This document proposes a process and framework for managing the front end of innovation effectively. It begins with introducing the objectives and importance of researching the front end of innovation. It then defines key terms like innovation and the front end of innovation. The document reviews existing models of the front end innovation process and identifies limitations. It proposes a new framework that takes strategic, systems and process perspectives into account and is informed by relevant theories. The framework aims to address issues with existing models and better manage the front end of innovation.

1. TOWARDS DEVELOPING A PROCESS
AND FRAMEWORK IN MANAGING
FRONT END OF INNOVATION
EFFECTIVELY
Mat Kamil Awang
Graduate School of Management
Universiti Putra Malaysia
Supervisors:
Dr. Yee Choy Leong
Prof. Dr. Zainal Abidin Mohamed
Dr. Kenny Teoh Guan Cheng

2. TABLE OF CONTENTS
• Introduction
• Definition of Innovation & Front End of Innovation
• Strategic, Process, & Systems View of Innovation
• Front End of Innovation Process
• Proposed Framework
• Conclusion
• Questions & Answers

3. Objectives of The Paper
• Conceptual Paper
• Propose a process and framework for managing front end
of innovation
• Pre-cursor to PhD research “Developing a Process and
Framework in Managing Front End of Innovation
Effectively”
• To get feedback from the audience on the proposed
framework

4. Why Do We Need Research in Front End
of Innovation
• Front end as the greatest weakness in product innovation
(Khurana and Rosenthal 1997).
• “the greatest differences between winners and losers
were found in the quality of execution of pre-development
activities”. (Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1994)
• At macro/country level, Malaysian Government spending
on Innovation but with mixed result
• At micro/organization level, for example, an R&D arm of
telecommunication company (Telekom Malaysia) yearly
spending of RM60-80 million but with minimal impact on
the market.

5. FUNDING FOR INNOVATION 9th MP

6. COMPARISON OF SPENDING ON
INNOVATION

7. Importance of FEI
• Improving return on investment in front end activities
• Ability to develop high quality stream of ideas
• Reducing uncertainty and risk associated with projects
• Fitting ideas to the company and their context.

8. Defining Innovation from Technological
Perspective
• “Innovation consists of all of those scientific, technical,
commercial and financial steps necessary for the
successful development and marketing of new or
improved manufactured products, the commercial use of
new or improved process or equipment or the introduction
of a new approach to a social service” - OECD

9. Defining Innovation from Organization
Perspective
• Innovation . . . is generally understood as the successful
introduction of a new thing or method . . . Innovation is the
embodiment, combination, or synthesis of knowledge in
original, relevant, valued new products, processes, or
services – Luecke & Katz (2003)

10. Defining Innovation from Creativity
Perspective
• All innovation begins with creative ideas . . . We define
innovation as the successful implementation of creative
ideas within an organization. In this view, creativity by
individuals and teams is a starting point for innovation; the
first is necessary but not sufficient condition for the
second – Amabile (1996)

11. Defining Innovation from business
function perspective
• Innovation, like many business functions, is a
management process that requires specific tools, rules,
and discipline – Davila et. al. (2006)

12. Working Definition of Innovation
• A strategic process which:
• Consists of scientific, technical, commercial, financial steps
• Involves implementation of new ideas
• Requires tools, rules and disciplines
• Has commercial values

13. Definition of Front End of Innovation
• “The messy „getting started‟ period of product
development, when the product concept is still very fuzzy.
Preceding the more formal product development process,
it generally consists of three tasks: strategic planning,
concept generation, and, especially, pre-technical
evaluation. These activities are often chaotic,
unpredictable, and unstructured. In comparison, the
subsequent new product development process is typically
structured, predictable, and formal, with prescribed sets of
activities, questions to be answered, and decisions to be
made”. (PDMA)

