Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Concept Development

  • Chapter
Making Innovation Last: Volume 2

  • 1330 Accesses

Abstract

The idea-generation approaches described in the previous chapters are likely to provide a firm with more ideas than it can actually deal with. Consequently, decisions must be made about which ideas will be pushed further and which ones will be put on hold or dropped. Assuming that an idea is the fundamental basis that determines market success or failure, the decisions at this stage are critical. In Section 10.1, we address the topic of ideas evaluation and selection. Ideas usually remain somehow abstract or incomplete and must be elaborated to become testable. A concept is an elaborated version of an idea that describes the main attributes of the corresponding new product or service in a way that potential customers can understand. Moreover, a new concept is usually not completely isolated from existing offers and, even for the most innovative products, there are very often competitive alternatives that must be taken into account. Consequently, testing a new concept requires some thought about potential market segments and competing offers, which is the topic of Section 10.2. Finally, a new concept can be tested in a way that provides insights into how potential customers forge their preferences, thus allowing for improvement of the concept before it is moved to the industrial design stage. Concept testing and improvement are addressed in Section 10.3.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Alam, Ian (2002), “An Exploratory Investigation of User Involvement in New Service Development,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(3), 250–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barczak, Gloria, Abbie Griffin, and Kenneth B. Kahn (2009), “Trends and Drivers of Success in NPD Practices: Results of the 2003 PDMA Best Practices Study,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(1), 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batra, Rajeev, Pamela M. Homer, and Lynn R. Kahle (2001), “Values, Susceptibility to Normative Influence, and Attribute Importance Weights: A Nomological Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11(2), 115–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bijmolt, Tammo H. A., and Michel van de Velden (2012), “Multiattribute Perceptual Mapping with Idiosyncratic Brand and Attribute Sets,” Marketing Letters, 23(3), 585–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjelland, Osvald M., and Robert Chapman Wood (2008), “An Inside View of IBM’s ‘Innovation Jam,’” MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(1), 31–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calantone, Roger J., C. Anthony Di Benedetto, and Jeffrey B. Schmidt (1999), “Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process in New Product Screening,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16(1), 65–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carbonell-Foulquié, Pilar, Jose L. Munuera-Alemán, and Ana I. Rodríguez-Escudero (2004), “Criteria Employed for Go/No-Go Decisions When Developing Successful Highly Innovative Products,” Industrial Marketing Management, 33(4), 307–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, Gregory S., Rashi Glazer, and Kent Nakamoto (1994), “Meaningful Brands from Meaningless Differentiation: The Dependence on Irrelevant Attributes,” Journal of Marketing Research, 31(3), 339–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, Bruce H., and David B. Montgomery (1999), “Managerial Identification of Competitors,” Journal of Marketing, 63(3), 67–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, Roger G. (1985), “Selecting Winning New Product Projects: Using the NewProd System,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2(1), 34–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, Robert G. (1992), “The NewProd System: The Industry Experience,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 9(2), 113–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, Robert G., and Ulrike de Brentani (1984), “Criteria for Screening New Industrial Products,” Industrial Marketing Management, 13(3), 149–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahan, Ely, Arina Soukhoroukova, and Martin Spann (2010), “New Product Development 2.0: Preference Markets — How Scalable Securities Markets Identify Winning Product Concepts and Attributes,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(7), 937–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, Darren W., and Page Moreau (2002), “The Influence and Value of Analogical Thinking during New Product Ideation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 39(1), 47–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, George S. (1981), “Strategic Market Analysis and Definition: An Integrated Approach,” Strategic Management Journal, 2(3), 281–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, George S., Allan D. Shocker, and Rajendra K. Srivastava (1979), “Customer-Oriented Approaches to Identifying Product-Markets,” Journal of Marketing, 43(4), 8–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSarbo, Wayne S., Richard L. Oliver, and Arvind Rangaswamy (1989), “A Simulated Annealing Methodology for Clusterwise Linear Regression,” Psychometrika, 54(4), 707–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSarbo, Wayne S., Michel Wedel, Marco Vriens, and Venkatram Ramaswamy (1992), “Latent Class Metric Conjoint Analysis,” Marketing Letters, 3(3), 273–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deshpandé, Rohit, and