Content uploaded by Maicon Oliveira
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Maicon Oliveira on Apr 25, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Int. J. Technology Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 7, No. 4, 2011 30
9
Copyright © 2011 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.
A starting point for addressing product
innovativeness in the Fuzzy Front-End
Maicon G. Oliveira*
Integrated Engineering Group,
São Carlos School of Engineering,
University of São Paulo,
Av. Trabalhador São Carlense,
400, São Carlos-SP, 13566-590, Brazil
E-mail: maicongdo@gmail.com
*Corresponding author
Robert Phaal and David Probert
Centre for Technology Management,
Institute for Manufacturing,
University of Cambridge,
17 Charles Babbage Road,
Cambridge, CB3 0FS, UK
E-mail: rp108@cam.ac.uk
E-mail: drp@eng.cam.ac.uk
Vitor P. Cunha and Henrique Rozenfeld
Integrated Engineering Group,
São Carlos School of Engineering,
University of São Paulo,
Av. Trabalhador São Carlense,
400, São Carlos-SP, 13566-590, Brazil
E-mail: vitorcunha4@gmail.com
E-mail: roz@sc.usp.br
Abstract: Product innovativeness is a primary contingent factor to be
addressed for the development of flexible management for the front-end.
However, due to complexity of this early phase of the innovation process,
the definition of which attributes to customise is critical to support a contingent
approach. Therefore, this study investigates front-end attributes that need to be
customised to permit effective management for different degrees of innovation.
To accomplish this aim, a literature review and five case studies were
performed. The findings highlighted the front-end strategic and operational
levels as factors influencing the front-end attributes related to product
innovativeness. In conclusion, this study suggests that two front-end attributes
should be customised: development activities and decision-making approach.
Keywords: product innovation; fuzzy front-end; attributes; contingency;
product innovativeness; flexible management; decision-making; uncertainty;
case study.
310 M.G. Oliveira et al.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Oliveira, M.G., Phaal, R.,
Probert, D., Cunha, V.P. and Rozenfeld, H. (2011) ‘A starting point for
addressing product innovativeness in the Fuzzy Front-End’, Int. J. Technology
Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.309–326.
Biographical notes: Maicon G. Oliveira is a Doctoral student at the
Department of Production Engineering of the São Carlos School of
Engineering, University of São Paulo, and member of the Integrated
Engineering Group. Visiting Researcher at the Centre for Technology
Management, Institute for Manufacturing, University of Cambridge, UK.
His areas of interest are: product development, innovation management, fuzzy
front-end, roadmapping, portfolio management and product-service systems.
He holds a Bachelor's Degree in Mechanical Engineering and a Master’s
Degree in Production Engineering, both from the São Carlos School of
Engineering, University of São Paulo, Brazil.
Robert Phaal is a Principal Research Associate at the Engineering Department
of the University of Cambridge. He has a mechanical engineering background,
a PhD in Computational Mechanics from the University of Cambridge, and
industrial experience in technical consulting and software. His research focuses
on strategic technology management, and the development of practical and
well-founded methods for supporting technology and innovation strategy.
David Probert is a Reader in Technology Management and the Director of the
Centre for Technology Management at the Engineering Department of the
University of Cambridge. His current research interests include technology and
innovation strategy, technology management processes, industrial sustainability
and make or buy, technology acquisition and software sourcing. David pursued
an industrial career with in the food, clothing and electronics sectors for
18 years before returning to Cambridge in 1991.
Vitor P. Cunha holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Production Engineering from
Federal University of São Carlos and a Master’s Degree in Production
Engineering from São Carlos School of Engineering, University of São Paulo,
Brazil. His areas of interests are Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) and the
Product and Service Innovation Processes, with emphasis on the front-end
activities (opportunity mapping, idea management, portfolio management and
decision-making).
Henrique Rozenfeld is Full Professor at the Department of Production
Engineering of the São Carlos School of Engineering, University of São Paulo,
Brazil, and Head of the Integrated Engineering Group. He has more than
300 papers published in Brazil and internationally, being co-author of the book:
Product Development Management: a reference for process improvement,
which is available in Brazilian Portuguese. His areas of interest are
product development, front-end of innovation, eco-design, business process
management and product service-systems. He holds a Bachelor’s Degree and
Master’s Degree in Mechanical Engineering from University of São Paulo,
Brazil, and a Doctorate under the topic Computed Aided Production Planning
(CAPP) from WZL RWTH, Germany.
A starting point for addressing product innovativeness in the FFE 311
1 Introduction
The Fuzzy Front-End (FFE) is the early phase of the innovation process. It starts with
identifying new opportunities, follows up by defining new concepts and business cases,
and ends when firms decide to implement an innovation project in the next phases
of the innovation process (Khurana and Rosenthal, 1997; Cooper, 2001; Crawford and
Benedetto, 2006). In other words, the front-end comprises all activities carried out before
either a formal project launch or definition of any product concept in detail (Koen et al.,
2001; Backman et al., 2007).
Strategic importance is also assigned to the front-end, since it creates a way for
linking business strategies to the innovation process. This link assures that firms' new
products are able to deliver expected business goals (Wheelwright and Clark, 1992).
