Graduate School ETD Form 9 (Revised 12/07)

PURDUE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL Thesis/Dissertation Acceptance
This is to certify that the thesis/dissertation prepared By Brian Scott Glassman Entitled IMPROVING IDEA GENERATION AND IDEA MANAGEMENT IN-ORDER TO BETTER
MANAGE THE FUZZY FRONT END OF INNOVATION

For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Is approved by the final examining committee:

Dr. Linda Naimi
Chair

Dr. Michael Menefee

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 Universitys Policy on Integrity in Research and the use of copyrighted material.

Dr. Linda Naimi Approved by Major Professor(s): ____________________________________

____________________________________ Approved by: Dr. Gary Bertoline

Head of the Graduate Program

4/19/09
Date

Graduate School Form 20 (Revised 10/07)

PURDUE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL Research Integrity and Copyright Disclaimer

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

Date of Deposit: Received from: Major Professor: Department: Glassman, Brian Scott L. Naimi

4/27/09

Student ID No. 00168-37682 Department Head: G. Bertoline TECH

Technology (Organizational Leadership and Supervision) Doctor of Philosophy

Official Degree Title Expected: Date Degree Expected:

May 2009

Subject Heading Business Administration, Marketing; Business Administration, Management; Business Administration, General 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

For Thesis Format Office use Only: Thesis No. Pagination . Notes . xv; 329p.

Choose subject category from ProQuest

Copies to: Thesis/Dissertation Office, Candidate, Graduate School

IMPROVING IDEA GENERATION AND IDEA MANAGEMENT IN ORDER TO BETTER MANAGE THE FUZZY FRONT END OF INNOVATION

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Purdue University by Brian Scott Glassman

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

May 2009 Purdue University West Lafayette Indiana

ii

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 like to thank my committee members - Linda Naimi, Michael Menefee, Rodney Vandeveer and William Krug - for their help and support throughout the dissertation process. And I would like to thank Kenneth Kahn for his advice and encouragement. 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 lifes 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

During my management studies at Duke University, Dr. Jeff Glass, a great leader, and always an inspiration to me, was the first to formally introduce me to the topic of the fuzzy front end. I remember it vividly, because he said the fuzzy front end was a major challenge for management because its inner workings were relatively unknown. From that point on, I was hooked on the topic and the major challenges associated with it, and I felt a compelling need to help solve this vital piece of the innovation puzzle. Hopefully, I have shed some light on it with this research and model.

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. Coopers 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. Deloittes Spiral Model ........................................................................ 48 2.4.8. Downsides of the Deloitte Spiral Model .............................................. 51 2.4.9. Koens NCD Model ............................................................................. 52 2.4.10. Downsides and Conclusion on Koens Model ................................... 54 2.4.11. Husig, Kohn, and Poskela 2003 ........................................................ 55 2.4.12. Montoya-Weiss & ODriscoll ............................................................. 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 Generations 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: CartGraph...................................................................... 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. Samples 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

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 Companys 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 Authors Proposed Model ............................. 274

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page Figure 1.1. Koens 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 Delotties Spiral Model................................ 49 Figure 2.15. Visual Depiction of Koens NCD Model ........................................... 52 Figure 2.16. Visual Depiction of Husig, Kohn, and Poskela Model ..................... 55 Figure 2.17. Montoya-Weiss & ODriscolls Funnel Model .................................. 56 Figure 2.18. Idea Creation in a Persons 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 IDEOs 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 Flynns Idea Generation Process............................. 100 Figure 2.28. Modification of Flynns Idea Generation Process .......................... 101 Figure 2.29. Montoya-Weiss & ODriscolls 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. Strategys 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 Companys Receptiveness to Outside Ideas at Respective Levels of Concept Development .............................................. 165 Figure 3.18. An Example of a Companys 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 Respondents Companies by Revenues and Number of Employees .................................................................................................. 253 Figure 5.5. Distribution of Respondents 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

FFE - fuzzy front end of the innovation process PDMA - product development and management association NPD - new product development process CAP - Capitalization which defines the market value of the company

xv

ABSTRACT

Glassman, Brian Scott. Ph.D, Purdue University, May 2009. Managing Idea Generation and Idea Management In Order to Better Manage The Fuzzy Front End of the Innovation Process. Major Professors: Linda Naimi and Michael Menefee.

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.

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Statement of Research Problem, Background, and Context The popular management of trends in the twentieth century towards improving innovation is well founded because it is based on a companys un-deniable need to improve itself for the future (Collins, & Porras, 2002; Berkun 2007; Christensen, & Raynor, 2003; Christensen, 2000; Drucker, 1985). Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of articles, books, and publications, along with conferences on the topic of innovation and the hundreds of innovation consulting firms stress this point. Out of the innovation literature, new product development has condensed as a distinct field of research (Kahn, 2005; Belliveau, Griffen, Somermeyer, 2002; Griffen, Somermeyer, 2007; Belliveau, 2004). Hallmark books on this subject by authors such as Kahn (2005), Belliveau (2004), and Griffen & Somermeyer (2007) reveal a large breadth of knowledge in this subject and cover areas including management, processes, tools, resources, people, organizational culture, and best practices for new product development. On the process side, Koen (2005) breaks the innovation process into three areas: the Fuzzy front end (FFE), the New Product Development Portion (NPD), and Commercialization (Koen, 2005, p. 3).

Early phase of the innovation process Ideas for new product & Services

New product development

Commercialization processes

FFE

Market launch Process

Decision

Figure 1.1. Koens breakup of the new product innovation processes

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; Hsig & Kohn, 2003; Hsig, 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). 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 Coopers 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, & OSullivan, 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, & OSullivan, 2003; Belliveau, Griffin, & Somermeyer, 2002; Montoya-Weiss & ODriscoll, 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, & OSullivan, 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

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.

1.2. Importance and Significant of the Study Innovation currently is an area of great interest among researchers and management practitioners (Berkun 2007; Christensen, & Raynor, 2003; Kahn, 2005). In the innovation field, the fuzzy front end has been identified by experts to be an important area of research. Zhan and Doll (2001) state that managers and researchers [who] claim the benefits resulting from improvement in the front [end] are likely to far exceed those that result from improvements aimed directly at the design engineering process (Zhan and Doll, 2001, p. 52). Many authors state the value of the fuzzy front end in the innovation processes (Backman, Borjesson, & Setterberg, 2007; Koen, et al., 2001; Verwon, Herstatt, & Nagahira, 2008; Cooper, & Kleinschmidt, 1994; Kim, & Wilemon, 2002; Khurana, & Rosenthal, 1998; Verwon et al., 2008). The following examples illustrate that the front end can be improved through improvements in the idea generation processes. MIT Technologys Review 2003 R&D scorecard survey of the top 318 companies in the world in ten different industry showed that they cumulatively spent $274 billion on R&D with $4.13 trillion in revenues. Increasing their R&D efficiency by 1% could cumulatively save $2.7 billion. Conversely, increasing their return on their R&D dollars by even 1% could cumulatively easily produce hundreds of billions in additional revenue. Given this, one can see that even a small improvement to the innovation process can produce tremendous results. Additionally, the value of this study can be in the creation of new knowledge and the aid it may offer practitioners. First, this research developed and tested a viable control model (referred to within this study as the Glassman

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.

1.3. Research Questions A review of current practices suggests a lack of suitable control models for idea generation and idea management. Further, the literature illustrates the lack of a conceptual understanding of how to manage either idea generation or idea

management. Interestingly, both idea generation and idea management are linked through front end processes (Alam, 2003; Montoya-Weiss & ODriscoll, 2006; Flynn, Dooley, OSullivan, and Cormicans, 2003). Hence, the following study addressed these research questions: 1.) Based on 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? 2) Can the developed control model be supported as capturing the required factors needed to manage and control idea generation and idea management effectively?

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) companys 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 companys 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,

develop a competitive edge, and so on) and that innovation practioners are working towards and aligned with their companys 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 companys 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.

1.5. Delimitations and Limitations For the purposes of this study, the following delimitations are to be applied. First, the following model will be directly applicable to companies in any country or those which have formalized innovation process for creating new products and service industry. Also the study supporting the proposed model may be applied to companies which conduct innovation with a heavy emphasis on processbased management. Several limitations apply to this study. Since this study will require selfreporting by respondents, the reported results may not be representative of the respondent companys actual behaviors or practices. In other words, the respondents may knowingly or unknowingly falsify their responses. Given the sample size, it is not reasonable to conduct on site visits to validate the respondents answers; however, check questions will be put in place to determine discrepancies and help indicate if respondents are being consistent. Second, the proposed control model and supporting study will not take into account company culture, or national culture because those factors cannot be accurately gather through a survey and almost always require primary research to accurately obtain.

CHAPTER 2. A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

2.1. Literature Review of Ideas 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

2.1.1. Why does the Innovation Process Need Ideas? The goal of a companys innovation process is to create new products and services, or improve operations, brand, customers experience, supply chain operation, and so on. Yet, every one of the mentioned concepts starts as an idea. Ideas are a core part of the innovation process. Vandenbosch, Saatcioglu, & Fay (2006) states each innovation begins with an idea, and Jack Foster (1996) asserts new ideas are the wheel of progress and Linda Rochford (1991) ideas are the raw material for product development. Logic says, all the current products and services were once an idea in someones mind. Steven Covey (2004) calls an idea the first act of creation where the second act of creation is the deed of putting an idea into a physical form. Obviously, ideas are vital in the innovation process, and the following references support this point (Verworn & Herstatt, 2001; Boeddrich, 2004; Hsig & Kohn, 2003; Hsig, Kohn, & Poskela, 2005; Koen, 2005; Verworn & Herstatt, 2001; Alam, 2003; Stevens & Burley, 1997; Backman, Borjesson, & Setterberg, 2007; Rochford, 1991; Vandenbosch, Saatcioglu, & Sharon Fay, 2006; MontoyaWeiss & ODriscoll, 2006; Flint, 2002; Crawford, Di Benedetto, 2003; Doll, 2001; Perk, Cooper, & Jones, 2005; McAdam & McClelland, 2002). Additionally, the large amount of books, peer reviewed articles, magazine articles, and private

10

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 companys 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.

2.1.2. Value of Ideas Mark Fritz eloquently demonstrated the value of ideas in his quote The wheel, the printing press, the light bulb, penicillin, the transistor, and every other great human invention, discovery, or social advance started with a basic idea (Foster, 1996, p. 24). Yet not all ideas are created equal. Museums, history books, and TV shows all celebrate humanitys greatest ideas, and yet most people seem to think great ideas are somewhat rare. However, if one looks around and observes the products and services they interact with on a daily basis, one can conclude there have been many great ideas and perhaps great ideas are not as rare as one might think. In companies around the world, ideas are generated every day; however, the subjective value of these ideas vary greatly and hence a portion of the innovation literature looks at how to locate, screen, assess and filter out less desirable ideas (Hsig & Kohn, 2003*; Hsig, Kohn, & Poskela, 2005; Koen, 2005; Cooper 1994, Verworn & Herstatt, 2001; Stevens & Burley, 1997; Rochford, 1991). Mark Fritz adds and yet we continue to treat ideas as easycome easy-go disposable items not deserving the same sort of attention or respect we give other forms of intellectual property or knowledge like documents, for example (Foster, 1996, p. 21). New areas of study such as idea management and older areas like creativity management and innovation management have studied how companies create, deal with, and manage ideas. Without a doubt, ideas are

11

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.

2.1.3. Defining an Idea Given that ideas are vital for innovation, it would be helpful to understand what an idea is. Dictionary.com defines an idea as any conception existing in the mind as a result of mental understanding, awareness, or activity. American Heritage Dictionary states it as, something, such as a thought or conception, which potentially or actually exists in the mind as a product of mental activity. Neither of these definitions shed much light on what an idea is. Let us turn, then, to Jack Fosters discussion of ideas in his book entitled How to Get Ideas (Foster, 1996). Jack Foster (1996) discusses how others have defined ideas. For example, James Webb Young, author of the book A Technique for Producing Ideas (1992), said an idea is nothing more nor less than a new combination of old elements (Foster, 1996, p. 48). Robert Frost wrote: What is an idea? If you remember only one thing Ive said, remember that an idea is a feat of association (Foster, 1996, p. 48). According to Francis H. Cartier, there is only one way in which a person acquires a new idea: by the combination or association of two or more ideas he already had into a new juxtaposition in such a manner as to discover a relationship amongst them of which he was not previously aware (Foster, 1996, p. 48). Jacques Hadamard, a famous mathematician who proved chaotic theory, observed that invention or discovery, be it in mathematics or anywhere else, takes place by combining ideas (Foster, 1996, p. 49). Arthur Koestler, author of the book The Act of Creation posited the thesis that creative originality does not mean creating or originating a system of ideas out of nothing, rather out [it is] of a combination of well-establish patterns of

12

thought-by a process of cross-fertilization, where one uncovers, selects, reshuffles, combines, synthesizes already existing facts, ideas, faculties, [and] skills (Foster, 1996, p. 49). According to Jack Foster (1996), these definitions all highlight new ideas as a recombination of elements of others ideas. Using the dictionary definitions one can deduct that ideas come from people (not machines or computers) and are a result of mental activities. Hence this researcher defines a new idea as being conceived as a result of mental activities where previous knowledge, information, facts, or ideas were recombined and associated in some way to form the new idea. To further support this definition, we can try a quick experiment where we think of an idea for a new pen. Regardless, of what type of new pen idea we produce, we can recount it as a combination of the basic thought of a pen and some other idea or concept. For Example: Pen + comfort + pad = pen with a soft grip pad Pen + color + change in temperature = pen in which ink acts like a thermometer Pen + sound + color = pen changes color by voice activation

2.1.4. Narrowing the Definition of Ideas What types of ideas are there? Jack Foster (1996) discusses a variety of ideas by saying, there are ideas for all kinds of things, idea to solve problems, ideas to help people, ideas to save and fix and create things, ideas to make things better and cheaper, and idea the enlighten, invigorate, inspire, enrich, and embolden (Foster, 1996, p. 52).Obviously the definition of an idea is very broad and can include anything from the idea of brushing ones teeth in the morning to the ideas of Adam Smith in his book, The Wealth of Nations (1776). Since this thesis deals primarily with a companys innovation process, it is important to define ideas. For the purpose of this research, ideas refer to opportunities, concepts or ideas which can create value for a company. article by Sawhney, Wolcott, & Arronizs (2006) cites twelve areas of innovation. This

13

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: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) Offering products and services offered by the company Platform building blocks that can span across several of the firms offering Solution an integrated blend of products and services that solve a customers problems Customer discovering new customers segments and groups, uncovering unmet needs Customer experience the experience the customer has with the companies offerings Value capture new revenue streams, changing how the customer pays, new price systems Processes new processes or improvements in current processes efficiency or effectiveness Organization changes in the organizations forum, function, structure, and management Supply chain activities providing goods, services, and info to the firm and customer 10) Presence points were the customer has contact or access to the firms products or services 11) Networking the way company and its products and service are connected to the customer 12) Brand the symbols, words, marks, culture, and image the firm portrays to the world

14

Rochford, (1991) suggest a similar categorization of innovations: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) Management organizational structure, management processes, policies Strategy how the company plans future actions Employees attracting, acquiring, retaining, training, socializing, and motivating employees Products & Services similar to above Processes similar to above Tool the gear, machinery, models, theories, practices used by the company Technologies the technology used and created by the firm or for the customer Suppliers finding, selecting, leveraging, enhancing suppliers to the company Market distribution methods of finding, distributing, delivering, supplying the customers and 10) Brand similar to above. There are visible differences between the above two categorizations; however, both demonstrate ideas create value in a variety of forms. In later discussions on new product development it may be helpful for the reader to restrict the scope of ideas to those which relate to new offerings. Ideas related to offerings can be anything from a minor tweak of a product (like its color) all the way to a release of a new product technology which creates a new market.

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 Batch concept Prototype concept Protocol concept Defined concept Test concept Stated concept Idea concept Opportunity concept

Clarity

Market Value Figure 2.1. Concept Life Cycle Model

High

It is questionable whether new product development practioners will adhere to any strict terminology. Further, the concept life cycle model may not be followed linearly by practitioners. For example some R&D labs are known for having prototype concepts, being a tentative physical product, including feature and benefits, prior to having protocol concept, being a statement of the intended market user, the problem perceived, and the user benefit. Nonetheless, for this thesis the word idea was chosen over the word concept. This way the reader will not have to memorize the terms shown in the above figure 2.1. Further, the level of an ideas development will be clarified. For example, an idea may be in the commercialization phase or be successfully launched by a competitor. This should also remind the readers of the value that ideas have in the innovation process.

2.1.6. New and Old Ideas Another way one can look at an idea is if the idea is new or old. It is often thought that a company needs to come up with new ideas, but one should not forget old ideas may work just as well. For example, say a manager was

17

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.

2.1.7. Summary of Literature Review on Idea In summary, there is a strong need for ideas so a company can grow and develop. This requires the innovation processes to generate or obtain ideas, where the innovation will then use these ideas to grow the companys offering, improve operations, improve the brand image, improve the customer experience

18

and ensure sustainability. We have defined an idea as the result of the brains 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.

2.2. The Evolution of the Innovation Process

2.2.1. The Importance of Innovation The study of innovation has gained much notoriety since the 1980s, for good reason. Companies now realize more than ever that their ability to innovate so strongly affects their companys future. Books with titles like Innovate or Die by Jack & Matson (1996) and quotes by greats like Drucker (1985a) company have two functions innovation and marketing everything else is just expenses are just a few of the messages in the popular media which blasts that innovation is vital. Almost all articles or books on innovation open with statistics on the value of innovation, or logic of how innovation creates tomorrow, or even strong winded stories of innovative companies perpetuating throughout the decades while their competitors die off. As well, conferences around the world on the topic of innovation, and hundreds of top management consulting firms with department

19

specializing in innovation attest to innovations vital function in the businesses of today. Magazines like MITs Technology Review (2003) even track and rate yearly the top R&D spenders an achiever in each industry. Hence it would be trivial and even redundant to open with a couple paragraphs restating the value of innovation. Funny enough, this researcher has yet to see an article asserting that innovation is not all as important as the popular management trends makes it out to be. Nonetheless, this researcher must say innovation is important and must not be ignored.

2.2.2. A Quick History of Innovation and R&D: A Process Perspective It is amazing how fast and how far society has advanced over the last two centuries from the horse and carriage to landing on mars, from living in dark candle lit wooden houses to the luminous glamour of New Yorks time square skyscrapers. With all these advances it is funny to think that the formal study of management did not even exist until Frederick Talyor launched the movement of scientific management in 1911. So looking back, it is amazing that the first and second industrial revolutions (1st from 1760 to 1850 and 2nd 1860 to 1900) were achieved without any formal knowledge of management or innovation (Ashton 1997). Similarly, the study of R&D management is relatively young since it was started around 1920s or 1930s. The first accounts of a true R&D lab mentioned in the literature are that of Thomas Edisons in Menlo Park, New Jersey. As Andrew Hargadon (2000) posit:

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

single six-year period the laboratory generated over 400 patents and became known worldwide as an invention factory. - The Menlo Park laboratory was one of the first dedicated research and development facilities. Over a century later, it remains the model for R&D in modern firms (Hargadon, 2000, p. 3).

