Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 25

DEVELOPMENT OF

HEALTHY FOOD PRODUCTS

DIANA NUR AFIFAH

ALLPPT.com _ Free PowerPoint Templates, Diagrams and Charts


What are food products?
What are new food products?

• a food is material eventually consumed by humans to satisfy physiological and


psychological needs
Everyone

• a basic functional product to which it has added packaging, aesthetics, brand,


price and advertising, to give a total company product.
• a new product as having some difference in the basic functions and aesthetic
Company presentation (ex: restaurant)

• the product as a bundle of benefits, relating its tangible and intangible


attributes to their needs, wants and behaviour.
• compare it with the ‘old’ product and competing products and if they
Consumer recognise a difference then it is a new product to them

Earle, et al. 2001


Benefits as seen by the consumer and the manufacturer
(Earle, et al. 2001)
A new product in one part of the food system
can cause new products in other parts.

Earle, et al. 2001


The Successive Stages of The Product Development Process

Stage 1: Product strategy development


integration of the product development programme with the
business strategy, clear description of the market and
consumers, identification of market and consumer needs.

Stage 2: Product design and process development


quantitative design specifications, multidiscipline integration,
use of new techniques, feasibility analysis.

Stage 3: Product commercialisation


multifunctional integration, planning and scheduling, market
testing, business analysis.

Stage 4: Product launch and evaluation


organisation and control, fast problem solving, evaluation of
launch, production, distribution and marketing, evaluation of
outcomes.
Earle, et al. 2001
New Product Categories

(After Cooper, 1993 and Crawford, 1994 in Earle, et al. 2001)


Formulating Healthy New Products
www.afnd.in
Found in “the fridge.”

Frigidaire 2003 in Toops 2007.


What do you offer new to your eagerly awaiting and
growing customer base?

Lu 2007
Ewald and Moskowitz 2007
Consumers buy what they understand; needs
and wants are necessary but not sufficient!

Ewald and Moskowitz 2007


S = f(F/E)

• Satisfaction (S) is a function of fulfillment (F)


over expectations (E).
• If a product overdelivers against expectations,
satisfaction is high and consumers are more
likely to purchase that product again.
• Fulfillment is the primary role of the product;
expectations are set by the brand and
marketing communication.
Ewald and Moskowitz 2007
Experimental Design for Product Development
(Kassel and Huang 2007)
Definition of Experimental Unit and Subsample

• Experimental unit is a physical entity or a product exposure to a


treatment(s) or factor(s) independently (Kuehl, 1994).
• Statistically, the experimental unit is the smallest unit in the
experiment and responses from the experimental unit used are to
be analyzed.
• However, the treatment(s) and factor(s) are sometimes identical.
• Factors (treatments) could come from ingredients of formulations,
environmental factors, processing parameters, or storage
conditions.
• The subsample is a divided unit from the experimental unit.
• Ex: a loaf of bread, an experimental unit, was divided into three
slices. Every slice from this bread is considered as a subsample since
each slice is not independent.
Experimental units of new ingredient for Scientists X and Y
Experimental units of bake temperature for Scientists X and Y
Experimental units for new ingredient and bake temperature for Scientists X and Y
Experimental unit of instrumental and sensory measurements
Independent T-Test and Dependent T-Test

• Dependency is also crucial to experimental units in data analysis.


• Scientists X and Y would like to compare two products, I and II,
made from two different extrusion processing methods.
• Scientist X selects 20 semitrained panelists to performa sensory test
by using a line scale. Ten people are assigned to evaluate the
product for processing method I and another 10 for processing
method II.
• Scientist Y prefers to assign 20 people to evaluate products I and II
with a mouth rinse between the two samples.
• So, what is the difference between these two tests methods other
than the number of panelists?
• These two test plans provide two different experiments and
statistical analyses.
• Scientist Y chooses to assign 20 panelists to taste samples, with a mouth
rinse between the two samples.
• Food Scientist X follows the independent T-test while Scientist Y adopts
the dependent T-test.
• Note that the sample size for Food Scientists X and Y are different now.
• Food Scientist X has 10 replications (10 panelists for each sample) for
product I and II, respectively, but Food Scientist Y has 20 replications in the
test (20 panelists to take two samples in a random order).
• Statisticians view that the test method by rinsing the mouth between
samples I and II does not provide independent experimental unit for
individual perception.
• For example, if the food scientists are testing two spicy products, rinsing
the mouth or eating a cracker does not always work.
• Nonetheless, Food Scientist Y can still assume that the first sample does
not affect the second product in tasting, meaning Scientist Y assumes that
there is not a crossover effect. If there is a crossover effect between
samples, food scientists should apply dependent T-tests instead of
independent T-tests.
• However, if Scientists X and Y both use an instrument
(texture analyzer), there wouldn’t be any dependency
problems, since instrumental testing provides
independent results.
• Each test will get 20 responses and apply an
independent T-test to perform the data analysis.
Therefore, it is critical for food scientists to make a
judgment call to use either an independent or
dependent T-test if sensory evaluation is involved.
• You could even use both tests to compare the results.
• However, two results may give you two totally different
conclusions about products I and II.
References
• Earle M, Earle R, Anderson A. 2003. Food product development. CRC Press. Washington,
DC.
• Toops D. 2007. How did The Food Industry get (from There) to Here? In: Accelerating
New Food Product Design and Development. Edited by Jacqueline H. Beckley, M.
Michele Foley, Elizabeth J. Topp, J. C. Huang, Witoon Prinyawiwatkul. Blackwell
Publishing and the Institute of Food Technologists.
• Wu L. 2007. One Company’s Perspective on Innovation—Starbucks Coffee. In:
Accelerating New Food Product Design and Development. Edited by Jacqueline H.
Beckley, M. Michele Foley, Elizabeth J. Topp, J. C. Huang, Witoon Prinyawiwatkul.
Blackwell Publishing and the Institute of Food Technologists.
• Ewald J and Moskowitz HR. 2007. Market Forces: The Push-pull of Marketing and
Advertising in The New Product Business. In: Accelerating New Food Product Design and
Development. Edited by Jacqueline H. Beckley, M. Michele Foley, Elizabeth J. Topp, J. C.
Huang, Witoon Prinyawiwatkul. Blackwell Publishing and the Institute of Food
Technologists.
• Kassel T and Huang JC. 2007. Statistical Design: Experimental Units and Proper Designs.
In: Accelerating New Food Product Design and Development. Edited by Jacqueline H.
Beckley, M. Michele Foley, Elizabeth J. Topp, J. C. Huang, Witoon Prinyawiwatkul.
Blackwell Publishing and the Institute of Food Technologists.