In the Strategic Planning process of an organization, it is important to evaluate its new products or businesses to determine what its future will be within it.
For this, many models of undoubted value are currently used that provide results and serve as a guide to the management of a company in the decision-making process.
These models are based on the analysis of certain important factors, both internal and external, but for the most part, they do not take into account all the elements that influence the competitive position of a product in the market.
That is why this work aims to design a methodology to evaluate the commercial possibilities of a product in the market, by combining the Value Chain Model with the strengths and weaknesses of the product, and the Model of the Five Forces of Porter with the threats and opportunities that the market offers to said product.
The methodology was applied to a new Cuban bionematicide that is being developed at CENSA. An exploratory investigation was carried out in order to collect the necessary data, and primary and secondary information sources were used. The new methodology allowed evaluating the possibilities of the product in the market and having additional elements to help decision-making.
Introduction
In the current conditions of the business world, analysis tools are required to ensure a good foundation for the commercial decision by the company directors (Porlles, 2007).
For this, there are numerous Models that allow evaluating the possibilities of a product or a portfolio in a quantitative and / or qualitative way against a specific market. These models have advantages and disadvantages that can be taken advantage of by the company depending on its specific interests.
To apply quantitative evaluation models or methods, it is necessary to have sales data, projections, market size, among others; information that, in most cases, is not available, especially when it comes to a new market or a growing one. For these cases, then, there are qualitative evaluation models that allow studying important elements about the product and the market to which it will be accessed.
However, qualitative evaluation models base their analysis on subjective elements that can, to some extent, mask reality and even politicize the position of the product (s) under study, as they are based, fundamentally, on expert criteria (ICIMAF, 1999, Gómez, 2000, Plá, 2002, Muñiz, 2003, Vázquez, 2004). It is for this reason that it is necessary to study in depth the characteristics of each one of them and define the management needs for decision-making when bringing a new product to market.
For a complete analysis of the possibilities of a product under development when facing a certain market, it is necessary to study the product and the company, that is, to carry out an internal analysis and an external analysis to study the market. All models do not meet this requirement.
That is why in this work we aim to design a methodology to evaluate the commercial possibilities of a product in the market based on the study of the main evaluation models used today, their advantages and disadvantages, and propose an evaluation tool adjusted to current needs and apply it to a bioproduct under development.
Materials and methods
For the development of this work, an exploratory market research was carried out that allowed us to obtain a general knowledge of the panorama that surrounds the product under study and that will serve as the basis for subsequent investigations with a greater level of depth.
As tools to obtain results on the existing evaluation models and the necessary elements on the product and the market, the analysis and synthesis, historical - logical and comparative research methods were used. The research techniques used were surveys and nominal group techniques.
In this sense, surveys were carried out in the national market to find out its characteristics.
For the study of the international market, secondary information sources were accessed such as manuals and databases of national and international organizations: FAOSTAT, CATIE, publications of experts from 1980 to 2004, and information extracted from Internet sites and from In this way, there was a preliminary comparative state of the bioproduct under development in relation to the market.
On the other hand, six of the most used qualitative Evaluation Models in the state of the art were studied and they are:
- Growth Matrix - Participation or BCG. Matrix of the Competitive Profile or General Electric. Matrix of New Products. SWOT analysis. Porter's Five Forces Model. Value Chain.
The advantages and disadvantages of each of them will be determined taking into account the characteristics of the product in question and the market to which it will be accessed. Table 1 shows this analysis in summary.
| Models | Advantage | Disadvantages | Factors to evaluate |
| Growth - Participation or BCG (Plá, 2002, Muñiz, 2003, Vázquez, 2004) | Guide in decision making. | Quantitative method Applicable to products or UEN positioned.
Preferably large companies or industries. |
Market share. Cash flow. |
| Competitive profile or GE (Gómez, 2000) | Guiding decision-making Internal and external evaluation. | Only applicable to products or UEN positioned. Subjective elements to evaluate. Qualitative-quantitative method. | Market attractiveness Competitive position. |
| New products (ICIMAF, 1999) | Guiding decision-making Qualitative method.
