Product development using Learning launch tool

Challenge and selection

I decided to choose the learning launch tool because I believe that it provides fast results and they  come directly from consumers, that means that it allows to know almost in real time the acceptance  or rejection about the product, allowing us to make adjustments and improvements on the progress,  under an iterative loop. In the company we are looking forward to develop a gluten-free baking  product, based on cassava flour or a mixture of it with other gluten-free flours such as almonds, rice,  corn or quinoa. Although we know the increasing requirements of consumers of healthier products  and the need to take into account people with restrictions on their diets, we still have doubts about  the mainly sensory acceptance that our product may have on the market, as well as that customers  are so willing to pay a higher price for this type of products. Because the learning launch seeks the  truth, and saves time and money in achieving it, it is the most suitable tool to get the answers we  seek and thus be able to improve the quality of the product or archive it after reaching disapproved  assumptions.

Application

To apply the learning launch tool, I needed to prove that my new idea met or did not meet the  "surprise zone" test through experimentation. To do this I must have first known what the client  wanted and /or needed; for this case we knew the need for the incorporation into the market of a  new baking product that was gluten-free, but had similar characteristics  to those of a traditional  bread, made with wheat flour. However, as recommended in the iterative loop model, we went  further into customer data, what were their assumptions and their real need. Our idea is therefore  related to a specific group of clients and it also solves a specific need possibly better than the  competition because we use quality raw materials, produced by ourselves and which brings better  technological properties to the final product. However, although we considered the idea to be good,  as we came with it, we had a confirmation bias, which is not beneficial for the proper development  of the product.

Because of this reason, we then were looking for data or facts that could invalidate our idea, without  neglecting the search for the success verification of it. To do this, we wrote down a list of possible  causes or facts that would lead to the product not being sold or simply the consumers did not have  an interest in it, such as high price, low quality, unfavorable sensory perception, ignorance, bad  appearance, among others. It was necessary to go out to validate in the field by means using  free  samples to clients who met the segmentation criteria and who in other opportunities expressed  their interest in a product with the characteristics already mentioned, sharp observation of their  reaction and a short conversation with them to know their opinions also was applied.     The preparation of the breads was carried out by the research and development team and the  experience in the field was carried out by the commercial advisors, who have a more stray  relationship with the clients and know to some extent their needs and requirements. The feedback  was weekly and based on the results obtained after direct experimentation with clients, the product  was reformulated and tested again, until reaching a minimum of 80% of proven assumptions to be  able to continue with the scaling of the product and conduct its commercialization.

Insight & Approach

What I have learned from this exercise of applying the learning launch design tool is that it has been  very useful in my role as an analyst of research and development because it has allowed me and my  team to reach the end of a product development in a much smaller time than previously took us. In  the same way, the exercise allowed to integrate several areas of the company that used to work  independently, often one area completely unaware of what the other was in charge of, which  inevitably leads to unfulfilled objectives and misunderstandings among the participants    On the other hand, the whole process felt real and as if we were developing a product that fulfilled  almost all the requirements of the clients, who were at the end, the ones who were going to get the  product. This generates a purchase guarantee that cannot be insured when a product is developed  under the assumptions of the same developer; as well as avoiding incessant expenses and future  losses after distribution in the sales channels.    For future developments, I would like to apply this same design tool, but  do it from the generation  of ideas itself, involving all areas of the company with a joint collaboration by clients, as well as the  strengthening of the search and collection of quality data of customers, which can be mediated, in  turn, by other design thinking tools such as storytelling.


Product development using Learning launch tool Challenge and selection I decided to choose the learning launch tool because I believe that it provides fast results and they come directly from consumers , that means that it allows to know almost in real time the acceptance or rejection about the product , allowing us to make adjustments and improvements on the progress , under an iterative loop . In the company we are looking forward to develop a gluten - free baking product , based on cassava flour or a mixture of it with other gluten - free flours such as almonds , rice , corn or quinoa . Although we know the increasing requirements of consumers of healthier products and the need to take into account people with restrictions on their diets , we still have doubts about the mainly sensory acceptance that our product may have on the market , as well as that customers are so willing to pay a higher price for this type of products . Because the learning launch seeks the truth , and saves time and money in achieving it , it is the most suitable tool to get the answers we seek and thus be able to improve the quality of the product or archive it after reaching disapproved assumptions . Application To apply the learning launch tool , I needed to prove that my new idea met or did not meet the " surprise zone " test through experimentation . To do this I must have first known what the client wanted and /or needed ; for this case we knew the need for the incorporation into the market of a new baking product that was gluten - free , but had similar characteristics to those of a traditional bread , made with wheat flour . However , as recommended in the iterative loop model , we went further into customer data , what were their assumptions and their real need . Our idea is therefore related to a specific group of clients and it also solves a specific need possibly better than the competition because we use quality raw materials , produced by ourselves and which brings better technological properties to the final product . However , although we considered the idea to be good , as we came with it , we had a confirmation bias , which is not beneficial for the proper development of the product . Because of this reason , we then were looking for data or facts that could invalidate our idea , without neglecting the search for the success verification of it . To do this , we wrote down a list of possible causes or facts that would lead to the product not being sold or simply the consumers did not have an interest in it , such as high price , low quality , unfavorable sensory perception , ignorance , bad appearance , among others . It was necessary to go out to validate in the field by means using free samples to clients who met the segmentation criteria and who in other opportunities expressed their interest in a product with the characteristics already mentioned , sharp observation of their reaction and a short conversation with them to know their opinions also was applied . The preparation of the breads was carried out by the research and development team and the experience in the field was carried out by the commercial advisors , who have a more stray relationship with the clients and know to some extent their needs and requirements . The feedback was weekly and based on the results obtained after direct experimentation with clients , the product was reformulated and tested again , until reaching a minimum of 80 % of proven assumptions to be able to continue with the scaling of the product and conduct its commercialization . Insight & Approach What I have learned from this exercise of applying the learning launch design tool is that it has been very useful in my role as an analyst of research and development because it has allowed me and my team to reach the end of a product development in a much smaller time than previously took us . In the same way , the exercise allowed to integrate several areas of the company that used to work independently , often one area completely unaware of what the other was in charge of , which inevitably leads to unfulfilled objectives and misunderstandings among the participants On the other hand , the whole process felt real and as if we were developing a product that fulfilled almost all the requirements of the clients , who were at the end , the ones who were going to get the product . This generates a purchase guarantee that can not be insured when a product is developed under the assumptions of the same developer ; as well as avoiding incessant expenses and future losses after distribution in the sales channels . For future developments , I would like to apply this same design tool , but do it from the generation of ideas itself , involving all areas of the company with a joint collaboration by clients , as well as the strengthening of the search and collection of quality data of customers , which can be mediated , in turn , by other design thinking tools such as storytelling .