Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Glassman Dissertation
Glassman Dissertation
Glassman Dissertation
(Revised 12/07)
PURDUE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Thesis/Dissertation Acceptance
Rodney Vandeveer
William Krug
To the best of my knowledge and as understood by the student in the Research Integrity and
Copyright Disclaimer (Graduate School Form 20), this thesis/dissertation adheres to the provisions of
Purdue University’s “Policy on Integrity in Research” and the use of copyrighted material.
PURDUE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Title of Thesis/Dissertation:
IMPROVING IDEA GENERATION AND IDEA MANAGEMENT
IN-ORDER TO BETTER MANAGE THE FUZZY FRONT END OF INNOVATION
Doctor of Philosophy
For the degree of ________________________________________________________________
I certify that in the preparation of this thesis, I have observed the provisions of Purdue University
Executive Memorandum No. C-22, September 6, 1991, Policy on Integrity in Research.*
Further, I certify that this work is free of plagiarism and all materials appearing in this
thesis/dissertation have been properly quoted and attributed.
I certify that all copyrighted material incorporated into this thesis/dissertation is in compliance with
the United States’ copyright law and that I have received written permission from the copyright
owners for my use of their work, which is beyond the scope of the law. I agree to indemnify and save
harmless Purdue University from any and all claims that may be asserted or that may arise from any
copyright violation.
Brian Glassman
________________________________
Signature of Candidate
April-20-2009
________________________________
Date
*Located at http://www.purdue.edu/policies/pages/teach_res_outreach/c_22.html
Graduate School Form 16
(Revised 7/02)
PURDUE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Thesis/Dissertation Receipt
The final approved deposit copy of a thesis entitled: Improving Idea Generation and Idea Management
In Order to Better Manage the Fuzzy Front End of Innovation
______________________________________________________
Graduate School Committee on Theses and Publication
Thesis No.
Notes .
∗
Choose subject category from ProQuest
A Dissertation
of
Purdue University
by
of
Doctor of Philosophy
May 2009
Purdue University
I dedicate my thesis to my mother and father, Linda and Andy whose patience,
nurturing and regard for education held me on a steady course. I want to
express my appreciation to my sister Stephanie whose antics always kept me
thinking of ways to outsmart her. I also want to thank my Grandmother Irene
and Grandma Sally for their unconditional love and emotional support. I want to
acknowledge my Aunt Nancy for her wise encouragement and advice. Finally, I
want to remember my Poppa Frank whose love and enthusiasm for engineering
was passed down to me with unending patience at his basement workbench.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would especially like to thank my major advisor, Dr. Linda Naimi, for her
support, encouragement, and understanding. She truly is an inspiration to me!
Select Quotes
“In the hustle and bustle of everyday life, one can get caught up in life’s many
problems. When that happens, remember life is beautiful. Stop and take some
time to appreciate how beautiful and precious it is. It will surely make you feel
better.” - Dr. M.T. Naimi
“Life is not hard any more, it is just a whole lot more complicated.”
- Brian Glassman
“The brain is a wonderful organ. It starts working the moment you get up in the
morning and does not stop until you get to the office.” - Robert Frost
iv
PREFACE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. x
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................. xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................... xiv
ABSTRACT......................................................................................................... xv
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 1
1.1. Statement of Research Problem, Background, and Context....................... 1
1.2. Importance and Significant of the Study ..................................................... 4
1.3. Research Questions ................................................................................... 5
1.4. Assumptions ............................................................................................... 6
1.5. Delimitations and Limitations ...................................................................... 8
CHAPTER 2. A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE................. 9
2.1. Literature Review of Ideas .......................................................................... 9
2.1.1. Why does the Innovation Process Need Ideas? ................................... 9
2.1.2. Value of Ideas ..................................................................................... 10
2.1.3. Defining an Idea .................................................................................. 11
2.1.4. Narrowing the Definition of Ideas ........................................................ 12
2.1.5. Terminology ........................................................................................ 14
2.1.6. New and Old Ideas ............................................................................. 16
2.1.7. Summary of Literature Review on Idea ............................................... 17
2.2. The Evolution of the Innovation Process................................................... 18
2.2.1. The Importance of Innovation ............................................................. 18
2.2.2. A Quick History of Innovation and R&D: A Process Perspective ........ 19
2.3. Research on the Fuzzy Front End ............................................................ 26
2.3.1. Intro to Section on Fuzzy Front End.................................................... 26
2.3.2. Terminology for the Fuzzy Front End .................................................. 27
2.3.3. Activities in the Front End of Innovation .............................................. 29
2.3.4. Importance of the FFE ........................................................................ 30
2.3.5. Deliverable at the End of the Fuzzy Front End ................................... 32
2.3.6. Structured vs. Unstructured Fuzzy Front End ..................................... 33
2.3.7. Quick Review of Research on the Fuzzy Front End............................ 34
2.3.8. Summary of Research on the FFE...................................................... 36
2.4. Review of Process Models for the Fuzzy Front End ................................. 37
2.4.1. Intro to Section .................................................................................... 37
2.4.2. Review of FFE Process Models .......................................................... 37
2.4.3. Innovation Value Chain ....................................................................... 38
vi
Page
2.4.4. Cooper’s Stage-Gate Process Model.................................................. 40
2.4.5. Downsides of the Stage-Gate Model .................................................. 45
2.4.6. Khurana & Rosenthal FFE Model ....................................................... 46
2.4.7. Deloitte’s Spiral Model ........................................................................ 48
2.4.8. Downsides of the Deloitte Spiral Model .............................................. 51
2.4.9. Koen’s NCD Model ............................................................................. 52
2.4.10. Downsides and Conclusion on Koen’s Model ................................... 54
2.4.11. Husig, Kohn, and Poskela 2003 ........................................................ 55
2.4.12. Montoya-Weiss & O’Driscoll ............................................................. 56
2.4.13. General Problems and Issues with Fuzzy Front End Models............ 57
2.5. Literature Review of Activities in the Fuzzy Front End .............................. 62
2.5.1. List of Activities in the Fuzzy Front End .............................................. 62
2.5.2. Quick Categorization of Activities in the Fuzzy Front End................... 68
2.5.3. Proposed Organization of Activities for the Fuzzy Front End .............. 68
2.5.4. Summary of Section............................................................................ 69
2.6. Literature Review of Idea Generation ....................................................... 69
2.6.1. Why is Idea Generation Important? .................................................... 70
2.6.2. What is Idea Generation? ................................................................... 71
2.6.3. A Review of Idea Generation Research .............................................. 72
2.6.4. Creativity and Idea Generation ........................................................... 74
2.6.5. Environmental Scanning and Idea Generation ................................... 75
2.6.6. Seeding Ideas ..................................................................................... 77
2.6.7. Opportunity Identifications .................................................................. 78
2.6.8. Issues and Problems with Idea Generation ........................................ 79
2.6.9. Summary of Section............................................................................ 81
2.7. Highly Detailed Review of Sources of Ideas, and Idea Generation
Techniques, Activities, and Processes ............................................................ 81
2.7.1. People are the Only Source of Ideas .................................................. 81
2.7.2. Techniques, Activities, and Full Processes for Idea Generation ......... 84
2.7.3. Review of top idea generation processes ........................................... 90
2.7.4. Detailed Examination of Sources of Ideas ........................................ 101
2.7.5. Issues with External Sources of Ideas .............................................. 112
2.7.6. Which Source of Ideas is the Best? .................................................. 112
2.7.7. Major Issue with Idea Generation (Lack of Control Models) ............. 113
2.7.8. Summary of Section 2.7.................................................................... 113
2.8. Literature Review of Idea Management and Idea Banks ........................ 114
2.8.1. Introduction to Section ...................................................................... 114
2.8.2. What is Idea Management and What are Idea Banks? ..................... 114
2.8.3. Need for Idea Management and Idea Banks .................................... 115
2.8.4. Terminology for Idea Banks .............................................................. 116
2.8.5. A Review of the Literature on Idea Management and Idea Banks .... 117
2.8.6. Problems and Issues with Idea Management and Idea Banks ......... 126
2.8.7. Summary of Section.......................................................................... 127
vii
Page
CHAPTER 3. DEVELOPMENT OF CONTROL MODELS ................................ 128
3.1. Review and Selection of a Control Theory .............................................. 128
3.2. Development of a Control Model for Idea Generation ............................. 132
3.2.1. Continuous Idea Generation vs. Event Based Idea Generation ........ 132
3.2.2. Supporting Evidence for Ideation Events .......................................... 133
3.2.3. Controlling External and Internal Events ........................................... 135
3.2.4. Controlling the Source ...................................................................... 138
3.2.5. Internal vs. External Source and Methods of Control ........................ 140
3.2.6. Controlling Idea Generation Activities ............................................... 141
3.2.7. Internal and External Idea Generation and Control ........................... 144
3.2.8. Screening and Filtering Before Being Captured ................................ 145
3.2.9. Quick Review on Areas of Control .................................................... 147
3.2.10. Strategy and Idea Generation ......................................................... 148
3.2.11. Idea Generation’s Process Check Analysis .................................... 153
3.2.12. Characteristics of Created Ideas ..................................................... 154
3.2.13. A Practical example of managing the idea generation process ...... 155
3.2.14. Summary of Section........................................................................ 157
3.3. Development of a Control Model for Idea Banks and Idea Management 158
3.3.1. Major Functions of Idea Management............................................... 158
3.3.2. Capturing Ideas................................................................................. 161
3.3.3. Tagging ............................................................................................. 166
3.3.4. Storage and Categorizing ................................................................. 173
3.3.5. Process Check and Feedback .......................................................... 182
3.3.6. Diffusing and Routing........................................................................ 184
3.3.7. Routing ............................................................................................. 189
3.4. Linking Idea Banks to Portfolio Management.......................................... 190
CHAPTER 4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY................................................... 193
4.1. Purpose of Study .................................................................................... 193
4.2. Limitations Effecting the Selection of the Type of Study ......................... 193
4.2.1. Lack of Metrics for Success in Idea Generation ................................ 193
4.3. Study Type Which Will Not Be Used ....................................................... 195
4.3.1. Observational Based Support Studies .............................................. 195
4.3.2. Application Based Support Study...................................................... 195
4.3.3. Laboratory Testing Base Support Study ........................................... 196
4.3.4. Analysis of Secondary Research ...................................................... 196
4.3.5. Interview Based Support ................................................................... 196
4.3.6. Electronic Survey Study .................................................................... 197
4.4. Parts to the Study ................................................................................... 198
4.5. Study Part One ....................................................................................... 198
4.6. Study Part Two ....................................................................................... 199
4.6.1. Description of Part Two..................................................................... 199
4.6.2. Description of Survey Tool ................................................................ 200
4.6.3. Description of the Respondent Pool.................................................. 202
4.6.4. Data Analysis .................................................................................... 202
viii
Page
CHAPTER 5. RESEARCH RESULTS .............................................................. 204
5.1. Summary of Case Study Results ............................................................ 204
5.1.1. Benefits of the Case Studies............................................................. 205
5.1.2. Analysis of the Company .................................................................. 205
5.1.3. Brief Summary of Each Case Study.................................................. 206
5.2. Case Study 1: Company Alpha ............................................................... 208
5.2.1. Background on the Company ........................................................... 208
5.2.2. Sources of Ideas for Idea Generation ............................................... 208
5.2.3. Events and Activities Used to Generate Ideas .................................. 209
5.2.4. Screening Ideas upon First Submission............................................ 211
5.2.5. Capturing Ideas from Internal and External Sources ........................ 211
5.2.6. Sources Tapped for Ideas................................................................. 213
5.2.7. Tagging Ideas during Capture .......................................................... 214
5.2.8. Storing and Categorizing Ideas ......................................................... 214
5.2.9. Process Check Used to Improve the Idea Generation Process ........ 215
5.2.10. Diffusing Ideas to Employees inside the Company ......................... 215
5.2.11. Comparison with Measures of Satisfaction ..................................... 216
5.2.12. Late Front End Activities at Company Alpha ................................... 217
5.2.13. Recommendations for Late Front End Activities ............................. 218
5.3. Case Study 2: Fairbanks Scales ............................................................. 218
5.3.1. Background on the Company ........................................................... 218
5.3.2. Overall Situation & Broader Strategic View....................................... 219
5.3.3. Adopting a Broader View of Their Core Business ............................. 221
5.3.4. A Broader Understanding of How their Products Fit into the Job
Process ....................................................................................................... 222
5.3.5. Idea Generation ................................................................................ 223
5.3.6. Recommendations for Idea Generation ............................................ 224
5.3.7. Screening of Ideas ............................................................................ 227
5.3.8. Capturing Ideas from Internal and External Sources ........................ 228
5.3.9. Tagging Ideas during Capture .......................................................... 228
5.3.10. Storage and Categorization ............................................................ 229
5.3.11. Process Check Used to Improve the Idea Generation Process ...... 229
5.3.12. Diffusing Ideas to Employees inside the Company ......................... 229
5.3.13. Late Front End Activities ................................................................. 230
5.3.14. Skunk Works Team......................................................................... 232
5.3.15. Comparison with Measures of Satisfaction ..................................... 233
5.4. Case Study 3: CartêGraph...................................................................... 235
5.4.1. Background on the Company ........................................................... 235
5.4.2. Idea Generation ................................................................................ 235
5.4.3. Technology Adoption ........................................................................ 236
5.4.4. Types of Idea Generation Activities .................................................. 238
5.4.5. Idea Management ............................................................................. 238
5.4.6. First Screen of ideas ......................................................................... 239
5.4.7. Capturing Ideas from Internal and External Sources ........................ 239
ix
Page
5.4.8. Recommendations for Capturing Ideas............................................. 240
5.4.9. Tagging Ideas during Capture .......................................................... 241
5.4.10. Storage & Categorization ................................................................ 241
5.4.11. Process Check Used to Improve the Idea Generation Process ...... 242
5.4.12. Diffusing Ideas to Employees Inside the Company ......................... 242
5.4.13. Late Front End Activities ................................................................. 243
5.4.14. Comparison with Measures of Satisfaction ..................................... 244
5.5. Case Study: Discussion of 2nd Research Question Based on Case Study
Evidence ........................................................................................................ 245
5.6. Case Study: Major Lessons Learned ...................................................... 247
5.6.1. Structure of Idea Management ......................................................... 248
5.6.2. Situational Dependence on Idea Generation or Idea Management .. 249
5.6.3. Assigned Idea Manager .................................................................... 249
5.6.4. Expertise is Needed .......................................................................... 249
5.7. Survey: Method of Cleaning the Data and Analysis ................................ 250
5.8. Survey: General Demographic Statistics for the Sample ........................ 252
5.8.1. Sample’s Relation to the Greater Population .................................... 255
5.9. Survey: Correlations between Satisfaction Variables.............................. 256
5.9.1. Idea Generation ................................................................................ 256
5.9.2. Idea Capture ..................................................................................... 258
5.9.3. Development Outcomes ................................................................... 260
5.10. Survey: Discussion of Correlations Between Satisfaction Variables and
Measures of Activities .................................................................................... 261
5.10.1. Correlations for the Idea Management Process .............................. 264
5.11. Survey: Discussion of Support for Proposed Model .............................. 274
5.12. Survey: Discussion of Normative Results ............................................. 275
5.12.1. Normative Results for Satisfaction Questions ................................. 275
5.12.2. Normative Results for Activity Questions ........................................ 276
5.13. Survey: Major Lessons Learned ........................................................... 278
CHAPTER 6. UPDATED CONTROL MODELS ................................................ 279
6.1. Screening Moved into Idea Management ............................................... 279
6.2. Strategic Alignment Activities .................................................................. 280
6.3. Final Version of the Glassman Control Model......................................... 283
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................... 284
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Concept Life Cycle .................................................................... 301
Appendix B. Details of Stage Gate Process................................................... 302
Appendix C. Survey Instrument ..................................................................... 303
Appendix D. Normative Survey Results ......................................................... 311
VITA ................................................................................................................. 329
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
Table 2.1. Koen et al. Activities in the Front End of Innovation ........................... 28
Table 2.2. Koen et al. Factors and Characteristics of the Front End of Innovation
...................................................................................................................... 29
Table 2.3. Specific Activities and Decisions for Each Stage and Gate ............... 43
Table 2.4. List of Activities Which Can Occur in the Front End of Innovation ..... 62
Table 2.5. Categorization of Front End Activities ................................................ 68
Table 2.6. Techniques which Aid in Idea Generation .......................................... 86
Table 2.7. Activities which Specifically Trigger Creativity.................................... 87
Table 2.8. Activities which Seed Individuals with Ideas ...................................... 88
Table 2.9. Activities Which Use Analysis to Spawn Creativity and Ideas ............ 89
Table 2.10. Full Idea Generation Processes ....................................................... 90
Table 2.11. Major Categories for Source of Ideas ............................................ 102
Table 2.12. Employee Based Sources of Ideas ................................................ 103
Table 2.13. Customer Sources Which Can Result in Ideas .............................. 104
Table 2.14. Non-for-profit Organizational Based Sources of Ideas ................... 106
Table 2.15. Supplier Sources............................................................................ 109
Table 2.16. Competitor sources ........................................................................ 110
Table 2.17. Sources of Ideas From Other Companies ...................................... 111
Table 3.1. Example of Idea from the Company’s First Attempt ......................... 156
Table 3.2. Example of Improved Set of Idea Resulting from Second Attempt .. 157
Table 3.3. Diffusion Methods, Forced, and Sought Diffusion ............................ 187
Table 5.1. Attributes of the Three Companies .................................................. 205
Table 5.2. Idea Generation Satisfaction Variable Results for Alpha ................. 216
Table 5.3. Idea Management Satisfaction Results Variables for Alpha ............ 217
Table 5.4. Recommended Idea Generation Techniques and Activities ............ 226
Table 5.5. Idea Generation Satisfaction Variable Results for Fairbanks ........... 233
Table 5.6. Idea Management Satisfaction Results Variables for Fairbanks ...... 234
Table 5.7. Correlation for Diffusion Activities .................................................... 271
Table 5.8. Correlations for Idea Management Software ................................... 272
Table 5.9. Support Found for the Author’s Proposed Model ............................. 274
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
Figure 1.1. Koen’s breakup of the new product innovation processes .................. 2
Figure 2.1. Concept Life Cycle Model ................................................................. 16
Figure 2.2. Early R&D process ........................................................................... 20
Figure 2.3. R&D Funnel ...................................................................................... 21
Figure 2.4. R&D Funnel and New Product and Commercialization Processes ... 21
Figure 2.5. Addition of the Fuzzy Front End........................................................ 22
Figure 2.6. State-Gate Process in the Overall Development Process and a Map
of Project Costs as the Project Progresses................................................... 23
Figure 2.7. Innovation Value Chain ..................................................................... 25
Figure 2.8. Visual Depiction of the Innovation Value Chain Model ..................... 38
Figure 2.9. Visual Depiction of the a Stage in the Stage-Gate Model ................. 41
Figure 2.10. Full Stage-Gate Process Model ...................................................... 41
Figure 2.11. Options for Sage Gate Process ...................................................... 44
Figure 2.12. Pie Charts Depicting Activities in Each Stages ............................... 45
Figure 2.13. Khurana & Rosenthal FFE model ................................................... 47
Figure 2.14. Visual Depiction of the Delottie’s Spiral Model................................ 49
Figure 2.15. Visual Depiction of Koen’s NCD Model ........................................... 52
Figure 2.16. Visual Depiction of Husig, Kohn, and Poskela Model ..................... 55
Figure 2.17. Montoya-Weiss & O’Driscoll’s Funnel Model .................................. 56
Figure 2.18. Idea Creation in a Person’s Mind .................................................... 83
Figure 2.19. Activities Leading to the Creation of Ideas ...................................... 83
Figure 2.20. Unknown Activities which Lead to the Creation of an Idea ............. 84
Figure 2.21. Illustration of How Techniques are Embedded in Activities,............ 85
Figure 2.22. Illustration of the Contextual Research Process ............................. 92
Figure 2.23. Illustration of the Outcome-Based Innovation Process ................... 93
Figure 2.24. Illustration of the IDEO’s Idea Generation Process......................... 96
Figure 2.25. The Strategic Canvas from Blue Oceans Strategy with
Three Plotted Value Curves .......................................................................... 97
Figure 2.26. Illustration of a Blue Ocean Strategy Idea Generation Process ...... 98
Figure 2.27. Illustration of Flynn’s Idea Generation Process............................. 100
Figure 2.28. Modification of Flynn’s Idea Generation Process .......................... 101
Figure 2.29. Montoya-Weiss & O’Driscoll’s Idea Generation Process .............. 121
Figure 2.30. Bakker, Boersma, & Oreel Idea Storage Processes ..................... 124
Figure 3.1. Process Control Model ................................................................... 131
Figure 3.2. Process Control Model with formal input and process controls....... 131
xii
Figure Page
Figure 3.3. Continuous Idea Generation vs. Event Driven Idea Generation ..... 132
Figure 3.4. Idea Generation Triggered by Formal Events ................................. 134
Figure 3.5. Controlling Both Internally Idea Events an External Idea Events .... 136
Figure 3.6. Ideation Events Influence on Idea Generation ................................ 137
Figure 3.7. Controls over Sources of Ideas....................................................... 141
Figure 3.8. Controls over External and Internal Idea Generation ...................... 144
Figure 3.9. Screening and Filtering Located After Idea Generation Activities ... 145
Figure 3.10. Screening and Filtering in and After Idea Generation Activities .... 146
Figure 3.11. Points of Control in the Full Idea Generation Process .................. 147
Figure 3.12. Statistical Results from Adams-Bigelow Showing How Idea Were
Generated ................................................................................................... 149
Figure 3.13. Strategy’s Possible Influence on the Idea Generation Processes. 151
Figure 3.14. Strategic Idea Continuum ............................................................. 152
Figure 3.15. Control model for Idea Generation................................................ 153
Figure 3.16. Initial version of Glassman Model ................................................. 160
Figure 3.17. An Example of a Company’s Receptiveness to Outside Ideas at
Respective Levels of Concept Development .............................................. 165
Figure 3.18. An Example of a Company’s Receptiveness to Outside Ideas in
Different Innovation Categories .................................................................. 166
Figure 3.19. Illustration of the Idea Cloud, Idea Bank,
and Company Idea Bank ............................................................................ 174
Figure 3.20. Illustration of the Continuum of Idea Formality.............................. 175
Figure 3.21. Illustration of the Diversity of Idea Banks ...................................... 176
Figure 3.22. Illustration of Idea Bank Organized by Incremental
and Radical Ideas ....................................................................................... 177
Figure 3.23. Illustration of Idea Bank Organized by Innovation Category ......... 177
Figure 3.24. Idea Management Feeding Idea Back into Idea Generation to
Stimulate more ideas .................................................................................. 184
Figure 3.25. Diffusion Power Spectrum ............................................................ 185
Figure 3.26. How Portfolio Management Determines Options for New Projects
.................................................................................................................... 191
Figure 3.27. How Assessment of Idea Banks can be Used by Portfolio Managers
.................................................................................................................... 191
Figure 3.28. Late FFE Activities Linking to Screening and Filtering .................. 192
Figure 5.1. Vertical Packaging Machine with Integrated Scales ....................... 222
Figure 5.2. Conversion of Answers from Likert to Ordinal Scales ..................... 251
Figure 5.3. Distribution of Respondents’ Companies amongst their Respective
Industries .................................................................................................... 253
Figure 5.4. Distribution of Respondent’s Companies by Revenues and Number of
Employees .................................................................................................. 253
Figure 5.5. Distribution of Respondent’s Companies by Locations ................... 254
Figure 5.6. Respondents Organized by their Roles .......................................... 255
Figure 5.7. Correlations of the Satisfaction Variables ....................................... 256
xiii
Figure Page
Figure 5.8. Correlation for Overall Satisfactions with the Idea Generation Process
.................................................................................................................... 257
Figure 5.9. Correlation of V48 Ability to Fill Front End Portfolio ........................ 258
Figure 5.10. Correlation of 51S Ability to Capture Ideas from Employees ........ 259
Figure 5.11. Correlations of 52S Ability to Capture Ideas from Outside Sources
.................................................................................................................... 259
Figure 5.12. Correlation of Dependent Development Variables ........................ 260
Figure 5.13. Correlations with Company Resources......................................... 260
Figure 5.14. Correlations of Activities to Quality of Ideas Generated................ 261
Figure 5.15. Correlation 0.851 Comparison with Model .................................... 263
Figure 5.16. Weak Correlation for Capturing Ideas from Employees ................ 264
Figure 5.17. Strong Correlation for Capturing Ideas from Employees .............. 265
Figure 5.18. Correlation for Capturing Ideas from Outsides Sources ............... 267
Figure 5.19. Correlation for Storing and Capturing Ideas.................................. 269
Figure 5.20. Correlation for Process Improvement ........................................... 269
Figure 5.21. Correlation for Development Activities .......................................... 272
Figure 6.1. Updated Glassman Model .............................................................. 283
xiv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABSTRACT
An expansive review of the literature on the fuzzy front end of innovation, idea
generation, and idea management was conducted and is shown. Based on a
depth of understanding, a control model was developed to aid innovation
practitioners in effectively controlling the idea generation and idea management
processes.
