning
method
administered
was
simply
using
a
rag
and
water
(64%
of
respondents).
Those
who
employed
cleaning
agents
to
assist
the
process
often
used
vinegar
and
several
additional
people
stated
that
they
microwaved
water
with
lemon
to
loosen
stuck
on
food
and
leave
their
microwave
smelling
fresh.
Focusing
on
this
need
area
was
also
compatible
with
existing
consumer
behaviour:
cleaning
microwaves
is
a
process
consumers
are
familiar
with;
it
simply
needs
to
be
improved.
Furthermore,
as
stated
above,
some
consumers
are
already
familiar
with
cleaning
methods
such
as
using
lemon
juice
to
loosen
stuck
on
food,
which
resonates
with
our
product
and
reduces
barriers
to
adoption.
The
other
needs
displaying
high
opportunity
scores
were
not
chosen
due
to
a
lack
of
technical
feasibility,
ease
of
communication,
ability
to
differentiate,
or
simply
because
the
trade-­‐offs
required
with
other
features
were
too
restrictive.
Improving
even
cooking/reheating
abilities,
8
of
30

9. for
example,
would
be
very
difficult
because
this
feature
is
directly
related
to
the
type
of
food
being
cooked/heated.
Similarly,
improving
navigation
was
not
chosen
because
it
was
viewed
as
an
attribute
that
would
be
difficult
to
communicate
(navigational
ease
can
mean
different
things
to
different
people).
The
ability
to
offer
high-­‐speed
cooking
also
proved
challenging
due
to
its
potential
impact
on
energy
efficiency,
and
the
subsequent
increase
in
microwave
noise
level,
which
may
have
resulted
in
less
overall
user
satisfaction.
Finally,
a
solution
to
safety
risks
such
as
radiation,
fire
from
heating
metal
objects
etc.
was
technically
more
difficult
to
execute.
d)
Final
Concept:
Microwave
Pods
The
final
concept
was
inspired
by
survey
respondents’
answers
in
terms
of
how
they
cleaned
their
microwave:
quite
a
few
microwaved
a
bowl
of
water
with
vinegar/lemon/lime,
a
method
which
used
steam
to
disinfect
the
interior
of
the
microwave
and
make
stuck
on
food
easier
to
remove.
These
respondents
used
vinegar/lemon/lime
in
their
water
instead
of
using
cleaning
agents
directly
to
ensure
that
chemicals
never
made
their
way
into
their
food.
However,
microwaving
water
can
be
very
dangerous:
the
United
States
Department
of
Agriculture
Food
Safety
and
Inspection
Service,
the
US
Food
and
Drug
association,
and
the
Government
of
Canada
have
warned
microwave
users
of
eruptions
that
typically
occur
from
microwaving
liquids.
Eruptions
arise
when
a
liquid
(usually
water)
heated
in
a
microwave
becomes
hotter
than
its
conventional
boiling
temperature
(100°C).
The
liquid
then
reacts
due
to
a
disruption
in
its
molecular
structure
(i.e.
the
water
is
in
motion),
making
it
a
“superheated
liquid”.
This
phenomenon
usually
happens
when
the
liquid
is
being
heated
in
a
clean
vessel
(FSIS,
2011)
(Government
of
Canada,
2011)
(FDA,
2012).
Even
when
the
liquid
is
left
for
several
minutes
to
cool
off
after
the
heating
has
ended,
the
risk
of
an
eruption
lingers.
Consumers
have
developed
their
own
solution
to
microwave
cleaning
however
these
solutions
are
not
safe
and
provoke
potentially
dangerous
chemical
reactions.
Hence,
there
is
an
opportunity
in
the
market
to
fulfil
this
need
with
a
safer
solution.
As
measures
of
safety
were
considered
very
important
to
microwave
users
(see
Appendix
B),
we
believe
our
product
would
be
highly
appealing.
Our
final
concept
is
a
“Microwave
Pod”
in
the
shape
of
a
half
lemon
(See
Appendix
C
for
pictures
of
product
design).
This
microwave
pod
comes
as
a
plastic
container
filled
with
150ml
of
all-­‐natural
liquid
or
gelatine
containing
vinegar,
lemon
juice,
or
citrus
oils.
Additionally,
there
are
small
holes
on
top
of
the
plastic
container.
When
the
pod
is
microwaved,
steamed
liquid
escapes
from
the
holes
to
loosen
stuck
on
food,
disinfect,
and
remove
odours.
The
aim
of
the
small
holes
is
to
reduce
the
risk
of
water
erupting
and
potentially
harming
the
consumer.
The
pod
would
have
to
be
microwaved
for
three
minutes,
left
to
cool
off
for
two
minutes,
and
then
the
user
would
be
able
to
easily
wipe
off
the
condensed
steam
inside
the
microwave.
9
of
30

