Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
FACTORS INFLUENCING THE FRONT END OF THE INNOVATIONPROCESS: A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF SELECTED EMPIRICAL
NPD AND EXPLORATIVE FFE STUDIES
Stefan HüsigManagement of Innovation and Technology
University of Regensburg - 93040 Regensburg, [email protected]
Stefan KohnFraunhofer Technologie EntwicklungsgruppeNobelstr. 12 - D-70569 Stuttgart, Germany
ABSTRACT In this paper we construct and propose an empirical-based research framework forthe so-called “Fuzzy Front End” (FFE) of the innovation process. While this part of theinnovation process that precedes the New Product Development (NPD) process offersthe largest optimisation potential for cost savings, quality improvements or time re-ductions, the term FFE is still ill defined and its influencing factors for success remainlargely unclear. Based on a comprehensive review of 66 large empirical-based NPDstudies that identify relevant influencing factors of Front End activities and 30 specificconceptual and explorative FFE papers, a comprehensive framework of influencingfactors for FFE-performance is proposed. The internal factors that seem to be most im-portant were consolidated in five clusters: strategy, culture, organisation, senior man-agement and process. Moreover, we mapped the external factors that have been ne-glected in many studies so far and that offer many possible topics for future research.Finally, our findings enable future researchers and practitioners to focus on the mostrelevant influencing factors of the FFE-performance which are identified by the aca-demic empirical-based literature in this field so far.
INTRODUCTION Innovation – the commercially successful conversion of ideas into products – isone of today’s core drivers of economy. Alas, academia has not yet identified the mostpromising activities, processes and strategies necessary to master successfully the earlysteps of the innovation process – the Fuzzy Front End (FFE). During the last yearsmuch research has been done in the NPD field especially its process optimisation. [89,95] Sadly only little is known about the FFE. Unfortunately there is not even anaccepted definition of the FFE [95, 164]. Even the terminology varies [95, 115, 164]. On the other hand many researchers agree on the fact that the room for improve-ment within the FFE is enormous. „The existing findings indicate the Front End proc-ess as having the largest potential for improvements at the least effort possible“. [115,147] These potentials haven’t been utilised so far. Therefore we want – based onresearch done so far – to accomplish three goals:
� Identification of most important influencing factors on the FFE� Identification of contradictions within the findings of past research and of fur-
ther research needs� Development of a framework for future FFE research
COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF FRONT END RELEVANT FINDINGS INEMPIRICAL NPD AND EXPLORATIVE FFE STUDIES In this section we provide a comprehensive review of 66 large empirical-basedNPD studies that identify relevant influencing factors of Front End activities and 30specific conceptual and explorative FFE papers. All identified success factors areselected for and evaluated from a holistic FFE perspective. Based on this insight wegive an overview of the key findings which are most significant for the FFE in the 66NPD-studies we have analysed. In contrast to the majority of the existing academicFFE-literature which is typically more conceptual [79, 127] or explorative [89, 142,156] than based on large samples of empirical research and often focuses on specificaspects of the FFE like uncertainty [164] or the speed of development [91, 151], we tryto give a more holistic and comprehensive overview of the influencing factors whichwere identified as most important to the FFE performance. Although the majority ofthe NPD research does not specifically focus on the FFE, we think that importantfindings can be revealed from these studies by evaluating them from a distinct FFEperspective.
Towards a Consistent Definition of the FFE Before we can provide a comprehensive review of the existing body of literatureour understanding of the term “Fuzzy Front End ” of innovation must be made clear.Apart from the fact that this term is still ill defined there are also a bunch of similarterms and models discussed in the literature which add on the vagueness of this phrase.So far several terms are used in the academic literature for the description of Front Endactivities of innovation, e. g. “predevelopment” [39, 147], “advanced development”[81, 25], “pre-project activities” [154], “Fuzzy Front End ” [43] or “pre-phase 0” [89]“Front End of Innovation” (FEI) [95] and even new models are introduced like theNew Concept Development (NCD) model from Koen [95]. On top of that there is aflood of neologisms invented by creative practitioners for similar purposes, activitiesor organisational entities in the early stages of the innovation process. Surprisingly,none of the FFE definitions or models seem to refer to the Front End related activitiesand issues which are discovered by researchers in areas like corporate entrepreneurship[17, 19] or knowledge management [121]. Most of the definitions roughly describe theFFE as “activities that take place prior to the formal, well-structured new product andprocess development or "Stage Gate (TM)" process” [95] or ranges from the genera-tion of an idea to either its approval for development or its termination [114]. Althoughthere seems to be a common pattern in the various definitions that the Front End ac-tivities precede the more formal NPD process [119] there is less agreement on whichactivities are included or excluded in the forefront of the FFE. At first it is remarkablethat Cooper [39, 41] integrated the Front End activities in his phased NPD modelrather than separated it, like Koen puts it in his definition [95]. Furthermore the Ger-man R&D literature emphasises the distinction between predevelopment and the pre-vious technology development and basic research which are in terms of a sequentialinnovation process model prior the FFE activities as defined above [147]. Specht et al.[147] focus on the application potential and outcomes of different R&D or innovationprocess phases as key variables to distinguish between predevelopment and other ac-tivities in the innovation process. By this perspective the bridging function [86, 128,16] of the predevelopment phase in the innovation process is highlighted. Thereforewe focus our attention on NPD studies that reveal insights compatible with ourunderstanding of the relevant Front End activities as defined below:
Preliminary Definition of FFE� Exclusive: General strategy formulation, pure technological knowledge creating
technology development and basic research, product concept implementation ac-tivities (NPD)
� Inclusive: Individual project strategy formulation, preliminary market & technol-ogy assessment and feasibility studies, concept definition, product and businessplanning, idea generation and selection, opportunity identification & analysis, con-struction of early prototypes, knowledge and people transferring, field testing andmarket experiments
Methodology: Selection and Analysis of the Reviewed StudiesSelection of the Reviewed Studies To conduct our literature analysis we focused on empirical studies in the NPDarea with large sample sizes, published by well-known researchers in respectedjournals and FFE studies which closer investigate Front End relevant influencingfactors.1 Due to our specific FFE perspective we chose NPD studies which complywith the upper criteria and offer specific insight on Front End related issues. Morespecific, the selected NPD studies explicitly had to cover FFE phases or activities.Furthermore we prioritised research efforts which concentrated on factors that the firmis able to influence. Typically success factor research in NPD focuses more on internalthan on external factors [159]. Nevertheless research which includes external entitieslike customers and suppliers was also added to our sample of NPD studies due to theirassumed relevance [15, 120, 83] and the controversial stances when it comes to the im-pact customers have on the performance of NDP and FFE activities [24, 133, 77, 99]. In parallel articles that covered the FFE have been researched. By a broad litera-ture and database research we wanted to identify all papers that contained the termFFE or one of the above mentioned aliases. Additionally we included studies that fo-cused on activities that are relevant to the FFE like idea generation. The identified FFEstudies which were reviewed for this paper are mainly conceptual and explorative incharacter. They are used in a complementary manner for closer investigation of FrontEnd relevant influencing factors and elements in order to compare their major findingswith the insight offered by the reviewed empirical based NPD studies through ourFront End lenses.
Analysis of the Selected StudiesThe analysis of the selected NPD studies was performed like that: First, we separated the identified success factors of the studies into two majorgroups, the activity & phase related factors with specific focus on the FFE and on“global” success factors which do not concentrate on a specific phase but on the entireinnovation process plus seem to be relevant for the FFE. Then we added sub-categoriesfor the various success factors which had close linkages of the contents. Second we consolidated the various ways to measure the success in the differentNPD studies into 12 major success categories. The analysis of the FFE studies was conducted in a similar way. However, due totheir mainly conceptual and explorative nature the findings are less robust. We sum-marised their key findings similar to the NPD overview and concentrated on resultslike identified Front End elements and major influencing factors to compare bothgroups of literature with each other.
1 We use an approach similar to Brown and Eisenhardt 1995 [15].
Comparability and Limitations of the Reviewed NPD and FFE Studies Our methodology raises the question if conventional NPD and specific FFE stud-ies can be used and compared to identify common influencing factors on the FFE per-formance. This question seems odd in the first place since the emerging field of re-search on the Front End was initiated by the revelation of its importance through NPDstudies [39, 21, 27]. On the other hand there are many of the practices carried out dur-ing the NPD which seem not apply to the FFE because the nature of the work, com-mercialisation date, funding level, revenue expectations and other factors are funda-mentally different [95, 139]. In comparison, the later activities of the NPD aretypically more structured, formalised and foreseeable which indicate a lesser degree ofuncertainty. However we believe that there are significant differences between the FFEand NPD activities but the critical success factor studies in the NPD area also coveredin part the FFE activities and so the analysis of their results can lead to FFE relevantinsights. Another major limitation of our approach can be found in the differences of theunderlying phased development process models that include or exclude various FFErelevant activities that might lead to over- or underestimation of the remaining phasesand activities [159]. There is also an ongoing discussion if phased process models are ameaningful description of the innovation process in general and for the FFE in par-ticular [155, 164, 95]. Additional obstacles which limit the comparability of FFE and NPD studies andtheir outcomes is rooted in the varying success measures. There are significantdifferences in the activities of both areas which result in part also in different ways tomeasure the success in the Front End [139, 61, 25]. The variety of measurements alsoadds to a limited comparability of the studies’ results. In contrast to the reviewed NDP studies the FFE papers are mainly conceptual andexplorative so that their contribution to identify success factors in the Front End mightbe seen as quite limited.
