Food @ali and Preferace (1993) 65-73

THEROLEOFSENSORYEVALUATI ONI NTHE

FOODI NDUSTRY
Joel L. Side1 & Herbert Stone
Tragon Corporation, 365 Convention Way, Redwood City, California, 94063, USA

(Paperpresented at Advances in SensoryFood Science, Rose Marie Pangborn

Memorial Symposium, 2-6 August 1992, J&venpiiii, Finland)

that programs such as these will serve as stimulation for

ABSTRACT increased training of professionals and increased
recognition of its value by food company executives.
Part of this problem can be traced to confusion over
Increased competition and new opportunities stimulated
what sensory evaluation is and how that information is
by pfogessively vanishing trade barriers and expanding communicated. More will be said about this topic later.
world markets, have greatly accelerated the food indus- In the past 20 years there has been a considerable in-
trys world-wide requirement for new products, quality crease in activity in the field of sensory evaluation. Evi-
improvements, exten&d shelflafe, increased productivity, dence for this is seen by the number of books, journals,
and lower production and distribution costs. Success and articles published on the topic; the number of pro-
within the framework of these new challenges will be fessional organizations for sensory scientists and the
directly related to the industrys ability to develop more size of their memberships; the number of universities
precise knowledge about consumer attitudes and percep- and departments now offering sensory courses, and the
tions related to food products, and how these are best number of commercial organizations offering sensory
programs and workshops; and most important, the
measured and implemented. Sensory evaluation is a c&i-
number of consumer product companies now using
cal component to that process. Historically, sensory evalu-
sensory evaluation. Sensory evaluation practitioners
ation has often been associated with product experts, and
include a broad range of teachers and researchers in
later as a more passive member of the #n-oduct develop
academia, sensory professionals in consumer product
ment team. Currentt$ the new challenges facing the food companies, and a diverse group of research consultants
industry are P-ogressively transforming sensory to a more and suppliers (Stone 8c Sidel, 1993).
proactive role, responsible for generating new product This has resulted in new information, new methods,
ideas based on unique sensory properties or unique con- further refinement of available methods, and identi-
sumer segments ident$ed only through sensory behavior fication of new applications for available methods. It is
However; the survival of sensory evaluation as an in&- disturbing that, in contrast to these advances, sensory
@ulent infmmation resource is not guaranteed: Sensory evaluation as a science is not as well understood as it
evaluation must develop and improve its methods and ought to be, methods are not always used in an appro-
more clearly delineate its responsibilities and role in the priate way, results are easily misused and there is a
dearth of qualified and technically trained professionals
food industry. This paper focuses on the new and chang-
in the field.
ing role fw sensory evaluation in the food industry.
Much of the recent growth for sensory evaluation
can be attributed to the increased interest and support
Keywords: Sensory services; consumer attitudes; reference
of the consumer products industry (e.g. food and bev-
standards; descriptive analysis; time intensity; optimi- erage, cosmetics, personal care products, fabrics and
zation. clothing, and pharmaceuticals). Of these industries,
the food and beverage industry provided most of the
early support, and continues to provide vital sponsor-
I NTRODUCTI ON ship for our science. For the food industry, sensory
evaluation was a natural extension of each companys
The role of sensory evaluation in the food industry desire to achieve highest product quality and thus
should be an important one, yet it is not. It is hoped attain a dominant role in the marketplace. The com-
plexities of todays technology and subtleties of the
0 1993 Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd marketplace dictate that all available resources, includ-
095@3293/93/$06.00 ing sensory evaluation, be used to best advantage.

65
66 J L. Sidel, H. Stone
The basis for these industries supporting sensory
evaluation is that it represents a cost-effective resource
with a wide range of applications, and it can provide
unique product information not readily available from
other sources. Continued support from industry will
depend on how well sensory evaluation continues to
satisfy these objectives.
To fully appreciate the role of sensory evaluation in
the food industry, it is useful to examine its evolution
from early reliance on individual product experts to
the development of independent corporate functions
staffed by one or more qualified sensory professionals.
Understanding how sensory evaluation has evolved in
the food industry is necessary to understanding its role
in todays competitive business environment, and to
anticipating future changes for that role.
