Sample Answers to Exercises and Thought Questions: Chapter 8
EX 8.1
How can the concept selection methods be used to benchmark or evaluate existing products? Perform such an evaluation for five automobiles you might consider purchasing.
(Based on a solution by Evan Matteo)
This method can be used to benchmark existing products as follows:
How can the concept selection methods be used to benchmark or evaluate existing products? Perform such an evaluation for five automobiles you might consider purchasing.
(Based on a solution by Evan Matteo)
This method can be used to benchmark existing products as follows:
- Prepare the selection matrix.
- Determine what product attributes are important.
- Rank these attributes, distributing one hundred points among them.
- Rate the products.
- Assign a value from one to five (five is best) to each attribute of each product.
- Rank the products.
- Multiply the point value of each attribute with the rating of each product for that attribute. The result is a weighted score. Sum the weighted scores for each product to get a total score.
- (Combine and improve the products.)
- Not applicable to existing products.
- Select one or more products.
- The product with the highest score is the preferred product.
- Reflect on the results and the process.
- Check to see if the ranking of products makes subjective sense.
- Check to see how close the total scores are: small differences in total score may not be significant.
Results:
The Toyota Camry LE, with a score of 414, was the preferred automobile. Also desirable were the Dodge Intrepid ES and the Honda Accord EX. These automobiles were barely distinguishable, with scores of 406 and 404, respectively.
Assumptions:
Source of Information:
Consumer Reports magazine, 1/94 and 2/94 issues. (Consumer Reports is an unbiased and consistent source of benchmarking information on automobiles. I have personally found Consumer Reports useful when evaluating automobiles for purchase.)
EX 8.2
Propose a set of selection criteria for the choice of a battery technology for use in a portable computer.
(Based on a solution by Ammar Al-Rifai)
Selection criteria:
• Size (Compactness)
• Weight (Lightness)
• Power Adequacy
• Power Duration
• Rechargeability
• Ease of Assembly/Removal
• Material Compatibility (No interference with circuit performance)
• Ease of Manufacture
• Cost
EX 8.3
Perform concept screening for the four pencil holder concepts shown. Assume the pencil holders are for a member of a product development team who is continually moving from site to site.
(Based on a solution by Ryan Blanchette)
Obviously the outcome of this exercise depends on the student’s criteria and evaluations. Here is one student’s matrix.
The Toyota Camry LE, with a score of 414, was the preferred automobile. Also desirable were the Dodge Intrepid ES and the Honda Accord EX. These automobiles were barely distinguishable, with scores of 406 and 404, respectively.
Assumptions:
- Sedan (4-door). (What I grew up with.)
- Price range of $20-25,000. (I'll be getting a great job, but I'm not super-rich.)
Source of Information:
Consumer Reports magazine, 1/94 and 2/94 issues. (Consumer Reports is an unbiased and consistent source of benchmarking information on automobiles. I have personally found Consumer Reports useful when evaluating automobiles for purchase.)
EX 8.2
Propose a set of selection criteria for the choice of a battery technology for use in a portable computer.
(Based on a solution by Ammar Al-Rifai)
Selection criteria:
• Size (Compactness)
• Weight (Lightness)
• Power Adequacy
• Power Duration
• Rechargeability
• Ease of Assembly/Removal
• Material Compatibility (No interference with circuit performance)
• Ease of Manufacture
• Cost
EX 8.3
Perform concept screening for the four pencil holder concepts shown. Assume the pencil holders are for a member of a product development team who is continually moving from site to site.
(Based on a solution by Ryan Blanchette)
Obviously the outcome of this exercise depends on the student’s criteria and evaluations. Here is one student’s matrix.
|
Concepts
|
|
Selection Criteria
|
Zip Pouch
|
Screw Cap
|
Clam Shell
|
Slider
|
|
Bulkiness
|
+
|
-
|
-
|
0
|
|
Ease of Opening
|
-
|
-
|
0
|
|
Ease of Manufacturing
|
-
|
+
|
-
|
0
|
|
Pencil Accessibility/Organization
|
-
|
-
|
0
|
0
|
|
Pencil Tip Protection
|
-
|
-
|
0
|
0
|
|
Aesthetics
|
+
|
-
|
-
|
0
|
|
Reliability
|
0
|
+
|
-
|
0
|
|
Sum +'s
|
2
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
|
Sum -'s
|
3
|
5
|
5
|
0
|
|
Sum 0's
|
2
|
0
|
2
|
7
|
|
Net Score
|
-1
|
-3
|
-5
|
0
|
|
Rank
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
1
|
|
Continue?
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
• Selection Criteria listed in order of importance for a traveling team for future concept scoring.