Identified Influencing Factors on Front End PerformanceThe Identified Influencing Factors on Front End Performance in NPD Studies We start the analysis with the activity & phase related influencing factors onFront End performance. Since the early studies of Cooper and Kleinschmidt (NewProdI) and their follow up studies [21, 48], (for a good overview: [94]) empirical evidenceappeared that certain activities in the innovation process are specifically critical for thesuccess of new products. The quality and integrity of these Front End activities seemto influence the NPD success [94]. This global insight is presented in more detail intable 1 and 2. The constancy of these findings over time seems to support the relevanceof the FFE activities [68, 15] although there is also some contradictory evidence [140].We organised the activities critical for success into broad phases to emphasise theirsimilarities in form and content. In the idea phase, idea generation activities were con-sidered as critical to enhance the success rate by [130] and [39]. An explicit initialscreening of the generated ideas seems to have a positive effect on almost any of thesuccess measures. Many studies in different industries showed this result e.g. [110, 64,65, 45, 48, 49, 51] or [9]. A higher success rate through customer involvement in theidea phase similar to the lead user approach [82] was found by Gruner and Homburg[74]. The existence of a initial screening stage which has a significant impact on thenew product outcome, reinforces the concept of a more structured FFE process. The next group of Front End activities was bundled under the label feasibility andpotential phase. These activities focus on the reduction of market, customer, competi-
tor/strategies [110] and technology uncertainty through information accumulation andassessment. Positive effects of a favourable external environment and of the prelimi-nary market and technical assessment have shown in many empirical NPD studies like[4, 22, 65, 65, 117, 144, 28, 39, 51, 8, 105, 133, 146] and others. Song and Parry [144]explicitly identified an improvement in financial success and PISM due to a structuredprocess for this part of the FFE process. Front End activities in regard to concept development and product specificationdefinition are considered as the most expensive and important in the FFE [94, 58].Interesting findings in this phase highlight the importance of clear defined productconcepts, customer value, target markets and a final evaluation & go/no-go decisione.g. [28, 135, 100, 94]. Also the formulation of a positioning strategy, a high level ofproject planing and the avoidance of novel product concepts with moderate innovativ-ness tends to improve the success rate [51, 144]. Again Gruner and Homburg [74]found some empirical evidence that customer involvement in this phase is favourablefor the new product outcome. The comprehensive overview of this insight is presentedin table 1 and 2. Beside of activity & phase related influencing factors on FFE performance weidentified “global” success factors which do not concentrate on a specific phase buton the entire innovation process plus seem to be relevant for the FFE. We organisedthem in table 3 and 4. Again, we tried to bundle the relevant influencing factors in aconsistent manner. The first area of interest touches the organisation and process of theproject and the project team. Most of the studies found empirical evidence in favourfor a cross-functional team configuration e.g. [9, 51, 55, 52, 53, 54, 88, 103]. Remark-able in this context that Wheelwright and Clark [160] identified specific predevelop-ment projects with pure engineering focus to be more appropriate than cross-functionalteams. Other research findings suggest specific human resources and roles which in-fluence the success of a innovation project like professional and experienced teammembers [150, 105] from different functions like marketing and engineering [48],strong project or team leaders [103] and product champions or promoters [51] with all-round management, marketing and technical skills [8, 138]. Their high levels of auton-omy and commitment have positive effects on the project outcome [150, 7, 54]. Thecore project team configuration is said to be more successful if it remains unchangedfor the existence of the project [51, 55, 52, 103]. Particularly with regard to the technological performance, intensive communica-tion seems to be an important factor [150, 133]. Intensive communication especiallybetween marketing and technical oriented people appears to be critical with a high fre-quency and quality of exchanged information [146, 7, 52, 162, 135]. High quality processes as indicator of new product success was supported by e.g.[9, 13, 49, 39]. Quality of activities, completeness and flexibility are attributes of asuccessful process according to [9, 52, 55] and others. Also review and go/kill decisiongates seem to be important for the project outcome [133, 55]. The influence and commitment of the senior management (SM) is a very robustfinding for new project success in the NPD literature [15]. A profound sympathy andunderstanding for the innovation imperative by the SM which transforms into clearobjectives for the FFE activities is fundamental for successful new products [88]. TheSM’s involvement in reviews and go/kill decisions has positive effects [52, 55] incontrast to permanent interfering and pressure on the project team [94]. Withoutsufficient resources - namely sufficient budget and skilled people - SM supportremains largely symbolic. The impact of inadequate resource commitment in the FFEphases was shown by Kleinschmidt et al. [94]. Interestingly, the budget allocation is
often in favour of the technical activities. All these findings and the appendantliterature sources can be found in table 3. Another prominent bundle of success factors span the influence of strategy andsynergy on the success of new product development. Basically, the empirical studiestend to result in the market-based-view of the Porter school [124, 123]: A new productproject will succeed if it fits with the existing firm competencies and products (tech-nological synergies, e.g. [28, 117, 53, 110, 165, 102, 144]) or covers the existing cus-tomer base and served markets (marketing/market synergies, e.g. [53, 138, 51]). Thelinkage between the new product’s strategy [33, 34, 54], the nature and orientation ofthe new product program and firm synergies [94, 40, 13, 146] lead to more successfulprojects than without a clear strategic orientation and bonding with the overall firmstrategy. In terms of the FFE that would mean that opportunities, ideas and productconcepts targeted towards the existing competencies, markets and products have ahigher likelihood of success. These results are complemented with findings that favoura low degree of newness to the firm and a low level of innovativness of the new prod-uct projects although also highly innovative products can enjoy surpassing success [94,28, 34, 53, 137]. As mentioned earlier there might be methodological problems thatfavour incremental outcomes in NPD studies. Moreover, the level of innovativness ofthe new product projects might be still unknown or uncertain in the FFE. The last cluster of factors relevant for the new product’s success is founded in theculture of the firm. Given the various methodological problems to measure organisa-tional culture [141, 63], the findings indicate that a strong orientation and commitmenttowards innovation leads to a higher likelihood of successful new product activities[35]. Typically, the existence of a product champion is seen as a part of a innovativeculture which leads to higher success rates and financial performance of new products[48, 9, 144, 133, 162]. The notion of the promoter is quite close to this concept [23,76]. An entrepreneurial climate can be created through providing extra resources to theemployees like scouting time, seed money to support “pet projects“ or a extensive tol-erance towards „skunk works“ which enhances the new product success [55, 52]. Thefindings relating to strategy, synergy and culture can be found in table 4.
