Managing Commercialisation Risks in Innovation Development: Linking Front End and Commercialisation

Abstract

Although front end and commercialisation phases of new innovationdevelopment process are usually presented in separate and sequential phases,the phases are linked in practical new innovation development work. This paperdescribes a risk management based practical approach in supporting the linkingof commercialisation related issues in the front end work and decision makingof innovation development. By linking the front end and commercialisationopportunities, uncertainties and risks related to commercialisation are takeninto consideration already at the early stages of innovation development wheremost of the important decisions related to the performance features, marketattractiveness and costs of the new innovation are done and fixed. The work isbased on a large interview study of innovation management practices incompanies and an analysis of the empirical material using the constructivistcollective case study methodology

Full text

Managing Commercialisation Risks in Innovation
Development: Linking Front End and
Commercialisation
Tuija Luoma*, Jaakko Paasi
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland,
P.O. Box 1300, FI-33101 Tampere, Finland
E-mail: firstname.lastname@vtt.fi
* Corresponding author
Hanna Nordlund
Innovation Management Institute, Helsinki University of Technology,
P.O. Box 5500, FI-02015 TKK, Finland
E-mail: firstname.lastname@hut.fi
Abstract: Although front end and commercialisation phases of new innovation
development process are usually presented in separate and sequential phases,
the phases are linked in practical new innovation development work. This paper
describes a risk management based practical approach in supporting the linking
of commercialisation related issues in the front end work and decision making
of innovation development. By linking the front end and commercialisation
opportunities, uncertainties and risks related to commercialisation are taken
into consideration already at the early stages of innovation development where
most of the important decisions related to the performance features, market
attractiveness and costs of the new innovation are done and fixed. The work is
based on a large interview study of innovation management practices in
companies and an analysis of the empirical material using the constructivist
collective case study methodology.
Keywords: commercialisation, innovation development, front end, risk,
uncertainty
1 Introduction
Commercialisation of an innovation is encompassed by multiple uncertainties,
particularly if one aims to deliver a product, process or service with unprecedented
performance features. Uncertainties related to markets, technology and business model
are high. Accordingly, the commercialisation of innovation includes many risks. Taking
that into account, it is not surprising that most innovations will not achieve commercial
success; as a matter of fact, most innovations fail.
Commercialisation is often understood to be the final phase of the innovation process:
fuzzy front end, the new product development process, and commercialisation [1, 2, 3].
Fuzzy front end refers to the period of time between when an opportunity is first

considered and when it is considered to be ready for development [4]. Front end is
characterised by uncertainty, unpredictability and the nature of work during front end is
experimental and chaotic. Thus, it is very different from the structured, well-defined,
disciplined and formal development phase [2, 3, 4]. The emphasis on front end is in
discovering and decision making while the development phase concentrates relatively
straightforward and fast development of the concept. The final phase, commercialisation,
determines how well the potential of the ideas developed during the earlier phases can be
utilised [6, 7]. In the extant literature, innovation process is presented as sequential and
the different phases are clearly separated. It is also a common practice in companies.
The front end sets the direction for the entire innovation process [8] because it is at
that stage that crucial decisions regarding the target markets and customers, strategic
alignment and resources are made [4]. Of the total costs of a product development
project, 70 % is determined by the decisions made during the front end, but only around
10% is realised at this stage [9, 10]. The commercialisation is the most costly part of the
new product development [11]. The economic benefits of a new innovation are never
fully realised until the innovation is actually introduced to market [12]. In spite of this,
commercialisation is often a poorly managed phase. Cooper et al. (2005) states that a
strong market orientation in new product development is critical to success, and that it is
missing in the majority of companies' new product development projects [13].
The fact that most of the new product development costs are determined by the
decisions made at the front end phase, but they are realised at the commercialisation
phase, would suggest a strong link between the front end and commercialisation phases.
However, the area is largely unexplored in the literature. Some authors have also studied
the linkage between R&D and marketing as functions [see e.g. 14, 15, 16, 17] but none of
these researchers have provided specific details for actually integrating the two functions
[17].
In this paper we have studied the link between the front end and commercialisation
phases of new innovation development. Because both phases are encompassed by a high
level of uncertainty, we have applied a new approach for the subject – the generic
methodology of risk management – in order to support the decision making within the
front end regarding issues influencing the commercialisation of innovation under
development. The paper is arranged as follows. At first, in Chapter 2 we define the
research question and present the research methodology used in the work. Then in
Chapters 3 and 4, we take a brief look at the extant literature on the subject area of the
work. Finally, we present the actual results of the work in Chapters 5 “Linkages between
the front end and commercialisation phases” and Chapter 6 “Managing the
commercialisation: A risk management approach”.
2 Research question and methodology
The purpose of this paper is to understand and describe the dynamics between the front
end and commercialisation phases of an innovation process. Our objective, for one, is to
provide a rich description and create new knowledge about how the front end and
commercialisation phases are linked. Secondly, our objective is to develop a practical
tool for organisations in order to improve the linkages between the two phases. Thus, in
this paper we pose the following research question:

How are the front end and commercialisation phases of the innovation process
linked and how can those linkages be managed?
We answer the research question by applying a constructivist [see e.g. 18, 19, 20]
collective case study [see e.g. 21, 22] method to empirical material where the innovation
management practices of 12 organisations were studied. According to the spirit of
constructivist inquiry, the study focused on a variety of different practices of innovation
management in the studied companies.
The empirical material was collected by a group of 21 researchers (including one
author of this paper) who interviewed 43 managers in 12 organisations. The organisations
were established, globally operating Finnish companies with innovation processes and
systematic practices in use and explicitly described. This again was expected to create a
common ground on which to build the interviews. Both private and public organisations
were included and represented different fields of industry; bringing diversity to the
empirical material and maximising the learning and variety in the data (see Table 1 for
details). The interviewees were people occupying senior corporate, R&D and business
unit or marketing management positions. Semi-structured theme interviews were chosen
as the main source of empirical material because the study was partly explorative in
nature and the meanings of concepts needed to be negotiated with the interviewees. The
interview material was complemented by process descriptions, strategy documents and
product presentations.
Table 1 Case studies.
Organisation Industry / products / services Personnel (2007)
ABB Finland Power and automation technologies 6 650
Consolis / Parma Building elements 968
Metso Automation Control and automation systems 3 600
M-Real Pulp and paper 9 500
Nokia Telecommunications 68 483
Schering Pharmaceuticals 400
Vaisala Environmental measurement 1 113
VTI Technologies Motion and pressure sensors 704
Wärtsilä Ship power and power plants systems 3 000
FMI Meteorology 599
Tekes Research and development funding 290
VTT Research and development services 2 740
Analysis of the empirical material proceeded in two phases. First, the material was
analysed by a large group of researchers from five viewpoints: “fuzzy front end”,
“commercialisation and market entry”, “networking”, “steering and financing” and
“innovation management challenges”. The chosen viewpoints were not defined
beforehand but emerged during the analysis of the interview material. The main results
and conclusions of the first phase analysis have been published elsewhere by Kettunen et
al. (2007) so in this paper we will focus only the second phase of the analysis [23].