10. The
plastic
used
for
the
pod
will
be
a
Food
Grade
Plastic
(grade
5).
This
plastic
is
known
as
polypropylene
(PP).
It
is
a
thermoplastic
polymer
that
is
strong,
tough,
has
a
high
resistance
to
heat
and
also
acts
as
a
barrier
to
moisture.
This
material
will
maintain
its
shape
in
high
temperatures
and
will
not
transfer
any
chemicals
or
toxins
to
the
contents
it
is
holding
(Baby
Green
Thumb,
2011).
In
order
keep
the
liquid
contents
from
spilling
or
leaking
on
store
shelves
before
the
user
is
ready
to
use
it,
a
thin
plastic
film
will
be
applied
over
the
holes.
The
user
is
supposed
to
remove
the
plastic
film
just
before
placing
the
product
inside
the
microwave.
The
microwave
pod
aligns
with
recent
trends
of
cleaning
convenience
that
have
led
cleaning
products
to
take
the
form
of
pods,
capsules,
and
wipes
(Smithers
Apex)
(Dupont
Industrial
Biosciences,
2012).
These
products
are
intended
to
make
the
process
of
cleaning
as
effortless
as
possible.
The
packaging
of
the
product
will
be
recognizable
on
supermarket
shelves
as
a
result
of
its
unique
shape
and
colour.
Due
to
the
novelty
of
the
product,
consumers
need
to
be
able
to
recognize
it
easily.
Using
the
shape
of
a
lemon
for
the
product
is
intended
to
convince
consumers
that
it
is
an
all-­‐natural
product
preventing
toxic
chemicals
from
getting
into
their
food.
The
microwave
pod
will
be
distributed
in
grocery
stores
and
supermarkets
where
it
will
be
placed
in
the
household
cleaning
section
near
the
dish
soap
and
other
kitchen
cleaning
products.
It
will
be
marketed
through
point
of
sale
displays
and
free
sample
distributions
in
grocery
stores
and
supermarkets.
We
also
plan
on
partnering
with
microwave
retailers
to
give
product
samples
in
bundle
packages
for
people
purchasing
new
microwaves.
Increasing
product
awareness
and
the
consumer’s
ability
to
try
out
the
product
will
be
the
primary
objective
of
the
marketing
effort.
The
microwave
pod
will
be
sold
in
packages
of
three
pods
as
the
product
is
to
be
used
semi-­‐
regularly
(2-­‐3
times
per
month).
The
package
of
three
will
sell
for
$10.99
($3.66
each).
This
pricing
is
based
on
the
value
added
to
the
cleaning
experience
of
microwave
users
as
well
as
the
prices
of
other
appliance
cleaners
for
similar
cleaning
products
(see
table
below).
Product
Price
#
of
Units
per
Package
Price
per
Unit
Whirpool
Washer
Cleaners
(pod)
$8.99
3
$2.99
Plink
Garbage
Disposal
Pods
$4.99
10
$0.49
Easy-­‐Off
Oven
Cleaner
(bottle)
$10.99
7
(estimated)
$3.66
Weiman
Cooktop
Scrubbing
Pads
$10.81
3
$3.60
*All
prices
based
on
www.amazon.ca
listings
10
of
30

11. 11
of
30
Part
2:
The
Pitch
“A
product
for
family,
in-­‐home
microwave
users
who
need
a
safe,
convenient,
fast
and
cost
effective
means
of
cleaning
their
microwaves.
Our
non-­‐toxic
microwave
cleaning
pods
safely
loosen
stuck-­‐on
and
newly
spilled
food,
making
cleaning
quick
and
easy.
Unlike
harsh
cleaning
agents
such
as
Clorox,
our
pods
use
the
cleaning
power
of
steam
and
natural
ingredients
to
provide
fresh,
naturally
scented
cleaning
results”.
a)
RWW
Approach:
1)
Is
it
Real?
According
to
the
data
gathered
from
the
idea
generation
report,
the
cleanliness
of
microwave
was
identified
as
a
concern
of
high
importance,
amplified
by
the
fact
that
most
people
do
not
cover
their
food
while
heating
it,
which
leads
to
higher
amounts
of
spillage
and
stuck-­‐on
food.
This
highlight
was
further
confirmed
by
the
user
survey,
as
the
“ability
to
clean
newly
spilled
food
and
ability
to
clean
stuck
on
food”
were
both
ranked
in
the
Top
5
of
Opportunity
Scores.
It
is
therefore
clear
that
consumers
view
the
cleanliness
of
their
microwaves
as
essential
and
look
for
cleaning
products
providing
solutions.
Furthermore,
the
market
potential
and
sheer
number
of
potential
buyers
is
huge,
as
a
result
of
the
very
high
rate
of
microwave
penetration
in
North
America
(see
market
size
below).

12. 12
of
30
Market
Size:
Total
Potential
Market:
out
of
the
124.3
million
households
in
North
America,
microwave
ovens
have
an
approximate
95%
market
rate
penetration.
It
has
been
determined
that
US
households
spend
an
average
of
$4
per
year
on
comparable
home
care
products,
namely
toilet
care
products
(Euromonitor, 2102).
If
microwave
care
products
are
able
to
achieve
a
household
average
spend
rate
of
$3.66,
our
target
retail
price,
the
total
market
has
an
approximate
value
of
$432
million.
Serviceable
Addressable
Market:
The
selected
distribution
channels
(Hypermarkets
and
Supermarket
distributing
home
care
products)
represent
58%
of
total
home
care
product
sales
(Euromonitor, 2102).
Assuming
the
top
10
home
care
companies
maintain
proportional
market
share,
only
17%
of
the
microwave
care
market
will
remain
therefore
resulting
in
an
estimated
retail
market
value
of
$43.7
million.
Target
Market:
Households
with
1
or
more
children
and
households
with
only
one
occupant
represent
60.5%
of
North
American
households
which
results
in
a
target
market
worth
$26.5
million
(see
Appendix
E)
Primary
Target
Market:
Parents
who
care
about
providing
a
clean,
natural,
and
safe
environment
for
their
families.
They
clean
more
often
than
other
consumer
segments
and
value
cleanliness,
safety
and
health
conscious
products.
Secondary
Target
Market:
Students
and
bachelors
whom
typically
clean
their
microwave
less
often
and
are
not
very
familiar
with
the
use
of
cleaning
products.
The
microwave-­‐cleaning
pod
helps
this
segment
tackle
the
cleaning
problem
in
a
simpler,
more
manageable
manner