This control model, named the Glassman Model for Managing Idea Generation,
was then validated in two studies. The first was the application of the control
model via analyzing, diagnosing, and making recommendations for three
companies outlined in three individual case studies. The second study used an
online survey to develop normative data and correlations on the idea generation
and idea management processes. Improvements were made to the model based
on lessons learned from the two studies. Both studies supported and validated
the model as containing the factors needed to manage these processes
effectively.
1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Decision
Of these areas, the fuzzy front end (coined by Smith & Reinerten in 1991)
according to Kahn is “an important issue in future research on product
development (Verwon, Herstatt, & Nagahira, 2008). Further, authors like
Backman, Borjesson, and Setterberg (2007) say, “the greatest opportunities for
improving the overall innovation process lie in the very early phases of NPD”
process being the fuzzy front end (p. 321). Hence, Zhan and Doll (2001) states,
“managers and researchers claim the benefits resulting from improvements in the
front [end] are likely to far exceed those that result from improvements aimed
directly at the design engineering process” (Koen, et al. 2001, p. 2).
Process models for the fuzzy front end highlight idea generation as being
a core activity (Hansen, & Birkinshaw, 2007; Khurana, & Rosenthal, 1998;
Gallagher, George, & Kadaki, 2006; Koen et al. 2001; Husig, Kohn, & Poskela,
2003; Hüsig & Kohn, 2003; Hüsig, Kohn, & Poskela, 2005; Flint, 2002). Simply
put, Vandenbosch, Saatcioglu, & Fay (2006) state that “each innovation begins
with an idea” (p. 12). Jack Foster (1996) asserts “new ideas are the wheel of
progress” (p. 3). Finally, Linda Rochford (1991) posits that “ideas are the raw
material for product development” (p. 4).
According to Stasch, Lonsdale, & LaVenka (1992), “the objective of all
idea-generating activities is to guarantee that the company does not leave the
exploration stage of new-product development to chance” (Stasch et al, 1992, p.
3
3). In addition, “organizations that are active in new product development work
must have a system of sorts to keep the flow of ideas coming” (McGuiness,
1998, p. 121). Tucker (2003) claims that idea generation is sometimes applied
sporadically inside companies. Gamlin, Yourd, & Patrick (2007) refer to Cooper’s
quote - “Idea generation is everyone's job and no one's responsibility" - when
they described how “no one individual in a company or business unit is
specifically in charge of idea generation, and often, when new ideas surface, no
action is taken” (Gamlin et al, 2007, p. 42).
There are several fully detailed process for idea generation (Ulwick, 2007;
Kelley & Littman, 2005; Kelley, Littman, & Peters, 2001; Kim, & Mauborgne,
2005; Conley, 2005; Flynn, Dooley, & O’Sullivan, 2003).
However, a detailed review of idea generation in Section 2.6 revealed a
gap in the literature being the total lack of knowledge on how to manage and
control the idea generation process. This represents a deep chasm in the
understanding of idea generation which must be filled.
Further, idea management and idea banks were also identified as a key
item of importance in the fuzzy front end, where its’ major functions are to
capture, store, and organize ideas (Flynn, Dooley, & O’Sullivan, 2003; Belliveau,
Griffin, & Somermeyer, 2002; Montoya-Weiss & O’Driscoll, 2006; Gorski,
&Heinekamp, 2002; Bakker, Boersma, & Oreel, 2006; Heck, 2005; Fritz, 2002;
Dijk, & van de Ende, 2002; Koen et al., 2001).
Price Waterhouse and Ernst & Young, “advocated that companies [should]
adopt processes to collect and preserve their internal ideas” (Fritz, 2002, p. 54).
This may be because many ideas are lost or dropped from internal sources or
because “firms overlook other employees as a source of creative ideas” (Flynn,
Dooley, & O’Sullivan, 2003, p. 17; Gorski, & Heinekamp, 2002).
Several fully detailed software tools for idea management and idea banks
which can be implemented directly (Moskowitz, 1997; Zien, & Buckler, 1997;
Gorski, & Heinekamp, 2002; Bakker, Boersma, & Oreel, 2006; Heck, 2005; Fritz,
2002; Dijk, & van de Ende, 2002; Koen et al. 2001). However, a detailed review
4
of idea management in Section 2.8 revealed a gap in the literature being the total
lack of knowledge on how to manage and control the ideas and idea banks. This
represents a deep chasm in the understanding on idea management which also
should be filled. Therefore, this research will examine how selected companies
manage and control the idea generation and idea management processes.
Model for Idea Generation Management) to fill the gap in the literature on
managing idea generation and idea management. Second, the creation of new
knowledge will occur from developing, testing and supporting this model. Third,
the model is expected to aid practitioners in more effectively managing ideas and
idea generation. In addition, given research on previous front end models, it is
expected that the proposed Glassman model could be applicable in companies
of any country and any industry, and thus may have a global impact on
innovation practices.
In terms of research, this model may provide future researchers with a
model to study the effect of particular factors on the outcome of the idea
generation processes. Additionally, this model explains and contributes to other
works on innovation by tying together previously disparate activities and topics
like knowledge brokering (Hardagon, & Sutton, 2000), environmental scanning,
seeding ideas, and opportunity identification. Additionally, it may bring together a
more coherent view of the front end of innovation and its inter-workings.
As well, it will address randomness and the chaotic nature of the fuzzy
front end by giving innovation practitioners a means to turn idea generation into
and on demand activity.
Ideally, a properly designed control model for idea generation and idea
management could become another best practice model for innovation, which
will lead to greater recognition of the importance of managing innovation,
efficiency in the idea generation process and opportunities for further research
and funding.
1.4. Assumptions
A number of assumptions have been made for the purpose of this research study
and are broken up into the major areas assumptions related to: 1) company’s
motives, strategies, and limitations, 2) communication and information, 3)
supporting the proposed model, and finally assumptions related to 4) behavior of
the employees.
The first set of assumptions are related to the company’s motives,
strategies, and limitations and start with the assumption that the company would
like to improve its’ innovation process and has access to people which can be
trained to manage the innovation process.
Next, it is assumed that innovation practitioners want to manage the front
end to achieve a specific set of business related goals to benefit the
shareholders (growth, profitability, competitive advantage, and so on). Thus they
do not innovate because it is entertaining and they enjoy experiments for the
sake of experimenting. For example Bose Company knowingly wastes millions of
dollars in R&D because the CEO enjoys playing with basic research. Next, it is
assumed that companies have a general strategy for innovation (grow offering,
7
develop a competitive edge, and so on) and that innovation practioners are
working towards and aligned with their company’s goals based on a general
innovation strategy.
Finally, it is assumed that companies have some sort of preference toward
certain types of ideas because of limitations in resources, capabilities, and
people. Thus, they do not have the ability to develop every idea that comes along
nor have the desire to do so.
The second set of assumptions relate to communication and information
sharing in the company. This starts with the assumption that a company may not
share particular ideas all their idea with employees for reasons of intellectual
property or trade secrets. Next, it is assumed innovation practitioners, in the front
end, are not restricted from accessing any information related to those processes
or ideas (total free communication), and that the product portfolio accurately
shows the current projects in the development pipeline.
The third set of assumptions relates to supporting the proposed model and
are innovation practitioners can: (1) promote events; (2) have control over the
execution of activities in the front end; (3) have the freedom to select employees
they choose; (4) have reasonable discretion over the use of resources given to
them for front end activities; (5) have a general understanding of their business
environment and companies strategy and needs; (6) are competent enough to
manage; (7) have limited control over people outside their company; (8) they
cannot control the company’s culture; and (9) finally are aligned with company
goals.
The final set of assumptions relates to behaviors of employees in the
company. It is assumed that innovation practitioners do not behave maliciously
and that they do not conduct front end activities their own benefits or for
malicious intents. Also it is assumed that employees and innovation practitioners
do not exercise their decisions based on irrational biases or determinable
psychological conditions.
8
“Man can live without air for a few minutes, without water
for about five days, without food for about two weeks, and
….without a new thought for years on end.” – Kent Ruth
publications on ‘how to generate ideas’ illustrate the pressing need and growing
importance of ideas in the innovation process.
Finally, common sense says organizations need ideas for the future. They
need ideas to grow their company’s offerings, capabilities, and markets.
Interestingly, this researcher would love to meet the lonely executive who says
they “do not need any great ideas to save them money, grow their offerings, or
improve their operations.”
needed for innovation and that some ideas are more valuable than others.
However, prior to reviewing the research on idea management it may be very
helpful to understand what we mean by “ideas”.
article offers a great means to categorize ideas for increasing the value of a
company. Sawhney et. al. (2006) discusses innovation in the following areas:
2.1.5. Terminology
In reviewing the literature, this researcher has noticed many articles on idea
generation may not use the word “idea”. Subsequently there are several words
which have been interchanged with the word idea such as: invention, concept,
innovation which in essence mean the same thing. Some articles prefer to use
15
the term “concept” (Backman, Borjesson, & Setterberg, 2007; Wagener &
Hayashi, 1994). Some prefer “innovation”. Some prefer the word “opportunity”.
The term, “concept”, is often interchanged with the word “idea”, but it has
a slightly different meaning. Concept generally refers to “a set of proposed
solutions complying with a set of fixed constraints” (Backman, Borjesson, &
Setterberg, 2007, p. 86). Articles like Backman, et al. (2007) and (Crawford, Di
Benedetto, 2003) use the term concept instead of the term idea.
Similarly the term “opportunity” is interchanged with the word “idea”.
Vandenbosch, et al. (2006) state that “ideas and opportunities are intertwined.
Recognizing or creating an opportunity is an occasion for generating or testing an
idea; an idea may lead to an opportunity and it may require an idea to capitalize
on an opportunity” (Vandenbosch et al, 2006, 371). Researchers should note that
in the literature, the use of the term “idea” can be spotty in relation to methods for
generation of ideas for new products or services.
To help refine the terminology associated with a project in the new product
development process Merle Crawford, and Anthony Di Benedetto (2003)
proposed the “concept life cycle model” in the figure below. This model showed
the evolution of the terms associated with a project as it met given requirements.
This strict model for the terminology associated with a project show the
terminology for an idea changes as the idea is developed. Appendix A described
each of the twelve terms in this model.
16
High
Successful
Market concept
Pilot concept
Processes concept
Clarity Batch concept
Prototype concept
Protocol concept
Defined concept
Test concept
Stated concept
Idea concept
Opportunity concept
High
Market Value
generating ideas about how to motivate his employees. Old ideas like ‘paying
more’ or ‘conducting moral surveys’ work just as well, or even better, than a new
idea like building ‘a in house gym.’ Vandenbosch, Saatcioglu, and Fay (2006)
observe that “not all ideas are creative, nor do they have to be. In fact, successful
managers often rely on old, ordinary ideas or new, but imperfect one to cope with
the challenges they face” (p. 95).
In new product development there is an often unsaid assumption that all
newly release products should be based on new ideas. This assumption is based
on the view that customers want new things. But what often is disputed is the
meaning of new. Is the product idea new to the market, new to the world, or new
to a company? Rochford discusses this in some detail. A product can be “new”
in the sense it is either: (1) new to the firm, taking the company into new markets,
new technologies, or new production methods; (2) new to the market, the first of
its kind, what some call an innovation; or (3) new in the sense it is better for the
customer with the product yielding some net benefit to the customer. For the
intentions of this study, a new product will be defined as a product not previously
manufactured by the firm. In other words, a product is new to the firm (Rochford,
1991).
This researcher has selected new to the firm as the definition of new ideas
for this thesis. This was chosen for the three following reasons: 1) managers
often mistakenly think the product idea is new, 2) managers apply the word new
to their project to improve their social image inside the company 3) because
companies’ often increase the attractiveness of their products and services to
customer by promoting it as new.
and ensure sustainability. We have defined an idea as the result of the brain’s
activities in which previous knowledge or ideas are recombined in a way forming
a new concept. The definition was further specified to describe an idea as
creating value for a company. And in specific instances of new product
development, an idea is any changes to or new product or services offered by
the company.
This section also alerts future researchers to the fact that the word “idea”
may be interchangeable with words like innovation, concept, opportunity,
technology, offerings, and other. Thus future research on things like idea
generation should take these keywords into account in their searches. Finally,
this researcher discusses new and old idea, and fell on his definition of a new
idea as being “an idea which is new to the firm.”
From 1876 to 1881, Thomas Edison in his Menlo Park, New Jersey
laboratory produced one innovation after another: high-speed,
automatic, and repeating telegraphs; telephones; phonographs;
generators; light bulbs and vacuum pumps. Edison built the
laboratory, in his own words, for the “rapid and cheap development
of an invention” and promised “a minor invention every ten days
and a big thing every six months or so.” And he delivered. In a
20
Input:
R&D funnel Output: Market
Ideas
Figure 2.4. R&D Funnel and New Product and Commercialization Processes
22
For the most part, these were different processes, with the R&D funnel
focusing on creating discoveries in understanding, creating new knowledge,
generating novel inventions, generating new product ideas, and figuring out
where to look next. The ideas from the R&D process along with other were then
feed into the new product development processes. Again the new product
development processes function similarly to the R&D funnel described above.
Companies like IBM, Xerox, and Bell Labs were famous for having their
R&D divisions filled with geniuses and brainiacs which came up with new far-out
inventions and discoveries. Some discoveries were so great that many
researchers were awarded Nobel prizes. Figure 2.4 shows the second process
divided into new product development and commercialization. The line between
those processes represents a formal point of evaluation so that projects can be
stopped before they enter the commercialization phase. This keeps poor projects
from advancing to the commercialization phase where expenses increase
considerably. Many companies do not have the resources to support a research
division and thus typically use a new product development and commercialization
process for innovation.
The next major change in the process was the addition of the “fuzzy front
end (FFE)” by Smith and Reinertsen in 1991 and is illustrated in Figure 2.5.
Murphy & Kumar (1997) state the fuzzy front end “ranges from the
generation of an idea to either it approval for development or its termination”, and
is “often chaotic, unpredictable, and unstructured” (p. 32).
23
The goal of the fuzzy front end is to reduce uncertainty about an idea and
develop it into a concept which could be entered into the new product
development process (see definition of a concept in Appendix A). The fuzzy front
end will be mentioned at length in Sections 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 of this thesis.
The next major development was the introduction of the stage-gate
process by Robert Cooper (2008). The stage-gate process split the new product
development process up into multiple stages where at the end of each stage
there was a formal decision point being a gate. Each gate provided the stake
holders an opportunity to evaluate a project, and then make a decision to either
end/kill the project, or advance the project to the next stage. Killing a project was
accomplished by denying funding or removing resource.
The stage-gate process served as both a guide, by requiring specific goals
to be met at the end of each stage, and a means of controlling risk, by eliminating
poor projects as more information emerged. Each stage had goals like, to have a
working prototype or proof of market demand.
Again, if the goals were not met the project would not move into the next
stage. The concepts of State-gate truly revolutionize the NPD process.
Decision
Expenses associate
Relative
with a project
Stage in
Figure 2.6 above represents the current best practices model for
developing product and services. Amazingly, according to research by Hsiao &
Chou (2004), 40% of the companies surveyed had no formalized product
development. This means that 60% of companies report having some type of
product development process. Further, it is not known what percentage is of
companies are utilizing the current best practice model, as shown above. Some
companies may include the R&D basic research process in their development
process, but most usually keep it separate from the process shown in Figure 2.6.
Typically only new product and service ideas move through the above
mentioned processes. Other ideas, like those for process or manufacturing
improvement, move through a separate process such as Kazian or total quality
management and other ideas, like branding or value capture, may be developed
through their own unique processes.
The market launch process shown in Figure 2.6 is depicted as an
expanding cone to denote the additional costs and activities associated with a
market launch. Further, the chart in Figure 2.6 shows generally how expenses
rise in each respective stage. Current development models try to reduce risk and
uncertainty while expanding options for a company.
A recent article in Harvard Business review, entitled the “Innovation Value
Chain” by Hansen & Birkinshaw (2007), shows the innovation process as a
series of linked processes, where if any link is weak the whole innovation
processes is negativity affected. They emphasize that there are “no universal
solutions for organizations wanting to improve their ability to generate, develop,
and disseminate new ideas” (p. 15). As well, they emphasize “managers need to
take an end-to-end view of their innovation efforts, to pinpoint their particular
weakness, and tailor their best practices appropriate to their deficiencies.”
25
Figure 2.7 shows the innovation value chain as being divided into the
three major areas of idea generation, conversion, and diffusion. Idea generation
is composed of generating ideas in-house; cross-pollination is getting different
divisions and units to collaborate to combined knowledge and insight; and
external sourcing is getting ideas from outside the organization.
Conversion is composed of selection and development. Selection is
screening idea, analysis idea, and initiating funding for given ideas. Development
is transforming an idea or concept into the required final form. Finally, diffusion
involves spreading the idea around the organization so that the crucial share
holders involved in the market launch and operational activities commit to the
idea.
