Post on 09-May-2015
PROJECT AND PRODUCTMANAGEMENT PORTFOLIO
1992 - 2008
Steven CitronOceanside, CA 92056425-765-7887
STEVEN CITRONPROJECT AND PRODUCT MANAGEMENT PORTFOLIO
Page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 - 20
21 -22
23 - 24
25
26
27
28
29 - 31
32 - 33
34
SuperLift Contractor
SuperTower
Load Lifter
Genie Lift
Table of Contents
Product Development Projects &Related Product Management Responsibilities
Industrial Work Platform
SuperLift Advantage
GS-4390 & 5390 Rough Terrain Scissor Lifts
Genie Runabout
AWP Super Series
IWP Super Series
DPL Super Series
TMZ-50/30 Trailer-Mounted Booms
GS-1530/1930 Electric Scissor Lifts
TMZ-34/19 Trailer-Mounted Booms
Summary
Section
Business Development/Assessment Processes
Product Rationalization
New Business/Product Assessment Process
QFD - Quality Functional Deployment / House of Quality
Branding/Private Labeling/Strategic Partnerships Projects
ATD
GS-2032, 2046, 2646, & 3246 Electric Scissor Lifts
GS-2668 & 3268 Rough Terrain Scissor Lifts
Stanley Hydraulic Tools
BPI
Genie Trailer-Mounted Light Towers
GS-2632 Electric Scissor Lifts & GS3384 Rough Terrain Scissor Lifts
Bil-Jax Summit Series Trailer-Mounted Boom Family
MEC Self-Propelled Boom Family
Bil-Jax X-Boom Series
STEVEN CITRONPROJECT AND PRODUCT MANAGEMENT PORTFOLIO
Project:Project:IWP (Industrial Work Platform)
Project Type:New Product Development
Project Drivers:
Goals/Targets:
• Continuous customer requests for an outriggerless aerial work platform.• Strategic advantage to integrate such a product into the company's portfolio.
• Develop and introduce the industry's first
Results:
Develop and introduce the industry s first outriggerless manually propelled aerial work platform.• Project outcome must meet planned targets to ensure corporate profitability. and customer satisfaction.
Results:
• Project completed on time and within budget.• Significant sales revenue impact.• High level of customer satisfaction achieved.
Duration: 1 year
Base Models: 2
Configurations (approximate): 50
Budget (approximate): < $1 000 000No pictures available of original model Current model depicted Budget (approximate): < $1,000,000
Cross-functional team size: 12
No pictures available of original model. Current model depicted.
Page 1 of 34
STEVEN CITRONPROJECT AND PRODUCT MANAGEMENT PORTFOLIO
Project:Project:SLA (SuperLift Advantage)
Project Type:
P j t D i
• Redesign of existing multi-model product family.
Project Drivers:• The original product line had not been improved for over 15 years.• The company was losing sales revenue and market share to competitors who had developed superior products.
Goals/Targets:
Results:
• Improve product to meet or exceed customer expectations.• Integrate new and exciting features to re- establish market dominance.
Results:
Base Models: 5
• High level of customer satisfaction.• 50% sales increase.• Re-established market dominance.
Configurations (approximate): 500
Project Duration: 1 year
Budget (approximate): > $1,000,000
Cross-functional team size: 12Cross-functional team size: 12
Page 2 of 34
STEVEN CITRONPROJECT AND PRODUCT MANAGEMENT PORTFOLIO
Project:Project:SLC (SuperLift Contractor)
Project Type:
P j t D i
• Redesign of existing multi-model product family.
Project Drivers:• Although there was a high level of customer acceptance for the SLA product line, there was a significant market segment that requested a lighter-duty product family that was similar to the original SuperLift models.
Goals/Targets:• Develop and introduce a lighter-duty version of the SLA product line to meet the market demand for a lower price point product family.• Establish key feature differentiation while
Results:
Establish key feature differentiation while maintaining a significant level of commonality with the SLA product line.
• High level of customer satisfaction.• The introduction of the SLA & SLC
Base Models: 4
product lines resulted in a 100% sales increase over the original SuperLift product family.• Re-established market dominance.
Configurations (approximate): 100
Project Duration: 1 year
Budget (approximate): < $1,000,000
Cross-functional team size: 10
Page 3 of 34
STEVEN CITRONPROJECT AND PRODUCT MANAGEMENT PORTFOLIO
Project:Project:ST (Super Tower)
Project Type:
P j t D i
• Redesign of existing multi-model product family.
Project Drivers:• Transfer technological elements from the SLA project to the ST product line to optimize manufacturing commonality, improve product features, and reduce overall costs.• Integrate improved features and reliability
Goals/Targets:• See "Project Drivers" section above
specifically targeted for this product line based on customer feedback and historical warranty data.
Results:
• Project completed on time and within budget.• Significant sales revenue impact.• High level of customer satisfaction achieved.
Base Models: 4
Configurations (approximate): 40
Project Duration: 1 year
Budget (approximate): < $1,000,000
Cross-functional team size: 8
Page 4 of 34
STEVEN CITRONPROJECT AND PRODUCT MANAGEMENT PORTFOLIO
Project:Project:LL (Load Lifter)
Project Type:
P j t D i
• Redesign of existing multi-model product family.
Project Drivers:
Goals/Targets:
• Evolution of product costing eventually drove product pricing higher than the market would bear, resulting in significant reductions in sales.
g
Results:
• Reduce cost by 50%, allowing product to be sold at an acceptable price point.
• Reduced costs by 66%.• 50% sales increase.• Achieved improvements in functionality
Base Models: 2
Configurations (approximate): 20
• Achieved improvements in functionality and reliability as outlined in project plan.
Project Duration: 9 months
Budget (approximate): < $1,000,000
Cross-functional team size: 8
Page 5 of 34
STEVEN CITRONPROJECT AND PRODUCT MANAGEMENT PORTFOLIO
Project:Project:GL (Genie Lift)
Project Type:
P j t D i
• Redesign of existing multi-model product family.
Project Drivers:
Goals/Targets:
• Customer feedback for product improvements.• Corporate cost reduction targets.
• Improve profit margins through a 25%
Results:
• Reduced costs by 30%.40% sales increase
p p g g reduction of product cost.• Improve features, functionality and reliability.
