Assortment planning & Sourcing strategy of staples in private label

category

By

Abhigyan Choudhury (P39178)

Summer Internship Segment

PRM 2018-2020

Submitted to

Grofers India Private Limited

Faculty Guide: Shusant Sarma

May 2019 - July 2019

ACKNOWDLEGEMENTS

I am extremely honored to be a part of IRMA’s flagship program. I am extremely

thankful to Prof. Shusanta Sarma, our SIS coordinator for his constant support towards the
internship segment. The summer trainee segment has provided me necessary experience &
learnings and will help me immensely in my future.
I am also grateful to Prof. Sridhar Viswanath for providing his guidance throughout
the project. I am also extremely thankful my reporting officer Mr. Dhruv Bhutani for his kind
support and constant guidance during my internship Period. I appreciate Grofers India
employees for providing support during my stay in Gurugram.

I would also like to express my gratitude to the various stakeholders of the G-Brand (
Prviate Label ) division of Grofers, who were pivotal during my internship. They have not
only guided me but have also provided the much-needed insight of the retail and e-commerce
platform. I have gained more knowledge. It will be a period which I will cherish & carry with
me for the rest of my professional life. I would also like to thank Mr. Ravi Kumar for his
unflinching support throughout the process. I am also thankful to the other interns at the
organization for their free expression of ideas.

Thank you.

i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Project title: Assortment planning & souring strategy of staples in private label
category
2. Region: Gurugram, Haryana.
3. Organization: Grofers India Private Limited
4. Reporting Officer: Mr. Dhruv Bhutani – Director (Staples - Private Label)
5. Faculty Guide: Prof. Shusant sarma
6. Participants’ Name: Abhigyan Choudhury (P3138)
Objectives of the study:
To achieve sourcing advancement using different techniques, to create a central process to
monitor all zonal buying, bulk rates and transportation cost to have more grip on commodity
buying process for different zones under central sourcing team.
To create assortment planning for the north zone
Scope of the study:
Sourcing is the heart of any product development company. Company’s all strategic
decisions and competitive pricing mostly depends on sourcing strategy. It’s a very difficult
but most important phase of product development.
If planned wrongly, it will create a severe impact on rest phases of product development and
eventually affect product life cycle. Raw material or basic finished product procurement starts
from here only. Bulk buying, processing cost, packaging and transportation costs are
regulated by sourcing team. Efficient buying and planning create extra advantage to other
departments like marketing and merchandising team to play competitively with competitors.
With cheaper bulk buying and good quality of products, landing price becomes low and there
exists a better gap between MRP and selling price.
If, there is more gap between selling price and MRP, company can give more discounted
rates to its customers and prices will be low after keeping company’s margin. This will result
in converting larger number of traffic and more business.
At the same time, Assortment planning helps in scaling business and creates customer
satisfaction by arranging a plethora of products needed by customers at a location or
geography wise. It diversifies company’s range and creates more options for customers to
buy all what they need, want or desire from one stop destination.
Methodology:
This project is divided into two parts. First part is Assortment planning and second part is
Sourcing strategy.For both of the parts, mixed methodology has been used, i.e., both
quantitative as well as qualitative technique.
Source of data:
For, Assortment planning, company’s sales data, observation data and secondary data are
used and for sourcing strategy company’s historical data, data from employees and vendors
are used.
Major findings:
Some of the major findings are:
1. In pulses category, decision makers are divided into two types. First type believes that
good quality of pulses solely depends on number of whistles it requires to cook
completely, and second type only believes in price, lower the price more they need.
2. There is a good scope of bulk buying in pulses category and company could transport
them profitably from one zone to rest of the zones. Key value articles are best
commodities to procure from one zone and can be transported to other zones as prices
are cheaper in one zone for a commodity.
ii
Source of major findings:
Source of findings are data from vendors and observations.
Conclusion:
A central sourcing P&L sheet was created and implemented in pulses category to check
profitability of central sourcing. Pan India assortment clean up and single MRP created to
convert more inward traffic in gofers’ platform. Assortment strategy was planned for north.
Recommendation:
Need to watch price volatility and check vendor capacity to boost central sourcing and a
greater number of variants need to be included in the north zone to exceed customer
satisfaction.

ii
i
iii
Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
2. METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................... 3
2.1. OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................... 3
2.2. PROCESS & OUTCOME ...................................................................................................... 3
3. FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................................... 5
3.1. EXISTING SCENARIO ......................................................................................................... 5
3.2. EXISTING PROCESS ............................................................................................................ 5
3.3. EXISTING STRATEGY ........................................................................................................ 7
3.4. STAGE GATE™ MODEL ..................................................................................................... 9
4. RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................. 12
4.1. GROFERS ADAPTED STAGE-GATE MODEL ................................................................ 12
4.1.1. STAGE 0: DISCOVERY .............................................................................................. 14
4.1.2. STAGE 1: SCOPING ................................................................................................... 15
4.1.3. GATE 1: SECOND DISCOVERY ............................................................................... 16
4.1.4. STAGE 2: BUSINESS CASE ...................................................................................... 16
4.1.5. GATE 2: GO-TO-DEVELOPMENT............................................................................ 17
4.1.6. STAGE 3: DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................... 18
4.1.7. GATE 3: GO-TO-LAUNCH ........................................................................................ 19
4.2. POST LAUNCH ................................................................................................................... 20
4.3. PRODUCT LIFECYCLE MANAGEMENT........................................................................ 21
4.3.1. MEASUREMENT ........................................................................................................ 21
4.3.2. STRATEGIC RESPONSE............................................................................................ 22
4.4. WAY FORWARD ................................................................................................................ 26
5. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 28
References ............................................................................................................................................ 28
ANNEXURE ........................................................................................................................................ 29

iv
List of Figures
FIGURE 1: GROFERS EXISTING PRODUCT LAUNCH PROCESS ........................................................................................................................ 6
FIGURE 2: PRIVATE LABEL EVOLUTION (MACNAUGHT, 2018) ............................................................................................. 8
FIGURE 3: THE TYPICAL STAGE GATE MODEL - FROM DISCOVERY TO LAUNCH .......................................................................................... 9
FIGURE 4: WHAT MAKES A STAGE............................................................................................................................................................... 10
FIGURE 5: WHAT MAKES A GATE ................................................................................................................................................................ 11
FIGURE 6: GROFERS ADAPTED STAGE-GATE MODEL ................................................................................................................................. 12
FIGURE 7: MEASURING PRODUCT LIFECYCLE THROUGH MEASURING THE MOVING AVERAGE OF SALES VOLUME OR REVENUE .............. 21
FIGURE 8: UNDERSTANDING THE NATURE OF THE PRODUCT LIFECYCLE BY MEASURING THE RATE OF CHANGE OF MOVING AVERAGE ... 22
FIGURE 9: PRODUCT LIFECYCLE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES ..................................................................................................................... 25
FIGURE 10: MATURITY STRATEGY................................................................................................................................................................ 25