13. requiring
less
time
and
effort.
2)
Can
we
win?
In
the
current
marketplace,
there
are
no
specific
products
designed
to
help
consumers
clean
their
microwaves:
alternatives
include
multi-­‐function
wipes
or
aggressive
detergent
liquids,
which
are
effortful
to
use.
Furthermore,
these
alternatives
leave
potentially
toxic
remains
after
cleaning
and
are
not
viewed
as
particularly
effective.
Hence,
we
can
assume
that
consumers
would
be
willing
to
switch
to
a
superior
product.
As
opposed
to
available
market
solutions,
our
product
provides
a
safe,
convenient,
and
cost
effective
means
for
cleaning
microwaves.
Our
pods
safely
loosen
newly
spilled
and
stuck-­‐on
food
therefore
making
cleaning
quick
and
easy.
They
also
use
natural
ingredients
and
provide
fresh,
naturally
scented
cleaning
results
as
opposed
to
harsh
cleaning
agents
such
as
Clorox.
This
product
is
highly
differentiated
and
has
no
direct
competition
from
established
players
in
the
home
care/surface
cleaning
industry,
which
is
why
we
believe
it
has
tremendous
potential
for
success.
Competitor
Analysis:
As
previously
stated,
our
product
has
no
direct
competitors:
using
pod
technology
to
clean
microwaves
is
highly
innovative
and
has
not
been
seen
before.
However,
commercial
microwave
cleaning
products
do
exist
and
come
in
a
variety
of
sprays
and
foams
(e.g.
spray-­‐and-­‐wipe
cleaners,
scrub-­‐free
foams
etc.)
Indirect
competition
comes
from
well-­‐established
players
in
the
home
care
industry
such
as
Procter
&
Gamble
and
Clorox,
which
have
a
diversified
cleaning
product
line
and
important
advertising
budgets.
The
biggest
threat
from
these
competitors
comes
from
their
ability
to
develop
a
similar
product,
which
would
undermine
our
profit
margins
and
crowd
the
marketplace.
There
is
also
competition
from
smaller
brands
such
as
Carbona
or
Citrusafe,
which
have
developed
wipes/sprays
specifically
designed
to
clean
microwaves.
This
type
of
competitive
threat
is
limited
due
to
the
points
of
difference
of
our
microwave
pods.
Finally,
consumers
have
the
choice
to
substitute
microwave-­‐cleaning
products
for
homemade
washing
solutions.
This
includes
using
lemon
juice
(placing
lemon
wedges
in
a
microwaveable
bowl
and
adding
cups
of
water
before
heating
it
for
several
minutes)
or
vinegar
(same
principle)
to
create
steam
before
wiping
the
inside
of
the
microwave.
These
homemade
solutions
have
the
advantage
of
reducing
costs
for
consumers
however
they
are
relatively
complex
and
therefore
rarely
implemented.
Our
product
works
in
a
similar
fashion
as
it
uses
steam
and
contains
natural
citrus
elements.
3)
Is
it
worth
pursuing?
The
innovativeness
of
our
product
makes
it
difficult
to
estimate
its
financial
horizon.
13
of
30

14. Nevertheless,
we
can
estimate
the
proportions
of
expenses
relative
to
revenue
using
information
from
a
similar
industry:
the
soap
and
cleaning
agent
industry
(Ibis
World,
2014).
Here
is
an
estimate
of
such
figures:
Purchases
(VC)
-­‐
42%
of
revenue
(this
includes
raw
materials
such
as
solvents,
surfactants,
phosphates,
slats,
perfumes
etc.)
Wages
–
11
%
of
revenue
Rent
and
Utilities
–
5.7%
of
revenue
Maintenance
(Depreciation)
–
1.8%
of
revenue
Marketing
–
24%
of
revenue
Other
–
15.5%
(this
includes
R&D,
restructuring
costs
etc.)
Using
a
base
of
1000
units
sold,
the
following
income
statement
gives
an
idea
of
how
successful
our
product
would
be
in
a
financial
sense:
As
demonstrated
by
the
income
statement
forecast,
an
important
portion
of
revenue
would
be
allocated
to
marketing
expenses
due
to
the
necessity
of
making
our
product
visible
and
known
in
the
marketplace.
Furthermore,
although
profit
margins
are
low,
as
it
is
typically
the
case
for
soap
and
cleaning
products,
we
expect
high
volume
sales
to
compensate
for
such
margins
due
to
the
huge
size
of
the
market
and
the
important
penetration
rate
of
microwaves
in
North
America.
14
of
30

15. Competitive
Advantage:
Microwaves
and
the
food
reheating
industry
in
general
have
experienced
very
little
innovation
in
past
decades.
Additionally,
the
need
for
a
cleaning
method
that
is
effective
in
eliminating
food
build-­‐up
and
residue
within
the
microwave
has
yet
to
be
fully
addressed.
In
our
research,
cleanliness
and
safety
emerged
as
the
top
concerns,
which
according
to
surveyed
microwave
users,
were
unmet.
We
believe
that
our
product
offers
a
solution
catering
to
these
needs:
it
provides
users
with
a
safe
and
effective
way
of
cleaning
their
microwaves
relative
to
current
chemical
home
care
products.
Furthermore,
it
stands
in
stark
contrast
with
dangerous
in-­‐home
cleaning
methods
(mixing
water
with
agents
such
as
lemon
and
vinegar)
inadvertently
resulting
in
the
superheating
of
liquid,
which
poses
a
serious
risk
of
burns
and
injury).
Thus,
our
product
design
has
been
optimized
to
addresses
cleanliness
as
well
as
safety
needs,
both
highly
valued
by
customers
Sustaining
Competitive
Advantage
-­‐
an
aggressive
intellectual
property
portfolio
under
development:
Utility
Patent:
this
pending
patent
will
protect
the
utilitarian
functions
of
the
citrus
shaped
pod
container,
which
contains
the
cleaning
agent
while
simultaneously
providing
optimal
steam
distribution
and
protection
against
burns/explosions.
Industrial
Design
Patent:
a
design
patent
is
pending
and
will
protect
the
unique
features
of
the
pod
shape,
configuration
and
pattern.
Trademark
Brand:
unique
word
marks
have
been
registered
to
develop
strong
brand
recognition
and
association
with
microwave
cleaning.
Trademark
Shape:
the
citrus
shape
will
be
protected
in
order
to
further
reinforce
brand
recognition
and
association
with
microwave
cleaning.
Trade
Secret
Formula:
the
cleaning
solution
formula
is
to
remain
protected
by
trade
secret
by
means
of
stringent
trade-­‐secret
policy
and
procedures
with
which
current
R&D
is
in
compliance.
15
of
30