EVOLUTI ON OF SENSORY
EVALUATI ON I N THE FOOD
I NDUSTRY
Experts and expert panels
All food companies have had and continue to have
product specialists (or experts) whose responsibilities
are concerned with the quality of raw materials and of
finished products. These specialists have technical
training and extensive practical knowledge about how
raw materials and processing affected finished product
quality. Company managers assumed (or were told)
that the experts knowledge and familiarity with ma-
terials, processes and products resulted in their having
superior sensory skills, and their decisions about pro-
ducts would enhance success of the product in the
marketplace. It is interesting to note that sensory
research demonstrated that experts were no more sen-
sitive than non-experts (Jones, 1968). Experts also
trained others to evaluate products, and that training
was a form of an apprenticeship. Most of the pro-
cedures and criteria for determining who was qualified
to evaluate products were not documented and the
decision when training was completed was based on the
experts opinion. To the extent that the experts pro-
duct decisions could be translated to market success,
such endeavors were actively supported and considered
an important part of the business decision-making
process.
The success of the product expert raised some practi-
cal problems for management. First, months and some-
times years were required to obtain the knowledge,
experience and training necessary to qualify an expert.
Typically, experts were senior staff, who had been with
the company for many years. Often there was no avail-
able replacement for the expert and management con-
sidered that to be an undesirable risk for the company.
Eventually these experts were retiring from companies
more quickly than they could be replaced, and this was
occurring at a time when there was increased demand
for more experts, as a result of expansion from new
products, new companies, and new plants. Lastly, as
product lines expanded, it was almost impossible for a
single expert to have the knowledge, skills and time
available for evaluating all of the companys products.
A logical solution for these concerns was to qualify
individuals more rapidly, document and systematize
the procedure so that it could be repeated at multiple
locations, and train more than one or two people at a
time to be product experts. The time was appropriate
for development of the expert panel (Cairncross &
Sjdstrom, 1950). It should be noted that some com-
panies continue to rely on experts in addition to having
panels; however, their use has been modified.
Concurrent with the development of expert panels,
industry and trade associations, usually in concert with
government agencies, worked to develop product stan-
dards and specifications (Mosher et al., 1950; Cross
et al., 1978). While such standards appeared to serve
useful purposes from a quality control and purchase
specification perspective, they were erroneously equated
with sensory evaluation and consumer acceptance. The
assumption was that highest quality, i.e. the top grade,
would be the most preferred product and would com-
mand a premium price. Fortunately, consumers re-
sponded independently (McBride & Hall, 1979; Side1
et al, 1981), unaware of what was best for them, and
there were sufficient failures to force companies to
look for better ways of assessing products before com-
mitting to major expenditures without any assurances
of success.
Thus, changing consumer habits, competition, and
the dramatic increase in the technology of product
manufacture significantly changed the role of experts
and expert panels. With expanding markets, more
complex and diverse raw material sources, and new
technology and competition, there was impetus for
change, stimulated by the increasing difficulty of pro-
duct experts to translate their decisions about products
into market success. Many of the evaluation activities
performed by expert panels, which had evolved from
the individual product expert, would evolve into special-
ized panels for discrimination, descriptive, and affec-
tive evaluations (Amerine et al, 1965).
Acceptance/preference testing
The military, prompted by the governments effort to
provide more acceptable food for armed forces person-
nel, contributed significantly to the development of
sensory evaluation. Research attention focused on
developing reliable and valid preference survey and
acceptance/preference measurement methods (Peryam
et a& 1954, 1960).

The importance of focusing attention on measuring
consumer acceptance for food products was beneficial
in several respects; it stimulated interest from dis-
ciplines outside of food science and it served as an
additional mechanism for sensory evaluation to estab-
lish itself as an independent information resource.
Coinciding with these developments, marketing and
marketing research departments were evolving from
company sales and advertising activities. Marketing
specialists sought assistance from academicians in the
social and psychological sciences in order to better
comprehend consumer behavior. As these disciplines
interacted with technologists and product specialists,
the sensory function evolved, frequently as a home-
economics type activity in which products were pre-
pared and served to individuals (usually company
management). Gradually, interest in testing focused on
how the products would be served and the multifaceted
issues of test design, testing environment, who should
participate as subjects and so forth. In that respect,
the sensory literature from about 1945 to 1965 was
particularly interesting. For further discussion about
the development of sensory evaluation, see Peryam
(1991).
CONTEMPORARY SENSORY
EVALUATI ON I N THE FOOD
I NDUSTRY
General considerations
Sensory evaluation has evolved into an independent
function in the food industry, where it has been
defined as a scientific discipline (Anon., 1975). As a
scientific discipline it is both investigative and infor-
mative. Hypotheses are formed and tested, and reli-
ability and validity are critical measures of the
usefulness of a result. In a business environment, sen-
sory evaluation does not seek information simply for
the knowing; the information is directed at answering
specific questions that have immediate implications.
Sensory information must be actionable in the business
environment; senior management has little patience
for impractical approaches, fuzzy thinking, and vague
and useless data.