• Screw cap and Clam Shell fail the most important criteria: they are bulky and they are difficult to open.
• It may be possible to combine the positive characteristics of the Slider and the Zip Pouch to produce a better concept.
EX 8.4
Repeat Exercise 3, but use concept scoring.
The matrix would look like that in Exercise 7.1, except with the concepts and criteria of Exercise 7.3.
TQ 8.1
How might you use the concept selection method to decide whether to offer a single product to the marketplace or to offer several different product options?
(Based on a solution by Sherk Chung)
Selection Procedure:
1. Prepare the selection matrix
2. Rate the concepts
3. Rank the concepts
4. Combine and improve the concepts
5. Select one or more concepts
6. Reflect on the results and the process
The text mentions that the concept selection method is an iterative procedure. After the concepts are combined and improved, you can start from step one again, and rank, dismiss, combine, and improve the resulting products, and so on. Thus the selection of concepts is narrowed by combining concepts and throwing out ones that don't score well relative to the others. However, if after a few iterations, the concepts that remain are of almost equal score, cannot be combined, and rank strongly (relative to others) in different (equally important) categories of consumer needs, one might consider offering various products to satisfy all the customer needs rather than making just one.
For example, suppose some customers decide they need something that blends fruit and discards the peel. So two of the customer needs may be: 1. Blend Fruit, 2. Peel Fruit. After going through the concept selection process, suppose there remain some concepts to peel fruit and some concepts that blend fruit. It may be that the concepts that blend fruit do not peel fruit well, and the concepts that peel fruit don't blend fruit well. If the designers feel that both needs are equally important, and that there is no way to combine the concept of the fruit peeler to that of the blender, they might consider designing two different products– one that blends fruit and the other that peels it. Another example may be if consumers need a gun that is comfortable for both left handed and right handed people. If the concepts that are comfortable for left handed people and the concepts that are comfortable for right handed people cannot be combined, and the designers feel that they are equally important, they may want to make two different guns: one that fits the left hand and one that fits the right hand.
In a nutshell, if the designers cannot find a concept or a combination of concepts that satisfy all the primary customer needs at an acceptable level, but they do have several concepts that satisfy all the needs well, and there is no dependency among the needs and the needs are equally important, then it may be good to consider providing separate products to meet the separate needs. It might be better to provide several products that satisfy all the primary customer needs well rather than providing a single product that satisfies some needs well but not others.
TQ 8.2:
How might you use the method to determine which product features should be standard and which should be optional or add-ons?
This thought question is related to and builds on TQ 7.1. The team may discover that different segments of the target market have strongly divergent preferences relative to a few of the concept selection criteria, but are largely in agreement relative to another set of selection criteria. The team may be able to synthesize a product concept consisting of a base set of features to which alternative features can be added as options. For example, a team designing a new pencil might discover that all market segments prefer a certain eraser concept, but that there are different preferences for the shape of the pencil grip depending on the size of the user’s hand. This information may give rise to a pencil concept in which the grip portion of the pencil is interchangeable. Strongly different preferences for a few concept selection criteria are a good indicator that this strategy may be warranted.
TQ 8.3
Can you imagine an interactive computer tool that would allow a large group (say, 20 or more people) to participate in the concept selection process? How might such a tool work?
Such tools are beginning to emerge under the category of "groupware." One tool might allow a group of people to simultaneously express an evaluation of a concept with respect to a criterion and have the average evaluation automatically generated and displayed to the group. This would be a kind of secret ballot system. Another system might allow a questionnaire to be automatically created and disseminated to a large group of customers in order to gather extremely rapid customer feedback. Such a tool might even display simulations of the intended product concept.
TQ 8.4
What could cause a situation in which a development team uses the concept selection method to agree on a concept that then results in commercial failure?
(Based on a solution by Lance Haag)
I can think of several such causes. First, the team may not have searched very well in the concept generation process, and may end up with a "me-too" product. If the competition is established and customer loyalty is any issue, we may not be able to compete, even on price. Likewise, a failure in execution of any other part of the development process that causes price to be too high, delivery problems, or late arrival on the market can cause the whole project to fail.
Most relevant to the concept selection process, however is how it is used by the team. If there are clever team members who want to champion a particular concept, they can manipulate the process to favor it. They can push for high rankings on criteria that favor their concept, and add redundant criteria that do the same. This will make the process relatively useless, and leave the team vulnerable to the kinds of errors ("product-out") that the process is designed to avoid. The cultural issues in many companies that favor the "light-bulb" model of innovation are very hard to change. People fall in love with their ideas, and it can be very hard to get them to be truly objective about them, regardless of the team's use of a methodology.