The innovation value chain model is not so much a process model as a
model describing the vital goals in each phase. The innovation value chain can
also be used to analyze how the best practices models fit and is performing in a
company’s development process. For example, the stage-gate process can be
seen to fit in both the selection and development areas. Whereas the PAC
approach, in which a product approval committee is used to select and screen
projects, would only be applicable to the selection of projects and cannot be used
to guide development (Koen 2005). One can see the genius in leaving the model
broad because it allows a company to tune its innovation value chain to the most
effective processes instead of blindly following the best practices models.
26
Of course a company can be weak in any one or more of these areas, hence the
authors offer references to other articles which discuss solution to improving a
specific part of the innovation value chain. Finally, the article ends by stating that
companies should benchmark and record statistics on each part of their
innovation value chain, so they can monitor performance and make specific
improvements.
development preparing it for the transfer into the NPD process” (Backman,
Borjesson, & Setterberg, 2007). Yet, Khurana & Rosenthal define the front end
“to include product strategy formulation and communication, opportunity
identification and assessment, idea generation, product definition, project
planning, and executive reviews” (Verworn & Herstatt, 2001, p. 83). As well, Kim
& Wilemon (2002) define the FFE as “when an opportunity is first considered
worthy of further ideation, exploration, an assessment, and ends when a firm
decides to invest in the idea, commit significant resources to its development,
and launch the project (Kim & Wilemon, 2002, p. 31). Finally, Hüsig and Kohn
(2003) and have the most elaborate activity based definition of the FFE which
has lists of both exclusive and inclusive activities. Yet a comparison of the fuzzy
front end to the NPD process in table form seems to be one of the best ways to
understand what the fuzzy front end is, see Tables 2.1 & 2.2 below.
Table 2.2. Koen et al. Factors and Characteristics of the Front End of Innovation
and New Product Development Processes
Furthermore,
Concept and ideas merge, and activities are continuous in nature:
for each opportunity that seems worth pursuing several ideas will
be developed. Those ideas will be combined to one or more
concepts. This implies that the subject of analysis keeps changing
over the process. Therefore this process model is rather a
representation of continuous activities that permanently go on in
order to fill the NPD pipeline (Hüsig and Kohn, 2003, p. 14).
This researcher strongly agrees that the activities of the FFE do not occur
in a specific order, partially because of the work of Koen et. al. (2001) but also
because of the large observed variation in activities noted in case studies on the
FFE. This researcher also strongly agrees with the continuous nature of the FFE,
which is also represented in Koen et al’s model.
Deliverables for the FFE may vary widely from industry to industry. This is
because there are large differences in the expenses associated with NPD
phases amongst different industries. For example a fashion design firm may only
require a set of sketches to move a new line concept into the NPD processes;
whereas, a microchip manufacture may require a patentable invention, a clear
product concept, and proof of market demand prior to allowing the large cost of
the NPD process to be incurred. Nonetheless, it would be interesting to see a
comparative study of the require deliverables at the end of the FFE process.
preferable (Verworn & Herstatt, 2001). However, it seems this question has been
laid to rest by Husig, Kohn, & Poskela’s (2005) article in which they empirically
showed that having a structured front end creates better FFE results.
Interestingly, they mentioned financial success as a poor indicator for the
success of FFE, because of the large lag time associated with it. Also financial
success depended upon the processes after the FFE as was mentioned in the
innovation value chain article. Husig, Kohn, & Poskela (2003) used the following
measures of success for the FFE as being: (1) the number patents per
employee, (2) improved technical info, (3) better market information, (4)
managers more satisfied with the results FFE of the NPD, and (5) a better patent
portfolio.
The study supported the finding that structured FFE processes resulted in:
better technical and market info, created more satisfying FFE results for the NPD
managers, and better patent portfolios. Interestingly, they found that basing
results on the number of patents generated by employees was a bad measure of
success because each industry produces different number of patents.
Nonetheless, one of the underlying goals of the study of management is to
provide a means of controlling and managing activities inside a business, thus
even something as chaotic as the fuzzy front end can benefit from further
analysis.
Ø Culture of the FFE (Hüsig & Kohn, 2003**; Koen, 2005; Zien & Buckler,
1997**; Kohn, Ernst, & Husig; 2006**, Koen et all 2003**)
Ø Management of the FFE (Kim & Wilemon, 2002**; Hüsig & Kohn, 2003**;
Hüsig, Kohn, & Poskela, 2005; Chang, Chen & Wey, 2007**)
Ø Strategy in the FFE (Verworn & Herstatt, 2001; Hüsig & Kohn, 2003**;
Cooper, 1998**, Copper, 1984c)
Ø Screening of idea in the FFE (Kim & Wilemon, 2002; Hüsig, Kohn, &
Poskela, 2005; Montoya-Weiss & O’Driscoll, 2006; Flint, 2002; Koen et al.,
2001; Cooper, 1998)
Ø Resource for FFE activities (Koen, 2005; Montoya-Weiss & O’Driscoll,
2006; Zien & Buckler, 1997; Adam-Bigelow, 2003**)
Ø Processes and activities in the FFE (Verwon, Herstatt, & Nagahira,
2008; Kim & Wilemon, 2002; Hüsig & Kohn, 2003**; Alam, 2003**;
Moskowitz,1997).
Ø Planning (Hüsig, Kohn, & Poskela, 2005)
Ø Uncertainty & analysis (Verwon, Herstatt, & Nagahira, 2008; Kim &
Wilemon, 2002; Hüsig, Kohn, & Poskela, 2005; Montoya-Weiss &
O’Driscoll, 2006; Flint, 2002; Koen et al., 2001; Cooper, 1998)
Ø People in the FFE activities (Kim & Wilemon, 2002; Hüsig & Kohn, 2003;
Hüsig, Kohn, & Poskela, 2005; Stevens, Burley, Divine, 1999**)
Ø Communication in the FFE (Reid & Brentani, 2004; Hüsig & Kohn, 2003;
Moenaert, Meyer, Souder, & Deschoolmeester, 1995)
Ø Teams in the FFE (Kim & Wilemon, 2002; Hüsig & Kohn, 2003**;
Stevens, Burley, & Divine, 1999)
Ø Idea generation in the FFE (Hüsig & Kohn, 2003; Hüsig, Kohn, &
Poskela, 2005; Flint, 2002; Montoya-Weiss & O’Driscoll, 2006**)
Ø Success Factors for the FFE (Verworn & Herstatt, 2001; Hüsig & Kohn,
2003**, Cooper & Kleinschmidt 1993 c, 1995 a, b, c,
Ø Learning effect in the FFE (Verworn & Herstatt, 2001)
36
Hüsig & Kohn’s (2003) article entitled “Factors influencing the front end of the
innovation process” is a comprehensive review of selected empirical NPD and
explorative FFE studies up till 2003. Anyone seeking an overview of research on
the FFE or a specific set of references on a particular FFE area is recommended
toward this article.
In-house idea
Cross-pollination External sourcing Selection Development Spread the idea
generation
This model consists of three main areas: (1) idea generation, which is not
similar to the idea generation activities which will be discussed in later sections,
(2) conversion, and (3) diffusion. The authors describe idea generation as an
area in which ideas are created or obtained. Next, conversion is described as the
selection of ideas and development of ideas. Finally, diffusion is the act of
spreading a concept across the organization, getting commitment from key
parties, and readying the company for market launch and support activities.
Hansen & Birkinshaw (2009) eloquently describe examples of companies
which were poor performers in any one of these three areas, and explain how a
company may remedy the problems in these areas to improve its overall
innovation process.
Figure 2.8 shows which parts of their model overlap with the FFE. As can
be seen in Figure 2.8 the idea generation activities are broken up into (1) in
house idea generation, where the ideas are created in the company, (2) cross-
pollination where ideas are generated between business units or departments
and (3) external sourcing where ideas are created outside the organization.
The innovation value chain model is one of the few models which
highlights the multiple sources of ideas, and allows companies to analyze how
they are getting their ideas. Further, the authors suggest a solution to improving
cross-pollination by utilizing cross-unit networks, and solutions to fixing external
sourcing by utilizing solution networks and/or discovery networks which are often
referred to in the literature on open innovation.
However, the downsides of this model are it does not go in to detail about
the exact activities which take place. For example, in-house idea generation does
not highlight what employee groups or departments are creating, how they are
creating it, or describe the flow of activities. Additionally, the overlapping line
(see Figure 2.8) for the FFE was drawn in the middle of the development area
because the FFE only develops a concept to a particular degree before it is
passed into the NPD processes.
40
Next, the conversion activities are divided into: (1) selection, where ideas
are screened, selected, and funded; and (2) development, where ideas are
developed into launch-able product and service. Now, the famous Stage-Gate
model integrates the functions selection and development together in-order to
reduce risk and cost; however, this model shows those activities to be separate.
So again, this is not a process flow model, but a more general model for the
activities which should be taking place. Interestingly, the authors label companies
with different weaknesses as being: idea-poor companies; conversion-poor
company; and diffusion-poor companies and suggest further readings to help
eliminate those weakness. Again, the focus of this thesis is on improving the
sourcing, generation, and selection of ideas inside a company, so this model can
be viewed as highly appropriate. As well, this model is particularly helpful in that
it allows practitioners to assess their companies own innovation processes.
The innovation value chain could also lead to diagnostic methods of
improving innovation in companies much like a doctor treats a patient. The
process would follow steps, were (1) diagnosis performed on the company, (2)
problems would be located, and (3) the appropriate solution is applied. The
diagnosis, problem, and solution process is also widely used by organizational
development experts to improve company’s performance in all areas. However,
for this type of process to be used many more types of diagnostic tools must be
created for the innovation process.
The full model for the Stage-Gate process is shown above in Figure 2.10
with five formal stages, and five formal gates. The process starts with the
discovery of an idea or concept. As with any process model, the item moving
through the process is understood to be an idea. The most recent article by
Cooper (2008) on the stage-gate process reviews many of the misconception,
miss-uses, and major errors its implementation.
One of the more important misconceptions is in the functionality of the
process itself. The state-gate process is meant to funnel the number of
development projects down, killing off the poor projects before they accrue too
much cost and use too many resources. Hence, each gate is not a review point
for the project or a milestone, it is an clear point were decision makers who
control the resources have the option to kill off projects which do not meet the
grades set by the company! Simply, the gates should be a way of killing off poor
projects early and often.
The gates in Figure 2.10 each test to see if different goals and objectives
have been met, and gates like gate 4 for example test to see if the project is
developed enough to warrant the expenses of testing which would take place in
stage 4.
The benefit here as Cooper posits, is that “no activity or deliverable is
mandatory: the stage-gate [process] is a guide that suggests best practices,
recommended activities, and likely deliverables. But the project team has much
discretion over which activities [they] executes and which [they] choose to not to
do. Every project is unique and merits its own action plan” (Cooper, 1998, p. 3).
This is also beneficial because having a guide speeds up development while it
reduces portfolio risk as the multiple projects precede through the development
pipes.
Below is a table taken from Verworn & Herstatt (2002) which gives a quick
overview of the checks at each gates and activities for each stage. Appendix B
illustrates activities at each stage and gate. A systematic process like this gives
the product development team a clear guide about what activities need to be
43
Table 2.3. Specific Activities and Decisions for Each Stage and Gate
Cooper (2008) says the visual model depicts stages as being of equal
time where in fact they should not be. Stages at the beginning should be
relatively low cost and should not contain anywhere close to the amount of
activities as stages taking later in the process. One issue with the stage-gate
process is the visual model shows it as a linear process. However, there are
large amounts of looping and iterations within in each stage. Activities can, and
should, often overlap between stages. To illustrate this, Figure 2.12 shows
stages as pie graphs depicting the percentage of energy and money which
should be spent on specific activities. The size of the pie corresponds to the
respective amount of cost or time spent in that stage.
Visually-speaking, Figure 2.12 is a clearer guiding process than the simple
stage boxes in Figure 2.10, because it depicts the ratio of the activities at each
stage. Also, companies should keep in mind that they will need to set the
activities and requirements of each gate, and not blindly follow a recommended
set of activities for each stage.
45
Cooper (2008) states that the process is a macro-scale guide and not a
means of controlling a project. Control should be performed through project
management which is a micro-scale activity. Finally, the last stage of post review
was added to insure the development process was conducted properly.
Amazingly, the stage-gate process was adapted to work with the open
innovation process by forwarding an idea, based on its level of development, to
the appropriate stage in the innovation process. Hence, fully developed product
market concepts (see appendix A for definition) can be placed directly into stage
5 (development) of the stage-gate development process.
A later part of this section will review the activities and tasks which should
take place in the fuzzy front end. In that review, one will note there is still much
disagreement about which tasks and activities should be taking place in the FFE.
Also some author mentions that judging a concept to early will kill it prematurely
before it has a chance to grow into something more solid. So as a guide, the
stage-gate model is very weak for the FFE, because it lacks specifics about
which activities should actually take place.
Another problem is that the front end activities often spawn “better” ideas
for new products and services and the current stage-gate model does not show
how those ideas can be managed. Finally, the stage-gate process does not show
how knowledge management, idea generation, creativity management, company
strategy, and idea management play into the processes.
process and culture are viable models for achieving a holistic front end. This is a
great step forward toward creating process models for managing the fuzzy front
end.
Their model is illustrated below. It shows how idea generation, preliminary
opportunity identification, and portfolio strategy affect the front end.
Unfortunately, this figure was introduced more as an illustration than as actual
way to summarize their findings.
Phase zero and Phase one shown in figure 2.13 are not well defined,
according to authors Backman, Borjesson, & Setterberg (2007). Phase zero is
when a core group is assembled to assess the basic customer needs, evaluate
the technology, and see how the technology fits with the business capabilities,
identify core requirement, test the concept, specify required resources, and
identify the risks. Again, this article is valuable because it links how business
strategy, portfolio strategy, and product definitions impact the project in the fuzzy
48
front end. However, this is not by any means a formulated process which can be
followed, but it does indicate that success can be achieved through the use of
processes in the fuzzy front end.
The value of this model is in showing how strategy can impact the
processes of the fuzzy front end. Unfortunately, they do not discuss what they
consider as success for a front end activity. The Husig, Kohn, Poskela (2003)
article entitled “The Role of process formalization in the early phases of the
innovation process”, went to great lengths to defined success in terms of metrics
which were measurable and applicable to just the fuzzy front end.
There are many downsides to this model but since its goal was mainly to
show how strategy can influence processes in the fuzzy front end, there is not
really much sense in listing all its downsides as a full process model.
company strategy which guides the examination of user needs to particular target
market segments. However, it is unclear whether the spiral process starts with a
target market or a seed idea.
The following activities can be seen in the illustrated model ending at a
go/no go gate. If the project meets the objectives of the gate the process
continues on again. The process emphasizes a holistic view of the innovations
processes by looking at (1) user needs, (2) technical/partnering potential (3)
commercialization considerations (4) organizational implications. The building the
idea process of the Deloitte spiral is shown to end with a concept going into A)
the NPD process, B) an alternative organization, or C) a spinoff company.
The Deloitte process model is valuable because it emphasizes building
innovation concept based on needs rather than discovering a concept which can
be developed as the stage-gate model does. Also, several idea generation
processes will be mentioned in a later sections emphasize idea generation based
on customer understanding. The Deloitte model, unlike the other FFE models,
integrates strategy, decision making (go/no go), idea generation, prototyping,
business case analysis, planning, risk assessment, and requirements analysis.
Further, the required expenses and energy are thoughtfully shown on the models
axes. So, in the first iteration, one can see that cost and energy should be
relatively low. Finally, the go/no go decision point is analogous to the gates in the
stage-gate method which gives the team an idea of what objectives must be met
in order to pass and kills poor potential projects before they soak up too many
resources.
As well, the illustrated model show some ordered flow to the activities.
However, this researcher feels the order of some activities can be changed
slightly, or even done concurrently. Additionally, the activities of idea generation
seem broad, which seems to allow for specific idea generation processes to be
used. Note that, idea generation will be discussed in detail in later Sections 2.5,
2.6, & 2.7. Again, the “build an idea” approach seems to have advantages over
the “find an idea” approach for developing or discontinuing proposed innovations.
51
Selecting quality over quantity is preferred because the act of screening ideas
requires resources in itself. Better quality ideas can be created through
processes and methods which will be discussed in the idea generation section
that follows.
After the ideas are created, the “most promising ideas are subject to an
intensive search, or refined into detailed product project or concepts” in the third
stage (Hüsig, Kohn, & Poskela, 2005, p. 36). Finally, the concepts are evaluated
in the go/no go gate to see if they should pass into the NPD process. Although
this model does not have all the major attributes of the prior mentioned models, it
does serve its principle function which is to provide structured front end
processes in order to increase front end success. Hence, it appears this model
was designed to show the importance of structure in the fuzzy front end.
2.4.13. General Problems and Issues with Fuzzy Front End Models
Many of the process models for the FFE share similar problems and issues,
which need to be highlighted so that future process models for the FFE can
eliminate these weaknesses. A list of major problems identified by this
researcher is listed below:
1) No formal integration of gate in some models
2) Poor visual representation of cost, effort, time, and money
3) Poor integration of portfolio management and company strategy
4) Very poor link to idea management and idea banks
5) Poor link to knowledge management
6) Poor link to creativity management.
58
As can be seen in section 2.4, each FFE model tends to highlight some
activities over others; as well, some models may not mention an activity which
another model says is vital. Hence, this researcher feels it would be valuable to
create a comprehensive list of formally named activities which may take place in
the fuzzy front end, and then quickly describe how each functions.
Table 2.4. List of Activities Which Can Occur in the Front End of Innovation
At first glance, one notices that many activities can occur in the front end
of innovation. Table 2.4 highlights the major activities which are referred to in the
literature. Table 2.4 places them in similar categories, so, for instance, concept
testing and market testing both fall under the major category of testing.
63
Reviews are an integral activity which may also include making particular
decisions, like the gates in the stage-gate process. The word ‘evaluations’ can
also be inter-changed with reviews.
Development is another broad word which can include anything from:
concept development, technical development, product development,
manufacturing, and project development. Development usually means doing a
set of activities to achieve a set of objectives like, building knowledge, creating
something, or conducting an analysis. Again, this word is very broad and could
also include things from performing analysis, testing, reviewing, to creating a
business case. Thus, the word development has to be tied to another word like
‘technical development’ to be more guiding as a set of activities. The word
‘formulation’ also can be interchanged with the word development.
Environmental scanning is an activity which is presented in some front
end models and includes observing and seeking for knowledge and
developments outside the company. Peter Drunker (1998) along with Auster &
Choo (1992) describe it in detail. Auster & Choo (1992) divide environmental
scanning into eight categories: (1) customer, (2) competitor, (3) industry and
sector, (4) technological, (5) economic, (6) specific economy, (7) regulatory, and
(8) socio-cultural. This activity may include scanning for ideas, locating
opportunities, or building knowledge (Flynn, Dooley, & O’Sullivan, 2003).
Conversely, environmental analysis is activities seeking to understand the
environment and how it is changing. The results of environmental scanning and
environmental analysis can be used by the idea generation processes to
generate ideas.
Selection activities may include idea selection and project selection. Idea
selection may include related tasks of screening, filtering, and culling of ideas.
Idea selection activities normally are related to choosing ideas to pursue or
develop further.
66
Idea generation activities are highly quoted in the FFE literature and
relate to activities which produce ideas, like brainstorming. The goal of idea
generation is simply to produce ideas and will be discussed in detail in Sections
2.6, & 2.7.
Learning activities are not commonly quoted as a specific activity
although they are fundamentally a part of many activities, like primary research,
analysis, and testing.
Knowledge creation, knowledge storing, and knowledge diffusing
activities are not quoted as being formal activities in the FFE, although they are
fundamentally a part of many other activities. Meetings, analysis, testing,
reviews, documentation all create, store, and diffuse knowledge.
Only Hardagon & Sutton (2000) specifically quotes knowledge diffusion
activities in his knowledge brokering pieces on the FFE as a method of diffusing
ideas in the organization. Knowledge storing can also include storing results of
things like market studies, tests, and so on into databases, as well as, storing
ideas in idea banks.
Idea management is quoted as being a FFE activity, and will be
discussed in detail in Section 2.8. Idea management includes generating, and
storing ideas so they can be diffused, or selected.
Prototyping activities are highly quoted, and relate to the creation of a
physical or virtual creation of the idea, which can be used in analysis and testing
activities. Authors like Kelley highly cite prototyping as a critical front end activity
(Kelley, Littman, & Peters, 2001; Kelley & Littman, 2005).
Portfolio planning is also a front end activity, which involves making
decisions about how new ideas can fit into the group of ideas which the company
is developing and how those ideas align with the company’s strategies (Khurana
& Rosenthal, 1998; Cooper 1999; Patterson, 2005).
Feasibility activities assess the ability of the company to execute the
given project and can be broken up into many areas like, market feasibility,
technical feasibility. Feasibility is very similar to testing and analysis except it also
67
makes a judgment as to some result. Feasibility may or may not include analysis
or testing. So technical feasibility activities may analyze the technology then
determine the degree to which the company can develop those technologies.
Risk analysis is also a highly cited activity which goals are to estimate the
level of risk with respect to (1) the competitors, (2) the market, and (3) the
capabilities of the company at executing a project.
