Alison Rudder, Paul Ainsworth and David Holgate
This paper seeks to evaluate the ideas of six new product development (NPD) theorists and their associates. These include those who have developed their theories with particular…
Abstract
This paper seeks to evaluate the ideas of six new product development (NPD) theorists and their associates. These include those who have developed their theories with particular reference to the food industry and the development of new food products. Their ideas are contrasted with non‐food specific theorists; these include those interested in the management of new products and those involved in marketing who have recognised the important role that NPD plays in any business. A further viewpoint is taken from theorists who are interested in NPD per se and who use food, on occasions, to illustrate their ideas. This research identifies different theories and recognises that there is very little consensus as to the right and wrong way to manage the process of product development. Indeed theorists name and number their various stages or phases differently with some advocating five while others believe eight steps to be more appropriate. This research concludes that an organisation should not be tied to one particular model but should take on board the basic fundamentals of a food‐based model (theory) and adapt and amend it to their particular situations as and when they develop new food products.
Details
Keywords
Highlights the large number of food product innovations and extensions being developed across Europe. The types of developments are often represented as “new developments”’ in…
Abstract
Highlights the large number of food product innovations and extensions being developed across Europe. The types of developments are often represented as “new developments”’ in their broadest sense. Research was undertaken to ascertain the types of developments being embarked on by SME food manufacturers and to identify the influences to which they are subjected when trying to meet the needs of the retailer, and ultimately the consumer. Concludes that food manufacturers are proactive in making a range of “adjustments” to their products rather than developing “new to the world products”.
Details
Keywords
The Bureau of Economics in the Federal Trade Commission has a three-part role in the Agency and the strength of its functions changed over time depending on the preferences and…
Abstract
The Bureau of Economics in the Federal Trade Commission has a three-part role in the Agency and the strength of its functions changed over time depending on the preferences and ideology of the FTC’s leaders, developments in the field of economics, and the tenor of the times. The over-riding current role is to provide well considered, unbiased economic advice regarding antitrust and consumer protection law enforcement cases to the legal staff and the Commission. The second role, which long ago was primary, is to provide reports on investigations of various industries to the public and public officials. This role was more recently called research or “policy R&D”. A third role is to advocate for competition and markets both domestically and internationally. As a practical matter, the provision of economic advice to the FTC and to the legal staff has required that the economists wear “two hats,” helping the legal staff investigate cases and provide evidence to support law enforcement cases while also providing advice to the legal bureaus and to the Commission on which cases to pursue (thus providing “a second set of eyes” to evaluate cases). There is sometimes a tension in those functions because building a case is not the same as evaluating a case. Economists and the Bureau of Economics have provided such services to the FTC for over 100 years proving that a sub-organization can survive while playing roles that sometimes conflict. Such a life is not, however, always easy or fun.