The Identified Influencing Factors on Front End Performance in Specific FFE Studies By analysing the table 6 one can see that several topics seem to be a matter of in-tensive research and discussion, while other topics are covered only by single authors.Within the broad topic of FFE strategy several authors state that a close link tocorporate strategy is essential [5, 90, 91, 114, 115, 126, 142] and that a clear visionalong with clear objectives for the FFE have to be established early on [5, 91, 96, 108,114, 115, 126, 154, 164]. The specific FFE strategy should concentrate on a fastrisk/uncertainty reduction [79, 80, 111, 142, 154, 155, 164] by aggregating relevantknow-how and information [5, 79, 80, 87, 154, 155] as fast as possible [91, 96, 142] inorder to reach the set objectives. For controlling purposes and to efficiently manage theFFE the use of metrics is advised by several authors [96, 108, 126, 127, 142]. Besides strategy the topic of corporate culture is frequently mentioned. Especiallythe topic of collaborative culture is stressed as one core success factor of FFE activities[96, 108, 111, 142, 154]. While the close collaboration has been researched by severalauthors other important issues that are needed to exploit the benefits of a collaborativeculture were subject of individual research efforts. Koen stresses the fact that corecompetencies and capabilities have to be communicated within a company in order tobe successful [96]. Khurana and Rosenthal address the similar issue of linkingcorporate strategy to corporate culture [90] to guarantee the right direction of organ-
isational creativity [113, 114, 142]. But in order to start this creative engine motiva-tional aspects have to be considered. While Reinertsen [126] only asks for sufficientresources in general Kim/Wilemon as well as Koen [91, 96] promote reward systemfor FFE activities as well as free time for creativity [96]. The issue of collaborative culture goes in line with the advise to utilise cross-functional teams for FFE projects [5, 80, 91, 92, 96, 115, 142, 152]. While this fo-cuses on the issue of interdepartmental collaboration the involvement of senior man-agement early on is advised by many researchers as well in order to warrant sufficientresources and commitment [90, 91, 92, 96, 108, 114, 142]. But not only a close net-work horizontally and vertically within a company seems advisable, also externallinkages seem to contribute positively to the FFE [69, 91, 92, 96, 107, 108, 114, 142,152, 164]. This networked organisation of the FFE activities is especially important ifthe idea sourcing process is seen as an passive process that relies on tools like elec-tronic databases which are promoted by several authors [96, 107, 112, 113]. Unfortu-nately only Ettlie has examined the contribution of the several possible actors withinthe FFE and their contribution towards the idea generation. The active search for idease.g. by conduction brainstorming sessions is discussed by four authors [96, 107, 112,158]. For the further deployment of ideas several process models have been presented,most of them following a stage-gate system with two stages and gates. However, theseare not identical phases and stages. By close examination different stages and can beidentified: One early detection or opportunity identification stage [26, 89, 95, 96, 107,115, 156] in which external changes and trends will be analysed and translated intopotential business opportunities. The following stage deals with the preliminary defi-nition of an idea or concept [26, 95, 96, 112, 113, 142] which is accompanied by acredibility seeking phase [26, 97, 107, 114]. Probably especially during this stage theneed for idea champions, which have been identified for FFE success by differentauthors [90, 96, 97] is the highest. This stage leads to an idea selection gate [95, 96,112, 142, 156]. Most promising ideas are subject to an intensive search [26, 107, 142]or refined respectively detailed product, project or concept definition phase [26, 80,89, 90, 95, 96, 112, 113, 115, 156]. The final gate leads to a dedicated new product de-velopment project and is labelled product or project evaluation gate [112, 113, 114,115, 142]. Interesting to note is the fact that all authors except for [96] describe onlytwo possible exists of the FFE: The death of an idea or concept or the transition into aformal development project. Koen is the only one who asks for "mechanisms to handleideas outside scope of established business" [96]. Regarding the FFE process itself it isinteresting to note that on the one hand many authors opt for a formal process [70, 79,90, 91, 96, 108, 142, 154] facilitated by several methods and tools [79, 87, 91, 96,112, 113, 114, 134, 154, 156, 158] but on the other hand several authors argue thatthere is no ideal FFE process [90, 115, 126, 127].
Analysis of the Identified Influencing Factors on Front End Performance: Com-parisons, Contradictions and Implications The stable results concentrate mainly on the topics of process, organisation andcollaboration. Some sort of stage gate process which leads to a detailed, precise,structured and clear new product concept ideally consists of the stages of early oppor-tunity detection and analysis, idea generation, refinement and selection as well as thefinal concept generation and testing. Those activities should be performed by a cross-functional team backed by senior management and with sufficient resources. This teamshould be the centre of a close network consisting of links to all departments within acompany as well as outside the company. This network should be used by the
Tabl
e 1:
Res
ults
from
the
NPD
stu
dies
: Act
ivity
& p
hase
rela
ted
influ
enci
ng fa
ctor
s on
Fro
nt E
nd p
erfo
rman
ce in
clud
ing
vario
ussu
cces
s m
easu
res
Succ
ess
Rat
e (F
aile
d/St
oppe
d vs
. Suc
cess
ful P
roje
cts)
Tim
e (O
n-tim
e, E
ffici
ency
, Cyc
le-ti
me)
Fina
ncia
l Suc
cess
(Pro
fitab
ility,
Com
mer
cial
Suc
cess
, F. I
ndex
)TP
/Tec
hnol
ogic
al P
erfo
rman
ce (Q
ualit
y of
Pro
duct
, Inn
ovat
ion,
Inst
alla
tion)
Ove
rall
Succ
ess
(Top
-Per
form
er, P
erfo
rman
ce In
dex)
OT/
Achi
evem
ent o
f Obj
ectiv
es/T
asks
PISM
(Pro
gram
Impa
ct, S
ales
, Mar
ket S
hare
, Sal
es G
row
th R
ate)
WoO
/Win
dow
of O
ppor
tuni
tySM
/Sen
ior M
anag
emen
t’s P
erce
ptio
n of
the
Inno
vatio
n Pe
rform
ance
C/C
ost E
ffici
ency
/Cos
t Con
trol
KH/K
now
-How
of t
he E
mpl
oyee
sIm
age
(Cus
tom
er’s
Per
cept
ion
of th
e In
trodu
ced
New
Pro
duct
s)
Succ
ess
Rat
eFi
nanc
ial S
ucce
ssO
vera
ll Su
cces
sPI
SMTi
me
TPO
TW
oOPh
ase:
Idea
Idea
Gen
erat
ion
[39]
[130
]
In
itial
Scr
eeni
ng[1
10]
[64]
[45]
[50]
[9]
[49]
[64]
[51]
[64]
Cus
tom
er In
volv
emen
t[7
4]
[74]
Phas
e: F
easi
bilit
y &
Pot
entia
l
Pr
elim
inar
y M
arke
t Ass
essm
ent
[4]
[72]
[44]
[40]
[50]
[49]
[6
4][5
1]
[6
4]
[117
]
[45]
[64]
[5
4]
[65]
[2
2]
[39]
[65]
[4
]
Av
aila
bilit
y of
Mar
ket i
nfor
mat
ion
[135
]
Mar
ket A
naly
sis
[117
]
Tar
get M
arke
t[5
8]
[58]
[46]
[50]
[49]
[5
8][5
1]
[58]
[40]
[47]
[5
4]
[4
5]
Mar
ket S
ize
[117
]
Cus
tom
er A
naly
sis
[28]
[30]
P
rice
Sens
itivi
ty[2
8][3
0][1
10]
Buy
ing
Patte
rns
[28]
[30]
N
eeds
, Pre
fere
nces
, Req
uire
men
ts[1
33]
[105
][1
10]
[8]
[45]
[40]
[3
5][3
8][1
46]
[1
46]
[30]
[28]
[117
]
[46]
[47]
[3
6][3
7]
Pr
oduc
t Acc
epta
nce
Test
ing
[5
1]
Com
petit
ion
Anal
ysis
[51]
Com
petit
or’s
Pro
duct
Stra
tegi
es[1
10]
Tabl
e 2:
Res
ults
from
the
NPD
stu
dies
: Act
ivity
& p
hase
rela
ted
influ
enci
ng fa
ctor
s on
Fro
nt E
nd p
erfo
rman
ce in
clud
ing
vario
ussu
cces
s m
easu
res
Succ
ess
Rat
eFi
nanc
ial S
ucce
ssO
vera
ll Su
cces
sPI
SMTi
me
TPO
TW
oOPh
ase:
Fea
sibi
lity
& P
oten
tial
Pr
elim
inar
y Te
chni
cal A
sses
smen
t[7
2] [4
4][4
0][5
0]
[6
4][5
1]
[6
4]
[22]
[45]
[64]
[6
5]
[3
9][6
5]
Te
chn.