List of Tables
TABLE 1: GROFERS ADAPTED STAGE-GATE MODEL TIMELINE BREAKDOWN ............................................................................................ 14
TABLE 2:STAGE 0 INITIAL SHORTLISTING ..................................................................................................................................................... 15
TABLE 3: STAGE 0 FINAL SHORTLISTING AND SELECTION ........................................................................................................................... 15
TABLE 4: STAGE 1 ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................................................................... 15
TABLE 5: STAGE 1 COMPETITION ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................................ 16
TABLE 6: STAGE 1 QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATION .................................................................................................. 16
TABLE 7: GATE 1 CHECKLIST......................................................................................................................................................................... 16
TABLE 8: STAGE 2 BUSINESS ASSESSMENT DATA MATRIX ......................................................................................................................... 17
TABLE 9: GATE 2 MUST HAVES ................................................................................................................................................................... 17
TABLE 10: GATE 2 SHOULD HAVE AND THEIR SCORING BENCHMARKS ..................................................................................................... 18
TABLE 11: STAGE 3 QUALITY ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................................................. 18
TABLE 12: STAGE 3 DESIGN ASSESSMENT................................................................................................................................................... 18
TABLE 13: STAGE 3 PACKAGING ASSESSMENT............................................................................................................................................ 19
TABLE 14: STAGE 3 VENDOR ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................................................. 19
TABLE 15: GATE 3 LAUNCH AND TEST MATRIX .......................................................................................................................................... 19
TABLE 16: GATE 3 LAUNCH DECISION ......................................................................................................................................................... 20
TABLE 17: POST LAUNCH SUCCESS PARAMETER ......................................................................................................................................... 20
TABLE 18: POST LAUNCH PERFORMANCE EVALUATOR .............................................................................................................................. 21

v
Introduction
Retail has come a long way in India. Starting from the simple exchange of goods by farmers,
to revenue districts, weekly markets and so on to finally reach the present state wherein
multiple retail brands fight for space in the Indian consumers’ basket.

Gone are the days of faceless stores, the local kirana and even the door to door salesman.
Today, Retail is like any industry, with a considerable penetration of brands and strategy
driven growth that targets consumers to provide their service, i.e. retail. To this, add the
technological revolution and we have retail stores without boundaries. e-commerce has taken
the world by storm. We have moved away from non-perishable and slow-moving goods, to
buying our daily groceries online. Some have even managed to make a dent in the local
‘halwai’s’ business during the festive season with gift packs being pushed to the digital savvy
consumer en masse. In this scenario, Grofers is one of the top contenders in the groceries
space and is slowly expanding to other categories aggressively.

The twentieth century was the century of the manufacturer brands which saw brands take
centre stage and drive consumption based on promise of quality, assurance of safety and
guarantee of delivery. They pushed their branded message to consumers who bought them
eventually as symbols of aspirations, images and lifestyles (Private Label Strategy: How to
Meet the Store Brand Challenge, 2007). This resulted in a massive power imbalance with
manufacturers exploiting their power over retailers, who were their primary means for
reaching consumers. They forced retailers to accept their products with the associated price
and promotion policies in a classic ‘Take it or Leave it’ approach (Marketing as Strategy:
Understanding the CEO's agenda for Driving Growth and Innovation, 2004).

1970 onwards, retailers started bulking up. We saw the rise of national chains and eventually
global chains. This has resulted in a massive shift in power and now retail brands have
outpaced and outsized CPG and non-CPG manufacturers. This has enabled them to seize the
advantage and the negotiating power that comes with it. However, the retail space has room
for another expansion, namely that of Private Label or Store Brands. These are store specific
brands are developed by stores in response to their growing power as brands in comparison to
the manufacturer brands.

Consumers want brands for the quality assurance and the emotional satisfaction they provide.
Any product that is not a brand will inherently have limited market appeal. This also

1
translates that brands do not necessarily have to manufacturer brands, they can also be store
brands. This is what has transpired over the last two decades with retailers discovering their
private labels becoming successful and consequently investing increasingly in their branding
activities. Retailers now position their PL products using emotion and imagery along with
functional logic to drive consumption and brand appeal.

This has also been the trend in India. We have seen a considerable increase in the presence of
branded retailers both offline and online. Some have even garnered national appeal and recent
news will show that some have even grabbed global interest with Walmart merging with
Flipkart in the online space (ETRise, 2018) and Amazon increasing their stake (as well as
making their potential acquisition implications clear) with Future Groups Big Bazaar (Mint,
2018).

With such strong brand presence, Indian retailers have also started adopting the private label
strategy to drive consumption growth and their margins by a great degree. Leading the
charge is Big Bazaar who has now replaced FMCG products from even corporate giants like
ITC in their offline retail outlets with their own PL products. They have not only been
aggressively doing so, consumers have been known to seek out these specific products over
their manufacturer counterparts. Online, Big Basket has led the charge with its own PL
offerings across all consumer segments, from low price to premium brands.

Now Grofers has decided to maintain a strong presence in private label, it need a strong
assortment planning and this planning need to be zone wise to cater needs of customers in
different corners of India and to minimize loses, it need to design a sourcing strategy that can
give optimized procurement strategy for staples and help Grofers centrally control its
procurement process.

2
Methodology

Deliverables

• To understand business & Category

• What to source and where to source?
• Vendor Visit & to establish the point of contact
• What quality to source (Method of buying)?
• To create a PnL sheet (to identify top 20 articles which could be centrally bought and
shipped
• Benchmarking of the category “Staples” with its competitors
• Pan India Single MRP creation of Key Value Articles
• Assortment clean up
• Assortment planning for Delhi-NCR region
Overview
started my internship by learning about “how Grofers work” and “importance of sourcing”.
I also studied how “Pulses” as a category behaves. Grofers is an online grocery selling
platform and Big basket is its prime competitor. It operates in 26 cities and divided into four
zones i.e., North, East, West and South. Majorly, Grofers is the leader in North zone while
Big basket is way ahead in South. I also came to know that this business is a low margin but
volume-based business. where pricing matters most and Grofers operates on competitive
pricing model. It always believes in giving more savings to its customers with best quality
products. Its sales other brand’s product as well as its own brand products on its platform.
Grofers own brand is called “G-Brand” and has been divided into two categories based on
pricing strategy to attract and fulfil needs of its customers. “Have more”, “save more” and
“Family Farm” are the types of brands designed to cater needs of “price sensitive
customers” while “Grofers Mothers Choice”, “Grofers Happy Day” are the brands designed
to give quality product at a reasonable cost. “Category” and “G-Brands” are two major
department. These two departments are supported by other departments like “Marketing”,
“Content”, “Quality” and” Purchase”.

Category team mainly ties up with other brands and purchase products from G-Brand team
to sale them on Grofers’s platform. On the other hand, G-Brand team design, create
products and sale these products to Category team. In the process of creating new products,
G-Brand team requires help and inputs from other teams like Marketing, Content, Quality
and Purchase. While buying other brand products means you must operate very
competitively within a limited range and you heavily depends on other party’s pricing
policy. To eliminate this risk and fulfil company’s vision, G-Brand was created.

G-Brand is aggressively working to create its own products to satisfy vision and mission of

3
 Grofers i.e., To give more savings and good quality products to its customers with every
purchase. G-Brand team in this way eliminates middleman cost, ensures quality of its
products and stretches the pricing range to give category team more space to compete with
rival’s price points.

Pulses as a category
Staples as a category is very wide and it's impossible to study this category within two
months. So with the permission of my R.O, Mr. Dhruv Bhutan, Pulses as a category has
taken for the experimental study and findings can then be implemented on other categories
in staples. Pulses as a category is again a low margin and high-volume business. Pulses are
commodities whose prices are controlled by government and affected by many other factors
like, impact of other commodities, Supply (Harvest Amount), Demand, Govt. Policies,
Weather (Monsoon) and market trend. So, the prices are highly volatile. So, aggressive
sourcing is the most effective solution for all these above problems.