From the research, a body of principles, practices,
and methods (some of which are standard, and others
which are more unique to a specific problem) have
been developed for measuring responses to products.
Today, sensory relies on panel data not expert judge-
ment, rigorous control of the measurement process,
and statistical applications to behavioral data. The
methods and principles are the tools which are used
for answering important business issues related to
perceptions and consumer preferences for products.
The Role ofSensoryEvaluation in the Food Industry 67
Organizational development
The development of unique and useful methods are
beneficial for further differentiating sensory evaluation
from other technical and business functions, to an ex-
tent that considerable recognition is accorded sensory
evaluation by some companies. Independent depart-
ments have been organized to provide sensory test ser-
vices; varying in size from one to as many as 20 or more
people fully committed to the product evaluation pro-
cess. The sensory staff is recognized for their skill in
measuring the response of others, and are not them-
selves expected to provide the evaluations. This latter
change is a major accomplishment for sensory evalu-
ation.
Unfortunately, in the process of establishing sensory
resources in companies, scant attention has been given
to the long-term organizational issues such as reporting
structure, business strategy, budget, and so forth. Not
all departments are guilty of overlooking organiza-
tional issues, but certainly are the exception and not
the rule. Specific issues that are often overlooked dur-
ing the formative stages for the sensory function in-
clude the impact of this new discipline within the
company (e.g. the reporting structure), competition
for a limited amount of funds, and the business strategy
(i.e. how the information is used in relation to other
product information sources such as consumer tests
done by marketing research). It will be necessary to
comment further about these three issues.
Impact of the new discipline within the company
As described previously, food companies have always
required and obtained information related to product
quality, perceived differences, and preference. The
evolution to a separate group or department which
uses scientific principles for obtaining this information
represented a new and better way to proceed. Where
the type of information provided by the sensory func-
tion was previously obtained by other groups or indivi-
duals in the company, it was unnecessary, unwarranted
and politically unwise to imply that all previous pro-
cedures and information were incorrect, or worse, in-
valid, even when that was the case. Where sensory
evaluation can provide new types of information, or in-
formation which is not currently provided by others, it
is best to first establish whether the sensory group is the
appropriate business function to obtain that informa-
tion. To be unaware of these issues, or to ignore them,
will produce inter-department conflicts that will dimin-
ish sensorys ability to function in that environment.
Financial support
To justify funding, the sensory function needs to
demonstrate the uniqueness of the information that is
68 J. L. Sidd, H. Stone
provided, as well as demonstrate the value and contri-
bution of that information to the success of the com-
pany. New funding or increased financial support for
the sensory activity usually will have a negative effect on
the budget of another group within the company; i.e.
the money has to come from somewhere. Other groups
aggressively seeking to enlarge their budgets (and im-
portance) may view sensory funds as an incentive to
seek control of the sensory group. Whatever the situ-
ation, it is necessary for the sensory group to have their
own budget, particularly if they are to develop useful
methods for evaluation of the companys products.
Organizational location
Failure to develop a coherent business plan and ad-
dress the longer term issues has produced some rather
unusual scenarios, which have severely diminished the
impact of sensory information in many companies. By
unusual scenarios we are referring to sensory groups
positioned within, and answering to, a product develop
ment department, or each product category having its
own sensory specialists also answering to the same man-
ager as the product specialist. In some organizations
R&D will use sensory evaluation as a means of off-
setting negative results from marketing research, or use
it as a substitute for or to duplicate marketing research
without any appreciation for the consequences. In other
organizations the sensory function is based on a single
method and problems are fitted to the method.
While our purpose is not to make a list of the abuses
to which sensory evaluation is subjected, it is important
to appreciate their impact on developing a meaningful,
useful and unique source of information. For more dis-
cussion about the misuses of sensory evaluation, see
Pangborn (1980). Although this publication is now
13 years old, it is as current now as it was in 1980.
CURRENT ROLE OF SENSORY
EVALUATI ON
Sensory evaluation has a dual role within a company. Its
primary role is that of service to marketing, R&D, and
manufacturing. Of equal importance, yet frequently
treated as a lesser role, is its research activity related to
perception and the development and refinement of
methods and procedures appropriate to that com-
panys products.
Research role
The sensory evaluation department is responsible for
providing actionable information from reliable and
valid tests that are related to a business objective.
Sensory professionals are seldom faced with routine
problems. Raw materials, manufacturing practices, and
even geography will influence products; and question-
naire design, subject qualifications, and test practices
will influence results. When establishing the para-
meters for a test, information from several disciplines is
used, including, for example, physiology, psychology,
mathematics and statistics. For any problem there will
be many options and the sensory professionals task is
to determine the most appropriate action for that
problem. Because each company has unique products
and problems, its sensory department often needs to
develop or modify standard practices and procedures.