Base Models: 12
• 40% sales increase.• Achieved improvements in features, functionality and reliability as outlined in project plan.
Configurations (approximate): 720
Project Duration: 9 months
Budget (approximate): < $1,000,000
Cross-functional team size: 8Cross-functional team size: 8
Page 6 of 34
STEVEN CITRONPROJECT AND PRODUCT MANAGEMENT PORTFOLIO
Project:Project:AWP Super Series (Aerial Work Platform)
Project Type:
Project Drivers:
• Redesign of existing multi-model product family.
• Original product family had a long history• Original product family had a long history of strong sales revenue and profit generation.• Competitive pressure resulting in 3 successive years of significant market share losses in a product category that had been originally established by the
Goals/Targets:• Improve product competitiveness and re-establish market leadership.
R d t t i fit i
company.• Significant "pride factor" throughout many levels of the organization.
Results:
• Sales increase resulting in market share as high as 80% within two years of product introduction.• Achieved significant feature, functionality,
• Reduce costs to improve profit margin.
and reliability improvements as outlined in project plan.• Reduced costs by 20%. Patented design improvements allowed the manufacturing team to establish a timed production flow line, reducing product assembly time by 25%.
Base Models: 18
Configurations (approximate): 10,000
Project Duration: 1 year
Budget (approximate): > $1,000,000
Cross-functional team size: 12
• A key competitor completely withdrew from the market shortly after losing a patent infringement suit for copying elements of our design.
Page 7 of 34
STEVEN CITRONPROJECT AND PRODUCT MANAGEMENT PORTFOLIO
Project:Project:IWP Super Series (Industrial Work Platform)
Project Type:
P j t D i
• Redesign of existing multi-model product family.
Project Drivers:• Transfer technological elements from the AWP project to the IWP product line to optimize manufacturing commonality, improve functionality, and reduce overall costs.• Integrate improved features and reliability
Goals/Targets:• See "Project Drivers" section above.
specifically targeted for this product line based on customer feedback and historical warranty data.
Results:
• Project completed on time and within budget.• Significant sales revenue impact.• High level of customer satisfaction achieved.
Base Models: 3
• Refer to AWP Super Series Project results for related market share, cost reductions and manufacturing improvements.
Configurations (approximate): 3,600
Project Duration: 9 months
Budget (approximate): < $1,000,000
Cross-functional team size: 8
Page 8 of 34
STEVEN CITRONPROJECT AND PRODUCT MANAGEMENT PORTFOLIO
Project:Project:DPL Super Series (Dual Personnel Lift)
Project Type:
Project Drivers:
• Redesign of existing multi-model product family.
T f t h l i l l t f th• Transfer technological elements from the AWP project to the DPL product line to optimize manufacturing commonality, improve functionality, and reduce overall costs.• Integrate improved features and reliability specifically targeted for this product line
Goals/Targets:
Results:
• See "Project Drivers" section above.
P j t l t d ti d ithi
based on customer feedback and historical warranty data.
• Project completed on time and within budget.• Significant sales revenue impact.• High level of customer satisfaction achieved.• Refer to AWP Super Series Project results for related market share, cost
Base Models: 3
Configurations (approximate): 720
Project Duration: 9 months
reductions and manufacturing improvements.
Budget (approximate): < $1,000,000
Cross-functional team size: 10
Page 9 of 34
STEVEN CITRONPROJECT AND PRODUCT MANAGEMENT PORTFOLIO
Project:Project:GS-1530/1930 Scissor Lifts
Project Type:
Project Drivers:
New Product Development
• Initiative to grow sales revenues in other aerial work platform product categories aerial work platform product categories.
• Initiative to become a "full line" supplier of aerial work platforms.• Strong customer feedback requesting that we enter this product category for our future business survival.• Strategic defense of existing product lines
i t h t b i lift
Goals/Targets:• Develop a 15 and 19 ft mini-scissor lift product line that meets or exceeds customer requirements.
C t lli " l iti " t
against encroachment by scissor lift manufacturers.
• Create a compelling "value proposition" to ensure market success.• Develop scissor lift production facility from the ground up, including building construction, capital equipment acquisition and installation, and hiring a new production team.
Results:• Introduced product innovations that provided key sales advantages to effectively compete against existing competitors. • World leading scissor lift manufacturer
i h l d ffi i
Base Models: 2
possessing the largest and most efficient scissor lift production facility in the world.• The overall scissor lift product family accounted for 30% of the total corporate sales revenue in 2002.
¹ This project had been managed by an outside consulting firm for two years prior to my involvement. This was the largest single undertaking in the history of the company as it involved a significant financial investment and a high level of coordination. The construction of the facility, the acquisition and installation of large amounts of capital equipment, the hiring and training of hundreds of new production team members, and the development of the initial product line made this project extremely
Configurations (approximate): 160
Project Duration: 1 year¹
Budget (approximate): > $30,000,000
Cross-functional team size: 20
p p p j ychallenging.
Page 10 of 34
STEVEN CITRONPROJECT AND PRODUCT MANAGEMENT PORTFOLIO
Project:Project:TMZ-34/19 (Trailer-Mounted Boom)
Project Type:
Project Drivers:
New Product Development
• Initiative to grow sales revenues in other aerial work platform product categories.• Initiative to become a "full line" supplier of aerial work platforms.• Strategic defense of existing product lines against encroachment by trailer-mounted boom manufacturers.
Goals/Targets:• Develop and introduce a 34 ft. trailer- mounted boom to effectively compete against existing manufacturers.• Ensure product meets or exceeds customer requirements.• Create a compelling "value proposition" to
Results:
C eate a co pe g a ue p opos t o to ensure market success.
• Introduced patented product innovations that provided key sales advantages to effectively compete against existing
competitors competitors. • Dominant market share achieved within two years of product introduction, estimated to be at least 50%.• Added $10,000,000 to overall company sales revenues during the first year of production.