Additionally, this early phase is basically a decision-making process in which agreement
is reached on the product positioning, primary product features and performance,
required technologies and resources, and alignment to product portfolio, among others
things. In the end, all these decisions are grouped in a product proposal and business plan
used to support the go/no-go decision and the next phases of the innovation process
(Khurana and Rosenthal, 1997; Cooper, 2001; Crawford and Benedetto, 2006).
The management of the front-end involves dealing with uncertain and dynamic
information. Although challenges are numerous, the front-end has been pointed out as an
opportunity for large improvements in outcomes of the innovation process (Griffin, 1997;
Zhang and Doll, 2001; Cooper and Edgett, 2008; Verworn, 2009; Barczak et al., 2009;
Markham et al., 2010). Much progress has been achieved through theoretical and
empirical studies, which have provided essential information concerning the front-end,
such as: key characteristics, best practices, process models, methods and tools
(Wheelwright and Clark, 1992; Khurana and Rosenthal, 1997, 1998; Koen et al., 2001,
2002; Kim and Wilemon, 2002; Cooper, 2001; Crawford and Benedetto, 2006;
Phaal et al., 2006; Whitney, 2007).
Despite this, the front-end is too critical and complex to be managed through standard
processes. Therefore, firms need to think about contingencies and customisations for its
effective deployment (Donaldson, 2001), i.e., they need flexible management to support
the front-end. Some examples of contingent factors that arise within firms are product
innovativeness, organisational size and innovation strategy (Garcia and Calantone,
2002; Shefer and Frenkel, 2005; Cooper and Edgett, 2009). Concerning the external
environment, industry and value chain position are also important factors (Porter, 2008;
Peneder, 2010).
Among these contingent factors, product innovativeness stands out for the front
end. Although Khurana and Rosenthal (1997, 1998) identified the significance of
innovativeness more than a decade ago, the investigation of its impact on the front-end
was first undertaken by Nobelius and Trygg (2002). These authors stated the importance
of flexible management after identifying different activities and priority patterns between
research, platforms and incremental projects. Subsequently, interest in this topic
has increased (Reid and Brentani, 2004; Koen, 2004; Backman et al., 2007; Verworn
et al., 2008; Brem and Voigt, 2009) and additional information has been provided.
Nevertheless, a gap remains in knowledge on the deployment of flexible management for
different degrees of innovation at the front-end, which opens opportunities for further
research.
312 M.G. Oliveira et al.
Actually, the innovativeness contingent factor is part of the way towards flexible
management. Another key aspect is clarifying which front-end attributes need to be
customised. This point is as important as contingent factors, due to the complexity of
attributes comprising the front-end (Kim and Wilemon, 2002). These attributes represent
any kind of front-end characteristics either affecting or being affected by the way firms
manage their innovations.
Therefore, this study investigates front-end attributes that need to be customised
to allow for the development of flexible management for different degrees of product
innovation. The research methodology comprised a literature review and multiple
case studies. While the literature review provided a theoretical background and a
conceptual framework of front-end attributes, the multiple cases supported empirical
investigation.
The next sections of this paper provide further details of this study. First,
underpinning theories concerning product innovativeness and the front-end are provided.
Then, the research methodology is explained. Following this, the conceptual framework
of front-end attributes is described. Afterwards, results of the case studies are presented
and discussed in terms of linkages between product innovativeness, front-end attributes
and customisation needs. Finally, conclusions about the research aim and opportunities
for further investigation are identified.
2 Product innovativeness
Understanding of the product innovation process within organisations is often related
to innovativeness involved in its outcomes. While some firms pursue innovations capable
of redefining industry competition, others keep focused on continuous improvements
that enable their survival. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages, which need
to be addressed to achieve results expected for each business type (Rothwell, 1992, 1994;
Griffin, 1997; Tidd et al., 2005; Barczak et al., 2009).
Classifications of product innovativeness have been proposed to support product
innovation typologies. However, Garcia and Calantone (2002) showed that before
engaging with one, it is important to consider which criteria were used to classify its
degrees of innovation. These authors indicated two criteria after a comprehensive
literature review. One related to the impact of innovation from a macro (industry) or
micro (firm) perspective, and the other considering technological and marketing
discontinuity.
Danneels and Kleinschmidt (2001) also made an analysis of the literature about
product innovativeness. These authors highlighted the customer’s perspective as a factor
to be addressed. Their claim contrasts with Garcia and Calantone’s (2002) proposal,
which stated customer’s perspective to be an effect of innovativeness and, therefore,
a factor that should not be addressed for classification purposes.
As a result, product innovativeness can be defined as degree of marketing and
technological discontinuity introduced by a product into an industrial value chain.
Following this definition, Garcia and Calantone (2002) proposed a typology to guide
studies addressing product innovativeness as a contingent factor. Due to its acceptance
by other researchers (it has been cited 187 times, January 2011, Web of Science®
database) and its alignment to this research aims, this typology is adopted.
A starting point for addressing product innovativeness in the FFE 313
Additionally, the Garcia and Calantone’s (2002) typology fit with Booz Allen &
Hamilton (1982) typology, which is one of the most used by firms, and could require its
consideration in empirical studies. Booz Allen & Hamilton (1982) proposed a
classification based on two criteria: newness to company and newness to market.