Res
ourc
es a
nd S
kills
[22]
Avai
labi
lity
of t
echn
ical
Info
rmat
ion
[1
44]
[144
]
[135
]
[144
]D
etai
led
Stud
ies
D
etai
led
Mar
ket S
tudi
es/M
arke
t Res
earc
h[2
7][3
3][1
17][
44]
[40]
[3
3][3
7][4
][5
1]
[1
10]
[22]
[4]
[45]
[3
5][3
8]
[3
9]
[3
6][5
4]
Det
aile
d Bu
sine
ss a
nd F
inan
cial
Ana
lysi
s[1
17]
[44]
[39]
[65]
[54]
[6
5][5
1]
[45]
[40]
[50]
St
ruct
ured
Fro
nt E
nd P
roce
ss
[144
]
[1
44]
[1
44]
Phas
e: C
once
pt
Prod
uct S
peci
ficat
ion
[28]
[117
] [1
35]
[46]
[49]
[5
8][5
1][1
35]
[58]
[30]
[110
] [5
8][4
7]
[54]
[58]
[45]
[40]
Cus
tom
er V
alue
[49]
[54]
[5
1]
Prod
uct A
dvan
tage
s[5
8]
[5
8]
[5
8]
[5
8]
Targ
et M
arke
t
Inte
rnat
iona
l[9
4]
[9
4]
[9
4]
C
lear
Pro
duct
Con
cept
[58]
[47]
[50]
[49]
[5
8][5
1]
[58]
[144
]
[58]
[45]
[40]
[144
][5
4]
[46]
[1
44]
Cus
tom
er In
volv
emen
t[7
4]
[7
4]
[7
4]
Po
sitio
ning
Stra
tegy
[49]
[51]
[54]
Leve
l of P
roje
ct p
lani
ng
[135
]
Eval
uatio
n +
Go/
No-
Go
Dec
isio
n
[1
44]
[144
]
[144
]
Tabl
e 3:
Res
ults
from
the
NPD
stu
dies
: “G
loba
l” in
fluen
cing
fact
ors
on F
ront
End
per
form
ance
incl
udin
g va
rious
suc
cess
mea
sure
s
Succ
ess
Rat
eFi
nanc
ial S
ucce
ssO
vera
ll Su
c.PI
SMTi
me
TPC
WoO
SMPr
ojec
t Org
aniz
atio
n &
Pro
cess
C
ross
-Fun
ctio
nal T
eam
[5
0][5
3][5
5][4
9][5
3][5
2][5
0][5
3]
[52]
[54]
[42]
[73]
[55]
[51]
[5
3]
[54]
Stro
ng P
roje
ct-/T
eam
Lea
der [
72]
[52]
[55]
[133
][4
9][5
2][1
33]
[133
][1
33]
[55]
[51]
Inte
nsiv
e C
omm
unic
atio
n
[52]
[133
][5
2]
[135
]
[5
5]
[1
35]
[5
5]
[150
]
Hig
h Q
ualit
y Pr
oces
ses
[5
0][9
][5
5][1
4]
[1
4]
[5
2][7
3]
Se
nior
Man
agem
ent
In
fluen
ce a
nd C
omm
itmen
t[2
3][6
][1
35]
[144
]
[88]
[50]
[135
]
[144
][1
50]
[7
][1
05]
[55]
[5
2]
[52]
[145
]
[55]
[1
44]
Su
ffici
ent R
esou
rces
[1
35]
[162
][5
5]
[52]
[157
][5
2]
[55]
Su
ppor
t & R
espo
nsib
ilitie
s[7
2][5
2]
[52]
[1
35]
[150
]
[55]
[55]
[1
57]
Tabl
e 4:
Res
ults
from
the
NPD
stu
dies
: “G
loba
l” in
fluen
cing
fact
ors
on fr
ont e
nd p
erfo
rman
ce in
clud
ing
vario
us s
ucce
ss m
easu
res
Succ
ess
Rat
eFi
nanc
ial S
ucce
ssO
vera
ll Su
c.PI
SMTi
me
TPC
WoO
KH
Imag
eSt
rate
gy &
Syn
ergy
Pr
oduc
t Stra
tegy
[33]
Nat
ure
and
Orie
ntat
ion
of th
e P
rogr
am
[
33]
Low
Lev
el o
f In
nova
tivne
ss[3
3]
[33
][3
4][3
4]
New
ness
to th
e Fi
rm[3
2][5
3][5
0][4
2][5
3][5
0]
[5
3][4
8]
Tech
nolo
gica
l Syn
ergi
es[2
9][1
17]
[146
][5
3] [
33]
[98]
[50]
[146
]
[9
8][9
8]
[31]
[53]
[45]
[144
][3
4][4
2][5
3]
[32]
[110
][4
0][3
5][3
8][1
09]
[3
4][1
65]
[98]
[36]
[144
]
[14]
[102
][5
0]
[37
]
M
arke
ting/
Mar
ket S
yner
gies
[102
][1
65]
[42]
[33]
[50]
[144
] [9
8][9
8]
[33]
[138
][9
8][3
3][9
8]
[34]
[8]
[144
][3
4]
[14]
[
48]
[1
44]
Firm
Syn
ergi
es[2
9][1
17]
[45]
[98]
[98]
[14]
[9
8][9
8]
[31]
[53]
[46]
[40]
[48]
[53]
[1
4][1
10]
[47]
[53]
[42
]
C
ultu
re
Inno
vativ
e O
rient
atio
n an
d C
omm
itmen
t
[3
5][3
7]
[
36]
[38]
Pr
oduc
t Cha
mpi
on[1
32]
[50]
[105
][4
9]
[1
62]
[145
]
[9]
Entre
pren
euria
l Clim
ate
[52]
[52]
[5
5]
[55]
team and other members of the organisation for intensive communication and fosteringcorporate creativity. Corporate strategy as well as clear objectives for FFE activitiesand the awareness and communication of corporate competencies and capabilities actas a boundary of the network in order to guide these activities. Despite this picture of aquite democratic organisation in which all members can and should contribute forcorporate innovation the fact that individuals in the role of champions and promotersplay a key role is stressed in the above mentioned studies as well.
Table 6: Overview of the success factors identified in the FFE studies examined
Technical SuccessCommercial Success
InnovativenessGo for development Uncertainty reductionOverall success
Conceptual Studies
Technical Success
Commercial Success
Innova-tiveness
Go for development
Uncertainty reduction
Overall success
I StrategyLink to corporate strategy 90, 91, 114, 115, 126, 142 5clear vision & objectives 91, 96, 108, 114, 115, 126, 164 5 154FFE Strategy- Fast risk/uncertainty reduction 142, 155, 164 111 79, 80, 111, 154 79, 80- efficient Management of information 87, 155 5 79, 80 ,154 79, 80- Focus on speed 91, 96, 142Use of metrics 96, 108, 126, 127, 142
II CultureCommunication of core compe-tencies / link to corporate strategy 90, 96Organisational creativity 114, 142 113 113Idea Champions 90, 96 97Collaborative culture 96, 108, 142 111 111, 154Team motivation 92- Reward systems 91, 96- Free time for creativity 96- Sufficient Resources 126
III Project & Process OrganisationCross-Functional Team 91, 92, 96, 115, 142 5 , 152 152 152 79 79External Linkages for ideation and exploitation 91, 92, 96, 107, 108, 114, 142, 164 69, 152 69, 152 152- customer involvement 96Idea sourcing as active process 96, 107, 112 158Idea sourcing as passive process 142, 107, 112 113 113- use of electronic databases 96, 107, 112 113 113- R&D as idea source 69 69- Marketing as idea source 69 69- One central responsible person for idea administration 96No Ideal Process 90, 115, 127, 126Formal process 70, 90, 91, 96, 108, 142 111 79, 111, 154 79Use of tools and methods 8, 79, 87, 91, 96, 112, 113, 114, 134 158 154, 156
IV Senior ManagementInfluence and Commitment 90, 91, 96, 108, 114, 142Resources allocation 92Support & Responsibilities
V ProcessPhase: Problem Definition 107, 114Phase: Detection/Opportunity recognition 26, 89, 96, 107, 115 95 156Gate: Opportunity Analysis 96 95Phase: Preliminary idea/concept 26, 96, 112, 142 113 113 95 156Phase: Credibility Seeking 26, 107, 114 97Gate: Idea Selection 96, 112, 142 95 156Phase: Intense search/refined product/concept/Idea 26, 89, 90, 96, 107, 112, 115, 142 113 113 95 80, 156 80Gate: Product/Project Evaluation 112 ,114, 115, 142 113 113Mechanisms to handle ideas outside scope of established business 96
(reworks; unexpected events, Cost variance, Time Variance, sufficient resources, efficiency, effectiveness)(obtained funding)
(Achievement of project specifications within time and budget, # design change requests, # actual changes, record of time it takes to develop new products, how many are developed and launched)(ROI, Market share, average % of company financial returns over a period of 4 years)(perceived sales and profit growth compared with competitors, contribution to turnover by new products, subjective measures, Quantity and Quality of ideas)
While most studies assume a linear relation between potential success factors andsuccess measures two curvilinear relations could be identified. Ernst [68] shows thatthe influence of customer involvement can be negative on NPD success if it is exag-gerated. A curvilinear relation between process formalisation and FFE success can befound in the study of Moenart [111]. These two studies as well as the articles thatpostulate that there is no ideal FFE process show that it might be possible that compa-nies can carry some FFE activities out too excessively. Many FFE studies onlydifferentiate whether certain activities are carried out by successful companies or not.The level of execution is frequently no subject of research. Therefore the relationbetween proficiency of execution and FFE success which is often assumed to be linearcould be curvilinear as well. But so far no answer can therefore be given to thequestion of the right intensity of execution. Too much external collaboration, toodetailed research of raw ideas could lead to delays in the FFE and rape the benefits ofthese activities. So far no real focus can be concluded within the set of success factors.E.g. in the field of interdepartmental collaboration and cross-functional teams moststudies advise the involvement of as many different disciplines as possible. On theother hand Ettlie [69] reveals that some departments like marketing and R&D are moreimportant than others who might even harm the ideation process. Other unanswered questions remain in some fields that have been touched only byindividual authors. Koen e.g. asks for alternative exits of the FFE. In case e.g. a soundbusiness concept does not fit corporate strategy, how else can the generated intellectualproperty harvested. Koen questions the appropriateness of current screens andselection criteria since he identified the personal attributes of the idea promoter asmost important differentiating factor. Additional unacknowledged problems are more related to future academical re-search. The influence of the types of innovation, industry specific differences, stage ofproduct/industry/technology life cycle, different strategies, age and structures of thefirm, external technology and market dynamics are contextual factors that have beenset constant or ignored in most of the studies. How these interact and influence FFEactivities is an unanswered question. On a more micro level some interesting variables remained largely untouched likethe influence of the type of technology, size of project and interrelations betweenprojects in a historical perspective due to the fact that most NPD and FFE studies aredominated by a view on singular projects, treating the unit of analysis as a timeless andlonely phenomenon [67]. Even the most important questions in order to identify success factors is stillwidely unanswered: "How can FFE success be measured?". While the NPD studies useestablished success measures these measures normally account for company success orNPD success at the end of the development process. Those factors are only influencedby the FFE in a indirect manner. Direct measures for FFE have been used in some fewindividual studies but so far no established set of measures could be identified. Finally some criticism has to be made: From a strategic perspective, the recom-mendations by most empirical success factor studies appear to be quite conservative asthey suggest a innovation strategy that is based on the principle of “a cobbler shouldstick to his last”. Given the methodical challenges above mentioned, examples of suc-cessful diversification through innovation strategies like 3M [57], the long term conse-quences of such a narrow approach and contradictive views from the fields of corpo-rate venturing [56] or strategy [125, 24], the generalisation of this results for the FFEseems debatable. This leads to the insight that the FFE and strategy interface needs tobe further explored.