14. FEI versus NPD Stages (Koen)
• FRONT END INNOVATION • NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
• Experimental, often chaotic,
STAGES
„eureka‟ moment • Discipline, goal oriented with a
project plan
• Commercialization date
• Commercialization date can be
unpredictable determined with high degree of
• Funding is depending on certainty
situation. In the beginning may • Funding is budgeted
be “bootlegged” • Revenue expectation can be
• Revenue expectation is uncertain reasonably determine, especially
with great deal of speculation closer to the release date
• Individual or team emphasis on • Multi-function product or process
minimizing risk development team
• Milestone achievement as
• Strengthen concept as measure
measure of progress
of progress

15. Strategic View on Innovation
• The motives for looking at innovation from strategic point
of views are;
• The FEI in innovation is gaining strategic importance in firms and
academia.
• Mainstream business needs to be combined with new stream
innovation (Miller & Morris 1999, Lawson & Samson 2001)
• Networking (including cooperative and collaborative arrangement
between firms) and information and knowledge sharing are
emphasized (Blomqvist et. al. 2003)
• Innovation is becoming an organization-wide issue (Miles et al
2000)
• Innovation process are becoming more open to external sources of
ideas and innovation (Chesbrough 2003)

16. Process View of Innovation
• The motives of looking at FEI from the innovation process
point of views are:
• The balance between systematic and flexibility in R&D
and innovation processes is difficult to manage
(MacCormack et. al. 2001) – this issue is pivotal during
the front end
• Part-whole relationships in innovation process are
difficult to manage (Van de Ven 1986)
• Different types of innovation processes are required for
different types of innovations

17. Systems View of Innovation
• The motives of looking at FEI from the innovation system
view are:
• Methods and tools are often difficult to use (Piippo et. al. 2002)
• Methods and tools should provide support over the activities in the
innovation process (Piippo et. al. 2002)
• Electronification of the whole innovation process is on the way
(Rothwell 1994)
• The open innovation paradigm has an effect on the innovation
systems and methods

18. MALAYSIAN NATIONAL INNOVATION MODEL
Source: Pusat Inovasi Negara (MOSTI)

19. INNOVATION PROCESS
Source: Koen

20. Khurana & Rosenthal‟s FEI Model

21. KOEN‟S NCD FEI MODEL
Source: Koen

22. FEI Description Applicable
Process Model
Linear Front end steps are relatively deterministic and tightly Stage Gate™
coupled. Each step must be successfully completed Khurana&
before obtaining management approval to proceed to Rosenthal‟s
the next stage of product development based on Significant Customer
profitability and strategic alignment. Steps may overlap Request (SCR)
one another to improve timelines. Fast Track
Compression
Recursive Front end steps are loosely coupled with multiple NCD
feedbacks and feed forward loops between elements Integrative
that produce an iterative and integrative type of Deft Product Innovation
behavior. Outcomes from each step are harder to
predict.
Evolving A process where initial steps begin with vague Serial Experimentation -
requirements. Emphasis is on feedback learning for the rapid learning
purpose of exploiting and refining direction. Complex Adaptive System
Techniques include, but not limited to, prototyping or Agile
simulation. Flexible
Selectionis Front end generates multiple independent concepts for Selectionism
m testing and based on ex-post learning, the best Parallel
concept is picked.
Trial and A process where initial steps exhibit non-linear, non- Serial Experimentation -
Error orderly, non-predictable, non- stochastic process. minimal learning
Emphasis is on either trial-and-error. Trial-and-error is Chaotic
comprised of two dimensions:exploration (purpose of Improvisational
discovery) and exploitation (achievement).

23. GENERAL PROBLEMS AND ISSUES WITH
EXISTING FEI MODELS
• Many of the process models for the FFE share similar
problems and issues:
• No formal integration of gate in some models
• Poor visual representation of cost, effort, time, and money
• Poor integration of portfolio management and company strategy
• Very poor link to idea management and idea banks
• Poor link to knowledge management
• Poor link to creativity management.

