Journal Search Engine
Search Advanced Search Adode Reader(link)
Download PDF Export Citaion korean bibliography PMC previewer
ISSN : 1598-7248 (Print)
ISSN : 2234-6473 (Online)
Industrial Engineering & Management Systems Vol.13 No.2 pp.203-209

A Risk Management Framework for New Product Development: A Case Study

Chompoonoot Kasemset*, Jaruwan Wannagoat, Wassanai Wattanutchariya, Korrakot Y. Tippayawong
Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chiang Mai University, Thailand
Corresponding Author, E-mail:
January 31, 2014 May 13, 2014 May 21, 2014


This research designed and implemented a supply chain risk management platform and applied it to a case study of reduced-fat Lanna pork sausage as a new product development project. The proposed framework has three stages: risk identification, risk assessment, and risk mitigation. Seventeen risk agents with 17 risk events were identified based on SWOT analysis and the Porter Five Forces concept through the process of planning, sourcing, making and delivering, partially captured from the supply chain operations reference model in the first stage. In the second stage, an house of risk (HOR) framework was applied to present the impacts of each risk agent. In the third stage, eight risk agents with high impact were selected to design 21 preventive actions. Finally, three preventive actions with the highest effectiveness to difficulty ratio scores—‘sales evaluation of familiar products’, ‘increasing distribution channels and promotions to improve sales’, and ‘work flow improvement for work safety’—were then recommended for this new product development.



    New product launches rapidly because of changing business strategies or customer needs. New products are introduced to increase market share or improve brands. Also, some product needs to be included newly trends such as environmental (Ishii et al., 2004) and health concerns during the process of product development. In addition, new products also face uncertain risks that are difficult to foresee. New product lifecycle is an important factor that should be considered to position the new product’s role in the market (Ishioka et al., 2003).

    Susterova et al. (2012) addressed that product development projects should include risk assessment that allows managers to identify and measure the risks associated with resource constraints and then develop appropriate responses.

    In small and medium enterprises (SMEs), March Chorda et al. (2002) mentioned three critical success factors in product development: 1) top management support, 2) product development planning and process, and 3) analysis of market requirements. For food sectors, the obstacles are the uncertainty of market acceptance and the uncertainty about foreseeable market acceptance. In addition, food products usually have long product lifecycle that obstruct the introduction of new food products.

    Lanna pork sausage (Sai Oua) is a famous local food product in the northern area of Thailand. Sai Oua is one of the local food products produced mostly by SMEs in Northern Thailand. Furthermore, Nakkiew et al. (2012) mentioned that Thai local producers need more innovative, systematic, and standardized approach to adjusting themselves in mass production. Moreover, to ensure that new local food products can survive in the market, identification of the risk of introducing the product to the market is strongly recommended.

    Basic recipes of Sai Oua are pork, lard, and spices stuffed in pork intestines. Sai Oua is considered a high fat food product, composed of 36% of fat from 100 g of the product (, so reduced fat concept is initiated due to the new trend in health concern.

    As addressed in Stewart-Knox and Mitchell (2003), the success of reduced fat product depended on the communication among producers, retailers, and food technologists. Thus, risk management in supply chain is needed to successfully launch the new reduced fat product.

    This research paper proposes a risk management framework for launching new products, and applies this framework to a case study of reduced fat Lanna pork sausage. The main objectives of the research are to identify, evaluate, and mitigate the supply chain risks. The advantage of this risk management framework supports local food producers to be aware of and provide the preventive actions for risks that can influence the new local food product development.

    The organization of this paper is as follows. Preliminaries, including risk identification, evaluation and mitigation tools, are explained in Section 2. The proposed framework is explained in Section 3. Section 4 describes the case study of reduced-fat Lanna pork sausage. Discussion and conclusion are presented in Sections 5.


    This section briefly addresses risk identification, evaluation and mitigation tools.

    2.1.Risk Identification Tool

    2.1.1.SWOT analysis

    SWOT is the acronym for strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. SWOT analysis is used for investigating internal and external factors (Koo et al., 2011). SWOT was applied originally to complex business environments and then expanded to encompass larger territories (Duarte et al., 2006).

    2.1.2.Porter Five Forces

    Porter Five Forces are a framework for business strategy and industry analysis proposed by Michael E. Porter in 1979. The five forces include the threat of substitute products or services, the threat of established rivals, the threat of new entrants, the bargaining power of suppliers, and the bargaining power of customers.

    2.2.Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Tools

    The house of risk (HOR) Model developed by Pujawan and Geraldin (2009) combines two well-known tools: the house of quality function deployment and the failure mode and effect analysis. There are two stages of HOR that are HOR1 and HOR2. HOR1 ranks risk agents based on their aggregate risk potential (ARPj) scores. HOR2 prioritizes proactive actions that the company should perform. Thus, the HOR model is effective for evaluating and mitigating risks.