Hubert Gatignon (1994), “Competitive Analysis,” Marketing Letters, 5(3), 271–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickson, Peter R., and James L. Ginter (1987), “Market Segmentation, Product Differentiation, and Marketing Strategy,” Journal of Marketing, 51(2), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, Martin, and Icek Ajzen (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, New York, NY: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, Ronald E., William F. Massy, and Yoram Wind (1972), Market Segmentation, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, Gary L., and Roy D. Howell (1983), “Business Definition and Performance,” Journal of Marketing, 47(2), 59–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, Christoph, and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (2012), “Customer-Perceived Positioning Effectiveness: Conceptualization, Operationalization, and Implications for New Product Managers,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(2), 229–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gatignon, Hubert, Barton Weitz, and Pradeep Bansal (1990), “Brand Introduction Strategies and Competitive Environments,” Journal of Marketing Research, 27(4), 390–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, Paul E. (1975), “Marketing Applications of MDS: Assessment and Outlook,” Journal of Marketing, 35(1), 24–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, Paul E. (1984), “Hybrid Models for Conjoint Analysis: An Expository Review,” Journal of Marketing Research, 21(2), 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, Paul E., J. Douglas Carroll, and Stephen M. Goldberg (1981), “A General Approach to Product Design Optimization via Conjoint Analysis,” Journal of Marketing, 45(3), 17–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, Paul E., Stephen M. Goldberg, and Mila Montemayor (1981), “Hybrid Utility Estimation Model for Conjoint Analysis,” Journal of Marketing, 45(1), 33–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, Paul E., and Abba M. Krieger (1988), “Choice Rules and Sensitivity Analysis in Conjoint Simulators,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 114–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, Paul E., and Abba M. Krieger (1991), “Segmenting Markets with Conjoint Analysis,” Journal of Marketing, 55(4), 20–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, Paul E., Abba M. Krieger, and Manoj K. Agarwal (1991), “Adaptive Conjoint Analysis: Some Caveats and Suggestions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 28(2), 215–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, Paul E., Abba M. Krieger, and Yoram (Jerry) Wind (2004), “Buyer Choice Simulators, Optimizers, and Dynamic Models,” in Yoram (Jerry) Wind and Paul E. Green (Eds.), Marketing Research and Modeling: Progress and Prospects — A Tribute to Paul E. Green, New York, NY: Springer, 169–199.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Green, Paul E., Abba M. Krieger, and Robert N. Zelnio (1989), “A Componential Segmentation Model with Optimal Product Design,” Decision Sciences, 20(2), 221–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, Paul E., and Vithala R. Rao (1971), “Conjoint Measurement for Data Quantifying Judgmental,” Journal of Marketing Research, 8(3), 355–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, Paul E., and V. Srinivasan (1978), “Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook,” Journal of Consumer Research, 5(2), 103–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, Paul E., and V. Srinivasan (1990), “Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with Implications for Research and Practice,” Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, Paul E., Yoram Wind, and Arun K. Jain (1973), “Analyzing Free-Response Data in Marketing Research,” Journal of Marketing Research, 10(1), 45–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, Abbie, and John R. Hauser (1993), “The Voice of the Customer,” Marketing Science, 12(1), 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grover, Rajiv, and Vithala R. Rao (1988), “Inferring Competitive Market Structure Based on a Model of Interpurchase Intervals,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 5(1), 55–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haley, Russell I. (1968), “Benefit Segmentation: A Decision-Oriented Research Tool,” Journal of Marketing, 32(3), 30–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammedi, Wafa, Allard C. R. van Riel, and Zuzana Sasovova (2011), “Antecedents and Consequences of Reflexivity in New Product Idea Screening,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(5), 662–679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammedi, Wafa, Allard C. R. van Riel, and Zuzana Sasovova (2012), “Improving Screening Decision Making through Transactive Memory Systems: A Field Study,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(2), 316–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, Susan, Erik Jan Hultink, Nikolaos Tzokas, and Harry R. Commandeur (2003), “Industrial Companies’ Evaluation Criteria in New Product Development Gates,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 20(1), 22–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, John R., and Frank S. Koppelman (1979), “Alternative Perceptual Mapping Techniques: Relative Accuracy and Usefulness,” Journal of Marketing Research, 16(4), 495–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henard, David H., and David M. Szymanski (2001), “Why Some New