Base Models: 2
Configurations (approximate): 160
Project Duration: 1 year
Budget (approximate): < $1,000,000
Cross-functional team size: 8
Page 11 of 34
STEVEN CITRONPROJECT AND PRODUCT MANAGEMENT PORTFOLIO
Project:Project:TMZ-50/30 (Trailer-Mounted Boom)
Project Type:
Project Drivers:
New Product Development
• Initiative to grow sales revenues in other aerial work platform product categories.• Initiative to become a "full line" supplier of aerial work platforms and to continue to fill out our trailer-mounted boom product family.• Strategic defense of existing product lines against encroachment by trailer-mounted
Goals/Targets:• Develop and introduce a 34 ft. trailer- mounted boom to effectively compete against existing manufacturers.• Ensure product meets or exceeds
g y boom manufacturers.
Results:
Ensure product meets or exceeds customer requirements.• Create a compelling "value proposition" to ensure market success.
• Introduced patented product innovationsthat provided key sales advantages to that provided key sales advantages to
effectively compete against existing competitors. • Dominant market share achieved within two years of product introduction, estimated to be approximately 50%.• Added $15,000,000 to overall company
sales revenues during the first year of
Base Models: 3
Configurations (approximate): 150
Project Duration: 1 year
Budget (approximate): < $1,000,000
Cross-functional team size: 8
sales revenues during the first year of production.
Page 12 of 34
STEVEN CITRONPROJECT AND PRODUCT MANAGEMENT PORTFOLIO
Project:Project:GS-2032, 2046, 2646, & 3246 Scissor Lifts
Project Type:
Project Drivers:
New Product Development
• Refer to GS-1530 & 1930 Scissor Lift
Goals/Targets:
Project.
• Develop and introduce additional electric scissor lift models, necessary to fill out the complete product category, that meets or exceeds customer
Results:
Base Models: 4
• Refer to GS-1530 & 1930 Scissor Lift Project.
requirements.
Configurations (approximate): 320
Project Duration: 1 year (overlapping with GS1530/1930 Project)
Budget (approximate):
Included in GS-1530/1930 Projectj
Cross-functional team size: 20
Page 13 of 34
STEVEN CITRONPROJECT AND PRODUCT MANAGEMENT PORTFOLIO
Project:Project:GS-2668 & 3268 Rough Terrain Internal Combustion Scissor Lifts
Project Type:
P j t D i
New Product Development
Project Drivers:• Initiative to grow sales revenues in other aerial work platform product categories.• Initiative to become a "full line" supplier of aerial work platforms.• Continued customer feedback requiring the development of additional scissor lift
Goals/Targets:
models to complete a similar product category.• Strategic defense of existing product lines against encroachment by scissor lift manufacturers.
Goals/Targets:
Results:
• Develop and introduce an initial rough terrain internal combustion scissor lift product family that meets or exceeds customer requirements.
• Introduced product innovations that provided key sales advantages to effectively compete against existing competitors. • The overall scissor lift product line accounted for 30% of the total corporate
sales revenue in 2002.
Base Models: 2
Configurations (approximate): 240
Project Duration: 1 year
Budget (approximate): > $1,000,000
sales revenue in 2002.
udget (app o ate) $ ,000,000
Cross-functional team size: 15
Page 14 of 34
STEVEN CITRONPROJECT AND PRODUCT MANAGEMENT PORTFOLIO
Project:Project:GS-4390 & 5390 Rough Terrain Internal Combustion Scissor Lifts
Project Type:
Project Drivers:
New Product Development
• Initiative to grow sales revenues in other aerial work platform product categories.• Initiative to become a "full line" supplier of aerial work platforms.• Continued customer feedback requiring the development of additional scissor lift models to complete the product category.
Goals/Targets:• Develop and introduce additional rough
terrain scissor lift models neccesary to
p p g y• Strategic defense of existing product lines against encroachment by scissor lift manufacturers.
Results:
terrain scissor lift models, neccesary to fill out the complete product category, that meets or exceeds customer requirements.
• Introduced product innovationsthat provided key sales advantages to
Base Models: 2
that provided key sales advantages to effectively compete against existing competitors. • The overall scissor lift product line accounted for 30% of the total corporate sales revenue in 2002.
Base Models: 2
Configurations (approximate): 120
Project Duration: 2 year
Budget (approximate): > $1,000,000
Cross-functional team size: 10
Page 15 of 34
STEVEN CITRONPROJECT AND PRODUCT MANAGEMENT PORTFOLIO
Project:Project:GR (Genie Runabout)
Project Type:
Project Drivers:
New Product Development
• Initiative to grow sales revenues in other aerial work platform product categories.• Initiative to become a "full line" supplier of aerial work platforms.• Customer feedback requesting the development of these models.• Strategic defense of existing product lines against encroachment by other aerial
Goals/Targets:• Develop and introduce a multi-model family of self-propelled vertical mast booms to effectively compete
against existing manufacturers by
g y work platform manufacturers.
Results:
I t d d d t i ti
against existing manufacturers by ensuring the product line meets or exceeds customer requirements.• Create a compelling "value proposition" to ensure market success.
• Introduced product innovations that provided key sales advantages to effectively compete against existing competitors. • Dominant market share achieved in this product category within two years of product introduction.
$
Base Models: 3
Configurations (approximate): 480
Project Duration: 1 year
Budget (approximate): < $1,000,000
Cross-functional team size: 6
• Added $7,000,000 to overall company sales revenues during the first year of production.
Page 16 of 34
STEVEN CITRONPROJECT AND PRODUCT MANAGEMENT PORTFOLIO
Project:Project:TML (Trailer-Mounted Light Towers)
Project Type:
Project Drivers:
New Product Development
• Corporate initiative to diversify the company's product portfolio to grow sales
revenues from existing product categories outside of the company's core product lines.• Corporate initiative to develop products that are counter-cyclical to existing product portfolio to allow for increased
Goals/Targets:• Develop and introduce a line of trailer- mounted light towers.• Ensure product meets or exceeds
productivity and consistent quarterly sales revenue generation.
Results:
p customer requirements.• Create a compelling "value proposition" to ensure market success.
• Introduced patented product innovationsthat provided sales advantages to that provided sales advantages to
effectively compete against creatively stagnant competitors. • 10% market share achieved within two years (and growing) in a highly competitive product category dominated by companies with strong brand name
presence directly related to this product
Base Models: 2
Configurations (approximate): 32
Project Duration: 1½ years
Budget (approximate): < $1,000,000
Cross-functional team size: 8
presence directly related to this product type. • Added $5,000,000 to overall company sales revenues in 2002.