Figure 2.2. Early R&D process

The early innovation process is depicted in the figure above and it includes generating the ideas, testing the ideas, developing the ideas, and even launching the ideas to market. It is thought the process was managed by a primary stake holder (like Thomas Edison) where they eliminate poor project, and decide how to advance others (Axelrod, 2008). As one can see, much of the process was not formalized and depended highly upon a knowledgeable stakeholder. Hargadon mentions in his articles on knowledge brokering that the Menlo Park lab was a room full of bright inventors and engineers from many disciplines who talked a lot about inventions and technology, were close, constantly experimenting, prototyping, and working towards making world altering technologies, which they did. At some point later, possibly in the 1930 or 1940s, companies started adopting the concept of a funnel in their R&D process. The funnel helped manage cost and control risk while opening up the option for evaluating and developing many ideas. Think of it as a literal funnel where the front end catches many ideas, and eventually through the R&D process is funneled down to a few preferable ideas.

21

Input: Ideas

R&D funnel

Output: Market

Figure 2.3. R&D Funnel

This concept greatly allows companies to explore their options while managing risk and cost. Remember as an idea progresses through the R&D process it accumulates greater and greater expenses. Thus, using the funnel concept to weed out less preferable ideas helped manage cost and reduce new product risk. Later yet, around the 1930s or 1940s the above process was split up into two parts 1) R&D process and 2) new product development and commercialization processes. The R&D process was a highly random process of discovery where the new product development processes was a controlled way of developed products and services for the market. The first processes opened up options for the company where the second analyzed, selected, and developed the best options.

Input: Research

R&D funnel

Output: Discovery in knowledge, Inventions, New ideas for product or

Idea for new product & Services

services
New product development

Commercialization

Market launch

Decision point

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.

Ideas for new product & Services FFE

New product development

Commercialization processes

Market launch

Decision

Figure 2.5. Addition of the Fuzzy Front End

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.

Idea for new product & Services FFE

Stage Gate process for NPD

Commercialization

Market launch Process

Decision
Relative Expenses associate with a project

Expenses increase as project proceed

Stage in

Figure 2.6. State-Gate Process in the Overall Development Process and a Map of Project Costs as the Project Progresses

24

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. Innovation Value Chain

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 companys 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

Hansen & Birkinshaw (2007) focused on diagnosing a companys innovation value chain, which is very helpful because few articles offer any diagnostics tools for innovation. They described different deficiencies in companies as delineated below: 1) Idea-poor companies are company, which spends a lot of time and money developing and diffusing mediocre ideas which result in mediocre products and financial returns. The problem is in idea generation, not execution. 2) Conversion-poor companies has lots of good ideas, but managers dont screen and develop them properly. Instead, ideas die in budgeting processes which emphasize the incremental and the certain, not the novel. 3) Diffusion-poor companies have trouble monetizing their good ideas. 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.

2.3. Research on the Fuzzy Front End

2.3.1. Intro to Section on Fuzzy Front End The term the fuzzy front end is ambiguous and may elicit many questions like, what does the term mean?, what take place in the fuzzy front end?, why is it important to research? or why should innovation practitioners care about it? This chapter addresses many of these questions and attempts to clarify what the fuzzy front end is, and what type of research has been done on it to date.

27

2.3.2. Terminology for the Fuzzy Front End As mentioned, the beginning of the innovation process is the main focus of this thesis; however it goes by many names. The term the fuzzy front end was popularized by Smith and Reinertsen in 1991, and was used since the word fuzzy describes how chaotic, unpredictable, and uncertain this part of the innovation processes can be (Koen 2005). However, there are several other terms which were applied to describe this phase of innovation such the ones listed below. Front end of innovation,(Nobelius, 2000; Front End of Innovation Conference, 2008; Koen, 2005; Koen, 2001) Early stages of the product development (Nobelius, 2000; Khurana and Rosenthal,1998), early phases of innovation (REF C3), early innovation phases (Lichtenthaler, Savioz, Birkenmeier, & Brodbeck,2004), Pre-development (Hsig & Kohn, 2003), advanced development, Pre-project activities, (Hsig & Kohn, 2003), Pre-phase 0, (Khurana and Rosenthal,1998). The fuzzy front end of innovation or, for the sake of brevity, front end of innovation or FFE has many definitions in the literature, most of which define it by stating the type of activities which take place in it. Basically, FFE involves activities taking place prior to the formal, well-structured new product process development (Koen, 2005; Koen et al., 2001, p. 3). Other similar definitions are Reid & Brentanis (2004) where the FFE is considered to be the earliest stage of the new product development (NPD) process and roughly is meant to denote all the time and activities spent on an idea prior to the first official group meeting to discuss it or what they call the start date for team alignment p. 5). Others define it in terms of the activities which take place. Murphy & Kumar (1997) define the front end as ranging from the generation of an idea to either its approval for development or its termination (Verworn & Herstatt, 2001, p. 53). A lengthier definition by Crawford and Di Benedetto (2000) is the fuzzy front ends early activities are broad and include opportunity identification and exploration, while later activities consist of information collection and concept

28

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, Hsig 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 2.1. Koen et al. Activities in the Front End of Innovation and New Product Development Processes

29

Table 2.2. Koen et al. Factors and Characteristics of the Front End of Innovation

and New Product Development Processes

2.3.3. Activities in the Front End of Innovation

The activity-based definitions can give one a slight understanding for the activities which take place in the FFE; however, further clarification is needed. According to Verworn & Herstatt (2001), the tasks in the FFE are, product

strategy formulation, communication, opportunity identification and assessment, idea generation, product definition, project planning, and executive review
(Verworn & Herstatt, 2001, p. 383). Coopers (1988) article concludes the main

activities are generation of ideas, initial screening, preliminary evaluation, and

concept evaluation (p.11). Similarly, Hsig and Kohn (2003) states general

phases for the FFE being 1) idea phase 2) feasibility and potential phase and 3) concept development phase. Interestingly, this Husig, Kohn, & Poskela (2005) this
state:

Activities do not occur in a specific order: It is important to note that these three different phases and gates differ from the normal stagegate process in some extent. First of all they are not a sequential order of activities that are followed through like in the following development process. This can happen, but in general the teams

30

working in the front-end works on several parallel projects, and redirects ideas and concepts from one stage to another. While in the development stage-gate process the redirection of projects is more an exception, it is more the rule in the front-end (Hsig and Kohn, 2003, p. 11). 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 (Hsig 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 als model.

2.3.4. Importance of the FFE One might ask what is the importance of the fuzzy front end in the innovation process. Kahn the editor of PDMA handbook (2003) and an authority on innovation and new product development states that he sees the front end as an important issue in future research on product development 2003 (Verwon, Herstatt, & Nagahira, 2008). Also, Rice calls the fuzzy front end the root of success for discontinuous product innovation (Verwon et al., 2008, p. 32). More importantly, an extensive empirical study by Cooper & Kleinschmidt (1994) showed, the greatest differences between winners and losers were found in the quality of execution of pre-development activities (Verworn & Herstatt, 2001, p. 43).

31

Furthermore, Backman, Borjesson, and Setterberg (2007) posit that the greatest opportunities for improving the overall innovation process lie in the very early phases of NPD process (Backman, Borjesson, and Setterberg, 2007, p. 52). Hence, Zhan and Doll (2001) states, managers and researchers claim the benefits resulting from improvement in the front are likely to far exceed those that result from improvements aimed directly at the design engineering process (Zhan & Doll, 2001, p. 73). Kim and Wilemon (2002) state the importance of the FFE lies in the fact that effectively performing front-end activities can contribute directly to the success of a new product (p. 32, Cooper 1988, 1998; Dwyer & Mellor 1991; McGuiness & Conway 1989). As well they state, one can find several low cost opportunities to achiever large improvement in time-to-market (Kim & Wilemon, 2002, p. 33). However, only a few references state why it is so important. To prove the value of the FFE Cooper and Kleinschmidt (1994) found that pre-development activities received the least amount of attention (only at 6% of dollars and 16% of man-days of the total) when compared to the product development and commercialization stages. Interestingly, when they compared successes to failures they found about twice as much money and time is spend for the front end stages. Although the importance of the early development phase is recognized, researchers and practitioners still focus on the later phases of the innovation process, where information is more reliable (Verworn & Herstatt, 2001). It seems there are some concerns related to failure rates of projects in the FFE as alluded to by Khurana & Rosenthal (1998) who commented that most projects do not fail at the end; they fail at the beginning (Khurana & Rosentha, 1998, p. 1). Unfortunately, a review of the literature failed to produce a list of compelling reasons which support the importance of the FFE. Thus, this study begins with developing categories that reasonably capture the importance of the FFE. The first category of reasons concerns the costs involved in the innovation

32

processes. As mentioned above, a single idea may be cheap to develop and analyze in the FFE but as Cooper and Kleinschmidt state cumulatively developing and analyzing many ideas over time may show the FFE is a larger expense than previously thought. Second, the fuzzy front end is directly responsible for getting valuable ideas into the innovation value chain or new product development (NPD) processes. The old adage trash in trash out applies well to the innovation processes. The value and quality of the ideas going into the new product development process is a major limiting factor affecting the quality of products and services ready for market launch. Thus, researching the FFE to determine how to get a high quality stream of ideas into the NPD processes is a creditable research goal. Third, it is clear that in reducing the amount of uncertainty through the FFE activities, we achieve better results in terms of concepts, project plans, and selections of tasks for the project as it moves into the new product development process. In other words, the more information a new product team knows, and the less uncertainty they have, the better they can optimize costs and plans for subsequent new product development activities. Lastly, the organizational fit and organizations commitment to a new idea is the final category of importance for FFE. Having a deep understanding of the fuzzy front end will allow companies to generate ideas, then select or screen ideas and concepts which fit with the companys capabilities and strategies. As well, it will allow companies to put in place the people, management, teams, culture, incentives, and other mechanisms which are considered vital to obtained ideas and pushing them through to market launch.

2.3.5. Deliverable at the End of the Fuzzy Front End One might move on to ask, What are the deliverables at the end of the fuzzy front end? And it is unfortunate, but this question has not been answered in much detail in the literature. Cooper (1993) says, one goal of the FFE is the

33

creation of a well defined product concepts prior to development which seem obvious given the NPD process requires a clear concept to proceed (p. 13). This statement corresponds to Murphy & Kumars (1997) quote empirically [it was] found that the most important objective of the FFE is to understand project requirements and to have a clearly defined product [concept] prior to development (p. 1). Kim & Wilemon (2002) add the selection of the right opportunity should also be an outcome (p. 3). Unlike others, Koen et al. (2001) adds that an output for FFE should be the generation of intellectual property. A review of the literature suggests several deliverables: 1) a clear product concept 2) knowledge and understanding required to develop the product concept 3) selection of the right/best idea/concepts 4) a strong business case 5) a development plan required to managed the NPD activities, and 6) assets such as intellectual property or working prototypes. 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.

2.3.6. Structured vs. Unstructured Fuzzy Front End There has been some debate over whether a structured or unstructured fuzzy front end was better for front end success. Some researchers argued that a structured FFE was preferable (Hsig & Kohn, 2003; Deliotte, 2006; Kahn, Kucmarski, & Johnston, 2005; Flint 2002) while others argued un-structured was

34

preferable (Verworn & Herstatt, 2001). However, it seems this question has been laid to rest by Husig, Kohn, & Poskelas (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.

2.3.7. Quick Review of Research on the Fuzzy Front End To date (2008) there has been a fair bit of research conducted on the fuzzy front end (FFE); however, in comparison to the research on the new product development process, the FFE is relatively lightly researched. The type of research in the FFE includes: theoretical pieces, case studies, primary survey research, and applications of particular methods. Please note any reference with an asterisk (**) next to it represents a comprehensive reference on that topic area.

35

Culture of the FFE (Hsig & Kohn, 2003**; Koen, 2005; Zien & Buckler, 1997**; Kohn, Ernst, & Husig; 2006**, Koen et all 2003**) Management of the FFE (Kim & Wilemon, 2002**; Hsig & Kohn, 2003**; Hsig, Kohn, & Poskela, 2005; Chang, Chen & Wey, 2007**) Strategy in the FFE (Verworn & Herstatt, 2001; Hsig & Kohn, 2003**; Cooper, 1998**, Copper, 1984c) Screening of idea in the FFE (Kim & Wilemon, 2002; Hsig, Kohn, & Poskela, 2005; Montoya-Weiss & ODriscoll, 2006; Flint, 2002; Koen et al., 2001; Cooper, 1998) Resource for FFE activities (Koen, 2005; Montoya-Weiss & ODriscoll, 2006; Zien & Buckler, 1997; Adam-Bigelow, 2003**) Processes and activities in the FFE (Verwon, Herstatt, & Nagahira, 2008; Kim & Wilemon, 2002; Hsig & Kohn, 2003**; Alam, 2003**; Moskowitz,1997). Planning (Hsig, Kohn, & Poskela, 2005) Uncertainty & analysis (Verwon, Herstatt, & Nagahira, 2008; Kim & Wilemon, 2002; Hsig, Kohn, & Poskela, 2005; Montoya-Weiss & ODriscoll, 2006; Flint, 2002; Koen et al., 2001; Cooper, 1998) People in the FFE activities (Kim & Wilemon, 2002; Hsig & Kohn, 2003; Hsig, Kohn, & Poskela, 2005; Stevens, Burley, Divine, 1999**) Communication in the FFE (Reid & Brentani, 2004; Hsig & Kohn, 2003; Moenaert, Meyer, Souder, & Deschoolmeester, 1995) Teams in the FFE (Kim & Wilemon, 2002; Hsig & Kohn, 2003**; Stevens, Burley, & Divine, 1999) Idea generation in the FFE (Hsig & Kohn, 2003; Hsig, Kohn, & Poskela, 2005; Flint, 2002; Montoya-Weiss & ODriscoll, 2006**) Success Factors for the FFE (Verworn & Herstatt, 2001; Hsig & Kohn, 2003**, Cooper & Kleinschmidt 1993 c, 1995 a, b, c, Learning effect in the FFE (Verworn & Herstatt, 2001)

36

Hsig & Kohns (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.

2.3.8. Summary of Research on the FFE To summarize, this section started by reviewing several terms used to describe the fuzzy front end, where in this thesis the terms front end of innovation, fuzzy front end and FFE will be used. Second, a range of definitions were reviewed, of which this researcher preferred the definition of the FFE to be the set of activities taking place prior to the formal, well-structured new product development process. Third, the importance of the fuzzy front end was examined and elaborated on. The importance of researching the FFE can be seen in its link and outcomes of: (1) improving return on investment in front end activities, (2) ability to develop high quality stream of ideas, (3) reducing uncertainty and risk associated with projects, and (4) fitting ideas to the company and their context. Fourth, the deliverables for the FFE were identified as: (1) a clear product concept, (2) general knowledge and understanding, (3) the selection of the best or most appropriate ideas, (4) a business case, (5) a new product development plan, and (6) intellectual property. However, the area of FFE deliverables is still viewed as one requiring future research. Fifth, the debate of whether a structured or unstructured fuzzy front end was put to rest by Husig, Kohn, and Poskelas (2005) research which strongly supported a structured fuzzy front processes. Finally, a review of the research topics on the fuzzy front end was presented with the intent of demonstrating which major areas have been researched to date.

37

2.4. Review of Process Models for the Fuzzy Front End

2.4.1. Intro to Section The following section reviews several process models for the fuzzy front end, with the goal of understanding what processes can take place, how they are ordered, and why. Second, the strengths and weaknesses of each model will be reviewed, so one can understand where improvements in the process models are needed.

2.4.2. Review of FFE Process Models As mentioned earlier, this researcher will concentrate on the process side of the fuzzy front end because he sees a great opportunity to strengthen it. Thus, a review and critique of process models for the front end of innovation is very much needed. To date there are several process models for the FFE and there is great variation amongst them in their form, emphases, and appearances. Also, most FFE models also have a visual model associated with them to illustrate how they function. It seems many managers prefer to have rather simple visual models of the process because, 1) it helps them understand how the processes work, 2) the visual model helps them communicate the process to the employees who will be using it, 3) it allows for a quick reference and finally, 4) it allows one to quickly understand how the parts of the process tie together. However, one should always remember a model is a simplification of the thing it represents, and something as complex as the fuzzy front end may not translate into a simple visual model. Consequently, every line, object, symbol, shape, color, and forum in a visual model can suggest some type of relationship which may or may not be intended by the models creator. This is why creating visual models may sometimes be a very difficult task. Nonetheless, this chapter reviews the process models for the fuzzy front end along with the associated visual models for their effectiveness.

38

2.4.3. Innovation Value Chain The first model to be examined is the innovation value chain by Hansen, & Birkinshaw (2007). Although this model does not concentrate on the in particular fuzzy front end, it is useful because it gives a holistic overview of the innovation processes, and broadly can take into account any of the twelve mentioned innovation types by Sawhney, Wolcott, & Arroniz (2006). The model shown in figure 2.8 is not so much a process flow model, but it is designed to show the major activities which should take place as an idea moves towards market launch. The true value in the innovation value chain is its holistic view showing the innovation process as an integrated link of activities. With this view point, the authors emphasize that companies should not be concentrating so much on their innovation strengths but rather should focus on their innovation weaknesses. Additionally, their article gives a framework to help practitioners diagnose their own innovation value chain. The visual representation of their model, shown below, concentrates more on the general activities taking place rather than more specific activities as shown in other process-flow models. This is advantageous because it allows the model to show the general activities across many industries, but it can also be a downside because it does not provide a prescription of the exact activities to be carried out. However, again it seems this model was meant to be used more as a tool for analysis then as a guide.

Idea Generation
In-house idea generation Cross-pollination External sourcing

Conversion
Selection Development

Diffusion
Spread the idea

Compares roughly to the Fuzzy Front End processes

Figure 2.8. Visual Depiction of the Innovation Value Chain Model

39

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) crosspollination 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 companys 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.

2.4.4. Coopers Stage-Gate Process Model Coopers stage-gate process model is probably the most famous of the new product development processes because it balances risk and expenses. Cooper (2008) has mentioned the stage-gate model has undergone substantial evolutions from its initially introduced; however, it is still based on the concept of stages and gates.

41

Figure 2.9. Visual Depiction of the a Stage in the Stage-Gate Model

Figure 2.9 above shows a stage as a set of activities, then analysis, followed by a number of deliverables. Once a certain point is reached, the deliverables are used by a gatekeeper. A gatekeeper is usually one or more individuals who analyze the project to determine if it should go on to the next stage. The gatekeeper can continue the project by providing funding, or kill a project by withholding additional funding and/or by removing vital resources. According to Cooper (2008), a gatekeeper can require a project to repeat the stage or hold the project at a gate. However, holding a project at a gate should be minimized or eliminated altogether, because it can stall the overall innovation process, and definitely slows the stage-gate process.

