ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET

(to be completed by the student)

AIB student ID number: Student name: Course name: Subject name: Subject facilitator: Teaching Centre: No. of pages: Word count: DECLARATION

A12784 JASON FARADAY MARKETING MANAGEMENT NEW PRODUCT MANAGEMENT TIMITRA WILLIAMS SITAL COLLEGE OF TERTIARY EDUCATION LIMITED 14 1913

I, the above named student, confirm that by submitting, or causing the attached assignment to be submitted, to AIB, I have not plagiarised any other persons work in this assignment and except where appropriately acknowledged, this assignment is my own work, has been expressed in my own words, and has not previously been submitted for assessment.

ASSESSMENT SHEET
(to be completed by the examiner)

Student name: Course name: Subject name: Assessor/marker: COMMENTS

Principles learnt (for example, number and understanding of principles referred to, their influence on the structure of this paper, number and correct citations of references, use of appropriate jargon)

/4
Application of principles. That is, the analysis and evaluation of the example problem based on the principles, including the final recommendations and their justification

/8
How well the example problem was described, including the extent and depth of information (including the data) about it that was accessed

/4
Structure and presentation

/2
Style, grammar and language

/2

Total Less penalties GRAND TOTAL General comments /20

FOR MODERATORS USE ONLY

/20

I agree with the assessors assessment I disagree with the assessors assessment and the new mark is as follows for the following reasons:

Moderator:

Executive Summary
This paper seeks to investigate how efficient and effective the Ministry of Gender, Youth and Child Developments new service innovation process is and ways to enhance it. An analysis was conducted comparing the organisation against best practices of the Stage-Gate process. Furthermore, relevant and informed recommendations were made to enhance the process.

Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................ 7 MGYCDs New Production Innovation Structure ......................... 8 Analysis of MGYCD Against the Stage-Gate Process ................. 11 Justification of Using the Stage-Gate Process ........................... 13 Recommendations to Enhance MGYCDs Innovation Process... 14 Conclusion ................................................................................ 15 References ................................................................................ 16 Appendices ............................................................................... 17

Introduction
The Ministry of Gender, Youth and Child Development (MGYCD) is a Stateowned organisation established in January 2011 and mandated by the government of Trinidad and Tobago to render services by educating, enhancing and funding to youths between the ages eleven (11) to thirty (30) years. Initiatives undertaken by the organisation promote literary and encourages self-enhancement. These initiatives include mentoring, the teaching of skills such as jewellery making, culinary arts and music. The organisation is a nonprofit organisation and hence, focuses on superior citizen service and satisfaction. The purpose of this assignment is to identify what process of product innovation the organisation utilities and produce an analysis of what the company implements as oppose to best practices that are mentioned in the textbook. Also, included would be a justification of the need for the product innovation process, the risks involved in adopting the appropriate process and recommendations which can be considered to enhance the company product innovation process.

MGYCDs New Production Innovation Structure

The Basic New Products Process is a basic template/platform which firms use to generate new product development. (Crawford and Di Benedetto 2011). This process consists of five phases which is conducted by a new product team. These phases which the product team is involved in would determine whether the product/service, idea/concept is good enough to continue unto the next step or whether it should be halted or shut down before it progresses to the latter stages. (Crawford and Di Benedetto 2011)

The Stages include: Phase 1: Opportunity Identification and Selection Phase 2: Concept Generation Phase 3: Concept/Project Evaluation Phase 4: Development (Includes both technical and marketing tasks) Phase 5: Launch The main objective of this process is to identify all possible risks and uncertainty and be able to manage them successfully. (Crawford and Di Benedetto 2011) Stemming from this platform lies the evolution of the Stage-Gate Process. This process follows the concept of the basic original new products process. This process also involves five stages and includes the participation of selected cross-functional teams playing the role of what they are referred to as GateKeepers. The process commences with the Discovery Stage which involves the birth of the ideas and many potential opportunities. These discoveries are then assessed at the first stage, known as the Scoping Stage, at a very low cost. The third stage which is referred to as the Build Business Case, can either half or approve the project in preparation for the next stage. The following stage is the Development At this juncture requires more financial and human resource involvement and hence the actual design and development of the product is implemented. This includes marketing and operating plans as well as the testing aspects are introduced.