The first phase identified a few problem areas and development needs in the new
innovation development work at the organisations at large and triggered the initiation of
several lines of research, including the one which this paper reports. In the second phase
of the analysis that relates to this paper we delve into one specific aspect of innovation
management challenges, the “linkages between front end and commercialisation phases”.
This appeared to be a challenge that concerned several companies and which appeared
interesting and little understood in the existing literature. According to the collective case
study approach [21, 22] we were first and foremost interested in the phenomenon –
linkages between the front end and commercialisation – we want to understand and
describe. Thus, we had little intrinsic interest in the practices and challenges of individual
companies. The individual companies are studied because they are expected to improve
our understanding of the phenomenon of interest. In the analysis we first looked for
categories that according to our interpretation seemed to link the front end and
commercialisation phases together. The categories we found were market need, market
environment, technology, idea/value proposition, business environment, management and
collaboration network. This way we found that the dynamics and challenges in linking
the front end and commercialisation resembled management challenges of safety critical
systems, where the risk management methodology has been successfully applied. In
regard to our second objective this led us to apply the methodology in this context as
well.
3 Front end phase of the innovation process
Front end refers to the early stages of the innovation process [24] between when an
opportunity is identified and when an idea is considered ready for development [4].
During the front end a product concept is formulated and an organisation determines
whether or not the organisation will invest in the concrete development of the idea from
concept to product [14]. Creating new knowledge, learning and being creative are at the
core of front end activities. The information available for decision making in the front
end is often qualitative, informal and approximate. Thus, in the front end it is necessary
to accept solutions that are approximate rather than exact facts [4]. Furthermore, the
nature of the work during the front end is experimental and chaotic. The focus should be
on finding failures and making mistakes, thus the failure rate is high [5].
Uncertainty is a central characteristic of the front end [2, 5]. Gupta and Wilemon
(1990) argued that uncertainties related to the front end include increased local and global
scale competition, continuous development of new technologies, which lead to
compensating old technologies at an increasingly rapid pace, and changing customer
needs and requirements. It also shortens the product life cycles and increases the need for
external involvement in innovation processes [25]. Thus, activities of the front end aim at
reducing uncertainty and ambiguity [4, 5].
During the front end the direction for the entire innovation process is set [8] because
crucial decisions regarding the target market and customers, strategic alignments, and
resources are made [4]. Of the total costs of a product development project, 70 % is
determined by the decisions made during the front end, but only around 10% is realised at
this stage. The costs of developing a new product increase significantly as a function of
elapsed time [9, 10]. During the front end it is easy to develop and test ideas, however,
after the front end the costs start to rise drastically. As Reid and de Brentani (2004) state,

the costs of developing several ideas are marginal compared to implementing any one
idea [8].
4 Commercialisation phase of the innovation process
Commercialisation is often considered as the process of introducing a new product into
the market. The actual launch of a new product or service is the final stage of new
product or service development. It is at this stage where substantial amount of money
needs to be directed towards advertising, sales promotion, and other marketing efforts
[11, 26]. Commercialisation needs also pre-commercial activities, such as marketing
strategy development and business analysis, to achieve success. All these prior activities
of commercialisation comprise a “commercialisation process”.
In the final commercialisation phase it may be difficult or impossible to make the
most appropriate tactical launch decisions because earlier made strategic decisions dictate
the final decisions. Some commercialisation related decisions take place already early in
the innovation development cycle and these strategic decisions strongly influence the
commercialisation and launching, while other decisions occur after conceptual and
physical development of a new product [27]. It is subsequently important to understand
all the factors that influence the commercialisation already at the beginning of the
innovation process.
Commercialisation is a critical phase of the innovation process. Without delicate
commercialisation preparations during the innovation process, also good new products or
services may fail. Another important aspect at this stage is the accumulation of cost [6,
11, 12]. It is actually the most costly part of the new product development [11].
5 Linkages between the front end and commercialisation phases
Our interpretation of the empirical material implies that the front end and
commercialisation phases of the innovation process are strongly linked. Although the
innovation processes were described as sequential in the interviewed organisations (in
accordance with the extant literature) our interpretation of the practices perceived
overlapping of phases in time so that the commercialisation phase runs in parallel with
the concept development, new product development and market entry [see 23 for earlier
analysis of the data].
Interactions between various interest groups and persons (such as R&D, product and
marketing personnel) are an integral part of true innovation development practice in
many organisations. The interaction can be very strong and happen already at the very
beginning of the innovation process when new business opportunities are identified. It is
particularly true when developing new services or physical products enhanced with a
service component. Ideas associated to service related innovations often arise from the
customer interface. Thus the suggestion that the R&D department takes care of the front
end and new product development and marketing takes care of commercialisation is no
longer so clear in companies. Front end and commercialisation practices are linked in
companies, not only through people taking part in both phases but also through the
information used in the phases. The empirical material showed that the link between the
phases may sometimes be weak in the sense of information exchange but, nevertheless, it
is present.

