Introduction

Product innovation is a fundamental renewal mechanism for companies, driven by the ability to identify connections, recognise opportunities, and capitalise on them. It begins with the perception of a new market, leading to the development of a product aimed at achieving commercial success. The front end of innovation (FEI), the early stage in the innovation process, plays a crucial role in aligning innovation efforts with broader business objectives and market needs and is vital for improving the overall innovation process, whether for incremental or radical product development. Over time, FEI models have evolved from linear to more iterative and flexible frameworks, reflecting a deeper understanding of its complexities. As the foundation of the product innovation process, the FEI shapes the trajectory of new product development, making it a critical focus for organisations aiming to advance and differentiate themselves in competitive markets.

This article will provide a brief introduction to product innovation and then will discuss three main FEI models.

Introduction to Product Innovation

Product innovation represents the core renewal process for a company, and it is driven by the ability to see connections, spot opportunities and take advantage of them [1]. Product innovation is ‘an iterative process initiated by the perception of a new market or new service opportunity for a technology-based invention which leads to development, production, and marketing tasks striving for the commercial success of the invention’ [2]. It is a multi-stage process whereby organisations transform ideas into new and improved products to compete and differentiate themselves in their marketplace [3 p. 1334].

 

 

Figure 1: Cooper’s original Stage-Gate System

 

 

Numerous authors have discussed the process of product innovation. Two key authors are Cooper [5] with the Stage-Gate model [Figure 1] and Pugh [4] with the Total Design model [Figure 2]. Although the models differ in their customer orientation, the stage-gate process is market-oriented, whereas the total design model has an engineering design orientation. Both models utilise multiple development stages and managerial review gates. A stage is when development work is accomplished by the cross-functional product innovation team, typically consisting of design, engineering, marketing, and production. A gate is the quality review whereby management approves the completed work. In the last few decades, the broad adoption of these models ‘has enabled companies to better manage their overall product innovation process [6].

 

 

Figure 2: Pugh’s Total Design Method

 

Front End of Innovation

The FEI is the early stage in the product innovation process and has gained significance since the late 1980s. Cooper [5] and, Khurana and Rosenthal [7] highlighted its crucial role in shaping innovation; they stated that the FEI is about more than just generating ideas. It is a strategic point where organisations align their innovation efforts with broader business objectives and market needs. Although the general purpose of the product innovation process is well understood, bringing an invention to commercialisation, the FEI is fuzzy and less well understood but “presents one of the greatest opportunities for improving the overall innovation process” [8]. It is recognised that employing an effective FEI process is essential for developing either incremental or radical products [5].

 

Reinertsen [9] initially described it as a ‘Fuzzy Front End’. However, Koen et al. [10] introduced the term "Front End of Innovation" as a substitute for the ‘Fuzzy Front End’ because fuzzy implies that the front end is mysterious, lacks accountability, and cannot be managed. Keon has shown well-defined activities in the FEI.

 

The FEI consists of activities before the formal innovation process, including strategically oriented activities such as opportunity identification and analysis and more operational processes like ideation and concept development. Now we have a broad understanding of the FE, the next section will review a couple of the leading models in more detail.

FEI Models

FEI models have evolved over the last 40 years from linear to more iterative and flexible frameworks. The change reflects the growing understanding of its complexity. From earlier studies [7, 11] to more recent ones [12-14], researchers have identified key issues and proposed best practices. Consequently, the FEI field has expanded to include numerous research themes and topics. While some models begin with an idea generation phase, most start with a more strategically oriented scanning process.

 

One of the first to recognise the FEI was Cooper, Edgett and Kleinschmidt [6]. They augmented their existing Stage-Gate model with a distinct discovery phase [15] (Figure 3). As it was essential to differentiate this from the product development phase [16]. Over time, the Stage-Gate model has been further enhanced by integrating lean and agile approaches. Ulrich and Eppinger [17] took this idea further, referring to the front-end stage as Exploration. In this exploration stage, the team engages customers to uncover customer needs and discover unique customer insights.

 

 

Figure 3: Cooper Stage gate model with Discovery Stage

 

Khurana and Rosenthal [7] defined the FEI as a predominantly linear process in their New Concept Development model. The model primarily links business and product strategy. It includes establishing the product strategy, market requirements, development plans and product concept (Figure 4). They identified the critical role of organisational strategy as a driving force in the innovation process. The model also emphasised the importance of a well-planned product portfolio, an enabling organisational structure, adequately identifying customer needs, and developing a well-defined product concept for successful NPD.

 

Figure 4: New Concept Development Model

 

Koen et al. [8] conceptualised the FEI as a circular flow that is random and non-sequential, where all elements are continuously influencing each other. The New Concept Development (NCD) model (Figure 5) was created from this insight. It also emphasised the importance of external and internal influences on the process flow. The NCD model consists of three essential parts: the engine, the controllable activity elements, and the influencing factors:

• The engine (central) is driven by leadership, culture, and business strategy.
• The controllable activity elements (spokes) include opportunity identification, opportunity analysis, idea generation and enrichment, idea selection, and concept definition.
• The influencing factors (outer edge) are those related to the internal and external environment, namely organisational capabilities and the outside world.
  