Products Are More Successful than Others,” Journal of Marketing Research, 38(3), 362–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, Joel, and Morris B. Holbrook (1979), “Using Attribute Ratings for Product Positioning: Some Distinctions among Compositional Approaches,” Journal of Marketing Research, 16(4), 507–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huynh, Van-Nam, and Yoshiteru Nakamori (2011), “A Linguistic Screening Evaluation Model in New Product Development,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 58(1), 165–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaccard, James, David Brinberg, and Lee J. Ackerman (1986), “Assessing Attribute Importance: A Comparison of Six Methods,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12(4), 463–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Richard M. (1987), “Adaptive Conjoint Analysis,” Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings, Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software, 253–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaul, Anil, and Vithala R. Rao (1995), “Research for Product Positioning and Design Decisions: An Integrative Review,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12(4), 293–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, Rajeev, and Kamel Jedidi (2007), “Representation and Inference of Lexicographic Preference Models and Their Variants,” Marketing Science, 26(3), 380–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krishnan, V., and Karl T. Ulrich (2001), “Product Development Decisions: A Review of the Literature,” Management Science, 47(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. Duncan, and John W. Tukey (1964), “Simultaneous Conjoint Measurement: A New Type of Fundamental Measurement,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1(1), 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magnusson, Peter R., Johan Netz, and Erik Wästlund (2014), “Exploring Holistic Intuitive Idea Screening in the Light of Formal Criteria,” Technovation, 34(5–6), 315–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinsuo, Miia, and Jarno Poskela (2011), “Use of Evaluation Criteria and Innovation Performance in the Front End of Innovation,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(6), 896–914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montoya-Weiss, Mitzi M., and Tony M. O’Driscoll (2000), “From Experience: Applying Performance Support Technology in the Fuzzy Front End,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17(2), 143–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullen, Penelope M. (2003), “Delphi: Myths and Reality,” Journal of Health Organization and Management, 17(1), 37–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, James H., and Mark I. Alpert (1968), “Determinant Buying Attitudes: Meaning and Measurement,” Journal of Marketing, 32(4), 13–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, James H., and Mark I. Alpert (1977), “Semantic Confusion in Attitude Research: Salience vs. Importance vs. Determinance,” in William D. Perreault (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Atlanta, GA: Association for Consumer Research, 106–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Netzer, Oded, and V. Srinivasan (2011), “Adaptive Self-Explication of Multiattribute Preferences,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48(1), 140–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Meara, John T. (1961), “Selecting Profitable Products,” Harvard Business Review, 39(1), 83–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozer, Muammer (2005), “Factors Which Influence Decision Making in New Product Evaluation,” European Journal of Operational Research, 163(3), 784–801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pessemier, Edgar A., Phillip C. Burger, Richard D. Teach, and Douglas J. Tigert (1971), “Using Laboratory Brand Preference Scales to Predict Consumer Brand Purchases,” Management Science, 17(6), 371–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rangaswamy, Arvind, and Gary L. Lilien (1997), “Software Tools for New Product Development,” Journal of Marketing Research, 34(1), 177–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao, Vithala R. (2014), Applied Conjoint Analysis, New York, NY: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rust, Roland T., and Bruce Cooil (1994), “Reliability Measures for Qualitative Data: Theory and Implications,” Journal of Marketing Research, 31(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, Jeffrey B., Kumar B. Sarangee, and Mitzi M. Montoya (2009), “Exploring New Product Development Project Review Practices,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(2), 520–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholz, Sören W., Martin Meissner, and Reinhold Decker (2010), “Measuring Consumer Preferences for Complex Products: A Compositional Approach Based on Paired Comparisons,” Journal of Marketing Research, 47(4), 685–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sethi, Rajesh, and Zafar Iqbal (2008), “Stage-Gate Controls, Learning Failure, and Adverse Effect on Novel New Products,” Journal of Marketing, 72(1), 118–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shocker, Allan D., and V. Srinivasan (1979), “Multiattribute Approaches for Product Concept Evaluation and Generation: A Critical Review,” Journal of Marketing Research, 16(2), 159–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Wendell R. (1956), “Product Differentiation and Market Segmentation as Alternative Marketing Strategies,” Journal