Frequently this will require some research, for which a
qualified staff and available time and funding will be
necessary.
The rapid growth of sensory evaluation in the food
industry, the failure (or inability) of some companies to
include on their staff qualified sensory researchers
skilled at designing behavioral studies, and the lack of
appropriate funding for this type of activity often re-
sults in insufficient and inadequate investigation into
the reliability and validity of the various sensory pro-
cedures that are used. Consequently, companies are
unaware of better methods, and do not have staff able
to develop new procedures or to improve those that are
available.
Fortunately this situation is changing, and when eco-
nomics allow, more companies are supporting applied
and basic sensory research. Sensory departments are
held accountable for developing or adopting methods
for improving the reliability of panelists, question-
naires, and evaluation procedures; as well as for im-
proving the validity of results and conclusions. As new
and more complex products are developed, and new
information about measuring behavior becomes avail-
able, sensory managers are expected to quickly and
efficiently evaluate that information and incorporate it
into their testing programs.
As companies become more aware of market oppor-
tunities available through sensory research, they are
more willing to fund those activities.
Service role
Sensory evaluation is primarily a source for product in-
formation. However, it is also responsible for educating
and updating managers and others about sensory prac-
tices and applications, and any new developments. Sen-
sory evaluation also could be supervising tests and
training panels for other company functions.
A variety of sensory methods are currently used in
this service function. The methods are classified as dis-
criminative, descriptive and affective, and each has
unique requirements for qualifying subjects and mea-
suring responses. There are different classification
systems; however, most sensory professionals agree
that discrimination and descriptive tests are sensory

analytical-laboratory tests and use subjects qualified ac-
cording to their sensory skills, and that affective tests
are used with consumers qualified according to pro-
duct attitude and usage behaviors.
Regarding this latter issue, we are reminded of Pang-
borns admonition that Although the distinction
among these four types of measurement [sensitivity,
quantitative, qualitative, and affective] is very clear-cut,
the most frequent errors one sees in the present food
science literature are related to incorrect selection
and/or use of methods. Often, objectives are poorly
defined, methods are confounded or combined in
attempts to short-cut proper procedures, and all too
often, investigators do not distinguish analytical sensory
analysis from consumer-type tests (Pangborn, 1980).
The following section will describe some important
business applications for sensory evaluation.
Services to product development
New product development and product improvement. To
provide sensory information about product differ-
ences, attribute intensities, and preferences as a func-
tion of ingredient, packaging and process variables.
Pilot+nt scale-up. To measure product differences as
a function of the changeover from pilot-plant to manu-
facturing.
Production benchmark.To provide a permanent descrip
tive and affective sensory record for future reference.
Cost reduction. To determine the sensory implications
of lower cost materials and processes.
Product/@-ocessingchange. To assess the sensory effect
of any ingredient, process, or packaging change not
associated with cost reduction or product improve-
ment.
Instrument/sensq correlations. To describe the statis-
tical relationship between instrument and sensory
measures (Noble, 1975).
Product stability and she&@. To determine the sensory
effect of different storage conditions.
Product optimization. To determine that combination
of product variables and sensory attributes that will be
best liked by consumers (Schutz, 1983; Side1 & Stone,
1983).
Services to MRD
Monitor competition. To evaluate current and new
competitive products. This may be done for a limited
number of products, or for an entire category (e.g.
strawberry preserves).
Advertising claim suppmt. To provide sensory informa-
tion to support or challenge a sensory-based advertising
claim (Side1 & Stone, 1992).
Identijjing consumer preference groups. To identify
unique groups or clusters of consumers who are
differentiated by sensory preferences.
The Role of SensoryEvaluation in the Food Industy 69
Test design and superuision. To assist with the design,
supervision, and analysis of product evaluation tests for
marketing research tests. Assistance from sensory evalu-
ation is frequently requested for tests involving pro-
ducts which have difficult preparation, handling and
servicing instructions, and when large numbers (more
than three) of products are to be evaluated in a central
location test.
Services to quality assurance and quality control
Sexxny specifications. To establish intensity limits for
important sensory attributes for products (Stone & Sidel,
1993).
Training and monikning QA/QC panels and programs.
To design, implement, and monitor procedures used
in production for the routine evaluation of ingredients,
in-process and finished product (Nakayama 8c Wessman,
1979).
Distribution product. The objective is to evaluate retail
product from different geographical locations and pro-
duction sites.