16. 16
of
30
b)
Conquering
Barriers
to
Adoption
Relative
Advantage:
8
Microwave
usage
without
regular
cleaning
inevitably
leads
to
food
residue
over
time,
often
adhering
to
microwave
walls.
Cleanliness
and
hygiene
are
a
strong
concern
for
both
in-­‐home
and
out
of
home
users
due
to
the
role
microwaves
play
in
food
handling
and
preparation.
Our
pod
proposes
an
improved
solution
compared
to
current
cleaning
methods:
it
uses
non-­‐toxic
and
all-­‐natural
ingredients
as
well
as
the
power
of
steam
to
soften
dirt
and
residues
therefore
addressing
such
concerns.
In
addition,
it
is
based
on
a
familiar
process,
which
people
currently
use
but
has
the
benefit
of
enhancing
safety
by
avoiding
the
risk
of
burns
due
to
superheated
liquid
(see
packaging
design).
Ultimately,
it
saves
an
important
amount
of
time
compared
to
relentlessly
scrubbing
food
residues
that
are
difficult
to
remove.
Compatibility:
8
Our
research
shows
that
there
is
no
conventional
method
of
cleaning
microwaves,
with
users
employing
a
wide
array
of
cleaning
tool,
agents
and
homemade
solutions.
This
ranges
from
the
use
of
commercial
all-­‐purpose
cleaners
to
family
inspired
techniques
such
as
heating
a
solution
of
water
and
vinegar.
Our
product
takes
the
form
of
a
typical
pod
cleaner
similar
to
those
used
in
washing
machines
and
dishwashers.
Furthermore,
our
liquid
solution
is
composed
of
familiar
elements
that
users
have
already
employed
in
the
past
(lemon,
vinegar,
water
etc.).
Hence,
there
is
little
change
in
cleaning
behaviour
as
the
agents
used
in
our
product
as
well
as
the
cleaning
method
and
pod
technology
is
already
familiar
to
users.
Complexity:
4
The
challenge
we
face
concerns
the
novelty
of
the
microwave
pod
as
a
product
category
in
the
microwave-­‐cleaning
segment,
which
makes
recognition
and
ability
to
infer
its
use
a
potential
barrier
to
adoption.
On
the
other
hand,
due
to
the
adoption
of
current
cleaning
pods
in
other
categories
(washing
machines,
dishwashers
etc.),
we
believe
there
is
little
complexity
in
using
our
product.
Users
simply
have
to
tear
the
adhesive
and
leave
the
product
in
the
microwave,
enabling
the
content
to
steam
out
and
soften
food
residue
therefore
allowing
easier
wiping
with
a
cloth
or
sponge.
Our
main
concern
lies
within
the
marketing
of
the
product
i.e.
how
we
would
help
our
customers
to
understand
the
benefits
and
general
concept
of
the
microwave
pod.
In
order
to
address
this,
our
packaging
will
contain
photographic
instructions
on
how
to
use
the
product.
Our
marketing
strategy
will
equally
focus
on
product
placements
in
TV
shows
or
infomercials,
which
could
help
consumers
understand
the
microwave
pod
through
product
demonstrations.
Trialability:
7
In
order
to
increase
trialability,
we
plan
to
implement
a
strong
pull
marketing
strategy
by
giving
away
free
samples
through
grocery
stores
and
other
small
independent
distributors.
Also,
we
plan
on
bundling
the
product
for
free
with
new
microwave
purchases.
In
doing
so,
we
will
be
able
to
address
the
information
asymmetry
issue
and
have
users
test
the
product
and
witness
first-­‐hand
how
it
works.
We
equally
plan
on
taking
advantage
of
home
and
kitchen
trade
shows

17. to
demonstrate
the
product
and
allow
early
adopters
to
experience
it.
Furthermore,
our
product
is
relatively
inexpensive
which
encourages
consumers
to
try
it
out
(the
financial
downside
is
low
in
the
case
they
don’t
enjoy
the
product).
Observability:
17
of
30
5
Typically,
microwave
usage
in-­‐home
or
out
of
home
is
an
individual
experience,
especially
with
regards
to
the
cleaning.
Hence,
it
is
difficult
for
other
people
to
observe
the
cleaning
process
during
the
use
of
the
microwave
pod.
We
plan
to
address
this
issue
by
choosing
effective
marketing
channels
to
reach
our
customers.
Food
and
Kitchen
TV
programs,
for
example,
can
serve
as
an
effective
marketing
channel
helping
users
to
understand
the
product
and
its
benefits.
Furthermore,
we
will
use
print
advertisements
in
cooking
and
kitchen
publications
to
gain
visibility
and
traction.
Distribution
equally
appears
as
a
significant
barrier
to
product
adoption
and
observability.
Since
commercialized
microwave
cleaning
pods
are
a
new
idea,
it
will
be
difficult
to
convince
retailers
to
offer
a
spot
on
their
limited
shelf
space,
which
are
crucial
in
order
to
have
as
many
consumers
as
possible
try
the
product.
Overall
barriers
to
adoption:
low
Overall
we
consider
barriers
to
adoption
to
be
relatively
low
with
minimal
consumer
behaviour
issues.
Our
product
provides
superior
relative
advantage
as
well
as
compatibility
with
existing
cleaning
practices.
Major
concerns
include
enabling
microwave
users
to
understand
the
benefits
of
the
product
as
well
as
visibility
within
this
new
cleaning
category,
which
can
be
addressed
through
strong
and
creative
marketing
campaigns.
Access
to
adequate
distribution
networks
and
financial
resources
is
also
a
source
of
concern.
c)
Capital
Returns
Benefits:
● Calm
Waters
market
-­‐
We
believe
that
the
environment
is
favourable
to
the
creation
and
establishment
of
a
first
move
advantage.
There
is
no
dominant
commercial
cleaning
agent
specifically
designed
for
microwaves
in
the
market.
Hence,
there
are
important
potential
financial
rewards
for
entering
the
market
first
and
establishing
strong
brand
visibility
and
awareness
in
this
particular
cleaning
category.
● Strong
relative
advantage:
Our
microwave
pod
provides
superior
value
compared
to
existing
methods,
as
it
is
a
safe,
natural
and
non-­‐toxic
cleaning
agent
capitalizing
on
the
power
of
steam
to
effectively
clean
microwaves
from
germs
and
food
residue.
Our
trademark
packaging
and
design
minimizes
the
risk
of
burns
from
superheated
liquid.
Hence,
we
offer
attributes
that
our
target
customers
value.
● High
penetration
rate
and
huge
market
potential
-­‐
In
Canada
alone,
there
is
a
95%
household
penetration
for
microwaves
suggesting
a
huge
upside
potential.
Furthermore,
there
is
renewed
demand
for
healthy
and
“green”
cleaning
products.
According
to
an
IBIS
report,
cleaning
agent
revenues
are
bolstered
by
the
sell
of
organic
and
environmentally
friendly
products.
In
Canada
alone,
85%
of
households
purchased
green
cleaning
products
in
2011.
Our
product
therefore
presents
a
good
point
of