Sourcing
Sourcing should able to answers What, Where, When and How to source conveniently and
effectively. Basically, to work efficiently, sourcing team should focus on three points i.e.,
Plan, Analyse and Act.

4
5
 3. FINDINGS

3.1. EXISTING SCENARIO

3.2. EXISTING PROCESS

ertain requirements or regulations.

6
 IDEA BENCHMAR
GNEREATION KING
DEVELOPMENT LAUNCH

WHAT TO
PRODUCT PRODUCT
LAUNCH

HOW TO
PACKAGE PACKAGING
LAUNCH

DESIGN DESIGN

Figure 1: Grofers Existing Product Launch Process

Idea Generation was generally a brainstorming process that utilised basic data analysis to
identify potential new products to launch. Here the focus was on understanding what to
launch and how to launch it, i.e. the SKUs. A large part of the input came in from the
National Category Team, who in turn sourced this information through their own data
analysis as well as regional expertise.
This was supplemented by the Benchmarking process which identified the best product,
design and packaging for the target category. It is quite possible that each attribute has a
different product as its benchmark and thus can have multiple combinations which go
forward in identifying the most probable SKU offerings. In this regard, the Category, Design
and Packaging team work independently to give their respective inputs for their specific
category. In other words, Category team undertakes the product benchmarking and the design
and packaging team their namesake functions in benchmarking.
Basis the benchmarking process, the final product is recommended, and the product
development process starts. This again is broken down into multiple functions, each often
working independently and at times in conflict. The New Product Development, NPD, team
formulates the new product and sets the parameters for manufacturing vendors. The
commercial team at this time is seeking out potential vendors and evaluating them post their
confirmation of interest in producing the PL product. They request samples which are then
evaluated by the NPD team to select the vendor and lay down their requirements. This
process has seen issues in terms of knowledge sharing as the NPD and commercial team do
not communicate their respective parameters on time.
Once the possible vendors are selected, the Quality team starts evaluating the vendor and
makes the necessary audits to either approve the vendor, reject them or make the necessary
changes for a strategic partnership. At the same time, the Design and Packaging team share
their respective output with the vendor to incorporate into the manufacturing process. The
commercial team then starts negotiating the contract in terms of quantity, delivery cycle,
timing of delivery and payment. This is a complicated process and highly time consuming as
multiple vendors need to be evaluated and the negotiations take a lot of time, especially when
strict requirements come from the supply team down to the exact hour of delivery.
Once the development process is complete, Grofers accepts the first order batch and the
product is officially launched onto their platform. During the launch phase, most of the

7
activity is overseen by the Marketing teams and they formulate their own strategies and
tactics in line with their own metrics and deliverables. This may often put them at odds with
the sales team. The functions are stuck in silos where the marketing team tries out various
hypothesis’, collaborations and combinations while the private label is trying to push more
trials and cart penetration for their products in the short run without any focus on customer
retention.
The timeline for the entire process varies across product categories and within a single
category as well. The process is also prone to delays as there is limited knowledge sharing,
which may result in teams going ahead without understanding possibilities, implications and
countermeasures. This was observed specifically during the launch of the antiseptic liquid
wherein the product was ready; the delivery was due and the launch was underway when the
teams realised that special permission were required to be able to market a product as an
antiseptic liquid which would delay the launch by another 3 months to acquire the permission
or to find an alternative. Overnight the entire product in terms of branding and positioning
had to change and new means of selling it as an antiseptic liquid without calling it so had to
be identified.
Another key aspect noticed during this entire phase was the lack of focus on brand
development and product lifecycle management. There were no long-term plans, nor were
any monitoring processes setup for the same. There were no metrics mapped out for
identifying lifecycle stage and accordingly adjusting the marketing strategy.

3.3. EXISTING STRATEGY

8
Figure 2: Private Label Evolution (MacNaught, 2018)

9
 3.4. STAGE GATE™ MODEL

Figure 3: The Typical Stage Gate Model - From Discovery to Launch

1. Better in-market success

10
 2. Better in-company project success
3. Greater portfolio visibility enabling better governance agility
4. Improved in-company cross-functional team collaboration
5. Improved collaboration with external collaborators
6. Innovation as a strategic business activity
7. Dynamic selection of projects
8. Retention of organizational learning in a purpose-built innovation process

All these are achieved through the unique set up of the Stages and the Gates. Each Stage
consists of unique, predetermined activities that are performed ‘cross-functionally,
concurrently, and iteratively’ to deliver the best results in terms of project scope, product design
and business impact.

Figure 4: What Makes a Stage

The Gates are the support mechanism of this entire process and eventually form the backbone.
Without the presence of gates, you cannot mitigate any of the risk, nor can you ensure a
growing probability of success. The Gates act as the much-needed dam in the entire process.
They help provide a platform to the multi-functional teams to evaluate what has been done as
well as set up the next few deliverables. They also help evolve the necessary metrics of each
stage. At each Gate, project investment criteria are used to evaluate projects objectively,
individually and cross-functionally to yield effective Go/Kill Decisions.

11
Figure 5: What Makes a Gate

Some of the notable companies that have used this method to turn around their process include
Pepsico, Bolthouse Farms, Kellog’s, Lego, Bayer, Chipotle, etc. (Stage-Gate Model, n.d.)
The process can also be modified, as observed by Robert Cooper, depending on the complexity
and size of the project (Cooper, 2013). With lower risk potential, the number of stages and
gates can be reduced, either by merging or eliminating altogether. This allows the process to
adapt to the different needs of different product developments.

12
 4. RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1. GROFERS ADAPTED STAGE-GATE MODEL

Figure 6: Grofers Adapted Stage-Gate Model

Going by the above findings, the traditional Stage-Gate Model was modified to suit the needs
of Grofers. This entailed the elimination of the fourth stage, the Testing and Validation stage,
to reduce it into a 4-stage process instead of the longer 5 one. Additionally, the post launch
process was spun off into the product lifecycle management module that was independently
managed by a cross-functional team with more strategic directive and long-term goals in
mind. As the nature of the products launched under the Grofer’s Private Label banner, mostly
FMCG, indicates a longer life with faster innovation driven differentiation, this was a more
suitable approach. The elements of the stage eliminated were incorporated partially in the Go-
to-Development Gate as well as the Go-to-Launch gate, wherein they incorporated the
consumer feedback into the entire process as well as shaping the product lifecycle
management module. This makes the model more manoeuvrable aligns responsibilities
accordingly to the relevant departments.
To do so, we first broke down the entire process into a 48-week cycle, leaving the additional
4 weeks (from the 52 weeks in a year) as buffer to assign to the stages or gates that need it.
The 48 weeks are further split into groups of 4, combining into single months. 3 months are
then combined to create a single quarter and basis this the 48-week year is divided into 4
quarters of 4 months. Within this time frame the processes are assigned their relevant Stages
or Gates and the relevant stakeholders are identified, their deliverables defined and their
timeframes of performing their respective functions are provided. Each Gate, Stage and
function lists out these elements and the timelines are presented accordingly.