AREAS FOR FURTHER
ADVANCES
Research role
Success for sensory evaluation in business depends on
the usefulness and the cost of the information pro-
vided. This is a powerful incentive to continue develop-
ing new and useful applications, and to continue to
improve the accuracy and lower the cost for available
methods. Selected areas for research deserving atten-
tion are discussed below.
Affective tests
Sensory affective tests provide a direct link between the
consumer and other sensory responses, such as the de-
velopment process. These tests are an integral part of
any sensory program.
Subject screening criteria and test procedures need
to be improved to assure that results from sensory affec-
tive tests are a valid indicator of consumer preference.
The same may be said for consumer results from mar-
keting research studies. Improved screening criteria
may allow for fewer participants in a test. Question-
naires and scoresheets need to be developed which
further minimize, or eliminate, biasing consumer test
results. More information is needed about the effects
of different contexts and usage situations on affective
scores (Schutz, 1988; McDermott, 1990).
Information from sensory affective tests provide
greater opportunities for interaction with marketing
70 J. L. S&l, H. Stone
research, and to integrate the two information sources
(Carter & Riskey, 1990). However, there must be a clear
differentiation between sensory objectives and affective
tests, and marketing research objectives and tests. Other-
wise, there will be confusion and conflict about respon-
sibilities. Where such conflict has occurred, sensory
often finds itself absorbed into other business func-
tions, effectively reducing their usefulness to product
development and quality control; prohibited from
doing affective tests with consumers; or discontinued,
because they were viewed redundant with other com-
pany testing activities such as marketing research.
Sensory affective tests focus on products; acceptance
is measured as a function of product differences and
similarities; a physical product is present and is evalu-
ated; context for the test is limited to the minimal
amount of information necessary to describe the pro-
duct (e.g. barbecue-flavored ketchup) and its use (e.g.
a snack, a breakfast drink, etc.); and the dependent
variable is passive (e.g. preference/acceptance) or is a
scale that correlates well with the hedonic scale (e.g.
FACT scale; Schutz, 1965). Sensory affective tests are
frequently used to reduce product alternatives to one
or two that will be studied by marketing research.
In contrast, the marketing research model focuses
on estimating the purchase intent for various popula-
tions and population segments; a product may or may
not be present, and if a product is present the con-
sumer typically evaluates only one or two pairs of prod-
ucts; the consumer may be provided with a broad
context for evaluating the product, and this context
may include components important for measuring pur-
chase intent; and ballots usually contain many pages of
questions for measuring a range of consumer attitudes.
The dependent variable is more cognitive than sensory,
or is action oriented (e.g. purchase intent) to estimate
the potential marketability for a product.
Descriptive tests
As described earlier, these are classified as sensory ana-
lytical-laboratory tests, in which people are screened
and then trained to evaluate an array of products
(Hootman, 1992; Stone & Sidel, 1993). The earliest de-
scriptive methods were directly linked to product ex-
perts, while most current methods provide for qualified
consumers to participate as subjects. Descriptive meth-
ods can be further improved by more accurate and less
time-consuming screening, training and testing proce-
dures, and by developing procedures that require fewer
subjects without sacrificing necessary accuracy. How-
ever, the limits may already have been reached for
some of these.
All laboratory descriptive methods require some
amount of behavior modification. However, sensory
professionals need to recognize and avoid training
practices that substitute behavior modification proce-
dures for test validity. For example, a panel that recog-
nizes that products are different can be taught to
associate each product with a specific scaler value (e.g.
told that product A is equal to an intensity score of 2,
product B is equal to a 4, and so on). When that scale is
given an attribute name (e.g. stale), it will appear that
the subjects can provide intensity information, when in
fact they are only providing nominal scale information.
In this example the nominal scale has been given nu-
merical labels. Although there is no validity to the
panels scores for stale, their ability to reliably identify
which product is associated with the 2, 4, and so forth,
will be erroneously viewed as a measure of validity. This
was a fatal flaw for expert systems, and is regrettably,
frequently encountered in some descriptive proce-
dures today (Meilgaard et al., 1991). Rather than
teach subjects what they need to perceive, it is more
useful to measure what it is that they perceive.
The use of reference standards for panel training
(Wolfe, 1979; Rainey, 1986) and product testing also
requires scrutiny. The literature contains comprehen-
sive lists of references and their respective scores for
scale extremes (Muiioz, 1986); however, there is no evi-
dence that without them a panel cannot function or
that results are unreliable and/or invalid. References
are a source of variability, and if very different from the
test products, are irrelevant or invalid. Training sub-
jects to provide identical scores for a reference infers
that there is one correct response; it does not account
for individual differences and distributions of re-
sponses, and confuses reliability with validity.
