COLIN CORPORATE

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

i stol
he Br
T
•Group-5 Member:
•Amit Vishwakarma (19PT2-03)
•Bhoomika Sharma (19PT2-07)
•Nitin Kumar Rohilla (19PT2-21)

Company
Overview
Innovate your digital culture
with our company abilities!
• Colin Corporate was founded in 1946, after the
end of Second World War – a critical period for
the U.S. economy
• Started originally with dry iron products gaining
wide recognition with due course of time
• Had been recognized for the past 70 years as the
number one leader in garment care products,
including dry irons, steam irons, and garment
steamers
• Had a flat organization structure where the
interdepartmental relationships ran in parallel
• Had its own industrial design and R&D group,
with a 20 years experience in garment steamer
product development
• The organization followed two partnership
models, i.e., OEM and ODM
Colin Corporate – Organization Structure

GM

Marketing Operations
Sales VP Finance VP R&D VP SC VP Quality VP
VP VP

Sales Marketing Finance R&D Operations SC Quality

Leaders in Action
1. Kelly Shawn-General
Manager

2. Frank Pennings – R&D

Director

3. Luis Almanza – 4

Quality Director

4. Simon Suffert –
Senior Sourcing
Manager

5. Sally – Senior
Marketing Manager
 • Bristol Project was the most promising
project with latest technology that could
finally resolve most of the customer
complaints about garment steamer
products that did not lasted long in low
temperatures
• COLIN had a patent on the new technology
• Bristol was targeted at a unit price of
US$109 made at a mid price product,
where its function would be superior to

Bristol similarly priced products offered by COLIN’s

competitors

Project • Estimated sales was $20 million for the first

year
 • Kmart, one of the COLIN’s major retailers wanted
to test sales one month prior to the planned
product launch. As a result, reducing the
timelines of the project was one of the biggest
Problems and challenge
• Reduction of timelines meant shrinking product
Plausible design, supplier selection, component
confirmation, qualification and certification, and
Solutions mass production of the components and finished
goods, which in turn can adversely affect product
quality
• Possible solutions such as seeking a supplier to
complete design or identify opportunities to save
time in current OEM procedure was a question
to ponder upon
 OEM ODM

OEM vs. Vendor took client’s

product design and
Complete turnkey
projects involving

ODM Models
manufactures based design and
on it manufacture

Enjoys Economies of
Scale and the highest
Usually very fast and
control of quality, max
saves time
speed of delivery,
better costs

Generally preferred if Was preferred in times

the team had available when the IDD was
capacities as complete occupied. The product
project management did not provide any
cycles were involved cost advantage
 Current Issues in NPD projects
Ineffective
Poor Negotiation
scheduling Poor communication

Over commitment to
FNo dedicated PM in team Ineffective Time Management customers

Lack of proactive
Poor conflict management Time tracker not developed communication

COLIN’S MANAGEMENT OF NEW

PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT LIFECYCLE

Lack of standardized Acceptance criteria's were not Lack of experience in young

benchmarks defined engineers

No formal project formats Lack of updates in project Technical issues

documents

Lack of
Ineffective Ineffective
standardized
updates resourcing
processes

Fishbone Diagram
PROFESSIONAL TEMPLATE
 ALICE
• Proactive in developing co-
Suppliers & operative opportunities with
other major garment care brands
Customers
PRIVATE LABELS
• COLIN provided private-label
products to large retail customers
who had their own brands
• This accounted for 5% of COLIN’s
business. The company purchased
ODM products from its own
suppliers and then supplied these
products to supermarkets or big
retailers
BUREY
• Had long cooperated with COLIN,
located in China provides large
quantities of high-quality
products within a short time
• Has a high service level and has
substantial manufacturing,
capacity and consistent high
quality performance but was
weaker in R&D and locked core
patents, along with competitively
innovative products
Frank Pennings
• Spe e di ng up pro j e ct ,
co mpre ss i ng s che du l e
wi l l re s ul t i n hi gh ri s k
in qual i t y
• Re l uctant t o cho o s e
the ODM o pti o n
ALIC E wi ll have an
• re s po ns i bil i ty o f
uppe r hand ov e r th e
pate nt s
Luis Almanza
• Re l uctant to choo s e
the OD M o pti o n
• ALI CE o wn pro duct
lo w sal e s de pi cts
unre l iable qual it y
Simon Suffert
• Su gge s te d t o ta ke qu o te s
a n d t ri mli n e f ro m AL IC E
a n d B U RE Y an d t ake a fi n a l
de ci s i o n
• Re l y on t h em f o r OD M
• Our En gi n e e rs t a ke Discussion
Areas
qua l i fi ca ti o n an d
ce rt ifi ca ti on
10
Kelly Shawn
• Discussed all the pointers
and was left with a couple
of options to reflect later
• How should COLIN move
the next step ?
 • A promising project with estimated sales of
$20 Millions in first year

• Should not use the existing ALICE’s patent to

reduce over dependency

• Given BUREY’s superior manufacturing,

Colin can go ahead with own patent and
OEM option with BUREY

• Partner with OEM for design phase to use

Recommendations Colin’s R&D capabilities and partner’s
design capabilities

• Appointment of dedicated project manager

to reduce lead time and avoid delay