Internal and external evaluation. Applicable to products in development |
The indicators are established at the discretion of the evaluators. | Product, Production, Market |
| SWOT analysis (Plá, 2002, Muñiz 2003, Rosa 2004) | Guiding decision-making Qualitative method.
Internal and external evaluation. Applicable to products at any stage of the life cycle. |
Elements to be evaluated totally subjective. | Weaknesses, Threats, Strengths and Opportunities. |
| 5 Forces Model (Porter, 1980) | Guiding decision-making Qualitative method.
Defined key forces of the environment Applicable to products, companies or industries. |
External analysis only | |
| Value Chain Model (Porter, 1985) | Guiding decision-making Qualitative method.
Defined internal elements. Identify competitive advantages. Applicable to products in development. |
Internal analysis only. |
Table 1: Analysis of the models studied. / Analysis of the models studied.
Once the market and the main evaluation models had been studied, a nominal multidisciplinary group was created, which is a convenient technique when the solution of specialized problems that require some degree of research is needed. The Nominal Group is made up of 6 to 10 people in which each participates and a consensus is reached. The process includes the generation, presentation and discussion of ideas, before reaching a consensus.
This Working Group was made up of seven experts from different disciplines: business people, international relations specialists, agronomists, biologists, quality assurance specialists and pharmacists. Said group was sensitized with the activity to be developed and study materials were provided that would allow it to have sufficient elements on the 6 Evaluation Models of products or product portfolios most used today and the characteristics of the market to which the program should be inserted. product that was taken as a reference.
Models 1, 2, which are reflected in Table 1, are quantitative analysis models, 3 and 4 allow internal and external analysis of the company or Strategic Business Units (SBU) based on certain subjective elements as they are based, fundamentally, in expert criteria (ICIMAF, 1999, Gómez, 2000, Plá, 2002, Muñiz, 2003, Vázquez, 2004). While models 5 and 6 are considered as practical ideas and valuable scheme (Aguado, 2003, Concari, 2004) since they are based on previously established criteria and that cover all the elements of the company and its history, suppliers, substitute products, the clients, the companies that want to enter the market and obviously the competitors of the same field, existing the possibility that some element remains without describing but the basics are outlined there.
Results and Discussion
Based on the study of these six Models, it was defined, according to the criteria of the Group of Experts, that there are five elements that must be present in the methodology applied to evaluate products under development:
- Qualitative evaluation. External and internal evaluation. Applicable to products in development. Evaluate at least 15 items. Predefined evaluation elements.
As a result of this study, it was concluded that the analyzed models, by themselves, do not meet all the criteria considered important to achieve a better evaluation of the products for their market entry and that these limitations can be solved by combining them with other assessment tools. evaluation similar to those studied.
Therefore, those that meet the greatest number of requirements to obtain a more complete evaluation of the product in the market are the following:
- Porter's Five Forces Model (Porter, 1980): Allows for qualitative evaluation, is applicable to products under development, has the evaluation elements predefined by the author as a result of five years of research. The Value Chain Model (Porter, 1985): Allows qualitative evaluation, is applicable to products in development, has evaluation elements predefined by the author as a result of 5 years of research SWOT Analysis (Plá, 2002, Muñiz, 2003, Rosa 2004): It allows to carry out qualitative, external and internal evaluations, it is applicable to products under development.
Taking into account this analysis and the knowledge that Porter's Five Forces Model only allows an external evaluation to be made, and to compare the product with the competition, taking into account five basic aspects; It was considered that its weaknesses would be overcome with the application of the Value Chain, for internal evaluation. In this way, it minimizes the weakness raised by Aguado (2002) and Concari (2003) that, despite being predefined the fundamental elements of external and internal analysis in the two models proposed by Porter (1980, 1985), respectively, it is possible to possibility that some remain to be analyzed. Therefore, to ensure that the evaluation complies with the requirements established by the Working Group, the SWOT analysis was applied as a complement to design the new methodology.