TOWARDS AN EMPIRICAL-BASED FRAMEWORK FOR THE FUZZYFRONT END A clearly stated and agreed-upon definition and framework would make it easierfor researchers to build on each other’s work, and for practitioners to decide whetherresearch findings are applicable to their situation. Because the field of FFE research isstill in its infancy, neither a universally acceptable definition nor a dominant FFEframework has been developed so far. Based on our comprehensive review of the rele-vant NPD and the FFE literature we will propose a larger scaled FFE framework whichidentifies the major influencing factors. This framework represents one effort to sys-tematise the influencing factors in the field of the FFE research. In developing thisframework we go from a general to a specific point of view in order to clarify the ex-isting boundaries of the phenomena of interest, and illustrate the territory it covers.
Influencing Contingency FactorsAs stated earlier in this paper, typically success factor research in NPD or FFE
focuses more on internal than on external factors. Nevertheless we will also include thegreater environment in our framework to show the interrelations with the FFE [164],[143]. There is no final evidence that would allow to exclude these factors ex ante in aFFE framework [75]. It seems that some of the inconsistent findings and recommenda-tions for the FFE are caused by moderating factors influenced by specific characteris-tics of contextual determinants which are often ignored or set constant in NPD studies[159]. The influence of contingency factors is a function of several interrelated factors,including the level of competition [28], the size and growth of the market [45], thestage of the industry life cycle [1, 149], the length of product and technology life cy-cles, the technological change rate [164], and the level of industry innovation [15] thateffect different levels of the strategy a firm chooses [11, 123] and ultimately the per-formance of the innovation activities. In slow-cycle markets, firms may effectivelycompete over relatively long periods of time if they possess the knowledge and capa-bilities needed to execute accepted industry recipes. By contrast, in fast-cycle marketsdescribed as high-velocity environments [66] and hyper-competition, firms must beconcerned with identifying and acquiring the knowledge and capabilities needed tocompete effectively in uncertain futures. Learning is often regarded as the only sus-tainable source of advantage in such markets [161]. The qualities of slow- and fast cycle markets have implications for the strategyand the type of FFE design likely to be chosen by firms [85, 86]. Therefore theinfluencing factors on FFE performance might also vary due to different cultures andstructures [61] and strategic objectives that fit to the competitive environment [123,124]. E.g., fast-cycle markets require a different outlook on resources and capabilitiesin problem-solving strategies that are appropriate in the innovation process [15]. Firmsthat operate in such markets must be more cognisant of the need for dynamiccapabilities that enable the firm to realise continuous renewal through entrepreneurialinitiatives [84]. Such initiatives will often be outside the scope of the familiar anddesigned to bring new knowledge or capabilities to the firm [163]. Therefore, theinfluencing factors on FFE performance might vary between Front End processes de-signed for creating new capabilities and markets than just leveraging primarily existingresources or capabilities. These environmental influences presumably affect the maininfluencing factors we identified. We tried to integrate these factors into the FFEframework. It shows a FFE focused view with the less influenceable environmentalfactors in concentric circles around the more controllable factors by the management inthe middle of the circles as you can see in figure 2.
Influencing Controllable Factors The elements within the circles represent the organisation especially the parts thatare relevant for the FFE. The centre is the learning organisation since ultimately FFEsuccess results from the aggregation and interpretation of new information. The learn-ing is mainly influenced by the three surrounding triangles. The senior managementacts as a translator of corporate strategy and gives guidance. Horizontal co-operationguarantees the spreading of the corporate capabilities and competencies as well as theircontinuous improvement. If those elements can evolve in an entrepreneurial climatecorporate creativity will lead to FFE success. Carrying out these activities by a dedi-cated cross-functional team with a sufficient amount of time, monetary and human re-sources tends to influence the FFE performance positively. This team must be seen asa part of the organisation but it should be a entity on its own which is well networkedwithin the organisation. This team is responsible for passively collecting ideas withinand from outside the organisation as well as actively “producing” new ideas. Thoseideas will be processed using tools and methods in order to develop them in somehowdefined yet flexible process into precise project respectively business plans. Thoseplans will than transferred into the organisation or exploited outside if appropriate.
Figure 2: FFE Framework.
FUTURE RESEARCH CHALLENGES Further future research challenges in the FFE area could be found on a more microlevel like the influence of the type of technology, size of project and interrelationsbetween projects in a historical perspective due to the fact that most NPD and FFEstudies are dominated by a view on singular projects, treating the unit of analysis as atimeless and lonely phenomenon [67]. In addition, new and different success criteriafor the FFE need to be found. While the NPD studies use established success meas-ures, these measures normally account for company success or NPD success at the end
Cross-functional FFE team (People, Time, Budget)
Firm ContextFirm ContextSize Age
Organisational Macro Structure
Industry ContextIndustry Context
MarketDynamic
TechnologyDynamic
StructureAge
Length of Product Life Cycle
Length of Technology Life Cycle
Regulation
Macro EnvironmentMacro Environment
NaturalResources
SozioCulture
ResearchInstitutions
and UniversitiesTechnological
and SocialProgress
Less Influenceableby the Management
SeniorManagement
HorizontalCo-operation
CorporateCreativity
LearningOrganisation
Opportunity/Problem
Embryonic idea/concept
Detailed idea
Project/Business Plan
Strategy
Capabilities/Competencies
Culture,Entrepreneu-rial Climate
CustomersSuppliers
Competitors
Ideas
Opportunitie
s
Tools and Methods
of the development process. Those factors are only influenced by the FFE in a indirectmanner so better ones have to emerge. We believe that this framework provides a better foundation for future researchactivities. The possible relations and the degree of importance of the different elementsamong the influencing factors have to be subject to empirical research for a betterfoundation of the FFE. A broader view through interdisciplinary research could also bebeneficial. The examination of interconnections and similarities between the FFE andother research fields could help to further improve the FFE efficiency and ef-fectiveness. For some fields initial evidence of relevance is existent. Burgelmann andother scholars revealed Front End relevant findings in the field of corporate entrepre-neurship [17, 19], Pizarro Moreno in the field of knowledge management [121]. Butother areas like entrepreneurship, strategy, corporate venturing, creativity, networkmanagement, human behaviour and others could provide relevant insights as well. Therefore the FFE not only enables improvement of the overall NPD process, theFFE also offers many possible and different research topics and approaches.
REFERENCES[1] Abernathy,W. J. and Utterback, J. M. (1978) Patterns of Industrial Innovation. In: Strategic
Management of Technology and Innovation (Eds, Burgelman, R. A., Maidique, M. A. andWheelwright, S. C.) Irwin, Chicago u.a.O., pp. 154-160.
[2] Anschuetz, Ned F.,(1996): Evaluating Ideas and Concepts for New Consumer Products, in:Rosenau et al. (PDMA Handbook, 1996), S. 195-206.
[3] APQC (1998): Managing Innovation for New Product Development: The Fuzzy Front End,Houston 1998.
[4] Atuahene-Gima, K. (1995): An Exploratory Analysis of the Input of Market Orientation on NewProduct Performance. A Contingency Approach, in: Journal of Product Innovation Management,Jg. 12, S. 275-293
[5] Bacon / Glenn / Beckman / Sara / Mowery / David / Wilson / Edith, (1994): Managing Prod-uct Definition in High-Technology Industries: A Pilot Study, in: California Management Review,Spring 1994, S. 32-56.
[6] Baker, N.R.; Green, S.G.; Bean, A.S. (1986): Why R&D Projects Succeed or Fail, in ResearchTechnology Management, Jg. 29 (6), S. 29-34
[7] Balachandra, R., (1984): Critical Signals for Making Go/NoGo Decisions in New Product De-velopment, in: Journal of Product Innovation Management, Jg. 1 (2), S. 92-100
[8] Balbontin, A.; Yazdani, B. et al., (1999): New Product Development Success Factors in Ameri-can and British Firms, in: Internat. Journal of Technology Management, Jg. 17 (3), S. 259-279
[9] Barczak, G. (1995): New Product Strategy, Structure, Process, and Performance in Telecommu-nications Industry, in: Journal of Product Innovation Management, Jg. 12, S. 224-234
[10] Belliveau, Paul/Griffin, Abbie/Sommermeyer, Stephen (Hrsg.) (2002): The PDMA ToolBookfor New Product Development
[11] Bourgeois, L. J. (1980) Strategy and Environment: A Conceptual Integration. Academy ofManagement Review, 5, 25-40.