Afterwards, Garcia and Calantone (2002) typology is described and linked to Booz Allen
& Hamilton (1982) typology. These typologies are illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Description of the innovation typologies proposed by Booz Allen & Hamilton (1982),
Garcia and Calantone (2002)
Radical innovations reflect changes at the macro-level involving both marketing
and technology discontinuities. Consequently, at the micro level they can also impact
either on market or technology, or on both. This type of innovation raises new industry
and business structures that overcome those in use (new-to-world products).
Really new innovations define changes at the macro-level regarding either marketing
or technology, but not both. As a result, four combinations are possible in terms
of discontinuity at the micro level. This type of innovation includes the launch of new
technologies into existing markets (new product lines) or the application of known
technologies to new markets (additions to existing product lines).
Incremental innovations embrace changes only at the micro-level, providing three
possible combinations. This type of innovation represents the introduction of product
improvements (functionalities, price, manufacturing, etc.) through the application of
known technologies and launch into existing markets (improvements/revisions to existing
product lines, cost reductions, repositionings).
3 The Fuzzy Front-End (FFE) and the product innovation process
The product innovation process can be summed up in three parts: theoretical conception,
technical invention and commercial exploitation. This definition, stated by Trott (2005),
314 M.G. Oliveira et al.
implies that this process can be separated between sub-processes related to these parts,
which are depicted in Figure 2.
Figure 2 The sub-processes of the product innovation process
The first sub-process called the Fuzzy Front-End (FFE) discovers new opportunities
and ideas for product innovation and finds ways to create value by their exploitation,
i.e., the theoretical conception (Khurana and Rosenthal, 1997; Koen et al., 2001; Cooper,
2001). The second one, named New Product Development (NPD), designs new products
and services capable of fulfilling required benefits and functionalities (Pahl and Beitz,
2007). The third one, named technology development, provides technologies needed
to design, produce and deliver products and services (Ajamian and Koen, 2002; Phaal
et al., 2004; Cooper, 2006). These two last sub-processes represent the technical
invention. Finally, a market launch sub-process, which embraces commercial
exploitation, defines routes for delivering value to markets in accordance to business
strategy and supply chain (Kotler, 2001).
Although these sub-processes are illustrated as being stand-alone in Figure 2, they are
managed as a single value chain (Hansen and Birkinshaw, 2007). Therefore, their
integration is an important aspect to enhance innovation (Monaert et al., 1995; Drejer,
2002). In addition, the product innovation process needs to be aligned with other
organisational processes so that firms can achieve their business aims (Wheelwright and
Clark, 1992).
The front-end has a key role in this context, because it supports the integration of
other sub-processes as well as links the innovation process to other business processes,
such as strategic planning (Koen et al., 2001). As a result, the front-end assures that
innovation outcomes are aligned to organisational goals (Wheelwright and Clark, 1992;
Cooper and Edgett, 2009).
4 Research methodology
The purpose of this study is to investigate empirical front-end attributes that need
customisation when firms are dealing with different degrees of product innovation.
First, a conceptual framework was needed to guide empirical work, which was proposed
based on a literature review. Following this, an investigation was conducted using
multiple case theories for exploratory research (Yin, 2003; Voss, 2009). Finally, data
A starting point for addressing product innovativeness in the FFE 315
was analysed qualitatively through individual and cross-case approaches, and compared
to literature to support theory building (Eisenhardt, 1989).
This study employed five research stages to apply this methodology: systematic
review, proposition of a conceptual framework, development of multiple case studies,
qualitative analysis and conclusions. These stages are depicted in Figure 3 and described
in the following paragraphs.
Figure 3 Research methodology
At the systematic review stage, front-end theories were sought in books and papers about
product innovation management. Papers published in journals and conferences were
considered through a keyword search in the Scopus® and Web of Science® research
databases.
At the proposition of the conceptual framework stage, this study defined the
development activities and characteristics determining the management and development
of the front-end. As a result, a conceptual framework of front-end attributes was
established.
At the development of multiple case studies stage, studies addressing a front-end
process within a single business unit were conducted. Five case studies were performed
in firms recognised for their innovation success and classified as key players in their
markets. Additionally, a semi-structured questionnaire was used to assure data
collection uniformity. The topics addressed in it were: organisational structure,
innovation strategy, competitive differentiation, decision-making approach, degree of
process formalisation, innovativeness of current product portfolio, market and technology
monitoring, risk acceptance, involvement of external partners and lead users,
process phases and activities, and methods and tools. Finally, data collection
was undertaken through interviews with senior managers, with each taking roughly two
hours.
The qualitative analysis and conclusion stages are supplementary. The first one
analysed, through individual and cross-case approaches, insights concerning front-end
attributes and their influence on product innovativeness. Implications for the
development of flexible management, contributions to theory and practice, and
opportunities for further research were then considered at the conclusion stage.
5 The conceptual framework of front-end attributes
Firstly, this section presents front-end development activities and characteristics. These
are then used to build the conceptual framework of front-end attributes.
316 M.G. Oliveira et al.
5.1 Front-end development activities
The front-end development activities were identified through a review of models
describing the entire innovation process or only the FFE. Table 1 provides a compilation
of the models used in this study. This list was defined using the systematic review; it is
not intended to be comprehensive, but rather, it aims to clarify the primary front-end
development activities.
