The Fuzzy Front‐End of Discontinuous Innovation: Insights for Research and Management

In an article by Reid and de Brentani, a theoretical model of the process and structure for the fuzzy front‐end (FFE) of new product development (NPD) for discontinuous innovations was proposed. Its basic premise is that information flow in the early development of such innovations moves from the environment into the firm, facilitated by individuals playing three key roles at three decision‐making interfaces: (1) the boundary spanner at the boundary interface, (2) the gatekeeper at the gatekeeping interface, and (3) what is identified in this paper as the “project broker” at the project interface. The current paper builds on and augments the ideas presented in this theoretical model with the primary objective of formulating a set of propositions detailing factors affecting the flow of information, and thus role effectiveness at each of these interfaces for discontinuous innovations. The focus is on radically new innovations both because this type of innovation has the highest level of uncertainty during the FFE and because the development of products resulting from such innovations entails the greatest lack of understanding and the fewest strategies for effective management. To achieve this objective, individual, social system, and environmental factors, which promote and/or inhibit the effectiveness of the roles played during the three FFE phases, are examined in terms of both the speed and the quality of information flow. This is done with the goal of substantially improving NPD information as it proceeds through the FFE. In turn, it can help researchers, managers, and team players to better anticipate and meet the navigational challenges of this intrinsically complex, risky, but high potential, NPD scenario.     

Towards Holistic Front Ends In New Product Development

Any firm that hopes to compete on the basis of innovation clearly must be proficient in all phases of the new-product development (NPD) process. However, the real keys to success can be found in the activities that occur before management makes the go/no-go decision for any NPD project. In other words, the most significant benefits can be achieved through improvements in the performance of the front-end activities—product strategy formulation and communication, opportunity identification and assessment, idea generation, product definition, project planning, and executive reviews. Noting the inherent difficulty of managing the front end, Anil Khurana and Stephen R. Rosenthal discuss findings from in-depth case studies of the front-end practices in 18 business units from 12 U.S. and Japanese companies. They offer a process view of the activities that the front end comprises, and they discuss the insights that their case studies provide regarding key success factors for managing the front-end activities. The case studies involved companies in industries ranging from consumer packaged goods to electronics and industrial products. Foremost among the insights provided by the case studies is the notion that the greatest success comes to organizations that take a holistic approach to the front end. A successful approach to the front end effectively links business strategy, product strategy, and product-specific decisions. Forging these links requires a process that integrates such elements as product strategy, development portfolio, concept development, overall business justification, resource planning, core team roles, executive reviews, and decision mechanisms. The case studies suggest that firms employ two general approaches for achieving these links. Some companies rely on a formal process to lend some order and predictability to the front end. Other companies strive to foster a company-wide culture in which the key participants in front-end activities always remain focused on the following considerations: business vision, technical feasibility, customer focus, schedule, resources, and coordination. This cultural approach is more prevalent among the Japanese firms in the study; the U.S. firms tend to rely on formality of the front-end process. The case studies also suggest that the front-end approach must be compatible with the firm's product, market, and organizational contexts. For example, standardized approaches seem to work best for incremental innovations.     

The Roles of Marketing and Industrial Design in Discontinuous New Product Development*