Page 17 of 34
STEVEN CITRONPROJECT AND PRODUCT MANAGEMENT PORTFOLIO
Projects:Projects:GS-2632 Electric Scissor Lifts &GS-3384 Rough Terrain Scissor Lifts
Project Type:
P j t D i
New Product Development
Project Drivers:
Goals/Targets:
• Continued expansion of scissor lift product family.
• Similar to previously listed scissor lift targets
Results:
Base Models: 2
g
• Successful introduction of both products per project schedules and budgets.
Configurations (approximate): 140
Project Duration: 1 year each
Budget (approximate): < $1,000,000
Cross-functional team size: 8 - 10
Page 18 of 34
STEVEN CITRONPROJECT AND PRODUCT MANAGEMENT PORTFOLIO
Projects:Projects:Bil-Jax Summit SeriesTrailer-Mounted Boom Product Line
Project Type:
Project Drivers:• Bil Jax had an outdated product offering
New Product Development
• Bil-Jax had an outdated product offering and had been experiencing downward trending market share for several successive years.• Company was the leading scaffolding manufacturer in North American but was looking to their powered access business
f i
Goals/Targets:
Results:
for expansion.
• Improve product competitiveness and re-establish market leadership. • Reduce costs to improve profit margins.
Results:• Successful introduction of entire product family per project schedules and budgets.• Catapulted Bil-Jax back into a market leadership position for this product category.• Product offering and appeal was
l d t d l i t ti l
Base Models: 24
Configurations (approximate): 1 000's
leveraged to develop new international distribution channels. • Product offering and growth positioned the company as an acquisition target for a number of companies.• Bil-Jax was purchased by the world's third largest aerial work platform
Configurations (approximate): 1,000 s
Project Duration: 2 years
Budget (approximate): > $1,000,000
Cross-functional team size: 7 - 10
manufacturer following the introduction of this and the X-Boom product lines.
Page 19 of 34
STEVEN CITRONPROJECT AND PRODUCT MANAGEMENT PORTFOLIO
Projects:Projects:Bil-Jax Summit Series (continued)
Page 20 of 34
STEVEN CITRONPROJECT AND PRODUCT MANAGEMENT PORTFOLIO
Projects:Projects:Bil-Jax X-BoomsSelf-Propelled Boom Lift Product Line
Project Type:
Project Drivers:
New Product Development
• Substantially grow the company's
Goals/Targets:
• Substantially grow the company s revenues and market presence within the powered access industry.• Create and establish a leadership position in an innovative new product category.
Goals/Targets:
Results:
• Position Bil-Jax as an innovator and leader within a new product category. • Leverage maximum commonality of parts with the Summit Series trailer-mounted boom family.
Results:• Developed a new family of hybrid self- propelled boom lifts that would provide the transportability of trailer-mounted booms with the on-site maneuverability of conventional self-propelled booms.• Successful introduction of two of the eight
b d l i d
Base Models: 24
C fi ti ( i t ) 1 000'
base models prior to my departure from the company.• Significant sales revenues and market acceptance achieved. Positioned Bil-Jax as more than just a scaffold and trailer- mounted boom manufacturer, allowing them to leverage the International markets
Configurations (approximate): 1,000's
Project Duration: 2 years
Budget (approximate): > $1,000,000
Cross-functional team size: 7 - 10
as a new product category leader.• Maximized common components and major sub-assemblies from the Summit Series trailer-mounted boom product family to create this new product line.
Page 21 of 34
STEVEN CITRONPROJECT AND PRODUCT MANAGEMENT PORTFOLIO
Projects:Projects:Bil-Jax X-Booms
Page 22 of 34
STEVEN CITRONPROJECT AND PRODUCT MANAGEMENT PORTFOLIO
Projects:Projects:MEC Aerial Work PlatformsM40T & M46TJ Self-Propelled Booms
Project Type:
Project Drivers:
New Product Development
• MEC offered a full line of scissor lifts but
Goals/Targets:
• MEC offered a full line of scissor lifts but did not have any self-propelled boom lifts in its product portfolio. They need to be a full line provider in order to be strategically positioned for substantial growth.
• Develop a highly competitive family of
Results:• Prototypes built for key 2008 trade
Develop a highly competitive family of telescopic and articulating boom models that can be produced at a cost target that would ensure a competitive price position within the market.
Base Models: 8
Configurations (approximate): 1,000's
Project Duration: 1 year
Prototypes built for key 2008 trade shows and were successfully marketed - we sold out our planned production capacity for nearly 6-months.• Each model is far superior in comparisons against competitive machines in the same product category
in virtually every key publishedProject Duration: 1 year
Budget (approximate): < $1,000,000
Cross-functional team size: 5 -6
in virtually every key published specification and feature.• Project was on budget and met their margin targets for each model.
Page 23 of 34
STEVEN CITRONPROJECT AND PRODUCT MANAGEMENT PORTFOLIO
Projects:Projects:MEC Aerial Work PlatformsM40T & M46TJ Self-Propelled Booms
Page 24 of 34
STEVEN CITRONPROJECT AND PRODUCT MANAGEMENT PORTFOLIO
Strategic Alliance/Private LabelingStrategic Alliance/Private Labeling
Company:ATD Northwest
Products:Portable Video Surveillance Systems
Business Activities:• Co-developed trailer-mounted video surveillance product.• Developed relationships, strategies and processes to facilitate mutually beneficial business arrangements. • Other details cannot be released due to proprietary agreements.
A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY
Page 25 of 34
STEVEN CITRONPROJECT AND PRODUCT MANAGEMENT PORTFOLIO
Strategic Alliance/Private LabelingStrategic Alliance/Private Labeling
Company:Stanley Hydraulic Power Tool Division
Products:Multiple product lines.
Business Activities:• Co-developed several product lines for both organizations to brand within their respective distribution systems.• Developed relationships, strategies and processes to facilitate mutually beneficial business arrangements. • Other details cannot be released due to proprietary agreements.
Page 26 of 34
STEVEN CITRONPROJECT AND PRODUCT MANAGEMENT PORTFOLIO
Strategic Alliance/Private LabelingStrategic Alliance/Private Labeling
Company:Terex Handlers (Baraga Products Inc.)
Products:Multi-model telehandler product line.