We found several different categories that link the phases together: market need,
market environment, technology, idea / value proposition, business environment,
management and collaboration network. Due to the space constraints we discuss in more
detail here only two categories: technology and market need. Other categories are briefly
touched upon in the next chapter.
Technology is an important category, critical both from the front end and
commercialisation viewpoints. The company should analyse its own technological
capabilities versus the technology needed for the new innovation. What is the technology
needed? Are we able to apply the technology? The company ought to also discuss
whether the technology for the concept is available. If not, how long until the technology
is feasible – is it in the near future, intermediate future or in the deep future. Also changes
in technology development and also in the time for adoption of new technology should be
monitored. Rapid technological development may mean that a new potential innovation
based on old technology is no longer desirable to the markets. Changes in technology
adoption can mean that the time for commercialisation may be longer than expected.
Obviously, if a company could foresee those developments, it would have a competitive
advantage and subsequently would take appropriate actions with regards to any
corresponding innovation development.
Attention should be paid also to the market need in the front end phase of innovation
development. For example, customer needs are neither objective nor are they stable and
that may affect the commercialisation. In the front end phase we should ask, for example:
Do we fully understand the customer need and not just assume to understand?
Interpretations of concept developers may differ significantly from those of the
customers’. Furthermore, the needs and requirements of customers are dynamic – they
evolve over time. Thus, even if the interpretations of the concept developers’ correspond
to those of the customers’ customers own understanding of their needs may change
before the commercialisation phase. It is also important to understand that customers may
be unable to articulate their needs. A large part of their knowledge is embedded in the
regular routines and practices in which they participate and customers do not notice them
or they may consider them so self-evident that they do not understand their significance
from the viewpoint of the innovation process. Misunderstandings in the interpretations of
the customer need may lead to a situation where the company develops a totally “wrong”,
unsuitable product or service for the customers. The ability of customers to accept and
apply new products and services is limited and that also has a significant effect on
commercialisation. Thus, even if a product would be useful to customers they may be
unable to receive it. Also, customers may resist a new concept because they cause
changes that again require learning, abandoning existing practices and routines, and
sometimes change social aspects and hierarchies at work.
6 Managing the commercialisation: A risk management approach
The second objective for this paper involves creating a practical tool for organisations in
order to improve the linking of the front end and commercialisation. In the development
of the tool, the following specifications arose from the second analysis of the empirical
material:
1. The tool should focus on information critical for both the front end and
commercialisation phases.

2. As most of the costs of new innovation development are realised in the
commercialisation phase, the viewpoint of the tool should be in supporting
decision making in commercialisation related questions.
3. The tool should be generic and reusable so that most organisations could use it
(after minor customisation, if necessary).
4. As the new innovation development is encompassed by multiple uncertainties, a
risk management methodology should be applied in the tool in order to make the
uncertainty management systematic and practical.
The development work started by defining a framework model for the linkage between
the front end and commercialisation. We applied the framework model of
commercialisation by Luoma and Paasi (2007), Figure 1 [28]. In the model, the
commercialisation activities begin already at the identification of new business
opportunities (that is, in the beginning of the front end). The entire commercialisation
process is modelled as a funnel with many layers, instead of only being the final stage in
the classical 1-dimensional new product development process; the converging funnel
representing decreasing uncertainty of information in commercialisation related
questions. The front end phase of the innovation development is depicted in the left half
of Figure 1. In the model, market information is provided as an input already at the very
beginning of the innovation process whereby the search for new business and product
opportunities is enhanced by means of future research and foresight studies. By applying
this framework, risks related to commercialisation are taken into consideration already at
the early stages of the innovation process.
Figure 1 Framework of commercialisation process in innovation development [28].
Product life cycle
management
Interaction with business environment
Interaction with strategy
NPD
Concept
selection
Identified
significant
opportunities
Innovation ready to launch
Market risks Launching and
after sales risks
Commercialisation risk
assessment methods
Product life cycle
management
Interaction with business environment
Interaction with strategy
NPD
Concept
selection
Identified
significant
opportunities
Innovation ready to launch
Market risks Launching and
after sales risks
Commercialisation risk
assessment methods
The empirical material highlighted multiple challenges in the decision making at early
phases of the innovation process due to the high level of future uncertainty in
technological, market and business model related issues [23]. Critical strategic decisions