There should be little argument or need to further
discuss the rationale for classifying descriptive tests as
sensory analytical-laboratory methods rather than as
consumer methods, as has recently been described by
some researchers (Williams 8c Langron, 1984, Williams
& Arnold, 1985).
Direct data entry and test automation
Technological developments in direct data entry
(Anon., 1984; Billmeyer & Wyman, 1991) and auto-
mated laboratory equipment for serving products rep-
resents an opportunity for sensory evaluation to reduce
the time and labor required to obtain and analyze re-
sponses. At their current stage of development most of
these systems are not cost effective, they do not im-
prove the quality of sensory data (some will actually dis-
tract the subject and disrupt the test), and they isolate
the subject from the experimenter during the impor-
tant period of data collection. Much progress has been
made to correct those problems, however more
progress will be necessary before sensory evaluation
can make full use of the new technology. The sensory
professional will be an important resource for com-
panies developing the necessary equipment, hardware
and software.
 The Role of Sensory Evaluatiun in the Food Industly 71

Service role more comprehensive issues. For example, research for

many new product development projects would be
Managing sensory resources more useful if it included a broad range of experimen-
tal and competitive products. Information from that re-
This symposium focuses on the scientific aspect of sen- search can be used by marketing for a category review
sory evaluation; however, it is important to remember and for identifying sensory-based preference segments
that the success for sensory evaluation in the food in- among consumers; by product development for a pro-
dustry will depend on the sensory resources and on how duct optimization purposes; and by quality control for
well those resources are managed (Eggert, 1989). establishing a preliminary sensory specification, a sen-
Developing a credible role for sensory evaluation sory benchmark, and for developing panel capabilities
within the food industry involves an understanding of a for monitoring product quality.
companys organizational requirements and a thor- In addition, larger and more comprehensive sensory
ough knowledge of the science of sensory evaluation. It studies, and the integration of those studies with pre-
is necessary to both define and describe the sensory vious information will require improved database man-
function, the objectives and applications for that func- agement. For example, the model developed for the
tion, and the methods and procedures that are used. It sensory specification can be used to evaluate the sen-
is equally necessary to delineate where this function dif- sory consequences for product changes due to ingredi-
fers from other company resources for product evalua- ent, processing and packaging changes, and storage.
tion information. Clear delineation of the sensory This information must be readily accessible and avail-
function is necessary to minimize, or eliminate overlap able for multipurpose formats.
with other groups, while assuring that responsibility for
obtaining important research information has been as-
signed, and that it is assigned to the appropriate com- Designed experiments
pany function. This will strengthen the long term
A proactive and less fragmented approach to applying
prospects for sensory evaluation within a company and
sensory evaluation will require testing large numbers of
avoid the type of conflict and confusion which is in-
products to provide more comprehensive learning
evitable when such delineation has not been provided.
about how product and process variables influence per-
The continued growth and survival of sensory evalua-
ception and preference. Mathematical models describ-
tion as an independent information resource will de-
ing the relationship between perception and product
pend on its ability to provide useful and cost-effective
variables will provide greater understanding and more
services, and its ability to delineate itself as a unique
long term benefits for the product development pro-
and separate function.
cess.
A wide range of design plans are available for study-
Educating users ing the effect of product and process variables on de-
scriptive and affective measures (Henika, 1972; Gacula
Previous sections of this presentation have provided & Singh, 1984; OMahony, 1986). The test plans in-
considerable evidence that sensory evaluation has a clude RSM, factorial, and fractional factorial designs,
broad range of business applications. Unfortunately, all of which require systematic variation of the experi-
too few companies are aware of all these possibilities, or mental variables. Many developers resist using design
have been able to develop and organize the resources matrices, often because they are unfamiliar with them
necessary for so diverse an application for sensory eval- and their use for studying complex interactions, and
uation. Sensory professionals need to better understand because of the effort required to produce sufficient
these applications, and do a better job of educating quantities of the numbers and types of products re-
management and potential users of those applications. quired by the design plan. The potential learning from
This would include in-company seminars and presen- using these studies is enormous. More efficient designs
tations describing available services (and their value) to are becoming available, and as product developers
new managers and potential users, and circulating sum- become more familiar with their benefits, their use will
maries of relevant research from the sensory literature, increase. Therefore, it will be important for sensory
and from company sponsored studies. professionals to be familiar with these designs, to have
the knowledge and resources for their analysis, and to
assist product developers to understand and use them.