[12] Bowen, H. K., Clark, K. B., Holloway, C. A. and Wheelwright, S. C. (1994) DevelopmentProjects: The Engine of Renewal. Harvard Business Review, 72, 110-119.
[13] Brentani de, U. (1989): Success and Failure in New Industrial Services, in: Journal of ProductInnovation Management, Jg. 6, S. 239-258
[14] Bretani de, U.; Dröge, C. (1988): Determinants of the New Product Screening Decision. AStructural Model Analysis, in: International Journal of Research in Marketing, Jg. 5, S. 91-106
[15] Brown, S. L. and Eisenhardt, K. M. (1995) Product development: Past research, presentfindings, and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 20, 343-378.
[16] Bucher, P., Birkenmeier, B., Brodbeck, H. and Escher, J. P. (2003) Management principlesfor evaluating and introducing disruptive technologies. R&D Management, 33, 149 - 163.
[17] Burgelman, R. A. (1983) A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversifiedmajor firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 223-244.
[18] Burgelman, R. A. and Grove, A. (1996) Strategic dissonance. California Management Review,32, 8-28.
[19] Burgelman, R. A. and Sayles, L. R. (1986) Inside Corporate Innovation, New York.
[20] Burkart, Robert E. (1994): Reducing R&D Cycle Time, in: Research Technology Management,May-June 1994, S. 27-32.
[21] Calantone, R. and Cooper, R. G. (1979) A discriminant model for investigating scenarios ofindustrial new product failures. Journal of the Academy of the Marketing Science.
[22] Calantone, R.J.; Schmidt, J.B.; di Benedetto, C.A. (1997): New Product Activities and Per-formance: The Moderation Role of Environmental Hostility, In Journal of Product InnovationManagement, Jg. 14, S. 179-189
[23] Chakrabarti, A.K. (1974): The Role of Champions in New Product Development, in CaliforniaManagement Review, S.58-62
[24] Christensen, C. M. (1997) The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause GreatFirms to Fail, Harvard Business School Press, Boston/Massachusetts.
[25] Cohen, H., Keller, S. and Streeter, D. (1979) The Transfer of Technology from Research toDevelopment. In Strategic Management of Technology and Innovation (Eds, Burgelman, R. A.,Maidique, M. A. and Wheelwright, S. C.) Irwin, Chicago u.a.O., pp. 533-541.
[26] Conway, H. Allan/ McGuiness, Normann W., (1986): Idea Generation in Technology-BasedFirms, in: Journal of Product Innovation Management, 4, S. 276-291.
[27] Cooper, R.G. (1975): Why new products fail, in: Industrial Marketing Management, Jg. 4, S.315-326
[28] Cooper, R.G. (1979a): Identifying Industrial New Product Success: Project NewProd, in:Industrial Marketing Management, Jg.8, S.136-144
[29] Cooper, R.G. (1979b): The Dimensions of Industrial New Product Success and Failure, in:Journal of Marketing, Jg. 43(3), S. 93-103
[30] Cooper, R.G. (1980a): How to Identify New Product Winners, in: Research Management, Jg.23,S. 10-19
[31] Cooper, R.G. (1980b): Project NewProd: Factors in New Product Success, in: European Journalof Marketing, Jg. 14, S. 277-292
[32] Cooper, R.G. (1981): An Empirical Derived New Product Project Selection Model, in: IEEETransactions on Engineering Management, Jg. EM-28 (3), S. 54-61
[33] Cooper, R.G. (1983): The Impact of New Product Strategies, in: Industrial MarketingManagement, Jg. 12 (4), S. 243-256
[34] Cooper, R.G. (1984a): How New Product Strategies Impact on Performance, in: Journal ofProduct Innovation Management, Jg. 1, S. 5-18
[35] Cooper, R.G. (1984b): New Product Strategies: What distinguishes the Top-Performers, InJournal of Product Innovation Management, Jg. 2, S. 151-164
[36] Cooper, R.G. (1984c): The Performance Impact of Product Innovation Strategies, in: EuropeanJournal of Marketing, Jg. 18 (4), S. 1-54
[37] Cooper, R.G. (1984d): The Strategy-Performance Link in Product Innovation, in R&DManagement, Jg. 14 (4), S. 247-259
[38] Cooper, R.G. (1986): New Product Performance and Product Innovation Strategies, in: ResearchManagement, Jg. 29 (3), S. 17-25
[39] Cooper, R.G. (1988): Predevelopment Activities Determine New Product Success, in: IndustrialMarketing Management, Jg. 17 (3), S. 237-247
[40] Cooper, R.G. (1990): What Distinguishes the Winners, in: Research Technology Management,Jg.33 (6), S.27-31
[41] Cooper, R. G. (1994a) Perspective third-generation new product processes. Journal of ProductInnovation Management, 11, 3-14.
[42] Cooper, R.G. (1994b): Debunking the Myths of New Product Development, in: ResearchTechnology Management, Jg. 37 (4), S. 40-50
[43] Cooper, R. G, (1997): Fixing the fuzzy front end of the new product process: Building thebusiness case, in: CMA-The Management Accounting Magazine, 8 (1997), S. 21-23.
[44] Cooper, R.G.; Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1986): An investigation into the new product process, in:Journal of Product Innovation Management, Jg. 3, S. 71-85
[45] Cooper, R.G.; Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1987a): New Products: What Separates Winners fromLosers, in: Journal of Product Innovation Management, Jg. 4 (3), S. 169-184
[46] Cooper, R.G.; Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1987b): Success Factors in Product Innovation, in: IndustrialMarketing Management, Jg. 16 (3), S. 215-223
[47] Cooper, R.G.; Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1987c): What Makes a New Product a Winner: SuccessFactors at the project level, in: R&D Management, Jg. 17 (3), S. 175-189
[48] Cooper, R.G.; Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1993a): Major New Products: What Distinguishes the Win-ners in the Chemical Industry, in: Journal of Product Innovation Management, Jg. 10, S. 90-111
[49] Cooper, R.G.; Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1993b): New Product Success in the Chemical Industry, in:Industry Marketing Management, Jg.22, S. 85-99
[50] Cooper, R.G.; Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1993c): Uncovering the Keys to New Product Success, in:Engineering Management Review, Jg. 11 (4), S. 5-18
[51] Cooper, R.G.; Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1994): Determinants of Timeliness in Product Development,in: Journal of Product Innovation Management, Jg. 11 (5), S. 381-396
[52] Cooper, R.G.; Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1995a): Benchmarking the Firm’s Critical Success Factors inNew Product Development, in: Journal of Product Innovation Management, Jg. 12, S. 374-391
[53] Cooper, R.G.; Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1995b): New Product Performance: Keys to Success, Pro-fitability & Cycle Time Reduction, in: Journal of Marketing Management, Jg. 24 (5), S. 315-337
[54] Cooper, R.G.; Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1995c): Performance Typologies of New Product Projects,in: Industrial Marketing Management, Jg. 24 (5), S. 439-356
[55] Cooper, R.G.; Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1996): Winning Businesses in Product Development. TheCritical Success Factors, in Research Technology Management, Jg. 39 (4), S. 18-29
[56] Covin, J. G. and Miles, M. P. (2002) The Strategic Use of Corporate Venturing. working Paper,7-11-2002.
[57] Coyne, W. E. (2001) How 3M innovates for long-term growth. Research TechnologyManagement, 44, 21-24.
[58] Crawford, C.M., (1984): New Tool for Product Innovation, in: Journal of Product InnovationManagement, Jg. 2, S. 85-91
[59] DeLin, Yang/Yi, Zou (2002): A Survey of Current Research in New Product Concept Develop-ment: Concept Generation and Selection, in: Procedings "Management of Technology andInnovation in the 21st Century", October 2002, Hangzhou, S. 160-164..
[60] Desormeaux, Stephen/Klos, Jerry (1996): The Process of Developing a Process for the FuzzyFront End, in: Paper presented at the PDMA International Conference, Oct. 1996.
[61] Diehlmann, G. (1997) Vorentwicklungsmanagement in der Automobilzulieferindustrie: Konzep-tionelle Grundlagen und empirische Untersuchung zur erfolgsorientierten Gestaltung der Vor-entwicklung, Peter Lang - Europäischer Verlag der Wissenschaften, Frankfurt a.M., u.a.O.
[62] Doll, William J./Zhang, Qingyu (2001): Clarifying the Fuzziness in the Concept of Front EndFuzziness: A Dual Theoretical Rationale, in: Working Paper, University of Toledo, Ohio, 2001.