18. differentiation
as
it
follows
the
sustainability
trend
consumers
adhere
to.
● Fragmented
Industry
-­‐
There
is
currently
no
strong
brand
name
when
it
comes
to
microwave
cleaners.
There
are
multiple
in-­‐home
cleaning
methods
but
no
commercial
product
is
strongly
recognized
by
consumers.
In
early
2000,
Easy
off
created
a
microwaveable
wipe
but
was
immediately
discontinued
and
failed
to
launch
due
to
chemical
health
hazards
(US
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services,
2009).
This
further
strengthens
the
benefit
of
being
a
first-­‐mover
in
the
industry.
● Mature
Industry
-­‐There
is
a
high
probability
of
acquisition
from
established
brands
if
the
product
proves
to
be
successful,
which
could
constitute
a
viable
exit
strategy.
At
this
stage,
company
consolidation
is
common
due
to
the
mature
stage
of
the
industry
life
cycle.
Finally,
new
product
development
like
our
pod
can
stimulate
and
revive
interest
to
maintain
sales
growth
(Turk,
2014).
18
of
30
Risks:
● High
Supplier
power:
Given
that
commercialized
microwave
cleaning
products
are
relatively
rare
and
unknown
to
both
consumers
and
retailers,
we
expect
to
face
stiff
competition
in
the
limited
shelf
space
of
retailers.
This
is
a
new
concept
and
retailers
are
reluctant
to
take
on
merchandise
that
does
not
have
a
strong
sales
track
record.
● Threat
from
established
players
in
the
home
cleaning
industry:
Due
to
strong
branding
and
economies
of
scale
of
existing
home
cleaning
agents,
strong
consumer
goods
brands
such
as
Proctor
and
Gamble,
Green
Works,
Unilever
can
enter
the
microwave
cleaning
category
with
ease.
These
brands
have
a
diversified
product
line
with
strong
sales
track
records
and
tremendous
financial
capabilities,
therefore
making
it
difficult
for
us
to
compete
and
potentially
driving
our
product
out
of
the
market.
● Barriers
to
Adoption:
Microwave
cleaning
is
a
relatively
new
product
category
and
the
average
consumer
is
not
familiar
with
the
idea/concept
of
a
microwave
pod
aiding
in
the
cleaning
process
as
it
is
outside
of
their
frame
of
reference.
Addressing
this
requires
sizeable
advertising
and
marketing
budgets.
● Threat
of
Substitutes:
There
are
multiple
alternative
methods
available
to
clean
microwaves,
which
range
from
generic
cleaning
agents
to
homemade
solutions.
Hence,
there
is
a
switching
cost
incurred
for
consumers
who
purchase
our
microwave
pods.
● Low
Product
Observability:
Cleaning
is
a
personal
and
private
experience,
which
makes
it
difficult
for
people
to
observe
and
try
new
cleaning
products.
Communicating
the
key
benefits
effectively
and
letting
end-­‐users
experience
them
will
be
a
significant
challenge.
This
will
cause
us
to
incur
large
marketing
costs
to
create
product
category
and
brand
awareness.

19. Part
3:
Key
Points
Summary
The
following
outlines
the
main
insights
our
team
gained
from
the
product
development
process.
Key
Takeaways:
Our
Team
discovered
while
conducting
the
survey
that
you
cannot
take
anything
for
granted.
Some
of
the
need
areas
we
thought
were
essential
due
to
the
findings
from
our
previous
report
ended
up
being
quite
inconsequential
in
the
eyes
of
those
who
answered
the
survey.
This
helped
us
understand
the
importance
of
taking
time
to
evaluate
and
dissect
the
raw
data
before
making
assumptions
and
thinking
of
potential
solutions.
Moreover,
we
were
surprised
by
the
discipline
and
time
commitment
required
for
the
overall
new
product
development
exercise.
Conducting
market
research
and
analysing
the
subsequent
data
to
come
up
with
solutions
follows
a
structured,
systematic
and
focused
approach
that
cannot
be
tampered
with.
Challenges
Encountered:
When
we
first
conducted
our
concept
engineering
interviews,
consumers
seemed
quite
dissatisfied
with
microwaves
in
general
in
terms
of
how
current
products
were
meeting
their
needs
(cleaning,
even
cooking,
menu
navigation
etc.).
However,
after
careful
analysis
of
our
survey
results
(sample
size
of
approximately
60
people),
we
discovered
that
people
were
more
satisfied
than
we
had
initially
assumed,
which
had
the
effect
of
confusing
us
and
made
it
difficult
to
identify
a
particular
need
area
to
focus
on.
Due
to
the
fact
that
we
did
not
have
a
clear
idea
of
the
direction
our
product
was
following,
there
were
many
need
areas
associated
with
microwaves
in
our
survey
which
made
it
quite
long
as
we
attempted
to
get
all
the
information
required
to
move
forward.
Hence,
getting
respondents
to
complete
the
survey
was
difficult
and
some
even
abandoned
mid-­‐way!
Planned
Improvements:
In
the
future,
we
would
like
to
plan
our
time
more
effectively
and
base
our
research
on
a
bigger
sample
of
respondents/interviewees
in
order
to
conduct
a
more
informed
product
development
process
where
we
could
actually
explore
different
need
areas
in-­‐depth.
In
the
case
of
this
product
proposal,
we
chose
to
focus
on
a
product
complimentary
to
microwaves
instead
of
the
microwave
itself
but
given
more
time,
it
would
have
been
interesting
to
try
and
develop
a
solution
for
other
identified
problems
specific
to
the
microwave
(e.g.
performance
and
safety
features).
19
of
30