Table 1 Classification of front-end development activities according to their outcomes
Model Opportunity Product concept Business case
Wheelwright and
Clark (1992)
Technology assessment and
forecasting + market assessment
and forecasting
Development goals
and objectives
Aggregated project
plan
Khurana and
Rosenthal (1997)
Preliminary opportunity
identification
Product concept
and definition
Product definition
and project
planning
Cooper (2001) Discovery + Idea screen Scoping + second
screen
Build business
case + go to
development gate
Koen et al. (2001) Opportunity identification
+ Opportunity analysis
Idea genesis + Idea
selection
Concept and
technology
development
Sandmeier et al.
(2004)
Market and technology
opportunities
Product and
business ideas
Draft concept
of product and
business plan
Crawford and
Benedetto (2006)
Opportunity identification and
selection
Concept generation Concept/project
evaluation + full
screen
Pahl and Beitz (2007) Analyse the situation + formulate
search strategies
Find product ideas Select product
ideas + define
products
Based on a comparison of the development activities defined by these models, it is
noticed that the front-end actually involves three outcomes: opportunity, product concept
and business case. The opportunity outcome is defined as a marketing or technology
gap capable of providing competitiveness and improving business performance. The
product concept refers to a written or visual description of a product idea in terms of its
primary technical features, customer benefits and required technology. Finally, the
business case defines the related product and project, and presents the market, technical
and financial analyses to support final decision-making (PDMA, 2011). As a result, the
front-end can be divided into three main development activities dealing with each of
these outcomes: opportunity identification, concept generation and business case
definition.
These front-end development activities represent the process which product
innovation projects have to go through to be introduced in the next phases of the
innovation process. Therefore, they represent the first front-end attribute to be included in
the conceptual framework: front-end development activities.
A starting point for addressing product innovativeness in the FFE 317
5.2 Front-end characteristics
Many studies have focused on analysing and clarifying the front-end. A list of these has
been compiled; focusing on those that identifies front-end characteristics influencing its
development and management:
• Rothwell (1992, 1994), Nobelius (2004) and Preez and Louw (2008) described the
evolution of product innovation models, indicating main updates and how they
supported new needs for innovation over the years.
• Engwall et al. (2005) explained the purposes and characteristics of applying process
models to support the management of product innovation.
• Cunha and Gomes (2003) introduced a classification of possible flows for the
product innovation process. Meanwhile, they described its characteristics and related
them to innovation contingencies.
• Terwiesch and Ulrich (2008) and Brem and Voigt (2009) highlighted the importance
of top-down and bottom-up integration at the front-end.
• Sperry and Jetter (2009) analysed a comprehensive list of models to understand the
impact of uncertainty on the front-end.
• Cooper and Edgett (2009) uncovered the importance of product innovation and
technology strategy as a way to assure that innovation outcomes are fit to
organisational interests.
Based on information provided by these studies, this research has identified four
other front-end attributes for the conceptual framework: inputs and outputs:
decision-making approach, internal and external drivers and interaction between strategy
and organisation.
5.3 Building and description of the conceptual framework
The previous two sections provide five front-end attributes to be incorporated into the
conceptual framework: development activities, inputs and outputs, decision-making
approach, external and internal drivers and interaction between strategy and organisation.
The following paragraphs introduce the framework, which is illustrated in Figure 4, and
explain how it addresses these attributes.
Initially, the attribute of front-end development activities is shown at the middle of
the framework, since it indicates the core component that adds value throughout the
process. It also describes the three front-end development activities: opportunity
identification, concept generation and business case definition. Further information about
these activities is in Subsection 5.1.
The next attribute is related to front-end inputs and outputs. Inputs are represented
by innovation goals and ideas, while outputs involve proposals for new technologies,
products/services and businesses. Innovation goals are related to objectives established
by strategies and board decisions. They can be more superficial, offering guidance in
terms of product/market arenas, or be more direct, defining goals for improvement
of existing products (Wheelwright and Clark, 1992; Pahl and Beitz, 2007; Terwiesch and
Ulrich, 2008; Cooper and Edgett, 2009). On the other hand, ideas represent any type
318 M.G. Oliveira et al.
of action from people within or outside the organisation which may bring innovations.
Concerning outputs, all three mentioned cover a product innovation. Differences remain
on the need for integrating technology or business development to enable the
development and launch of innovations. These outputs are commonly presented like a
product protocol and business plan (Khurana and Rosenthal, 1997; Cooper, 2001;
Koen et al., 2001; Crawford and Benedetto, 2006; Preez and Louw, 2008; Sperry and
Jetter, 2009).
Figure 4 The conceptual framework of front-end attributes
The attribute addressing decision-making approach, which is presented by the dashes
lines before, between and after development activities, embraces the decision-making
points (gates) applied to manage innovation projects. It supports alignment to strategy
and organisation, incorporation of updates from external and internal drivers, and
guidance regarding development. Although phase-gate processes are being criticised in
several research studies (Oosterwal, 2009; Oorschot et al., 2010), particularly when
managing innovations with high levels of uncertainties, an established approach capable
of addressing the management of projects in the innovation process is still missing
(Cooper, 2009; Cooper and Edgett, 2008).