Figure 2.10. Full Stage-Gate Process Model

42

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

performed and what risks should be minimized as the project progresses. As well, the gates can be viewed as a means of motivating the development team by giving them clear short term goals. Interestingly, Cooper (2008) notes the stage-gate process can be shortened by reducing the number of gates for a project which have lower risk, thus expediting the innovation process. The goal of the stage-gate process is to help guide development and eliminate poor projects. Hence, it makes sense to let projects with the greatest potential for success, accelerate through the process, by-passing obviously unnecessary decision gates.

Table 2.3. Specific Activities and Decisions for Each Stage and Gate
Gate 1 Company set criteria Preliminary assessment of market, technical requirements, and some soft financials Gate 2 Meet criteria of gate 1 plus rough market, technical requirements Detailed market study, operation, legal review, detailed technical appraisal, business case, product definition, project justification, and project plan Gate 3 Meet criteria of gate 1 and 2, quality checks on activities, financial check Product development, product testing, marketing and operational plans, cost analysis, preliminary market and customer feedback Gate 4 Meet criteria of gates 1,2 and 3 quality check on activities, check on result of stage 3 activities

Stage 1

Stage 2

Stage 3

Stage 4
Gate 5

In house testing, full customer testing, trial production, full business case Overall detailed financials, business check points, quality check on previous activities, action plan for market launch

Stage 5
Review

Launch, implementation, and operational plans Compare actual results with project result for the project

44

Figure 2.11. Options for Sage Gate Process

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

Figure 2.12. Pie Charts Depicting Activities in Each Stages

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.

2.4.5. Downsides of the Stage-Gate Model Regardless of the strengths, the stage-gate process does have some major downsides. First, this model relies on some type of discovery of ideas to occur. Other fuzzy front end models include opportunity identification and idea generation (for instance, the innovation value chain) whereas, stage-gate does not. The stage-gate model misses what Crawford and Di Benedetto (2003) call the early front end activities. Even though this model is very good at balancing reward and risk, it is far from holistic because it is missing all of the early front end activities.

46

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.

2.4.6. Khurana & Rosenthal FFE Model The article by Khurana & Rosenthal (1998) titled towards holistic front ends in new product development reviews how strategy impacts the projects in the fuzzy front end. They found from studying 18 business units that the most successful units linked business strategy, product strategy, and product-specific decisions to the FFE. Interestingly, their research showed new product projects in the front end can be aligned to the companys strategy by means of the companys culture or the companys processes. Further yet, Khurana & Rosenthal (1998) article shows how strategy link to 1) product strategy, 2) product definition, 3) project definition, and 4) organizational roles. For alignment using culture, they discuss how Japanese firms tend to align product projects with all four of the items mentioned above whereas, in European and American firms, the alignment of a project with strategy and product portfolio is done by using a process approach. Hence, they say both

47

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.

Figure 2.13. Khurana & Rosenthal FFE model

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.

2.4.7. Deloittes Spiral Model The Deloitte spiral model deserves mentioning even though it was not introduced through the formal product development or innovation literature. The Deloitte spiral model developed by Deloitte & Touche is a process based model for innovating in the fuzzy front end (Gallagher, George, & Kadaki, 2006). The Deloitte consultants observed that incremental innovations tend to be selected for development over disruptive innovations. This is because metrics like financial metrics (ROI and NPV) and market metrics (like customer preference) used to evaluate and select ideas naturally prefer incremental innovations over disruptive innovations because those metrics have a poor time dealing with uncertain information. Thus they state, incremental innovation processes concentrate more on finding a good innovation rather than building one.

49

Figure 2.14. Visual Depiction of the Delotties Spiral Model

The Deloitte consultants state, it is important to focus efforts and

resources on building a winning [disruptive] idea rather than counting on finding

one (Gallagher, George, & Kadaki, 2006 p. 2). Interestingly, they state that

sorting through ideas more often than not [in their observations] proves fruitless
for disruptive ideas (p. 3). Hence, they emphasize that disruptive innovations

should be developed from an understanding of customer needs and focus on

generated idea by quality not quantity. Their model shown in Figure 2.14 has a

pronounced spiral like feature to it, where ideas start at the middle then move to
the outside. The first, activities in the center of the spiral are dictated by the

50

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.

2.4.8. Downsides of the Deloitte Spiral Model Although this model does emphasize strategy in the starting point, it is questionable how much company strategy and product portfolio strategy impact this process because it is not described as a specific activity, as depicted in Figure 2.14. Given the iterative nature it is possible that the initial concept is highly modified and veers away from strategic objectives. Again by contrast, the Khurana & Rosenthal (1998) model rigorously tries to align the new product development project with the companys strategic objectives, whereas the Deloitte model does not. The Deloitte authors do make an argument that using idea banks seems to be more of a finding an idea approach rather than a building an idea approach. However, it is unclear how generated ideas are stored for future review in this model. Hence, idea management is unclear in this model, and sourcing of ideas mentioned largely in the Innovation Value Chain model is all but absent here for the reasons mentioned above. Activities such as experimenting are emphasized as front end activities (Kelley & Littman, 2005; Kelley, Littman, & Peters, 2001). Yet, this model does not mention those activities. However this researcher commends this model because it includes prototyping, which to some degree can be viewed as an experimental activity of form and functionality. Additionally, opportunity identification and opportunity analysis seems to be missing from this model; although one could argue it is an output of the activities related to understanding customer needs and generated ideas/alternatives. This researcher feels this model does contain benefits; especially since it highlights the driving factors of building an idea verses finding and idea. The Deloitte spiral model does to a large degree mirror the Stage-gate process

52

because it manages risk by staging development; however, it is different than stage-gate because it is more based on repeating activities to build ideas rather than taking one selected idea and developing it. This researcher would like to see case studies on the application of this model, to determine its effectiveness.

2.4.9. Koens NCD Model Koen et al. (2001) introduced another process model in their paper entitled Providing Clarity and a Common Language to the Fuzzy Front End. They mention, as Deloitte does, that the activities in the front end are very complex and iterative and thus they state a sequential process model was not appropriate for the fuzzy front end (Koen et al, 2001, p. 2). As well, they state the cultural differences and importance of management and leadership very much affect the results of front end activities. Hence they introduced the following visual model to help guide activities in the fuzzy front end.

Figure 2.15. Visual Depiction of Koens NCD Model

53

The circular form of the above model is meant to represent an idea iteratively passing across the five major activity areas. The center, termed the engine, and was placed in the center to signify leadership, culture and strategy as drivers the FFE. The inner spoke areas can be seen above and are fairly self explanatory. The arrows between the inner areas indicate ideas flow, circulate, and iterate between and among the five elements (Koen et al, 2001, p. 4). Further they mention while inherent looping back may delay the FFE, it typically shortens the total cycle time of product development and commercialization efforts (Koen et al, 2001, p. 4). Further they say, activities can proceed nonsequentially. Interestingly, their model does place an emphasis on opportunity analysis and opportunity identification as the Deloitte model does not. Regardless, it is thought from reviewing the recommended activities that Koens model also sways toward the build-an-idea approach. The black wheel section on the outside signifies influencing factors; such as, governmental policy, environmental regulations, law, and socioeconomic trends. This can to some degree can be compared with the research on environmental scanning where FFE practitioners are told to observe changes in policies, technologies, and so on, to locate opportunities and generate ideas (Flynn, Dooley, & OSullivan, 2003; Drucker, 1985). Interestingly, this is one of the few models other than Hsig, Kohn, & Poskelas (2005) model which include environmental items influencing the FFE. The model shows new ideas, information, and opportunities can enter into the process through the illustrated arrows, and the formulated concepts which can exit towards the new product development process or the technology stategate process.One benefit of this model is its strong base in customer needs developed from the opportunity identification and opportunity analysis phases. This strong base can be used to generate ideas with higher value and likelihoods of success. Further, the iterative nature of the model is a definite benefit especially for remolding concepts based on analysis; as well as, utilizing continued idea generation to remold ideas into better forms.

54

2.4.10. Downsides and Conclusion on Koens Model Although the NCD model has benefits it also has several downsides, the first being it provides limited guidance. The model does contain activities however, like the innovation value chain model it can be too broad to direct specific activities. The stage-gate models stated objectives at the end of each gate which to a large degree helped focus activities; whereas, the NCD model does not provide such guidance. As well, this model does not give indications of how cost, time, and effort should be spent where the Deloitte model does. Additionally, the lack of a formal (go/no go) gate to manage risk and optimize resources is seen as a large weakness of this model which could be remedied easily by adding it in; however, one should note there is still some debate about whether eliminating ideas is an appropriate practices for the early innovation process. The introduction of environmental influencing factors is novel to a large degree; however, it is largely unstudied how much environment factors influence the FFE; and it is questionable if adding those factors adds any value other than their symbolic nature. The lack of a direction for the flow of an idea may be a benefit of the model. However, it can also hinder practitioners by confusing them about which activities to undertake. Also, it is unclear if idea selection removes or screens poor concepts from the process. Finally, it is ambiguous at what point a concept would transfer to the new product development process, whereas, in the, Deloitte and stage-gate processes, it is fairly clear. This model is greatly valuable because shows the FFE process with several large fundamental elements which require a large degree of iteration. However, the downsides are: (1) the lack of a (go/no-go) gate to minimize risk; (2) the unclear flow of activities; (3) lack of a link to time, effort, and energy; and (4) the confusion about when to eliminate or transfer ideas weaken this model.

55

In summary, this model is more suited to developing an understanding of the elements of the fuzzy front end, rather than serving as a guiding process model for practitioners. Nevertheless, it represented a great advancement when introduced in 2001.

2.4.11. Husig, Kohn, and Poskela 2003 Iin their article The role of Process Formalization in The Early Phases of The Innovation Process, Husig, Kohn, & Poskela (2003) successfully argue that having formalized processes for the fuzzy front end increase the probability of front end success. As a side note, this article introduces a visual process model of the FFE shown below.

Figure 2.16. Visual Depiction of Husig, Kohn, and Poskela Model

This model has environmental screening as in the Koen NCD model in which external changes and trends will be analyzed and translated into potential business opportunities. This is followed by a gate where opportunities generated during the previous phase are screened and the best are selected to be moved toward idea generation. However, the authors do make a clear distinction that these phases and gates do not have to be in sequential order as in the stagegate processes, and that ideas can be redirected to other stages. Further they say, for each opportunity worth pursuing several ideas will be generated where, those ideas will be combined into one or more concepts. This implies the subject of analysis keep changing over the process. Therefore this process model is rather a representation of continuous activities which permanently cycle in order to fill the NPD pipeline.

56

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 (Hsig, 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.

2.4.12. Montoya-Weiss & ODriscoll A notable mention should be given to Montoya-Weiss & ODriscolls (2000) article From experience: Applying Performance Support Technology in the Fuzzy Front End. In this article they do not present a full front end process model, but instead suggest a process model for dealing with ideas.

Figure 2.17. Montoya-Weiss & ODriscolls Funnel Model

57

Figure 2.17 shows this model concentrates on the finding an idea approach. These authors propose idea management software as a key tool in managing the fuzzy front end. Their model emphasizes capturing ideas, primarily from employees in the company. Their software program captures ideas and allows the FFE team to analyze them through the software based on the factors of: (1) market, (2) technology, (3) business, and (4) human factors. The software guides the process. This begs the question: would the process and activities for the fuzzy front end be best guided by (a) management based understand of how the system should work or (b) tools and resources? To answer this one should look at the many documented cases of companies failing horribly in their attempts to borrow other processes like (sixsigma) and implement them by simply applying software and tools. In order for these complex processes to be successfully applied a companys management must develop a deep understanding for how the process works and why it works. There is a risk in relying on software to guide the front end processes. Instead it is highly recommended that a conceptual understanding of the front end processes be developed prior to relying on software for front end development.

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

2.4.13.1. No Formal Integration of Gates in Some Models Cooper recently found that the gate at the end of each stage is a very useful way of providing guidance to practitioners in the front end, and even more valuable for killing off projects which do not meet a companys set objectives (Cooper, 2008). It is strongly believed that periodic gates are valuable and very useful activities for the front end. However, models like Koens NCD model and Khurana & Rosenthals models do not formally integrate gates.

2.4.13.2. Poor Visual Representation of Cost, Effort, Time, and Money The Deloitte model shows on its axiss time, effort, and expenses. This quickly shows managers respective levels of investment during the FFE process which helps to guide vital resources to particular activities, like idea generation. Not having some visual way of displaying time, effort, or expense leaves out a powerful means of guiding FFE management.

2.4.13.3. Poor Integration of Portfolio Management and Company Strategy Khurana & Rosenthal (1998) showed a strong link between implementing strategy in the FFE and improved FFE results. Yet, their model alone visually shows product portfolio and company strategy as being integrated into a process model for the FFE. Other models such as stage-gate say it should be considered and may be influential at certain gates. Also Coopers (1999) article New Product Portfolio Management: Practices & Performance shows the value in having strategy and how it influences FFE activities. Several idea generation articles also state that companies should use formal idea generation events to flesh out the product portfolio (Rochford, 1991; Zein & Buckler, 1997; Patterson, 2005). There is a strong need to integrate company and portfolio strategies into process models for the fuzzy front end. Therefore, future visual process models for the FFE should take this into account.

59

2.4.13.4. Poor Integration of Idea Management Although all of the models mention idea generations (except for stage-gate which relies on already discovered ideas) only one model being Montoya-Weiss & ODriscoll integrates managing idea and idea banks. Later sections (2.7 & 2.8) of this thesis will discuss idea management and its value in the FFE. Sadly it seems that front end innovation management has not been linked to idea management in any substantial way. Thus, many of the models may result in lost ideas, ideas being shelf and not revisited, or ideas just never making it to the correct front end individuals (Perk, Cooper, & Jones, 2005; Flynn, Dooley, & OSullivan; 2003). So, future models for the FFE should knowingly integrate idea management into their processes.

2.4.13.5. Poor Link to Knowledge Management Foster author of How to Get Idea dedicates a whole chapter on the argument that an individual should get as much information as possible to come up with good ideas. Revisiting the definition of a new idea as being a recombination of other ideas one can deduce that knowledge is important in idea generation activities. Idea generating processes like IDEOs deep-dive and Anthony Ulwicks outcome based innovation all emphasize contextual and ethnographical market research where customer behavior, unspoken needs, and customer context are researched (Kelley & Littman, 2005; Ulwick, 2007). All of these activities build a large amount of knowledge about the customer, their behavior, and their environment which are then used to locate opportunities and generate ideas. For example, contextual research studies usually are delivered in video and written form which is directly used to generate ideas (Conley, 2002). Amazingly, the valuable knowledge generated during these intensive research studies may be re-used to fuel future idea generation activities; however, the documents containing them may be forgotten about or even worst

60

lost in a companys database. Why, cant these documents be built upon resulting in a richer record of information to help spawn idea, and locate unseen opportunities? Note: idea management and knowledge management overlap to a degree because ideas are considered a form of knowledge (Bakker, Boersma, & Oreel, 2006). Remarkably, the front end processes and FFE process models have no link to knowledge management. Additionally, building the capabilities to execute a project in the NPD also requires knowledge management, to insure the product team has obtained the needed knowledge, or know how to get the information to execute effectively. Even the business plan is considered a knowledge document which must be built, developed, and managed. Hardagon & Sutton (2000) article on knowledge brokering at IDEO is probably the best evidences that knowledge management should be integrated into FFE processes. They learned the best innovators systematically use old ideas as the raw material for one new idea after another (p. 6). In the highly innovative companies they studied, they found individuals: 1) captured good ideas from things they researched for customers, observed from other great inventions, or collected, and 2) kept ideas alive in product archive rooms, databases, idea fairs, and pictures which is very similar to knowledge storage and 3) applied old ideas in a new way by allowing individuals to communicate problem through expert phonebook databases and disseminate good ideas amongst their organization. For example, IDEO offices are very open allowing for hundreds of unplanned interactions per day. Hence, a link to knowledge management could benefit idea generation, opportunity identification, as well as, other activities of the fuzzy front end, and should be integrated into future process models for the fuzzy front end. If anything the process of knowledge brokering some how should be integrated into the processes for the FFE especially for firms with large amounts of design work.

61

2.4.13.6. Poor Link to Creativity Management Creativity management is not mentioned in articles on the fuzzy front end, but it however, has been mentioned greatly in the literature on idea generation and opportunity identification. Steven, Burley, & Divine show individuals with higher creativity which are coached in the NPD process and business basics out perform individuals with normal creativity by up 5-to-12 times. This result was obtained from a single long term study in one company but seems very promising. This leads one to think that creativity management should concentrate on placing individuals with high creativity into the FFE processes and train them to practice discipline business. As well, journals like creativity and innovation among others attest to the importance of creativity management. In the literature, creativity management has gained much importance in FFE processes of companies (like marketing firms, advertising, design firms and so on) where design task are prevalent (McAdam & McClelland, 2002). Majaro (1991), state creativity can be divided into three categories, depending on how it originates. These are A) normative creativity, which is creativity in problem solving, B) exploratory creativity which is creativity not related to a particular demand, and C) creativity by serendipity which is luck or chance (Flynn, Dooley, & OSullivan, 2003). So tasks like experimentation and prototyping can help increase creativity through both normative and explorative means. Thus, activities which have high creativity potential can be integrated into the FFE processes, and in this way, creativity management can be knowingly integrated into FFE processes.

62

2.5. Literature Review of Activities in the Fuzzy Front End 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.

2.5.1. List of Activities in the Fuzzy Front End Table 2.4 below shows all of the activities mentioned in the FFE literature which can or should occur in the front end of innovation. Note the table was split into to columns so the information can be placed all on one page.

Table 2.4. List of Activities Which Can Occur in the Front End of Innovation
Knowledge management Concept refinement Testing (trial) Market testing Functionality testing Analysis Idea and concept Analysis Market analysis Competitive analysis Building a business case Planning for the NPD Review Development Strategy planning Application Exploration Partnering Portfolio planning Idea Generation Idea Selection Idea Screening Diffusing Idea Knowledge Management Diffusing ideas Idea Management Prototyping Environmental Scanning Opportunity Identification Opportunity Analysis Review Research Market Research Customer research Technical Research Commitment building

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

The first set of tasks is concept refinement and includes selecting or developing a concept definition. Concept refinement is a very broad activity which can include many if not all of the activities mentioned below. In many instances concept refinement means specifically, narrowing a definition of the product or service into a short narrative or illustrated form. Testing is a vital activity in the front end and includes concept testing, market testing, technical testing, functionality testing, and manufacturing testing among others. Concept testing usually pertains to testing the concept with customers and users, where market testing is more looking at the demand and receptiveness of the market to the product or idea. Functionality and technical testing are self-explanatory. The term testing may be inter-changed with the word analysis. For example, concept analysis looks at the strengths and weaknesses of a concept where concept testing could also be done the same way. The goals of testing are typically understanding and the confirmation of assumptions. So something like concept testing seeks to understand how customers feel about an idea and tries to confirm the assumed value of that idea. Please note, the word trial can be inter-changed with the word testing. Analysis is a very broad term and can be activities like idea analysis, opportunity analysis, competitor analysis, or even functionality analysis. Consequently, the term analysis alone is not very guiding as an activity and must be combined with another term to really be made into an activity. For example, market analysis can be anything from looking at the size of the market and its revenues, to a detailed examination of trends, price-elasticity, and impending market events. The goal of an analysis is typically understanding and the building of knowledge. For example the goals of a competitor analysis mainly are to understand the competitive landscape which aids in judging the risk of the competition. The words analysis and assessment can be inter-changed.