After this analysis carried out by the Working Group, the steps of the methodology to be proposed were defined, as described in the Process Diagram in Annex 1. This methodology is based on the combination, for internal analysis, of the Model of the Value Chain (Porter, 1985) with the weaknesses and strengths of the product under study and, for the external analysis, the Five Forces Model (Porter, 1980) was combined with the threats and opportunities offered by the environment.
The decision values applied in evaluation models widely used today were also studied so that the range of values could be defined with greater certainty to evaluate the feasibility of launching or not launching a new product on the market. A summary of this analysis is shown in Table 2.
In this sense, it is necessary to point out that there is a diversity of criteria to define the midpoint but, for the most part, it is declared that a product or business is no longer bad or disposable, from 40%.
For the bioproduct in question, it was defined as positive from 60%, to minimize the margin of error.
Models Evaluation values
| Models | Evaluation values |
| Competitive profile or GE | 0 - 46% reject 47 - 73 reanalyze
73 - 100 invest |
| New products | 0 - 40% poor 41 - 69 fair
70 - 100 good. |
| EFE Matrix | 0 - 50% misses opportunities 51 - 100 seizes opportunities |
| EFI matrix | 0 - 50% miss strengths 51 - 100 use strengths |
Table 2: Percentage values for taking decisions. / Values (%) for taking decisions.
Additionally, it was concluded that evaluating at least 15 elements contributes to minimizing the possibility of obtaining an erroneous total value for decision-making in relation to the product under evaluation. This approach is based on the fact that it is necessary to incorrectly assess at least four of all the elements defined by the Working Group when assigning values and weights.
After this analysis carried out by the Working Group, the steps of the methodology to be proposed were defined, as described below, and the corresponding process diagram was designed as shown in Annex 1.
First, the results of the analysis of The Value Chain were stated, followed by the strengths and weaknesses of the product (Calves and Díaz, 2004). Each of them was assigned a value between 0.0 (not important) to 1.0 (very important), the total sum of the values must be 1.0. Next, a weight from 1 to 4 was indicated for each factor, taking into account that 1 is equal to greater weakness and 4 is equal to greater strength. After assigning the values and weights to each value, the weighted factors were multiplied and resulted. Finally a sum was made of all of them. For the evaluation of the results, it was determined that a value less than 2.5 corresponds to internally weak organizations and a result greater than 2.5 represents internally strong organizations.
In the case of the external analysis, the results of the application of the Porter Five Forces Model were listed, plus the opportunities and threats of the product in the market, then the same steps as for the internal valuation were followed until obtaining the weighted value and evaluate the results in such a way that if the sum of the weighted values is obtained a value greater than 2.5 it indicates that the organization takes advantage of the opportunities satisfactorily and minimizes the threats and if the value is less than 2.5 it indicates that the organization does not take advantage of the opportunities and evades the threats.
To apply the proposed methodology to the bioproduct in question, the results obtained with the application of the surveys in the National market and the study of the international market were taken through secondary information sources. These results made it possible to develop, separately, each of the three Evaluation Models proposed by the Working Group, for the bioproduct that was taken as a reference in this research. From this analysis, the elements to be evaluated were determined and the procedure described in the proposed methodology was applied, which provided the following results:
| Indicator | Value | Weight | Weighted value |
| Total | one | 49 | 3.34 |
Table 3 Results of the internal evaluation of the bioproduct. / Results of the internal evaluation of the bioproduct.
According to the methodology used to quantitatively assess the product under study, it can be concluded that, internally, it is strong, since the weighted value is above 2.5 and it has competitive advantages that must be exploited.
| Indicator | Value | Weight | Weighted value |
| Total | one | 49 | 3.31 |
Table 4 Indicators for the external evaluation of the bioproduct. / Results of the international evaluation of the bioproduct.
We can conclude that, so far, the company seizes opportunities and minimizes threats.