must be made, typically without solid facts as a basis. In that sense we found much
analogy in the management challenges between the fuzzy front end and safety critical
systems, where risk management methodology has been successfully used for years in
hazard identification and assessment. In both cases critical decisions must be made in the
presence of high uncertainty. That allows us to formulate a working hypothesis on our
research question “how can the front end and commercialisation phases of innovation
process be linked and managed?”
Working hypothesis:Front end and commercialisation phases of innovation
development are encompassed by multiple uncertainties. In order to manage that, the
phases should be strongly linked by applying the generic methodology of risk
management.
In general, risk management aims to protect the property, income and different
activities of a company while aiming to keep the overall costs at as low a level as
possible. Risk management is not only about identifying and assessing risks and selecting
risk reducing measures, but also about being able to respond quickly and effectively to
realised threats as they arise [29]. Risk analysis provides a basis for evaluating the
tolerability of risks and for deciding necessary risk reducing/controlling measures [30].
The generic main steps in risk management are shown in Figure 2. We have applied risk
management methods to commercialisation risk management in the front end phase. In
this work we understand risk management to entail the management of both uncertainties
and opportunities.
Figure 2 The main steps in risk management (simplified from [30]).
Identification
of risks
Analysis of risks
Evaluation and
selection of risk
reducing measures
Implementation
and follow-up
Identification
of risks
Analysis of risks
Evaluation and
selection of risk
reducing measures
Implementation
and follow-up
Risk maps
Questionnaire and
expert qualitative
evaluation
Risk profile and
consequence analysis
In the front end it is important to get a clear overview of the commercialisation risks
because many important decisions that influence the commercialisation are already made
during the front end phase. The first step in the management of commercialisation risks
in the front end involves the use of risk maps. Risk maps are typically used when

