Product Market Triangulation
This document summarizes different approaches that were used to rank 7 potential diagnostic test product concepts, including: 1) Having physicians rate each concept individually on a Likert scale; 2) Forcing physicians to rank all concepts; 3) Conducting a conjoint analysis to identify attribute preferences; and 4) Asking what products physicians would not buy. The results varied across the different studies, suggesting no single concept was robustly preferred. While concept A seemed unlikely to be desired, concepts B and E could have been chosen, but were also not consistently highly ranked. Concept C emerged as the best backup idea. Additionally, when concepts were analyzed based simply on being diagnostic vs. prognostic, physicians appeared indifferent
Product Market Triangulation
- 1. Likert scale Force rank | assign fixed points or % to 100 A A Conjoint utility A Conjoint market share A B C E E C F C D D B D C E E G G F D F F G G B B Moreover, there are not just market expectations, but for real-world products, limitations or additional features (e.g., to meet unspecified needs rather than desires). Also, competition and competitive response need to be incorporated. In healthcare, idiosyncrasies exist, such as difference among primary care and medical specialties. Different approaches can be used to rank product concepts. Each method has tradeoffs. And each can miss the mark. Using a variety can reveal robust product concepts. In this context, to the left and right is a real example of 7 product ideas (diagnostic tests). While in hind sight, A is almost not believably desired, the more interesting point is how the other concepts vary across studies. Specifically, either B or E could have been chosen as a product, especially if A had development issues. But neither B nor E is robustly wanted. Instead C would be the best back up idea. Often not asked, but powerful. What product would you not buy? C A B E F D G The various approaches Market expectation Product performance Primary care versus specialist Company versus competition ≒ Physicians were asked on a (Likert) scale, how much they liked a concept in isolation. ≒ Some doctors forced ranked the complete ideas. ≒ A conjoint analysis was done to identify the utility of various individual attributes. ≒ The conjoint analysis was also compared to competitive products. ≒ MDs were ask what they would not buy. Diagnostic Prognostic Primary care Prefer Assume colleague has sufficient tools to treat Specialty Assume colleague has sufficient tools to diagnose Prefer One last twist to mention. ≒ When analyzing the desired products by one quantitative aspect, diagnostic versus prognostic assay, there appeared to be little preference. ≒ However, during focus groups and subsequent follow up, there were strong opinions, differentiated by primary versus specialty care. ≒ Interestingly, the conflict illustrated respect for the other physician. A strong perception that they already had sufficient tools and capabilities. Diagnostic Source: Disguised real data from a single product development project Indifferent Prognostic 息 2013 Winton Gibbons