[63] Düfler, E. (1991) Organisationskultur: Phänomen - Philosophie - Technologie, Stuttgart.[64] Dwyer, L.; Mellor, R. (1991a): Organizational Environment, New Product Process Activities,
and Project Outcomes, in: Journal of Product Innovation Management, Jg. 8, S. 39-48[65] Dwyer, L.; Mellor, R. (1991b): New Product Process Activities and Project Outcomes, in: R&D
Management, Jg. 21 (1), S. 31-42[66] Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments.
Academy of Management Journal, 32, 543-576.[67] Engwall, M. (2003) No project is an island: linking projects to history and context. Research
Policy, 32, 789-808.[68] Ernst, Holger (2001): Erfolgsfaktoren neuer Produkte - Grundlagen für eine valide empirische
Forschung, Wiesbaden 2001.[69] Ettlie, J.E. (2002): Idea Generation and Successful New Product Development, Internet-URL:
www.iamot.org (10.03.02).[70] Flint, Daniel J. (2002): Compressing new product success-to-success cycle time Deep customer
value understanding and idea generation, Industrial Marketing Management, 31, 305-315.[71] Gerhards, Anne (2002): Methodik zur Interaktion von F&E und Marketing in den frühen Phasen
des Innovationsprozesses, Aachen 2002.[72] Globe, S.; Levy, G.W.; Schwartz, C.M. (1973): Key Factors and Events in the Innovation
Process, in: Research Management, Jg. 16, S.8-15[73] Griffin, A. (1997): PDMA Research on New Product Development Practices: Updating Trends
and Benchmarking Best Practices, in: JPIM, Jg. 14, S. 429-458[74] Gruner, K.; Homburg, C. (1999): Innovationserfolg durch Kundenbindung, Eine empirische
Untersuchung, in: Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, Ergänzungsheft, 1/1999, S. 119-142[75] Hauschildt, J. (1993) Innovationsmanagement - Determinanten das Innovationserfolges. In
Ergebnisse empirischer betriebswirtschaftlicher Forschung: Zu einer Realtheorie derUnternehmung(Ed, Hauschildt, J. u. G., O.) Stuttgart, pp. 295-326.
[76] Hauschildt, J. (1997) Innovationsmanagement, Vahlen, München.[77] Herstatt, C. and Hippel, Eric von (1992) Developing New Product Concepts via the Lead User
Method. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 9, 213-221.
[78] Herstatt, C. and Hipp, C. (1999) Theorie und Praxis der frühen Phasen des Innovationsprozes-ses. Antwort zu den Fragen aus io management Nr. 10, 1999. io management, 68, 90-93.
[79] Herstatt, Cornelius/Verworn, Birgit (2001): The "Fuzzy Frond End" of Innovation - WorkingPaper # 4, Hamburg 2001.
[80] Herstatt, C./Verworn, B., (2002): Management der frühen Phasen der Produktentwicklung: eineempirische Untersuchung in der Mess-/Steuer-/Regeltechnik, in: TIM-Tagung, Stuttgart.
[81] Hipp, C. (2000) Success factors of independent, self-governing innovation units: The case of theadvanced development group of Mannesmann, working paper. pp. 9.
[82] Hippel, Eric v. (1986) Lead Users: Source of Novel Product Concepts. Management Science, 32.[83] Hippel, Eric v. (1988) The Sources of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York.[84] Hitt, M. A. and Reed, T. S. (2000) Entrepreneurship in the new competitive landscape. In
Entrepreneurship as strategy (Eds, Meyer and Heppard), Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 23-47.[85] Iansiti, M. (1995) Shooting the rapids: Managing product development in turbulent
environments. California Management Review, 38, 37-59.[86] Iansiti, M. and West, J. (1997) Technology Integration: Turning Great Research into Great
Products. Harvard Business Review, 75, 69-80.[87] Jetter, Antonie/Schröder, H.-H., (2001): Die Berücksichtigung dynamischer
Umfeldveränderungen in den frühen Phasen der Produktentstehung, Vortrag, Vallendar.[88] Johne, A.; Snelson, P. (1988): Auditing product innovation activities in manufacturing firms, in:
R&D Management, Jg. 18(3), S. 227-233[89] Khurana, A. Rosenthal, S.R. (1997): Integrating the Fuzzy Front End of New Product
Development, in: Sloan Management Review, 2 (1997), S. 103-120.[90] Khurana, A. Rosenthal, S.R. (1998): Towards Holistic "Front Ends" in New Product
Development, in: Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(1998) 1, S. 57-75.[91] Kim, Jongbae/Wilemon, David (2002a): Accelerating the Front End Phase in New Product
Development, Internet URL: www.iamot.org (10.03.02).[92] Kim, Jongbae/Wilemon, David (2002b): Focusing the fuzzy front-end in new product
development, in: R&D-Management, Vol 32, Issue 4, S. 269-279.[93] Kim, Jongbae/Wilemon, David (2002c): Strategic issues in managing innovation's fuzzy front
end, in: European Journal of Innovation Management, 5 (1), S. 27-39.[94] Kleinschmidt, E.J.; Geschka, H.; Cooper, R.G. (1996): Erfolgsfaktor Markt:
Produktinnovationen am Markt und Kunden ausrichten, Heidelberg[95] Koen, Peter et al. (2001): Providing clarity and a common language to the "fuzzy front end", in:
Research Technology Management, March-April 2001, S. 46-55.[96] Koen, Peter et al. (2002): Fuzzy-Front End: Effective Methods, Tools and Techniques, in:
Belliveau et al. (Toolbook, 2002).[97] Koen, Peter/Markman, Gideon/Baron, Rober/Reilly, Richard (2002): Cognitive Skills in the
Furry-Front End: Which ones allow corporate teams to obtain start-up funding?, in: PDMAResearch Conference Proceedings - 2002, Orlando, S. 87-108.
[98] Köhler, R.; Horst, B.; Huxhold, S. (1990): Aufbau und praktische Nutzung vonFrüherkennungssystemen für die Produktinnovationsplanung, Köln
[99] Kohn, S. and Niethammer, R. (2003) Aufgabengerechte Kundeneinbindung im Innovationspro-zess. In Das innovative Unternehmen. (Eds, Barske, Gerybadze, Hünninghausen and Sommer-latte) Digitale Fachbibliothek - Symposion Publishing GmbH, Düsseldorf.
[100] Kotzbauer, N. (1992): Erfolgsfaktoren neuer Produkte: der Einfluss der Innovationshöhe auf denErfolg technischer Produkte, Frankfurt a.M.
[101] Krishnan, V. / Bhattacharya, S. (2002) Technology Selection and Commitment in NPD: TheRole of Uncertainty and Design Flexibility. Management Science, 48, 313–327.
[102] Kulvik, H. (1977): Factors Underlying the Success or Failure of New Products, HelsinkiUniversity of Technology, Report #29
[103] Larson, E.W.; Gobeli, D.H. (1988): Organising for Product Development Projects, in: Journalof Product Innovation Management, Jg. 5, S. 180-190
[104] Leifer, R., McDermott, C. M., O'Connor, G. C., Peters, L. S., Rice, M. P. and Veryzer, R.W. (2000) Radical Innovation: How mature companies can outsmart upstarts, Harvard BusinessSchool Press, Boston, Massachusetts.
[105] Maidique, M.A.; Zirger, B.J. (1984): A Study of Success and Failure in Product Innovation:The Case of the U.S. Electronic Industry, in: IEEE Trans. On Engineering Management, Jg. EM-31, S.192-203
[106] McGuiness, N. W./Conway, A. H. (1989): Managing the search for new product concepts: astrategic approach, in: R&D-Management, 19, 4, S. 297-308.
[107] McGuinness, Norman (1990): New Product Idea Activities in Large Technology Based Firms,in: Journal of Product Innovation Management, 1990:7, S. 173-185.
[108] Metz, P.D. (1996): Integrating technology planing with business planing , in: ResearchTechnology Management, 39, S. 19-22.
[109] Meyer, M.H.; Roberts, E.B. (1986): New Product Strategy in Small Technology-Based Firms:A Pilot Study, in: Management Science, Jg. 32 (7), S. 806-821
[110] Mishra, S; Kim, D.; Lee, D.H. (1996): Factors Affecting New Product Success: Cross-CountryComparison, in: Journal of Product Innovation Management, Jg. 13, S. 530-550
[111] Moenaert, Rudy K. et al. (1995): R&D/marketing communication during the fuzzy front-end,in: IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 42/3 (1995), S. 243-259.
[112] Montoya-Weiss, M.M./O'Driscoll, T.M. (2000): Applying Performance Support Technology inthe Fuzzy Front End, in: Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17 (2000), S. 143-161.
[113] Murphy, S. A./Kumar, V (1996): The role of predevelopment activities and firm attributes innew product success, in: Technovation, 16 (8), S. 431-441.
