Propuesta de Fortalecimiento de la Corte Interamericana (2011-2015)

Cagan and Vogel (2008) state that companies must structure and navigate the FFE of the NPD process by beginning with opportunity identification and ending with a realization of a well-developed product concept. This chapter presents the literature review comprising of different front-end models and approaches used to structure the often chaotic FFE phase of NPD.

Holistic approach

Khurana and Rosenthal published the first comprehensive study of the front-end and offered a process view of the activities that the front-end comprises. Successful organizations follow a holistic approach that places the front-end within a broader

context and emphasizes that success depends on both organizational and project- specific activities. The most significant benefits in improving NPD can be reached by advancements in the performance of front-end activities—delivery of product strategy, opportunity identification, idea generation, product definition, project planning, and executive reviews (Khurana and Rosenthal, 1998).

The greatest success comes to organizations that adopt a holistic approach (Figure 16 below) to the front-end by powerfully linking business strategy, product strategy, and product-specific decisions—combining these elements requires a process that integrates such links (Khurana and Rosenthal, 1998).

Figure 16. The holistic approach FFE process. Adapted from Khurana and Rosenthal (1998). In Khurana’s and Rosenthal’s holistic approach, before possibly proceeding to the actual NPD execution phase, the FFE process undergoes phases that include opportunity identification, idea generation, market and technology analysis, product and portfolio strategy, product concept, and feasibility and project planning, leading to final project funding Go/No-go decision (Khurana and Rosenthal, 1998).

The two-track model

Reinertsen (1994) illustrated an example of a two-track front-end process (Figure 17 below), which was differentiated due to the different time and focus of various projects.

Figure 17. The two-track FFE process. Adapted from Reinertsen (1994).

Reinertsen’s two front-end processes differ depending on whether the activities are conducted in sequence in the “Normal track” or in parallel in the “Fast track” (Reinertsen, 1994). Trade-off decisions deal with the benefit of gaining time and the cost of implementing a time-focused project (Nobelius and Trygg, 2002).

The stage-gate model

Cooper (1998) introduced a linear stage-gate model, illustrated in Figure 18 below, for the front-end phase, including a series of three phases and three decision gates before entering into the actual product development phase or terminating the project.

Figure 18. The Stage-Gate FFE model. Adapted from Cooper (1998).

Cooper’s stage-gate model begins with the discovery phase, when ideation, generation, and conceptualization of ideas takes place. At the first gate, ideas are screened based on a set of qualitative criteria to assess the suitability of the idea. The second phase deals with acquiring more information about the idea, aiming to discard a great number of ideas at the next gate. Before the third and final gate before actual product development, a solid business case is built that includes an investigation of user’s needs, the competitive situation, markets, technical feasibility, financial issues, and general testing of the product concept; the outcome of building this case is product definition, project justification, and action plan through the launch. Cooper’s stage-gate model has a rather linear and formal approach for managing front-end phase activities (Cooper, 1998).

The very recent research from the NPD pioneer Robert G. Cooper (2017) updates the original stage-gate model to better adapt to the rapidly changing business environment with less relaxed budgets, more constrained resources, and global competition, as illustrated in Figure 19 below.

Figure 19. The “next-generation idea-to-launch system”. Adapted from Cooper (2014) and Cooper

(2017).

In Cooper’s updated stage-gate model, the better adaptivity to a more competitive market environment is accomplished through the incorporation of iterative development cycles designed to obtain something before potential users early and often (Cooper, 2017). The build/test/feedback/revise cycle spiraling within each stage has some similarities with the lean startup method (Ries, 2011).

The new concept development model

Koen et al. attempted to provide clarity to the FFE by determining a common language, definitions of the key elements, and the best practices for the FFE and introduced new concept development model (NCD) in the process. Koen’s NCD model consists of three key parts, illustrated in Figure 18: five front-end elements, an engine that powers the elements, and external influencing factors. In the NCD model, the inner area defines five key elements that comprise the FEI: idea genesis, idea selection, concept and technology development, opportunity identification, and opportunity analysis. The engine driving the five front-end elements represents leadership and executive-level support and is fueled by the culture of the organization. The outer influencing factors that affect the decisions of the two inner portions comprise organizational capabilities, business strategy, the outside world (customers and competitors), and enabling science (Koen et al., 2001).

Koen et al. (2001) also introduced term FEI to describe the front-end phase of the innovation process instead of the term FFE, thereby targeting to reduce the

mysterious aspect of established terminology to increase organizational accountability on front-end activities and to provide stronger impression that front- end activities can be managed well instead of merely highlighting their “fuzziness.” Figure 20 below presents how ideas are expected to flow, circulate, and iterate among all the elements of a front-end machine for NCD.

Figure 20. The NCD front-end machine. Adapted from Koen et al. (2001).

In contrast to Cooper’s linear stage-gated processes, Koen’s NCD engine model is circular and indicates that ideas flow, circulate, and iterate across and among the five elements after beginning from the opportunity identification or idea-generation stages (Koen et al., 2014).

The user-centered funnel model

Cagan and Vogel (2008) argued that in successful product development engineers, designers and market researchers must work in unison to recognize promising product directions and work through the FFE to create a product that meets the

needs, wants, and desires of the customer. Companies must structure and navigate the FFE process using a four-phase integrated process, beginning with opportunity identification and ending with a realization of a well-developed product concept. Cagan and Vogel (2008) presented a user-centered integrated new product development (iNPD) process that consists of a series of funnel-type of phases: identifying the opportunity, understanding the opportunity, conceptualizing the opportunity and realizing the opportunity—three first phases are included in the front-end and the last one is the actual PD. The more time, money, and people a company is able to allocate from downstream to the front-end, the better the process becomes; the greater allocation of resources in the front-end will lead to a better executed product with fewer downstream catastrophes (Cagan and Vogel, 2008). The tailored model

Nobelius and Trygg (2002) analyzed three different types of projects; research, incremental, and platform development; they found presence of remarkable variation in the FFE models with respect to the set of activities, their sequences, overlapping, relative time duration, and perceived importance of individual tasks. Figure 21 below illustrates how the flexibly tailored FFE model is able to support different types of projects: research, incremental, and platform development.

Figure 21. The flexibly tailored FFE model. Adapted from Nobelius and Trygg (2002).

Nobelius and Trygg (2002) list six activities that are implemented in the FFE after opportunity has been identified: mission clarification, concept creation, concept screening, concept definition, business analysis, and project planning. The authors argue that it appears less valuable to chase one FFE model; instead, a greater flexibility may be needed to support different types of projects by adapting the FFE

model according to the type of project, staffing situation, and overall company situation.

The following subsection focuses on the various tasks and activities that must be implemented in a well-performing front-end of NPD.