The attribute of internal and external drivers indicates that projects can be influenced
throughout front-end development activities. For example, drivers can change basic
information, causing updates and iterations among activities. Internal drivers comprise
ongoing processes, people, competencies, structure, technologies and facilities within the
organisation. Meanwhile, external drivers are constituted by factors related to industry,
market, competitors and technologies that need to be considered to achieve a successful
innovation (Rothwell, 1992, 1994; Koen et al., 2001; Cunha and Gomes, 2003;
Sandmeier et al., 2004; McCarthy et al., 2006)
Finally, the attribute of interaction between strategy and organisation, which is
indicated by the two-sided arrows crossing behind the front-end development activities,
covers a topic usually known as top-down/bottom-up or market-pull/technology-push.
It highlights that the strategic side pursues a planned future, while the organisational
side addresses upcoming opportunities arising along the way. This issue represents
a constant dilemma faced by firms who wish to find a trade-off between creativity and
planning in their innovation processes (Terwiesch and Ulrich, 2008; Brem and Voigt,
2009).
A starting point for addressing product innovativeness in the FFE 319
6 Cases studies and insights regarding customisation of the front-end
attributes
Data collected from the empirical investigations are summarised in this section. Firstly,
Table 2 shows firms’ organisational size, industry subsector (FTSE, 2004) and innovation
strategy (Miles et al., 1978; Porter, 1980). Their names are hidden due to non-disclosure
agreements.
Table 2 Description of the characteristics of the firms involved in this study
Firm A Firm B Firm C Firm D Firm E
Industry Industrial
machinery
Auto-parts Aerospace Non durable
household
products
Electronic
equipments
Innovation
Strategy
Defender strategy
and competition
through overall cost
leadership
Analyser
strategy and
competition
through
differentiation
Analyser strategy
and competition
through a
combination of
focus and
differentiation.
Analyser
strategy and
competition
through
differentiation
Prospector
strategy and
competition
through focus
and
differentiation
Size Large (>500
employees)
Large (>500
employees)
Large (>500
employees)
Large (>500
employees)
Medium
(100<500
employees)
In the following sections, each of the front-end attributes comprising the conceptual
framework is discussed in turn. Meanwhile, insights acquired through these cases are
highlighted.
6.1 The front-end development activities
The meaning adopted here for activities also involves other process features such
as information, people and methods. Due to the variety of features found within the firms
analysed, it was unfeasible to follow a process approach based on activities. Additionally,
the use of process as unit of analysis sometimes led to confusion about the management
of a firm's innovation plans and management of innovation projects. This difference is
noticed as a key issue for the front-end. When firms were dealing with their innovation
plans, they focused on their innovation systems and product portfolio, i.e., the front-end
strategic level. On the other hand, when they were talking about projects, focus was on
managing activities capable of providing front-end outcomes, i.e., the front-end operation
level.
Since this study aims to support flexible management for different product
innovativeness, its scope is related to the front-end operational level. Hence, to analyse
differences among these firms, this study needed to use a process feature that can
represent their processes, but can also explain differences among degrees of product
innovation.
At this point, the process feature related to information gathering, also known
as uncertainty reduction approach (Monaert et al., 1995), was identified as capable
of supporting this aim, because it described with more flexibility the progress of projects
at the front-end. Following this information-based perspective, different interactions,
320 M.G. Oliveira et al.
iterations and priorities were noticed in the front-end of these firms. Moreover, this
approach makes sense, as it recognises that a standard process will not fit all innovation
projects equally.
Finally, this front-end attribute, which initially focused on ‘hard’ process
features (activities, people, methods, etc.), moved towards a ‘soft’ one based on
information.
6.2 The inputs and outputs
Innovation strategies were the main inputs in all firms studied. Although four of them had
some kind of idea management system in place to support the collection of ideas from the
organisation, these systems were ineffective. The only mechanism that effectively
supported the entrance of organisational ideas into the front-end was commitment from
a member of the firm’s board or its functional managers.
Regarding the outputs, the most common one was new product improvements
developed to maintain competitiveness through performance and cost. Despite this,
few cases of really new products focused on new markets or new technologies were
noticed. One of these cases resulted in a new business unit, because it required entrance
to a new market and consequently, caused large modifications in existing business
processes. New technology outputs appeared in Firm E, as a result of an open innovation
approach that allowed for collaborative developments with a technological partner.
This technology enabled a new platform, which supported the development of a new
product line.
The front-end inputs and outputs were integrated with other business processes,
which could be strategic planning or technology and product development processes.
Since the front-end was often carried out to support new organisational demands, its
inputs and outputs can be stated as a way to keep competitiveness through innovation.
Therefore, they often reflect innovation strategies adopted by firms.
Consequently, this front-end attribute cannot be considered as one affecting product
innovativeness but, rather, an effect of the innovation system established by the
organisation. Or, in other words, inputs and outputs occur driven by longitudinal
innovation practices which are applied to support underpinning strategic objectives
pursued by organisations.
6.3 The decision-making approach
This attribute was addressed in these firms through decision-making meetings, which
were a key part of the front-end. In spite of this, complaints about difficulties in having
projects approved in these meetings were very common, in particular for projects with
higher degrees of market or technological discontinuity. Lack of flexible management
approaches may be a reason, since project leaders knew that they had to face the same
process applied to incremental innovations.
However, removing these meetings was unfeasible, because firms wanted to track the
progress of projects. Hence, the use of decision-making meetings along the way still
remains an important practice. Moreover, these review points introduce an opportunity
for interaction with internal and external drivers, realignments to strategy and
organisation, and even integration with new inputs and outputs. Thus, decision-making
A starting point for addressing product innovativeness in the FFE 321
meetings support more than just a go/no-go decision; if well addressed, they can create
a link between projects and front-end attributes.