13
Phase Title Function Quarte Month Start End Total
r Week Week Week
Stage 0 Idea Screen Prelim Analysis 1 1 1 2 1
Stage 0 Idea Screen Shortlist of Potential 1 1 2 3 1
SKUs
Stage 1 Scoping Competition 1 1 3 4 2
Analysis
Stage 1 Scoping Expert 1 1 4 1 2
Opinion/Internal
Knowledge
Stage 1 Scoping Recommendation 1 1 4 1 2
Gate 1 Second Competition Score 1 2 2 3 2
Discovery
Gate 1 Second Expert Score 1 2 2 3 2
Discovery
Gate 1 Second Selection 1 2 2 4 3
Discovery
Stage 2 Business Case Benchmarking 1 3 1 2 2
Stage 2 Business Case Marketing Business 1 3 2 3 2
Plan
Stage 2 Business Case Operational 1 3 2 3 2
Business Plan
Stage 2 Business Case Consolidated Plan 1 3 3 4 2
Evaluation
Gate 2 Go-to- Must Meet 2 1 1 2 1
Development Requirement
Evaluation
Gate 2 Go-to- Should Meet 2 1 2 4 2
Development Evaluation
Gate 2 Go-to- Decision 2 1 4 1 1
Development
Stage 3 Development Quality Technical 2 2 1 1 4
Stage 3 Development Product Test 2 2 1 3 2
Stage 3 Development Formulation 2 2 1 3 2
Recommendation
Stage 3 Development Formulation Test & 2 2 3 1 2
Selection
Stage 3 Development Prototype Test & 2 2 3 1 2
Approval
Stage 3 Development Design 2 2 1 1 4
Stage 3 Development Design Parameter 2 2 1 3 2
Identification
Stage 3 Development Design Iteration 2 2 1 3 2
Stage 3 Development Design Feedback & 2 2 3 1 2
Adjustment
Stage 3 Development Design Approval 2 2 3 1 2
Stage 3 Development Packaging 2 2 1 1 4
Stage 3 Development Packaging Parameter 2 2 1 3 2
Identification
Stage 3 Development Packaging Iteration 2 2 1 3 2
Stage 3 Development Packaging Feedback 2 2 3 1 2
& Adjustment

14
 Stage 3 Development Packaging Approval 2 2 3 1 2
Stage 3 Development Vendor Engagement 2 2 4 2 10
Stage 3 Development Identification of 2 2 4 4 4
Vendors (National
and Local)
Stage 3 Development Contact & Quotation 2 3 2 4 6
Stage 3 Development Sampling & 3 1 1 2 5
Selection
Stage 3 Development Quality Control 3 1 4 4 4
Stage 3 Development Field Visit 3 1 4 2 2
Stage 3 Development Report 3 2 1 2 1
Stage 3 Development Negotiation & 3 2 1 3 2
Implementation
Feasibility
Stage 3 Development Implementation 3 2 2 4 2
Execution Initiation
Stage 3 Development Commercial 3 2 3 3 4
Stage 3 Development Quotation 3 2 3 4 1
Stage 3 Development Terms Negotiation 3 2 4 2 2
Stage 3 Development Agreement Signing 3 3 1 3 2
Stage 3 Development Preliminary Batch 3 3 2 1 3
Delivery
Gate 3 Go-to-Launch Test 4 1 1 2 1
Market/Audience/Br
and Identification
Gate 3 Go-to-Launch Product Test 4 1 2 4 2
Gate 3 Go-to-Launch Customer Feedback 4 1 2 4 2
Gate 3 Go-to-Launch Launch Parameters 4 1 3 1 2
Mapping
Stage 4 Launch Product Launch 4 2 1 1 4
Stage 4 Launch Product Promotion 4 2 3 3 4
Stage 4 Launch Consumer 4 3 1 1 4
Engagement Driven
Sales
Table 1: Grofers Adapted Stage-Gate Model Timeline Breakdown

4.1.1. STAGE 0: DISCOVERY

This is the preliminary ideation phase and is designed to allow multiple stakeholders across
all hierarchies to contribute. The key objective here is to identify and assess potential SKUs
and Private Label products.
To do the assessment, a weighted scale was created that analyses certain key parameters and
normalizes and adds them to create an overall score to rate them. The different weights are
done so as to neutralize contradictory behaviours within parameters. For example, a high
retained margin percentage may also have a low absolute retained margin, implying that the
sale of the product is not of high volume and as such it needs to be assessed within the
category to identify if that is the norm or this is an exception. Additionally, basis the strategy
of the business unit, the weights can be changed to reflect the same. For example, when
expanding into new markets, the focus would be to gain increasing SPGMV so as to ensure
that consumer purchase are reaching considerable volume. This would be reflected in the

15
weights and be carried out into the final score and thus impact the final assortment launched
in that market. Any SKU with a score higher than the ‘half of the top score’ should be
shortlisted and analysed further.
Basis the shortlist, certain commonalities be evaluated. This would allow the list to be further
shortened to include specific product and size offerings in the category to create a short list of
potential new private label products.

Table 2:Stage 0 Initial Shortlisting

Table 3: Stage 0 Final Shortlisting and Selection

4.1.2. STAGE 1: SCOPING

This is the detailed analysis of the shortlisted SKUs from the initial stage. This requires in-
depth Data Analysis and combines it with internal knowledge to create a more refined
selection from the regional market applicable to the national stage.
Basis the assessment done here, recommendations are given to the category team to consider
for the private label expansion.

Table 4: Stage 1 Assessment

16
Table 5: Stage 1 Competition Analysis

Table 6: Stage 1 Qualitative Assessment and Recommendation

4.1.3. GATE 1: SECOND DISCOVERY

Here the overall assessment of all recommendations is done. Here, large scale culling is done
wherein the possible outcomes are reduced to most likely to succeed ones. This still is a
subjective stage and room for error is allowed here.

Table 7: Gate 1 Checklist

4.1.4. STAGE 2: BUSINESS CASE

The imperative in this stage is to assess the business potential of all the recommendations
from the previous stages. This acts as a filter between the previous ad the next stages and

17
basis the recommendations here, major go/kill decisions are taken. This also is a major
information gathering and comparative stage wherein cross-functional teams collaborate and
create a detailed assessment which will drive the strategy and business of the organisation in
the long run. Therefore, this is a considerable crucial process which can streamline the entire
product development process going forward and even allows room for developing the launch
and management aspects.

Table 8: Stage 2 Business Assessment Data Matrix

4.1.5. GATE 2: GO-TO-DEVELOPMENT

Basis the business assessment earlier, this is further study by the PL team. Here cross-
functional teams specialising in PL will assess the recommendation provided in the previous
stages and gates. The assumptions as well as projections are evaluated, and the feasibility is
checked.
The focus in this gate remains on the strategic, product and the market advantage. In this
regard, operational feasibility and Risk v/s Return considerations are key to understanding the
viability of any and all recommendations. The scoring given in this gate allows the PL team
to retain the highest scoring SKUs within the assortment and definitely develop them under
the PL banner for launch.

Table 9: Gate 2 Must Haves

18
Table 10: Gate 2 Should Have and their Scoring Benchmarks

4.1.6. STAGE 3: DEVELOPMENT

This is the longest part of the process and requires independent teams to still collaborate and
find common ground for long term gains and streamlining the process. Here the actual
creation of the PL product is undertaken.
The stage is driven through the collaboration of NPD, Commercial, Quality and Supply
Teams. They originally performed in silos with minimum interaction and knowledge sharing
unless absolutely required. The Stage-Gate Model turns them into collaborative teams with
inter dependent functions.
The end result of this stage is a finished prototype/product ready to be sourced and distributed
to the masses.