With the results obtained when applying the proposed Methodology to the bioproduct, it was concluded that this new tool allows evaluating the possibilities of a product in the market by taking into account a wide range of factors that are important for decision-making; The models studied, despite their benefits, have the limitation of leaving elements to be evaluated; However, the new methodology integrates elements described in three models that evaluate both the product and the market. Its application made it possible to evaluate the market possibilities of the bioproduct and provided elements to overcome the weaknesses of the product and take advantage of the opportunities offered by the market.
References
1. Aguado, RJ (2003). Analysis of the competitive environment. Available in:. Consultation: October, 2004.
2. Arrarte Mera, R., (2004). Importance of the strategic analysis of the Business Financial Statements. Available at: http://www.monografias.com/trabajos16/estados-financieros-empresa/estados-financieros-empresa.shtml. Consultation: September, 2004.
3. Ayala Ruiz, LE, The Analysis of the Value Chain. Available in:. Consultation: July 2004.
4. Calves, S. and Pérez, J. (2004) Evaluation made to UNECA Internacional SA Printed.
5. Concari, G. (2004). Reyelendo the friend porter. Institute of Free Enterprise. Available in:. Consultation: October, 2004.
6. Gómez, ME (2000) "diagnosis of the company, matrix analysis". Available at: http://www.ilustrados.com/documentos/diagnosticoempresaanalmatricial.doc. Consultation: July, 2004.
7. GTZ, (2003), The five forces. German Technical Cooperation. Available at: http://www.wiram.de/toolkit/espanol/tools/tools-forces.htm. Consultation: August 2004.
8. Hidalgo Díaz, L. (2000). Summary of Thesis in Option to the Degree of Doctor in Agricultural Sciences. Potentialities of native strains of verticillium chlamydosporium (goddard) as biological control agents of Meloidogyne spp., Rev. Protección Veg. Vol. 16 No. 1 (2001): 71, National Center for Agricultural Health (CENSA).
9. Jimenez Galán, D. External Evaluation, Available at: http://www.gestiopolis.com/evaluacion-y-auditoria-externa-de-la-empresa/. Consultation: August 2004.
10. Kinnear, T. and James, T., (1989). Market Research An Applied Approach, 3rd. Edition, Colombia, Publisher: Mc Graw Hill.
11. Kotler, P. MARKETING. 3rd Ed. 1989, Prentice Hall, p. 83-116.
12. Martínez, E., (2003). The Competitiveness of the Company, Metropolitan Autonomous University, Azcapotzalco Unit.
13. Montes de Oca, Nivian. (2004). ”Good Manufacturing Practices for obtaining a Bionematicide from the Vcc-108 strain of Pochonia Chlamydosporia va. Catenulata ”Thesis in Option to the Degree of Doctor in Agricultural Sciences. CENSA - UNAH.
14. Muñiz González, R., Marketing Strategies, Competitive Analysis, http://www.marketing-xxi.com/analisis-competitivo-17.htm
15. _________________., (2001). Market Research, Marketing in the XXI Century, Center for Financial Studies,.
16. Plá, S. (2002). "Chess and Company". Available in:. Consultation: August 2004.
17. Porlles Loarte, J., Market evaluation model: an alternative for business decisions, Available at: http://www.gestiopolis.com/modelo-evaluacion-mercado-cerveza-peru/. Consultation: July, 2007
18. Porter, M. (1980). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors / Michael Porter. New York: Free Press.
19. _________. (1985). Competitive Advantage / Michael Porter. New York: Free Press.
twenty. _________. (1986). Competition in Global Industries / Michael Porter. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Business School Press.
twenty-one. _________. (1991), Competitive Strategy, Cía Editorial Continental, México
22. Rosa, JM (2004) SWOT Analysis. Available at: http://www.laboris.net/Static/em_dictionary_analisis-dafo.aspx. Consultation: Sept, 2004.
23. ICIMAF (1999) Marketing Approach applied to Research - Development of new products. Study material.
24. Vanegas, GS (2002), Central American University UCA - Nicaragua.
25. Zikmund, W., (1998). Market research. 6th. Edition, Mexico, Publisher: Prentice Hall.
Appendix 1