Stage 4 of the Stage-Gate Process is known as the Testing and Validation. This stage validates the entire project as a whole ranging from the product, to manufacturing and customer acceptance. Finally, Stage 5 is known as the Launch stage and is concerned with the actual industrialisation and commercialisation of the product/service.

Diagram 1.1, which can be found in the appendix, illustrates the entire StageGate process from the discovery stage to the launch stage. (Product Development Institute Incorporated 2012) The Ministry of Gender, Youth and Child Development (MGYCD) deploys a system similar to that of the Stage-Gate Process but in relation to service. The organisation commences with the discovery stage as an idea to conduct youthoriented programmes can be generated by any member of the staff, a member of the community or member of a youth group registered under the organisation. This idea is then taken to the Youth Officer, who is the Ministrys representative for the community, in the form of a proposal so that he or she can conduct a slight review. Pertinent questions such as what value to the community can this programme add? what are the projected benefits of this programme? are questions which should be answered in the proposal. Depending on how well the proposal was done would determine if the project would be allowed to move beyond the Youth Officer. The Youth Officer acts as a gate-keeper on behalf of the Ministry. Assuming that all things are being equal and the proposal is accepted by the Youth Officer, he or she sanctions a GO which allows the proposal to move on to the next stage. The second stage, which is equivalent to the Build Business Stage, the proposal is then sent to the Youth Officer II, who is the Youth Officers superior and the second gatekeeper in the organisations service development process. He or she is responsible for conducting thorough reviews of the proposal and also conducting one and one interviews with the idea generator to ensure that the project is indeed ready for actual design and development in the next stage. Once the proposal is approved by the Youth Officer II it then goes into the development stage in the process whereby the Director of Affairs is the third gate-keeper. He or she is responsible for taking the proposal to the crossfunctional team known as the Funding Committee so that it can be approved and finalised by top management. This cross-functional team consists of the Director of Affairs, Heads from the Human Resource, Accounting and Communications departments as well as the Ministrys Line Minister. The proposal is then voted upon and approved for funding and launching. Once this stage is successful, the idea evolves from being a proposal into a programme/project initiative preparing for an official launch through the use of

the mass media and the internet. Diagram 1.2 illustrates the organisational structure of MGYCD.

Analysis of MGYCD Against the Stage-Gate Process

It is quite evident that MGYCD emulates various aspects of the Stage-Gate Process in the context of a service-oriented, non-profit organisation. There is a clear distinction between products and services. Services are rendered and products are possessed. (Shostack, GL n.d.) Hence, the process would be slightly different to achieve the goals and objectives of the Ministry. One particular stage which was completely left out by MGYCD was the testing and validation stage due to the nature of the services provided by the organisation. It would have been detrimental had the organisation been a profit-oriented establishment in a product driven industry. However, comparisons can be made between MGYCDs system and the StageGate and Basic New Products Process discussed in the textbook. Firstly, with reference to the gate-keepers involved in the entire process, there has been large amounts of over-lapping whereby there were gate-keepers also being involved in the cross-functional teams. This has led to issues such as fuzzy gates, whereby GO decisions are made without all the information available to the gate-keepers and hollow-gate issues whereby GO decisions are made and there is no follow-up commitment to it. (Crawford and Di Benedetto 2011) Additionally, due to the funding which is received from the State, the process is often times manipulated for political reasons and hence some projects actual passes through loop holes and by-passes critical stages such as the development and the build business case to miraculously end up with the funding committee before being launched. The Stage-Gate process clearly states the importance of the gate-keepers and cross-functional teams in making appropriate GO or NO GO decisions with respect to the project in question. (Product Development Institute Incorporated 2012) The Stage-Gate Process was not intended to be a controlled method for top management to exploit but rather it was intended to get resources for the project and enhance the speed to market concept. (Cooper 2008) Hence there is a ripple effect that occurs as other stakeholders like members of the community and other are affected by poor service execution. Moreover, another best practice which was by-passed by MGYCD was the full screen process. This always for a thorough examination of the project by placing weightings what can be attainable and how capable MGYCD is of implementing it. This procedure should occur just before the development stage. (Crawford and Di Benedetto 2011)

In a fast-paced environment such as Trinidad and Tobago, whereby efficiency and effectively are demanded by its citizens, it is imperative for the organisation to follow these best practices to revamp its current process and enhance customer service and satisfaction.