20. out*and*clean*turntable
Feature*/*defrost*frozen*food
Feature*/*food*specific,*preset*
menu*buttons
Ease*of*Use*/*easy*to*open*the*
door
to*choose*cooking*time
Ease*of*Use*/*easy*to*navigate*
the*menu*options
Feature*/*presence*of*clock
Feature*/*presence*of*a*timer
Feature*/*adjustable*
20
of
30
Appendix
A
–
Trade-­‐off
Matrix:
BENEFIT'/'NEED'AREA
room*it*takes*up
Cooking*Chamber*Size*/*what*
you*can*fit*inside
Microwave*Asthetics*/*(Look,*
Style,*Color,*etc.)
Microwave*Size*/*how*much*
Microwave*Noise*/*the*noise*
level
Cleanliness*/*ability*to*clean*
newly*spilled*food
Cleanliness*/*ability*to*clean*
stuck*on*food
Cleanliness*/*ability*to*take*
cooking*times
Ease*of*Use*/*easy*and*quick*
noise/tone*volume
Ease*of*use*/*easy*to*press*
cooking/reheating
Performance*/*high*speed*
cooking/reheating
Performance*/*even*
efficiency
Performance*/*ability*to*
Safety*/*reduced*risk*of*
burning*the*skin*upon*touch
prevent*food*odour
Safety*/*risk*of*radiation
Safety*/*risk*of*fire*from*
Performance*/*energy*
heating*of*metallic*objects
Microwave*Asthetics*/*(Look,*Style,*Color,*etc.)
Microwave*Size*/*how*much*room*it*takes*up 0
Cooking*Chamber*Size*/*what*you*can*fit*inside 0 /
Microwave*Noise*/*the*noise*level 0 0 0
Cleanliness*/*ability*to*clean*newly*spilled*food 0 0 / 0
Cleanliness*/*ability*to*clean*stuck*on*food 0 0 / 0 +
Cleanliness*/*ability*to*take*out*and*clean*turntable 0 0 0 0 + +
Feature*/*defrost*frozen*food 0 0 + 0 0 0 0
Feature*/*food*specific,*preset*cooking*times 0 0 / 0 0 0 0 0
Feature*/*presence*of*clock 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Feature*/*presence*of*a*timer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +
Feature*/*adjustable*noise/tone*volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ease*of*Use*/*easy*and*quick*to*choose*cooking*time 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + + 0
Ease*of*Use*/*easy*to*navigate*the*menu*options 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 +
Ease*of*use*/*easy*to*press*menu*buttons 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + +
Ease*of*Use*/*easy*to*open*the*door 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Performance*/*even*cooking/reheating 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Performance*/*high*speed*cooking/reheating 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 /
Performance*/*energy*efficiency 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 / /
Performance*/*ability*to*prevent*food*odour 0 0 / 0 + + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Safety*/*risk*of*radiation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Safety*/*risk*of*fire*from*heating*of*metallic*objects 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Safety*/*reduced*risk*of*burning*the*skin*upon*touch 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Price / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
Posit+ive*Impact*Relationship
Nega/tive*Impact*Relationship
Tradeoff*Relationship*that*Has*a*Worthwhile*Opportunity*Score

21. Appendix
B
–
Importance,
Satisfaction
and
Opportunity
Scores:
FROM%IDEA%GENERATION%REPORT FROM%%USER%SURVEY
21
of
30
USER%NEED Estimated%
Importance
Ability%to%
Differe.
Ease%of%
Commun.
Technical%
Feasibility
Importance%
Rating
Satisfaction%
Rating
Importance%
SD
Satisfaction%
SD
Opportunity%
Score
6 6 7 10 5.12 6.29 2.63 2.68 3.95
Feature121adjustable1noise/tone1volume
Feature121food1specific,1preset1cooking1times 6 8 5 10 5.86 7.07 3.04 2.34 4.65
Microwave1Asthetics121(Look,1Style,1Color,1etc.) 7 10 10 10 6.71 7.45 2.32 2.07 5.97
Microwave1Size121how1much1room1it1takes1up 5 7 10 10 7.39 8.05 2.23 1.68 6.73
10 1 10 10 7.67 8.31 2.52 2.2 7.03
Feature121presence1of1clock
Microwave1Noise121the1noise1level
Cooking1Chamber1Size121what1you1can1fit1inside 7 7 10 10 7.57 8 2.21 1.94 7.14
7 7 10 6 7.12 6.88 2.4 2 7.36
7 7 8 4 7.43 7.4 2.4 2.18 7.46
10 1 10 10 8.31 8.69 2.17 1.98 7.93
5 5 7 10 7.51 7.07 2.7 2.56 7.95
Performance121energy1efficiency
Feature121presence1of1a1timer
Feature121defrost1frozen1food
Performance121ability1to1prevent1food1odour 8 8 8 8 7.61 7.1 2.33 2.23 8.12
Safety121reduced1risk1of1burning1the1skin1upon1touch 6 3 4 6 7.92 7.48 2.6 2.33 8.36
Ease1of1use121easy1to1press1menu1buttons 10 7 7 9 8.37 8.26 2.04 2.06 8.48
Ease1of1Use121easy1and1quick1to1choose1cooking1time 10 1 7 10 8.49 8.43 2.12 1.81 8.55
10 7 7 10 8.49 8.36 1.82 2.12 8.62
Ease1of1Use121easy1to1open1the1door
Cleanliness121ability1to1take1out1and1clean1turntable 10 2 9 10 8 7.24 2.21 2.3 8.76
Safety121risk1of1radiation 10 8 4 6 8.29 7.76 2.52 2.41 8.82
Safety121risk1of1fire1from1heating1of1metallic1objects 9 3 4 9 8.27 7.6 2.62 2.48 8.94
Cleanliness121ability1to1clean1newly1spilled1food 10 3 9 10 8.08 7.1 2.01 2.3 9.06
Ease1of1Use121easy1to1navigate1the1menu1options 10 6 8 10 8.51 7.95 2.06 2.04 9.07
Performance121high1speed1cooking/reheating 6 8 7 7 8.41 7.71 2.14 2.26 9.11
Cleanliness121ability1to1clean1stuck1on1food 8 10 7 7 8.1 6.88 2.04 2.29 9.32
10 7 7 5 8.92 7.52 1.66 2.36 10.32
Standard'Deviation 0.89 0.60 1.50
Performance121even1cooking/reheating
Top'5'Opportunity'Scores Average'Standard'Deviation 2.30 2.20
Top'6'8'10'Opportunity'Scores
Satandard'Deviation'Outlier