Research activities are a very broad term and can include: exploratory
research, focused research, and even general research. Research can include
learning, knowledge building, evaluation, testing, prototyping, analysis,
environmental scanning, among others. The term research is associated with
activities such as learning, knowledge building, and testing, and may be
combined with another term to serve as a focused activity, like market research
or customer research.
Commitment building activities relate to getting devotion or dedication to
an idea and can include activities like idea selling which typically are performed
by product champions, product teams, or upper management (Hansen &
Birkinshaw, 2007). Again this discussion of activities in the front end was not
meant to be comprehensive but more of an overview of general activities which
can take place.
Application exploration activities related to finding, and exploring
applications and potential markets for a new radical or disruptive technology.
Interesting, Thongpapnal, O’Connor, & Sarin (2008) argue that application
exploration for radical & disruptive innovation is vita and if done poorly may
“result in serious repercussions on the perceived viability and business potential
of the proposed major innovation” (Thongpapnal, O’Connor, & Sarin, 2008, p. 4).
Application exploration is rarely mentioned in the FFE literature. However,
Thongpapnal, O’Connor, & Sarin’s (2008) study makes a strong argument that
application exploration should be a formal activity in the FFE, especially for
radical & disruptive innovations.
68
One should also note, future sections of this thesis will refer to activities
related to selecting and developing particular ideas as late front end activities,
and will refer to activities related to managing ideas, generating idea and
locating opportunities as early front end activities.
(4) market changes, (5) demographic changes, (6) changes in perception, and
(7) new knowledge. This seems logical since changes open up new opportunities
while they may close others. Thus scanning for these changes is a logical first
step to identifying these opportunities, and helps by stimulating the creativity &
insight to see the opportunities which can result in the creation of ideas to fill
those opportunities.
Auster & Choo (1992) suggest a similar categorization based on (1)
customer information, (2) competitor information, (3) industry information, (4)
technology and processes, (5) general economic considerations, (6) specific
economic climate, (7) regulatory factors, and (8) socio-cultural factors (Flynn,
Dooley, & O’Sullivan, 2003).
Regardless of the categorization, the added resolution created by splitting
up changes or information into specific categories greatly helps searching, and
scanning efforts. Traditionally, information sources like journals, newspapers,
magazines, newsletters, and word of mouth among others kept individuals
abreast of changes. Yet developments in internet tools, such as Google alerts,
automated online news reporting through feeds, and journal databases which
send alerts for news articles, are new ways to stay on top of changes in the
environment. Researchers in high tech companies such as Intel, Cisco, and AMD
are well known for scanning journals for changes in technology and knowledge
and often use it as a source of new ideas. Unfortunately, there are only a few
articles linking environmental scanning to idea generation (Flynn, Dooley, &
O’Sullivan, 2003; Auster & Choo, 1992; Aguilar, 1967; Drucker, 1985).
A few fully detailed idea generation processes, like the Blue Ocean
Strategy, recommend environmental scanning (Kim & Mauborgne, 2005). One
major issue with environmental scanning is that it can quickly result in information
overload if the organization tries to observe too much from the environment.
Additionally, unfocused scanning may accumulate information which cannot be
used in idea generation. Idea generation processes like ‘lead user innovation’ by
77
Von Hippel uses environmental scanning to look at changes in the way lead
users apply their technologies (von Hippel, Tomke, & Sonnack, 1999).
Nonetheless, environmental scanning should be focused toward
information which can be effectively used to generate ideas. For example, to
innovate in the supply chain process, a retail store may examine journals on
operations or articles on supply chain leadership companies, like Walmart. Thus,
environmental scanning for ideas may depend upon the type of ideas desired.
This is another reason why environmental scanning should be driven by strategy.
Environmental scanning can also look at history for information which can
spawn ideas. For example, the governments of developing countries can look at
the histories of economic development in industrialized nations like the US to
identify opportunities to fund developments in their own countries.
information to generate new ideas related to pricing displays or result in the team
copying it, whereas normally, a typical pricing report would not capture this type
of useful information.
Seeding individuals with ideas is important in stimulating creativity. The
premise of Knowledge Brokering by Hardagon is that individuals can trade and
promote ideas when they interact with others, thereby increasing the ability to
solve problems and create new ideas (Hardagon & Sutton, 2000). Hardagon
continues by saying that knowledge brokering can be influenced by the company.
For example, office space designs which promote communication and
collaboration, like free coffee bars and community work areas, are a non-invasive
method of getting employees to share ideas (Bean, & Radford, 2002; Hardagon
& Sutton, 2000). While, formal methods of seeding and sharing ideas can be tech
box or software programs (Satzinger, Garfield, Nagasundaram, 1999; Kelley &
Littman, 2005; Gamlin, Yourd, & Patrick, 2007).
The 3M corporation even has formal technology fairs where other
employees share and spread ideas, technology, and knowledge (Hardagon &
Sutton, 2000). Again, seeding others with ideas, information, or concepts, can
be done formally or informally and greatly promote internal idea generation.
(1991) and Stasch, Lonsdale, & LaVenka, (1992) describe it as involving a mix of
individuals and processes (like marketing studies, research projects). This
confusion creates a large problem which must be resolved in order to improve
innovation processes.
The definition of an idea as stated in Section 2.1 is “a result of association
and combination of other ideas inside a person’s mind” and that “the mental
activities they partake in create those ideas” (p. 15). Again, people are the
sources of ideas. This researcher has never seen an entity like a computer, or
machine creates an idea, with the exception of an article in MIT Technology
Review which described a computer algorithm that created novel patentable
designs of antennas (Williams, 2005).
Without people, there are no ideas. Manufacturing plants running totally
autonomously, software programs executing code on a server, machines
punching parts, have never been known to create an idea by themselves.
Individuals may look at things and come up with new ideas, but things were not
the source of the ideas, they were the stimulus!
The confusion in the term “source” results from confusing it with “seeding”,
which is the act of feeding the brain information, knowledge, and other ideas
which can be used creatively to come up with new ideas. This is why marketing
research itself does not create ideas - the people conducting the marketing
research do.
People are the source of ideas and activities are what produces these
ideas. Activities in the brain involving association, recombination, creativity and
so on, are necessary to create ideas. People in comas or who are unconscious
do not create ideas. People may create ideas while sleeping because their brains
are active and are actively recombining things in unique and often irrational
ways. By looking at it this way, some insights can be grasped.
83
When people and activities are separated, one can see how the activities
affect the output of ideas. A later part of this section will review techniques, like
visualization, redefining the question, and thought experiments, and how they
force the brain into a particular mental activity. Activities like marketing research
or strategic planning force the brain through a set of mental activities which may
increase the likelihood of ideas being generated.
Figure 2.19 above shows two individuals, the top being an executive, and
the bottom an R&D person. By splitting the source from the activity one can see
the effect on each the individual (their creativity, IQ, role) opposed to the effect
which the activities have on the resulting ideas. A highly creative R&D person
84
Ideas
Individual(s)
Activity 1 Activity ... Activity N
Whole Processes
Graphing, plotting, Helps visualize unknown or un-seen relationships * PDMA Handbook 2005 There are hundreds of different
chapter 17 ways to display information
charting
Scenario games Create scenarios and try to play them out to their * Jack Foster "How to Get
logical end. Ideas" pg 117,
* Rochford Linda 2001
Aggregation , Combination Combining characteristics of a product, service, * Rochford Linda 2001
offering, processes, into a single thing
Metaphors & Analogies Compare a problem, solution, or thing to a person, * PDMA handbook 2005 Our truck is tough like a ram, why
place, thing, concept, time, or experiences to draw chapter 17, not make it look more like ar ram
out relationships * Jack Foster "How to Get
Ideas" 110
Though experiment Measure, tests, validate, explore, through thought * PDMA handbook 2005
by deductive or inductive reasoning and proceed chapter 17,
through to the logical results to gain an insight * Rochford Linda 2001
Redefining question Re-wording the question to change the perspective * Jack Foster "How to Get How do I work harder to "how to I
on the problem Ideas" get more work done" (improve
work efficiency)
Think like a child Being open to re-questioning base assumptions, look * Jack Foster "How to Get Why do refrigerators have to have
at the world with extreme curiously to find new Ideas" pg 55 doors?
relationships
Lateral thinking The shifting of thinking patterns, away from * Edward de Bono The Use of
entrenched or predictable thinking patterns to new Lateral Thinking, published in
or unexpected ideas 1967. * Jack Foster
Remove boundaries, and Remove boundaries, and retest base assumptions, * Jack Foster "How to Get
do not assume restriction unless strictly told Ideas" pg 102
base assumptions
Set strict limits Set limitations, remove typical options * Jack Foster "How to Get Find solutions within limitations
Ideas" pg 106
Purposefully break the purposefully violate base assumptions, and rules * Jack Foster "How to Get
Ideas" pg 115
rules
Re-define the problem Change the format of the question, * Jack Foster "How to Get
Ideas" pg 131
Abstraction Make the problem or situation more abstract * Rochford Linda 2001 Increase company revenue changed
to better the company
Raise or increase Increasing a particular feature, attribute or factor * Blue Ocean Strategy 2005 Large button telephones,
above the norm in that industry calculators and remotes
Creation Creating new features, attributes, factors, which an * Blue Ocean Strategy 2005
industry has not seen
Division of part Breaking up the whole in to smaller and smaller * Rochford Linda 2001
features, functions, or pieces
Iteration Repeating a process or set of actions with the goal of * Rochford Linda 2001
narrowing them down to a set of solutions
Devil's Advocate or A method of exposing every weak point, while * Rochford Linda 2001
letting others quickly find solutions
methodical doubt
Detailed observation Looking closely at something, trying to understand * Hardagon 1997 & 2000
every facet and function * Tom Kelley 2001 & 2005
87
Visualization exercises Same as techniques just proceed as a formal (2007) The PDMA ToolBook
activity
Experimentation Measure, tests, validate, explore, via * 2005 PDMA hand book chap 17,
physical, virtual, or thought experimentation Tom Kelly, Ref 30, Hardago, Stefan
activities Thomke 2001
Scenario activities Instead of the technique, this a full activity * Foster, J. (1996). How to Get
where scenarios for marketing strategy, Ideas, Berret-Koehler Publishers,
business unit strategy, tech strategy, were San Francisco163
feasible scenarios are thought out * Rochford, L. (1991). Generating
and screening new product ideas.
Industrial Marketing Management,
20(4), 287-296.
Six thinking hats role based brainstorming activities where * DeBono Group
each individual plays a different role, Facts, http://www.debonogroup.com/6ha
optimism, judgment, feeling, creativity, ts.htm
control
Focus group activities A collected group of individual focusing on * Rochford, L. (1991). Generating
giving feedback on a particular, product, and screening new product ideas.
service, and process Industrial Marketing Management,
Incubation & Relaxing and thinking lightly or not at all *20(4), 287-296.
Foster, J. (1996). How to Get
about the problem to be solved (sleeping) Ideas, Berret-Koehler Publishers,
relaxation letting the mind sub-consciously work on the San Francisco163
problem
88
Technology fairs same as conferences but held internally just *Hardagon, A. and Sutton, R.I
for employees (2000) Building and innovation
factory. Harvard Business Review,
78 May-June 157-166 Link
Tech boxes Maintaining a archive of products, materials, *Hardagon, A. and Sutton, R.I
pictures and other things that can seed ideas (2000) Building and innovation
factory. Harvard Business Review,
78 May-June 157-166 Link
*Kelley, T., & Littman, J., & Peters
(2001). The Art of innovation,
Lessons in Creativity from IDEO,
America's Le
Table 2.9. Activities Which Use Analysis to Spawn Creativity and Ideas
Activities Description References
Analysis based idea generating activities
Opportunity identification Locating unmet needs or gaps in the market place that can * Flynn, M., Dooley, L., O'Sullivan, D., &
present opportunities Cormican, K. (2003). Idea management for
organizational innovation. International
Journal of Innovation Management, 7(4),
417-442.
Opportunity analysis Analyzing to see if a opportunity possess real value, and
looking for potential problem and issue that can be solved
to realize that opportunity * Flynn, M., Dooley, See above.
Customer needs analysis The customer needs are determined via surveying,
interviewing, or feedback mechanisms. Feedback then is
analyzed to determine customer needs
Wasted base analysis Looking for sources of waste tangible and in-tangible and
finding ideas to utilize that waste
Ethnographic research Researching customer behaviors and cultural aspects across Belliveau, P., Griffen. A., & Somermeyer, S.
different cultures to gain insight and understanding (2007) The PDMA ToolBook 1 for New
Product Development, Hoboken, New
Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Inc
Application Examining possibilities and results by application (2007) The PDMA ToolBook
Attributes based discriminant Develop by performing a discriminant analysis from brand's * Rochford, L. (1991). Generating and
effective attributes, then mapping and analyzing them screening new product ideas. Industrial
analysis (PREMAP) Marketing Management, 20(4), 287-296.
* Foster, J. (1996). How to Get Ideas, Berret-
Koehler Publishers,
Forecasting Predicting trends, and forecasting future developments in * Kahn, K. B., Castellion, G., Griffin, A.
an industry, then trying to predict customer needs and (2005). The PDMA Handbook of New
requirements Product Development: 2nd (228-248).
Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Inc.
Root Cause Analysis Looking for root causes of: failure, issues, and problems in
the process of trying to diagnosis a system, behavior, or
processes
90
2 Outcome based innovation Uncovers desired user outcomes then *Ulwick, A. W. (2007, Fall). Turn customer input into
generates ideas to fill those outcomes innovation. Harvard Business Review, 80(1), 91-97.
*Sutton, N. (2007). Outcome-driven innovation®: A
critical review. Masters thesis, Cranfield CERES
Ulwick's Job Mapping Define the job process then use a set of * Bettencourt, L., & Ulwick A., The customer centered
techniques to add, remove, combined, Innovation Map, Harvard business Review, May 2008
or split the jobs into parts, use that 109-114
understand to generate ideas
3 Deep Dive by IDEO Similar to contextual research but * Kelley, T., & Littman, J. (2001). The Art of innovation,
heavier on idea generation Lessons in Creativity from IDEO, America's Leading
Design Firm, New York, New York: Doubleday
publishers
* Kelley, T., & Littman, J. (2005). The Ten Faces of
Innovation: IDEO's Strategies for Bea
4 Blue Ocean strategy Heavy on new ways to analyze market to * Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2005). Blue Ocean
find gaps to generate new sub-markets Strategy How to Create Uncontested Market Space and
with very little immediate competition Make the Competition Irrelevant. Boston,
Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press
5 TRIZ based innovation A russian idea generation technique * Hart M. book review of Fey, V., & Rivin,. E Innovation
combined with strategy on Demand: New Product Development Using TRIZ,
New York, New York, Cambridge University Press
Utilizes environmental scanning, * Flynn, M., Dooley, L., O'Sullivan, D., & Cormican, K. (2003). Idea
6 Flynn's idea generation management for organizational innovation. International Journal of
opportunity identification, and ends
process with idea generation
Innovation Management, 7(4), 417-442.
7 Lead User innovation Following and working with lead users to * Von Hippel, E., Thomke, S., & Sonnack, M. (1999).
generate leading edge ideas Creating breakthroughs at 3M. Harvard Business
Review, 77(5), 47-57, 183.
8 Multi-day ideation retreats A fully structured retreat design to run * Miller, C.W. (2005). Chapter 17: Getting Lighting to
through many idea generation activities Strike: Ideation and Concept Generation, In A. Kahn, K.
over a series of days B., Castellion, G., Griffin, A. (2005). The PDMA
Handbook of New Product Development: 2nd (228-
248). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. In
research results individuals all over the organization can be seeded with valuable
information. This can be thought of as taking advantage of the organization’s
creativity to help spawn more ideas. A typical study is cited to take 20 to 30 visits,
and take anywhere 12-16 weeks at a cost of $150,000 plus.
The first step requires the selection of the customers. Conducting outcome
driven interviewing requires training and practice because the interviewer must
coax out desired outcome not needs or solutions, then restate the outcome with
measurable results. For example, an interviewer must get the customer to say an
outcome like “they want to easily remove your oil in 5 minutes” not the feature of
“have a more accessible oil plug.”
Organizing outcomes requires compiling a list of collected outcomes,
removing duplicates, and categorizing outcomes into groups. Rating outcomes is
the next important step and requires the research team to present a full list of
outcomes to the user so (a) they can rate the respective importance of each
outcome, and (b) they can rate their level of satisfaction if that outcome is
achieved. Next the research team must categorize and rate uncovered
opportunities. Ulwick proposes a numerical rating system to rank uncovered
opportunities. Finally, the top opportunities are the topic of idea generation
activities like brainstorming activities.
The benefit of this process is that it is deeply rooted in customer
understanding, and better yet, the fact that the customer has identified his level
of satisfaction if the given outcomes can be satisfied. Hence, the risk that
customers may reject new proposed products and solution ideas is much lower.
So, this process is seen to develop higher quality and higher value ideas.
Moreover, the process starts by focusing on customers being served by the
company, but at the same time allows for new strategic options for new products
and services to be developed. This process is a poweful way of coming up with
high quality incremental and disruptive product and service ideas because it was
quoted to be successfully used and because it has a well thought out flow.
process focused on delivering valuable ideas in a short one or two week period
to their clients. Their process uses substantially fewer resources than a full
contextual research study (Kelley & Littman, 2005; Kelley, Littman, & Peters,
2001).
The process starts with a meeting with the client and the idea generation
team so the problem can be bounded, like developing a new tooth care product.
The team, typically multidisciplinary in nature, splits into subgroups, then goes
out into the field to observe users, buyers, and influencers of the target area
much like contextual research. After about a day’s worth of information collection,
the teams reassemble to discuss their findings.
Unlike contextual research, which spends a lot of time coding and
analyzing data, IDEO’s process goes right into discussing the findings. During
this discussion which is, like a “show and tell” activity, they discuss problems they
found, strange behaviors they noticed, and the overall context of the users’
situations. They do this by reviewing pictures, videos, or demonstrating activities.
Next they move into a series of brainstorming and screening activities. First, each
individual writes as many ideas as they can, in say, a 20 minute period, after
which they all discuss their ideas. Then a collaborative brainstorming session
takes place.
At the end of the session each individual is asked to submit their top four
ideas which are then posted on the walls around the room. The group votes on
the submitted ideas, and from one to three ideas are pushed into prototyping.
During prototyping the teams do everything they can to transform the ideas into a
physical or tangible prototype. The process ends with a formal presentation to
the clients where a few fully developed ideas along with their prototypes are
shown and discussed.
96
Kim and Mauborgne (2005) proved the value of blue ocean markets
through their study of 180 companies which found blue ocean products and
services account for 61% of gross profits, even though they accounted for the
smallest number of launches (14% of total product and service launches). The
results of blue ocean activities can range from creations of new product and
services ideas all the way to dramatically altering the way a company offers its
business services.
Wine Market
High
Premium Wines
Yellow Tail
Relative levels
Budget Wines
Low
Figure 2.25. The Strategic Canvas from Blue Oceans Strategy with
Three Plotted Value Curves
The Blue Ocean Strategy is built around the strategic canvas (shown in
the figure above) which is a very useful tool for analyzing factors of competition in
a market. Figure 2.25 shows the value curves of budget wines, premium wines,
and Yellow Tail wine. Notice the difference in the value curve of the Yellow Tail
as being high in fun. The combination of the value curves of Yellow Tail wine sets
it apart from competitors. Blue Ocean does not suggest a given process but
rather a set of activities which rather easily be combined into a formal idea
98
generation process. For the sake of clarity, this thesis has created one such
process based on pages 89 to 93 of the book (Kim & Mauborgne, 2005).
3) Look across chains of users, influencers, & buyer to see if there can be
shifts, addition, reduction, or elimination in the value curve which would better
satisfy a single or all groups. An example is the paper towels which are
perforated in thirds stratifying mothers (buyers) who were concerned about their
children (users) wasting paper towels.
4) Look across complementary products and services which the
customers use before, during, and after. For example, Barnes & Noble uses in
store coffee bars and food to enhance their value curve because they realized
their customers were leaving to get those items and by putting those things in
their stores resulted in longer customer visits and a more pleasant customer
experience.
5) Look across functional and emotional appeal is simply taking something
functional and making it more emotional or vica versa. Starbuck added and
emotional experience to a coffee house, while the Body Shop removed the
emotional packaging and presentation of perfumes and soaps.
6) Look across time by having an insight into trends, “how the trend will
change value to customer and impact the company’s business model.” Three
principles to assessing trends are they must be decisive to your business, be
irreversible, and have a clear trajectory. For example, Cisco saw the trend for
increased data exchange and hence they adapted their value curve to fully take
advantage of this trend. Apple saw the clear trend of downloading music online
and legalized it with Apple’s iTunes.
After each of the brainstorming sessions, one to three value curves are
created. The new value curves are shown in a visual strategy fair where each is
discussed for 5 minutes. The judges (possibly executives) cast votes or assign
points to each curve. The best curves are then analyzed, tested, and refinement
using the buyer’s utility map, and price corridor of mass tools among others. After
refinement the ideas with their respective value curves are again presented to
the executive committee for review.