conducting vulnerability analyses. For conducting a vulnerability analysis, the first step
involves the categorisation of vulnerability factors (i.e. undesired conditions) and this is
followed by the rating of risk levels [31]. Categorisation of vulnerability factors – a risk
map – is a practical tool which provides the company with a clear general overview of the
risks that threaten its operation or goals. A risk map provides an excellent overview of the
factors affecting the commercialisation. When all the important factors that can affect the
commercialisation success are included in the map, the commercialisation risk map
provides valuable support for the decision making. The risk map can be used like a
checklist during the front end phase. In such a case, the critical factors affecting
commercialisation are taken into consideration already in the front end.
The risk map presented in this paper (Figure 3) is based on the empirical material of
the interview study, supplemented by findings reported in the literature, and finally,
synthesised with our own empirical experience in new innovation development. It is a
result of a longer development work, and the methodology and earlier versions of
commercialisation risk maps [28] were field-tested in a few companies. Companies
applying the model should carefully consider which factors in the sample risk map are
critical to them, or whether any important factors are missing. According to Ulleberg
(1993) the categorisation of vulnerability or risk factors is best done by a
multidisciplinary team where different experts provide valuable approaches to the threats
[31].
Figure 3 Commercialisation risk map supporting decision making in the front end of innovation
development.
Commercialisation
Technology
Idea / Value Proposition
qVisible excellence and superiority
of concept
qNovelty value to customer and
end-user
qStrategic alignment
qAttractiveness to stakeholders
qFit to competence
qAcceptability in markets
qRough business case
qFirst idea of product life cycle
qFirst idea of design
qFirst idea of IPR and branding
qTiming
qCurrent technological capabilities of the
company
qRapid changes in technology development
qMethods for monitoring changes in technology
development
qTechnical feasibility (technology maturity,
reliability and usability)
qPossible technology teething problems
qTime for adoption of new technology
qLife cycle of technology
qIPR
qTiming
Market need
qMethods for identification of market need
qNot objective customer need
qRapid changes in customer need
qCustomer resistance for change that new
concept bring
qDecision making mechanism
qDifferent needs in customer organisations
qTiming
Business Environment
qAcceptability of the concept
qIdentified limiting factors for
commercialisation
qRegulation and legislation
qTaxation
qEconomic and political
situation
qSocial development
qEcological development
qMonitoring of changes in business
environment
qTiming
Collaboration Network
qForm of network needed for the
development (partnering, joint
venture, outsourcing etc)
qCommitment in the network
qReliability of the network
qIP and IPR
qExternal or internal funding
qAvailability of skilled experts
Market Environment
qMarket development
qChanges in market situation
qChanges in competing or
complementary products or services
qMarketing strategy
qMarket segmentation
qFirst idea of reference customers
qFirst idea of launching process
qTiming
qAbility to set measurable
objectives
qCapabilities for resource
allocation and funding
qLack of marketing and
financial experience
qMethods for searching
information
qComprehensiveness of the
information
qNetwork and network
relationship management
Management
Commercialisation
Technology
Idea / Value Proposition
qVisible excellence and superiority
of concept
qNovelty value to customer and
end-user
qStrategic alignment
qAttractiveness to stakeholders
qFit to competence
qAcceptability in markets
qRough business case
qFirst idea of product life cycle
qFirst idea of design
qFirst idea of IPR and branding
qTiming
qCurrent technological capabilities of the
company
qRapid changes in technology development
qMethods for monitoring changes in technology
development
qTechnical feasibility (technology maturity,
reliability and usability)
qPossible technology teething problems
qTime for adoption of new technology
qLife cycle of technology
qIPR
qTiming
Market need
qMethods for identification of market need
qNot objective customer need
qRapid changes in customer need
qCustomer resistance for change that new
concept bring
qDecision making mechanism
qDifferent needs in customer organisations
qTiming
Business Environment
qAcceptability of the concept
qIdentified limiting factors for
commercialisation
qRegulation and legislation
qTaxation
qEconomic and political
situation
qSocial development
qEcological development
qMonitoring of changes in business
environment
qTiming
Collaboration Network
qForm of network needed for the
development (partnering, joint
venture, outsourcing etc)
qCommitment in the network
qReliability of the network
qIP and IPR
qExternal or internal funding
qAvailability of skilled experts
Market Environment
qMarket development
qChanges in market situation
qChanges in competing or
complementary products or services
qMarketing strategy
qMarket segmentation
qFirst idea of reference customers
qFirst idea of launching process
qTiming
qAbility to set measurable
objectives
qCapabilities for resource
allocation and funding
qLack of marketing and
financial experience
qMethods for searching
information
qComprehensiveness of the
information
qNetwork and network
relationship management
Management
Analysis of risks can largely be done by experts using a Delphi procedure fulfilling four
key features of the Delphi procedure: anonymity, iteration, controlled feedback, and the
statistical aggregation of group response [32]. When assessing the risks and selecting and
prioritising risk reducing measures, one should consider both the likelihood and
consequences of the event [28]. For example, standard BS 8800 (1996) provides a