Radical or “discontinuous” products based on new technological breakthroughs are playing an ever‐increasing role in the success of firms. However, little research has been conducted that investigates the roles of marketing and industrial design (ID) in the development of these types of products. Further, past research has tended to overlook the role that industrial design, and the impact of the marketing‐industrial design interaction, can have on the development of discontinuous new products. Frequently, the term design is used broadly or is equated with engineering; thus, while the marketing–research and development (R&D) interaction is studied, the marketing–ID as well as the industrial design–R&D relationships are not considered. This article examines the roles of marketing and industrial design in the product development process for discontinuous innovations. Specifically, questions concerning how and the degree to which marketing and industrial design are integrated into the development process are investigated. The investigation employs multiple methods, or triangulation, in order to secure an in‐depth understanding of the roles of these disciplines. In the course of examining these questions, key factors influencing industrial design and marketing involvement are identified and preliminary models are examined. The research, which was conducted in two phases, employed a mixed‐method, multiple sample design. The methods used included a survey, field observation study, and depth‐interviewing. Data were collected from three different samples: R&D managers, project team members (including personnel from various disciplines—marketing, R&D, industrial design, engineering, etc.), and industrial design managers. The use of the different data sources and sampling of various groups of managers was employed in order to provide a rich context for investigating the research questions of interest. In addition, a preliminary analysis of factors (e.g., degree of product discontinuity, product innovation objectives, process discontinuity, process formality) identified in the first phase was conducted, and these relationships were explored further in the second phase of the research. Findings across the two phases of this research suggest that the development of discontinuous new products involves a process that is different from more conventional new product development—particularly as it concerns the roles of marketing and industrial design. The high degree of discontinuity inherent in such projects, along with the strong R&D orientation often surrounding them, results in delayed involvement of marketing and ID, as well as altering their roles in the new product development (NPD) process. Factors such as the degree of product discontinuity (DPD), process discontinuity (PCD), and process formality (PF) seemed to exert a differential influence on the involvement of marketing and ID. Although their roles and involvement are altered in discontinuous new product development, this research suggests that marketing and ID roles in this context involve increased challenges with respect to validation of key assumptions and product application directions. Additionally, managers operating in this development context need to explicitly consider the influence of factors such as discontinuity level in undertaking NPD projects with respect to how it affects the execution of industrial design and marketing activities.     

Front End Transfers of Digital Innovations in a Hybrid Agile-Stage-Gate Setting

Digital innovations often follow a more fluid innovation process and, therefore, require different ways of managing the front end of innovation. Agile as alternative to established front end management practices is often suggested, potentially combined with Stage-Gate, in what is called a hybrid Agile-Stage-Gate model, to reap the benefits from both. Implementing the hybrid model in the front end is however not sufficient for firms with separate Research and Development departments to succeed. In such organizations digital innovations still need to be transferred from Research, where the front end work on digital innovations takes place, to the Development department, where formal development actually starts. Yet, such front end transfers have been described as inefficient and ineffective. Realizing digital innovation front end transfers is likely even more challenging because of their fluid definition. In the absence of extant theory on front end transfers in such a setting, this research uses a case study approach to analyze the front end transfer experiences of the Research department of a firm in the lighting industry that is undergoing a transformation from traditional to digital lighting. The in-depth analysis of triangulated data on eight front end projects shows that Research struggles to transfer digital innovations to Development, because transfer practices in terms of management, scope, and synchronization, turn out to be inherently challenging in a hybrid Agile-Stage-Gate setting. Specifically, the results reveal that each transfer practice plays an intricate role in either facilitating (i.e., transfer management) or inhibiting (i.e., transfer scope and synchronization) front end transfers of digital innovations. The discovery of these opposing forces has important implications for novel theorizing on the use of Agile in the front end of digital innovation, transfer practices from Research to Development in a hybrid setting, as well as for theorizing about digital innovation management.     