100
Again the goal of the Blue Ocean Strategy process is very different than
other idea generation processes because it looks for ideas which can
dramatically change the strategy of a company. This researcher sees this as a
valuable process which could augment executive’s strategic planning processes.
One should note, ideas from this process most likely cannot be placed
directly into the new product development process, because they require
changes to the company as a whole which is greatly outside the scope of the
NPD process.
process as a general map which can be used to make more specific idea
generation processes. To illustrate this, Figure 7.28 shows a process which
more specifically generates ideas from information captured from competitors.
The following tables were compiled to show the many potential sources of
ideas, and also show respective activities and methods which can idea from
those sources.
Source
2 Customer sources
3 Organizational sources
4 Supplier sources
5 Competitor sources
6 Other companies
The sources of ideas have been split into five main categories. In-
particular, Alam (2003), Belliveau, Griffin, & Somermeyer (2002), and Stasch,
Lonsdale, & LaVenka (1992) have spoken in detail about sources of ideas and
provided a strong base to create the following tables. Employees are highly cited
as sources of ideas especially in articles discussing ideas management and idea
banks. Typically, executives and R&D employee submit ideas, but expanding the
envelope to all employees in the company can tap valuable sources of ideas.
Parnell, & Menefee (2007) show that employees may have different
perspectives based on their positions that may influence their decision making.
This gives a basis for the obvious assumption that employees in certain positions
may be more likely to come up with ideas based on their perspectives and duties.
So, a line operator may be more likely to come up with ideas for reducing line
cost and down time, while an executive may be more likely to come up with
strategic ideas to fend of competition.
103
woman who was very dissatisfied with Nabisco Oreo packaging which could not
be easily closed, told customer service the company should change the
packaging immediately. The result? Nabisco (Oreo) released a simple resealable
flap that has since increased the freshness and consumption rates of their Oreos.
Users, influencers, and buyers are different customer groupings even
though they are often referred to as a single unit. For example, a user of a
construction tool may be a construction worker, the influencer may be a foreman,
and the buyer may be the owner of the construction company - each of which
have their own specific needs. Finally, customers may sometimes anonymously
submit ideas to a company. Unfortunately, follow-up feedback or additional
information cannot be obtained (Perk, Cooper, & Jones, 2005).
In-direct ways
Direct way to to generate
Source Description get ideas ideas References
Non-Profit Organizational Sources (not competitors)
1 NASA NASA openly lists Visit website, talk to Scanning new technology
inventions that can be licensing officer, scanning releases at there
licensed and tries activity new technology releases website; scanning SBIR,
to seek placements for STTR awards; Open
the promising innovation network
technologies
technology.jsc.nasa.gov/
2 National Lab National laboratory of Visiting respective scanning published Limited by design, R&D
the US and other country website, talking to literature, open laboratories in the US national
produce many licensing officers at each innovation network innovation system Crow,
Bozeman 2001 ,
technology related ideas lab, solicing national labs,
www.lanl.gov, www.anl.gov,
scanning new technology www.sandia.gov, www.jlab.org,
releases www.bnl.gov,
www.inel.gov,www.inl.gov,
www.lbl.gov, www.nrel.gov,
www.llnl.gov
3 National Org These are typically non- Same as 1 Same as 2
for profit national
organization of all types.
6.2 Consumer
6.3 Economy Looks at general region
or nations
6.4 Religious/race
may have valuable ideas relevant to one’s business. For example, auto
manufacturers want to stay tuned into national or regional auto clubs and race
car teams so they can capture new technology ideas which could reduce cost.
Direct solicitation or hosting events like idea competitions are ways to extract
ideas from national organizations
Universities have been a hot bed of new technology and ideas over the
last 20 years and have been growing greatly in their licensing efforts in recent
years (2000-2008). The researcher, professors, and students at universities are
ripe sources of novel ideas, concepts, and creativity which can be harvested by
companies. Open innovation models include universities into their networks.
Scanning research papers on a particular subject area will show which
universities are highly active in those areas. Those universities can then be
directly solicited for ideas, via contacting the faculty, department heads, or
licensing technology officers. Similarly, idea competitions can be held to gather
ideas from universities. The rules may state who is allowed to compete:
professors, researchers, or students, but in the interest of gathering the best
possible ideas and open field is best.
Research parks are a rather new development and may be associated
with a university. They play a role in incubating technologies, and companies; as
well, as aid in transferring technologies to industry. The University of Rhode
Island found, that, as of 2004, there were 150 research parks in North America
(unauthored, 2004). Again, the methods of gathering ideas are similar to that of
universities; however, the licensing and business development officers are much
better able to direct solicitors to a relevant business in their research park.
Finally, there are thousands of groups of practice, such as the national
society of professional engineers and national lawyer’s guild. They include
international, national, regional, state, and local organizations. Yahoo directories
are an excellent means to locate groups of practices, because it is organized by
type, category and region; however, it does not hold all organizations. (See
HTTP://DIR.YAHOO.COM/BUSINESS_AND_ECONOMY/ORGANIZATIONS/ ).
108
In-direct
ways to
Direct way to generate
Source Description get ideas ideas References
Supplier Sources
1 Current suppliers The current suppliers to Solicitation, problem Scan for news from
a company could provide statement, direct suppliers, locate
ideas contact, part of contract best practice
requirements, suppliers, Open
innovation
networks
REF 3, 18
2 Direct competitors Direct competitors to the Same as 1 Same as 1
business REF 3, 18
3 Indirect competitors Competitors in market Friendly communication, + same as Same as 1
outside of the companies 1
given competivite area,
4 Friendly competitors Friendly competitor that are Direct solicitaion, Friendly Same as 1
not in real competition with communication, + same as 1
one's company
5 Substitute sources As Porter defines markets Same as 1 + industry trends reports Same as 1
that could be substitutes to
ones market
6 New potential entrance As Porter defines markets Same as 1 + industry trends reports Same as 1
sources that could be threats to enter
ones market
111
Substitutes are, as Michael Porter defines it, products and services which
can be substituted for ones which your company is selling. For instance, cereal
companies look at substitutes like breakfast bars, fast food restaurants, and
others cereal substitutes for changes and new ideas.
Finally, potential new entrances are companies treating to enter the
industry. For example, the core US airline market close observed the launch of
JetBlue and closely examined all of JetBlue new innovative like in seat TV
systems.
7 Media sources Books, magazines, articles, patents, Speak with editors, Searching media
newspaper,
3 Inventors Indepent inventors direct solicitation, scanning new invention disclosure
Keep in mind the original author is the source of the idea and the
publishers, being the media companies, are the means of distribution. If one
considers the publishers a group of individuals then they would be a formal
112
source of ideas, even though they are re-distributors. For instance, a magazine
like Harvard business review are great source of ideas for improving
management even though the new source of the idea may be Michael Porter.
Media sources may be great sources of ideas which should not be
neglected. Formal scanning mechanism for new ideas should include relevant
media sources because of their targeted nature and breadth of coverage.
Independent inventors are also valuable sources of ideas however they
are difficult to locate, contact, and solicit. Nonetheless, having one or two highly
talented inventors which can be called upon for idea can be of great value.
Additionally, the typical sources of high quality ideas in one industry may be
different than another industry. So given those variations and the large number of
affecting factors, concluding one source is the best source of ideas is absurd.
The question should instead be: “what sources can this company turn into
great sources of ideas?” This would suggest things can be done to improve the
quality of ideas coming from internal and external sources. The following sections
will dive into and explore the feasibility of this suggestion.
Idea banks can be defined as a tool for facilitating the capture, storage,
and organization of ideas (Moskowitz, 1997; Zien, & Buckler, 1997; Gorski, &
Heinekamp, 2002; Bakker, Boersma, & Oreel, 2006; Heck, 2005; Fritz, 2002;
Dijk, & van de Ende, 2002; Koen et al. 2001).
Also suggestion systems or suggestion programs can be defined a
process or system for capturing, storing, and organizing ideas
(Backman, Borjesson, & Setterberg, 2007; Flynn, Dooley, & O’Sullivan, 2003;
Gorski, & Heinekamp, 2002**; Fritz, 2002; Gamlin, Yourd, & Patrick, 2007;
Lamont, 2004; Dijk, & van de Ende, 2002; Stasch, Lonsdale, & LaVenka, 1992).
internal sources (Flynn, Dooley, & O’Sullivan, 2003) or because “firms overlook
other employees as a source of creative ideas” (Gorski, & Heinekamp, 2002, p.
58). An analysis of this information suggests that the value of idea
management and idea banks in the innovation process involves:
concept of an idea bank in a different way. Idea pools may make one imagine
ideas as a stream of water which can be kept, depleted, and refilled. Idea banks
call to mind ideas as being safe and secure, while idea war chests recollect
valuable ideas which can give a competitive advantage.
However, one must also remember metaphors limit the way a concept can
be viewed. For example, an idea archive may make one feel that ideas are in a
solid and manageable form which can always be organized and cataloged, when
in fact many ideas are intangible and often only exist in people’s minds. Thus,
one must always remember the terminology we use also limit our understanding
of a concept.
In reviewing these terms, this researcher noticed all of these terms viewed
ideas as solid forms which can be managed. But, in reality ideas often exist only
in people’s minds and sometimes are only revealed through spontaneous
conversations. In order to capture the sometimes intangible nature of ideas, this
thesis proposes the term “idea cloud” to account for the larger group of ideas
which may be stored in people’s minds. The term “idea cloud” denotes a thing
with light boundaries which cannot be easily mapped and may exist anywhere.
The term “idea cloud” will be used in the next section of this chapter to clarify
idea banks.
overwhelm the managers, and ideas may be stolen since they are viewable by
anyone in the company; and submitters may not get feedback on their ideas and
be left feeling frustrated.
Next, the authors provided an example of how a web-based idea system
was put in place at Bank One. From this they derived a step-wise list for
implementing an idea system. Here they state the steps are:
1) reviewing current methods for idea capture,
2) gaining management support for the new system,
3) defining the new product idea program,
4) defining the scope of ideas to be captured and audience members which
may participate,
5) establishing idea ownership,
6) choosing the form of the system,
7) implementing and evaluating the system,
8) establishing measurements and goals,
9) defining awards to push participation,
10) training employees to use the system, and
11) setting up ongoing administration and maintenance.
Again the value in their chapter is the review of the idea capture systems, and
the step-wise-process for implementing an idea capture system. However, one
major issue with this paper is they only consider ideas from internal sources as
coming from employees.
generating, and evaluating them. They then observed personality affects idea
management, and then proposed five types of personality categories.
1) Incrementalist take small steps, ideas are usually modest changes
2) Consensus builders focus on harmony among stakeholder rather than
ideas
3) Searchers combined info from diverse places,
4) Debaters argues to develop ideas
5) Assessor seem to be infinitely objective and flexible
Most of the individuals they interviewed in their small sample fell into the
incrementalist category. Consequently, this article gives an interesting view into
how personality can affect idea management.
Figure 2.29 shows this researcher’s depiction of the process where ideas
are captured in mass, then qualified by having them pre-screened “in a
consistent manner at a very high level” (p.27). The objective of the first phase is
to: (1) standardize screening, (2) validate ideas in their primary area of market
readiness and technical feasibility, and (3) capture IP.
Again, the software program guides users submitting ideas through these
self-screening, and self-analysis activities. This researcher considers this method
of capturing then self-screening and self-analysis valuable because, it gives the
additional information need to categorize, analyze, and select ideas for later FFE
processes.
Next, the concept development phase is designed to “assist idea
generators in ‘growing’ their embryonic idea into robust, fully developed
concepts” (Montoya-Weiss & O’Driscoll, 2006, p.18). Here the software program
provides a set of deep probing questions which must be answered in areas
ranging from benefit, all the way to, alignment with the business strategy. By
answering these questions the idea owner develops the idea into a concept.
122
Finally, the biggest issue is the reliance on software to help manage the
FFE. This researcher strongly believes that relying on a software tools to manage
the FFE process is a vital error since an in-depth understands of the FFE must
be developed first. In other words, management’s understanding of the FFE
should drive the use of particular tools, not the converse, where the tools drive
management’s activities.
2.8.6. Problems and Issues with Idea Management and Idea Banks
This research has identified many problems and issues with the current literature
on idea banks and idea management which is preventing it from being utilized to
its fullest potential. Hence, the remainder of this section will describe these major
problems.
First, the idea management and idea banks do not link to idea generation.
Only one article (by Flynn and his co-authors) states that idea management
should include and link to idea generation. All of the other literature assumes
ideas are captured by employees willingly submitting their ideas into idea banks,
but no articles discuss submitting ideas as part of a pre-designated idea
generation process.
Second, many articles on idea management and idea banks discuss
analyzing and screening ideas so they can be better used in late FFE processes.
However no articles suggest providing feedback of the assessed ideas to aid in
controlling and managing the idea generation process.
Third, no articles on idea management look at the idea banks as an early
means of portfolio management which can be used to tune and select the idea
generation processes needed to fill the product portfolio. Hence, the literature on
idea management totally fails to link usefully to idea generation processes.
Fourth, as mentioned there is no link between idea management and idea
banks and portfolio management.
Fifth, there is no research or survey data indicating the usage of idea
banks or idea management amongst companies. This represents a major gap in
the literature.
Lastly, and most importantly, there are no theoretical models showing
points of control for idea management and idea banks which can be used in the
management of early front end processes.
127
This chapter addresses the first research question: “From a review of the
literature, can a control model be developed to aid in the conceptual
understanding and management of idea generation and Idea management?”
To meet this goal, this chapter begins with a review of management
control models, and then select the most appropriate control theory for
development of this researcher’s control model. Next, the major points of control
for idea generation are examined and decided upon. Finally, the major points of
control for idea management are examined and decided upon. The combined
control model is illustrated in Figure 3.16. It is strongly believed that the proposed
model called the Glassman Model © will facilitate the conceptual understanding
and management of the idea generation model.
Chapter 4 proposes a research methodology to answer the second
research question: “Can the proposed idea management control model be
supported as capturing the required factors needed to manage and control idea
generation and idea management?”
establish, (b) are not feasible as implementing as a method of control, and (c) no
supported knowledge of cultural control for idea generation exists.
Feedback control models are common in marketing control and again fall
under the cybernetics paradigm. Tadepalli (1991) says feedback control models
are, a “reactive approach to control in which managers wall for problems and
take corrective action. In terms of marketing control, the feedback method forms
the basis for the control process” (Tadepalli, 1991, p.26).
Control process models are also based on the cybernetic paradigm.
Tadepalli (1991) states that control process involves “the following steps: set
goals and performance measures, measure achievement, compare achievement
with goals, compare variance between achievement and goals, report variances,
determine cause(s) of variance, take action[s] to eliminate variance, and follow-
up to ensure that goals are met” (Tadepalli, 1991, p.26). Control process models
provide an excellent base for idea generation because it can be viewed as a
process which can be controlled. In idea generation, the outcome (i.e., ideas) can
be measured and variance from the set goal of ideas can be found and corrective
action can be taken.
Jaworksi (1988) terms control points as being input control or process
control, where input controls are “common input control include selection, criteria,
recruitment and training programs, manpower allotments, strategic, plans, and
forms of resource allocation” (Jaworski, 1988, p. 5). In addition, process controls
are “exercised when the firm attempts to influence the means to achieve desired
ends. It differs from output control in that the focus is on behavior and/or
activities, rather than the end result” (Jaworksi, 1988, p. 5). Integrating this into
an illustration, one would see the figure below.
131
Feedback to
Management of Process
tune controls
Inputs Process
Controls Control
Outputs
Idea Generation
Processes
Difference between
Outputs and desired results = Gap
Figure 3.2. Process Control Model with formal input and process controls
132
Continuous
Source
idea generation
Group Group
of ideas of ideas
Event driven
Source
idea generation
Time
11-2007 12-2007 1-2008 2-2008
Figure 3.3. Continuous Idea Generation vs. Event Driven Idea Generation
Displayed on a Timeline
133
Figure 3.5. Controlling Both Internally Idea Events an External Idea Events
Event-less
Idea creation
No major event triggered this idea
Event Influenced
Idea creation
Event influenced
It was hypothesized that events can have different levels of impact on the
idea generation process. The figure 3.6 above shows how idea generation: a)
can occur without the influence of any major event, or b) can be influenced
by an event, or b) can be directly triggered by an event.
There is supporting evidence for event-less idea creation and event driven
idea creation (Tucker, 2003; Gamlin, Yourd, & Patrick, 2007; Stasch, Lonsdale, &
LaVenka, 1992; McAdam & McClelland, 2002). However, this research did not
find much support in the literature for event-influenced idea generation. It can
easily be surmised that events can influence idea generation. Take the following
hypothetical instance. A company notices a competitor entering the market with a
slightly better technology, this externals events weight heavily on R&D individual
minds and influences them as the generate ideas for their next line of products.
While by contrast, in an event-driven scenario the company formally requests
new product ideas to help beat the new competition in exchange for monetary
rewards.
It is unclear whether one has more control over external or internal events.
The amount of control for each event very much depends upon the situation. So
for example, an executive may have more control in their own company because
of their position or influence, while in another case, a similar executive may have
more control over external idea competition because he is paying a supplier to
host, advertise, and conduct it.
Steven, Burley, & Divine showed that highly creative people with business
discipline product disproportionately more revenue when placed into
development project (Stevens, Burley, & Divine, 1999). As well, Kelley & Littman
(2005) among other recommended non-homogenous team with very diverse
backgrounds and expertise.
Section 2.7 speaks at length about the different groups of individuals
which can be sources of ideas. Obviously one can use selection of the source
group as a method of control. Yet again, it is ridiculous to think one source of
individuals is always the best. It again depends upon the circumstances and the
type of ideas required, the time frame the ideas are needed in, the money and
resources allocated to generating ideas and so forth. For example one might
choose the core customer group as a source for incremental ideas for the next
product release, while, one might choose to solicit national laboratories and
consultants for radical technology ideas to be release in the next five years.
Motivation is well known to affect task performance, and creativity
research has shown intrinsic motivation and the incentives provided affect the
motivation individuals have for generating ideas (Alam, 2003; Flynn, Dooley, &
O’Sullivan, 2003; Belliveau, Griffin, & Somermeyer, 2002; Gorski, & Heinekamp,
2002; Abdulaziz,1995; Toubia, 2006; Derry, 2004).
140
The tools, and resources provided to the idea generation process in some
cases are critical. IDEO idea generation process requires prototyping during the
show and tell and prototyping activities. Not providing the raw materials and
manufacturing tools to create prototype kills this critical link in IDEO’s idea
generation process. Similarly, the outcome based innovation process requires
customer visits. Yet short-cutting these customer visits to save money will cripple
this process and result in a few poor ideas.
Idea generation processes are invaluable, because they usually include
estimates of the resources (time, money, people, and physical items) needed to
perform the processes properly. Unfortunately, idea generation activities are
usually not too specific.
Environments are divided into direct environment, company culture, and
national culture where studies focus on their impact on creativity. The easiest to
control is the direct environment, which is often done by allowing employees to
participate in idea retreats in parks, business hotels, or other settings like exotic
locations.
Company culture is much more difficult to control, as shown by change
management literature. Companies like IDEO, 3M, and Google have taken great
efforts to tune their culture to generate ideas (Kelley & Littman, 2005; Hardagon
& Sutton, 2000; Lashinsky, 2006; Berkun, 2007). This researcher believes one
cannot change their company culture quickly enough to be able to affect short
term idea generation, and hence should consider more long term methods of
controlling idea generation.
Finally, “Other” is a general catch-all category, which may include things
like state of the business, the amount of training provided on the processes,
communication between members, and others. Again the effects which the
people have on quality of the generated ideas are taken into account in the prior
source part of the model.
144
be given to a college club to help aid them in creating ideas. Once more, one
may also be able to suggest idea generation activities but again they would have
a limited amount of enforceability.
Figure 3.9. Screening and Filtering Located After Idea Generation Activities
146
Figure 3.10. Screening and Filtering in and After Idea Generation Activities
Finally, conditions inside and outside the company is a large catching all
category which can include anything from the financial status of the company to
economic climate. One may use reason like, “we are just out of money, or too
busy to deal with these ideas now” as excuse to screen out ideas. Again,
screening can be performed by oneself (self-screening ideas) or by the
organizations. Many things may lead to self-screening of ideas like the
receptiveness of the company to previously submitted ideas, credit given to the
inventor, ridicule for previous idea, and so forth. Again, screening and filtering will
be discussed in much more detail in the following sections.
portfolio management processes” (p. 69). This shows there is a large variation in
the level of impact strategy has on the overall innovation process. However these
surveys do not shed much light on how strategy solely impacts idea generation.
Adams-Bigelow (2005) surveyed companies about formally planned idea
generation and whether they were used to fill gaps or generate new ideas. Chart
7.1 below shows the results of this survey.
No
Formal fill gaps in product portfolio
11% strateg
Formal because more idea are
needed
18% 22% Informal activities to fill gaps
3%
Informal activities because more idea
are needed
Idea generation without prompting
13% Other methods
33%
Figure 3.12. Statistical Results from Adams-Bigelow Showing How Idea Were
Generated
Interestingly, this survey showed 25% of the ideas were created with
prompting or without a strategic need. Still this does not shed much light on the
actual impact strategy had on the idea generation processes.