reference framework to aid in the determination of whether the risk is large or small. The
magnitude of risk can be expressed in words, such as trivial or intolerable, or by a
number, for example, from 1-25 [33]. The assessment of the magnitude of risk itself does
not make the risk larger or smaller but it helps to direct risk management measures
correctly and, in this way, to cost effectively increase the success potential of the new
innovation under development. Estimating uncertainty and the associated magnitude and
tolerability of risk is one part of our decision support process. Equally important is
estimating the magnitude of business potential. When both aspects are evaluated, the
process can be linked to standard portfolio management practices [34] used in companies.
The risk management procedure is described in more detail in Luoma and Paasi (2007)
[28].
7 Conclusions
In our study we have found that the front end and commercialisation phases of innovation
process are strongly linked through questions critical to both phases and through
personnel involved with both processes. The questions are related to seven categories:
market need, market environment, technology, idea / value proposition, business
environment, management and collaboration network.
In order to improve the linkage between the phases in practice, we have proposed a
new tool – a commercialisation risk map – to support the decision making at the front end
of innovation development in issues influencing the successful commercialisation of the
innovation. The proposed tool applies a generic risk management methodology. It offers
a practical way for fast qualitative evaluation of potential vulnerability factors for the
commercialisation of the innovation under development. The development work for the
risk map was initiated by the analysis of the empirical study on innovation development
practices in 12 major Finnish organisations, which revealed the need to link the front end
and commercialisation phases of innovation development. Also the content of the risk
map was strongly influenced by the empirical study.
The driving principle in the risk map has been to link the commercialisation and front
end phases of innovation development in a way that commercialisation related questions,
uncertainties, risks and opportunities are taken into account systematically from the very
beginning of the innovation process through the concept design and product development
phases to the launch. The risk map presented in this paper is for the front end, but similar
risk maps could be created also for the later phases of innovation life cycle. We believe
that the method promotes efficient use of resources in the innovation development and
increases the success potential of the innovation.
7 Acknowledgements
The authors thank Pekka Maijala, Pasi Valkokari, Jari Kettunen, Mervi Murtonen and
Maria Antikainen at VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland and Malkus Lindroos at
Helsinki University of Technology for useful discussions and comments. T.L. and J.P.
would like to thank Tekes – Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation –
for the support of the work through the INNORISK project.

References
1. Buckler, S.A. (1997) The spiritual nature of innovation. Research Technology
Management, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 43-47.
2. Zien, K. and Buckler, S.A. (1997) From Experience Dreams to Market: Crafting a
Culture of Innovation. European Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 14,
Elsevier Science Inc, pp. 274-287.
3. Koen, P.A., Ajamian, G.M., Boyce, S., Clamen, A., Fisher, E., Fountoulakis, S.,
Johnson, A., Puri, P. and Seibert R. (2002) Fuzzy Front End: Effective Methods, Tools,
and Techniques. In The PDMA Toolbook 1 for New Product Development, Belliveau, P.,
Griffin, A. and Somermeyer, S. (eds.), New York: Wiley, pp. 5-35.
4. Kim, J. and Wilemon, D. (2002) Strategic issues in managing innovation’s fuzzy front
end. European Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 5, No. 1, Elsevier
Science Inc, pp. 27-39.
5. Koen, P., Ajamian, G., Burkart, R., Clamen, A., Davidson, J., D’Amore, R., Elkins, C.,
Herald, K., Incorvia, M., Johnson, A., Karol, R., Seibert, R., Slavejkov, A. and Wagner,
K. (2001) Proving Clarity and Common Language to “Fuzzy Front End”. In Research
Technology Management March-April 2001, pp. 46-54.
6. Beard, C. and Easingwood, C. (1996) New product launch: Marketing action and launch
tactics for high-technology products, Industrial Marketing Management Vol. 25, No. 2,
pp. 87–103.
7. Guiltinan, J.P. (1999) Launch Strategy, Launch Tactics, and Demand Outcomes.
European Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 16, Elsevier Science Inc, pp
509-529.
8. Reid, S.E. and de Brentani, U. (2004) The Fuzzy Front End of New Product
Development for Discontinuous Innovations: A Theoretical Model. In Journal of Product
Innovation Management 2004, Vol. 21, pp. 170-184.
9. Buggie, F.D. (2002) Set the “Fuzzy Front End” in Concrete. In Research Technology
Management July-August 2002, pp. 11-14.
10. Trott, P. (2002) Innovation Management and New Product Development. Second
Edition. Prentice-Hall.
11. Kotler, P. and Keller, K.L. (2006)Marketing Management. 12th ed. Pearson Education
Inc. New Jersey. 120p.
12. Narayanan, V.K. (2000) Managing technology and Innovation for Competitive
Advantage. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, pp. 63-64.
13. Cooper, R.G. and Edgett, S.J. (2005) Lean, Rapid, and Profitable New Product
Development. Ancaster: Product Development Institute, pp. 42-43.
14. Moenaert, R.K., De Meyer, A., 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.
15. Griffin, A. and Hauser, J.R. (1996) Integrating R&D and marketing: A review and
analysis of the literature. European Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13, 3,
Elsevier Science Inc, pp. 191-215.
16. Song, X.M, Thieme, R.J. and Xie, J. (1998) The Impact of Cross-Functional Joint
Involvement Across Product Development Stages: An Exploratory Study. European
Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 15, Elsevier Science Inc, pp. 289-303.
17. Rein, G.L. (2004) FROM EXPERIENCE: Creating Synergy between Marketing and
Research and Development. European Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol.
21, Elsevier Science Inc, pp. 33-43.
18. Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1994) Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research. In
Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (eds). Handbook of Qualitative Research. SAGE
Publications.