Business Activities:• Private labeling of Terex Handlers through Genie's distribution system.• Developed relationships, strategies and processes to facilitate mutually beneficial business arrangements.
Other Notes:
• Provided leadership for a similar project with a company in Italy that is now
• Other details cannot be released due to proprietary agreements.
with a company in Italy that is now producing Genie branded telehandlers for our international sales offices throughout Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia.
Page 27 of 34
STEVEN CITRONPROJECT AND PRODUCT MANAGEMENT PORTFOLIO
Product Rationalization ProjectsProduct Rationalization Projects
Project Scope/Purpose: The product rationalization process is intended to identify products which do not fit into the corporation's overall strategy for one or a combination of the following reasons:
• Low or no profit• Low sales• Unjustifiably unique or complex manufacturing processes.
The process is conducted annually and d b f i iti ti i l diproduces a number of initiatives including:
• Price increase recommendations.• Cost reduction proposals targeted for specific product lines.• Initiatives to improve sales and marketing efforts to increase sales
R lt
of targeted products.• Design for manufacturability initiatives.• Product obsolescence and related recommendations for production build- out and inventory disposition.
Results:
Project Duration: 6 - 9 months
Cross-functional team size: 6 - 8
• Significant improvements in organizational efficiency and profitability.
Page 28 of 34
STEVEN CITRONPROJECT AND PRODUCT MANAGEMENT PORTFOLIO
New Product/Business AssessmentNew Product/Business Assessment
Project Scope/Purpose:• To evaluate and approve project proposals to ensure specific targets will be met.• Co-developed several tools that include strategic and financial evaluation criteria. A sample of one of these tools is listed below:
CONTRIBUTION ASSESSMENT SHEETNew Product Example 5/12/03 rev FNew Product Example 5/12/03 rev. F
Sales Projection Projected
Average net sell price $4,655 Current Sales Replaced by New UnitSales forecast 3,236 Current Model Current
Discount factor 0.6187 Average net sell price $0Units sold per year 0
% net Cannibalized Sales Current
List price $7,523 Model none
Average Net Sell Price $4,655 $15,062,672 Average net sell price $0Lost unit sales per year 0
Average Discounts/Expenses 3.50% $163 $527,194 Average discount/expense 3.50%Net Sales $4,492 $14,535,479 Net replaced sales $0
Per Unit Per Year
p
Variable Costs % net Current Variable Costs per unit savings
Materials Costs Materials Costs
Avg Direct Materials (BOM) $1,729 $5,595,044 Direct Materials (BOM) $0 $0Outside Processing 0.04% $2 $6,173 Outside ProcessingConsumables 0.63% $29 $94,390 ConsumablesInbound Freight - Direct 1.19% $56 $179,996 Inbound Freight - DirectOther - Direct Costs 0.87% $41 $131,549 Other - Direct CostsInbound Freight - Allocated 0.13% $6 $19,396 Inbound Freight - AllocatedOther - Allocated -0.09% -$4 -$14,118 Other - AllocatedIndirect Materials total (non-BOM) $129 $417,387
Contribution Margin-Gross 56.58% $2,634 $8,523,047
Variable Operating Costs Variable Operating CostsVariable Operating Costs Variable Operating CostsDirect Product Team Labor 11.65% $542 $1,755,359 Direct Product Team LaborIndirect Product Team Labor 5.26% $245 $792,556 Indirect Product Team LaborProduct Team Expenses 1.26% $59 $189,940 Product Team ExpensesCorporate Overhead 0.00% $0 $0 Corporate OverheadAdditional marketing $0 $0
Contribution Margin-Net $1,788 $5,785,193 Cost Reduction per Unit $0
Allocated Fixed Costs Development Costsper hour hours totals
Fixed Operating Costs Engineering cost $40 0 $0 Product Team Expenses 2.41% $112 $362,861 Process set up labor $40 0 $0Equipment Depreciation & Rent 1.73% $80 $260,006 Distribution set up cost $40 0 $0
Warranty Expense 2.85% $133 $429,783 Prototypes $0 Corporate Overhead 8.22% $382 $1,237,559 Testing and Certification $0Sales and marketing 6.00% $279 $903,760 Tooling $0
Operating Profit $801 $2,591,224 Equipment $0
% Operating Profit 17.2% Other (patents, travel, etc.) $0
Total development cost $0
Cash and Earnings Impact
Cash Impact of Program Investment Value of ProgramDevelopment costs $0 Return analysis time (years) 3Average weeks of on-hand inventory 2 Time to market (years) 1Cost to develop inventory $336,549 Amount invested $3,281,708Average days payment terms 90 Cost of capital 9.50%Cost to develop accounts receivable $2 945 158 58 Incremental Operating Earnings (annual) $2 500 532Cost to develop accounts receivable $2,945,158.58 Incremental Operating Earnings (annual) $2,500,532
