Nutriton Research and Food Science Journal Volume 2 Issue 1 Nutr Res Food Sci J, Volume 2(1): 1–9, 2019 Research Open Review Article Consumer Requirement for a Healthful Vegetable Mufn: Agile Knowledge-Development through Mind Genomics Thomas Grifths 1 , Junnie Lai 2 , Atila Gere 3 , Ryan Zemel 4 , Petraq Papajorgji 5 and Howard Moskowit 6 * 1 Certifed Master Chef, Philadelphia, PA, USA 2 Consultant, Southeast Asia Cuisine, Philadelphia, PA, USA 3 Szent István University, Faculty of Food Sciences, Department of Postharvest Sciences and Sensory Evaluation, Budapest, Hungary 4 Limbic Reviews, Chicago, IL, USA 5 European University of Tirana, Albania 6 Mind Genomics Associates, Inc., White Plains, NY, USA *Correspondence author: Howard Moskowitz, Mind Genomics Associates, Inc., White Plains, NY, USA; Email: mjihrm@sprynet.com Received: May 20, 2019; Accepted: May 31, 2019; Published: June 26, 2019; Abstract We provide a rapid approach to the evaluation of new product ideas and opportunities through the science of Mind Genomics. The approach requires the specifcation of a product or opportunity, the creation of four questions which ‘tell a story,’ each with four answers (total of 16 answers), and the evaluation of combinations of the answers by a small, afordable group of 25 respondents. We look at the ratings for ‘most interested’ (top of the scale), identify mind-sets, and discover what ideas both interest people (opportunities), and engage people when thinking about them. We uncover new-to-the- world groups (high acceptor mind-sets) to identify which ideas about the new product are most compelling, and search for these high-acceptor mind-sets using a simple, 6-question personal viewpoint identifer. The approach is designed for rapid use, requiring a day or two at most, thus targeting the newly emerging cadre of food entrepreneurs who are not hampered by the traditional processes designed to reduce risk rather than capture opportunities. Introduction Tere is a continuing search for healthful snacks. Te increasing and massively competitive focus on good-for-you, along with the knowledge that it is good tasting to ensure repeat purchase, means that the food company must develop efcient ways to screen new ideas. Over the decades, solution-providers in the food industry, particularly, but consumer package goods generally, have explored various ways to create new product ideas, ranging from the evaluation of diferent ideas (promise testing) to the assessment of concepts, with and without the presence of a product. Te results of the efort have not been successful, perhaps because the researcher does not understand in depth the features of the product concept which make it attractive. Even focus groups, specifcally called to ferret out the features which the product should have ofen do not identify what the product should be. Part of the reason for failure or at least for the failure to succeed, is the tendency of researchers to create combinations with which they are comfortable, and to avoid creating product ideas or prototypes that they think will ‘fail.’ Tat is, there is an insidious drive for rationality in people, especially brand managers, but also market researchers and product developers. In the face of market failure, it is hard to accept that one’s ideas of what is a good product must have been wrong. Blame is cast upon sales, distribution, advertising, not upon the fact that the research approach simply came up with the wrong idea, an idea that ended up getting adopted and losing money when the manufacturer puts the product to the real test, the jury of public opinion. Tis desire not to be embarrassed by ofering ‘bad test stimuli’ in the name of progressing the project can derail even the best of teams, as individuals think of themselves frst, and only later of the project success. Testing ideas for new and healthful products might take a lesson from the great American inventor, Tomas Edison, who used failure as a springboard to success. Each failure, in the mind of Edison, was something from which a lesson could emerge. What would happen to the creation of new and healthful ideas about food if we were to systematize the invention process, not so much in the systematic, lock-step way that systems current do (e.g., Stage Gate, Cooper, 1979; 1990) [1,2], but rather as a system to create combinations, see how they work, and move on? Te creation of combinations should not be done by a person who is doing the thinking, but rather through experimental design, the systematic, statistics-driven method of making combinations of variables. Te food industry is plagued by a continuing spate of failures, ofen failures of a single unusual favor in an otherwise successful line, but occasionally a massive ‘fame out,’ a major line of brands simply