Proactive and comprehensive
The typical role for sensory evaluation could be best de- Identifying and describing consumer preference clusters
scribed as passive and fragmented. Tests are initiated
on a request basis, and those requests frequently focus Consumer segments and niche marketing are im-
on one issue at a time rather than focusing on larger portant concepts in marketing research, as is the
72 J. L. Side,!, H. Stone
knowledge that different consumers demonstrate
different sensory preferences. The increasing popu-
larity of optimization research, design studies, and use
of multivariate statistics provides the sensory pro-
fessional with an opportunity to examine data for the
presence of these unique groups and the sensory and
analytical basis for these preference groups.
There are many benefits to developing new products
based on sensory preference groups. Marketing and
product development can use that information to de-
sign products with or without respect to preference
clusters, target for the best product for one or more of
the clusters, or develop for the best compromise pro-
duct across the clusters. It is likely that each decision
will require a different product model.
Unfortunately, traditional demographic and usage
information rarely correlate well with preference
clusters. This reveals the need for more useful con-
sumer classification information (McDermott, 1990).
Economic and purchase information may be more use-
ful when accompanied by selected information about
lifestyle and attitudes. Better understanding of differ-
ences among consumers will lead to more meaningful
and more accurate screening criteria for acceptance
tests, which will provide for fewer consumers in tests,
while improving the validity for those tests.
Time-intensity tests
After food is taken into the mouth the perceived inten-
sity for one or more of the attributes will change over
time. Some companies (e.g. those promoting non-
nutritive sweeteners) have long recognized the impor-
tance of the time-intensity measurement; however,
most food companies remain unaware of its value, and
are unable to do this research. Although there have
been many recent advances in the equipment used to
measure time-intensity (Guinard et aL, 19853, and in
statistical approaches to analyzing those data (MacFie
& Liu, 1992), additional research is required for pro-
cedures to reduce psychological biases during data col-
lection (Lawless 8c Clark, 1992), to improve the overall
efficiency for obtaining those measurements, and to
provide for more efficient measurement of multiple de-
scriptive attributes.
Unfortunately, the current literature about time-
intensity presents an array of results and a dilemma
with regard to the treatment of the within and across
subject variability, which can be so large as to limit
specific product recommendations. Until time-intensity
measures demonstrate a direct and practical appli-
cation, it is appropriate for industry to view them with
caution. Most importantly, it is necessary to demon-
strate the relevance of these measures to the practical
issues of product development and differentiation,
which will lead to marketplace success.
CONCLUSI ON
The challenge for sensory evaluation and for the pro-
fessional in the food industry is to develop a resource
that can provide useful and accurate information at a
reasonable cost and in the shortest possible time. To ac-
complish these goals requires skilled individuals who
are capable of applying their knowledge to solve
specific problems. Sensory evaluation must continue
to demonstrate the value and uniqueness of the infor-
mation it obtains and clearly differentiate it from other
product information sources.
We would be remiss if we did not draw attention to
the fact that the role of sensory evaluation in the food
industry has been greatly enhanced by Rose Marie
Pangborn. We are deeply indebted for her contribu-
tions to that body of sensory principles and methods we
use, for the information she provided about products
and sensory behavior, for her overall contributions to
the credibility of the sensory science, for so effectively
educating future contributors to the science, and for
her personal encouragement and support.
REFERENCES
Amerine, M. A., Pangborn, R. M. & Roessler, E. B. (1965).
Principlesof Sensory Evaluation of Food. Academic Press, New
York, USA.
Anon. (1975). Minutes of Division Business Meeting. Institute
of Food Technologists Sensory Evaluation Division, IFT,
Chicago, IL, USA.
Anon. (1984). Overview. Outstanding symposia in food
science & technology. Use of computers in the sensory lab.
Food TechnoL, 38(g), 6688.
Billmeyer, B. A. & Wyman, G. (1991). Computerized sensory
evaluation system. Food Technd, 45(7), 100-l.
Cairncross, W. E. & Sj&rom, L. B. (1950). Flavor profile-
a new approach to flavor problems. Food TechnoL, 4,
308-l 1.
Carter, C. & Riskey, D. (1990). The roles of sensory research
and marketing research in bringing a product to market.
Food TechnoL, 44(11), 160-2.
Cross, H. R., Moen, R. & Stanfield, M. S. (1978). Training and
testing of judges for sensory analysis of meat quality. Food
TechnoL, 32,48-54.
Eggert, J. (1989). Sensory strategy for success in the food
industry.j. SensoryStudies, 3,161-7.
Gacula, M. D. Jr & Singh, J. (1984). Statistical Methods in
Food and Consumer Research. Academic Press, Orlando, FL,
USA.
Guinard, J.-X., Pangborn, R. M. & Shoemaker, C. F. (1985).
