In our textbook, it says to move quickly and also avoid expensive new-product failures, companies should follow an organized new-product development process: (1) idea generation, (2) screening, (3) idea evaluation, (4) development (of product and marketing mix), and (5) commercialization. The hypothesis to have marketers to discover product flaws early, and find the remedy to it, has proven unprofitable. This process requires much analysis of the idea before the company spends money to develop and market a product.
However, ApplPoly reversed the step (3) and step (4), so it came to the dilemma. In step (3), an idea is evaluated more carefully, and at this time an actual product has not been developed. In this step, a company should carry out concept testing- getting reactions from customers about how well a new product idea fits their needs. And idea evaluation is more precise in business markets. This is the purpose for Preston to contact some leading US architects- to get their reactions.
In step (4), a company should do product tests- to test models and early versions of the new product in the market. It is in this moment actual products should be made. But ApplPoly built a few domes in the US to demonstrate the new concept before the 3rd step of idea evaluation.
And if ApplPoly had done idea evaluation before jumping into the next step, perhaps they will have a clear idea of how to modify or push out a better suited product for the public. The reactions from the leading architects were discouraging according to the textbook, it may be best to kill the idea at this point. Since Preston’s idea just have some flaws according to the architects’ reaction, so we think the idea should be revised according to points the architects mentioned- it is not against fires and not suitable for recreational facilities, and managers should decide that the new-product developing process...