19. Schwandt, T.A. (1994) Constructivist, Interpretivist Approaches to Human Inquiry. In
Handbook of Qualitative Research. Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.) SAGE
Publications.
20. Hatch, M.J. (1997) Organisation Theory. Modern, Symbolic-Interpretive and
Postmodern Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
21. Stake, R.E. (1994) Case Studies. In Denzin, N.K and Lincoln, Y.S. (eds). Handbook of
Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications.
22. Stake, R.E. (1995) The Art of Case Study Research. SAGE Publications, USA.
23. Kettunen, J., Ilomäki, S.-K., and Kalliokoski, P. (2007) Making Sense of Innovation
Management. Helsinki, Teknologiainfo Teknova. 229 p.
24. Hart, S. (1996) New Product Development. A Reader. The Dryden Press, London.
25. Gupta, A.K. and Wilemon, D.L. (1990) Accelerating the Development of Technology-
Based New Products. In California Management Review 1990, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 24-
44.Jolly, V.K. (1997) Commercialising New Technologies: Getting from Mind to
Market; Harvard Business School Press. 410 p.
26. Hultink, E.J., Griffin, A.J., Hart, S.J. and Robben, H.S.J. (1997)Industrial New Product
Launch Strategies and Product Development Performance, Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 14, Elsevier Science Inc, pp. 243-257.
27. Luoma, T. and Paasi, J. (2007) Commercialisation Success in Innovation Development,
in Proc. of The XVIII ISPIM Annual Conference Innovation for Growth. Torkkeli, M.,
Conn, S. and Bitran, I. (eds).
28. Bannermann, P.L. (2008) Risk and Risk Management in Software Projects: A
Reassessment. The Journal of Systems and Software, Accepted Manuscript.
doi:10.1016/j.jss.2008.03.059.
29. Suokas, J. and Kakko, R. (1993) Safety Analysis, Risk Analysis, Risk Management. In
Quality management of safety analysis. Suokas, J. and Rouhiainen, V. (eds.),
Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 9-10.
30. Ulleberg, T. (1993) Vulnerability analysis In Quality management of safety analysis.
Suokas, J. and Rouhiainen, V. (eds.), Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 78-83.
31. Rowe, G. and Wright, G. (1999) The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and
analysis. International Journal of Forecasting, Vol. 15, pp. 353-375.
32. BS 8800 (1996) Guide to occupational health and safety management systems. Annex A.
The British Standards Institution, BSI, London.
33. Cooper, R.G., Edgett, S.J. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (2001). Portfolio Management for
New Products, 2nd Ed. New York: Basic Books.