22. Appendix
C
–
Product
Concept
and
Design:
22
of
30

23. 23
of
30

24. 1.#Do#1.
Do
you#you
use#use
a#microwave#a
microwave
to#to
defrost,#defrost,
cook#cook
or
or#reheat
reheat#food/
food/snacks?
snacks?
24
of
30
Appendix
D
–
Survey
Results:
Answer Response %
Yes 56 92%
No 5 8%
Total 61 100%
37%$
2%$
61%$
70%$
60%$
50%$
40%$
30%$
20%$
10%$
0%$
In$Home$ Out$of$home$ Both$
22%$
39%$ 39%$
50%$
40%$
30%$
20%$
10%$
0%$
Yes,$o;en$ Yes,$some<mes$ No$
2.
Why
do
you
choose
NOT
to
use
microwave
ovens?
Ø Because
I
don't
like
cleaning
them
up
after
Ø Because
electromagnetic
waves
are
bad
for
the
health
Ø Cook
food
in
other
ways
Ø Don't
like
the
health
concerns
associated
with
microwaving
food.
Ø Kills
nutrition
3.
Do
you
use
a
microwave
in-­‐home
or
out
of
home?
4.
Do
you
bring
microwavable
food
or
snacks
to
work
or
school
with
you?
7.
Please
select
the
alternative
that
best
represents
your
view:
5%#
79%#
17%#
O(en,#my#food/plate#
does#not#fit#into#the#
microwave#
The#microwave#is#a#good#
match#for#the#size#of#my#
food/plates#
There#is#a#lot#of#wasted#
space#inside#the#
microwave#that#is#not#
used#
8.
Do
you
agree
with
the
following
statement:
Microwaves
are
too
big
and
a
waste
of
space.
17%$
64%$
19%$
I$agree$
I$disagree$
Neither$

25. 9.
What
measures
do
you
take
to
prevent
spills
in
the
microwave?
Answer %
I"don't"take"any"measures"to"prevent"spills 14%
I"use"a"food"or"dish"cover 76%
I"use"a"microwave"specific"dish 17%
Other"(please"specify) 2%
64%#
25
of
30
10.
How
do
you
clean
up
microwave
spills?
5%#
26%#
70%#
60%#
50%#
40%#
30%#
20%#
10%#
11.
How
do
you
clean
up
stuck
on
food
inside
the
microwave?
Others
Specified:
Ø Water
and
vinegar
spray
and
a
rag
Ø Vinegar
and
water,
no
cleaning
5%#
0%#
I#don't#clean#up#
spills#
Rag#or#paper#towel#
with#a#cleaning#
agent#
Wet##(water#only)#
rag#or#paper#towel#
products
Other#(please#
specify)#
10%$
38%$
45%$
Others
Specified:
Ø Microwave
bowl
of
water
Ø Microwave
cup
of
vinegar
water
Ø Boil
cup
of
water
with
lemon
in
microwave
Ø Pot
scrubber
and
water
7%$
50%$
40%$
30%$
20%$
10%$
0%$
I$don't$clean$up$
stuck$on$food$
Rag$or$paper$towel$
with$a$cleaning$
agent$
Wet$$(water$only)$
rag$or$paper$towel$
Other$(please$
specify)$

26. 12.
How
do
you
clean
the
turntable
after
you
take
it
out
of
the
microwave?
Answer %
I"do"not"take"the"turntable"out"for"cleaning 14%
I"wash"it"by"hand"in"the"sink 69%
I"wipe"it"down"with"a"wet"rag"or"paper"towel 5%
I"put"it"in"the"dishwasher 10%
Other"(please"specify) 2%
Total 100%
13.
Is
it
troublesome
to
choose
the
correct
cooking
time
when
using
the
microwave?
26
of
30
26%$
12%$
62%$
No,$not$at$all$
No,$but$some2mes$I$
overcook$or$undercook$$
food/snacks$items$
Yes,$it$is$2me$consuming$
and$complicated$
14.
Which
of
the
following
best
describes
the
clock
on
your
microwave?
2%#
5%#
0%#
93%#
It#is#too#small#
It#is#too#big#
It#is#just#right#
Other#(please#specify)#
15.
What
gender
are
you:
0%# 0%#
17%#
21%#
14%#
0%# 0%#
5%#
19%#
17%#
7%#
0%# 0%#
25%#
20%#
15%#
10%#
5%#
0%#
<#15# 15+19# 20+24# 25+29# 30+34# 35+39# 40+44# 45+49# 50+54# 55+59# 60+64# 64+69# >#70#
40%$
60%$
60%$
50%$
40%$
30%$
20%$
10%$
0%$
Male$ Female$
15.
Please
select
your
age
range:

27. 15.
Which
of
the
following
best
describes
yours
status?
27
of
30
33%#
0%#
21%#
19%#
0%#
26%#
0%# Parent#
Student#living#at#home#
Student#living#out#of#
home#
Non;student#Bachellor#
Non;student#Bachelore?e#
Married#

