Food Processing - May 2008 - (Page 26)

37th ANNUAL R&D SURVE Y Last year, processors’ responses to who answers these questions held a few surprises. The responsibility for “Does it fit our brand?” was equally shared between CEOs/CFOs/ Presidents and Marketing & Sales. This year, Marketing & Sales actually surpassed the CEO/CFO/President suite by two percentage points, 67 to 65. A swing of the pendulum brought Marketing & Sales a hefty “return” to responsibility for deciding “Does it fit our marketing strategy?” Last year saw Marketing ahead of General Management by just one-third at 37 vs. 26 percent. This year, although we analyzed responses differently, the resulting 83 percent was much higher than General Management’s 56 percent. The answer to “Can we make money on it?” was shared more or less evenly across the CEO/CFO/President, General Management, Marketing & Sales and Purchasing titles. And whether or not whatever it is can be made is answered predominantly by Manufacturing, with 89 percent choosing that title as the primary voice, with R&D a hot second at 81 percent. Last year, it was the suppliers who were the second string. All that research and development legwork is wheel-spinning without someone dropping the flag. In last year’s survey, we weighted the importance of the final decision-making process across a spectrum from “very important” to not important for each title. Reducing it to a simple “does/doesn’t” (decide) response gave us a clearer picture of just who approves a project. Surprisingly, the “go for it” decision falls to General Management (61 percent) more than the top dogs (CEO/CFO/ President) (51 percent), with Marketing in a close third at 48 percent. R&D (40 percent) manages to beat only Manufacturing (14 percent) on this key decision-making power. Team players One of the aspects of R&D we noticed emerging over recent years as a key paradigm is that of the cross-functional team. When we asked last year about the benefits and hindrances to the team approach, we found them split two-to-one over whether cross-functional teams are successful with new products when there’s a common incentive plan. That is, two-thirds agreed and one-third disagreed. This year, the cross-functional team snagged an overwhelming endorsement at 80 percent. DO yOu REaD ME? Where do processors get the crucial info they need for their R&D research? Here’s the breakdown, according to survey answers: Internal research/Focus groups 70% Suppliers 63% Trade journals 58% Competitors 57% Trade associations 45% External research organizations (such as aCNielsen, Datamonitor, Innova, Mintel, NPD Group and others) 44% academia 35% Patent information 25% Government agencies 19% Consortiums 11% Great sources of information all, but a number of respondents reminded us by write-in vote that one of the best sources of information is their customers. We will be sure to include that option in next year’s survey. So what changed? Let’s look at what our survey participants considered as benefits of the cross-functional approach. “The cross-functional team has a different set of eyes and mind-set, which contribute to a wider window in ideation processes,” is how one processor put it. “Team atmosphere allows for brainstorming, throwing ideas out in the open and allowing yourself and others to work off new ideas given by others,” a spice-blend manufacturer explained. More comprehensively, cross-functional teams permit pre-emptive approaches to potential problems. “Projected weaknesses throughout the product development processes are revealed earlier and solutions are presented earlier to avoid or minimize future problems,” is how a Parañaque City, Philippines, processor of health and wellness, power and energy products phrases it. (He reads our digital edition – do you?) Other survey participants provided such descriptions of the cross-functional team’s benefits as, “All aspects of the product concept are kept in focus and all the expertise needed is easily available.” Figure 4 Departments/titles involved in each step of the product development chain CEO/CFO/ Pres. Brainstorming Market Investigation Formulation Product Testing Product Development Manufacturing Commercial Production Packaging 32% 19% 7% 10% 10% 9% 16% 8% Gen. Mgt. 48% 36% 10% 19% 19% 22% 24% 21% R&D 86% 30% 93% 85% 90% 55% 48% 48% Mktg./ Sales 77% 86% 14% 45% 34% 14% 26% 50% Suppliers 18% 14% 21% 11% 17% 17% 22% 32% External Prod. Dev. 13% 11% 11% 11% 14% 7% 7% 6% Mfg. 28% 2% 27% 35% 31% 86% 81% 62% Purchasing 15% 11% 15% 8% 15% 29% 36% 47% Supply Chain 10% 8% 3% 7% 8% 21% 30% 22% 26 • FOOD PROCESSING May 2008 WWW.FOODPROCESSING.COM http://www.foodprocessing.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Food Processing - May 2008

Food Processing - May 2008 Editor’s Plate NewsBites The Trends Rollout Food Biz Kids Product Developer turned Bean Counter The top-selling new products of 2007 The open road Back to the Big Easy Managing the global plant A new column with answers to your plant-fl oor questions New Supplier Products Toops Scoops

Food Processing - May 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.