64

Opportunity identification is a commonly cited activity and is the act of locating favorable circumstances or situations in the marketplace. Opportunity identification examines in the marketplace for: 1) a solution is needed or, 2) there are un-filled customer needs, or 3) there is a chance to create new customer needs, or even 4) there is some type of change in the market which creates a chance for new business offerings. Opportunity analysis is the activity of examining the opportunity to determine if it has validity and value. Opportunity analysis seems to overlap to some degree with customer needs analysis. As well, opportunities screening is the act of eliminating opportunities from further consideration. Planning or project planning is a typical activity which involves creating project plans, with lists of: activities, milestone, objectivities, and deliverables. The project plan is typically used to guide tasks in the new product development process, but can also guide tasks for the FFE process. Building a business case is a fairly comprehensive set of activities, which includes many types of analysis, testing, planning, and development. Most importantly a clear understanding of the risks, benefits, requirements, and required resources should be clarified and presented to upper management. Typically, building a business case results in a defendable business plan. However, as an activity alone building a business case is a bit too broad and should not be used to guide specific activities. Importantly this term does emphasize the need to prove the value of the idea, while minimizing the downside. Hence, this researcher really prefers building a business case to be a goal more than a specific activity. Reviews are also a highly cited front end activities. Reviews may be tasks like a legal review, technical review, business case review, and so on. Reviews are typically an activity where either upper management, stake holders, or parties controlling resources have the opportunity to, examine, evaluate, and judge a particular item. For example, a legal review is an activity where a companys lawyers can assess the legal impact a particular idea would have on a company.

65

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, & OSullivan, 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 companys 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, OConnor, & 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, OConnor, & Sarin, 2008, p. 4). Application exploration is rarely mentioned in the FFE literature. However, Thongpapnal, OConnor, & Sarins (2008) study makes a strong argument that application exploration should be a formal activity in the FFE, especially for radical & disruptive innovations.

68

2.5.2. Quick Categorization of Activities in the Fuzzy Front End In reviewing activities which take place in the front end, it was observed that some activities related to (a) improving and evaluating a concept, or the (b) alignment and management activities, while others were general activities for (c) coming up with ideas. Table 2.5 shows a rough categorization placed into these three areas. One should notice that many activities overlap between areas.

2.5.3. Proposed Organization of Activities for the Fuzzy Front End It seems from conducting this rough categorization that there is a big division between front end activities related to developing a particular idea, and front end activities for getting ideas. However, it was also observed that some activities benefited both areas, such as analysis, idea diffusion, research, and testing.

Table 2.5. Categorization of Front End Activities

A) Activities related to a developing a particular idea Analysis Business case building Commitment building Concept refinement Development Idea diffusion Knowledge creation, storage, & diffusion Partnering

C) Activities related to generation of ideas Analysis Diffusing ideas Environmental screening Idea capture & storing Idea diffusion Idea generation Idea screening
Knowledge creation, storage, & diffusion Needs analysis Opportunity analysis Opportunity identification Opportunity screening Portfolio planning Strategic planning Testing

Planning Prototyping Research Review Testing Application Exploration B) Activities related to alignment and management of FFE Portfolio planning Strategic planning Review Idea selection

Research

69

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.

2.5.4. Summary of Section In summary, this section reviewed the formal activities which take place in the front end of innovation, then broke them down into three possible categories of (a) activities related to developing a particular idea, (b) activities related to getting or generating ideas, and (c) activities related to managing the fuzzy front end. Some activities are easy to understand by those formally educated in business. For example, any individual with an MBA should understand how to build a business case, conduct technical reviews, and project planning, competitive analysis, and opportunity analyses. However, other activities such as market, technical, functional, and market testing, prototyping, and environmental scanning may require additional training. Some vital activities like idea generation, idea screening, product portfolio management, and idea management are prove difficult for training, because there is a limited amount of literature on these topics. It may be that idea generation is the most poorly understood and most critical area for front end success. Section 2.7 will attempt to clarify idea generation, and Chapter 3.2 will introduce new theories on the topic of idea generation.

2.6. Literature Review of Idea Generation As can be seen from section 2.5, the front end activities were broken up into two broad categories one of which was activities related to the generation of ideas. Interestingly, this researcher saw several opportunities to improve the fuzzy front end by clarifying the understanding of idea generation. The following two sections will focus on idea generation.

70

2.6.1. Why is Idea Generation Important? As mentioned previously, the output of the new product development process is only as good as the concepts and ideas being put into it, garbage in equals garbage out. Drucker noted that "innovative ideas are like frogs' eggs; of a thousand hatched, only one or two survive to maturity" (Stasch, Lonsdale, & LaVenka, 1992, p. 14). Stevens & Burley (1997) have shown it roughly takes from 1,500 to 3,000 raw ideas to equal one business success. With such a poor conversion rate one can understand why a company needs a stream of ideas. Of course, one can argue over the exact conversion rates of raw ideas into business successes, but it would not negate the matter that a large number of raw ideas are needed to develop even one winner. Again, idea generation processes, activities, or phase is of great importance, where Stasch, Lonsdale, & LaVenka (1992) state, 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 (p. 21). Aside from leaving idea generation to chance, changes in the idea generation process may increase the quality of the produced ideas. Several researchers state that idea developed from a deep understanding of the customer usually have higher value and better chances of succeeding (Flint, 2002). So, logically, a business should try to increase the quality of the ideas they are generating in addition to guaranteeing a steady stream of ideas. In addition to generating ideas for new offerings, processes, solutions, and so on, development projects periodically require ideas to solve problems. For example, a new product may require new ideas for packaging to help it sell in the stores. So, not only are ideas needed to form the bases of the new product, they are also required to solve problems or create value as the project moves through the development processes. This is backed by Verworn & Herstatt s (2001) statement that idea generation should take part throughout the whole project (p. 3).

71

The innovation value chain model shows inhouse idea generation as a vital link in the innovation process. Again, one must take idea generation in perspective. If the other parts of the innovation value chain are weak or poorly functioning, even the best ideas will not produce desirable innovation results. Of course, ideas affect the product portfolio. Adams-Bigelows (2005) found that 54% of the ideas from companies were generated through informal activities, and of these, 25% were generated informally and without a specific purpose. Of the 46% of ideas that came from formal idea generation activities, only 33% were generated to fill gaps in the product portfolio. This supports Tuckers (2003) claim that idea generation is sometimes applied sporadically. Finally, new ideas open up new strategic options for a company. In The Strategy Paradox, Michael Raynor (2007) discusses Microsofts use of an option-based strategy and their development of new ideas because they wanted to have the strategic option to go into those markets when they emerged (Raynor, 2007).

2.6.2. What is Idea Generation? Idea generation can occur inside or outside a business and is thought of as a single activity or set of activities performed by individuals or groups. In the literature, there are many books related to coming up with new ideas, products, services, branding ideas, etc. Again, because the term idea is so broad, the literature related to idea generation can be very broad and varied. Often books providing idea generation methods do not even use the word idea generation. For example, books on branding may describe exercises to help create new branding concepts, whereas others, like Blue Ocean Strategy (2005) does not mention idea generation and instead mentions creating new business and new market spaces (Kim & Mauborgne, 2005). This is why respective areas, like branding, manufacturing and customer service may have their own terminology for methods which come up with new ideas. Consequently, it is difficult to outline all idea generation techniques, activities, methods, and processes, so this research concentrated on idea

72

generation of new products or services. Yet, the idea generation processes listed herein are believed to be highly useful across many disciplines. So, even individuals with the goal of creating new market and promotional concepts will benefit from the listed techniques, activities, and processes in the following section.

2.6.3. A Review of Idea Generation Research The following is a quick overview of research on idea generation. There has been varying amounts of research performed on different areas of idea generation. People were studied as factors in idea generation and the fuzzy front end by (Stevens, Burley, & Divine 1999). They reported that highly creative people trained in business and coach to be discipline in their application of business principles outperformed individuals with normal levels of creativity on the average of 10 times by generated revenues. A large vein of research on creativity in individuals also strongly corresponds to idea generation, in journal areas such as Psychology and Creativity among others. Gender and idea generation were also examined (Ester 1996). Idea generation in teams was studied by numerous researchers (Miller, 2005; Verworn & Herstatt, 2001; Paulus, 2000; Schlicksupp, 1977; Rickards, 1999; Aiken & Wong, 2003). Research on tools to aid in idea generation mainly relates to software programs which capture ideas and encourage collaboration (Miller, 2005; Flynn, Dooley, & OSullivan, 2003; Flint, 2002; Bakker, Boersma, & Oreel, 2006; Tucker, 2003). Software such as online collaborative whiteboards and creativity enhancing software have been invented and discussed in other studies (Aiken & Wong, 2003; Ester, 1996; Janejira, 2006; Montoya-Weiss & ODriscoll, 2006; Flynn, Dooley, & OSullivan, 2003; Wagener & Hayashi, 1994). Software

73

designed to stimulate creativity and seed individuals with ideas by displaying thousands of images to them was discussed by Satzinger, Garfield, & Nagasundaram (1999). Tools, such as tech boxes at IDEO which hold items like products, material samples, and other random items, are to be used to simulate creativity (Hardagon & Sutton, 2000). Kelley, the CEO of IDEO, advocates using any resources possible to prototype ideas so the ideas can be quickly explored and tested (Kelley & Littman, 2005; Kelley, Littman, & Peters, 2001). Kelley also advocated using every surface in a room to display ideas during brainstorming sessions, and to use any tool to help in communicating ideas by using things like: paper, color pens, prototypes, hand jesters, videos, and modeling clay. As of 2008, there are many idea generation software protocols and web applications which can be applied to various situations. These are discussed in Section 2.8. Incentives impact on idea generation was found to be informative by a number of researchers (Alam, 2003; Flynn, Dooley, & OSullivan, 2003; Belliveau, Griffin, & Somermeyer, 2002; Gorski, & Heinekamp, 2002; Abdulaziz,1995; Toubia, 2006; Derry, 2004). Company cultures which promote idea generation were mentioned in the literature on culture of the FFE front end in Chapter 3 of PDMA (Patterson; 2005) as well as, in Flynn, Dooley, & OSullivan (2003), Zien & Buckler (1997), and Kohn, Ernst, & Hsig (2006). Company cultures impact on creativity was researched across several disciplines ranging from psychology, learning, design, creativity, and are to numerous to be mentioned here. The impact of national culture on creativity was researched by Eisenberg (1999) and others. Researchers interested in the many factors affecting idea generation should look at the topic area of creativity management and the above mentioned research area disciplines.

74

The local environments which promote effective idea generation sessions were mentioned in Miller (2005), Foster (1996), Kelley & Littman (2005), and Kelley, Littman, & Peters (2001). A productive atmosphere was described as being open to new ideas, playful, fun, humorous, devoid of interruptions, focused, and risk taking. Rooms and buildings were arranged so unplanned interactions would often take place and spawn ideas (Hardagon & Sutton, 2000). Screening and sorting can aid in idea generation. Miller (2005) mentioned that concept screening can be integrated into idea generation to further spawn ideas. He also discussed advisory voting where each individual has a number of votes. This approach was also used by IDEO; as well as, sorting using un-weighted criteria, and screening and sorting which can be used to focus an idea generation session to fill a product portfolios needs (Kelley & Littman, 2005; Kelley, Littman, & Peters, 2001).

2.6.4. Creativity and Idea Generation Flynn, Dooley, Osullivan, and Cormican (2003) found that creativity within the organisational innovation process is a highly complex area (Flynn, Dooley, & OSullivan, 2003, p. 74). They propose an idea generation methodology. More notably, they discuss Majaro (1991) which breaks up creativity into normative creativity, exploratory creativity, and creativity by serendipity (Flynn, Dooley, & OSullivan, 2003). Again, normative creativity focuses on generating ideas to solve specific needs, problems, and objectives. Although the predefined nature of normative creativity renders it more cost-effective than other creative approaches, it may also restrict the field of creative vision (Flynn, Dooley, & OSullivan, 2003, p. 75). For example, idea generation techniques, activities (like problem solving and brainstorming) can be seen to fill a particular need and thus stimulate normative creativity.

75

Exploratory creativity from Flynn et al. (2003) focuses on generating a broad spectrum of ideas, which may not necessarily be related to known requirements or demands. It differs from normative creativity in that it does not focus strictly on finding specific, almost pre-meditated solutions to known problems (Flynn et al, 2003, p. 43). Examples of this can be seen when ideas are created from activities like experimentation, market research analysis, and customer feedback. They concluded that a hybrid of normative and exploratory creativity can potentially provide a balanced combination of goal orientation and imaginative freedom (Flynn, Dooley, & OSullivan, 2003, p. 46). Creativity by serendipity is when the idea underlying the innovation is discovered by accident. However, Proctor (1999) disagrees with this premise. But this research suggests that creativity by serendipity may be a useful catch-all category for acts of creativity which cannot be explained. For example, the accidental discovery of Teflon, Superglue, ScotchGuard, & the pace maker can be placed here. Austin, Devin, Sullivan (2008) argue that creativity by serendipity can be harnessed via implementing certain techniques. However, this thesis cautions against dependence on this method, because it may generate many ideas which are outside the strategic interests and organizational capabilities of the company.

2.6.5. Environmental Scanning and Idea Generation Environmental scanning influence on the idea generation process is discussed here in greater detail, since it will be of great use for the following sections. Environmental scanning, which is searching and monitoring internal and external environments for potential stimuli to initiate the idea generation process, is only mentioned in a few articles on idea generation. Drucker proposed this in his 1985 book, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, that innovation opportunities are created by changes in the external environment. These changes can occur as a result of (1) unexpected occurrences (2) incongruities being something which does not fit in its context, (3) process needs,

76

(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, & OSullivan, 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, & OSullivan, 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.

2.6.6. Seeding Ideas The act of environmental scanning is very broad and already occurs in many functions of a company, including competitive intelligence, market intelligence, scanning of competitors offerings, mapping competitors pricing, reviewing new technologies, general market research, and so forth. Each one of these activities scans the environment in a particular way with a particular goal, like mapping the competitor pricing with the goal of providing pricing information to the marketing department. The goal of environmental scanning is to help identify opportunities and to seed the creation of ideas. Flynn et al. (2003) says environmental scanning is a method of capturing stimuli which can be distributed to employee to spawn ideas. Many of the already existing processes and functions, like competitor price checking, can be slightly modified to capture information which may stimulate ideas. For example, while scanning competitor prices, any weird or innovative pricing displays can be noted and sent along with the pricing report to the marketing department. This may result in the marketing team using the

78

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.

2.6.7. Opportunity Identifications Opportunity identification is a recommended activity in many idea generation processes, thus a discussion of it is needed to further understand idea generation. Vandenbosch, Saatcioglu, and Fay (2006) believe 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. Simply put, they are saying that ideas and opportunities are often separated because one is seen as the supporting base for the other, where, in fact, the act of creating an idea may result in the discovery of an unseen opportunity, or vice versa.

79

Yet discovering an opportunity requires some creativity in itself and is similar to the act of creating an idea. Referring back to the review of creativity one can see that the act of opportunity identification can be seen to simulate exploratory creativity because is it looking for unmet needs. Environmental scanning to locate new opportunities or analyzing captured information to locate unseen opportunities can seed an individual with the stimulus needed to generate new ideas.

2.6.8. Issues and Problems with Idea Generation Several concerns arise regarding the process of idea generation. Foremost, despite the many books and articles on idea generation, it is still relatively in its infancy. Compared to areas like quality manufacturing or business strategy, innovation is poorly understood. Idea generation is often less understood as part of the whole innovation process. To help new product managers, idea generation must be placed in the larger context of the whole innovation process, and its conceptual workings must be clarified. To accomplish this goal, this research attempted to address several large problems which are preventing innovation managers from improving their companys idea generation processes. First, there are very few comprehensive lists of idea generation activities, and techniques which one can utilize. More importantly, the literature confuses activities and techniques when in fact they are distinctly different. This research study provides a series of tables of idea generation techniques, activities, and processes so practitioners can have some idea of their options and have a means of comparing them. Second, the research on sources of ideas is often confusing and contradictory. Some say sources of ideas are people like customer or suppliers while others say it is a process, like marketing research. Consequently, several articles mix idea generation activities (like marketing research) with sources of ideas (like customers), which leads to more confusion.

80

Third, some authors advocate customers as the best sources of ideas, while others suggest better ideas come from consultants or universities. This begs the question: what are the best sources for ideas? A comprehensive review of the sources of idea is needed and will be of value to innovation practitioners. Fourth, there are no reviews of the major idea generation processes. There are several famous idea generation processes like outcome based innovation, IDEOs innovation processes, and blue ocean strategy, none of which have been reviewed or critiqued for their ability to create ideas. Each process is very different and there are no guidelines to help innovation practitioners select the process which is most appropriate for their needs. If there is no literature reviewing or comparing these popular processes how can one confidently select an idea generation process? Thus, the popular idea generation processes will be described, reviewed, and compared in the next section in order to address this issue. Fifth, no articles were found on how to control the idea generation process let alone any general models showing how to manage it. To manage the idea generation process, one must begin with a clear understanding of how to control it. Chapter 3 will review the points of control and create a general model for controlling the whole idea generation process. Finally, there are no tools to analyze or diagnose a companys idea generation process. The innovation value chain is an invaluable tool to assess a companys whole innovation process. Plus it can highlight companies which are weak in internally generating ideas or sourcing ideas from the outside. But, the innovation value chain cannot be used to analyze the particular weaknesses of a companys idea generation process. To date, this research review was unable to discover any tools which analyze the idea generation processes of a company to determine weaknesses or points of poor management. This is understandable, given the relatively light amount of research conducted on managing idea generation. Nonetheless, not having a tool to analyze ones own idea generation process is like having a

81

mechanic without a pressure gauge to test the compression of an engines pistons. Consequently, there is a strong need for an analysis tool to assess the effectiveness of the overall idea generation process.

2.6.9. Summary of Section In summary, this section looked at what idea generation is and why it is important. This section then quickly reviewed the research areas conducted on idea generation to date. In particular, creativity, environmental scanning, seeding ideas, and opportunity identification were examined. The issues and problems related to the process of idea generation were then discussed to be 1) the lack of a comprehensive list of techniques, activities, and processes, 2) the confusion in the sources of ideas, 3) the best sources of ideas, 4) lack of review of major idea generation processes, 5) no models to control or manage idea generation, and finally 6) the lack of tools to analyze and diagnose the idea generation process of a company. The following section will address these problems.

2.7. Highly Detailed Review of Sources of Ideas, and Idea Generation Techniques, Activities, and Processes This section addresses several problems identified in the previous section, but will concentrate on reviewing the techniques, activities, and processes which can be used in idea generation. A detailed examination of these two items will fill a gap in the literature and greatly aid innovation practitioners.

