Product Development Competition

Overview

The Product Development Competition (PDC) is a chance for students to take all of the skills and knowledge learned in school and apply them to a real-world situation. Each participating school's team develops a new food idea and carries the concept through marketing and production, much like a commercial product development team. This is a great opportunity for any student to get involved in food science and IFTSA. It challenges organizational, teamwork, creative, and scientific skills. The PDC also gives you the opportunity to show people in industry how good you really are. Many industry professionals take an interest in the competition to see who the product development scientists of tomorrow will be. A highlight of this competition was in 1996, when Dateline NBC featured Cornell University in a story about the competition. Contact the PDC chair for more information. IFTSA wishes to thank M&M Mars, Inc. for their sponsorship.

The IFT Product Development Competition: One Judge's Perspective
Suzanne E. Case, Ph.D.
1999 IFT Product Development Competition Judge
Kraft Foods

The Product Development Competition is one of the highlights for the Student Association at the National IFT meeting. All of the final competitors put their heart andsoul into the products they develop and into the preparation of the IFT presentation. Following are some thoughts regarding the competition in order to aid this developmentprocess. One thing to keep in mind is that as the judges change from year to year theareas that are emphasized will vary to some extent as well. This variation will occur dueto differences in perspectives of the respective judges.

Remember that originality is important. In general, innovative products that are new to the market or products that overcome a processing or product barrier that has restricted their entry into the market is always more interesting than a remake of a standard. So developing an upscale or new-flavored item that is just another soup, cookie or candy bar is not going to be rated highly in the originality section. Your team will have more success with a product that has carved out a niche in a new and developing market than for a line extension or a remake of a classic.

Keep in mind also that producing the product is critical. If there is simply no way to produce a product within reasonable financial limitations it might not be the best entry. There are some great ideas out there, but a product which has small pieces that need to be oriented during manufacturing or a product with a great amount of waste from the raw starting material will not be scored highly in the feasibility area. A cop out of "our company will use a co-manufacturer to produce this product" followed by no details regarding process description will not fly. Don’t ignore processing feasibility as a road block for even the best tasting, best marketed product in the competition. Using a co-manufacturer is acceptable if it will help your cost/price strategy but be sure to cover the processing description in enough detail to prove that the product can be made.

The market almost always drives development in the "real world". If the market doesn’t want it a company will not make it. A product that is technically complex or innovative that has limited consumer appeal or little likelihood for success will not be considered for launch in industry. On the other hand overcoming technical hurdles with innovative solutions in order to launch a product that has tested positively with consumers is always a good thing for companies. This allows for exclusivity in the marketplace via patenting or by keeping the information proprietary. Think about these two paths. Which one might you want to pursue? Why? The judging of products is based heavily on "real world" feasibility with respect to decision making and the marketplace.

One way to approach coming up with a product for this competition might be to start with a survey of the new and developing markets. Then proceed identifying how your company might create a niche for itself in that area. Is there a new technology that will make this product even more unique in the marketplace? Or a new technology that will reduce thecost of manufacturing?

Remember that product description and process description accounts for 40% of the preliminary proposal grading. Being thorough in these two areas certainly increases yourchances for advancing into the finals. Finally, if the judges stump your team regarding anarea that was not addressed in the final written proposal don’t just let it slide.You’re at the IFT! There are equipment and ingredient manufacturers at every turn, goto the booths and search out the answer. You will have an opportunity to impress thejudges with your tenacity during the next portion of the competition.

So relax, have fun and good luck!

Rule Change

As mentioned at the IFTSA Welcome Assembly in New Orleans, the Product Development Competition will undergo two minor rule changes regarding deadlines and finalist notification. All preliminary reports will continue to be due on February 15th. To afford the judges sufficient time to read all the reports thoroughly, we have pushed back the finalist notification date from March 1st to March 15th, causing an additional shift in the due date of the final reports to three weeks in advance of the annual meeting, the date of which will vary from year to year. This will provide the 6 finalists additional time to prepare their final reports without creating scheduling constraints for the competition judges. The current PDC Chair will announce the final report deadline well in advance to preclude confusion on this issue. If you have any questions, please contact the current PDC Chair.

Important Dates

• February 15: Preliminary proposals due.
• March 15: Finalists will be notified.
• May 23: Final proposals due.
• Annual Meeting: Final judging.

2008 Finalists

1. Cornell University with Tranquili Tea
2. Michigan State University with Ready-to-Dough
3. Ohio State University with FruitZicle
4. University of Illinois - Urbana Champaign with Dream Pie Bars
5. University of Minnesota with Ediballs
6. Virginia Tech with Banana Splitters

Frequently Asked Questions

Q. What can I find the rules and regulations for the IFTSA Food Product Development Competition?

2008 Winners

Winner: Ready-to-Dough - Michigan State University
First Runner-Up: Dream Pie Bars - University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign
Second Runner-Up: Ediballs - University of Minnesota

Comments and Tips from the 2008 Product Development Judges

• Use sequential process to do product development: 1st develop product, 2nd develop process and 3rd determine profitability. *Make sure you think through the total process, e.g. find out how much you can realistically charge for the product, then back calculate what it means to product cost, manufacturing cost, and use these to optimize product formulation and process.
• Most teams did not leverage consumers when they designed the product, they only used consumers to optimize the formulation – use consumers for ideas!
• Strong bench top formulations but not as strong in manufacturing process and business aspects. Make an attempt to reach out to alumni, industry members, etc.
• Most teams do not spend enough time to determine why things do not work. They tend to find quick fixes or use expensive solutions.

Past Winners