Computerized procedure for time-intensity sensory mea-
surements.J. Food Sci., 50,543-4,546.
Hen&a, R. G. (1972). Simple and effective system for use with
response surface methodology. &real Sti. Today, 17( lo),
309-14,334.

Hootman, R. C. (1992). Manual on Desniptiue Analysis Testing
for Sensory Evaluation (ASTM Manual Series: MNL 13).
American Society of Testing Materials, Philadelphia, PA,
USA.
Jones, F. N. (1968). The information content of olfactory
quality. In Theuries of Odor Mea.surement, ed. Necmi I. Tanyolac.
Robert College Research Center, Bebek, Istanbul, Turkey,
pp. 133-46.
Lawless, H. T. & Clark, C. C. (1992). Psychological biases in
time-intensity scaling. Food TechnoL, 46( 11), 81-90.
MacFie, J. H. H. & Liu, Y. H. (1992). Developments in the
analysis of time-intensity curves. Food Technol., 46( ll), 92-7.
McBride, R. L. & Hall, C. (1979). Cheese grading versus con-
sumer acceptability: An inevitable discrepancy. Aust. J.
Daily Technol., 34, 668.
McDermott, B. J. (1990). Identifying consumers and con-
sumer test subjects. Food Technol., 44( 11)) 154-8.
Meilgaard, M., Civille, G. V. & Carr, B. T. (1991). Sensory
Evaluation Tpchniques. CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton, FL, USA.
Masher, H. A., Dutton, H. J., Evens, C. D. & Cowan, J. C.
(1950). Conducting a taste panel for the evaluation of
edible oils. Food Terhnol., 4, 105-9.
Mmioz, A. M. (1986). Development and application of tex-
ture reference sca1es.J. Sensory Stud., 1,55-83.
Nakayama, M. & Wessman, C. (1979). Application of sensory
evaluation to the routine maintenance of product quality.
Food Technol., 33 (9), 38-9.
Noble, A. ( 1975). Instrumental analysis of the sensory proper-
ties of food. Food Technol., 29( 110,56-60.
OMahony, M. (1986). Sensmy Evaluation of Food. Marcel
Dekker, Inc, New York, USA.
Pangborn, R. M. (1980). Sensory science today. Cereal Foods
World, 25( lo), 637-40.
Peryam, D. R. (1991). A history of ASTM Committee E-18.
ASTM Stand. News., 19(3), 28-35.
Peryam, D. R., Pilgrim, F. J. & Peterson, M. S. (1954). Food
The Role of SensoryEvaluation in the Food Zndust?y 73
Acceptance Testing Methodology. Quartermaster Food and Con-
tainer Institute of the Armed Forces, Chicago, IL, USA.
Peryam, D. R., Polemis, B. W., Kamen, J. M., Einhoven, J. &
Pilgrim, F. J. (1960). Food Preferences of Men in t& Armed
Forw. Quartermaster Food and Container Institute of the
Armed Forces, Chicago, IL, USA.
Rainey, B. A. (1986). Importance of reference standards in
training panelists. J senSo?yStud., 1, 149-54.
Schutz, H. G. (1965). A food action rating scale for measur-
ing food acceptance.J. Food Sci., 30,365-74.
Schutz, H. G. (1983). Multiple regression approach to opti-
mization. Food Technol., 37( 1 l), 468, 62.
Schutz, H. G. (1988). Multivariate analyses and the measure-
ment of consumer attitudes and perceptions. Food TechnoL,
42(11), 141-4,156.
Sidel, J. L. & Stone, H. (1983). Introduction to optimization
research-definitions and objectives. Food TechnoL, 37( ll),
36-8.
Sidel, J. L. & Stone, H. (1992). Sensory evaluation: selecting
the right test design. In NAD W&shop N, Product Pe$w-
mance Tests. Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc., New
York, USA, pp. 15-20.
Sidel, J. L., Stone, H. & Bloomquist, J. (1981). Use and misuse
of sensory evaluation in research and quality control. J
Dai?y Sk, 64, 2296302.
Stone, H. & Sidel, J. L. (1993). Sensory Evaluation Practices
(2nd ed.). Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA.
Williams, A. A. & Arnold, G. (1985). A comparison of the
aromas of six coffees characterized by conventional pro-
filing, free-choice profiling and similarity scaling methods.
J. Sci. Food Agric., 36,204-14.
Williams, A. A. & Langron, S. P. (1984). The use of free-
choice profiling for the evaluation of commercial ports.
J. Sci. Food Agric., 35, 558-68.
Wolfe, K A. (1079). Use of reference standards for sensory
evaluation of product quality. Food TechnoZ., 33(9), 43-4.