A Model of Supplier Integration into New Product Development*

In many industries, firms are looking for ways to cut concept‐to‐customer development time, to improve quality, and to reduce the cost of new products. One approach shown to be successful in Japanese organizations involves the integration of material suppliers early in the new product development cycle. This involvement may range from simple consultation with suppliers on design ideas to making suppliers fully responsible for the design of components or systems they will supply. While prior research shows the benefit of using this approach, execution remains a problem. The processes for identifying and integrating suppliers into the new product development (NPD) process in North American organizations are not understood well. This problem is compounded by the fact that design team members often are reluctant to listen to the technology and cost ideas made by suppliers in new product development efforts. We suggest a model of the key activities required for successful supplier integration into NPD projects, based on case studies with 17 Japanese and American manufacturing organizations. The model is validated using data from a survey of purchasing executives in global corporations with at least one successful and one unsuccessful supplier integration experience. The results suggest that (1) increased knowledge of a supplier is more likely to result in greater information sharing and involvement of the supplier in the product development process; (2) sharing of technology information results in higher levels of supplier involvement and improved outcomes; (3) supplier involvement on teams generally results in a higher achievement of NPD team goals; (4) in cases when technology uncertainty is present, suppliers and buyers are more likely to share information on NPD teams; and (5) the problems associated with technology uncertainty can be mitigated by greater use of technology sharing and direct supplier participation on new product development teams. A supplier's participation as a true member of a new product development team seems to result in the highest level of benefits, especially in cases when a technology is in its formative stages.     

From Experience: Applying Performance Support Technology in the Fuzzy Front End

A new product originates from an idea, or in many cases, integration of multiple ideas. The process of transforming an idea into a robust concept requires definition of the underlying technologies, identification of expected customer benefits, and assessment of the market opportunity. The idea-development and subsequent idea-selection stages of new product development are often referred to as the "fuzzy front end" because they typically involve ad hoc decisions and ill-defined processes. To address this shortcoming, Nortel developed an idea-to-opportunity front-end process that provides a consistent and structured approach for idea development and evaluation. This article describes the process and how it was implemented using electronic performance support technology.     

New Product Development Process: A Perspective for Reexamination

In spite of the increased sophistication of new product development processes, the percentage of successful new product introductions has not improved significantly in the last two decades. This calls for a reexamination of the new products development process. Yoram Wind and Vijay Mahajan suggest 13 strategic guidelines for the development of new or modified products. These guidelines, if followed, could improve a firm's chances of developing and introducing successful new products.     

Product Development as Core Competence: How Formal Product Development Practices Differ for Radical,More Innovative,and Incremental Product Innovations

Although universally recognized as an important consideration in building product development (PD) competency, the effect of a firm's ability to vary its PD practices to develop winning products has been given scant attention in large‐scale, multiorganizational, quantitative studies. This research explores differences in formal new PD practices among three project types—incremental, more innovative, and radical. Using a sample of 380 business units, this research investigates how development practices differ across these three classes of innovation with respect to the formal PD process, project organization, PD strategy, organizational culture, and senior management commitment. Our results diverge from several commonly held beliefs about formal PD processes and the management of radical versus incremental innovations. Our results indicate that radical projects are managed less flexibly than incremental projects. Instead of being an offshoot of less strategic planning, radical projects are just as strategically aligned as incremental projects. Instead of being informally introduced entrepreneurial adventures, radical projects are often the result of more formal ideation methods. While these results may be counterintuitive to suppositional models of how to radical innovation happens, it is the central theme of this research to show how radical innovation actually happens. Our findings also provide a foundation for reexamining the role of control in the management of innovation. As the level of innovativeness increased, so too did the amount of controls imposed—e.g., less flexibility in the development process, more professional, full‐time project leadership, centralized executive oversight for new products, and formal financial assessments of expected NP performance.     

An Integrative Model of the New Product Development Process

Previous studies of new product development have identified a series of variables that are important determinants of new product success. The goal of this article is to demonstrate the nature of the complex interrelationships that exist among these variables. Roger Calantone and Anthony di Benedetto propose an integrative model of the new product decision process. They examine data gathered from a sample of industrial manufacturing companies and test their model empirically using three-stage least squares analysis. The article concludes with a discussion of implications for new product managers.     

Innovations,Prices and Employment: A Theoretical Model and an Empirical Application for West German Manufacturing Firms

In this paper a theoretical model of the impact of product and process innovations on output, capacity utilization, employment and prices is developed. The model is estimated with a unique set of micro-data from West German manufacturing firms. The empirical results reveal that innovative firms are more successful. They show a higher utilization and more output and employment growth than non-innovative firms. Innovations also change market behaviour. In sectors with a large share of product innovators, firms more often change employment and less often change prices, i.e. product innovations reduce price competition.     