• Screw cap and Clam Shell fail the most important criteria: they are bulky and they are difficult to open.
• It may be possible to combine the positive characteristics of the Slider and the Zip Pouch to produce a better concept.
EX 8.4
Repeat Exercise 3, but use concept scoring.
The matrix would look like that in Exercise 7.1, except with the concepts and criteria of Exercise 7.3.
TQ 8.1
How might you use the concept selection method to decide whether to offer a single product to the marketplace or to offer several different product options?
(Based on a solution by Sherk Chung)
Selection Procedure:
1. Prepare the selection matrix
2. Rate the concepts
3. Rank the concepts
4. Combine and improve the concepts
5. Select one or more concepts
6. Reflect on the results and the process
The text mentions that the concept selection method is an iterative procedure. After the concepts are combined and improved, you can start from step one again, and rank, dismiss, combine, and improve the resulting products, and so on. Thus the selection of concepts is narrowed by combining concepts and throwing out ones that don't score well relative to the others. However, if after a few iterations, the concepts that remain are of almost equal score, cannot be combined, and rank strongly (relative to others) in different (equally important) categories of consumer needs, one might consider offering various products to satisfy all the customer needs rather than making just one.
For example, suppose some customers decide they need something that blends fruit and discards the peel. So two of the customer needs may be: 1. Blend Fruit, 2. Peel Fruit. After going through the concept selection process, suppose there remain some concepts to peel fruit and some concepts that blend fruit. It may be that the concepts that blend fruit do not peel fruit well, and the concepts that peel fruit don't blend fruit well. If the designers feel that both needs are equally important, and that there is no way to combine the concept of the fruit peeler to that of the blender, they might consider designing two different products– one that blends fruit and the other that peels it. Another example may be if consumers need a gun that is comfortable for both left handed and right handed people. If the concepts that are comfortable for left handed people and the concepts that are comfortable for right handed people cannot be combined, and the designers feel that they are equally important, they may want to make two different guns: one that fits the left hand and one that fits the right hand.
In a nutshell, if the designers cannot find a concept or a combination of concepts that satisfy all the primary customer needs at an acceptable level, but they do have several concepts that satisfy all the needs well, and there is no dependency among the needs and the needs are equally important, then it may be good to consider providing separate products to meet the separate needs. It might be better to provide several products that satisfy all the primary customer needs well rather than providing a single product that satisfies some needs well but not others.
TQ 8.2:
How might you use the method to determine which product features should be standard and which should be optional or add-ons?
This thought question is related to and builds on TQ 7.1. The team may discover that different segments of the target market have strongly divergent preferences relative to a few of the concept selection criteria, but are largely in agreement relative to another set of selection criteria. The team may be able to synthesize a product concept consisting of a base set of features to which alternative features can be added as options. For example, a team designing a new pencil might discover that all market segments prefer a certain eraser concept, but that there are different preferences for the shape of the pencil grip depending on the size of the user’s hand. This information may give rise to a pencil concept in which the grip portion of the pencil is interchangeable. Strongly different preferences for a few concept selection criteria are a good indicator that this strategy may be warranted.
TQ 8.3
Can you imagine an interactive computer tool that would allow a large group (say, 20 or more people) to participate in the concept selection process? How might such a tool work?
Such tools are beginning to emerge under the category of "groupware." One tool might allow a group of people to simultaneously express an evaluation of a concept with respect to a criterion and have the average evaluation automatically generated and displayed to the group. This would be a kind of secret ballot system. Another system might allow a questionnaire to be automatically created and disseminated to a large group of customers in order to gather extremely rapid customer feedback. Such a tool might even display simulations of the intended product concept.
TQ 8.4
What could cause a situation in which a development team uses the concept selection method to agree on a concept that then results in commercial failure?
(Based on a solution by Lance Haag)
I can think of several such causes. First, the team may not have searched very well in the concept generation process, and may end up with a "me-too" product. If the competition is established and customer loyalty is any issue, we may not be able to compete, even on price. Likewise, a failure in execution of any other part of the development process that causes price to be too high, delivery problems, or late arrival on the market can cause the whole project to fail.
Most relevant to the concept selection process, however is how it is used by the team. If there are clever team members who want to champion a particular concept, they can manipulate the process to favor it. They can push for high rankings on criteria that favor their concept, and add redundant criteria that do the same. This will make the process relatively useless, and leave the team vulnerable to the kinds of errors ("product-out") that the process is designed to avoid. The cultural issues in many companies that favor the "light-bulb" model of innovation are very hard to change. People fall in love with their ideas, and it can be very hard to get them to be truly objective about them, regardless of the team's use of a methodology.