Many differences were found regarding methods used for decision-making meetings.
Some of the firms followed traditional portfolio management methods based on a
pre-defined set of criteria, while others have their decisions attached only to strategic
objectives. In fact, these methods can be summed up to decision-making criteria.
No formal flexibility mechanisms were noticed in these firms, and more innovative
projects normally succeeded at the front-end because of board member commitment.
These people had enough power to skip the decision-making criteria based on their
beliefs about the potential of the proposed product innovation.
This attribute shows a big impact on the management of the front-end in terms
of product innovativeness. Therefore, it needs customisation to support flexible
management.
6.4 The internal and external drivers
This attribute addressed influences brought to projects when they were progressing
throughout the front-end. At this moment, the presence of a process that guided
interactions between projects and drivers implied a less fuzzy development. For some,
those projects with more freedom, modifications and updates caused by internal and
external drivers were easier to occur. These interactions were useful in some cases,
but also time consuming and ineffective in others.
For the opportunity identification activity, a more open-minded approach capturing
insights through a fuzzy and creative approach seems to be more effective, since this
activity needs to address a wide range of factors. However, as projects progress through
activities, a convergence towards a concept and business case seems to require more
established approaches. Nevertheless, this does not mean a rigid approach, but one with
clearer roles, results and objectives.
As a result, it is noticed that drivers are an effect of the degree of innovation instead
of being an attribute impacting on it. For example, when dealing with incremental
innovations, in which it is possible to foresee interactions, these firms had standard
approaches for managing internal and external drivers, but when higher degrees of
innovation were involved, they lacked these established management approaches due to
uncertainties of this type of innovation.
6.5 The interaction between strategy and organisation
The interaction between strategy and organisation is an attribute dispersed throughout
the front-end, being related to all other attributes included in the conceptual framework.
Additionally, it is close to the level of vertical integration of an organisational structure,
since it promotes integration between strategies from top management level and actions
rising from the organisation.
Findings from these firms suggest a much stronger top-down approach. None of
these firms showed innovation projects proposed by low level positions being introduced
at the front-end, or even having high impact on project developments without support
from higher organisational levels. Minor contributions were possible if a person joined
the team assigned to the front-end activities, although critical decisions were always
322 M.G. Oliveira et al.
led by board members. Despite the top-down approach being the most commonly found
approach in these firms, they always had in mind the importance of considering
innovations pushed from within the organisation, mainly in terms of new technological
solutions.
The most critical issue noticed for this attribute was the misunderstanding and
lack of communication concerning innovation strategies. This fact may imply ineffective
strategy deployment or a communication issue. Then, interaction between strategy and
organisation was missing in such a way that these firms could not guide innovation
projects toward business objectives. Furthermore, at least for these firms, bottom-up
approaches were not identified – not in the sense that businesses are driven by
organisation, but in a way that organisational aspects are also addressed for strategic
decisions.
Finally, findings show that interactions between strategy and organisation are not
affected by product innovativeness. Actually, they are a result of longitudinal innovation
practices implemented to support business objectives, like in the attribute of inputs and
outputs.
7 Conclusions
7.1 Empirical findings
The front-end embraces two key levels: the strategic and operation levels. The strategic
level comprises a view of the innovation system, keeping it consistent in terms of
strategies and portfolio. The operational level deals with each specific project,
supporting its progress throughout the front-end, as well as linking it to the
innovation system. This result confirms the front-end perspectives identified by Poskela
(2007).
In this sense, the front-end strategic level can focus on a standard process, since it is
the same for all projects. Therefore, use of longitudinal innovation practices can be best
applied to this front-end level. On the other hand, since the front-end operation level
deals with each project individually, it has to address each project’s characteristic so that
the practices applied allow for its effective management.
Findings from these case studies show that three front-end attributes (inputs and
outputs, internal and external drivers, and interaction between strategy and organisation)
are attached to the strategic level. Then, they relate to the implementation of longitudinal
practices such as: open innovation, portfolio management, idea management and
lead user involvement. The attribute of front-end development activities, which refers
to information, covers underpinning aspects that support a description of the
progress of each projects and therefore, is linked to the operation level. The attribute of
the decision-making approach, which refers to decision-making criteria, has a mixed
contribution, since it provides opportunities to realign projects to the innovation system,
and also supports interactions that guide project developments. As this attribute has a role
in both front-end levels, it needs to be carefully implemented; otherwise, it can become
effective for one and ineffective for the other, or ineffective for both.
Therefore, the development of flexible management for the front-end addressing
product innovativeness as a contingent factor should focus on two of the five front-end
A starting point for addressing product innovativeness in the FFE 323
attributes analysed in this study: the development activities (information gathering) and
the decision-making approach (decision criteria). Additionally, the unit of analysis for
supporting the understanding of these attributes should be a single project, instead of the
front-end process. This conclusion is illustrated in Figure 5.
Figure 5 The development activities and the decision-making approach as the front-end attributes
to be customised for projects with different degrees of innovation
7.2 Contribution, limitations and further research
This study clarifies important aspects related to the management of the front-end.