[114] Murphy, S.A./Kumar, V. (1997): The Front End of New Product Development: A CanadianSurvey, in: R&D-Management, 27 (1997) 1, S. 5-16.
[115] Nobelius, Dennis/Trygg, Lars (2002): Stop chasing the Front End process, in: InternationalJournal of Project Management, 20 (2002), S. 331-340.
[116] O'Connor/Colarelli, Gina/Rice, M.P. (2001): Opportunity Recognition and Breakthrough In-novation in Large established Firms, in: California Management Review, 43 (2002) 2, S. 95-116.
[117] Parry, M.E.; Song, X.M. (1994): Identifying New Product Successes in China, in: Journal ofProduct Innovation Management, Jg.11 (1), S. 15-30
[118] Paul, Ronald N. (1996): Evaluating Ideas and Concepts for new Business-To-Business Products,in: Rosenau et al. (PDMA Handbook, 1996), S. 207-216.
[119] PDMA (2002) Fuzzy Front End (FFE) Definition. Glossary of New Product Development Terms,http://www.pdma.org/library/glossary.html (18.7.02).
[120] Petersen, C. L. (1996) Salesforce involvement in new product predevelopment activities of hightechnology firms. Portland State University, Portland, pp. 231.
[121] Pizarro Moreno, I., Real Fernández, J. C. and Sousa Ginel, E. (2002) Corporate Entrepre-neurship: A Knowledge-Based View. In: 2nd EURAM CONFERENCE, Stockholm.
[122] Pluskowski, Boris (2002): Idea Flow, in: White Paper, Imaginatik Research, October 2002.[123] Porter, M. E. (1980) Competitive Strategy. Techniques for Analysing Industries and Competi-
tors, The Free Press, New York.[124] Porter, M. E. (1985) Competitive advantage, The Free Press, New York.[125] Prahalad, C. K. and Hamel, G. (1990) The Core Competence of the Corporation. Harvard
Business Review, 79-91.[126] Reinertsen, D. G. (1994): Streamlining the fuzzy Front End., in: World Class Design to Manu-
facture, 1 (5), S. 4-8.[127] Reinertsen, D.G. (1999): Taking the Fuzziness out of the Fuzzy Front End, in: Research
Technology Management, November-December 1999, S. 25-31.[128] Rice, M. P., Kelley, D., Peters, L. S. and O'Connor, G. C. (2001) Radical innovation: trigger-
ing initiation of opportunity recognition and evaluation. R&D Management, 31, 409-420.[129] Rochford, Linda (1991): Generating and Screening New Product Ideas, in: Industrial Marketing
Management, 20, S. 287-296.[130] Rochford, L. and Rudelius, W. (1997) New Product Development Process: Stages and Suc-
cesses in the Medical Products Industry. Industrial Marketing Management, 26, 67-84.[131] Rosenau, Jr., Milton D./Griffin, Abbie/Castellion, George A./Anschuetz, Ned. F , (1996): The
PDMA Handbook of New Product Development, New York 1996.[132] Rothwell, R. (1974a): The Hungarian SAPPHO: Some Comments and Comparison, in: Research
Policy, Jg. 3, S. 28-30[133] Rothwell, R.; Freeman, C.; Horsely, A. et al. (1974b): SAPPHO Updated – Project SAPPHO
Phase II, in: Research Policy, Jg. 3, S.258-291[134] Roy, Probir/Roy, Rishi (2002): Using genetic algorithms for multicriterion resource allocation
problems in fuzzy settings, in: Journal of American Academy of Business, 1 (2), S. 240-244.[135] Rubenstein, A.H.; Chakrabarti, A.K.; O’Keefe, R.D. et al. (1976): Factors influencing
Innovation Success at the Project Level, in: Research Management, S. 15-20[136] Rubinstein, A.H. (1994): At the front end of the R&D/innovation process - idea development &
entrepreneurship, in: Internat. Journal of Technology Management, Vol 9, No. 5-7, S. 652-677.[137] Schlaak, T. M. (1999) Der Innovationsgrad als Schlüsselvariable: Perspektiven für das
Management von Produktentwicklungen, Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag, Wiesbaden.
[138] Schmalen, H.; Wiedemann, C. (1999): Erfolgsdeterminanten von Neuprodukten deutscherHochtechnologieunternehmen, in: Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 1/99, S. 69-89
[139] Schmelzer, H. J. (2000) Performance Measurement in F&E. Zeitschrift Führung +Organisation, 69, 332-339.
[140] Schmidt, J. B. (1995) New product myopia. The Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing,10, 23-33.
[141] Smircich, L. (1983) Concepts of Culture and Organisational Analysis. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 28, 339-358.
[142] Smith, G.R./ Herbein, W.C. / Morris, R.C. (1999): Front-End-Innovation at AlliedSignal andAlcoa, in: Research Technology Management, November-December 1999, S. 15-24.
[143] Song, M. and Montoya-Weiss, M. M. (2001) The Effect of Perceived TechnologicalUncertainty on Japanese New Product Development. Academy of Management Journal, 44.
[144] Song, X.M.; Parry, M.E. (1996): What Separates Japanese New Product Winners from Loosers,in: Journal of Product Innovation Management, Jg. 13, S. 422-439
[145] Song, X.M.; Parry, M.E. (1997): A Cross-National Comparison Study of New ProductDevelopment Processes: Japan and the United States, in: Journal of Marketing, Jg. 61, S. 1-18
[146] Souder, W.E.; Chakrabarti, A.K. (1978): The R&D/Marketing Interface: Results form an Em-pirical Study of Innovation Projects, in: IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Jg.EM-25 (4), S. 88-93
[147] Specht, G., Beckmann, C. and Amelingmeyer, J. (2002) F&E-Management: Kompetenz im In-novationsmanagement, Schäffer-Poeschel, Stuttgart.
[148] Stettler, Martin (2001): Frühphase der Innovation - Entscheidet über das LangfristigeÜberleben, in: XpertDialog, 1/2002, S. 9-11.
[149] Strebel, P. (1987) Organising for innovation over an industry cycle. Strategic ManagementJournal, 8. Jg., 119-124.
[150] Thamhain, H.J. (1990): Managing Technologically Innovative Team Efforts toward NewProduct Success, in: Journal of Product Innovation Management, Jg. 7, S. 5-18
[151] Thomke, S. and Fujimoto, T. (2000) The Effect of "Front-Loading" Problem-Solving onProduct Development Performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17, 128-142.
[152] Trueman, Myfanwy/Jobber, David (1995): Designing the front end: how attitudes towards newproducts are related to company performance, in: World Class Design to Manufacture, Vol 2,Issue 1, S. 17ff..
[153] Van Aken, Joan E. / Weggeman, Mathieu P. (2000): Managing learning in informal innovationnetworks: Overcoming the Daphne-dilemma, in: R&D-Management, 2 (2000), S. 139-149.
[154] Verganti, R. (1997) Leveraging on systematic learning to manage the early phases of productinnovation projects. R&D Management, 27, 377-392.
[155] Verworn, Birgig/Herstatt, Cornelius (2002): Managing the "Fuzzy Front End" of Innovation,Internet URL: www.iamot.org (10.03.02).
[156] Verworn, Birgit (2002): The "Fuzzy Front End" of product development: An explorative study,in: 9th International product development management conference, Sophia Antipolis, Frankreich.
[157] Voss, C.A. (1985): Determinants of Success in the Development of Application Software, in:Journal of Product Innovation Management, Jg. 2, S. 122-129.
[158] Wagner, Christian/Hayashi, Albert (1994): A new way to create winning product ideas, in:Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11, S. 146-155.
[159] Weiss, E. and Neyer, B. (1990) Determinanten erfolgreicher technologischer Innovationen-Einemethodenkritische Analyse ausgewählter empirischer Studien. In Technologie-Management:Philosophie, Methodik, Erfahrungen(Eds, Pfeiffer, W. and Weiss, E.), Göttingen, pp. 41-125.
[160] Wheelwright, S. C. and Clark, Kim B. (1994) Revolution der Produktentwicklung:Spitzenleistungen in Schnelligkeit, Effizienz und Qualität durch dynamische Teams, Frankfurt.
[161] Williams, J. R. (1992) How sustainable is your competitive advantage? California ManagementReview, 34, 29-51.
[162] Yap, C.M.; Souder, W.E. (1994): Factors Influencing New Product Success and Failure inSmall Entrepreneurial High-Technology Electronic Firms, in: JPIM, Jg. 11, S. 418-432
[163] Zahra, S. A., Nielsen, A. P. and Bogner, W. C. (1999) Corporate entrepreneurship, knowledge,and competence development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23, 169-189.
[164] Zhang, Qingyu/Doll, William J. , (2001): The fuzzy front end and success of new productdevelopment: a causal model, in: European Journal of Innovation Management, 4 (2), S. 95-112
[165] Zirger, B.J. (1997): The Influence of Development Experience and Product Innovativeness onProduct Outcome, in: Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Jg. 9 (3), S. 287-297.