2.7.1. People are the Only Source of Ideas Where do new ideas come from? What are the most likely sources for new ideas? There seems to be a discrepancy in terms of the sources of ideas. Alam (2003) shows the sources of ideas to be individuals or groups, while Rockford

82

(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 persons 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

Figure 2.18. Idea Creation in a Persons Mind

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. Activities Leading to the Creation of Ideas

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

using the detailed outcomes-based innovation process will produce many valuable ideas, whereas, an executive of average creativity following an ad hoc process of strategic planning, marketing review, then playing golf may also come up with ideas, but of much lower quality.

Figure 2.20. Unknown Activities which Lead to the Creation of an Idea

Sometimes, individuals will not remember which activities lead up to the creation of their idea. From a management perspective, this is not as useful because processes which are unknown cannot be examined, refined, or even controlled; hence the idea may seem like a serendipitous creation which is hard to reproduce. From this point forward, the source of the idea being the individual or group of individuals will be separated from the activities which they performed which resulted in ideas.

2.7.2. Techniques, Activities, and Full Processes for Idea Generation Again there are many techniques, activities, and processes for generating ideas; importantly one should be very careful to distinguish among them. According to Encarta, a technique is procedure, skill, or art used in a specific task and should not be confused with activities, or processes. For example, a technique may be to do what if scenarios and visualization exercises, while an activity would be a brainstorming session where several of these techniques can be employed. An activity can be something like marketing research, brainstorming, proto-typing, charting, or surveying customers. An activity may be short (like a five minute session of prototyping) or a long protracted task (like surveying all the customers a company serves) conducted over several months.

85

Technique 1

Technique ...

Technique N

Activity 1

Ideas

Individual(s)

Activity 1

Activity ...

Activity N

Whole Processes

Figure 2.21. Illustration of How Techniques are Embedded in Activities, which are Embedded in an Idea Generation Process)

A process is a series or ordered set of activities with a desired set of outcomes. Idea generation processes include IDEOs deep dive, blue ocean strategy processes, and outcome-based innovation. Tables 2.6 to 2.10 list idea generation techniques, activities, and processes. Naturally, there may be some arguments created over the categorizations, but offering practitioners an ordered list is valuable regardless of discrepancies in these categorizations.

86

Table 2.6. Techniques which Aid in Idea Generation

Techniques
Visualizations Experimentation for validation Experimentation for Learning Graphing, plotting, charting Scenario games Aggregation , Combination Metaphors & Analogies

Description
Imaging the solution, imaging the problem, visualizing the actions, items, issues, recombining and associating things visually

Reference
* PDMA handbook 2005 chapter 17, * Jack Foster "How to Get Ideas" handbook 2005 * PDMA

Note

Measure, tests, validate, via physical, virtual, or thought experimentation with the goal of confirming chapter 17, *Tom Kelley, * Rochford Linda 2001 a hypothesis or gathering data * Hardagon 2000 Learning, trials, or spawning new thoughts through * Design Thinking Tim Brown physical, virtual, or thought experiments Harvard Business Review June 2008 Helps visualize unknown or un-seen relationships * PDMA Handbook 2005 chapter 17 * Jack Foster "How to Get Ideas" pg 117, * Rochford Linda 2001 * Rochford Linda 2001

This is very broad, and can include product, technical, market, concept, functionality, manufacturing and testing

There are hundreds of different ways to display information

Create scenarios and try to play them out to their logical end. Combining characteristics of a product, service, offering, processes, into a single thing Compare a problem, solution, or thing to a person, place, thing, concept, time, or experiences to draw out relationships Measure, tests, validate, explore, through thought by deductive or inductive reasoning and proceed through to the logical results to gain an insight Re-wording the question to change the perspective on the problem

Though experiment

* PDMA handbook 2005 chapter 17, * Jack Foster "How to Get Ideas" 110 * PDMA handbook 2005 chapter 17, * Rochford Linda 2001 * Jack Foster "How to Get Ideas" * Jack Foster "How to Get Ideas" pg 55 * Edward de Bono The Use of Lateral Thinking, published in 1967. * Jack Foster * Jack Foster "How to Get Ideas" pg 102 * Jack Foster "How to Get Ideas" pg 106 * Jack Foster "How to Get Ideas" pg 115 * Jack Foster "How to Get Ideas" pg 131 * Rochford Linda 2001

Our truck is tough like a ram, why not make it look more like ar ram

Redefining question Think like a child Lateral thinking Remove boundaries, and base assumptions Set strict limits Purposefully break the rules Re-define the problem Abstraction Adaptation Reduction Elimination Raise or increase Creation Division of part Iteration Devil's Advocate or methodical doubt Detailed observation

Being open to re-questioning base assumptions, look at the world with extreme curiously to find new relationships The shifting of thinking patterns, away from entrenched or predictable thinking patterns to new or unexpected ideas Remove boundaries, and retest base assumptions, do not assume restriction unless strictly told
Set limitations, remove typical options purposefully violate base assumptions, and rules

How do I work harder to "how to I get more work done" (improve work efficiency) Why do refrigerators have to have doors?

Find solutions within limitations

Change the format of the question, Make the problem or situation more abstract Adapting a solution, offering, process to suit a companies need by modifying it

Increase company revenue changed to better the company

* Rochford Linda 2001, * Hardagon 1997 & 2000

Reducing the amount, functionality, or features of a * Blue Ocean Strategy 2005 particular thing Eliminating a particular, feature, attribute Increasing a particular feature, attribute or factor above the norm in that industry Creating new features, attributes, factors, which an industry has not seen Breaking up the whole in to smaller and smaller features, functions, or pieces * Blue Ocean Strategy 2005 * Blue Ocean Strategy 2005 * Blue Ocean Strategy 2005 * Rochford Linda 2001 Large button telephones, calculators and remotes

Repeating a process or set of actions with the goal of * Rochford Linda 2001 narrowing them down to a set of solutions
A method of exposing every weak point, while letting others quickly find solutions Looking closely at something, trying to understand every facet and function * Rochford Linda 2001

* Hardagon 1997 & 2000 * Tom Kelley 2001 & 2005

87

Table 2.7. Activities which Specifically Trigger Creativity

Activities
Brainstorming

Description
Creating ideas in open discussion, (typically many techniques are applied)

References

Activities that are Specifically Creative

*Chapter 17 PDMA handbook 2005, Rochford, Ref Tom Kelley, Ref Hardagon, Hsiao, S. -., & Chou, J. -. (2004 "6 participants write 3 ideas within 5 mins on * Belliveau, P., Griffen. A., & paper, then pass ideas to next person till one Somermeyer, S. (2007) The PDMA full rotation is made ToolBook 1 for New Product Development, Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Inc generating a list of negatives of a offering (2007) The PDMA ToolBook then finding solution to eliminate those negatives Same as techniques just proceed as a formal (2007) The PDMA ToolBook activity Measure, tests, validate, explore, via * 2005 PDMA hand book chap 17, physical, virtual, or thought experimentation Tom Kelly, Ref 30, Hardago, Stefan Thomke 2001 Instead of the technique, this a full activity * Foster, J. (1996). How to Get where scenarios for marketing strategy, Ideas, Berret-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco163 business unit strategy, tech strategy, were * Rochford, L. (1991). Generating feasible scenarios are thought out and screening new product ideas. Industrial Marketing Management, 20(4), 287-296. role based brainstorming activities where each individual plays a different role, Facts, optimism, judgment, feeling, creativity, control A collected group of individual focusing on giving feedback on a particular, product, service, and process * DeBono Group http://www.debonogroup.com/6ha ts.htm * Rochford, L. (1991). Generating and screening new product ideas. Industrial Marketing Management, 20(4), 287-296. * Foster, J. (1996). How to Get

Method "6-3-5"

Problem inventory analysis Visualization exercises Experimentation activities Scenario activities

Six thinking hats

Focus group activities Incubation & relaxation

Relaxing and thinking lightly or not at all about the problem to be solved (sleeping) Ideas, Berret-Koehler Publishers, letting the mind sub-consciously work on the San Francisco163 problem

88

Table 2.8. Activities which Seed Individuals with Ideas

Activities
Environmental scanning Systematic search of a field

Description
Seeding activities

References

Scanning the outside environment in the Drucker 1985, Auster & Choo 1993, areas mentioned in (environmental scanning) REF 27 researching all direction starting from fixed starting point * Rochford, L. (1991). Generating and screening new product ideas. Industrial Marketing Management, 20(4), 287-296.

Conferences and trade Industry conferences to aid in learning about new knowledge, technologies, shows developments, Reviewing the ideas in an idea bank Reviewing idea databanks
Technology fairs

*Hardagon, A. and Sutton, R.I (2000) Building and innovation factory. Harvard Business Review, 78 May-June 157-166 Link

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 Capturing ideas and issues from internal and external individuals Question with the goal of deeply understand * Foster, J. (1996). How to Get all aspects of a offering, service, industry Ideas, Berret-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco pg 146. 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 Meeting where employees can talk informally like at bars, restaurants, or parties

Suggestion & improvement capture Deep questioning Tech boxes

Company get togethers

89

Table 2.9. Activities Which Use Analysis to Spawn Creativity and Ideas
Activities
Opportunity identification

Description

References

Analysis based idea generating activities

Locating unmet needs or gaps in the market place that can * Flynn, M., Dooley, L., O'Sullivan, D., & Cormican, K. (2003). Idea management for present opportunities organizational innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 7(4), 417-442. 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. The customer needs are determined via surveying, interviewing, or feedback mechanisms. Feedback then is analyzed to determine customer needs Looking for sources of waste tangible and in-tangible and finding ideas to utilize that waste Mapping competitor via, offering, pricing, branding, or other means to extract gaps and understanding opportunities

Opportunity analysis Customer needs analysis Wasted base analysis Competitive mapping

Analysis of customer feedback Examining customer feedback to determin unmet needs, or Ethnographic research
Researching customer behaviors and cultural aspects across Belliveau, P., Griffen. A., & Somermeyer, S. (2007) The PDMA ToolBook 1 for New different cultures to gain insight and understanding Product Development, Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Inc Examining possibilities and results by application (2007) The PDMA ToolBook
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 Marketing Management, 20(4), 287-296. * Foster, J. (1996). How to Get Ideas, BerretKoehler Publishers, Looking at the strengths, weakness, opportunities, & threats to a competitor or offering "Splitting up problem into parts and look for partial solutions to each, leading to generation of ideas"

Application Attributes based discriminant analysis (PREMAP)

SWOT analysis Morphological analysis/ Matrix Competitive intelligence activities Critical path mapping & analysis Dimensional investigation

* Belliveau, P., Griffen. A., & Somermeyer, S. (2007) The PDMA ToolBook 1 for New Product Development, Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Inc.

Observing, reporting, & documenting competitor actions (changes in offerings, prices, brand, partnership, strategy ) Graphically representing activities their duration and finding gaps and problems with their flow Mathematical equation used to relate functions, and economic properties of the product * Belliveau, P., Griffen. A., & Somermeyer, S. (2007) The PDMA ToolBook 1 for New Product Development, Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Inc.

Porters analysis Portfolio analysis Gap analysis Patent scanning Whole product solution analysis Marketing research Forecasting

Using porter's analysis to understand an industry and gain insight into power relationship Looking at the portfolio of offerings to find new possibilities, gaps, or weakness in the offerings Comparing where a specific performance metric should be against where it is Reviewing new or expired patents to see new product or service opportunities Analyzing the offerings of an emerging market and * Moore, Geoffrey, (2004). Crossing the determining which offering must be made to complete the Chasm, HarperCollins Publishers, New York, whole product solution New York,

Researching the market, competitors, and market condition to determine trends, changes, and gain insight
Predicting trends, and forecasting future developments in an industry, then trying to predict customer needs and requirements * 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.

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

Table 2.10. Full Idea Generation Processes

Processes
1 Full Contextual research process

Description
Detailed studies of customer unmentioned needs and situation

References
* 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. Link to *Ulwick, A. W. (2007, Fall). Turn customer input into innovation. Harvard Business Review, 80(1), 91-97. *Sutton, N. (2007). Outcome-driven innovation: A critical review. Masters thesis, Cranfield CERES

Full Idea generating processes

2 Outcome based innovation

Uncovers desired user outcomes then generates ideas to fill those outcomes

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 Similar to contextual research but heavier on idea generation * Kelley, T., & Littman, J. (2001). The Art of innovation, 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 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 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, opportunity identification, and ends with idea generation
* Flynn, M., Dooley, L., O'Sullivan, D., & Cormican, K. (2003). Idea management for organizational innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 7(4), 417-442.

3 Deep Dive by IDEO

4 Blue Ocean strategy

5 TRIZ based innovation

6 Flynn's idea generation process 7 Lead User innovation 8 Multi-day ideation retreats

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. 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 (228248). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. In

2.7.3. Review of top idea generation processes Many of these techniques and activities are well known in business practices while others are not. For the goal of brevity this study does not discuss any of the techniques or activities in detail, and instead will concentrate on elaborating on idea generation processes. These idea generation processes are consider extremely valuable because they have been tested to be effective in generating valuable ideas and again tie together a set of activities, which utilize multiple

91

techniques to produce ideas. There seems to be few full idea generation processes which have been proven to be effective in creating valuable ideas. An individual could slap together a set of activities from the tables above and label it an idea generation processes. But creating an effective idea generation process is much more difficult. Hence, this research views proven idea generation processes as gems, because of their rarity and difficulty in refining. Consequently, the following section discusses the top idea generation processes in detail.

2.7.3.1. The Contextual Research Idea Generation Process Chapter fifteen of the 2005 PDMA handbook written by Conley (2005) reviews contextual research for new product development. Contextual research can be thought of as indepth customer research, where one looks for information about what people do, rather than what they think and say. The context is the every day situation of the customer, their environment; their behavior, the situation they are in, and their local environment (Conley, 2005). Typically, customer feedback leads to minor changes or incremental innovations in the product, whereas, contextual research looks at the bigger picture to determine unseen opportunities for innovation by looking at the environment, interaction, processes, activities, and customer types. As Von Hippel puts it, this information is sticky because it is very difficult for the user to convey this detailed information (Von Hippel, Tomke, & Sonnack, 1999). The power of contextual research is its ability to communicate this sticky information and use it to spot unmet needs or simulate new innovative ideas. The process of contextual research involves: (1) designing the study, (2) selecting the research team, (3) gathering required research tools like cameras, (4) selecting the customers to observe, and (5) creating a topic guide for interviews.

92

Figure 2.22. Illustration of the Contextual Research Process

The research is based on a vigilant observation of users in their environment. This is commonly done by job shadowing or observation from a distance. Also it is recommended that users verbalize their actions by talking about them out loud. Activities should be captured on rich media like video, photographs, and audio tape, as well as more traditional lead mediums like note pads. It is recommended that this take place over several observation sessions. After the research info is gathered it is analyzed to determine the goals of each activity and then coded into bite-size chunks. Coding is used to identify patterns of issues. In analyzing data, one must avoid simply responding to problems seen in the field, because many problems are symptoms of a larger systematic issues (Conley, 2005, p. 98). The coded information is then used by the new product development teams to extract insight and simulate ideas. Next, several brainstorm meetings are performed with each concentrating on a different issues or patterns discovered during coding. The generated ideas should be recorded, sorted, and voted on, then documented. Reporting the contextual research to the larger organization is a vital step, and helps seed other individuals outside the NPD group with idea and information. Report of the research can be displayed by videotaped examples, diagrams, illustrations, photographs, and in the traditional written form. This process produces the largest benefit in that it develops a deep understanding of customer needs which has been said to develop the most valuable ideas (Veryzer, Mozota, 2005; Flint, 2002). Another benefit is the hard to see customer issues and problems can be uncovered and solved. Also by heavily document the finding, the research can be used at future brainstorming session for years to come. Finally, by spreading the

93

research results individuals all over the organization can be seeded with valuable information. This can be thought of as taking advantage of the organizations 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.

2.7.3.2. Outcome Based Innovation Outcome-based innovation by Anthony Ulwick looks at gathering the customers desired outcomes, not their espoused needs or wants. By doing so he states more valuable products and service ideas can be obtained (Ulwick, 2007). He also warns about the dangers of responding directly to customer wants and whims, and says a company should not be entirely customer-driven. A major change in the way interviews are conducted is required to gather the customers desired outcomes. For example a customer may say he wants a medical tool made out of a more expensive stainless steel, when in fact he is looking for an outcome of increased durability. The steps in the process are (1) plan the outcome-based customer interview, (2) capture desired outcomes, (3) organize the outcomes, (4) have customers rate the importance of each outcomes, (5) use the outcome to uncover opportunities, and (6) brainstorm ideas for the selected opportunities.

Figure 2.23. Illustration of the Outcome-Based Innovation Process

94

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.

2.7.3.3. IDEOs Idea Generation Process IDEOs idea generation process shares similarities to contextual research except it is much shorter in duration and more intense in its level of activities. IDEO is a world famous multidisciplinary design firm with their own special idea generation

95

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 days worth of information collection, the teams reassemble to discuss their findings. Unlike contextual research, which spends a lot of time coding and analyzing data, IDEOs 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

Figure 2.24. Illustration of the IDEOs Idea Generation Process

Again this process has a base in customer understanding, but not as strong as a base in outcome-based innovation or contextual research. This obviously helps ground the idea in a level of practicality, while giving it the needed stimulus for brainstorming. This process is also much heavier on the creativity aspect because many of the activities are designed to simulate and encourage creativity. The prototyping phase is pronounced, mainly because IDEO deals heavily with customer product designs and because they see a strong creative value in prototyping and experimentation. This process can be applied formally inside a company; however, the culture required to effectively conduct this process must be finely tuned to be tolerant of the wildly creative atmosphere required by it.

2.7.3.4. Blue Ocean Strategy The main premise of Blue Ocean Strategy by Kim and Mauborgne (2005) is that a market can be created which has all the attributes of the main market but has a lower level of competition and much more room to grow. This approach makes the analogy that existing markets are like red oceans colored by the blood of competition, and that blue oceans are fresh untapped or emerging markets where competition is relatively scarce or nonexistent. For example, Cirque du Soleil created a new type of circus and Net Jets created a new market space between charter jets, private jets, and commercial travel.

97

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

Low Price

Budget Wines Prestige Taste Fun

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).

Figure 2.26. Illustration of a Blue Ocean Strategy Idea Generation Process

The proposed process starts with a development team conducting primary research by speaking with customers, non-customers, competitors, and similar solutions in different markets. The team then conducts secondary research (literature scanning) on trends in the market, demand, major factors of competition, and strategic changes in their markets. Next, the team proceeds through six separate brainstorming activities, each resulting in two to three new value curves. Each brainstorming activity uses the techniques of reducing, eliminating, raising, and/or creating factors for the new value curves. The brainstorming activities are: 1) Look across the industry to determine trade-offs which customers innately make. For example, NetJets saw the trade-off in convenience and cost between charter/private jets and commercial airline travel, and tried to capture the best of each. 2) Look across strategic groups within an industry. Toyota did this when they created Lexus by adding the quality and amenities of a Mercedes to Toyotas while reducing the price, and removing some of the more expensive/unnecessary features.

99

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 companys 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 Apples 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 buyers 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 executives 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.