Total investment: $3,281,708 net present value $2,991,893
Net Present Value (adjusted) $2,732,322# of months from project start to first production unit 1 Return 56%# of months from project start to production at rate 12
-300,000
-200,000
-100,000
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Cash Flowmonth 1 will be in the past on in
process projects
Operating Earnings Impact of Program
Cost Reduction Impact (annual) $0 (positive value is a cost reduction)
Sales Revenue Impact (annual) $14,535,479 (new net sales - old net sales)
Operating Earnings Impact (annual) $2,500,532 (additional net sales * profit percent) + total cost reduction
-400,000
Month (from project start)
Page 29 of 34
New
Pro
du
ct/B
usi
nes
s A
sses
smen
t
Co
ntr
ibu
tio
n A
sses
smen
t S
um
mar
y W
ork
shee
t$3
5,00
0
$18,
172
52%
$1,2
003%
$1,2
003%
$6,5
6319
%$2
7,13
578
%$5
,681
16%
$2,2
72$3
,409
$137
,358
$85,
718
$218
,750
$441
,826 10 1
$441
,826
15%
$4,4
16,7
9610
6%
$3,8
50,0
00$8
65,0
9422
%
Uni
ts s
old
per
year
50
10
0
200
15
0
150
15
0
150
10
0
50
-
Yea
r 0
Yea
r 1
Yea
r 2
Yea
r 3
Yea
r 4
Yea
r 5
Yea
r 6
Yea
r 7
Yea
r 8
Yea
r 9
Yea
r 10
Tot
als
Ann
ual
Ave
rage
Sal
es1,
750,
000
3,50
0,00
0
7,
000,
000
5,25
0,00
0
5,
250,
000
5,25
0,00
0
5,
250,
000
3,50
0,00
0
1,
750,
000
-
$38,
500,
000
3,85
0,00
0
Var
iabl
e co
sts
(exc
l. de
p)1,
028,
614
2,05
7,22
9
4,
114,
457
3,08
5,84
3
3,
085,
843
3,08
5,84
3
3,
085,
843
2,05
7,22
9
1,
028,
614
-
$22,
629,
514
2,26
2,95
1
Fix
ed c
osts
(ex
cl. d
ep)
328,
161
656,
323
1,31
2,64
598
4,48
498
4,48
498
4,48
498
4,48
465
6,32
332
8,16
10
$7,2
19,5
4972
1,95
5
Ope
ratin
g In
com
e (E
BIT
)39
3,22
4
786,
449
1,
572,
898
1,17
9,67
3
1,
179,
673
1,17
9,67
3
1,
179,
673
786,
449
39
3,22
4
-
$8,6
50,9
3786
5,09
4
Tax
es (
40%
)15
7,29
0
314,
580
62
9,15
9
471,
869
47
1,86
9
471,
869
47
1,86
9
314,
580
15
7,29
0
$3,4
60,3
7534
6,03
7
Net
Inco
me
235,
935
47
1,86
9
943,
739
70
7,80
4
707,
804
70
7,80
4
707,
804
47
1,86
9
235,
935
-
$5
,190
,562
519,
056
Cha
nge
in w
orki
ng c
apita
l(3
04,4
68)
(304
,468
)
(6
08,9
36)
304,
468
-
-
-
30
4,46
8
304,
468
30
4,46
8
$0
Ope
ratin
g C
ash
flow
(68,
533)
16
7,40
1
334,
803
1,
012,
272
707,
804
70
7,80
4
707,
804
77
6,33
7
540,
403
30
4,46
8
$5,1
90,5
6251
9,05
6
Cap
ital I
nves
tmen
t-$
137,
358
Net
cas
h flo
ws
-$13
7,35
8-$
68,5
33$1
67,4
01$3
34,8
03$1
,012
,272
$707
,804
$707
,804
$707
,804
$776
,337
$540
,403
$304
,468
$5,0
53,2
0450
5,32
0
Dis
coun
t rat
e (W
AC
C)
15%
NP
V¹
$4,4
16,7
96R
OI(
IRR
)10
6%A
ssu
mp
tio
ns
Day
s
A/R
(45
day
s)45
218,
750
43
7,50
0
875,
000
65
6,25
0
656,
250
65
6,25
0
656,
250
43
7,50
0
218,
750
-
Inve
ntor
y (6
0 da
ys)
6017
1,43
6
342,
871
68
5,74
3
514,
307
51
4,30
7
514,
307
51
4,30
7
342,
871
17
1,43
6
-
Pay
able
s an
d A
ccru
. Exp
.30
85,7
18
171,
436
34
2,87
1
257,
154
25
7,15
4
257,
154
25
7,15
4
171,
436
85
,718
-
Wor
king
cap
ital
304,
468
60
8,93
6
1,21
7,87
1
91
3,40
4
913,
404
91
3,40
4
913,
404
60
8,93
6
304,
468
-
¹ N
PV
cal
cula
ted
from
EB
IT
Init
ial C
apit
al In
vest
men
tD
evel
opm
ent c
osts
Initi
al c
ost t
o de
velo
p in
vent
ory
Inve
stm
ent
Val
ue
of
Pro
ject
Acc
ount
s re
ceiv
able
dev
elop
men
t cos
t T
ota
l In
vest
men
t
Cos
t of c
apita
lN
et p
rese
nt v
alue
Ret
urn
term
(ye
ars)
Tim
e to
mar
ket (
year
s)A
mou
nt in
vest
ed
Ret
urn
Pro
ject
Su
mm
ary
Ave
rage
Ann
ual S
ales
Rev
enue
Impa
ctA
vera
ge A
nnua
l Ope
ratin
g In
com
e (E
BIT
)
Cos
tsP
er U
nit N
et S
ales
Pric
e
Ope
ratin
g In
com
e C
ontr
ibut
ion
Tot
al C
osts
Per
Uni
tS
GA
& a
ll ot
her
Ove
rhea
d (2
x)
Less
: Tax
es (
40%
of E
BIT
)N
et In
com
e
Labo
rM
ater
ial c
ost
Aug
ust 2
007
1
Idea
Gen
era
tio
n
Bra
inst
orm
ing
:T
hink
ing
of
unlim
ited
way
s to
va
ry a
pro
duct
or
solv
e a
prob
lem
.
Sou
rces
:•
Cus
tom
er
coun
cil
•E
nd u
sers
•
Sal
es r
eps
•R
enta
l co
mpa
nies
•C
omp
etito
rs•
Tea
m m
em
ber
s•
Man
ufac
ture
rs•
Tra
de s
how
s
Idea
Scr
een
ing
Bu
sin
ess
An
aly
sis
De
velo
pm
en
tT
est
Mar
keti
ng
Fin
alD
ecis
ion
The
firs
t filt
er in
the
NB
D P
roce
ss
that
elim
inat
es
idea
s th
at a
re
inco
nsis
tent
with
the
orga
niza
tion’
s st
rate
gy
or a
reob
viou
sly
inap
prop
riate
for
othe
r re
ason
s.
Sta
ge
1P
relim
inar
y fig
ures
fo
r de
man
d, c
ost,
sale
s, a
nd p
rofit
po
tent
ial a
re
calc
ulat
ed.
Sta
ge
2E
ntry
Ana
lysi
s:•
Alli
ance
s•
NP
D•
Join
t Ven
ture
•A
cqui
sitio
n
Sta
ge
1R
apid
pro
to
Sta
ge
2
•C
ost a
nd
Mar
ket
Eva
luat
ion
•F
undi
ng•
Sta
ffing
•B
usin
ess
Pla
n
Eva
luat
ere
actio
ns o
f po
tent
ial
cust
omer
sin
a m
arke
t te
st a
rea.