  

They found that opportunity identification and analysis, idea enrichment, and concept definition were the most critical elements for success in incremental innovation. Whereas radical innovation was related to understanding existing and disruptive markets and leveraging new and emerging technologies. They emphasised the importance of embedded market and technology competence in radical innovation. This is because radical innovation may require defining a new or emerging market and identifying technology that can provide solutions for that new market.

 

 

Figure 5: The New Concept Development Model

 

Though the New Product Development Front End model and New Concept Development Model have contrasting linear and circular flows, it is important to note that both authors reported that fluidity and looping back to prior activities are essential. Table 1 provides a list of the elements and a brief description of the NCD and NPPD models. Table 2 then contrasts the elements to understand how the two models’ elements fit with each other to highlight any similarities and differences.

 

Table 1: FEI Model Elements and Description

 

 

Table 2: Comparison of FEI Model Elements

 

Conclusion

From these initial model, research into the FEI has grown. Key contributions address the effect that a specific tool has on a particular FEI process rather than the process as a whole.

 

The FEI is a constantly changing and dynamic area. It used to be seen as a fuzzy initial phase of innovation, but it has become a crucial strategic process shaping the entire innovation process. The shift from linear models like Cooper's Stage-Gate to more nuanced frameworks like Koen’s New Concept Development Model shows a deeper understanding of FEI complexities. Research in different fields, particularly healthcare, has highlighted FEI's importance in navigating complex regulatory environments and addressing diverse stakeholder needs.

 

Effective FEI processes, emphasising strategy, organisational structure, and market alignment, are essential for both incremental and radical innovation. This dynamic stage offers significant opportunities for enhancing the overall innovation process, making it a vital focus for companies seeking to remain competitive and successful in their markets.

 

References

[1]         J. Tidd, J. Bessant, and K. Pavitt, Managing innovation integrating technological, market and organizational change. John Wiley and Sons Ltd, 2005.

[2]         R. Garcia and R. J. Calantone, "A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: A literature review," Journal of Product Innovation Management, vol. 19, pp. 110-132, 2002.

[3]         A. Baregheh, J. Rowley, and S. Sambrook, "Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innovation," Management Decision, vol. 47, pp. 1323-1339, 2009, doi: 10.1108/00251740910984578.

[4]         S. Pugh, Total Design: Integrated methods for successful product rngineering. Wokingham, England: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1991, pp. 5-11, 44-86.

[5]         R. G. Cooper, "Stage-gate systems: A new tool for managing new products," Business Horizons, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 44-54, 1990.

[6]         R. G. Cooper, S. J. Edgett, and E. J. Kleinschmidt, "Optimizing the stage gate process," Research-Technology Management, vol. 45, pp. 21-27, 2002.

[7]         A. Khurana and S. R. Rosenthal, "Integrating the fuzzy front end of new product development," MIT Sloan Management Review, vol. 38, pp. 103-120, 1997, doi: 10.1111/1540-5885.1510057.

[8]         P. Koen et al., "Providing clarity and a common language to the 'fuzzy front end.'," Research-Technology Management, vol. 44, pp. 46-55, 2001.

[9]         D. G. Reinertsen, "Taking the fuzziness out of the fuzzy front end," Research-Technology Management, vol. 42, pp. 25-31, 1999, doi: Article.

[10]       D. Knott, "The Place of TRIZ in a Holistic Design Methodology," Creativity and Innovation Management, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 126-133, 2001, doi: 10.1111/1467-8691.00213.

[11]       R. K. Moenaert, A. De Meyer, W. E. Souder, and D. Deschoolmeester, "R&D/marketing communication during the fuzzy front-end," IEEE transactions on Engineering Management, vol. 42(3), pp. 243-258, 1995.

[12]       S. K. Markham, "The impact of front-end innovation activities on product performance," Journal of Product Innovation Management, vol. 30, pp. 77-92, 2013, doi: 10.1111/jpim.12065.

[13]       P. A. Koen, H. M. Bertels, and E. Kleinschmidt, "Managing the front end of innovation—Part II: Results from a three-year study," Research-Technology Management, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 25-35, 2014, doi: 10.5437/08956308X5703199.

[14]       M. S. Salerno, L. A. D. V. Gomes, D. O. Da Silva, R. B. Bagno, and S. L. T. U. Freitas, "Innovation processes: Which process for which project?," Technovation, vol. 35, pp. 59-70, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2014.07.012.

[15]       M. Creusen, E. J. Hultink, and K. Eling, "Choice of consumer research methods in the front end of new product development," International Journal of Market Research, vol. 55, pp. 81-104, 2013, doi: 10.2501/IJMR-2013-008.

[16]       R. W. Veryzer and B. B. De Mozota, "The impact of user-oriented design on new product development: An examination of fundamental relationships," Journal of Product Innovation Management, vol. 22, pp. 128-143, 2005, doi: 10.1111/j.0737-6782.2005.00110.x.

[17]       K. T. Ulrich and S. D. Eppinger, "Product design and development," Product Design and Development, vol. 384, p. 448, 2015, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-7506-8985-4.00002-4.