Table 11: Stage 3 Quality Assessment

Table 12: Stage 3 Design Assessment

19
Table 13: Stage 3 Packaging Assessment

Table 14: Stage 3 Vendor Assessment

4.1.7. GATE 3: GO-TO-LAUNCH

In this stage the marketing strategy is aligned with the initial assessment from the previous
stages. Here the tactical aspects as well as the specific goals are designed. The initial product
testing and consumer feedback is also assessed here to make last minute adjustments and
possibly create new positioning if required.
The launch decision regarding the marketing strategy are put in place and their timeline is
aligned. This being a more tactical and adaptive stage, it lacks the high degree of data
controls as present in the earlier stages or gates.

Table 15: Gate 3 Launch and Test Matrix

20
Table 16: Gate 3 Launch Decision

4.2. POST LAUNCH

The success of the failure of the launch is assessed in the short and medium term after the
launch. Initial, no parameters for the same existed and therefore Grofers had no way to assess
the same in the long run. With the Stage-Gate Model, it is now possible to measure the
performance of the product as well as compare it to the assessments and projections made
during the launch phase. This also allows for the creation of institutional knowledge and
create the necessary controls for long term strategic growth and market expansion.
The metrics in this scenario combine the old and the new, creating a comparative scale across
the category, nationally and within the platform. It also assesses the products performance
standalone over a predefined period and at regular intervals. For this measurement, some
initial parameters have been designed which can be developed further with experience and
time.

Table 17: Post Launch Success Parameter

21
Table 18: Post Launch Performance Evaluator

4.3. PRODUCT LIFECYCLE MANAGEMENT

4.3.1. MEASUREMENT
It is imperative that any business entity engaging in brand and product-based activities needs
to understand, monitor and leverage product lifecycle. In this regard, Grofers was found
lacking and thus as part of our project I was also given the task of formulating strategies for
monitoring the same. These were my recommendations:
1. Long term and consistent monitoring can be done by mapping the moving average of
sales against time
2. Additionally, to understand the nature of the stage of the lifecycle, mapping the rate of
change of the moving average against time will allow us to observe the nature of the
behaviour of the product
3. Consistent changes or stagnation will indicate the necessary stages and thus the
strategies can be aligned to reflect the same
4. Additionally, elasticity is also a good measure with the aim being increasing product
elasticity as well as cross elasticity of competition to increase brand stickiness and
resistance to price change and ability to capture market share from competition
5. Another metric to be monitored regularly is the cart penetration which will allow us to
understand consumer behaviour as well as actual market captured by the product

Figure 7: Measuring Product Lifecycle through measuring the moving average of sales volume or revenue

22
Figure 8: Understanding the nature of the product lifecycle by measuring the rate of change of moving average

4.3.2. STRATEGIC RESPONSE

Basis the assessment done above in the product life cycle measurement, a product manager
can take the following actions suitable for the respective stage in the lifecycle. These
responses are designed to leverage the advantage in the earlier stages and to mitigate the risk
in the later ones. However, these are not formulaic and should be evaluated with a fair mind
at every chance. A key aspect of this kind of response is the constant upgradation of tactics as
well as to create a deep collection of information that can be utilised to design multiple
scenarios and facilitate better decision making.
1. Initial Launch
a. Creating consumer awareness is the primary requirement here
b. High volume mediums such as advertising and high impact methods such as
PR will provide the same in a fast and sustainable manner
c. Utilising the penetration price tactic to ensure consumer trials and then
depending on the quality of the product to make sure the consumer return
would be suitable here
d. Promotions, either price based, or activity based will help generate demand
which is key in this stage as the slate is blank for any new product launched
2. Post Launch
a. Higher consumer engagement is the strategic approach here
b. As a manager, the tactical approach would be to push the product through to
consumer consumption, i.e. increase trials and retention over a longer period

23
 c. Being a digital platform, Grofers has the advantage of utilising Search Engine
Optimisation or SEO across two levels: Generic Search Engine and within the
platform search itself
d. This can be further supplemented by sales promotions and collaboration which
allows the product to be partnered with interlinked products as well as with
business entities such as payment gateways, etc.
3. Initial Acceleration
a. If the activities over the previous two phases pay dividends then the product
will go through a considerable growth and will start accelerating notably in the
short run
b. Here the opportunity is to create brands and sustain the growth over a longer
run
c. Technically not the longest phase of the lifecycle, it is key for defining the
final position and revenue of the product
d. The acceleration also facilitates market expansion as the brand building
activities will increase customer outreach and trials
e. Endorsement would be a major pull factor here, especially customer
endorsements
4. Peaking Acceleration
a. This is the maximum growth that the product can achieve and beyond this
growth will eventually stagnate
b. Here the focus would be to push and position the product across as many
baskets as possible
c. The most prominent means to generate revenue and growth here is the line
extension which would allow the product to cater to the maximum number of
customers possible at any give time by increasing choices and compatibility
d. The phase also requires regular boosts and creation of relevancy which can be
managed through influencers
e. Influencer management and partnered campaigns will give the necessary
support in the entire phase allow a brand manager to reposition as and when
needed to maintain consumer base
f. Creating complementary product bouquets, a great way to leverage direct
selling by linking the product with a higher selling SKU or even a bigger
brand to facilitate consumption
5. Maturity
a. This is the phase of stagnation and the product has reached the maximum
potential market
b. This is the longest phase of the product lifecycle and can last decades – e.g.
the brands such as Coke are still in stagnation phase and are supplementing
growth by market expansion
c. The manager needs to look at 2 main aspects here:
i. Market Development
ii. Product Development
d. Market development can be done through heavy price competition and
marketing innovation

24
 e. As PL products are at their core driven by price-based tactics, this is in line
with the strategy and the consumer base
f. This will allow the market to expand downwards towards the lower priced
segment as well as keep competition at bay by creating tough market entry
barriers in terms of price, efficiency, quality and market share
g. Market innovation is the most unique tactic and can only be undertaken by
few managers
h. This tactic allows managers to find new uses for existing products and create
and entirely new and untapped market where the product can now be utilised
and sold, thus boosting revenues by a considerable margin and increasing the
life of the product
i. Product development can be done by the obvious development of the product
and building innovation into it
j. The other means to do so is by increasing the product depth
k. This will allow more choice, create variation and even allow the same
consumer to buy larger volumes in a single purchase
l. Depth extension is highly consumer focused and requires extensive feedback
from them before extending to create the right mix of offerings
6. Decline
a. Here will accept the impending collapse of the product and as such you will
follow 3 main strategies under this phase
b. Harvesting
i. Maximising Sales
ii. Maximising Discount
iii. Bulk Selling
iv. Minimum Marketing/Sales Budget
c. Phased Withdrawal
i. Line Culling
ii. Depth Reduction
iii. Pushing on Loyalty Programs
d. New Private Label Offering
i. Product Rebranding
ii. Innovation
iii. Realigning Service Need

25
 INITIAL PEAKING
INITIAL LAUNCH POST LAUNCH
ACCELERATION ACCELERATION
• ADVERTISING & PR • SALES PROMOTION • ENDORSEMENT • LINE EXTENSION
•PRICE •CUSTOMER • BRAND BUILDING • INFLUENCER
PENETRATION ENGAGEMENT • MARKET ENGAGEMENT
• PROMOTIONS • SEO EXPANSION • COMPLEMENTARY
•DEMAND • COLLABORATION PRODUCT BOUQUE
GENERATION

Figure 9: Product Lifecycle Management Strategies

HEAVY PRICE COMPETITION MARKET DEVELOPMENT MARKETING INNOVATION

PRODUCT DEPTH
PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
EXTENSION

Figure 10: Maturity Strategy

26
4.4. WAY FORWARD

 An endorsed brand strategy works for private labels

 Grofers Acts as the overarching brand
o The Assurer of Quality
o Price
o Delivery
 Present offerings of copycats have to be expanded under the Grofers brand
 Copycat Brands have to evolve into value innovators and be developed unto
independent brands
 Final proposition will be the creation of premium store brands
 They provide the option of innovating a declining product as well as expanding the
existing market
 With value innovators and premium brands, both ends of the market spectrum will be
catered to
 Maximum offerings under the brand will eventually need to be culled and specific
offerings under specific brands needs to be created
 Replication based product development needs to evolve and innovation driven offerings
need to be incorporated
 The Stage-Gate model facilitates innovation. Automation and flexibility and thus
should be leveraged for the same
 Grofers as a retail brand needs to evolve as a purveyor retail brand
 Long Term Aim for the next 10 years
o 80% SPGMV should be achieved from private labels which would position the
maximum revenue in the business as well as ensure the maximum benefit is
provided to the customer
o Phasing out the margin leechers from the assortment is necessary in the period
so as to increase the efficiency of the existing assortment and reduce the burden
on the PL customer
o Presently the PL products are restricted to copycats but in the long run moving
up towards premium brands is necessary to develop PL brands into aspiration
brands which will be necessary for sustaining the strategy and is the next logical
step in any brand portfolio
 Short Term Aim for the next 5 years
o Increasing Grofers’ bargaining power in comparison of national brands and
other retailers, considering that many brands are not in direct communication
with the organisation
o This will be primarily achieved by pushing volumes and expanding market
through private labels and leveraging them against the national brands to create
a much more balanced playing field
o Increasing the PL assortment is imperative as presently, the PL assortment is
very limited. The new product development process will allow simultaneous
development of multiple products at a much-accelerated rate as well as success.
This will help increase the assortment and increase Grofers’ retailer brand

27
o Brand building exercises need to be undertaken to improve the PL perception
amongst consumers and move them away from discount driven buyers to actual
quality preference buyers who can sustain the business in the long run
o This is a twofold process and is supported by increasing consumer engagement
which presently is very limited and is not a contributing factor in product
development and management at all. The new product development and
lifecycle management process can incorporate consumer feedback and increase
their engagement in the entire process to suit a more engaged phase in the PL
strategy which will reap benefits almost immediately with more invested
customers

28
 5. REFERENCES

References
(2004). In N. Kumar, Marketing as Strategy: Understanding the CEO's agenda for Driving Growth and
Innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

(2007). In N. Kumar, & J.-B. E. Steenkamp, Private Label Strategy: How to Meet the Store Brand
Challenge (p. 270). Harvard Business Review Press.

Cooper, R. (2013). The Stage-Gate Idea-to-Launch Process - Update, What's New and Next-Gen
Systems. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 213-232.

ETRise. (2018, May 10). Retrieved from Economic Times:

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/newsbuzz/walmart-acquires-
flipkart-for-16-bn-worlds-largest-ecommerce-deal/articleshow/64095145.cms

MacNaught, P. (2018). Brand Bias and Customer-Based Brand Equity in the Supermarket Industry.
Connecticut: Trinity College.

Mahmutllari, J. (2014). Developing a new product development and launch process. HAAGA-HELIA
University of Applied Sciences.

Mint. (2018, November 28). Retrieved from Live Mint:

https://www.livemint.com/Companies/ReGYt9GCaHbIIzt5MMoTFO/Amazon-is-in-advanced-
stage-talks-to-buy-95-stake-in-Futur.html

Rusch, R. D. (2002). Private Labels: Does Branding Matter. Retrieved from BrandChannel:
https://www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=94

Stage-Gate Model. (n.d.). Retrieved from Stage-Gate International: https://www.stage-

gate.com/stage-gate-model/

29
ANNEXURE

This includes the tables of all the specific gates and stages listing out their metrics, benchmarks and
deliverables.
The annexure also contains the entire 48 weeks timeline broken down according to function and in
line with the stages. They also allow a manger to understand which processes occur simultaneously
and which follow each.
The final item in the annexure is the sample questionnaire basis which the detailed interviews
throughout the project was undertaken. This was instrumental in shaping interactions with all
stakeholders and was the guide to building the new process being recommended.

30
Team Responsible Regional Economy
Timeline 2 Weeks

Product Absolute Values Normalised Values Score

% %
Sales SP SPG Cart Sales SPG Cart
Volume GMV MV RM %RM Penetration Volume MV RM %RM Penetration Absolute Relative
L1 Category 1 Weights 2 2 4 4 3 15 Any SKU with a score higher than
the 'half of the top score' should
Product 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
be shortlisted and analysed
Product 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 1.667 0.111 further. Basis the shortlist, certain
Product 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0.222 0.222 0.222 0.222 0.222 3.333 0.222 commonalities can be evaluated
and the list can be further
Product 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0.333 0.333 0.333 0.333 0.333 5.000 0.333 shortened to include specicf
Product 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0.444 0.444 0.444 0.444 0.444 6.667 0.444 product and size offerings in the
category to create a short list of
Product 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0.556 0.556 0.556 0.556 0.556 8.333 0.556
potential new Private Lable
Product 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 0.667 0.667 0.667 0.667 0.667 10.000 0.667
Product 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 0.778 0.778 0.778 0.778 0.778 11.667 0.778
Product 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0.889 0.889 0.889 0.889 0.889 13.333 0.889
Product 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 15.000 1.000

Initial Assessment Final Recommendation

Product Attribute Size Score Product Size Remarks
Team Responsible Regional Economy
Timeline 3 Weeks

Competition Analysis: Retailer

-1 to 1
where,
1 = Must Have
0 = Should
Consider 0(Absent or
(1 = Yes) (1 = Yes) -1 = Should 0(lowest) to 5 passive) to 5
(0 = No) (0 = No) Avoid (highest) (Aggessively)
Viable Presence in Nature of Normalized
Name Available Withdrawn Difference Assortment promotion Sales Sales Scale Remarks
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0

Competition Analysis: Product

Average
Monthly Frequency of Average Landing Overall
Name Sales Purchase Live Days Margins Price Market Sales Remarks

Average
Category
Market Size
L2 Market
Size
Nature of L2
Product A score evaluating the position of recommended product in relation of its competition. Higher the score,
Competition better is the competitive value.This is a subjective assesment but takes into consideration the above
Score quantitave information as well

Internal Knowledge: Qualitative/Subjective Assessment

Behaviour of The assessment of the category is done to evaluate the volatility or stability as well as potential trends that may indicate the future of the product. Acquiring external data to understand the nature of the cateogry
Category will aid the decision making process, wherein the manager will have access to more tacit knowledge
The long term goal would to be to achieve a stable CBD for any and all products launched. In this regard, understanding the seasonlity of the category/product will help plan supply chain requirements as well as
Seasonality viability of investing in the long term availability of any SKU
Regionality of the product needs to be considered. Its performance in specific regions/citie can be compared to understand sc ope of sales on the platform. Trends should again be analysed to understnd
Regional consumer behaviour and evaluation of the product on a national scale needs to be undertaken. A solely local product will not be a viable choice as expansion would require investment in market creation and
Behaviour demand generation - a long term committment
Business Financial, operational and marketing considerations need to be evaluated here. The key objective would be to estimate potential returns against cost and the feasability of delivery of the same. Any special
Restrictions requirements in the production and sales of the product needs to be considered and decision regarding its inclusion or exclusion should be taken keeping in mind long term strategy of the business unit
Legal Requirement of licences, permits, certification or any intellectual property restrictions as well health and environment considerations need to be taken into account. This may affect not jus the production but the
Implications makreting capabilities as well.
Expert Score A subjective score given by an expert basis his above assessment of tacit knowledge

Final Assessment & Recommendation

Product SKU Price Margin Retail Competition Score Product Competition Score Internal Knowledge Score Recommenation
Team Responsible Regional Economy & National Category Team
Timeline 3 Weeks

Competition Analysis: Retailer

Product Score For Scoring:-

Must Have 2
First Mover 1
Avoid 0

Internal Knowledge

Openness of Category to Private Label Score between 0 to 5, with 0 being lowest

Score between 1 to 3, with 1 being strong and 3 being
weak.
Concurrently, the elasticity of the product category can be
considered with values between (-1) to 0 where the closer
Nature of Brand Loyalty the value to zero the better
Score between 0 and 1, with 1 being low and 0 being high.
Concurrently, the elasticity of the product category can be
considered with values between (-1) to 0 where the closer
Price Sensitivity the value to zero the better
Feasability of Launch Score between 0 and 1, with 1 being Yes and 0 being No
The top scorer should be considered for launch as
PL. However, based on the opinion of the Category
Team, more than one product could be selected.
Decision Such a decision works for strategic scenarios
wherein the organisation is looking at long term
engagement and growth and as such is poised to
Product capture the and/or create entry barriers for the
Total Score market in the long run. This could also be done to
offset the presence of national brands in certain
categories, or the minimise the loss of revenue due
to necessity to carry customer pulling
brands/products
Team Responsible National Category Team, CRM and Marketing
Timeline 4 Weeks

Benchmarking

Product SKU Packaging Design Price The benchmarking for each of the criteria is done
individually. This means for each attribute a
different product may be the benchmark and as
such requires suitable validation as well.

Business Plan Checklist

Market Segment Customer Identification

Serviceable Need that can be addressed by the product and its
Need Identification potential for revenue generation
Overall Market available to the PL for servicing the need identified
above. This is an estimation and is done through a collection of
secondary data
Basis this, the market share will be estimated for the same. Wherein
we monitor consumer trends and correlate with the segmentation to
identify the market we may capture in the long run as well as the
Market Size year on year growth
USP of the product and how it distinctly fulfills the need above while
Value Proposition/Differentiation providing the optimum quality
Basis the benchmarking done for pricing, the price of the product is
estimated at 15 to 30 percent lower than the benchmark. From this Price = (15 to 30%) less than
the margin (which is set by combining L2 gross margin, top selling Benchmark Price
product/variety Consumption per day or CPD and the brand Margin Estimation = L2 gross
discount) is removed and the Landing price or LP is estimated. This margin + top selling product
LP is benchmarked against prevailing wholesale prices for target margin basis CPD + brand
across various cities to assess whether the estimation of margin discount
Cost and Margins targets are accurate or reasonable LP = SP - Margin (targeted)
Market share X Margin
Additionally, the growth rate basis secondary data of the category
Potential Revenue analysis will help project revenue for the next few years
difference of average purchase value and average purchase
Customer Lifetime Value frequency rate
Comparing the Y-o-Y growth rate of the category with the growth
rate of the company or the customer acquisition rate of the comany
to estimate the potential market over various timeframes. This will
then be used to calculate the potential business by utilising the target
Expansion Potential margins after accounting for suitable inflation/variation
This sets the schedule for product management starting with the Development timeline, launch
launch and laying down the various periods of evaluations wherein timeline, post launch review
the product development, stage and lifecycle is evaluated to take timeline, quarterly review timeline
Timelines next strategic decisions and annual review timeline
Specific milestones or achievements which are to be achieved First Post Launch Assessment 10% of SPGMV
according to the timeline established above. They are the relative First Quarter Review 25% of SPGMV
measure of performance of the business parameters set in the plan First Annual Review 50% of SPGMV
Milestones above Break Even Point, etc. Stable CPD
The actual measure of product performance. They have to be
established before hand and montiored regulary acoording to the SPGMV, RM, Cart Penetration,
timelines decided above. They will help identify milestones and their Rate or Return, Sales Growth
achievement as well as the overall performance of the product over Rate, Market Share and
Metrics time Customer Feedback
Market, operational, adoption and technological barriers need to
Barriers evaluated and their impact assessed
Any and all legal or regulatory requirements (even health and
environment) need to be listed out so that the necessary processes
Legal/Regulatory Requirements can be undertaken to obtain them
Warning level of business performance across various stages needs
to established so as to ensure that red flags are raised at the right
Emergency/Business Review Criteria time and review is undertaken to either rectify or close the project
Any and all assumptions undertaken in the estimation of
data/information listed above in the plan needs to be mentioned
Assumptions along with any form of validation, reference or source
Team Responsible National Category Team, Private Label Team & Marketing
Timeline 4 Weeks

Must Haves

Yes or No questions, with 1 = Yes and 0 = No. As

Strategic Alignment these are must haves for the product before it goes
Reasonable Likelihood of into development, therefore any score less than 3
Technical/Operational Feasability would be unallowed for moving onto development.
However, if there are strategic reasons for
Positive Returns V/S Risk choosing then exception can be made as long as
Overall Score 0 technical or operational feasability is still scored 1

Should Haves

Strategic Advantage Legend and Benchmarks

score between 0 to 10, with 0 implying no alignment and 10 implying the
Degree of Strategic Alignment highest or perfect alignment
score between 0 to 10, with 0 implying no importanceand 10 implying the
Strategic Importance most important
Product Advantage
score between 0 to 10, with 0 implying no USP and 10 implying a very
USP strong USP
score between 0 to 10, with 0 implying lack of need fulfillment and 10
Need Fulfillment implying the highest degree of need fulfillment
score between 0 to 10, with 0 being the lowest value and 10 implying the
Value for Money highest value for money
Market Advantage
score between 0 to 10, with 0 being lowest market size and 10 being the
Market Size highest market size
score between 0 to 10, with 0 implying no growth and 10 implying the
Market Growth highest growth possible
score between 0 to 10, with 0 implying least favourable competitive
Competitive Situation market and 10 implying most favourable competitive market
Feasability
score between 0 to 10, with 0 implying no feasability and 10 implying the
Technical highest or perfect feasability
score between 0 to 10, with 0 implying no feasability and 10 implying the
Operational highest or perfect feasability
score between 0 to 10, with 0 implying no feasability and 10 implying the
Go to Market highest or perfect feasability
Risk V/S Return
score between 0 to 10, with 0 implying lowest poriftability and 10
Expected Profitability implying the highest profitability
score between 0 to 10, with 0 implying no or negative NPV and 10
NPV implying highest or most favourable NPV
score between 0 to 10, with 0 implying no return and 10 implying the
Return highest degree of returns
score between 0 to 10, with 0 implying no payback and 10 implying the
Payback Period fastest degree of payback
Overall Score
For rigid measure, minimum score is set at 50 for development go ahead
unless overrun by a manager with validation and approval from
0 respective business heads
Team Responsible Private Label, Quality (Technical), Quality (Control), Design, Packaging, Commercial
Timeline 20 Weeks

Quality: Technical

Formulation Form 1 Form 2 Form 3 Form 4 Form 5 Form 6

Attribute 1 1 2 3 4 5 1
Attribute 2 2 3 4 5 1 2
Attribute 3 3 4 5 1 2 3
Attribute 4 4 5 1 2 3 4 Basis the benchmarking done in the earlier stages, the Quality (Technical), Design and Packaging teams will provide some alternatives and
their scoring parameters basis which the PL team makes the selection of the best possible SKU/Offering. The highest scoring combination
Attribute 5 5 1 2 3 4 5 is the one that you go ahead with. You may also chose multiple options as well and run a field test to obtain end user feedba ck
Attribute 6 1 2 3 4 5 1
Score 16 17 18 19 20 16

Design Packaging

Design Design 1 Design 2 Design 3 Design 4 Design 5 Design 6 Packaging Package 1 Package 2 Package 3 Package 4 Package 5 Package 6
Attribute 1 Attribute 1
Attribute 2 Attribute 2
Attribute 3 Attribute 3
Attribute 4 Attribute 4
Attribute 5 Attribute 5
Attribute 6 Attribute 6
Score 0 0 0 0 0 0 Score 0 0 0 0 0 0

Vendor Management

Vendor Variants Capacity MOQ Location Experience O/P Quality Technical Capability Quality Audit Score Approval Status Quality Conformity Nature of Non Conformity Compliance Feasability Compliance Timeline Compliance Status
Vendor 1
Vendor 2
Vendor 3
Vendor 4
Vendor 5
Vendor 6
Vendor 7
Team Responsible Private Label + Marketing
Timeline 4 Weeks

Market Launch Checklist

Samples Yes/No Details

Target Audience Yes/No Details Defines the premise of the product test wherein,
the initial hypothesis of the product is defined. This
Test Parameters Yes/No Details will be monitored thorughout the launch period and
Focus Group Yes/No Details over time will help alter the product as and when
necessary. Starting with defining the market and
Internal Testing Yes/No Details audience, it lays down the parameters for the test
Test City Yes/No Details and through that, the strategy for launch is defined

Test Parameters

Product Attribute Yes/No Details

Product Experience Yes/No Details
Product Appearance Yes/No Details
Satisfaction Yes/No Details
Willingness to try Yes/No Details

Launch Decision

Price Yes/No Details

Promotion Yes/No Details
Collaboration Yes/No Details
Complementary Product Bou Yes/No Details
SEO Yes/No Details
Advertising Yes/No Details
PR Yes/No Details
Consumer Endorsement Yes/No Details
Influencer Engagement Yes/No Details
Launch Success
These parameters need to be evaluated 3 months
after launch. The indicators given are lower end
parameters and ideally can be altered to be in line
SPGMV Higher than 10% of the Category SPGMV with business strategy/targets. Additionally, the
Change in SPGMV Positive preliminary testing done to identify SKUs needs to
be undertaken again and the launched PRivate
Live Days Equal to or lower than average category live days Label should be able to fulfill the criteria of
Change in Live Days Positive selection as well.
Cart Penetration Top 5 or top 50%, whichever is lower

Product Absolute Values Normalised Values Score

Sales Cart Sales Cart
Volume SP GMV %SPGMV RM %RM Penetration Volume %SPGMV RM %RM Penetration Absolute Relative
L1 Category 1 Weights 2 2 4 4 3 15
Product 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 #REF! #REF!
Product 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 #REF! #REF!
Product 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 #REF! #REF!
Product 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0.750 0.750 0.750 0.750 0.750 #REF! #REF!
Product 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 #REF! #REF!
Product 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 1.250 1.250 1.250 1.250 1.250 #REF! #REF!
Product 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 #REF! #REF!
Product 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 1.750 1.750 1.750 1.750 1.750 #REF! #REF!
Product 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 #REF! #REF!
Product 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 2.250 2.250 2.250 2.250 2.250 #REF! #REF!
 Rate of change of SPGMV Rate of Change of Volume
Month SPGMV Volume SPGMV Moving Average Volume Moving Average Moving Average Moving AVerage
1 2 1 - -
2 4 2 4 2
3 6 3 6.666666667 3.333333333 2.666666667 1.333333333
4 10 5 10 5 3.333333333 1.666666667
5 14 7 14 7 4 2
6 18 9 18.66666667 9.333333333 4.666666667 2.333333333
7 24 12 24.66666667 12.33333333 6 3
8 32 16 32 16 7.333333333 3.666666667
9 40 20 40 20 8 4
10 48 24 44 22 4 2
11 44 22 46 23 2 1
12 46 23 45 22.5 -1 -0.5

A regular analysis of the sales volume and SPGMV of the product will
give us te behaviour of the product in terms of product lifecycle. This, in
collaboration withe rate of change of moving averages will give you the
nature of the slope as it progresses in its course. Negative slopes are
indicators of stagnation or decline and as such should be noted when
they are consistently present or are recurring regularly after discounting
for seasonality. Basis this, the strategy will alter and the product
manager will have to take neccessary decision regarding the branding,
product line and marketing budget.
Grofers Gate Phase Product Development Timeline
PROJECT TITLE L1 Category:L2 Product COMPANY NAME Grofers
PROJECT MANAGER DATE

PHASE DETAILS Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 1 Month 2 Month 3

Enter the date of the first

Gate/Phase 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Monday of each month -->

Prelim Analysis
0 Idea Screen
Shortlist of Potential SKUs

Competition Analysis

Phase 1 Scoping Expert Opinion/Internal Knowledge

Recommendation

Competition Score

Gate 1 Second Discovery Expert Score

Selection

Benchmarking

Marketing Business Plan

Phase 2 Business Case
Operational Business Plan

Consolidated Plan Evaluation

Must Meet Requirement

Evaluation

Gate 2 Go to Development Should Meet Evaluation

Decision

Quality Technical

Product Test

Formulation Recommendation

Formulation Test & Selection

Prototype Test & Approval

Design

Design Parameter Identification

Design Iteration

Design Feedback & Adjustment

Design Approval

Packaging

Packaging Paramtere
Identification
Packaging Iteration

Packaging Feedback & Adjustment

Packaging Approval
Phase 3 Development
Vendor Engagement

Identification of Vendors (National

and Local)
Contact & Quotation

Sampling & Selection

Quality Control

Field Visit

Report

Negotiation & Implementation

Feasability
Implementation Execution
Initiation
Commercial

Quoatation

Terms Negotiation

Agreement Signing

Preliminary Batch Delivery

Test Market/Audience/Brand
Identification
Product Test

Gate 3 Go to Launch Customer Feedback

Launch Parameters Mapping

Product Launch

Phase 4 Launch Product Promotion

Consumer Engagement Driven

Sales