Ful
lm
ark
etin
tro
duct
ion
Idea
Gen
era
tio
n
Bra
inst
orm
ing
:T
hink
ing
of
unlim
ited
way
s to
va
ry a
pro
duct
or
solv
e a
prob
lem
.
Sou
rces
:•
Cus
tom
er
coun
cil
•E
nd u
sers
•
Sal
es r
eps
•R
enta
l co
mpa
nies
•C
omp
etito
rs•
Tea
m m
em
ber
s•
Man
ufac
ture
rs•
Tra
de s
how
s
Idea
Scr
een
ing
Bu
sin
ess
An
aly
sis
De
velo
pm
en
tT
est
Mar
keti
ng
Fin
alD
ecis
ion
The
firs
t filt
er in
the
NB
D P
roce
ss
that
elim
inat
es
idea
s th
at a
re
inco
nsis
tent
with
the
orga
niza
tion’
s st
rate
gy
or a
reob
viou
sly
inap
prop
riate
for
othe
r re
ason
s.
Sta
ge
1P
relim
inar
y fig
ures
fo
r de
man
d, c
ost,
sale
s, a
nd p
rofit
po
tent
ial a
re
calc
ulat
ed.
Sta
ge
2E
ntry
Ana
lysi
s:•
Alli
ance
s•
NP
D•
Join
t Ven
ture
•A
cqui
sitio
n
Sta
ge
1R
apid
pro
to
Sta
ge
2
•C
ost a
nd
Mar
ket
Eva
luat
ion
•F
undi
ng•
Sta
ffing
•B
usin
ess
Pla
n
Eva
luat
ere
actio
ns o
f po
tent
ial
cust
omer
sin
a m
arke
t te
st a
rea.
Ful
lm
ark
etin
tro
duct
ion
$ $$
$$
New
Bu
sin
ess
Str
ateg
y•
Link
ing
new
pro
duct
dev
elop
men
t
with
org
aniz
atio
nal o
bjec
tives
.•
By
2012
we
will
gen
erat
e ov
er 5
0% o
f ou
r an
nual
rev
enue
with
new
pro
duct
s.
Is id
ea c
onsi
sten
t with
co
mpa
ny g
oals
?
Yes
No
t S
ure
No
Pro
ceed
to
Bu
sin
ess
A
nal
ysis
Con
cept
T
est
ST
OP
•M
arke
t S
ize.
•M
arke
t P
oten
tial.
•C
urre
nt P
enet
ratio
n.•
Impa
ct o
n ex
istin
g pr
oduc
t lin
e &
bus
ines
s.
•T
he C
ompe
titio
n.•
Who
buy
s th
e pr
oduc
t?•
How
will
we
get
the
prod
uct t
o m
arke
t?
Ch
eckl
ist
for
eval
uat
ing
new
pro
du
ct
con
cep
ts:
1.C
ontr
ibut
ion
to p
re-t
ax r
etur
n on
inve
stm
ent.
2.E
stim
ated
ann
ual s
ales
.3.
Est
imat
ed g
row
th p
hase
of P
rodu
ct L
ife C
ycle
.4.
Cap
ital i
nves
tmen
t pay
back
5.P
rem
ium
-Pric
e P
oten
tial
Pro
du
ct A
sses
smen
t
CO
NC
EP
T S
EL
EC
TIO
N
IDE
A G
EN
ER
AT
ION
IDE
AS
PR
OD
UC
T
PR
OD
UC
T P
LA
NN
ING
MA
TR
IX
TE
CH
NIC
AL
MA
TR
ICE
S(O
NE
FO
R E
AC
H S
UB
-SY
ST
EM
)
QF
D: A
pro
cess
for
tran
slat
ing
cust
omer
exp
ecta
tions
into
d
esig
n an
d pr
oces
s pa
ram
eter
s
PR
OD
UC
TS
UB
-SY
ST
EM
S(M
AS
T, B
AS
E, E
TC
.)
INP
UT
FO
R T
HIS
ST
EP
=M
AR
KE
T D
AT
A
TE
CH
NIC
AL
CO
NC
EP
TS
/IDE
AS
Out
put/R
esul
ts:
- W
hat t
he c
usto
mer
exp
ects
.-
How
impo
rtan
t is
each
exp
ecta
tion
(prio
ritiz
ed).
- P
relim
inar
y co
st ta
rget
s fo
r e
ach
sub-
syst
em o
f the
des
ign
bas
ed o
n its
' ove
r-al
l c
ontr
ibut
ion
to c
usto
mer
exp
ecta
tions
.-
Pre
limin
ary
risk
anal
ysis
.-
Rou
gh c
ut c
ompe
titiv
e b
ench
mar
king
(us
ing
com
petit
ive
lite
ratu
re a
nd p
revi
ous
data
).
Out
put/R
esul
ts:
- Id
ea g
ener
atio
n fo
cuse
d on
det
erm
inin
g po
tent
ial w
ays
to s
atis
fy c
usto
mer
exp
ecta
tions
.-
Man
y id
eas
gene
rate
d fo
r ea
ch c
usto
mer
exp
ecta
tion
and
the
man
ufac
turin
g pr
oces
s.-
Rou
gh s
cree
n ev
alua
tion
and
elim
inat
ion
to d
eter
min
e w
hich
ide
as h
ave
the
mos
t pot
entia
l.-
Idea
s re
-cat
egor
ized
by
affe
cted
sub
-sys
tem
s an
d th
en c
ateg
oriz
ed b
y sh
ort,
med
ium
, and
long
term
im
plem
enta
tion.
- Id
eas
rega
rdin
g m
anuf
actu
ring
pro
cess
es to
be
take
n in
to c
onsi
dera
tion
durin
g th
e de
sign
pha
se.
MA
NU
FA
CT
UR
ING
PR
OC
ES
SE
S
Out
put/R
esul
ts:
- A
llow
s sy
stem
atic
eva
luat
ion
and
sel
ectio
n of
var
ious
con
cept
s b
ased
on
the
best
"ba
lanc
e" b
etw
een
mee
ting
the
cust
omer
exp
ecta
tions
and
mee
ting
the
str
ateg
ies
of th
e or
gani
zatio
n.