2.7.3.5. Flynns Idea Generation Flynns process uniquely highlights environmental scanning as a major step. The first step in his processes involves setting the strategic direction and can be based on product portfolio needs (Flynn, Dooley, & OSullivan, 2003).

Figure 2.27. Illustration of Flynns Idea Generation Process

The goal of the next step, being environmental scanning, is to capture stimulus and information. This activity should be bounded because not everything can be observed. The goal of the following step, of opportunity identification and analysis, is to find opportunities (as mentioned in section 2.6.7) and validate the value of those opportunities. Finally, opportunities are used along with information from environmental scanning in idea generation sessions, and ideas are captured and recorded. The major issue with this process is that it is too broad to be directly useful. All of the activities could vary greatly in scope and be un-manageable if not bounded, like environmental scanning. Hence, this researcher sees Flynns

101

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.

Figure 2.28. Modification of Flynns Idea Generation Process

2.7.4. Detailed Examination of Sources of Ideas The previous part of this chapter had an underlining assumption that ideas were being generated from individuals inside the company, which is not always the case. Many more ideas are being generated by others outside the company which could be turned into new innovative products and services. It is a severe error to think ideas can only come from inside your company. This error has been termed the not-invented-here syndrome (NIH syndrome) where a company rejects idea generated outside its walls because they think those ideas are inferior to their own. Ideas from outside the company, can be (a) used directly with little or no modification, and/or (b) can be modified to suit the needs of the company, and/or (c) can be used to seed people inside the company with stimulus to help them generate their own ideas. At present, there are many external sources of ideas; again a source is an individual or group of individuals. Additionally, there are many internal sources of ideas other than individuals in the new product development groups. The literature on idea management and idea banks states many companies in general lose or drop ideas which are not from their usual sources, and hence idea management programs should be put in place to capture these ideas (Flynn, Dooley, & OSullivan, 2003; Gorski, & Heinekamp, 2002).

102

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.

Table 2.11. Major Categories for Source of Ideas

Source
1 Employee sources / Internal sources 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. Inparticular, 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

Table 2.12. Employee Based Sources of Ideas

Source
1 Executive 2 Management 3 Finance 4 Sales 5 Sales Reps

Description
Executive in the company

Direct way to get ideas

Employee Sources
direct solicitation, utilized idea generation activities and processes, Same as 1 Same as 1 Same as 1 contractual agreements, direct solictation,

In-direct ways to generate ideas References

Suggestion system, idea database
Ref 30, 58

Management professional in the company Self-explanatory Self-explanatory Sales reps differ from sales in that they work for the company through in-direct means Self-explanatory Self-explanatory Self-explanatory Self-explanatory A group dedicated to coming up with new ideas, research, and knowledge Self-explanatory Self-explanatory

Same as 1
Ref 30, 58

Same as 1 Same as 1 Same as 1

Ref 30

6 7 8 9 10

Marketing R&D Customer service Operation / production Think-tank

Same as 1 Same as 1 Same as 1 Same as 1 Same as 1

Same as 1 Same as 1 Same as 1 Same as 1 Same as 1

Ref 30 Ref 30 Ref 30 Ref 30

Ref 28,33,58,

11 Annoymous employees 11 Quality control

Same as 1 Same as 1

Same as 1 Same as 1

Ref 30

2.7.4.1. Customers as Sources of Ideas Customers are the first major source of ideas, and have been split into the seven categories shown in Table 2.13. Interesting most companies focus on their core customers groups because they provide the bulk of the business. However, innovation experts strongly advocate reaching out to new customer groups. To avoid this natural tendency to concentrate on the core customers, 3M has an edict which requires 30% of revenues of a business unit must come from new products released in the last four years (Collins, & Porras, 2002).

104

Table 2.13. Customer Sources Which Can Result in Ideas

Direct way to get ideas
Customer Sources
1 Homogeneous customer group
This is typically a sub-segment of the Direct solication; Customer companies customer which all share submitted ideas; similar characteristics and attributes interviews; statifaction surveys; focus groups; customer contracts negotations, others Customer groups that provide the bulk of the revenue or profit for the company. Highly advanced user has needs way in advance of the bulk of the market place, because they are visionaries and try an advances quiker to get a competitive edge Customers the company is not yet serving but would like to. Deep market research; contextual research; problem analysis; Customer Gap Analysis; satisfaction surveys , many others
Ref 18,21,27,23,

Source

Description

In-direct ways to generate ideas References

2 Core customer groups 3 Lead User

same as 1 Direct customer request, interviews, lead user processes, focus groups, customer projects same as 1

same as 1 See lead users innnovation process by von Hippel

Ref 54, 32, 30, 58, REF Neal & Corkindale 1998,

Ref von Hippel HBR 1999, Urban & von Hippel 1986

4 Possible new customer group 5 Dis-satisfied customers

same as 1
Ref 58, Wharton: How to turn customer ideas into innovation HBR Companies and the customer who hate them McGovern & Moon

Customer that are dissatisfied and Customer interviews, are still with your company, or have customer feedback surveys, same as 1 switched to a competitor. May also dissatisfaction survey, focus include dissatisfied customer of a groups competitor. User, inflencer, buyer The individuals buying, using, and influencing the purchase may be very customer groups same as 1 same as 1 different. Each group should be considered differently for ideas, to better satisfy all groups. Received though Customer who submit ideas Idea contests, suggestion Anonymous annoymous submittion or systems annoymously or been recorded as direct contact but not annoymous recorded

Ref Blue ocean strategy, Ref Harvard Business Review on Innovation 2001 Chan Kim & Mauborgne

Ref 40

Homogeneous customer groups are customer groups with similar needs and attributes and are often studied during market segmentation studies. By listening to them, ideas can be extracted which may better serve those groups. A lead user was shown to be a source of ideas by Eric von Hippel, and is defined as users who are working at the for-front of trends and technology in their markets and are experience problems way before their peers. Von Hippel also proposed a full detailed idea generation process for use with lead users, called lead user innovation (von Hippel, Tomke, & Sonnack, 1999). Dissatisfied users are a great, often overlooked, source of new ideas because they are aware of the problems which led to their dissatisfaction. Contacting dissatisfied customers is left to customer services which should try to capture information from dissatisfied customers. This information can be used by new product development team to come up with better ideas. For example, one

105

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).

2.7.4.2. Non-for-profit Organizational as Sources of Ideas NASA is well known to be a source of inventions and ideas, and has been credited with many well known inventions like the microchip. National laboratories are a government funded way of inducing innovations in US companies by creating new knowledge and spreading novel concepts. There are a number of national laboratories each having their own licensing and technology transfer departments. Keeping up with the invention and discovery of all of these can be a daunting task. National labs are very similar to NASA in that they all have formal licensing departments and continually market their achievements.

106

Table 2.14. Non-for-profit Organizational Based Sources of Ideas

In-direct ways Direct way to to generate get ideas ideas References
Scanning new technology releases at there website; scanning SBIR, STTR awards; Open innovation network
technology.jsc.nasa.gov/

Source
1 NASA

Description

Non-Profit Organizational Sources (not competitors)

NASA openly lists Visit website, talk to inventions that can be licensing officer, scanning licensed and tries activity new technology releases to seek placements for the promising technologies National laboratory of the US and other country produce many technology related ideas

National Lab

Visiting respective scanning published website, talking to literature, open licensing officers at each innovation network lab, solicing national labs, scanning new technology releases

Limited by design, R&D laboratories in the US national innovation system Crow, Bozeman 2001 , www.lanl.gov, www.anl.gov, www.sandia.gov, www.jlab.org, www.bnl.gov, www.inel.gov,www.inl.gov, www.lbl.gov, www.nrel.gov, www.llnl.gov

National Org

These are typically non- Same as 1 for profit national organization of all types. University are known for Same as 1+idea transferring inventions competitions, + idea and discoveries to the awards private sectors, include professors, researcher, & students These are groups of research companies, where the research park promotes their technologies, and ides This are organization dedicated to aiding a professional group, like the national society of professional engineers and the National lawyers guild Same as 1 + Open Innovation network

Same as 2

University

Same as 2

Research Parks

Same as 2

Groups of practices

Same as 1 + conferences, scanning published meetings, networking, literature, referral, solicitations search and find

6.1

Professional

Same as 1 + Conferences, conference proceedings, trade shows, meetings, talking to members

6.2 6.3 6.4

Consumer Economy Religious/race

Looks at general region or nations

6.5 Interest/hobbies 7 Media sources

Hobby and interest groups.

Same as 6.1 Speaking with editors Searching media

National organizations are primarily non-for-profit organizations. Every country has a list of national organization most of which are not funded by the country. Examples would include NSF, boy scouts, and so on. The largest problem with organizational sources is there are so many. It is difficult to know which ones

107

may have valuable ideas relevant to ones 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 lawyers 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

Groups of practices and be organized into professional (like the lawyers guild), consumer (like association for consumer research), economy (social venture network), religious/races, special interest, or hobbies (like Nascar or aircraft owners & pilots associations). These groups of practice can be valuable points of ideas. Again because there are so many, it may require more energy to locate and solicit relevant groups of practices. One should also note that groups of practice outside of a companys core business area may hold sources of new ideas. For instance, a boaters conferences may hold valuable ideas for home builders looking for water proofing ideas. Unfortunately, it can be time consuming to join and scan groups of practices to far outside ones core business area.

2.7.4.3. Suppliers as Sources of Ideas Suppliers are great sources of ideas and they can also help integrate those ideas to ones business. Suppliers were loosely structured to include any organization which supplies a company with anything from work to actual goods, and includes current and possible suppliers, consultants, idea consultants, and research firms. Robert tucker states: If you ask a supplier if they have any ideas or new technologies they usually provide none, whereas, if you bring a problem or opportunity to them and ask them to help solve it they are delighted and provide many ideas (Tucker, 2003, p. 2).

109

Table 2.15. Supplier Sources

Source
1 Current suppliers

Description

Direct way to get ideas

Supplier Sources

In-direct ways to generate ideas References

Scan for news from suppliers, locate best practice suppliers, Open innovation networks
Ref 27, 54,

The current suppliers to Solicitation, problem a company could provide statement, direct contact, part of contract ideas requirements,

2 Possible suppliers

3 Consultants

These are possible supplier which may be activity or in-activity biding for business Consultants of all types may provide ideas.

Solicitation, direct contact, part of bid requirements, contracting with consultants, solicitations, direct contact, requirements for contract same as 1

same as 1

solicitation, open innovation networks

Ref 18*, 30

4 Idea consultants 5 Research firms

Using companies like IDEO, design firms, Marketing, consumer, industry, and economic research firms can be sources of ideas

solicitation, open innovation networks solicitation, open innovation networks

Ref Tom Kelly,

Ref 59

6 Partners / Alliances

Partners and Alliances Contractional solicitation, open which supply resources, agreements, + same as innovation knowledge, capabilities 1 networks

Amazingly, research firms were never mentioned as sources of ideas before. Firms like Forester research which identifies trends in the market place have an excellent sense of the opportunities which exist and often state such in their publications. Also they can be contacted directly for ideas. Partners and alliances were put under supplier sources because they supply resources, knowledge, and capabilities to a company.

110

2.7.4.4. Competition as Sources of Ideas Competitors could be great sources of ideas, as NPD handbook showed many businesses are fast follower of the best in class competitor. Best in class competitors are often cited in popular media as pioneering a new process, releasing new products, and so forth. Ignoring best in class competitors can be a large mistake because they are often rich sources of ideas. Direct competitors are all the companies in direct competition to ones business, which may include best in class competitors. While, indirect competitors are companies which are in a similar business and are servicing customers outside of markets which your business is concerned with. For example, a car dealer in Indianapolis selling Jeeps is in indirect competition with a car dealer selling Jaguars in the same area. Whereas a friendly competitor may be a Jeep dealership in Denver Colorado who is willing to share helpful tips and ideas.

Table 2.16. Competitor sources

Source
1 Best in class competitors

Description
Best in class competitor are often looked toward for sources of new ideas

Direct way to get ideas

Sources from competitors
Direct communications with competitors, competitative intellegence, direct observation

In-direct ways to generate ideas References

Market research firms, best in class practice reports, GAP analysis of competitors, SWOT analysis of competitors, competitive mapping, porters analysis, market research

REF 3, 18

2 Direct competitors 3 Indirect competitors 4 Friendly competitors 5 Substitute sources 6 New potential entrance sources

Direct competitors to the business Competitors in market outside of the companies given competivite area, Friendly competitor that are not in real competition with one's company As Porter defines markets that could be substitutes to ones market As Porter defines markets that could be threats to enter ones market

Same as 1

Same as 1
REF 3, 18

Friendly communication, + same as Same as 1 1

Direct solicitaion, Friendly communication, + same as 1 Same as 1

Same as 1 + industry trends reports Same as 1

Same as 1 + industry trends reports Same as 1

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.

2.7.4.5. Other Companies as Sources of Ideas Unfortunately the category of direct competitors and non-for-profit organization, do not account for the millions of for-profit companies which exist that can be used as potential sources of ideas. Most notably, media sources are great sources of ideas. Media sources include publications like: journals, magazines, patents, article databases, books, articles, and new publication; as well as, media like radio programs, television shows, and movies.

Table 2.17. Sources of Ideas From Other Companies

Source
1 Other companies 7 Media sources 3 Inventors

Description
All other companies around the world Books, magazines, articles, patents, newspaper, Indepent inventors All

Direct way to get ideas

Sources from other companies
All

In-direct ways to generate ideas

Referen ces

Speak with editors, direct solicitation,

Searching media 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.

2.7.5. Issues with External Sources of Ideas Of course there are many issues with obtaining ideas from outsides sources. Some companies believe receiving outside ideas may jeopardize internal development efforts. For example, this researcher contacted Arm-hammer to submit an idea but was sadly informed they will not listen to outside ideas. There are hundreds of issues in setting up and receiving ideas from external sources. One should consider the benefits and downsides carefully. If possible the downsides should be reduced or eliminated via creative problem solving, because there are greater benefits than risk in sourcing external ideas. Also, one should remember their own company may be afflicted with the notinvented-here syndrome, which may severely limit their ability to innovate.

2.7.6. Which Source of Ideas is the Best? Given the detailed review of the sources of ideas, one might ask: which sources of ideas are the best? The answer is: it depends. It would be ludicrous to state one group is the best sources of ideas. There are too many factors affecting the production of ideas from a single source to make any kind of reasonable conclusions across sources. For example, things like: culture, management, leadership, and incentives vary greatly between even similar sources of ideas.

113

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.

2.7.7. Major Issue with Idea Generation (Lack of Control Models) Unfortunately, even after this detailed review of idea generation and its respective literature; no models were uncovered which could be used to manage the whole idea generation process. This represents a massive gap in the literature. Further, a conceptual understanding of how to manage the idea generation process has not been developed in the literature. This constitutes a severe limitation in the literature which must be rectified.

2.7.8. Summary of Section 2.7 To summarize, a detailed series of tables respectively showing idea generation techniques, idea generation activities, and idea generation processes were created to fill the gap in the literature. Following this discussion, the top idea generation processes were described and critiqued. The next section described how companies may react differently to outside ideas based on their innovation category and level of concept development. This was followed by a detailed series of tables showing the sources of ideas, which was offered to fill a gap in the literature. Finally, this section concludes with the question what can be done to improve the quality of the ideas generated? This question will be addressed in the Chapter 3.

114

2.8. Literature Review of Idea Management and Idea Banks

2.8.1. Introduction to Section The following section will review idea management and idea banks with the goal of fleshing out the knowledge required to manage the fuzzy front end of innovation. The following section begins by explaining what idea management and idea banks are and then go into why they are so important and valuable. Then this section will move into a detailed review of several key articles on this topic. Finally the section ends by stating several problems and issues with the knowledge in this area.

2.8.2. What is Idea Management and What are Idea Banks? Unlike the Fuzzy front end, there are very few definitions for idea management. Drawing from other papers on idea management, this thesis defines idea management as the process of capturing, storing, and organizing ideas can be used in other processes, like the late FFE processes (Flynn, Dooley, & OSullivan, 2003; Belliveau, Griffin, & Somermeyer, 2002; Montoya-Weiss & ODriscoll, 2006; Gorski, &Heinekamp, 2002; Bakker, Boersma, & Oreel, 2006; Heck, 2005; Fritz, 2002; Dijk, & van de Ende, 2002; Koen et al., 2001). Also idea management can be used to perform preliminary evaluations and screening of ideas as well as diffuse ideas across the company In contradiction to this definition, Vandenbosh, Saatcioglu, and Fay (2006) proposed that the concept of idea management is defined as the process of recognizing the needs for idea and generation and evaluating them (Vandenbosh, Saatcioglu, and Fay, 2006, p. 32). This thesis finds this definition limited, because it severely overlaps with the management of idea generation process and more importantly contradicts other references on idea management.

115

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, & OSullivan, 2003; Gorski, & Heinekamp, 2002**; Fritz, 2002; Gamlin, Yourd, & Patrick, 2007; Lamont, 2004; Dijk, & van de Ende, 2002; Stasch, Lonsdale, & LaVenka, 1992).

2.8.3. Need for Idea Management and Idea Banks The literature discusses a clear need for idea management. Flynn et al. (2003) describes the need for idea management in their quote: However the process by which organizations generate these ideas is one which has received significantly less attention and been allowed to develop in an ad-hoc fashion [thus] it is logical to maximize the output of the idea creation phase (Flynn et al., 2003, p. 3). Since there are more ideas accessible in idea banks the increased competition between ideas will ultimately improve the quality of potential innovations being presented to the process (p. 3). Gorski & Heinekamp (2002) state that collecting and evaluating ideas is downplayed because managers believe they have ample ideas (Gorski & Heinekamp, 2002, p. 74). This may lead into the need to extract and capture ideas as stated by Dijk & Van de Ende (2002), apparently, there is a large dormant reservoir of useful ideas in many companies, but communicating these ideas is not simply a matter of offering large bonuses (p. 62). According to Dijk & Van de Ende (2002), research showed that in Swedish industry of 1970 that 60% employees that had good ideas didnt communicate them (Dijk & Van de Ende, 2002, p. 11). Price Waterhouse, Ernst & Young, advocated that companies adopt processes to collect and preserve their internal ideas (Fritz et al., 2002, p. 36). This may be because many ideas are lost or dropped from

116

internal sources (Flynn, Dooley, & OSullivan, 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: 1. Capturing and storing ideas from internal and external sources 2. Utilizing the ideas by sending them to appropriates people and processes 3. Locking in intellectual property rights. The first category of capturing and storing ideas is important because, it seeks to take advantage of ideas created inside and outside the company which otherwise might be lost or poorly utilized. Second, it is important because it is a formal method of capturing and keeping ideas from formal idea generation processes and activities. Third, it increases the idea options available to the company. Finally, and most importantly, it better utilizes the creative capacities of employees inside the company to produce ideas and locate opportunities. The second category helps to better capitalize on ideas for present and future use. Additionally, ideas can also be used as a stimulus for other idea generation activities or aid in locating and identifying other opportunities. The third category concerns locking in intellectual property rights which facilitates processes related to obtaining patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets. Capturing ideas from sources (like employees) which may no longer be accessible (maybe because they left the company) is a benefit which falls under this category (Gorski, & Heinekamp, 2002).