Web-Based Product Development Systems Integration and New Product Outcomes: A Conceptual Framework

In hopes of improving the effectiveness of their new product development (NPD) processes, many firms increasingly are eager to adopt integrated web‐based NPD systems for NPD. However, few would argue that the mere use of web‐based NPD systems substantially will improve the NPD process. But we know little about how and when these systems can be used for enhancing NPD. An organization desiring to employ the web in its NPD process can use it at varying levels of functionality and sophistication, ranging from a tool for automating manual tasks and exchanging data to a means of integrating various intra‐ and interorganizational NPD functions and processes. At higher levels of technology sophistication or integration, an organization's NPD processes will get more integrated internally, i.e., between different stages of the NPD process and with the processes of its suppliers, technology providers, etc. Such integration of both internal and external NPD processes is considered important for successful innovation. Thus, on the surface, higher levels of web‐based systems integration may seem universally desirable. However, each increasing level of integration brings with it higher costs—not only the costs of expensive technology but also costs of implementing a complicated system, redesigning intra‐ and interorganizational processes, disrupting the status quo, and spending management time and energy during implementation. Therefore, it may not be wise for firms to jump blindly on the web‐based NPD bandwagon. High levels of web‐based NPD systems integration may be created when low levels of integration may not deliver the desired results. Further, if such systems are installed without appropriate conditions within and outside the firm, it may not be possible to exploit their full potential. As such, it is important to know how much web‐based NPD systems integration is suitable for different conditions. In this article, we develop a conceptual framework that focuses on how web‐based NPD systems integration can influence the outcome of NPD and how the relationship between systems integration and outcomes can be affected by various contextual factors. For this purpose, we draw on research in areas such as NPD, web‐based information systems, and organization theory and on many discussions we had with professionals and software vendors who deal with NPD and web‐based NPD systems. The contextual factors of interest in this framework are strategic orientation of the firm, product‐related factors, business environment, organizational factors, information technology factors, and partner‐characteristics. Managerial and research implications of the framework are discussed.     

A Survey of Major Approaches for Accelerating New Product Development

Product life-cycles are becoming shorter, leading firms to reduce the time to bring new products to market. Being early can provide a significant competitive advantage, making the acceleration of new product development (NPD) an important area for research and inquiry. Based on their review of a wide range of literatures in business strategy, marketing, new product development, manufacturing and organization management, Murray Millson, S. P. Raj and David Wilemon report a general set of techniques for reducing the developmental cycle time for new products. The article develops a hierarchy of available NPD acceleration approaches and discusses potential benefits, limitations and significant challenges to successful implementation.     

Improving Supplier New Product Development Performance: The Role of Supplier Development

Suppliers play an increasingly central role in helping firms achieve their new product development (NPD) goals. The literature implicitly assumes that suppliers are able to meet or exceed the quality standards and technological expectations of the firm, and yet, in practice, suppliers often lack the technological capabilities needed to undertake collaborative NPD. In such situations, a firm may choose to intervene and actively develop the supplier's technological and product development capabilities. We develop a theoretical framework that conceptualizes supplier development activities within interorganizational NPD projects as part of a bilateral knowledge‐sharing process: design recommendations, technical specifications, and new technology flow from supplier to the firm, and in turn, the firm can implement supplier development activities to upgrade the supplier's technological capabilities. Antecedents (supplier responsibility, skills similarity, single sourcing strategy) and consequences of supplier development activities (on supplier, product, and project performance) are examined using a sample of 153 interorganizational NPD projects within UK manufacturers. We find broad support for our hypotheses. In particular, we show that the relational rents (in the form of improved product and project performance) attained from supplier development activities in new product development are not achieved directly, but rather indirectly, via improvements in the supplier's creative and technological capabilities. Our results emphasize the importance of adopting a strategic view of the potential returns available from investing in the NPD capabilities of key suppliers, and provide clues about underlying reasons for the suboptimal experiences of many companies' collaborative NPD projects.     