Ste
ven
Cit
ron
TE
CH
NIC
AL
TE
CH
NIC
AL
Out
put/R
esul
ts:
- T
echn
ical
(de
sign
) pa
ram
eter
s w
hich
dire
ctly
pay
-off
to c
usto
mer
exp
ecta
tions
for
eac
h su
b-sy
stem
.-
Prio
ritiz
ed im
port
ance
rat
ing
for
each
tec
hnic
al p
aram
eter
bas
ed o
n its
' o
ver-
all c
ontr
ibut
ion
to s
atis
fyin
g c
usto
mer
exp
ecta
tions
.-
Tec
hnic
al b
ench
mar
king
par
amet
ers
and
ana
lysi
s.-
Iden
tific
atio
n of
pos
itive
and
neg
ativ
e c
orre
latio
ns b
etw
een
para
met
ers.
- T
arge
t val
ues
(spe
cs)
for
desi
gn.
- R
isk
anal
ysis
on
each
spe
cific
tec
hnic
al p
aram
eter
.
CO
NC
EP
TS
/IDE
AS
PA
RT
CH
AR
AC
TE
RIS
TIC
S M
AT
RIX
(on
ly f
or
the
syst
em c
ho
sen
to
be
carr
ied
fo
rwar
d)
QU
AL
ITY
PL
AN
NIN
G M
AT
RIC
ES
MA
NU
FA
CT
UR
ING
PR
OC
ES
S M
AT
RIC
ES
INP
UT
FO
R T
HIS
ST
EP
=T
EC
HN
ICA
L M
AT
RIC
ES
Ste
ven
Cit
ron
QF
D: A
pro
cess
for
tran
slat
ing
cust
omer
exp
ecta
tions
into
d
esig
n an
d pr
oces
s pa
ram
eter
s
PA
RT
S C
HA
RA
CT
ER
IST
ICS
(TH
ICK
NE
SS
, RA
DIU
S,
LE
NG
TH
, ET
C.)
Out
put/R
esul
ts:
- T
rans
latio
n of
tech
nica
l par
amet
ers
int
o sp
ecifi
c pa
rts
char
acte
ristic
s th
at w
ill m
eet t
he te
chni
cal p
aram
eter
targ
et v
alue
s.
MA
NU
FA
CT
UR
ING
PR
OC
ES
SS
TE
PS
(DE
BU
R, C
LE
AN
, WE
LD
, PA
INT
, ET
C.)
Out
put/R
esul
ts:
- T
rans
late
s th
e cr
itica
l par
t cha
ract
eris
tics
into
pr
oces
s st
eps
whi
ch w
ill m
eet t
he n
eces
sary
re
quire
men
ts.
- S
et c
ost/t
ime
targ
ets
for
each
bas
ic fu
nctio
n or
pro
cess
ste
p.-
Iden
tifie
s th
e m
ost i
mpo
rtan
t pro
cess
ste
ps to
ach
ieve
the
par
ts c
hara
cter
istic
s.-
Out
put p
rovi
des
data
for
deta
iled
man
ufac
turin
g flo
w c
hart
s, a
llow
ing
anal
ysis
and
pro
cess
impr
ovem
ent
bef
ore,
dur
ing
and
afte
r pr
oduc
t int
rodu
ctio
n.
Out
put/R
esul
ts:
- C
ontr
ol p
oint
s fo
r es
tabl
ishe
d pr
oces
s st
eps.
- D
eter
min
es p
roce
ss c
ontr
ol p
oint
s to
ens
ure
pro
cess
con
sist
ency
.-
Hel
ps e
stab
lish
proc
esse
s w
hich
will
ens
ure
con
sist
ent o
utpu
t by
limiti
ng th
e va
riatio
n in
the
man
ufac
turin
g pr
oces
s.-
Set
cos
t/tim
e ta
rget
s fo
r ea
ch q
ualit
y ar
ea.
MA
NU
FA
CT
UR
ING
PR
OC
ES
SS
TE
PS
MA
NU
FA
CT
UR
ING
PR
OC
ES
SS
TE
PS
QU
AL
ITY
CO
NT
RO
L P
OIN
TS
QU
AL
ITY
CO
NT
RO
L P
OIN
TS
QU
AL
ITY
CO
NT
RO
L P
OIN
TS
STEVEN CITRONPROJECT AND PRODUCT MANAGEMENT PORTFOLIO
Project & Product Management Experience: 16 yearsj g p y
Project types:New Product DevelopmentProduct ImprovementCost ReductionsProduct RationalizationNew Product/Business DevelopmentpStrategic Partnership/Private Labeling/BrandingDistribution Development
Typical project durations: 9 - 18 months
Typical cross-functional team size: 8 - 12
Formal Education and Training:• Leadership training • Value engineering• Management training (McGraw Hill) • Rapid new product development• Project management (multiple courses) • Formal & extensive QFD training• Total Quality Management • Total customer satisfaction• Lean manufacturing • Creative problem solving
Project planning tools/process experience:GOAL/QPC S M t d Pl i T l Oth t l /GOAL/QPC Seven Management and Planning Tools: Other tools/processes:
• Affinity Diagrams • Gantt Charts• Interrelationship Digraphs • Pert Charts• Tree Diagrams• Matrix Diagrams• Prioritization Matrices • Contribution Assessment• Process Decision Program Chart (PDPC) • Pugh's Concept Selection
• Quality Functional Deployment & HOQ
g ( )• Activity Network Diagram
Other misc. problem solving tools• The Seven Quality Control Tools (7QC)
Accomplishments:
Process
• Proven track record of product management and project leadership resulting in theintroduction of several new and improved products, representing cumulative sales of
• Responsible for product rationalization/life cycle management processes, results of which have contributed to efficiency gains and related improvements in profitability. • Served as project and product planning manager, responsible for market research,
introduction of several new and improved products, representing cumulative sales of several billion dollars, significantly impacting the success of a number of companies.
competitive benchmarking, final design specifications and leading cross-functional teams from concept generation through market introduction, sales, and customer
support for over 100 products (primary model configurations) over the past 16 years
are the industry benchmark, with market shares near or in excess of 50%.• Named inventor and co-inventor on several U.S. patents.
• Several products mentioned above have received awards and recognition. Many support for over 100 products (primary model configurations) over the past 16 years.
Page 34 of 34