of Marketing, 21(1), 3–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soukhoroukova, Arina, Martin Spann, and Bernd Skiera (2012), “Sourcing, Filtering, and Evaluating New Product Ideas: An Empirical Exploration of the Performance of Idea Markets,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(1), 100–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava, Rajendra K., Mark I. Alpert, and Allan D. Shocker (1984), “A Customer-Oriented Approach for Determining Market Structures,” Journal of Marketing, 48(2), 32–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava, Rajendra K., Allan D. Shocker, and George S. Day (1978), “An Exploratory Study of the Influences of Usage Situation on Perceptions of Product-Markets,” in H. K. Hunt (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 5, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 32–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E. M., Hans C. M. Van Trijp, and Jos M. F. ten Berge (1994), “Perceptual Mapping Based on Idiosyncratic Sets of Attributes,” Journal of Marketing Research, 31(1), 15–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stefflre, Volney J. (1971), New Products and New Enterprises: A Report of an Experiment in Applied Social Science, Irvine, CA: University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toubia, Olivier, and Laurent Florès (2007), “Adaptive Idea Screening Using Consumers,” Marketing Science, 26(3), 342–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toubia, Olivier, John R. Hauser, and Duncan I. Simester (2004), “Polyhedral Methods for Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis,” Journal of Marketing Research, 41(1), 116–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toubia, Olivier, Duncan I. Simester, John R. Hauser, and Ely Dahan (2003), “Fast Polyhedral Adaptive Conjoint Estimation,” Marketing Science, 22(3), 273–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, Amos (1972), “Elimination by Aspects: A Theory of Choice,” Psychological Review, 79(4), 281–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urban, Glen L., and John R. Hauser (1993), Design and Marketing of New Products, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Bruggen, Gerrit H., Gary L. Lilien, and Manish Kacker (2002), “Informants in Organizational Marketing Research: Why Use Multiple Informants and How to Aggregate Responses,” Journal of Marketing Research, 39(4), 469–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van de Velden, Michel, and Tammo H. A. Bijmolt (2006), “Generalized Canonical Correlation Analysis of Matrices with Missing Rows: A Simulation Study,” Psychometrika, 71(2), 323–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Ittersum, Koert, Joost M. E. Pennings, Brian Wansink, and Hans C. M. Van Trijp (2007), “The Validity of Attribute-Importance Measurement: A Review,” Journal of Business Research, 60(11), 1177–1190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vriens, Marco, Michel Wedel, and Tom Wilms (1996), “Metric Conjoint Segmentation Methods: A Monte Carlo Comparison,” Journal of Marketing Research, 33(1), 73–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wedel, Michel, and Wagner A. Kamakura (2000), Market Segmentation: Conceptual and Methodological Foundations, New York, NY: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wedel, Michel, and Cor Kistemaker (1989), “Consumer Benefit Segmentation Using Clusterwise Linear Regression,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 6(1), 45–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wedel, Michel, and Jan-Benedict E. M. Steenkamp (1989), “A Fuzzy Clusterwise Regression Approach to Benefit Segmentation,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 6(4), 241–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wedel, Michel, and Jan-Benedict E. M. Steenkamp (1991), “A Clusterwise Regression Method for Simultaneous Fuzzy Market Structuring and Benefit Segmentation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 28(4), 385–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkie, William L., and Edgar A. Pessemier (1973), “Issues in Marketing’s Use of Multi-Attribute Attitude Models,” Journal of Marketing Research, 10(4), 428–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wind, Yoram (1978), “Issues and Advances in Segmentation Research,” Journal of Marketing Research, 15(3), 317–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wind, Yoram (Jerry), and David R. Bell (2007), “Market Segmentation,” in S. Hart and M. J. Baker (Eds.), The Marketing Book, Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann, 222–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittink, Dick R., Lakshman Krishnamurthi, and David J. Reibstein (1989), “The Effect of Differences in the Number of Attribute Levels on Conjoint Results,” Marketing Letters, 1(2), 113–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. INSEAD, Sorbonne Universités, France

    Hubert Gatignon

  2. Grenoble Ecole de Management, France

    David Gotteland & Christophe Haon

Authors
  1. Hubert Gatignon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Gotteland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christophe Haon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2016 Hubert Gatignon, David Gotteland and Christophe Haon

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gatignon, H., Gotteland, D., Haon, C. (2016). Concept Development. In: Making Innovation Last: Volume 2. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-57264-6_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation