1 / 8

Project Name: Mountain Dew “Sidekick” Bottle

PCNAB Executive Scope Change. Scope Change Driven By:. □ X Change in Launch Date (P5 P6 Wk 2) □ Product Formulation after D/E □ Package Change □ Increase/Decrease in SKUs (flavors/pkgs) □ Distribution Model Change □ Manufacturing Platform Change □ Volume Recalibration □ Other.

nishi
Download Presentation

Project Name: Mountain Dew “Sidekick” Bottle

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PCNABExecutive Scope Change Scope Change Driven By: □ XChange in Launch Date (P5 P6 Wk 2)□ Product Formulation after D/E□ Package Change□ Increase/Decrease in SKUs (flavors/pkgs)□ Distribution Model Change□ Manufacturing Platform Change□ Volume Recalibration□ Other Change Implications & Risks • Tight timing for a P7 ’09 launch • CapEx for Change Parts (~$50-75M) • Economics : Moving from 20oz to 16oz will have significant economic implications • Bottler Alignment Today’s Date: 1/7/09 Project Name: Mountain Dew “Sidekick” Bottle Current Stage (IDEA): A Initiative Owner: Patty Montagno Integration Manager: Tim Anto Project as Chartered Charter Date: 9/3/09 (EA) Idea: Test new proprietary Dew bottle design, Sidekick, to validate initial positive consumer results. Flavors: Entire 20oz Portfolio Packages: 20oz “Sidekick” bottle Manufacturing Platform: Bottler Produced Distribution Model: Reason for Scope Change: The initial bottle design needed to be modified due to expansion post fill. The bottle experienced height and volume growth after thermal expansion. We have a new bottle design with an Interrupted Rib that should fix these challenges. We will be running a high-speed line trial the week of 1/25 to get stack and ship results with the design modifications. Change Implications & Risks • Late in-market date (5/25); no real defined impact (still make summer season) • Must manage bottlers / Senior management expectations • Need new forecast/Revise IMS documents Interrupted Rib Assessment:□ X Go □ Rework □ Hold □ Kill

  2. Background The original P5 ’10 Sidekick Timeline was delayed for 3 main reasons: Change Part Cost Estimates by Plant • ROSO Vs. Roll Fed • Final logo selection • Design modifications to work in shells and vending Design Lock 9/4 Design Progression

  3. Original P5 ’10 Timeline Original Timeline Milestones and Delays Change Part Cost Estimates by Plant • Design Lock: 9/4 (Grip bottle design that vends & fits in shells) Delayed design lock • Order Unit Tools: 9/4 – 10/8 • Unit Tool Qualification: 10/13 Height and volume growth after thermal expansion • Blow Bottles for LPR & Trade Samples: 10/19 – 10/23 Began redesign with Ball • LPR at PBG Columbia: 10/29 Engaged PTI for FEA and design support (11/4) • Vend Test Results: 11/30 • Production Tool Approval & Development: 12/7 – 3/1 • Order Change Parts: 12/7 – 12/18 • Build/Deliver Change Parts: 12/21 – 3/12 • Produce Bottles (Merchant Supply Plants): 3/1 – 3/15 • Installs & Start Ups Begin: 3/18 – 3/25 • Bottles Produced at Filling Plants: 3/22 – 4/1 • Bottles to Market: 4/1 – 4/22

  4. Thermal Expansion Solve Engaged PTI for FEA and design support • Solutions: • Worked with PTI and 4sight to develop four concepts in parallel • Analyzed all designs with FEA to predict performance • Focused on reducing bottle expansion • Duplicated a unit tool of one 4sight design to move up results to 1/1/10 • If decision on design is made on 1/4/10 then this allows Amcor additional time for unit tooling Original 6.2% Volume 3.6% Height 2.64” Top Rib Dia. Interrupted Rib (7055) 4.7% Volume 2.4% Height 2.68” Top Rib Dia. Continuous Rib (7059) 4.7% Volume 2.5% Height 2.64” Top Rib Dia. Centered Logo (7115) 5.2% Volume 2.8% Height 2.71” Top Rib Dia. Raised Logo (7114) 5.0% Volume 2.4% Height 2.70” Top Rib Dia.

  5. Contingency Plan Alternate Design Options Enhanced Sidekick Bottle Designs • Ball has sampled PTI Designs 7055 and 7059 and is on track to have results on 1/1 • 4sight was engaged before Thanksgiving to develop alternate design options (7114 and 7115) as a Contingency Plan • Based on FEA results, one of 4sights designs shows promise Parallel Path to Accelerate Results • Ball is unable to qualify additional 4sight designs until 1/19 • To accelerate results, PTI ordered a unit cavity mold of Design 7114 based on best 4sight FEA performer. • This will provide an early read of qualification data and aesthetics instead of waiting for Ball. (1/4 vs. 1/19)

  6. FEA Predictions *Interrupted Rib design (7055) *Raised Logo 4sight design (7114) • Slightly less volume expansion than the raised logo design • Slightly smaller final diameter on the top rib • Main concern with this design is blowing the interrupted rib fully; venting was designed to help reduce this potential problem • Preferred aesthetically (brand team) • Largest diameter in the top rib - desirable for shells and vending • Concerns about the logo being part of a raised touch point in the shells and about potential deformation of the logo upon pressurization Centered Logo 4sight design (7115) Continuous Rib design (7059) • Worst performer • Predicted to slightly exceed the thermal stability height specification • Believed to be caused by two interruptions in the top rib as opposed to four on the “Interrupted Rib” and “Raised Logo” design • One of marketing's most preferred concepts • Main concern with this design is the smaller top rib diameter *Designs 7114 and 7055 are predicted to perform well based on FEA results. High confidence of success moving forward with multiple options.

  7. Compressed Timeline Options and Risk Assessment Due to delays in original Timeline, P&ED provided alternate options • Based on options provided, Marketing decided to move forward with Option 2, P6 ’10 timing. • Rationale: • 4 week difference in timing is not worth $300M financial risk • Consequences: • Late in-market date; no real defined impact (still make summer season) • Must manage bottlers / Senior management expectations • Need new forecast/Revise IMS documents

  8. P6 W2 ’10 Timeline Current Timeline Milestones Change Part Cost Estimates by Plant • Unit Tools Qualification Results: 1/18 • Design Lock: 1/19 (Grip bottle design that vends & fits in shells) • Blow Bottles for LPR & Trade Samples: 1/18 – 1/22 • LPR at PBG Columbia: Week of 1/25 (On high speed line) • Production Tool Approval & Development: 2/1 – 4/26 • Order Change Parts: 12/7 • Build/Deliver Change Parts: 12/8 – 1/11 • Produce Bottles (Merchant Supply Plants): 4/12 – 4/23 • Installs & Start Ups Begin: 4/13 – 4/26 • Bottles Produced at Filling Plants: 4/28 – 5/5 • Bottles to Market: 5/6 – 5/25

More Related