28. 28
of
30
Appendix
E
–
Market
Sizing:
Average
Consumer
Annual
Spend $
3.66
Total
Market No.
of
Consumers Retail
Sales
Value
2Total
US
Households
114,991,725
3Total
Canadian
Households
9,389,700
2US
Households
w/
Childern 32.3%
3Canadian
Households
w/
Childern 39.2%
2US
Households
w/
Single
Occupant 27.7%
3Canadian
Households
w/
Single
Occupant 27.6%
Total
North
American
Households
/w
Childern 32.8%
Total
North
American
Households
/w
Childern
or
Single
Occupants 60.5%
Total
North
American
Households
124,381,425
4North
American
Household
Microwave
Market
Penetration: 95%
Total
North
American
Households
with
Microwaves
118,162,354 $
432,474,215
1Total
2013
US
Retail
Sales
of
Home
Care
Produts $
28,712,000,000
1Total
2013
US
Retail
Sales
of
Toilet
Care
Produts $
668,600,000
Home
Care
Market
Share
of
US
Households 100.0%
Total
North
American
Households
with
Microwaves
That
Purchase
Home
Care
Products
118,162,354
Channel
&
Competition
1Hypermarkets/Supermarket
Home
Care
Channel
Share 58%
Hypermarkets/Supermarket
Microwave
Channel
Size
68,416,003
1Competitor
Channel
Share
(NA
Top
10
Home
Care
Company
Share) 83%
Served
Avaliable
Market
Share
Estimated
Microwave
Care
Market
Size
11,938,592 $
43,695,249
Target
Market
-­‐
Households
w/
Childern
or
Single
Occupants
&
Microwaves
Target
Market
Size
7,228,210 $
26,455,247
Target
Market
Size
Excluding
Single
Occupant
Households
3,918,849 $
14,342,987
1
Euromonitor
International,
2013
2Vespa
J.
et
al.,
2013
3
Statistics
Canada,
2012
4
Euromonitor,
2013

29. Reference
List
Baby
Green
Thumb.
"Safe
Plastic
Numbers."
Baby
Green
Thumb.
(2011):
n.
page.
Print.
http://www.babygreenthumb.com/p-­‐122-­‐safe-­‐plastic-­‐numbers-­‐guide.asp&xgt;
Accessed
March
2014.
DeLima.
“Health
and
Safety
Information
Easy-­‐off
Heat
Activated
Microwave
Wipes”.
Houshold
Products
Database
–
Health
and
Safety
Information
of
Household
Products.
U.S
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services,
12th
March
2009.
Accessed
25th
March
2014.
Dupont
Industrial
Biosciences
"Trends
shaping
the
industry."
Dupont
Industrial
Biosciences.
2012:
n.
page.
Print.
http://fhc.biosciences.dupont.com/news/trends-­‐shaping-­‐the-­‐industry/.
FDA,
“Radiation
-­‐
Emitting
Products:
Risk
of
Burns
from
Eruptions
of
Hot
Water
Overheated
in
Microwave
Ovens."
US
Food
and
Drug
Administration.
US
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services,
25
Apr
2012.
Web.
22
Mar
2014.
http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-­‐
EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/HomeBusinessandEntertainment/
ucm142506.htm
FSIS,
“Microwave
-­‐
Ovens
and
Food
Safety."
Food
Safety
and
Inspection
Services.
United
States
Department
of
Agriculture.
Web.
Accessed
22nd
March
2014.
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/shared/PDF/Microwave_Ovens_and_Food_Safety.pdf
Government
of
Canada,
“Microwave
Oven
Food
Safety
Tips."
Healthy
Canadians.
Government
of
Canada,
19th
January
2011.
Web.
Accessed
24th
March
2014
http://www.healthycanadians.gc.ca/kids-­‐enfants/food-­‐aliment/microwave-­‐micro_ondes-­‐
eng.php
Smithers
Apex.
Insight:
Do
you
know
the
Five
Most
Important
Trends
in
the
Cleaning
Products
Market?
Smithers
Apex.
27th
November
2013.
Print.
https://www.smithersapex.com/market-­‐
reports/insight-­‐do-­‐you-­‐know-­‐the-­‐five-­‐most-­‐important-­‐trends-­‐in-­‐the-­‐cleaning-­‐products-­‐
market.asp&xgt;.
Turk,
Sarah.
Soap
&
Cleaning
Compound
Manufacturing
in
Canada.
Rep.
no.
32561CA.
2014.
IBIS
Web.
Accessed
20th
March
2014.
http://clients1.ibisworld.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/reports/ca/industry/default.aspx?entid=49
5.
Euromonitor
International
2013.
Microwaves
in
Canada.
Retrieved
from
Passport
GMID
database.
http://www.portal.euromonitor.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/Portal/Pages/Search/Sea
rchResultsList.aspx
29
of
30

30. Vespa
J.
America’s
Families
and
Living
Arrangements:
2012
U.S.
Department
of
Commerce
-­‐
Population
Characteristics.
Economics
and
Statistics
Administration
U.S.
CENSUS
BUREAU.
2013
Statistics
Canada.
Census
in
Brief
-­‐
Fifty
years
of
families
in
Canada:
1961
to
2011.
Minister
of
Industry,
2012
Agriculture
and
Agri-­‐Food
Canada.
The
Canadian
Consumer.
Behaviours,
Attitudes
and
perceptions
towards
food
products.
http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/statistics/food/canada_consumer_report_en.pdf
Statistics
Canada.
Portrait
of
Families
and
Living
Arrangements
in
Canada.
2011
Census
of
Population.
Minister
of
Industry,
2012.
Euromonitor
International.
Toilet
Care
Moving
to
Tipping
Point.
2013,
Accessed
March
2014.
http://0www.portal.euromonitor.com.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/Portal/Handlers/accessPDF.a
shx/Toilet_Care_Moving_to_Tipping_Point.pdf.
Retrieved
from
Passport
GMID
March
2014.
30
of
30