Food Processing - October 2007 - (Page 30)

36th Annual R&D Survey vamped product. Any stage of the decision-making process can trigger the spending or saving of thousands of dollars. Different people get to make the call at those different stages. “Does it fit our brand?” is answered equally by marketing & sales and by top management. Not surprisingly, marketing takes over when the question is “Does it fit our marketing strategy?” But you’ve go to suspend trust in the marketing & sales folks when you decide “Can we make money on it?” – only R&D scored lower among the nine job titles (see Figure 3). Interestingly, suppliers figured a close second to manufacturing (only half a percentage point behind) when the question was “Can we make it?” It’s our assumption those are suppliers of equipment as well as ingredients. One question we expanded this year was where each title fits along the product development process (see Figure 4); that is, who is on the product development chain? Of interest, in our chain the marketing and sales team does the majority of the brainstorming – slightly more than R&D. And of course, that group handles the lion’s share of market investigation as well. R&D gets into the driver’s seat for formulation as well as product testing and development. Then, as would be expected, the bench squad hands the reins over to plant operations for manufacturing, production and packaging. This does not mean there’s no team effort. In fact, the differences in the breakdown are not that big – everybody in-house pitches in across the board with more or less equal voice, and a little more emphasis when the development process hits their department. One set of survey results that came as unexpected was the degree to which the marketing & sales team is involved in product testing (more even than the manufacturing operations team) and the packaging phases (surpassed only by manufacturing operations). This ties in to our question on whether a company makes decisions regarding new product development in a centralized or decentralized manner. When asked if decisions are made at the corporate level (centralized), almost two-thirds said yes, versus 36 percent claiming decisions at their company are decentralized – that is, made by a particular business unit. Cross purposes Cross-functional team members are assumed to bring different perspectives to the product development process. A new ques- tion in our survey this year asked whether processors think there are benefits or hindrances when working in a team atmosphere. Those surveyed were divided over the question whether cross-functional teams are successful with new products only if they have a common incentive plan. Two-thirds agreed and one-third disagreed. But the nearly 200 additional comments we received to this query shined a light on some typical – and not so typical – pros and cons of the entire teamworking model. “The benefits are that four heads are better than one,” says Debbie Rihs, quality assurance manager for Don’s Food Products (www.donssalads.com), Schwenksville, Pa. “No one person has all the answers, and a team of different disciplines helps you avoid costly mistakes. It also provides different perspec- I REaD It IN a MaGazINE “We produce sugar-free and low-sugar, high-end products for diabetics, dieters, heart patients and healthy eaters. For the past 15 years we have relied on trade journals and ingredient suppliers to help us use cutting-edge ingredients to achieve our nutritional and taste objectives. Sweeteners have been one of our challenges, as have gums, pectins, fiber products (inulin, fat substitutes, etc.). “Our foray into organics created special challenges: as a small company, we brainstorm for ideals of products that our end customers need. We then do R&D with small recipes, using a variety of ingredients and from classic recipes. When it looks and tastes right, we scale up three times: 5-10 gallons, 40 and 80 gallons. We adjust, settle on a taste, run the nutritionals on the computer and, if they are acceptable, we send samples to the lab. “We settle on packaging and labels and try to send samples to key customers for their reaction. If it is positive, we move forward. Combining organic and sugar-free in one product was a mistake a year ago. today, it has worked out to great functional and market advantage. “We have often been ahead of market trends in the diet food category. Our assumption was always that diet foods should be trendy, gourmet and taste great. ‘big food’ has not yet fully embraced the idea of expensive ingredients and great flavor in this category. thus, there are low expectations that must be overcome by the small innovative companies.” ‑ Betty Jo Steel, Steel’s Gourmet Foods, Bridgeport, Pa. FIGuRE 4: WhO’S IN thE ChaIN? Departments/titles involved in each step of the product development chain CEO/ Pres./CFO brainstorming Market Investigation Formulation Product testing Product Development Manufacturing Commercial Production Packaging 15% 12% 8% 8% 10% 9% 8% 7% Corp. Mgt. 17% 19% 10% 12% 13% 12% 12% 9% R&D 19% 13% 32% 30% 26% 17% 13% 13% Mktg./ Sales 21% 35% 9% 20% 15% 5% 10% 18% Suppliers 5% 6% 10% 6% 7% 8% 8% 10% External Prod. Dev. 3% 5% 4% 4% 4% 2% 2% 3% Mfg. 11% 4% 17% 15% 15% 29% 26% 20% Purchasing 7% 4% 8% 3% 7% 13% 12% 14% Supply Chain 3% 2% 3% 2% 3% 7% 8% 7% 30 • FOOD PROCESSING OCtObER 2007 WWW.FOODPROCESSING.COM http://www.donssalads.com http://www.foodprocessing.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Food Processing - October 2007

Food Processing - October 2007 Contents Editor’s Plate Power Lunch NewsBites Rollout Food Biz Kids Product Spotlight Annual R&D Survey Product Development Plant Operations Packaging New Product Profiles Toops Scoops

Food Processing - October 2007

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.