Justification of Using the Stage-Gate Process

Utilities the Stage-Gate process in the correct manner can most likely yield success for MGYCD. It improves the speed to market concept whereby programmes can be launched in a more efficient manner and hence meet the needs of the youths amongst the communities in Trinidad and Tobago. Secondly, it actually reduces excessive overlapping of duties and responsibilities. Hence, leading to a more discipline and less chaotic environment. Lastly, an effective Stage-Gate Process with dedicated and honest Gate-keepers and honest members on the cross functional teams can ensure that no critical stages are omitted in the process. Once these steps are diligently undertaken, one can expect a more effective, efficient, faster process that improves your product innovation results. (Product Development Institute Incorporated 2012)

Recommendations to Enhance MGYCDs Innovation Process

Firstly, to enhance the general platform of the Stage-Gate Process at the organisation, Cooper RG 2008 alluded that parallel execution of the stages rather than sequential could provide greater efficiency which would eventually contribute to a faster speed to market. Additionally, as mention in the analysis above, MGYCD needs to implement an appropriate full screen method before the project reaches the development stage. This further investigates the strengths and weaknesses of the project as it prepares for the development stage. The most appropriate method of weighting for the full screen would be the scoring model, which places a weighting ranging and a list of possible benefits which can be derived from the project. Another recommendation which should be considered is allowing the crossfunctional teams to be more balanced in terms of power and authority. Although, the team comprises of the Director of Affairs, Heads of Department and the Line Minister, it is still understood that the Line Minister has more authority and hence can still force a project through regardless of any rejections. Cooper 2008, proposed that stages should be equally managed by all the departments involved through the use of cross-functional teams. Hence, this can de-centralised the authority so that the consensus can be agreed upon collectively. Lastly, asking youths in the communities their opinions about how effective a programme was can be beneficial to MGYCD so that it can always improve its programmes to suit the needs of the communities. However, depending on them for direction or for a plan could be detrimental to the organisation. Ulwick AW 2002 discusses the issue of over-indulging the end-users of the service. He explained that consumers/end-users of a product or service are only limited to what they have experienced and have the broader knowledge of the entire spectrum of new product innovation. Hence, they should not be used by MGYCD as innovators or problem-solvers/troubleshooters.

Conclusion
Having discussed MGYCD in great detail with respect to its new service innovation process and outlined its strengths, weaknesses against the best practices of the Stage-Gate as well as offer recommendations which should positively impact the organisation, one can identify that the main objective of this assignment was realised which was to conduct an investigation into MGYCDs product innovation process. The Ministry should seriously consider the issues and recommendations discussed in the assignment and make appropriate adjustments where needed. Once these necessary steps are by the organisation it can definitely enhance citizen service and satisfaction.

References
Crawford, CM and Di Benedetto, C 2011, New Products Management, 10th edition, McGraw Hill, New York.

Witiger.com 2011, New Product Development http://www.witiger.com/marketing/newproductdevelopment.htm Viewed 29 November 2012.

Product Development Institute Incorporated 2012, Stage-Gate Innovation Process http://www.prod-dev.com/stage-gate.php Viewed 02 December 2012.

Shostack, GL n.d., How to Design A Service Citibank, N.A., New York.

Ulwick AW 2002, Turn Customer Input Into Innovation

Cooper RG 2008, Perspective: The Stage-Gate Idea-to-Launch Process

Appendices

Diagram 1.1

Diagram 1.2