First, it proposes a conceptual framework which describes five front-end attributes
to be considered to advance towards more effective front-end processes. Additionally,
it highlights relations between these attributes and two front-end levels: the strategic and
the operational. These relations provide insights that establish a direction for further
progress regarding the development of flexible management for different degrees of
product innovation.
Limitations faced in this study were related to characteristics of the firms and
complexity of the front-end. The firms analysed provided a wide and exploratory view of
the front-end, but they are too few to support generic conclusions. Hence, results obtained
here need validation through other studies. Moreover, the front-end has many attributes
and contingent factors that can be investigated to support improvements. Only a small
number of them were covered, and therefore, results provided by this research should not
be considered as the only way forward.
Finally, this study is part of a research project that intends to propose a framework
to support flexible management for the front-end. The next research phases are going
to investigate how information gathering and decision criteria change according to
different degrees of product innovation.
Acknowledgements
The researchers would like to thank CNPq (www.cnpq.br) for its financial support and
firms for their contributions.
324 M.G. Oliveira et al.
References
Ajamian, G. and Koen, P.A. (2002) ‘Technology stage gate: a structured process for managing high
risk, new technology projects’, in Belliveau, P., Griffin, A. and Somermeyer, S. (Eds.):
The PDMA Toolbook for New Product Development, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Backman, M., Borjesson, S. and Setterberg, S. (2007) ‘Working with concepts in the fuzzy front
end: exploring the context for innovation for different types of concepts at Volvo Cars’,
R&D Management, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.17–28.
Barczak, G., Griffin, A. and Kahn, K.B. (2009) ‘Perspective: trends and drivers of success in NPD
practices: results of the 2003 PDMA best practices study’, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp.3–23.
Booz Allen & Hamilton, Inc. (1982) New Products Management for the 1980’s, Booz Allen &
Hamilton, Inc., New York.
Brem, A. and Voigt, K. (2009) ‘Integration of market pull and technology push in the corporate
front end and innovation management – insights from the German software industry’,
Technovation, Vol. 29, No. 5, pp.351–367.
Cooper, R.G. (2001) Winning at New Products: Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch,
3rd ed., Perseus, Cambridge, Mass.
Cooper, R.G. (2006) ‘Managing technology development projects’, Research Technology
Management, Vol. 49, No. 6, pp.23–31.
Cooper, R.G. (2009) ‘How companies are reinventing their idea-to-launch methodologies’,
Research Technology Management, Vol. 52, pp.47–58.
Cooper, R.G. and Edgett, S.J. (2008) ‘Maximizing productivity in product innovation’, Research
Technology Management, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp.47–59.
Cooper, R.G. and Edgett, S.J. (2009) Product Innovation and Technology Strategy,
Product Development Institute Inc., USA.
Crawford, M. and Benedetto, A.D. (2006) New Products Management, 8th ed.,
McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York.
Cunha, M.P. and Gomes, J.F. (2003) ‘Order and disorder in product innovation models’, Creativity
and Innovation Management, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp.174–187.
Danneels, E. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (2001) ‘Product innovativeness from the firm’s perspective:
its dimensions and their relations with project selection and performance’, The Journal of
Product Innovation Management, Vol. 18, pp.357–373.
Donaldson, L. (2001) The Contingency Theory of Organizations, Sage Publications Inc.,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Drejer, A. (2002) ‘Integrating product and technology development’, International Journal of
Technology Management, Vol. 24, Nos. 2–3, pp.124–142.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) ‘Building theories from case study research’, The Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 14, No. 4, p.532.
Engwall, M., Kling, R. and Werr, A. (2005) ‘Models in action: how management models are
interpreted in new product development’, R&D Management, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp.427–439.
FTSE (2004) Industry Classification Benchmark (ICB), Retrieved January 2011 from http://www.
ftse.com/Indices/Industry%20Classification%20Benchmark/index.jsp
Garcia, R. and Calantone, R.A. (2002) ‘Critical look at technological innovation typology and
innovativeness terminology: a literature review’, Journal of Product Innovation Management,
Vol. 19, pp.110–113.
Griffin, A. (1997) ‘PDMA research on new product development practices: updating trends and
benchmarking best practices’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 14, No. 6,
pp.429–458.
Hansen, M.T. and Birkinshaw, J. (2007) ‘The innovation value chain’, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 85, No. 6, pp.121–130.
A starting point for addressing product innovativeness in the FFE 325
Khurana, A. and Rosenthal, S.R. (1997) ‘Integrating the fuzzy front end of new product
development’, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp.103–120.
Khurana, A. and Rosenthal, S.R. (1998) ‘Towards holistic ‘front-ends’ in new product
developments’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.57–74.
Kim, J. and Wilemon, D. (2002) ‘Focusing the fuzzy front-end in new product development’,
R&D Management, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp.269–279.
Koen, P.A. (2004) ‘The fuzzy front end for incremental, platform and breakthrough products and
services’, in Kahn, K.B., Castellion, G. and Griffin, A. (Eds.): The Handbook of New Product
Development, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey.
Koen, P.A., Ajamian, G., Boyce, S. et al. (2002) ‘Fuzzy front end: effective methods, tools, and
techniques’, in Belliveau, P., Griffin, A. and Somermeyer, S. (Eds.): PDMA Toolbook for New
Product Development, John Wiley & Sons, New York, Chapter 1, pp.5–36.