    To apply HOR1, the risk identification step requires risk agents and events. The risk agent occurrence score (Oj), risk event severity score (Si), and correlative score for each risk agent and event pair (Rji) were used in the ARPj calculation as in Eq. (1).

    ARP j = O j i S t R ji

    The relationship of each parameter (score) in the ARPj calculation using an example with three risk agents and two risk events is presented in Table 1. The HOR1 model helped rank all risk agents. Then, preventive actions (PAk) were designed for risk agents with high ARPj scores.

    All preventive actions were evaluated in HOR2 using the total effectiveness to difficulty ratio (ETDk) to select practical and effective preventive actions. ETDk is calculated from the ratio between total effectiveness of action (TEk), calculated as Eq. (2), when Ejk was the correlative score between risk agent j and preventive action k, and the degree of difficulty performing action k (Dk) as Eq. (3).

    E k = i ARP j E ji   for  all k

    ETD k = TE i / D k

    An example of the HOR2 model using two risk agents and three preventive actions is shown in Table 2. The highest ETD>k score indicates the most effective preventative actions


    There are three steps of risk management that are risk identification, evaluation and mitigation (Pujawan and Geraldin, 2009). This study considered supply chain risk management including process of planning, sourcing, making and delivery that partially captured from the supply chain operations reference (SCOR) model (The Supply Chain Council Inc., 2008).

    From Figure 1, risk identification is the first step. During this step, SWOT and Porter Five Forces were used to identify risk agents and risk events. Then, the risk evaluation process of HOR1 was applied to calculate ARP scores during the risk assessment step. ARP scores were calculated based on the risk agent occurrence score, risk event severity score, and relationship score between each risk agent and risk event derived from the questionnaire based on the identified risk agents and events from the first step. The scores depended on a number of assessors. The fuzzy set theory was applied when there were five or more assessors. ARP scores were used in prioritizing and selecting risk agents for preventive action preparation. The final step was risk mitigation. Preventive actions were proposed to solve or prevent risk agents having high ARP scores. During this step, ETDk and TEk of each preventive action were computed. The high ETDk indicated effective and practical preventative actions. A case study was used to present the application of this framework.


    Lanna pork sausage (Sai Oua) is a well-known local food product of Northern Thailand. A new product idea, reduced-fat Lanna pork sausage, was developed to satisfy health-conscious customers. It used low-fat ingredients instead of the traditional lard. Changing the recipe affected both the cooking and taste, and thus producers and customers. A risk management study was necessary to help ensure the producer that the new product would not fail during market launch.

    The proposed risk management framework for this case study follows.

    4.1. Risk Identification

    Risk agents were identified using two techniques, SWOT and Porter Five Forces.


    Risk agents were identified based on SWOT analysis. Only weaknesses and threats were considered to analyze the internal and external risk factors because they give unfavorable effects on the process of new product development.

    The weaknesses and threats of reduced-fat Lanna pork sausage were identified as follows.

    • Weaknesses:

      1. Misidentification of customer requirements.

      2. Low product confidence due to no food safety and quality certifications.

      3. Highly complex production process leading to higher cost and longer production time.

    • Threats:

      1. Uncertainty of customer demand.

      2. Uncertainty from suppliers, i.e., late delivery and low quality raw materials.

    4.1.2.Porter Five Forces

    1. Intensity of competitive rivalry: reduced-fat product tended to succeed more than standard products (Stewart-Knox and Mitchell, 2003). Competition in the same industry was at the medium level.

    2. Bargaining power of suppliers: material market fluctuation brought bargaining power of this product into medium level. The fluctuation might lead to considering single or multiple suppliers.

    3. Bargaining power of customers: bargaining power was quite high due to low brand royalty. The original products in the market also had less differentiated product taste.

    4. Threat of new entrants: new products usually have a small number of new entrants, resulting in a low threat level.

    5. Threat of substitute products or services: any local food product was included in this category due to the originality and uniqueness. The threat level was high.

    The SWOT and Porter Five Forces analyses identified 17 risk agents as shown in Table 3. They are grouped according to major supply chain processes and their occurrence scores. Occurrence scores assessed by 10 Lanna pork sausage shops and final scores were computed based Table 5. Results of ARP score n fuzzy triangular theory. Occurrence scores ranged from 1 to 5, with a high score indicating frequently occurring risk agents and a low score indicating rarely occurring risk agents.

    Seventeen risk events were then identified, as shown and described in Table 4. The severity scores from each risk event were also assessed from 10 Lanna pork sausage shops and final scores were computed based on fuzzy set theory. Severity scores ranged from 1 to 5, with a high score indicating an event with severe damage and a low score an event with less damage.

    The correlation between each risk agent and event identified here was used to compute ARP scores during the risk evaluation step.

    4.2.Risk Evaluation

    To evaluate risk, the occurrence score of each risk agent, severity score of each risk event, and correlation between each risk agent and event were used to calculate the ARP score as in Eq. (1). The eight risk agents having high ARP scores are shown in Table 5. These are used to design preventive actions (PA) for risk mitigation in the next section.