Flynn et al. (2003) is clearly in favor of strategy driving innovation in his
quote “innovation management involves coordinating a portfolio of development
projects within a clear innovation framework, informed by an overall business
strategy” (Flynn et al, 2003, p.32). Cooper (2006) also says portfolio
management should strongly involve strategy, as well his 1999 article shows
better innovation results when strategy approaches are integrated into portfolio
management processes. As well, Cooper and Kleinschmidt (1996) contend the
project targets must fit the product’s strategy.
150
Rochford (1991) suggests that strategy should determine the process for
finding ideas. Interestingly, Stach, Lonsdale, & LaVenka (1992) define company
situations which spawn a search for new ideas as resulting from a: a) desire to
break into new market b) desired to improve market position c) desire to regain
market leadership, d) desire to remain a viable competitor. These desires can be
taken to be strategic objectives which can trigger and guide idea generation.
Guimares and Langely (1994) state new ideas must be consistent with
the company’s goals. Amabile (1998) suggests that idea generation teams must
share the team’s goals consistent with an appreciation of the organization
strategy. Of course, front end models like Khurana & Rosenthal (1998) directly
integrate strategy into the process. Understandably, all of the above references
argue idea generation should have a strong base in strategy, but there are others
who argue the contrary.
Researchers who propose that idea generation should be open and not
strategy driven include Lawson & Samson (2001) who state “radical ideas can
transfer business strategy or create new businesses” (Lawson & Samson, 2001,
p. 323). As Zien & Buckler (1997) state, “being truly experimental in the front end
means understanding that some new ideas are significant enough to redirect the
strategy of the enterprise” (Zien & Buckler, 1997, p. 32). Moskowitz (1997)
mentions a hap-hazard strategy where, metaphorically, you try a project by
“throwing stuff against the wall and hoping it sticks” (Moskowitz, 1997, p. 12).
Google has a similar strategic approach, where they try many different projects
(most outside the company strategy) in the hopes that some will be adopted by
the market (Lashinsky, 2006). Additionally, ideas created by the Blue Ocean
Strategy process are specifically meant to change the strategic direction of a
company.
151
Given these findings this thesis posits three possible ways strategy can
affect idea generation, as illustrated by figure 3.13.
The first way strategy is thought to affect the process is by setting direct
objectives for the idea generation activities. This is supported strongly by the
33% of companies found in 2003 by Adam-Begelow (2005) who generated ideas
formally to fill in gaps in their portfolio. An example of this would be a company
setting the objective of generating ideas for new non-toxic paints in order to meet
the new strategic goal of becoming more environmentally friendly. This type of
influence is termed “strategically-driven idea creation” and it is hypothesized
that ideas resulting from this would fit most strongly with the company’s strategy.
The second way strategy is thought to affect idea generation is by
influencing the idea generation process and is termed “strategically-influenced
idea creation”. This can range from a very strong formal influence to a weak
informal influence.
152
The strategic idea continuum, illustrated above in figure 3.14, was created
solely to discuss how strategy affects the ideas created during idea generation.
Now, the left side of the strategic idea continuum represents ideas which fall in
line with the company’s current strategy. It is hypothesized that strategically-
driven idea creation will on average produce these types of ideas.
153
In the middle of the continuum are ideas which create new strategic
options. It is hypothesized that both strategically influenced and strategy-less
idea creation generate these types of ideas. Processes like Blue Ocean strategy
are specifically used to create ideas which open up strategic options for a
company.
Finally, the right side of the continuum shows ideas which are not viable
strategic options for a company. This may be because, these types of ideas may
require too much money, or are way outside the capabilities of the company.
idea
Screen
Idea
Source Event Idea Generation Activities and
filter
idea
idea
executed correctly, the right tools are being used, and that the environment is
fruitful. However, to fully understand the feedback process one must first
understand what type of feedback is required to manage the processes.
require low amounts of resource while the service ideas require high amounts of
resources. Thus, he instructs the NPD team to concentrate on desired customer
outcomes which should be filled with new products, instead of services.
Table 3.2. Example of Improved Set of Idea Resulting from Second Attempt
This was followed by a full model showing how idea generation processes
could be controlled. This model integrated feedback gathered by analyzing the
outputted ideas. It is hypothesized that ideas should be analyzed by a) their
attributes, b) their source, and by c) how they were created. Finally, a case
example of how to manage the idea generation processes was created to
demonstrate the points of control and the importance of feedback. Yet despite
the greater understanding which has been developed, the front end of innovation
requires a better understanding of how idea banks play into the innovation
process and flow of ideas.
3.3. Development of a Control Model for Idea Banks and Idea Management
This section proposes a control model for idea management and idea banks.
Also in the interest of expanding the knowledge in this area, This researcher will
look past the typical functions of capturing, storing, and diffusing ideas to uncover
new ways which idea management can aid the innovation process.
&Heinekamp, 2002; Bakker, Boersma, & Oreel, 2006; Heck, 2005; Fritz, 2002;
Dijk, & van de Ende, 2002; Koen et al., 2001). Additionally, idea management
can aid in analysis of ideas (Vandenbosh, Saatcioglu, and Fay, 2006).
Interestingly, much of the literature says that idea banks are a main
means of allowing employees access to ideas. Hardagon & Sutton’s (2000) work
has shown a major part of managing ideas is brokering them around the
organization. These acts of allowing access to ideas, and brokering ideas can
both be viewed under the major activities of “distributing and routing ideas.”
Finally, This researcher has added the major function of tagging to idea
management. Interestingly, some idea management software ask for information
related to, who generated the idea, how it was generated, and record the date
when it was submitted. This software then tags the idea with this identification
information. The value in these tags is that they allow for traceability and to some
degree allow for analysis of the idea generation process so that success can be
replicated or at minimum understood. This thesis suggests tagging as a major
activity of idea management and will take efforts to support this assertion in this
chapter. The list of activities for idea management is seen as the following.
1) Capture
2) Tagging
3) Storing and Categorization
4) Process Check
5) Diffusion and routing
The act of diffusion and routing were place together because it is felt they
are too similar in their nature to be spit into different functions. Routing is the act
of taking and idea which may be relevant to a particular individual and routing it
to them. For example, the operations department may love to have an idea for
reducing cost sent to them from a co-worker in upper management. The following
part of this section will look at each of these five functions in much more detail
and determine major points of control for each.
160
Tech box, where they store the actual product or material idea along with a short
description. Again, Section 2.8 reviews the major ways of capturing ideas.
There is a trade off in idea submission between the detail and energy
required to submit ideas. The more energy required to submit an idea, the
greater the barrier to submission. For example, asking an unsophisticated
customer to fill out five pages of forms in order to submit an idea would
effectively block ideas from that source.
Hence, in selecting the method of capture, a company must balance the
energy required against the amount of detail and specificity needed. For
example, a law firm may want a very easy way to capture ideas over the phone
or voicemail whereas, an engineering firm may want a more elaborate way to
insure the capture of vital details.
process operates correctly. This can get rather complicated when a company is
capturing ideas from several sources simultaneously, but yet it can still be
managed, and is much less complicated than running an assembly line in a plant.
Later in this capture process, this research posits that idea generation and
idea management should have a separate group managing it. In doing so, there
will be active control over vital parts of the process, like capture.
Again there are many reasons why a company may not want to accept
ideas at certain levels of development. Like for instance an idea in the concept
phase may have too much risk or an idea in the pilot stage may be too developed
and will not be backed by the new product development group (again NIH
syndrome). Nonetheless, part of the strategy for receiving ideas from outside
sources should include the idea’s level of concept development.
Furthermore, ideas can be placed in different categories and a company
may have a different level of responsiveness to each category of ideas. Figure
3.18 shows an example of a company which is not responsive to brand or
166
process ideas. Now for the sake of brevity, the remainder of this chapter will be
limited to sources of ideas for new offerings (being products and services) shown
as the first circle on Figure 3.18.
3.3.3. Tagging
As shown in figure 3.16, tagging follows capture, and is the act of attaching
additional information to the idea, so that it can be used to a) refine the idea
generation and idea management process, as well as b) aid the later innovation
process by formalizing company biases.
Tagging an idea can be thought of as a product information tag on a food
product, which shows the origin of the food, manufacturer, content, shelf-life, and
so on. Tagging in manufacturing is a vital task because it allows for tracking, and
most importantly, accountability. If a bad batch of food goes out the door, the
quality examiner who authorized the batch can be identified via the tag and
therefore held accountable.
167
Need seekers actively seek customer needs, and use idea generation
activities which focus on gathering customer needs and ideating to meet those
needs. The innovation pipeline of need seekers are rigorously managed to track
return on innovation investment (Jaruzelski, & Dehoff 2008).
Market readers focused a cautious approach of reading market trends via
market research and competitive intelligence. “Market readers spend less on
R&D as a percentage of sales and tended to prefer incremental developments;
as a result, they were apt at bringing fast follower products to market. Market
readers were also mentioned to have pipelines which verified the products value
to customers” (Jaruzelski, & Dehoff 2008, p. 119).
Technology driven companies preferred to push the boundaries of
technology to met unarticulated customer needs, rather than innovation based on
customer needs or market trends. They used extensive technology mapping to
scout for new technology and understand where they should place their design
efforts.
In a sense, these drivers and bias may link to some unmentioned cultural
values. This researcher hypothesis that technology driven companies believe
they must lead in technology to be successful in innovation and that the risk of
failure is a direct result of this choice. On the other hand, market readers or
market-driven companies believe that careful understanding and following of
market trends can result in a lower risk approach to innovation and a better
return on R&D dollars.
Finally, need seekers or customer-driven companies believe that
customers are at the heart of the company’s revenues and that future success
required much attention be place on customer needs to be successful in
innovation. Interestingly, this research supports the assertion by Jaruzelski, &
Dehoff (2008) that no single strategy is best, and that a company should select
approaches which mesh with the company’s strategy, competitive environment,
and cultural values.
169
capture in the tag stays with the idea so it can be traced. So if the idea is
accepted as a project and then passes on into the development, management
should be able to quickly pull up the idea tag info associated with the project to
see what conditions lead to the ideas creations. Again, the innovation process is
a value chain, and tracking items as they proceed through the process is just vital
to improving the links in that chain.
3.3.4.1. Formal vs. Informal Storage of Ideas and the Concepts of the Idea Cloud
The following paragraphs will review several obvious attributes which This
researcher deems useful for the innovation process. The first is the form in which
the idea is recorded, being highly formal or informal.
Many ideas exist solely in the minds’ of the employees and have not been
recorded to paper. So to account for these ideas which exist in the larger
organizational consciousness the term “idea cloud” is being used. To help in the
174
differentiation, the term “idea bank” is being used strictly as ideas recorded
formally on a fixed media (paper, computer disk, audio tape).
Figure 3.19 illustrates the idea cloud with two idea banks embedded in it.
Hence, an idea in a person’s mind would be contained in the idea cloud,
whereas, if it was written on paper (say in a lab notebook) it would exist in the
idea bank, and if it was submitted it would then exist in the company’s idea bank.
The value gained from splitting up storage this way is it highlights that
many ideas are kept in peoples minds’ and there are barriers which those ideas
must move across to become more formalized.
So given this, one can view ideas in the organization on a continuum of
formality as shown by Figure 3.20 below. Figure 3.18 shows informal ideas which
may exist in only a person’s mind whereas highly formal ideas may exist on
paper and computer, with fully detailed written descriptions with prototype
pictures and so on.
175
driven, and incremental. With this dizzying array of categorizations, it may seem
daunting to organize an idea bank. Yet these categorizations give one an
increased ability to search through and select ideas, and use their understanding
of the ideas in the idea bank to improve the innovation process.
For example, if one purely categorized the ideas in an idea bank by
incremental or radical ideas one might see what is illustrated in Figure 3.17.
Instantly, one can deduce that the company is not effectively capturing or
generating radical ideas and should place more effort on these tasks. Similarly,
by organizing ideas by their innovation category (as illustrated in Figure 3.18)
one would see the need for more service ideas.
Of course, one can organize the ideas in an idea bank by almost any
factors like ideas with the shortest time to market, or lowest amount of required
resources. However, one must be careful not to use factors which in themselves
are useless, irrelevant, or can not be accurately determined. For example, one
should not sort new unanalyzed ideas in an idea bank according to those which
178
using those ideas again are very remote. Thus, the benefit for permanently
recording ideas into the bank does not justify the required energy and time.
However, in other companies there is a much greater benefit to permanently
storing ideas. Hence companies should take note, that there can be cases where
either temporarily storing ideas or permanently storing ideas may be beneficial.
stored one must look at the main functions of the idea storage, which is a) to
store idea and opportunities, and b) to retrieve ideas and opportunities.
Viewing it in that light, one can see it is important to quickly store and
retrieve idea and opportunities. But this must be balanced against the need for
formality, and how much detail should be captured. So again, if the idea is for
and mechanical device much more info may be required than and idea for a new
customer group.
Interestingly, the quickest way to retrieve stored idea is through idea
management software programs; whereas, some of the quicker ways to store
idea can be via paper documentation methods. The benefits of idea management
software are that ideas can be easily appended to, and modified, as they
processed through development.
Categorization does take some energy especially if ideas are stored in a
paper form. Again, idea management software have major benefits because
categorizations can be quickly drawn up, edited, compared, and reviewed, on
many systems at once. When selecting the method of categorization one should
keep at minimum a few consistent categories so the results of the idea stored in
the bank can be compared overtime.
Again, the selection of the proper categories depends upon the business
but in general the categories which should be used are: level of development,
newness of the ideas, innovation category, disruptive versus incremental, and
idea driver.
disruptive product ideas, and it actually produces five incremental service ideas
the individuals managing idea generation can be informed quickly over the
phone, a detail report is not needed. One should not over complicate the
analysis, just get the rough info to the idea generation manager quickly, so they
can learn and refine their processes.
Figure 3.24. Idea Management Feeding Idea Back into Idea Generation to
Stimulate more ideas
185
With this view, diffusing ideas does not only have to be about getting an
idea accepted as a project as mentioned by Hardagon, & Sutton (2000). As well,
there is value to having non-perfect ideas in the idea banks. To illustrate, that
ideas can be used to seed individuals in idea generation activities, this model
had a link linking diffusion to idea generation. However, before going into detail
about how to control diffusion, we discuss theories of diffusion. This research
views two distinct types of diffusion one being a) forced diffusion, where an
individual or group (internal or external) is pushing the idea through the
organization, and b) sought diffusion, where individual activity seeks new ideas.
The best example of forced diffusion is the executive product champion,
who uses every means possible to spread his idea through the organization. This
individual uses memos, speeches, conferences, meetings, emails, and face-to-
face communication to get his idea out to individuals in his organization. There
are other means of forced diffusion, like companywide memos, idea fairs, idea
discussions, promo video of idea, posters of new ideas, and so on. The many
ways they differ from each other is the amount of power they have to diffuse and
idea. Hence, to demonstrate this better the researcher has created a diffusion
power spectrum, Figure 3.25.
Kelley, & Littman (2005) explained in detail that some individuals like
discussing new ideas and things they learned. They termed these people,
“Cross-Pollinators” and dedicated an entire chapter to them. They also assert
that not everyone likes this role.
Hence, it is easy to see that some people are much more inclined to be
good at distributing ideas and opportunities around the organization. Formally
assigning this task and providing them with the power to execute it can greatly
increase the degree to which ideas are distributed through the organization.
Allowing these individuals to select and conducted via any of the diffusion
methods from above will also help diffuse ideas across the organization.
A sign of an individual great at diffusion is that they can name off relevant
products, technologies, inventions, ideas, and show you were to go to learn more
about them, and they enjoy talking about this to others.
number of events where new ideas are forced out and the number of people they
are distributed too can also give an indication of the effectiveness of forced
diffusion.
For sought diffusion, opinions and metrics can also be used. If employees’
feel they do not have access to easy methods of finding new ideas, then possibly
sought diffusion maybe failing-to-work. Also, if metrics on items like searches in
the idea banks, or use of expert networks are low, then sought diffusion may not
be used effectively.
3.3.7. Routing
Routing ideas is also an affective way to deal with this bias. Christensen
and Raynor (2003) proposed that disruptive ideas should be developed in
separate organizations. Similarly, Lockheed Martin is famous for their use of
skunk works to develop radical airplane concepts. By using idea management to
route disruptive idea to proper development groups like skunk works, internal
incubators, or spin-of-companies the company’s internal bias toward disruptive
ideas can be avoided. Similarly, by having market-driven ideas routed to the
marketing department for development can again overcome another company
bias.
The concept of routing ideas to the appropriate parties based on tagged
information is especially powerful for ideas of different innovation categories. For
example, a customer experience idea possibly should be routed to the customer
service department; whereas, a branding idea should be routed to the marketing
department.
Having a routing system also allows each particular department to have
their own idea bank, which can be linked to a company-wide idea bank. It is
imagine this could be rather easy, for example an employee may notice a
competitor using a new branding technique. That employee would then write-up
the idea, tags it, and then it is automatically routed to the marketing department
190
by the idea management team. Additionally, tagging and routing also allows for
accountability in the front end of innovation because of the increase visibility
associated with the process.
Figure 3.26. How Portfolio Management Determines Options for New Projects
Figure 3.27. How Assessment of Idea Banks can be Used by Portfolio Managers
192
Next, the survey was sent out in a small pilot study to four or five company
respondents. The purpose of the pilot study was:
• To uncover confusion in the survey’s questions
• To get a rough estimate of measurement error
• Do a preliminary analysis of the data to see if the obtained data categories
provided the needed information for supporting the model
This preliminary pilot study obtained 5 respondents, and the data obtained
showed of 0.6 Cronbach which is good reliability for such a small number of
respondents. Further, post interviews with respondents showed no confusion
from the survey’s questions.
Finally, the full survey was sent out and data was received over a two
month period. This researcher used two web seminars to develop interest in the
survey. The web seminars were hosted by RYMA technologies and discussed
the idea generation and idea management process in a one hour long web
presentation during which one minute was devoted to promoting This
researchers survey. The attendees were primarily managers with product
development responsibilities. The attendees (122 individuals) were then emailed
an invitation to take the online survey which resulted in the highest completion
rate.
Additionally, web posts inviting individuals ‘to take the survey’ were posted
on Linkedin.com’s “front end of innovation group” and “product development
group”. These had very low completion rates.
The following chapter presents the research findings for both the case studies
and the qualitative survey. The research findings are broken up into two sections
being: (1) case study results, and (2) quantitative survey findings, which each
section including a respective discussion and conclusion. The duel research
study approach would lend more support for the proposed model and help in
answering the second research question. The first research question was
answered in Chapter 3.
monetary, tangible, and much more publicized social incentives would be much
more effective in creating participation in idea generation activities and events.
Food was found to be an incentive boosting attendance, but it was unclear if this
aided in active participation in the idea generation exercises. The company may
find the total cost associated with these incentives initially high, but respectively
they may be low per idea.
All interviewees agree the act of capturing ideas is very weak and
consequently is severely hurting the “buy-in for the idea management system” at
their research center.
There are fifteen key people in the research center which are tasked with
capturing ideas. An idea may be submitted to these individuals in person, on
paper, over email, or directly entered into the idea management software which
is called “Accolades.” The idea coordinator receives the bulk of the submitted
ideas from these fifteen key people or other employees so that they can be
entered into the “Accolade” system or routed to the appropriate department
heads.
All individuals tasked with receiving ideas should be specifically trained
not to criticize ideas, and instead should talk and search for the valuable
parts/aspects of the idea with the submitter. Those points of value may later be
combined with other ideas to create a truly valuable product, and quickly judging
and idea looses that valuable information. For example, a poor idea like a hot
energy coffee drink with extra ginseng, was combined with the idea of a cold
coffee to make Rockstar Roasted coffee drink.
Interviewees mentioned employees do not like “Accolade” because it
takes too much time/energy to submit an idea, and would prefer to submit ideas
to their team leader for instant feedback or approval. Further the “Accolade”
system does not allow for pictures or attachments to be submitted with the idea.
Food products very much need visual representation; hence this researcher
deems this idea management software to be useless.
Finally, the software does not allow for feedback on the idea. This goes
back to prior research which mentioned the social & developmental benefits of
talking about ideas, prior to entering them into some type of idea management
system. Many newer idea management systems allow for feedback and
conversations to take place around an idea. The act of talking about and refining
the idea is a vital frontend activity and can be done over software or in-person.
Bean, & Radford (2002) talk about a free in-house coffee bar to make employees
213
meet to talk about new ideas, and found it was effective. Accolade’s feedback
limitation also limits it usefulness. In all, “Accolade” severely limits the
acceptance of the idea management process inside this research center. Thus
other software solutions should be sought.
can see that ideas are scoped before the second screen, then have a business
case build for them and then proceed to a third screen. This insures that work is
put into the ideas to develop them and that proper kill/proceed decision are
made.