Improving the New Product Development Process: A Fractal Paradigm for High-Technology Products

Those professionals who are charged with improving the new product development (NPD) process may well feel as though they have been asked to bring order out of chaos. For every level in the organization, and for every step in the NPD process, they must contend with myriad, often interdependent choices—of products and processes; of tools and technologies; of proven best practices and hypothesized solutions. In turn, each choice may cascade into several additional decisions. With so many issues to address and so many variables to consider, practioners and researchers alike need a clear, but complete, framework for exploring, understanding, and improving the NPD process. To help bring some order to the study and the practice of NPD management, W. Austin Spivey, J. Michael Munson, and John H. Wolcott introduce a new metaphor, or paradigm, for product development: a fractal paradigm. Like some fractal images, their framework for understanding the essence of NPD rests on the concept of self-similarity. In other words, the picture their framework provides for understanding and managing the NPD process consists of the same set of concerns, regardless of the level at which the process is viewed. They developed this fractal paradigm during an empirical study of technology transition in a highly successful federal laboratory organization. Whether the focus is on the organization, the division, the team, or the individual, the essence of the NPD process as viewed through their framework comes down to two sets of factors: management factors and resource factors. In turn, each of these factors cascades into several interrelated sets of concerns. For example, the management factors comprise concerns about leadership and the management system. The resource factors include concerns about information, infrastructure, time, and money. Regardless of the level of detail at which the framework is viewed, improving the NPD process requires attention to all of these factors, by all levels within the organization. For example, visionary leadership on the part of senior management will have little effect if middle management and line supervisors fail to provide the necessary leadership for their respective groups of subordinates. Notwithstanding the complexity of the NPD process, the fractal paradigm focuses attention on those few key factors that must be managed continually, throughout all levels of the organization, to ensure successful commercialization of new products.     

Performance of Global New Product Development Programs: A Resource-Based View

Gaining a competitive edge in today's turbulent business environment calls for a commitment by firms to two highly interrelated strategies: globalization and new product development (NPD). Although much research has focused on how companies achieve NPD success, little of this deals with NPD in the global setting. The authors use resource‐based theory (RBT)—a model emphasizing the resources and capabilities of the firm as primary determinants of competitive advantage—to explain how companies involved in international NPD realize superior performance. The capabilities RBT model is used to test how firms achieve superior performance by deploying organizational capabilities to take advantage of key organizational resources relevant for developing new products for global markets. Specifically, the study evaluates (1) organizational NPD resources (i.e., the firm's global innovation culture, attitude to resource commitment, top‐management involvement, and NPD process formality); (2) NPD process capabilities or routines for identifying and exploiting new product opportunities (i.e., global knowledge integration, NPD homework activities, and launch preparation); and (3) global NPD program performance. Based on data from 387 global NPD programs (North America and Europe, business‐to‐business), a structural model testing for the hypothesized mediation effects of NPD process capabilities on organizational NPD resources was largely supported. The findings indicate that all four resources considered relevant for effective deployment of global NPD process capabilities play a significant role. Specifically, a positive attitude toward resource commitment as well as NPD process formality is essential for the effective deployment of the three NPD process routines linked to achieving superior global NPD program performance; a strong global innovation culture is needed for ensuring effective global knowledge integration; and top‐management involvement plays a key role in deploying both knowledge integration and launch preparation. Of the three NPD process capabilities, global knowledge integration is the most important, whereas homework and launch preparation also play a significant role in bringing about global NPD program success. Tests for partial mediation suggest that too much process formality may be negative and that top‐management involvement requires careful focus.