2.8.4. Terminology for Idea Banks There are several terms which have been interchanged with the phrase idea banks, including: idea pools (Tucker, 2003), idea war chest (Montoya-Weiss & ODriscoll, 2006), idea refrigerator (Zien & Buckler, 1997), and idea archives (Bakker, Boersma, & Oreel, 2006). Each metaphor makes one imagine the

117

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 peoples 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 peoples 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 peoples 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.

2.8.5. A Review of the Literature on Idea Management and Idea Banks The following section will review key articles on this topic area

2.8.5.1. Review of Chapter 9 of PDMA Chapter 9 of PDMA ToolBook for New Product Development, written by Gorski and Heinekamp (2002), provides an excellent overview of idea banks and idea management. The goal of an employee suggestion program is to pull from the

118

unique knowledge of the workforce in order to identify new product opportunities and process improvements. The authors discuss the history of suggestion programs. Here, they say, idea suggestion programs trace their roots to the total quality movement of the late 1980s but similar programs have existed for hundreds of years. Interestingly, the first suggestion boxes, they claim, were implemented in the 1880s by a shipbuilder and in 1895 by NCR, and consisted of standardized forms which were filled out and placed into suggestion boxes. After a couple days the forms were removed then the ideas were recorded in a master log. The authors state that employee suggestion box systems remain in use today, many still in their original format (Gorski & Heinekamp, 2002, p. 83). Beneficially, the authors provide a table of the strengths and weaknesses of the suggestion box system, where the most notable weakness is its slow, cumbersome nature, loss of ideas, and horrible participation rates. The authors then move on to the Kaizen idea program, which also captured ideas for improving operations and greatly outperformed suggestion box systems by resulting in participation rates of up to 75% unlike the 10-20% participation rates of a typical American suggestion box program. The greatest weakness is its focus on incremental changes. Next, the authors discussed employee-driven idea systems (EDIS) which are a variation of the Kaizen idea program, where the idea submitter became responsible for driving the idea from concept to implementation. EDIS systems were mentioned to have higher participation rates, quoted to be around 60%. The largest weakness of EDIS is their focus on incremental change and the ability of the submitter to implement the ideas. Lastly, they discussed the web-based idea collaboration systems which use a software program or internet website to capture ideas. They also mentioned that web-based idea banks greatly reduced the energy required to submit, collect, manage, and diffuse ideas. They mentioned several weaknesses, including: there can be large amounts of ideas submitted which could easily

119

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.

2.8.5.2. Review of Vandenbosh, Saatcioglu, & Fay The article entitled Idea management: A systemic view by Vandenbosh, Saatcioglu, and Fay is interesting because it looks at the influence which personality types have on idea management and idea generation. In this article they defined idea management as the process of recognizing the need for ideas,

120

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.

2.8.5.3. Review of Montoya-Weiss & ODriscoll Article Moving back toward software programs for idea bank and idea management, Montoya-Weiss & ODriscoll (2006) article From Experience: Applying Performance Support Technology in the Fuzzy Front End shows an interesting application of idea banks and idea management at Nortel communications company (Montoya-Weiss & ODriscoll, 2006, p. 73). The case study of Nortel revealed they would only create ideas upon customer request and thus were totally failing to use their employee bases as a source of ideas. From this obvious need Nortel developed a software solution to capturing ideas from internal sources and named it Galileo. Their article also highlights FFE evaluation, and screening is often done at a gut-level instead of by a standard objective set of criteria. Their solution to this issue was to have the idea capture software integrate preliminary screening and evaluation of ideas into the submission processes.

121

Figure 2.29. Montoya-Weiss & ODriscolls Idea Generation Process

Figure 2.29 shows this researchers 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 & ODriscoll, 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

The following concept rating phase is to provide a common framework within all NPD ideas can be quantitatively rated where ideas are quantitatively and qualitatively rated in the areas of marketing, technology, human factors, and business. The decision maker who evaluates the submitted ideas can then use the results of the concept rating phase to select ideas to be assessed and developed in FFE activities. This phase called concept assessment performs this task and goal is to reduce the subjectivity and lack of information that is typically associated with idea evaluation and selection decisions (MontoyaWeiss & ODriscoll, 2006, p. 53). In this phase the decision maker is taken through a standardized idea evaluation process. The strength of the software based approach to idea management and idea capture is they integrate evaluation and screening into the idea capture process. However, this approach is also seems to have many downsides. First, the system can be easily gamed by individuals who want their ideas pushed to the top. Hence, individuals can over estimate the potential of the ideas in each phase resulting in ideas which look juicer than they actually are! In addition, it is hypothesized that self-rating of ideas can result in a preliminary analysis which is totally off from the actual potential of the idea. Predicting the potential of ideas is very difficult task, and many activities of the late FFE are dedicated to this. Hence, it is hard to imagine that the large amount of uncertainty associated with a rough concept will allow ideas on average to be rated with any meaningful level of accuracy. Additionally, the nature of the system seems to limit creativity by going straight into analysis rather than allowing individuals to collaborate and mold a particular concept with other concepts resulting in a superior idea.

123

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, managements understanding of the FFE should drive the use of particular tools, not the converse, where the tools drive managements activities.

2.8.5.4. Other Articles Discussing Idea Management Flynn, Dooley, OSullivan, and Cormicans (2003) article on idea management discuss innovation, creativity, idea generation, and idea creation software. Interestingly, the idea generation software they propose enables cross-functional teams to brainstorm over intranet connections and capture ideas. Another interesting benefit of this program is that ideas can be traced back to their sources so those individuals can be rewarded. However, it is questionable how effective brainstorming in virtual teams can be. This researcher prefers the collaborative and high energy nature of face-to-face brainstorming sessions. Van Dijk and Van den End described in detail suggestion systems at Xerox, KPN telecommunications, and Shell Oil Company (Dijk & Van de Ende, 2002). They also noted a huge difference in participation rates where employees in Japanese companies participation are five to ten times that of American companies. Notably, they highlighted the following areas with respect to suggestion systems: encouragement to participate; creativity; accessibility; organizational support; committed resources; and idea feedback. Bakker, Boersma, & Oreel (2006) discussed an idea capturing software called Eureka which is used to capture, review, evaluate, and select ideas. In their models of creativity management, they emphasize the links between creating ideas, selling ideas, and funding of ideas. They also showed at what stage an idea should be placed in the idea archive. Additionally, they depicted the idea archive as a trash can which keeps potential intellectual property in storage as shown by Figure 2.30.

124

Figure 2.30. Bakker, Boersma, & Oreel Idea Storage Processes

Interestingly, they speculated that having a backup of rejected ideas can help one avoid wasting energy in re-screening and re-evaluating rejected ideas. They stated that electronic idea management systems that are used in the creapolitical phase have both an enabling and a constraining effect upon the success of an idea (Bakker, Boersma, & Oreel, 2006, p. 57). Bakker et al asserted that the management must be aware of the fact that an electronic idea management system is not a neutral element in the process of creativity management, but one which produces an effect within a context in which creative ideas must be transformed into practicable idea (Bakker, Boersma, & Oreel, 2006, p.3). To avoid one such unintended consequences, employees should remember idea capture systems will not do the hard-work of developing and selling the idea for them (Bakker, Boersma, & Oreel, 2006, p.53). Other research on creativity and idea capture systems should note Lus (1992) thesis which proposed a very early version of a collaborative brainstorming software used over an internet connection. Since then, a wide array of collaborative and idea capture software protocols have been proposed

125

including: Akiva, BrightIdea, Imaginatik, Kerika,Qmarket, Innovator express, Accept Innovation Management, Employee Suggestion Box , NextNet, Incubator , Hype.de, and so on. Gamlin, Yourd, & Patrick (2007) referred to Coopers 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 (p. 30). These authors then discussed an idea capture software with unique features allowing for online collaboration and the ability for one to connect to experts in particular areas. Lamonts (2004) article, Idea management, Everyones an Innovator again discusses idea capture and management software, but emphasizes idea champions being assigned to particular ideas to get them through the process. She also views idea management as a component of knowledge management. In addition to these articles, there are several dozen short magazine and news articles on idea management and idea capture software, all promoting software based solutions. Again, there may be some harm in relying solely on these items. So in reviewing the literature on idea management and idea banks it is evident that, the bulk of the literature focuses on software and web programs which store, manage, and screen ideas. Only a few articles, as mention look at management practices in any useful detail. As well, only a few papers describe process models for idea management and idea banks (Montoya-Weiss & ODriscoll, 2006; Chang, Chen, & Wey, 2007). Interestingly, idea banks and idea management integrate activities from the early and late front end of innovation, where these activities are idea generation, screening, collaboration, and development of ideas into the concept.

126

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

2.8.7. Summary of Section To summarize, this section examined what idea management and idea banks are and the importance and value they provide for the front end of innovation. The state of the literature was reviewed, and several key articles on idea management and idea banks were reviewed in more detail. Finally, many problems with the literature and knowledge in idea management and idea banks were discussed. The following chapter will try to address these problems plus illuminate new theories which can be used to manage idea banks.

128

CHAPTER 3. DEVELOPMENT OF CONTROL MODELS

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 researchers 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?

3.1. Review and Selection of a Control Theory There are several control theory models which can be applied to create a control model for idea generation and idea management. One of the most famous is the cybernetics-based theory of control. Kirsch (1997) defines cybernetics as, the process of comparing actual performance with planned performance, analyzing variance, evaluating possible alternatives, and taking appropriate corrective actions as needed (p. 2). Cybernetics is a very common approach to control where feedback on outcomes is used to determine gaps and necessary

129

corrective actions. However, cybernetics has been criticized because it ignores behaviors, corporate culture, the environment, and self regulation (Jaworski, 1988). Other models of control are: outcome-based control, behavioral based control models, clan models, self-control models, feedback control models, and control process, along with others. The outcome-based control model allows employees to decide their method of achieving the given goal (Schwepker, Good 2005, p. 3). The general sentiment among innovation practitioners is that outcome-based control of idea generation is very ineffective and inefficient at generating needed ideas. Further, Steven & Burleys (1997) idea curve has shown the dismal conversion rate of ideas to selected concepts at a 3000 to 1 ratio. More importantly, if the outcome-based control model worked for idea generation, there would be no need to answer the proposed research questions for this dissertation, because companies would already be good at generating ideas to meet their respective needs. Behaviora-based control models seek to control behavior by articulating rewards and punishments for behaviors (Kirsch, 1997). Unfortunately, this model of control cannot be used for idea generation because it assumes that prior knowledge of effective and appropriate behavior exists. The literature on idea generation does not highlight effective behaviors. If anything, the literature shows anecdotal unsupported behaviors which supposedly stop or obstruct ideas from being generated (Foster, 1996). Thus, behavior-based control models cannot be used herein, for the main reason that there are no known or proven behaviors to base them on. Clan control models use the companys culture, values, beliefs, and philosophys as a means of control (Kirsch, 1997). Research on the culture of innovative companies has shown a tremendous amount of variance among them, further no studies have been conducted across several companies to show which cultural attributes promote control of idea generation. Consequently, clan control models should not be used because (a) company culture takes a long time to

130

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 followup 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

Figure 3.1. Process Control Model

Jaworksi (1988) further describes formal and informal means of control where formal are selected knowingly and stated explicitly. He further identified four main criteria to distinguish formal and informal control where formal control is (1) documentation by management, (2) implicit assumption of conformance, (3) initiated by management, and (4) management is responsible for maintaining the formal system, where informal control is the opposite of those four criteria. So the final selected control model will be a linear process control model using formal input and process control only, this model is shown below. Again, the process control model has been shown in field of management, operation, marketing, electronic and so on, to be an effective means to controlling a process producing a few very specific measurable output, like reports, quality of manufactured goods, goods per hour, and so on.

Management of Process

Feedback to 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

Further, it is believed there are several benefits in selecting this simplistic process control model. First, because of its simplicity practitioners will be able to readily grasp the process and major point of influence. Second, because it will be linear it over comes the inherent confusion in circular loop control model as stated by Morses (2005) article Crap circles. Finally, it will be easier for practitioners to identify weaknesses in their own methods of control and work to strength them.

3.2. Development of a Control Model for Idea Generation

3.2.1. Continuous Idea Generation vs. Event Based Idea Generation It is hypothesized that, many businesses continuously come up with a stream of idea while others may generate ideas in spurts say as a response to a strong need for more ideas. There is evidence to suggest that some companies, like 3M and Google, continuously create streams of new ideas. There is also evidence of companies which generate ideas in groups in a non-continuous manner. Figure 3.3 show the top source for creating ideas in a continuous stream while the bottom source is creating it in groups at given points in time

Continuous idea generation

Group of ideas Group of ideas

Source

Event driven idea generation

Source

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

3.2.2. Supporting Evidence for Ideation Events Tucker discussed Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) which runs idea campaigns where it is sort of a call for idea to all corners of the business. These campaigns were publicized and generated 4,000 inquiries from 429 of BMSs employees all over the world. BMS holds 20 to 30 of these campaigns per year (Tucker, 2003). Gamlin, Yourd, & Partick (2007) asserted an event-based approach to generating ideas, where focused events are conducted to capture idea around a specific problem. They mentioned a properly run event is publicized, and that Bayer Material Science has held 36 events (as of 2007). One example was Bayers back to school event in which 240 ideas were generated, resulting in 14 viable ideas. Koen (2005) also mentioned similar events for web-enabled idea generation. Stach, Lonsdale, & La Venka (1992) discussed Pillsburys company, which for decades has held a bake-off event in which customers enter ideas to win rewards and social notoriety. Interestingly, they described five types of company situations which encourage the search for ideas. Schepers et al. (1999) also described idea competitions at Siemens. These examples support the contention that some companies create ideas in batches as a result of some event which they hold or conduct. This research uses the phrase idea generation event to properly describe any event, campaign, contest, or incident, which results in the formal or informal generation of ideas. For example, Pillsburys bake-off is a formal event lasting over a month which triggers the generation of ideas, while an informal event may be a competitor releasing higher than expected earnings, spurring employees to strike back by generating new product ideas.

134

Figure 3.4. Idea Generation Triggered by Formal Events

Figure 3.4 illustrates an event resulting in the generation of ideas. Idea generation events like competitions and campaigns may have a formal deadline after which ideas will not be received (depicted in Figure 3.4 by the dotted line). Furthermore, some events may be under the control of the company while others may not be. This begs the question: can idea generation events be controlled in order to aid in the production of quality ideas? Tucker (2003) wrote that if you ask a supplier if they have any ideas or new technologies they usually provide none, whereas, if you bring a problem or opportunity to them and ask them to help solve it they are delighted and provide many ideas (Tucker, 2003, p. 34). This suggests that the methods used in conducting the event, and the way it is organized and managed may have a large impact on the resulting ideas. This can be backed by the participation rates and quality of ideas created during a college based business plan competition. Thus, this researcher hypothesized that the following four factor categories can be used to control the idea resulting from an idea generation event

135

a) Incentives social, monetary, tangible, b) Promotion to which sources and the amount it is promoted c) Event timing d) Execution The way the event is conducted, formatted, and managed. Logically, one can deduce that incentives directly affect the outputted ideas and effectiveness of the overall event. In cases of external idea generation, incentives may be more important than internal. Some companies like 3M use social recognition as a major incentive for submitting ideas, while others use monetary compensation (Alam, 2003; Flynn, Dooley, & OSullivan, 2003). As in advertising, the promotions of the event directly affect the number of internal or external sources which are aware of it, and way it is promoted affect the motivation of those sources to partake in those events. Given that promotional budgets are always limited, a company should choose wisely which sources it should promote to and the levels of awareness they hope to achieve. Timing is an important factor - announcing an event during the busiest time of year may result in very few participants submitting ideas. Conducting an event during slack time or immediately after conferences may be wise because employees may be seeded with ideas from the recent conference and have the time to develop them. Finally, the way the event is executed (i.e., how it is conducted, formatted, and managed) always will be of great importance in generating ideas. Making the event not attractive enough or being unclear about the events purpose could all negatively affect the outcome of the event.

3.2.3. Controlling External and Internal Events Some events may occur due to outside stimulus like a new competitor entering a market, a change in economy and so on. These types of events are considered uncontrollable events. Figure 3.4 below shows the idea generation event preceding idea generation activities. This figure shows the differences in the points of control between a controlled events and un-controllable events.

136

It is hypothesized that external uncontrollable events impact on idea generation and can be controlled by: a) the cultural response of the company, b) the processes response of the company, and by c) the awareness of the employees to external events. The cultures of companies like Microsoft are highly sensitive to certain types of events like new competitors. Thus, executives at Microsoft may intentionally promote and spread news of a competitors new entrance into their market to elicit a cultural response resulting in the generation of new ideas from their company.

Figure 3.5. Controlling Both Internally Idea Events an External Idea Events

Similarly, formal processes like competitive intelligence or market research can automatically trigger a company to respond to an un-controlled external event by generating ideas. So for example, a company like Corning may automatically generate ideas for new plastics if the standard price for one of their top level plastics drops to a commodity price level.

137

Uncontrollable events can also occur inside a company. For example, poor financial returns or missed quarterly earnings may prompt employees in a company to respond by generating new ideas. Any event, either internal or external, which stimulates idea generation is valuable.

Event-less Idea creation

No major event triggered this idea Idea Generation processes (Early Front End) Output Ideas

Source

Event Influenced Idea creation

Event influenced Idea Generation processes (Early Front End) Output Ideas

Source

Event driven Idea Creation (also call strategic driven innovation)

We were going to go bankrupt so the company initiated a idea generation event

Source

Ideation Event

Idea Generation processes (Early Front End)

Output Ideas

Figure 3.6. Ideation Events Influence on Idea Generation

Idea generation events can also be formal and informal. Formally controlled internal events may be uses effectively to fill gaps in the product portfolio or generate ideas for other needs. But a company responding to uncontrollable informal events (like a competitor entering the market) by generating ideas could be very valuable because it is a natural competitive response by the company.

138

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.

3.2.4. Controlling the Source Another way to affect the output of the idea generation process is to control the source of ideas - people. A review of the literature on creativity showed there are several factors which can affect the creativity of an individual. Drawing from the research, This researcher hypothesized that idea generation could be most greatly affected by controlling the following factors for the source

139

1. Selection of the source a. Individual (their creativity, IQ, experience, knowledge, so on.. ) b. Group compositions c. Source (see sources listed in chapter 2, section 2.74) 2. Affecting Motivation a. Intrinsic b. Incentives 3. Knowledge and Stimuli 4. Environment for creativity 5. others (catch all category) 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, & OSullivan, 2003; Belliveau, Griffin, & Somermeyer, 2002; Gorski, & Heinekamp, 2002; Abdulaziz,1995; Toubia, 2006; Derry, 2004).

140

Knowledge was also described as greatly increasing ones ability to produce ideas in a given area (Foster, 1996; Kelley, Littman, & Peters, 2001; Kelley & Littman, 2005; Hardagon & Sutton, 2000). Kelley and Hardagon also mentioned that providing employees with as much knowledge as possible greatly increases their abilities to bring disparate concepts to the table and create highly innovative ideas. Of course, there are many other factors affecting the ability of the source to generate ideas like their situation, work-load, communication abilities, access to tools, and so forth. Leaving an open category of other can help researchers and practitioners to keep in mind that this list is not comprehensive.