This researcher’s initial thoughts were that Fairbanks Scales was narrowly
concentrated on developing “scales” for a highly mature and highly saturated
scale markets which has limited innovation opportunities remaining. In other
words, Fairbanks Scales had taken the scale concept, to what seems to be, the
current limits of the technology and customer needs for their currently served
geographic markets. Again, their extreme segmentation (130+ product lines &
1,500 product variations) and the multitude of application areas were evidence of
this thought. Reaching the application limits of any market is, in itself, an
accomplishment any company should be proud of!
There are many companies, existing both currently and in the past, which
have reached the limits of their current business applications and for the most
part have stalled in developing new products in categories like: pens, tables,
doors, windows, silverware, to name a few. Some product categories like “trolley
cars and horse carriages” have even been superseded and no longer exist. The
trick to getting unstuck in these instances is viewing product innovation through a
larger view, instead of a narrower product based view.
For example, trolley car manufacturer throughout 1800’s and early 1900’s
made tremendous value for their shareholders; unfortunately, they did not see
they were in the “business of providing transportation” and with the advent of
cars, & trucks, lost market share and now are in total obscurity. Hence, thinking
in line with your current product category can limit the company’s ability to
expand as famously noted by Dr. Levitt in his Harvard Business Review article
Marketing Myopia (Levitt, 2006).
Again Fairbanks Scales should consider it a great accomplishment to
have fulfilled their customer’s needs with regards to scales. Unfortunately, it
seems that Fairbanks has limited their development thinking purely to the “scale
concept.” Their manufacturing, engineering, sales capabilities and their
distribution channels would definitely allow them to expand outside of the pure
“scale” concept, into related areas.
221
The lessons learned from Levitt’s Marketing Myopia article (read this
article listed on page one before proceeding) can be directly applied to Fairbanks
Scales. However, recent discussions of Levitt work mentioned that he neglected
company resources and core competencies in his theories. For example Kodak
saw the arrival of digital camera technologies but was unable to make the
transition successfully due to their lack of electronics knowledge.
Applying Levitt’s lesson to Fairbanks Scales one would have two new
perspectives on their products which will help them generate new products being
(a) broader view of their core business and (b) a broader understanding of how
their products fit into the job process
Take for instance a food quality assurance lab, in testing their food
products they weigh them, measure density, and in many cases test hardness or
taste. A small scale that weighs, counts average number, and measure density
and weight simultaneously may be valuable especially if it can be integrated
directly into a production line.
Similarly scales that can automatically measure dimensions & weights
may be valuable to some customers who must determine shipping costs or figure
out how to effectively pack a semi-truck. Hence, one can use the above list, and
a broader view of ‘providing assurance and information on physical items’ in
formal idea generation activities to create many new product ideas which would
build on the core strengths and sales channels of Fairbanks.
5.3.4. A Broader Understanding of How their Products Fit into the Job Process
Fairbanks should adopt a broader view of how their products fit into the larger job
process when generating ideas for new products. For example, the vertical
bagging machines shown in figure 1 below weighs but also bags and seals items
like food. This machine provides assurance that the correct portion size (by
weight) is dispensed but also performs the next step in the job process which is
bagging the product. Performing this additional step greatly increases the value
of the machine, and it is no longer just a scale but a larger and more valuable
piece of equipment.
Hence, looking at the steps before and after the weighing in the job
process will help one generate more new product ideas. For example, look at a
ranch hand that is tasked with weighing cattle. First the hand must round up the
cattle and bring them home. Then the hand must read the cattle’s ear tag
number, put it on the scale, write down the weight, compare the weight to the old
weight (to assure the cattle is growing properly), then calculate the weight
increase, and release the heifer if it is the appropriate weight. If it is sick they pull
it aside to quarantine it so the veterinarian can check it out.
Thinking more broadly one can integrate the scale forward and backwards
into this job process and hence create a more valuable product. For example the
cow’s ear tag could be scanned by the computerized scales by a simple RFID
chip embedded in the cow’s ear tag or bar code printed on the ear tag. The
scale’s memory would then pull up the cow’s old and new weights. With this
information in the memory the scale could print out metrics valuable to the
rancher like, pounds gained, average pounds gained over last 3 scans, average
pounds gain per month, and so on. The scale could even beep loudly or marked
a cow with spray paint if it lost weight, so the rancher can inspect them or
quarantine them.
There is great value in looking at the whole job process and seeing how
weighing fits in, and then using that understanding to generate ideas. Best of all
these new product ideas should fit into the sales channels and build on the
strengths of the company. With these two new perspectives discussed, this
thesis moves on to details of the idea generation and idea management process.
produced very mediocre ideas which were already present in our idea bank.”
Thus they stopped all idea generation and rely presently on capturing ideas from
internal and external sources.
This researcher hypothesizes that many companies experience similar
frustrations from a lack of success in idea generation. It is thought this is partially
due to a lack of expertise in effectively conducting idea generation activities. This
is understandable given the large gap in the literature on how to effectively
conduct idea generation activities.
In the case of Fairbanks Scales, it is even more likely that frustrations and
fruitless results would arise using the narrow “scale” concept to direct idea
generation activities especially given the maturity and saturation of the scales
markets.
The list above also focuses heavily on activities which require customer
visits or observation of customer activities. This is because the company is
looking for areas where (1) they can provide additional assurance and
227
information on physical items outside of weight, and (2) analyze the greater job
process to identify steps where they can add additional value. Not conducting
customer visits is a major error!
Innovation managers must keep in mind that employees are busy, and for
them to dedicate time to idea generation there must be an incentive in place.
Fairbanks’ did not have an incentive system for patents or new ideas; hence this
researcher recommends that using a $5K bonus for identifying a fruitful new
opportunity area, and $10K for new profitable products will help incentivize
employees. Additionally, having moneys awarded only after a new product hits
market launch will help motivate employees to do additional market research and
push possible wining products through the development process.
customer wants’ a very cheap scale for cooking. This may highlight a larger
opportunity which is integrating scales into kitchen appliances like microwaves.
Diffusing ideas across the company’s employee base will greatly help in
the awareness of new ideas and help in the generation of other ideas. Foster the
author of How to Get Ideas says ‘new ideas are a recombination of old ideas’, so
being aware of more ideas helps in idea generation (Foster, 1999).
Because of the company’s size, shorter monthly meetings with the larger
employee base of sales, services, and engineering employees should be used to
discuss new ideas and ask for input on each idea. Remember buy-in of the larger
organization may be required for a successful product launch and pre-exposing
them to ideas will help in absorption. Great efforts should be taken during these
meetings to insure an open atmosphere where ideas are welcomed and not
adversely criticized.
As well, an idea newsletter can be emailed monthly to the employee base
with a long list of new and popular ideas. This newsletter should also contain
reminders of incentives and upcoming idea generation events.
Because the development department is so small, it is assumed that a
decision to develop a new product will be determined solely by the VP of
development/engineering and director of product development. If the buy-in of
the board or other executives is required for development, diffusion of ideas to
those individuals should take place as those ideas progress.
b) select, develop, and appropriate funds for new product ideas which are
filling a proven opportunity area (like an existing product line).
2. A skunk works team should be created to generate new ideas and quickly
explore the feasibility and opportunity those ideas offer Koen’s recent article
“Providing clarity and a common language for the fuzzy front end” differentiates
between new products which are for (Koen et. all., 2001):
1) Exploring a new applications or opportunity areas termed ‘exploratory’, and
2) Exploiting a known and proven opportunity.
payback time should be forgone. Instead the idea should be evaluated on its’
ability to: a) expand the skill set of the company; b) stimulate a market reaction to
this new feature or product category, and c) its’ ability to uncover new market
applications or new opportunity areas.
Selecting exploratory ideas to continue in development can be done in
steps so to limit investment and risk. A first stage could be to gain market insight
by doing preliminary concept testing (helped by sales) and roughly determine
how the product may be engineered. The second stage may include two or three
preliminary mockups to demonstrate functionality and to learn which
configurations seem to be best. The third stage could be to push the products
into development.
Prioritizing exploratory new product ideas should be based on a future
vision for how these products may help the greater market and how they rate on
the prior mentioned metrics.
product. Hence having a skunk works team pushing new exploratory products
through development, sales, and manufacturing will greatly help in exploratory
product successes.
Interviewees seem dissatisfied with four out of the six activities in the idea
management process. Obviously Fairbanks’ strength in capturing ideas relates to
high satisfaction in this area. The other factors 9 to 12 were listed as
“dissatisfied” and this researcher sees this as reasonable given the improvement
required in these areas. The “dissatisfaction” with the amount, quality, & type of
ideas in the idea bank and the ability of the idea bank to fill frontend portfolio is a
direct result of noted poor idea generation and the in-ability to capture disruptive
ideas from inside and outside sources.
In all Fairbanks was dissatisfied with the idea generation and idea
management process, and this was reasonable given the state of their process
as assessed by this researcher.
235
supposes that companies which capture adequate ideas through their idea
management process do not see a need for conducting an idea generation
process.
Sharing of captured ideas between those who capture the ideas seems to
be done haphazardly. It also seems that ideas for new products and new product
lines are sometimes written down in a excel document, and that the many feature
ideas are entered into a database associated with development. Ideas are mainly
submitted in person.
Gregory Moore speaks about the transition that companies must make to
cross the chasm, and notably mentions that products change from meeting the
needs of technologist and visionary customers to matching the needs of a
broader pragmatic customer base, i.e shifting to more market driven products in-
order to cross the chasm (Moore. G, 2004).
survey. For example, the levels of satisfaction with the overall idea generation
process was (satisfied; however, during the interview he mentioned to be very
dissatisfied because no process for idea generation existed. Hence this
researcher must discount all measure of satisfaction from CartêGraph from this
case study.
5.5. Case Study: Discussion of 2nd Research Question Based on Case Study
Evidence
The following section discusses the supporting evidence (obtained from the case
studies) that the model satisfies the second research question. Again, the second
research question is: “Can the developed control model be supported as
capturing the required factors needed to manage and control idea generation and
idea management effectively?”
This section supports the purpose model through evidence of its useful
application in analyzing and making recommendations for the case study
companies’ idea generation and idea management process. The supporting
evidence for this model is its: (1) aid in a quick analysis, (2) systematic analysis
of the information, (3) aid in performing a detailed analysis, (4) help in uncovering
major problem areas, (5) aid in making recommendations, and (6) aid in
comprehending the information. One major factor (strategy) was found to have
been missing from the model and will be discussed in the following “lessons”
section.
First, the proposed model aided in a rough analysis of the companies
processes. Again, the interviewees first answered the online survey which was
created directly from the proposed model. Then this researcher reviewed the
survey answer. From a 20 minute review of those answers, this researcher had a
very good understanding of areas of strength and weakness in their process.
246
technology. This contradicted their request to generate incremental ideas for their
current customer base. Consequently, this researcher recommended that they
shift toward generating ideas to aid market adoption and forgo generating idea
for their current customer base.
On the other hand, Fairbanks Scales strategy was to grow in scales, but in
confirming these areas (step 3) it was convincingly determined that the “scale”
concept would not provide adequate opportunity to generate the needed growth.
Consequently, this researcher recommended that broaden their company
strategy (step 1), and use this researcher’s suggested areas to generate idea
(step 2). In all, it is believed that the mentioned factors and activities can be
easily integrated to improve the Glassman model.
Please note many of the correlation sum one or more factors, this is a
simple procedure. For example, if a particular respondent answers “sometimes”
or 3 for V45 and “always” or 5 for V46, then the sum is 9. This calculation is then
computed for all respondents, and the resulting 1x40 matrix can be used in a
simple Pearson’s Correlation.
ruct
onst
ty C
Respondents' Industry Distribution N=40
y Du
7 6 6
6
e av
sampled in that industry
5
Number of companies
n, H
4
iat io
3 2 2 2 2
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
, Av
1
ot ive
0
ent
utom
nk
e
re
ent
rgy
el
nce
ity
ng
ng
ting
ng
dor
C
ls
are
ics
IT
com
nces
cts
ar in
rat io
ipem
T rav
mica
HVA
lthca
k Ta
ivers
su lt i
sulti
lis hi
tr on
uipm
Ene
odu
of tw
Ven
Fina
ns ul
g (A
Tele
M
Scie
en e
Equ
Pub
Con
Che
Con
Thin
Hea
Ele c
ic/ un
e Pr
S
s Co
l Eq
ware
tu rin
er G
L ife
ory
Offi c
ware
dem
st ria
in es
Sof t
ufac
Pow
or at
Sof t
Aca
Indu
Bus
Man
Lab
Figure 5.3. Distribution of Respondents’ Companies amongst their Respective
Industries
$5B + 8 5001+ 9
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
# of Respondents # of Respondents
Number of Companies
Distribution of Respondents Country & States
8
7
7
6
5
4
3 3 3 3
3 2 2 2
2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
0
ia
lina
d
way
k
n
a
inia
na
ada
ri
gan
in
It aly
etts
sey
a
UK
a
nce
o
ois
as
Yor
ylan
higa
n
sou
Iow
Idah
Ohi
Indi
l van
Spa
ifori
Chi
Tex
Il lin
aro
Virg
hu s
Jer
Can
Fra
Ore
Nor
Mis
New
Mar
Mic
nsy
Cal
th C
sac
New
Pen
Nor
Mas
18
12
10 9
8 8
8
6 6
6 5
4
4 3 3 3
2
2
0 0 0
0
er
ce
r
er
er
er
an
er
e
nt
D
r
e
rt
so
e
ee
so
ag
ol
ol
ag
op
po
ag
nc
&
ffi
ch
ta
ci
vi
R
R
R
in
vi
an
ta
up
ni
an
an
no ea r
el
su
er
d
ng
al
o
of
ch
ev
is
n
A
up
S
m
N
on
M
im
t io
E
es
ss
P
Te
D
n
S
D
C
ct
in
V
va
A
R
io
&
je
M
is
R
ro
iv
In
P
D
ef
hi
C
more about this topic. This researcher is unsure if this sample is representative of
the greater populations, and would lean toward it representing individuals who
see a need for improvement in these areas in their companies and have a
general interest in this subject area.
Figure 5.8. Correlation for Overall Satisfactions with the Idea Generation Process
Figure 5.9 shows the correlation between the satisfaction of 48S (ability of
your company’s idea generation process to fill the front end portfolio needs) and
56S (the ability of your company’s idea bank to fill the front end portfolio’s needs)
to be 0.678 significant to 0.01. A high correlation is logical given they both relate
to the front end portfolio needs. The variation can be primarily attributed to the
difference between the “ideas” created from the idea generation process and the
“ideas” located in the idea bank (which also included ideas captured from outside
sources).
Figure 5.11. Correlations of 52S Ability to Capture Ideas from Outside Sources
260
The right side of this correlation shows several things. First it shows that
selection of creative people (which equate to selection of the source in
Glassman’s model) is an important factor in generating a quality output. Alone
V73 (selection of creative people) had the highest correlation (0.61 moderate)
with 47S (time to generation ideas). Again, this supports the author’s model.
Next, having, hosting, and managing events are very important in
generating a quality output. Alone V75 (actively holding events) had a 0.67
(strong) correlation with quality of ideas (44S) and a 0.6 (moderate) correlation
with (49S) overall satisfaction with the idea generation process, and a 0.59
correlation for both V45 & V47. This shows the importance of having formal
events to generate ideas. Actively managing these events V76 had a moderate
0.45 to 0.48 individual correlation with factors 44S, 45S, 47S, and a high
correlation (0.58) with 54S the amount and quality of idea in the idea bank.
The idea generation activities V80, V81, V82 together showed the highest
correlations to satisfaction variables 44S, 45S, 46S, 47S, 54S. What this says is
that selecting, managing, and providing tools & resources for idea generation
activities is the most important thing one can do to generate a number of quality
ideas. This is logical considering that these activities are the ones which actually
create the ideas. All 12 internal correlations between these variables had
correlations above 0.49 with the average being 0.6.
Out of this group V81 had the highest correlation to 45S of 0.75. This says
that managing the idea generation activities accounts is require to obtain a
satisfactory number of ideas (accounts for R2=56% of the outcome).
The importance of selecting, managing, and providing tools for idea
generation activities cannot be understated and should be central in ones efforts
to generating a number of qualities of ideas quickly.
Together the variables on the right of figure 5.14 have a strong 0.695
correlations with (49S) the overall satisfaction with the idea generation process.
This greatly supports that these activities are vital additions to Glassman’s
proposed model.
263
The right hand side of Figure 5.14 shows that those activities are highly
interrelated. Thankfully, this strongly supports the author’s proposed model for
idea generation shown in Figure 5.15 as having these activities occurring in an
interrelated linear process. Again, the linear process is the only one which makes
sense as discussed in Chapter 3, development of a control model.
Unfortunately, several points of control shown in Figure 5.15 were not
tested for in the survey due to length requirements. Interestingly, providing
incentives for events showed no notable correlations, but providing a general
incentive for submitting ideas created a 0.53 correlation with 44S (satisfaction
with quality of ideas), and a weak 0.48 correlation with 45S (satisfaction with
number of ideas). This provides weak support, but support Nonetheless for
incentives in Glassman’s proposed model.
Amazingly, screening in Glassman’s model showed no notable
correlations with the variable on the left of Figure 5.15. Later in this section, one
will see that screening plays an important role in idea management. Hence, one
264
can tentatively conclude that screening activities must be removed from idea
generation and placed in the idea management part of Glassman’s proposed
model.
Satisfaction with the ability of their company's idea generation process to
fill the front end portfolio's needs (48S) at best had a weak correlation 0.58 with
V75 the degree to which one actively holds events. The low correlations that
(48S) has to other satisfaction variables is weird and un-explained considering in
figure 5.9 it helps the correlation with overall satisfaction.
Again the resulting correlations developed from the survey, show strong
support for the points of control proposed in the author’s idea generation model.
It was thought that 51S, satisfaction with capturing ideas from employees,
would have correlated strongly with V88, the degree by which their company
accepts ideas submitted from, or by observing employees, see Figure 5.16. In
reviewing the data it was found that several activities combined together created
a very strong correlation with 51S, as shown in Figure 5.17.
265
Figure 5.18 shows a very strong correlation for capturing ideas from
outside sources relating to the sum of the five variable V123, V125, V126, V127,
V128, having individual correlations of 0.62, 0.58, 0.63, 0.66, 0.71 with 52S,
respectively. This correlation validity is further backed by the correlations shown
in Figure 5.10.
It seems that refining the process using outputted ideas, is important in the
satisfaction with capturing ideas from outside source, this can be due to
companies needing to adjust the selection and method of capturing ideas from
outsides sources to optimize the process.
Interestingly, diffusion is vitally important in satisfaction with capturing
ideas from outsides sources. One idea for its importance is the innovation
director’s satisfaction when employees receive and proposed ideas from outside
sources. Obviously, employees would mainly receive ideas from the idea bank or
be routed the ideas. In fact, routing ideas had the highest individual correlation of
0.71 with 52S.
Another thought for its importance is because the innovation director, or
product development managers mainly see the end results of capturing ideas
from outside sources being the diffusion activities, and they attributed much
satisfaction to the quality of those visible activities, placing less weight on the
screening, capturing, and storing activities.
268
Table 5.9 compiles the support for the points of control in Glassman’s
model. One can see that all points of control but the tagging had strong support.
To reiterate, this researcher feels that the lack of proper tagging is a systemic
error in the practices of companies that will be remedied when these companies
start doing detailed process checks.
One can also see in table 5.9 that several points of control were not tested
in the survey. This was done because these questions were either too redundant
to ask, not important enough to be asked, or could not be formulated. Methods of
tagging seem not important enough to ask because it was based on the way
which idea were recorded. It was difficult to formulate a question regarding the
“people performing the process check” and “people performing diffusion or
routing” because this researcher was unclear if he wanted frequency, selection,
or the role of these individuals.
275
ideas they are missing, and thus are content. The second hypotheses would also
explain why the activities associated with capturing ideas from outsides sources
are missing Figure 5.18.
Question 53S shows a hard skew to the left with 48% dissatisfied and
53% very dissatisfied or dissatisfied with their company’s ability to store and
organize captured ideas. Obviously, the respondents in this sample have a
systemic problem with storing and organizing ideas.
Question 55S shows a light skew to the left with 43% being very
dissatisfied or dissatisfied with their companies’ ability to distribute or route ideas
across the company. This may be part of the reason why no strong correlations
were found (outside of Figure 5.18) with diffusion activities.
Question 58S showed that 51% of respondents were satisfied or very
satisfied with the development outcomes of the ideas that enter their pipeline.
This shows that the sample is from companies which, on the majority, are
effective at developing products.
Questions V80, V81, V82 highlight that the bulk of the respondents do not
select the idea generation activities, manage them or provide adequate
resources and tools to these activities. Once more the correlation shown in
Figure 5.14 highlights that this is a major error!
Screening shown in question V84 is one of those simple activities which
every company seems to do, again this is only a minor part of the whole process.
Amazingly, there is a flat distribution in responses amongst V85 setting the
attributes for the first screen and V86 managing the first screens.
Questions V87 to V97, and V63 to V72 show that outside sources like:
customers, partners, and the media sources are often tapped for ideas; while,
universities, external research labs, suppliers, consultants, indirect competitors,
and independent inventors are much less frequently tapped for ideas. Open
innovation experts should take note of these graphs for these questions because
it lends them much support. Obviously, companies should be frequently tapping
all sources for ideas.