    4.3.Risk Mitigation

    To mitigate risk, an HOR2 model was proposed for calculating TEk and ETDk as shown in Eqs. (2) and (3). The eight risk agents having the highest ARP scores were considered in preventive action design. Preventive actions were proposed based on three approaches of risk mitigation: risk awareness, risk sharing, and risk transfer (Pujawan and Geraldin, 2009). One case study producer was consulted on the proposed preventive actions. Consequently, 21 preventive actions were specified and assessed. Then, the level of difficulty, Dk, and relationship scores between each risk agent and preventive action (Ejk) were derived from an in-depth interview. The results of Dk are shown in Table 6.

    Dk ranged from 1 to 5, with a low score indicating an action that was difficult to implement and a high score indicating an action that was easy to implement. All preventive actions were evaluated by computing TEk and ETDk scores, with high TEk and ETDk scores indicating the most appropriate preventive actions. Three preventive actions—PA4 Sales evaluation of familiar products, PA6 Increasing distribution channels and promotions to improve sales, and PA11 Work flow improvement for work safety—were recommended to the case study company for managing risks of the new reduced-fat Lanna pork sausage product (Table 7).

    Three preventive actions—PA4 Sales evaluation of familiar products, PA6 Increasing distribution channels and promotions to improve sales, and PA11 Work flow improvement for work safety—were suggested to the case study company for risk management of the new reduced-fat Lanna pork sausage product.


    This paper proposed a framework for managing the risk of new product development. The proposed framework was illustrated using a case study of reduced-fat Lanna pork sausage. The framework is composed of three basics steps: risk identification, risk evaluation, and risk mitigation. For risk identification, SWOT and Porter Five Forces analyses were used to identify risk agents and events. The second and third steps—risk evaluation and risk mitigation—used the concept of HOR. Then, preventive actions were provided for the critical risks previously identified during risk evaluation. Finally, after risk mitigation, the practical and effective preventive actions were proposed.

    The results of the case study show that the three preventive actions identified by the case study reflected the company worries with the new product launch. Their primary concern was how to compete with their competitors, so the company decided that studying their competitors and expanding distribution channels to easily contact customers are important for the survival of the new product.

    In this research, during the step of risk identification, risks agents were identified from SWOT and Porter Five Forces concepts. For risk agents from SWOT analysis, only weaknesses and threats were considered because these two factors had disadvantage on product launching. Thus, they can evaluate the risk event severity score or Si to derive ARP scores. In the case of including strengths and opportunities to identify risk agents, they may give some advantage on ARP calculation. Thus, ARP score of each risk agent can be decreased if there is some relationship among strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.



    Risk management framework for developing a new product.


    Example of HOR1 model

    Example of HOR2 model

    List of risk agents

    Results of ARP score

    ARP: aggregate risk potential.

    List of risk events

    List of preventive actions

    Results of top three PAk

    PA: preventive action, TE: total effectiveness of action,ETD: effectiveness to difficulty ratio.


    1. Duarte C , Ettkin L. P , Helms M. M , Anderson M. S (2006) The challenge of Venezuela: a SWOT analysis , Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal incorporating Journal of Global Competitiveness, Vol.16 (3/4) ; pp.233-247
    2. Ishii K , Koitabashi M , Mihara I (2004) Product development based on an environmental management system , Industrial Engineering and Management Systems, Vol.3 (1) ; pp.71-77
    3. Ishioka M , Yasuda K , Iwata K (2003) A study on management strategies at the growth stage of product life cycle , Industrial Engineering and Management Systems, Vol.2 (2) ; pp.131-139
    4. Koo H , Chau K. Y , Koo L. C , Liu S , Tsui S. C (2011) A structured SWOT approach to develop strategies for the government of Macau, SAR , Journal of Strategy and Management, Vol.4 (4) ; pp.62-81
    5. March-Chorda I , Gunasekaran A , Lloria-Aramburo B (2002) Product development process in Spanish SMEs: an empirical research , Technovation, Vol.22 (5) ; pp.301-312
    6. Nakkiew W , Wannagoat J , Wattanutchriya W , Chaijaruwanich A (2012) Business feasibility methodology for introducing new developed local food product , pp.71-74
    7. Porter M. E (1979) How competitive forces shape strategy , Harvard Business Review, Vol.79208; pp.137-145
    8. Pujawan I. N , Geraldin L. H (2009) House of risk: a model for proactive supply chain risk management , Business Process Management Journal, Vol.15 (6) ; pp.953-967
    9. Stewart-Knox B , Mitchell P (2003) What separates the winners from the losers in new food product development? , Trends in Food Science and Technology, Vol.14 (1) ; pp.58-64
    10. The Supply Chain Council Inc (2008) SCOR: The Supply Chain Reference (ver. 9.0), The Supply-Chain Council ,
    11. Susterova M , Lavin J , Riives J (2012) Risk management in product development process , Annals of DAAAM, Vol.23 (1) ; pp.225-228
    Do not open for a day Close