24. DRAWBACKS OF KOEN‟S MODEL
• the lack of a (go/no-go) gate to minimize risk
• the unclear flow of activities
• lack of a link to time, effort, and energy
• the confusion about when to eliminate or transfer ideas
weaken this model.

25. Proposed Framework for FEI

26. Characteristics of the Proposed
Framework
• Takes into consideration the strategy, systems and
process views of innovation
• Resource-Based View, Knowledge-Base View,
Dynamic Capability View, Entrepreneurship Theory,
• Combination of Linear, Recursive & Iterative
Processes
• Prescription of Tools for each sub-processes
• The Framework is to address the short-comings of
previous models

27. Proposed Framework to Achieve
• Reduction of uncertainty and risk associated with projects
• Fit of ideas to the company and their context.
• Ability to develop high quality stream of ideas
• Improvement on return on investment in front end
activities

28. Next Steps of Research
• To conduct study in accordance to Case Study
Methodology & Action Research Method
• Detail development of the tools, and process for the
framework
• Pilot test of the tools, process and framework in
companies in Malaysia

29. Contribution to Practice
• An Integrated process and framework for managers to
manage front end of innovation

30. Contribution to Knowledge
• A New Framework for Front End of Innovation
• Generation of Mode 2 Knowledge

31. Conclusion
• FEI is important aspect of innovation process
• Various models were proposed but suffer some
weaknesses
• New framework for managing front end of innovation is
proposed

32. References
• Please refer to full paper in the CD provided

33. The End
• Q&A

36. INNOVATION PROCESS
TECHNOLOGY-PUSH (FIRST GENERATION INNOVATION 50‟s – 60‟s)
MARKET-PULL (SECOND GENERATION INNOVATION 60‟s – 70‟s)
Source: Rothwell (1994)

37. INNOVATION PROCESS
COUPLING MODEL (THIRD GENERATION INNOVATION 70‟s – 80‟s)
Source: Rothwell (1994)

38. INNOVATION PROCESS
Source: Rothwell (1994)
SYSTEM INTEGRATION MODEL (FOURTH GENERATION INNOVATION 80‟s – 90‟s)

39. Summary of the Innovation Process
(Amidon)
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
Technology Project Enterprise Customer Knowledge
as the Asset as the Asset as the Asset as the Asset as the Asset
Core Strategy R&D in Isolation Link to Business Technology/Busin Integration With Collaborative
ess Integration Customer R&D Innovation System
Change Factors Unpredictable Inter-dependence Systematic R&D Accelerated Kaleidoscopic
Serendipity Management Discontinuous Dynamics
Global Change
Performance R&D as Overhead Cost-Sharing Balancing 'Productivity Intellectual
Risk/Reward Paradox' Capacity/Impact
Structure Hierarchical; Matrix Distributed 'Multi Dimensional' Symbiotic
Functionally Coordination Communities of Networks
Driven Practice
People We/They Proactive Structured Focus on Values Self Managing
Competition Cooperation Collaboration and Capacity Knowledge
Workers
Process Minimal Project to Project Purposeful Feedback Loops Cross-Boundary
Communication Basis R&D/Portfolio and 'information Learning and
persistence' Knowledge Flow
Technology Embryonic Data-Based Information-Based IT as a Competitive Intelligent
Weapon Knowledge
Processors

40. DELIVERABLES FROM FFE
• a clear product concept
• knowledge and understanding required to develop the
product concept
• selection of the right/best idea/concepts
• a strong business case
• a development plan required to managed the NPD
activities
• assets such as intellectual property or working prototypes

41. DRAWBACK OF KOEN‟S MODEL
• the lack of a (go/no-go) gate to minimize risk
• the unclear flow of activities
• lack of a link to time, effort, and energy
• the confusion about when to eliminate or transfer ideas
weaken this model.

42. Summary of Studies on FFE (Frishmmar &
Floren)