Question V100-V103 shows that an “individual” and “email” is the most
prevalent form of capturing ideas, followed by suggestion boxes and voice mail,
and lastly idea management software. Using an individual to capture ideas is
very acceptable as long as they are trained in how to apply the screens
appropriately.
Questions V107-V110 showed a systemic problem with tagging, that
although respondents are recording who submitted the ideas, they are failing to
record other via tag information. As mentioned, this researcher believes this will
change when more rigorous process checks are adopted, and responses in
question V122, V123 show that only 5 respondents frequently perform process
checks.
Diffusion of ideas seems to be practiced poorly amongst the respondent
companies as shown by questions V125, V126, V127. Out of these activities
routing V127 had the highest mean of 3.28 with 36% of the respondent “always”
or “most-of-the-time” routing ideas to employees. This hints at possible systemic
278
problem with routing and diffusion which may be due to the lack of importance
placed on this activity in the literature. Nevertheless, the correlation in figure 5.18
and correlations in table 5.7 state the importance of diffusion activities.
This very short chapter presents improvements made to the proposed Glassman
model based on lessons learned from the case studies and survey study.
Appending to this model is believed to strengthen it further, and lend it additional
creditability as being an effective means of controlling the idea generation and
idea management processes. The improvements to the model will be discussed
sequentially.
generation process with the company’s strategic needs, and they are: (1)
reviewing the company strategy, (2) determining major areas which ideas should
be generated for based on the strategy, (3) confirming these areas, and (4)
aligning the process.
During strategic reviews companies often identify opportunity areas, areas
of strategic importance, or general areas to grow business. These strategic
initiatives are often dedicated much resources and are hopefully well thought out.
Focusing the outputs of the idea generation process toward meeting these
strategic needs is only smart. Having an idea generation process which
generates random ideas which may or may not meet strategic needs can be a
major waste of resources, and unfortunately produce great dissatisfaction with
the idea generation process.
The first activity (strategic review) should be performed by the innovation
director, VP of R&D, or chief innovation officer. Next these individuals should
determine the major areas which idea should be generated for, then these areas
should be confirmed.
The act of confirming an area can be the same as confirming an
opportunity area, but in many cases it is more high level. For example, say a
bedding company has selected bed liners to be an area to generate ideas for
because this is a major weakness of their competitors and this can be a way to
gain market share. The company would then look at that area and determine if
there is suitable room to generate ideas.
In the case of Fairbank’s Scales, one learned that their market of industrial
scales was highly mature, highly saturated, and contained limited number of new
product opportunities. Even the best idea generation activities would have had
much trouble generating ideas under these circumstances.
Interestingly, there seems to be this unspoken notion that smart
individuals or geniuses can create great ideas no matter how old or saturated the
market is, this is simply not true. This researcher has seen brilliant individuals
and even geniuses’ stall in their efforts to generate ideas for super saturated
282
markets. Further, some markets just do not need new category of products, or
new functionality because the current offering, as segmented as they are, come
close to totally satisfying the needs of their customers, and short of creating a
blue ocean market nothing of real consequent can be introduce. Remember, the
purpose of a market is to satisfy the needs of that segment of customers, and
there is only so much one can do to create demand, outside of that additional
efforts would result in a waste of money.
So during the third step of confirming an area, one should take an honest
look and determine if the selected area has room to generate and introduce new
products or services. Remember, choosing incorrectly could completely stall the
idea generation process. Conversely; keep in mind that for some opportunity
areas, customers may be satisfied with the current product offerings until a new
disruptive product arrives and shows there is much room for improvement. An
example of this is the recent improvement in windshield wipers where they are
now one solid piece, and the advancement of tube televisions to LCD flat panel
televisions.
Once the areas are confirmed, the idea generation process can then be
aligned and adapted towards generating ideas for those areas. The
understanding of which areas to generate ideas for would then be used to select
amongst the many input controls to focus the process on which people, events,
idea generation activities, or screens to select. The process controls are used to
continually insure that the idea generation process is creating ideas for those
areas.
The appropriate employees must be selected for (1) reviewing the
company strategy, (2) selecting areas to generate ideas for, and (3) confirming
these areas. Most-likely a VP of R&D, innovation director, or Chief innovation
officer is appropriate for these tasks. A different set of people can be used to
perform the forth task of aligning the idea generation process. In addition, tasks 1
to 3 must be executed correctly (process control).
283
Opportunity
Idea Management & Idea Banks (Internal)
Method of Capture (input)
Capture Sources of Capture (input)
Capture
Execution of capture (process)
Screening and
and Attributes of the screen (input)
filter
Filtering
Execution of screening (process)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adam-Bigelow, M. (2005). Chapter 36: First Results from the 2003 Comparative
Performance Assessment Study (CPAS). In A. Kahn, K. B., Castellion, G.,
Griffin, A. (2005). The PDMA Handbook of New Product Development: 2nd
(228-248). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Inc.
Aiken, M,. & Wong, Z. (2003). The effect of group size on electronic idea
generation. International Journal of Human Resources Development and
Management, 3(3), 265-274.
Austin R.D., Devin L., & Sullivan E. (2008) Oops! Accidents lead to innovations.
So, how do you create more accidents? MIT journal of Management
Research and Ideas, July 7 2008
http://sloanreview.mit.edu/wsj/insight/innovation/2008/07/07/
Backman, M., Börjesson, S., & Setterberg, S. (2007). Working with concepts in
the fuzzy front end: Exploring the context for innovation for different types of
concepts at volvo cars. R and D Management, 37(1), 17-28.
Backman, M., Börjesson, S., & Setterberg, S. (2007). Working with concepts in
the fuzzy front end: Exploring the context for innovation for different types of
concepts at volvo cars. R and D Management, 37(1), 17-28.
Bakker, H., Boersma, K., & Oreel, S. (2006). Creativity (ideas) management in
Industrial R&D Organizations: A Crea-Political Process Model and an
empirical illustration of Corus RD&T, Creativity and Innovation Management,
15(3), 296-309.
286
Bean, R., & Radford, R. (2002). The Business of Innovation: Managing the
Corporate Imagination for Maximum Results, Amacon, New York, New York
Belliveau, P., Griffen. A., & Somermeyer, S. (2007) The PDMA ToolBook 1 for
New Product Development, Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Inc.
Bettencourt, L., & Ulwick A., (2008) The Customer Centered Innovation Map,
Harvard Business Review, May 2008 109-114
Berkum, S. (2007). The Myths of Innovation, Paris, France: O'Reilly Media, Inc.
Calantone, R. J., Anthony Di Benedetto, C., & Schmidt, J. B. (1999). Using the
analytic hierarchy process in new product screening. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 16(1), 65-76.
Chang, S.L., Chen, C.Y., & Wey, S.C., (2007) Conceptualizing, assessing, and
managing front-end fuzziness in innovation/NPD projects, R&D Management,
37, 469-478
287
Christensen, C.M., & Raynor, M.E., (2003). The Innovator’s Solution, creating
and sustaining successful growth Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business
School
Christensen, C.M., (1997). The Innovator’s Dilemma, New York, New York
:Collins Business Essentials
Collins, J.C., & Porras, J.I. (2002). Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary
Companies. New York, New York: Harper Business Essentials
Conley, C.V. (2005). Chapter 15: Contextual Research for New Product
Development. In A. Kahn, K. B., Castellion, G., Griffin, A. (2005). The PDMA
Handbook of New Product Development: 2nd (228-248). Hoboken, New
Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Inc
Cooper, R. G., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1993). Uncovering the keys to new product
success. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 21(4), 5-18.
Cooper, R. G., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1994). Screening new products for potential
winners. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 22(4), 24-30.
288
Cooper, R., Edgett, S., & Kleinschmidt, E. (2001). Portfolio management for new
product development: Results of an industry practices study. R and D
Management, 31(4), 361-380.
Cooper, R., Edgett, S., & Kleinschmidt, E. (1999). New Product Porfolio
Management: Practices and Performance. The Journal of Product Innovation
Management,, 16, 333-351.
Crawford, C.M., & Benedetto, C.A. (2005) New Products Management, New
York, New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin
289
Dillman, D.A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Flynn, M., Dooley, L., O'Sullivan, D., & Cormican, K. (2003). Idea management
for organizational innovation. International Journal of Innovation
Management, 7(4), 417-442.
Gallagher, N., George, S. & Kadakia, P. (2006). Innovate or die trying, Quality-
not-quantity-is the key to developing radical innovations. New York, Deloitte
Development LLC.
290
Gamlin, J.N., Yourd R., Patrick, Valerie. (2007) Unlocking Creativity with “Active”
Idea Management, Research Technology Management, January - February
2007
Goldenberg, J., Horowitz, R., Levav, A., & Mazursky, D. (2003). Finding your
innovation sweet spot. Harvard Business Review, 81(3), 120-142.
Gorski, and Heinekamp (2002). Chapter 9: Capturing Employee Ideas for New
Products. In A. Belliveau, P., Griffen. A., & Somermeyer, S. (2002) The
PDMA ToolBook 1 for New Product Development, Hoboken, New Jersey:
John Wiley & Sons. Inc.
Gorski, C., & Heinekamp, E. J. (2002). Capturing employee ideas for new
products. The PDMA ToolBook for New Product Development, 219-242.
Hansen, M. T., & Birkinshaw, J. (2007). The innovation value chain. Harvard
Business Review, 85(6), 121-130.
Hardagon, A. and Sutton, R.I (2000) Building and innovation factory. Harvard
Business Review, 78 May-June 157-166 Link
http://andrewhargadon.com/writing.html
Hart M. book review of Fey, V., & Rivin,. E Innovation on Demand: New Product
Development Using TRIZ, New York, New York, Cambridge University Press,
291
Hsiao, S. -., & Chou, J. -. (2004). A creativity-based design process for innovative
product design. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 34(5), 421-
443.
Hüsig, S.; Kohn, S. 2003: Factors Influencing the Front End of the Innovation
Process: A Comprehensive Review of Selected Empirical NPD and
Explorative FFE Studies, in: Proceedings of the 10th. International Product
Development Management Conference, Brussels, Belgium, June 10-11, 545-
566.
Gamlin, J.N., Yourd, G., & Patrick. V, (2007). Unlock Creativity With "Active" Idea
Management. Research Technology Management, 50(1), 13-16.
Jaruzelski, B., & Dehoff, K. (2008) The customer Connection, the Global
Innovation 1000, Autumn 2008, Strategy+Business, New York, Booz&Co,
108-123.
Kahn, K. B., Castellion, G., Griffin, A. (2005). The PDMA Handbook of New
Product Development: Second Edition. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley &
Sons. Inc.
Kahn, K.B., & Nelson, B. (2002) Book Review, The Art of Innovation: lessons in
Creativity from IDEO, America’s Leading Design Firm, The Journal of Product
Innovation Management 19, 101-106.
Kelley, T., & Littman, J., & Peters (2001). The Art of innovation, Lessons in
Creativity from IDEO, America's Leading Design Firm, New York, New York:
Doubleday publishers
292
Kelley, T., & Littman, J. (2005). The Ten Faces of Innovation: IDEO's Strategies
for Beating the Devil's Advocate & Driving Creativity Throughout Your
Organization, New York, New York: Doubleday publishers
Khurana, A., & Rosenthal, S. R. (1998). Towards holistic "front ends" in new
product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(1), 57-
74.
Kim, J., & Wilemon, D. (2002). Strategic issues in managing innovation's fuzzy
front-end. European Journal of Innovation Management, 5(1), 27-39.
Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2005). Blue Ocean Strategy How to Create
Uncontested Market Space and Make the Competition Irrelevant. Boston,
Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press
Koen, P. (2005) Chapter 6: The Fuzzy Front End for incremental, platform, and
breakthrough products In A. Kahn, K. B., Castellion, G., Griffin, A. (2005). The
PDMA Handbook of New Product Development: 2nd (81-91). Hoboken, New
Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Inc.
Koen, P. A., Ajamian, G. M., Boyce, S., Claman, A., Fisher, E., Fountoulakis, S.,
et al. (2005). Fuzzy front end: Effective methods, tools and techniques. The
PDMA ToolBook for New Product Development,
Koen, P., Ajamian, G., Burkart, R., Clamen, A., Davidson, J., D'Amore, R., et al.
(2001). Providing clarity and a common language to the "fuzzy front end".
Research Technology Management, 44(2), 46-55.
293
Kohn, S.; Ernst, H.; Hüsig, S. 2006: The Role of Company Culture in the Early
Phases of the Innovation Process, in: Proceedings of the 13th International
Product Development Management Conference, Milan, Italy, June 11-13.
Kohn, S.; Hüsig, S; Poskela 2005: The Role of Process Formalisation in the Early
Phases of the Innovation Process, in: Proceedings of the 12th International
Product Development Management Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark,
June 12-14.
Kristensson, P., Gustafsson, A., & Archer, T. (2004). Harnessing the creative
potential among users. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(1), 4-
14.
Lu. I.M. (1992). Supporting Idea Management in a Shared Drawing Tool. Masters
Thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto Canada
Lüthje, C., & Herstatt, C. (2004). The lead user method: An outline of empirical
findings and issues for future research. R and D Management, 34(5), 553-
568.
Mark Fritz (2002, August). Akiva: Idea management enabler. Content, 25(8), 50-
51.
McAdam, R., & McClelland, J. (2002). Individual and team-based idea generation
within innovation management: Organisational and research agendas.
European Journal of Innovation Management, 5(2), 86-97.
Miller, C.W. (2005). Chapter 17: Getting Lighting to Strike: Ideation and Concept
Generation, In A. Kahn, K. B., Castellion, G., Griffin, A. (2005). The PDMA
Handbook of New Product Development: 2nd (228-248). Hoboken, New
Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Inc.
Nobelius, D., & Trygg, L. (2002). Stop chasing the front end process -
management of the early phases in product development projects.
International Journal of Project Management, 20(5), 331-340.
296
Patterson. (2005). Chapter 2: Culture of the FFE front end in chapter 3 of PDMA.
In A. Kahn, K. B., Castellion, G., Griffin, A. (2005). The PDMA Handbook of
New Product Development: 2nd (228-248). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley
& Sons. Inc
Paulus, P. (2000, April). Groups, Teams, and Creativity: The Creative Potential of
Idea-generating Groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49(2),
237.
Parnell, J.A., & Menefee, M.L., (2007) The View Changes at the Top: Resolving
Differences in Managerial Perspectives on Strategy, Advanced Management
Journal, 72(2), 4-14,2.
Parnell, J.A., Lester, D., & Menefee, M.L., (1997) Constructing the high
performing organization: A longitudinal study of department stores, American
Business Review, 15(1), 35-42.
Perk, H., Cooper, R., & Jones, C. (2005). Characterizing the Role of Design in
New Product Development: An Empirically Derived Taxonomy Journal
Product Innovation Management, 22:111-127
Reid, S. E., & De Brentani, U. (2004). The fuzzy front end of new product
development for discontinuous innovations: A theoretical model. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 21(3), 170-184.
297
Sawhney, M., Wolcott, R. C., & Arroniz, I. (2006). The 12 different ways for
companies to innovate. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(3), 75-81.
Schepers, G., Schnell, R., & Vroom, P. (1999). From idea to business – how
Siemens Bridges the Innovation Gap, Research Technology Management,
Vol. 42. pp. 26-31.
Stasch, S., Lonsdale, R., & LaVenka, N., (1992). Developing a Framework for
Success of New Product Ideas, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 9, No. 2,
Spring 1992, 5-15.
Stevens, G. A., & Burley, J. (1997). 3,000 raw ideas = 1 commercial success!
Research Technology Management, 40(3), 16-27.
Stevens, G., Burley, J., & Divine, R. (1999). Creativity + business discipline =
higher profits faster from new product development. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 16(5), 455-468.
Technology Review (2003, February). The Corporate R&D Scorecard 2003 The
R&D spending of 300 top technology companies. Technology Review Inc.
Retrieved 5 14, 2008, from http://www.technologyreview.com/biztech/13415/
Ulwick, A. W. (2007, Fall). Turn customer input into innovation. Harvard Business
Review, 80(1), 91-97.
299
Van Dijk, C., & Van Den Ende, J. (2002). Suggestion systems: Transferring
employee creativity into practicable ideas. R and D Management, 32(5), 387-
395.
Verworn B., Herstatt. C. (2003). A Causal Model of the Impact of the “FUZZY
FRONT END” on the Success of the New Product Development, in:
Proceedings of the 10th Product Development Conference (EIASM), Brussels
June 10-12, 2003
Verworn, B., Herstatt, C., & Nagahira, A. (2008). The fuzzy front end of japanese
new product development projects: Impact on success and differences
between incremental and radical projects. R and D Management, 38(1)
Verworn, B., Herstatt, C., & Nagahira, A. (2008). The fuzzy front end of Japanese
new product development projects: Impact on success and differences
between incremental and radical projects. R and D Management, 38(1)
Veryzer, R.W., & de Mozota, B.B. (2005). The Impact of User-Oriented Design
on New Product Development: An Examination of Fundamental Relationships
Journal of Product Innovation Management 22:128-143
Von Hippel, E., Thomke, S., & Sonnack, M. (1999). Creating breakthroughs at
3M. Harvard Business Review, 77(5), 47-57, 183.
300
Wagner, C., & Hayashi, A. (1994). New way to create winning product ideas.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11(2), 146-155.
Zhang, F. Y., Xu, Y. S., & Hu, D. J. (2004). The objectives decision making study
in product innovation development process based on TRIZ technology
evolution theory. Paper presented at the , 471-472 613-619.
Zhang, Q., & Doll, W. J. (2001). The fuzzy front end and success of new product
development: A causal model. European Journal of Innovation Management,
4(2), 95-112.
Appendix B: Table showing the tasks and activities in each stage of the stage-
gate processes
V 10 This survey will take 25 mins, so please set aside sometime, or remember
to come back to when you have time. We feel this survey will be beneficial
so please strongly consider taking it. Thanks
V11 I have read and understand the terms of the information sheet and the
purpose of this study. (Html link to information sheet ) (Yes to continue)
Demographic Questions
V13 Name (optional) _________ (not disclosed)
V14 Email (optional) _________ (not disclosed)
V15 Company’s name _________ (not disclosed)
V16 Please enter the position & title you hold at your company? ________
V17 Please enter the department or functional areas you work for? ________
V18 Please enter the department or major functional area you work for? _____
V34 What part of your company’s new product or new service development
process do you manage?
(None) (1 project) (2 or more project) (One division) (The whole company’s)
V39 What specific industry or service sector does your company operate in?
V40 What city & state is your branch of the company operating in?
V41 What is the approximate R&D budget of your company this year?
305
Activity Questions
All of the following activity questions use the following multi-chose scale
(Never) (Rarely) (Sometimes) (Most-of-the-time) (Always) (Do not know) (NA)
V73 Actively select participants for idea generation based on their level of
creativity or previous success in generating ideas?
307
Event Questions
To what degree does your company:
V75 Actively hold events to generate ideas? For example, idea competitions,
ideas fairs, idea campaigns, & formal requests?
V76 Actively manage these events?
V77 Provide incentives specific to these events?
V78 Provide general incentives for generating ideas? (For example a patenting
bonuses)
Capturing Ideas
To what degree does your company:
V88-V98 Accept ideas submitted from, or capture ideas by observing the
following groups?
V88 Employees
V89 Customers
V90 Universities
V91 External Research Labs
V92 Suppliers
V93 Consultants
V94 Partners/Alliances
V95 Direct competitors
V96 In-direct competitors
V97 Independent Inventors
V98 Media (magazines, publications, trade journals)
V99 Use the following methods to capturing ideas from internal or external
sources?
V99 Idea management software
V100 Idea suggestion box
V101 Particular person for capturing ideas
V102 Email
V103 Voice mail
Tagging Ideas
V107-V112 To what degree does your company record the following
information when a new idea is submitted?
V107 Who submitted it,
V108 How it was created,
V109 What event triggered it,
V110 What activities lead to its creation
V111 Who was involved in its creation
V112 If it was created formally or Informally
V126 How frequently do your company’s employees search to the idea bank?
V127 To what degree does your company expose its’ employees to ideas from
the idea bank?
V132 Would you like to learn more about how to conduct and manage the idea
generation and idea management? (Yes or No)
311
The following section summarizes the results obtained for the questions of the
survey. The sample was cleaned as mentioned in “Method of Analysis and
Cleaning” in chapter 5 and included 40 respondents, variations in the number of
responses are due to respondents not answering a particular question.
Additional Demographic Questions
Again the demographic of the survey sample are located the respective
section title in Chapter 5.
44S
47S
51S
58S
V63, V64, V65, V66, V67, V68, V69, V70, V71, V72
318
V73
V75
V80
320
V84
321
V85
V86
322
V87, V88, V79, V90, V91, V92, V93, V94, V95, V96, V97
323
V104
V105
324
V114
325
V115
V120
326
V122
V123
V125
327
V126
V127
V128
328
V132
VITA
329
VITA
Brian Glassman Brian.Glassman@Gmail.com 321-543-7165
Entrepreneurial & Consulting Activities
• Small business development consulting for 10 businesses
• Personally started 8 business