Koen, P.A., Ajamian, G., Burkart, R. et al. (2001) ‘Providing clarity and a common language to the
‘fuzzy front end’’, Research Technology Management, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp.46–55.
Kotler, P. (2001) Marketing Management, 10th ed., Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
Markham, S.K. et al. (2010) ‘The valley of death as context for role theory in product innovation’,
Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp.402–417.
McCarthy, I.P., Tsinopoulos, C., Allen, P. and Rose-Anderssen, C. (2006) ‘New product
development as a complex adaptive system of decisions’, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp.437–456.
Miles, R.E., Snow, C.C., Meyer, A.D. and Coleman Jr., H.J. et al. (1978) ‘Organizational strategy,
structure, and process’, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp.546–562.
Monaert, R.K., Meyer, A.D., Souder, W.E. and Deschoolmeester, D. (1995) ‘R&D/marketing
communication during the fuzzy front-end’, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
Vol. 42, No. 3, pp.243–258.
Nobelius, D. (2004) ‘Towards the sixth generation of R&D management’, International Journal
of Project Management, Vol. 22, No. 5, pp.369–375.
Nobelius, D. and Trygg, L. (2002) ‘Stop chasing the front end process – management of the early
phases in product development projects’, International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 20, No. 5, pp.331–340.
Oorschot, K.V., Sengupta, K., Akkermans, H. and Wassenhove, L.V. (2010) ‘Get fat fast: surviving
stage-gate’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 27, pp.828–839.
Oosterwal, D. (2009) ‘The truth behind the ineffectiveness of phase-gate methodology – and why
a knowledge-based process may be better’, PDMA Visions Magazine, Vol. 33, No. 2,
pp.18, 19.
Pahl, G. and Beitz, W. (2007) Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, 3rd ed.,
Springer-Verlag, London.
PDMA (2011) NPD Glossary, Retrieved January 2011 from www.pdma.org/npd_glossary.cfm
Peneder, M. (2010) ‘Technological regimes and the variety of innovation behaviour: creating
integrated taxonomies of firms and sectors’, Research Policy, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp.323–334.
Phaal, R., Farrukh, C.J.P. and Probert, D.R. (2004) ‘A framework for supporting the management
of technological knowledge’, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 27,
No. 1, pp.1–15.
Phaal, R., Farrukh, C.J.P. and Probert, D.R. (2006) ‘Technology management tools: concept,
development and application’, Technovation, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp.336–344.
Porter, M.E. (1980) Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors,
Free Press, New York.
Porter, M.E. (2008) ‘The five competitive forces that shape strategy’, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 86, No. 1, pp.78–98.
326 M.G. Oliveira et al.
Poskela, J. (2007) ‘Strategic and operative level front-end innovation activities – integration
perspective’, International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, Vol. 4,
No. 4, p.433.
Preez, N.D. and Louw, L. (2008) ‘A framework for managing the innovation process’, Portland
International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET),
Proceedings, IEEE, Cape Town, SA, pp.546–558.
Reid, S.E. and Brentani, D. (2004) ‘The fuzzy front end of new product development for
discontinuous innovations: a theoretical model’, The Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 21, pp.170–184.
Rothwell, R. (1992) ‘Successful industrial innovation: critical factors for the 1990s’, R&D
Management, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp.221–239.
Rothwell, R. (1994) ‘Towards the fifth-generation innovation process’, International Marketing
Review, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp.7–31.
Sandmeier, P., Jamali, N., Kobe, C. et al. (2004) ‘Towards a structured and integrative front-end of
product innovation’, R&D Management Conference, Proceedings, Lisbon.
Shefer, D. and Frenkel, A. (2005) ‘R&D, firm size and innovation: an empirical analysis’,
Technovation, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp.25–32.
Sperry, R. and Jetter, A. (2009) ‘Theoretical framework for managing the front end of innovation
under uncertainty’, Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and
Technology (PICMET), Proceedings, IEEE, Portland/USA, pp.2021–2028.
Terwiesch, C. and Ulrich, K. (2008) ‘Managing the opportunity portfolio’, Research Technology
Management, Vol. 51, No. 5, pp.27–39.
Tidd, J., Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. (2005) Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market
and Organizational Change, 3rd ed., Wiley, Chichesterm, UK.
Trott, P. (2005) Innovation Management and New Product Development, 3rd ed., Financial Times
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Verworn, B. (2009) ‘A structural equation model of the impact of the ‘fuzzy front end’ on the
success of new product development’, Research Policy, Vol. 38, No. 10, pp.1571–1581.
Verworn, B., Herstatt, C. and Nagahira, A. (2008) ‘The fuzzy front end of Japanese new product
development projects: impact on success and differences between incremental and radical
projects’, R&D Management, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp.1–19.
Voss, C. (2009) ‘Case research in operations management’, in Karlsson, C. (Ed.): Research in
Operations Management, Routledge, New York, Chapter 5, pp.162–195.
Wheelwright, S.C. and Clark, K.B. (1992) Revolutionizing Product Development: Quantum Leaps
in Speed, Efficiency, and Quality, The Free Press, New York.
Whitney, D. (2007) ‘Assemble a technology development toolkit’, Research Technology
Management, Vol. 50, No. 5, pp.52–58.
Yin, R.K. (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Zhang, Q. and Doll, W.J. (2001) ‘The fuzzy front end and success of new product development:
a causal model’, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.95–112.