3.2.5. Internal vs. External Source and Methods of Control There is a great difference in the amount of control which can be placed over internal sources versus and external sources. Internal sources like employees, management, and sales people can be controlled via the above-mentioned points of control. On the contrary, one may only be able to control the selection of external sources and their incentives. Nonetheless, open innovation research has taught that for every talented developer inside a company, there are a hundred outside who may be just as talented. Consequently, innovation practitioners should greatly consider external source even though there are less points for controlling them. Figure 3.7 illustrates the difference in points of control for external and internal sources. It is surmised that the lack of control of external sources may even reduce the amount of management resources needed to generate ideas. In some instances, it may be easier and cheaper to control external sources at an idea generation events, like a bake-off contest, than to internally hire and manage two full-time food researchers to develop new food ideas. One can make a similar argument for hiring a consultant, or idea generation company to generate ideas.

141

Figure 3.7. Controls over Sources of Ideas

3.2.6. Controlling Idea Generation Activities Now that controlling the sources of idea and idea generation events has been discussed, controlling the idea generation activities can be examined. Section 2.7 contained a fairly detailed examination of idea generation processes. From this examination, one can hypothesize the following things can be controlled

142

1. Selection and combination of idea generation techniques, activities, & processes 2. Execution of the idea generation techniques, activities, & processes 3. The tools, and resources given to idea generation process 4. Environment (direct environment, company culture, and national culture) 5. Other. The underlining assumption of the books, articles, and papers on idea generation is that it can be fine-tuned and better methods can be selected. It is beneficial that authors like Anthony Ulwick, Eric von Hippel, and Tom Kelley advocate their own sort of idea generation processes because it opens up practitioners eyes up to different and better ways to generate ideas. The diversity of idea generation methods definitely allows new product practitioners to select from an ever growing array of options. Hopefully, the list of idea generation techniques, activities, and processes in Section 2.7 allows practitioners to get a better idea of their options. It takes skill to execute or perform an idea generation activity or process correctly. Kelley, Littman, & Peters, (2001) speak about how to properly conduct a brainstorming session. Kelley et al. (2001) recommends a brainstorming leader who makes sure ideas are not criticized, ideas are flowing, all members are giving and receiving input, and the session is constantly bring new ideas into the mix. Each of the idea generation activities mentioned in Tables 2.2 to 2.5 can be conducted properly or improperly, which obviously will affect the quality of the results. Management and leadership of the idea generation activities is a critical means of controlling idea generation and should not be ignored. Because improperly these processes could result in useless and, even worst, harmful ideas.

143

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 IDEOs 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

3.2.7. Internal and External Idea Generation and Control A company may have very limited amounts of control over external idea generation activities. For example, a company might be able to recommend to an external source a process for coming up with ideas, but ultimately, the company may have little or no control over the four mentioned point, as depicted in Figure 3.8.

Figure 3.8. Controls over External and Internal Idea Generation

Of course, contracts can be put in place to enforce the use of a given process, but it is unlikely that outside groups would want to help create ideas given these restrictions. Sensibly, it was deduced that some control may be gained by providing resources to the outside groups to aid in their idea generation activities. For example, some money may be given to a consulting firm to help subsidize the consultants time, or some prototyping materials may

145

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.

3.2.8. Screening and Filtering Before Being Captured Section 3.3 will discuss in detail, idea banks, screening, and filtering. But there is some value in quickly discussing, screening and filtering, because it sometimes is directly integrated into the process of generating ideas and thus affect the outcome of the ideas produced. Section 2.7 showed several idea generation processes, and if one notices screening and filtering is integrated into several of those processes. For example, IDEOs and Blue Ocean strategys process generates many ideas but through the voting process many ideas are filtered out as illustrated by figure 2.26. Of course, the degree of screening and filtering can be considered to be a control point which is both separate from, and inside the idea generation activities as shown in figures 3.9 & 3.10. For instance when hosting an idea competition; a company can specify the type an attributes of ideas which can be entered into the competition. Hence, one can consider a screen/filter another construct which can control and affect the flow of ideas.

Figure 3.9. Screening and Filtering Located After Idea Generation Activities

146

Figure 3.10. Screening and Filtering in and After Idea Generation Activities

One can also hypothesize that individuals may perform self-screening of ideas prior to submitting their ideas to the company. An example can be seen in IDEOs idea generation process, when the employees each select their top three ideas to submit to the group. As Rochford (1991) states: many people do some sort of screening themselves and eliminate the idea rather than submitting it for consideration (Rochford, 1991, p. 82). Also, companies like IDEO accept all types of ideas, while others like Arm & Hammer screen out all ideas submitted by customers. Screening and filtering can also occur inside a company by: A. Attributes of the idea (category, driver, revenue potential so on) B. Source of the idea (group which created it) C. Way the idea was generated (method used, tools used) D. Condition inside or outside the company Above is a rough list of hypothesized factors by which ideas may be filtered or screened. The first is the attributes of the ideas which may include its category, the idea driver (market driven or technology driven), revenue, difficulty and on and on. This is the largest category and is typically the way ideas are screened (Bakker, Boersma, & Oreel, 2006). Second, the source idea can be used in screening. Typically ideas from the CEO or chairman are not screened out, whereas, ideas from the mail room boy may be. Third, the way the idea was generated can be used to screen out the idea. For instance, a new product development manager may only want ideas which were produced with a detailed understanding of the customer.

147

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.

3.2.9. Quick Review on Areas of Control So too quickly review, four major areas for controlling the full idea generation process have been identified and are illustrated in figure 3.11 below. The source is the start of the process, and it was hypothesized that sources inside the company can be controlled much more than sources outside the company.

Figure 3.11. Points of Control in the Full Idea Generation Process

Next, the events triggering idea generation can be an area of great control, and were hypothesized to constitute both formal and informal events and controllable and uncontrollable events. Formal events can be a great method of

148

controlling idea generation. Afterwards, idea generation activities can be controlled via the mentioned means, and is important that a company examine their methods of generating idea so they can improve them. Finally, the screening and filtering is an area of control which could greatly affect the resulting ideas. Thus it should be examined closely because it may greatly limit the creation and flow of ideas

3.2.10. Strategy and Idea Generation One may ask: how does a companys strategy influence idea generation activities? This question was addressed in a limited way in surveys related to product portfolio management (Adams-Bigelow 2005; Cooper 1999; Cooper, Edgett, & Kleinschmidt 2006). To quickly review, product portfolio management is very similar to managing a portfolio of stocks and bonds. In product portfolio management the goal is to maximize the value of the product launches while balancing the resource requirements of the commercialization and new product development processes, and the risk associated with the projects. In portfolio management, one tries to select and advance new product projects based on assessment of its potential outcome, and its fit with the rest of the projects being developed. In doing this, they may utilize many tools and approaches, which can be categorized into general models: financial models (net present value & ROI), probability models (decision trees), strategic approaches (fit with a company strategy), mapping models (bubble maps and Boston consulting group plots), and scoring models (qualitative scoring, and check lists scoring), among others. Some of these tools may be more valid than others, especially for specific industries. For example, Parnell, Lester, & Menefees (1997) study of department stores found that using ROA was a more preferable measure to ROI. Cooper (1999) found 26% of the companies he surveyed used business strategy in their portfolio management processes, and Adams-Bigelow (2005) in chapter 36 of PDMA found 47% of the respondent have a strategy and a

149

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.

11%

No strateg

Formal fill gaps in product portfolio Formal because more idea are needed Informal activities to fill gaps

18%

22% 3%

Informal activities because more idea are needed Idea generation without prompting

13%

33%

Other methods

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 products 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 companys goals. Amabile (1998) suggests that idea generation teams must share the teams 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.

Figure 3.13. Strategys Possible Influence on the Idea Generation Processes

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 companys 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

An example of a weak influence would be a company setting the goal of entering two new markets in the next two years. The individuals in the company notice this strategic goal and try to generate ideas for markets outside their core. Whereas, an example of strong influence would be a company, in a similar situation, openly rewarding and compensating individuals who generated ideas which can be used to enter new markets. Finally, strategy can have no impact on the idea generation processes among others who state some idea generation is done to open up strategic options (Zien, & Buckler, 1997; Moskowitz, 1997; Lashinsky, 2006). To some degree Adams-Bigelow (2005) survey results which show 23% of the idea generated came with no promoting hints at strategy not being a driver of idea generation. Hence, the term Strategy-less idea creation denote that strategy had no influence on the idea generation processes.

Figure 3.14. Strategic Idea Continuum

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 companys current strategy. It is hypothesized that strategicallydriven 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.

3.2.11. Idea Generations Process Check Analysis Now that a conceptual understanding of how to control the idea generation process has been developed, one must look at the output of the processes being the generated ideas, so that the process can be improved via feedback.
Feedback from end of processes
Process Check Analysis A. Attributes B. Source C. Way it was created

Managing the idea generation processes

Point of Control The source Points of control The Event Points of control Idea Generation Activities Points of control Screening and Filtering

Source

Event

Idea Generation Activities

Screen and filter

idea

Idea

idea

idea

Figure 3.15. Control model for Idea Generation

It is hypothesized the feedback is critical in managing the full idea generation processes. Figure 3.15 above shows the outputted ideas should be examined so the idea generation process can be checked as meeting its intended objectives. Additionally, extra feedback about the processes can be captured by observing the idea generation activities. Active observation of idea generation activities is used by companies like IDEO to insure activities are being

154

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.

3.2.12. Characteristics of Created Ideas Total quality management taught manufacturing professionals to improve the quality measurements must be made. So, if one wanted to improve the tolerances of a piston diameter one must measure those features repeatedly. Idea generation is not anywhereas precise as manufacturing, yet it shares a base similarity in that the controls in the process very much affect the output. Simply put, the ideas created by the process should provide the main feedback required to manage the process. Thus, it is important to understand the characteristics of the produced ideas. This requires the ideas to be analyzed. When assessing an idea it was hypothesized that the following items are of importance as feedback: a) the attributes of the idea, b) the source of the ideas, and c) how the idea was created. Interestingly, Koens et al.s (2001) model and Montoya-Weiss & ODriscolls (2006) front end models show idea selections as being an integrated step, of which a rough analysis of the idea must be performed. Consequently, this researcher recommends roughly assessing all of the ideas generated on some base factors. Plus, as a deeper understanding of idea generation grows so will the practitioners ability to control it. The attributes of an idea will be roughly mentioned here, but will be greatly expanded upon in the next section on idea banks.

155

a) The attributes of the idea o o o o o o Driver of the idea (technology, market, customer-driven idea) Innovation category under which the idea falls Sawhney, Wolcott, & Arronizs (2006) cites 12 areas of innovation Continuous, discontinuous idea Risk & uncertain of the idea Financial aspect of the idea (potential revenue, investment requirement) o Resource aspects of the idea (management, tools, machinery needs for the idea) o Market aspect of the idea (what markets it can be used in) Who created the idea Customer understanding Event triggering the idea Strategy impact on the idea Screen affect on the idea Buy in of others b) Source of the idea o c) Way the idea was generated o o o o o

3.2.13. A Practical example of managing the idea generation process A narrative example will be given, to illustrate how the feedback is vital to the managing the idea generation processes. In this example, a company is trying to generate disruptive ideas to fill their product portfolio. They use IDEOs idea generation processes described in section 2.7.3.3 and produce a batch of 5 ideas. The attributes of the ideas were roughly measured and are shown below.

156

Table 3.1. Example of Idea from the Companys First Attempt

Driver Innovation Category 1 2 Technology Market Product Product Continuous Discontinuous Discontinuous Discontinuous High Low High Low High Low Current Notserved 3 4 5 Technology Technology Technology Product Product Product Discontinuous Discontinuous Discontinuous High Low High High High High High High High Current Current Current Risk Financial Resources Market

Upon reviewing the produced ideas the new product development manager realizes he can only take on projects which have (1) low risk projects and (2) have low financial commitments. Further, based on experience, he knows technology and market driven ideas for products are, on average, rejected by his company, while customer driven idea, especially those ideas which are submitted by customers are overwhelmingly accepted by upper management. He realizes, to his dismay, that none of the ideas generated, will be able to make it through to commercialization. So, he decides to tune the idea generation processes based on the feedback from his first attempt. First he selects a new source being 1) his core customer and 2) his NPD team. He then selects outcome based innovation and schedules a 2 week event where his NPD team will work with the core customers. He also incentivizes his NPD team with monetary and social rewards for ideas fitting his needs. He manages the idea generation activities and insures the NPD team is focusing on the customer desired outcomes not their technical needs. He also instructs the team to screen out ideas which are continuous in nature. This process results in five new ideas as in table 3.2 shown below. After reviewing the generated ideas, the new product development manager is very please but would like to see more ideas which require low amounts of resources. He also notices that the majority of the new product ideas

157

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
Driver Innovation Category 1 2 3 4 5 Customer Customer Customer Customer Customer Product Product Product Service Service Continuous Discontinuous Discontinuous Discontinuous Discontinuous Discontinuous Discontinuous High Low Low High High High Low Low High High High Low Low High High Current Not-served Not-served Current Current Risk Financial Resources Market

3.2.14. Summary of Section In summary, this section started with the intent of defining how the full idea generation process could be controlled. First, both continuous and event driven idea generation were reviewed, and idea generation events were examined in detail. It was hypothesized that company could use ideation events to control the output of the idea generation processes. The methods of controlling internal and external events were then described. Next controlling the idea generation process via the controlling the sources of idea was described. Methods of controlling internal and external sources were hypothesizes and proposed. After this, points of controlling the idea generation processes were hypothesized and proposed. As well, points of controlling the screening and filtering were hypothesized and proposed. Next, strategys influence on the idea generation process was examined for which, the strategic idea continuum was introduced to help analyze the influence of strategy on the idea generation process.

158

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.

3.3.1. Major Functions of Idea Management As has been identified in the literature review idea management and idea banks have several major functions. First, This researcher considers idea banks as a subset of idea management, in which, idea banks only perform the functions of storing and distributing the ideas and opportunities. Many idea bank software programs also perform additional functions of screening, analysis, and so on, but they are in This researchers opinion also performing idea management functions. For the purposes of this research, idea banks will be strictly limited in definition to the storage of ideas. Upon reviewing the literature on idea management the major functions were identified being the: 1) capture of ideas, 2) storage of ideas, 3) organization of ideas, and 4) screening of ideas (Flynn, Dooley, & OSullivan, 2003; Belliveau, Griffin, & Somermeyer, 2002; Montoya-Weiss & ODriscoll, 2006; Gorski,

159

&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 & Suttons (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) 2) 3) 4) 5) Capture Tagging Storing and Categorization Process Check 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

Figure 3.16. Initial version of Glassman Model

161

3.3.2. Capturing Ideas Capture is the way which the ideas are literally captured by the company into the organizations collective consciousness. So companies which refuse to listen to ideas from their customers, in a pure sense, are blocking capture from that source group. Capture of ideas and opportunities can be performed formally through suggestion boxes, emails, or even advanced idea management software; or informally, through word-of-mouth, or other general means of communication. Obviously, This researcher prefers formal means to capture ideas and opportunities, but there are instances where informal means may be effective, like in very small organizations. The goal of the capture function is to extract ideas and opportunities from the minds of those who possess them and put those ideas and opportunities in a form which can be retained for the organization (for documentation purposes). Ideas and opportunities can be captured from internal sources, but open innovation has also shown great value in capturing ideas and opportunities from external sources as well (Heck, 2005). Section 2.7.4 again has a detailed list of sources, both internal and external, where ideas can be obtained from. Finally, one should not forget that capturing opportunities is just as important as capturing ideas. As shown in chapter 3 opportunities are the vital fuel used in the idea generation activities to produce more ideas.

3.3.2.1. Controlling Capture This research identifies three main ways to control the capture of ideas and opportunities: 1) selection of the source which the ideas and opportunities will be captured from, 2) controlling the method of capture, how it is done and why that method was chosen, and 3) managing the execution of capturing ideas.

162

3.3.2.2. Controlling Capture via Selection of Source The first point of control for capture is the selection of the source where ideas will be captured from. For example, a company may determine through hard learned experience that ideas from suppliers are most always infeasible. Thus, the company can reduce the number of infeasible ideas by blocking the capture of ideas from the supplier sources. In addition, companies may not be aware of the great value created by obtaining ideas from dissatisfied customers, and thus should instruct customer service representatives to capture these ideas. If anything, open innovation research has shown a tremendous power in capturing ideas from outside sources, and that selecting and soliciting the correct source can generate many valuable ideas. Therefore, determining the sources from which ideas will be captured is one of the first inputs which must be determined. There is a benefit and cost to acquiring ideas from any source. However, a company should not discount any source simply because they produce poor ideas. As companies gain more knowledge as to how to control idea generation, they may obtain the means to turn that source into an effective source of ideas. In other words, you really cannot say a piece of machinery is useless until you really know how to operate it. Tucker (2003) provided an example whereby instead of asking for ideas from suppliers, they provide the suppliers with a problem. They ask suppliers to work on a solution to the problem and their efforts have generated a number of valuable ideas which were subsequently patented.

3.3.2.3. Controlling via the Method of Capture Another means of controlling capture is the method in which ideas and opportunities are captured. Idea capture methods include anything from the simple oral description given at a meeting, to more formal idea written on paper, all the way to fully integrated idea management systems. Idea management software concentrates, in particular, on the method of capturing ideas. In some odd cases, ideas are captured in their physical or visual forms like in IDEOs

163

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.

3.3.2.4. Controlling via the Execution of Capture Controlling the execution of capture is managing the ongoing process of capturing ideas, and it is nowhereas simple as putting a box in the corner and letting it collect ideas. Here are a few examples to prove this point. If a secretary is assigned to capturing all ideas from employees in the department after a while he may become complacent, or even worse, he may dissentingly choose not to capture ideas from a particular employee that he dislikes. Another example is that lonely suggestion box which people stopped putting ideas into after they realized that no one was assigned to retrieve and catalog the ideas. Setting up the system is one thing, but running it and managing it is another. Open idea management systems, are much better in the respects that the submitter can actively see if their idea was captured. Therefore, this is one of the reasons why employee-driven idea systems (EDIS) have high participation rates (Gorski and Heinekamp, 2002). Thus, in setting up capture one must ask, what can go wrong, and what procedure or management efforts can be put in place to insure this part of the

164

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.

3.3.2.5. Capture Integrated with Screening and Filtering In many cases, companies combine the acts of capturing ideas with the act of screening and filtering. This is completely acceptable, and logical, because again internal screening can reduce the number of poor ideas, whereas, ideas from outside sources will not be screened in this manner. Capture adds a bit of detail to screening. The following paragraphs will elaborate on screening with respect to capture.

3.3.2.6. Capturing Ideas from External Sources Interestingly, ideas from outside the company, can be a) used directly with little or no modification, and or b) can be modified to suit the needs of the company, and or c) can be used to seed people inside the company with stimulus to help them generate their own ideas. In addition, ideas can be brought into the company at different points in their concept lifecycle (Figure 2.1). Some companies become adept at getting ideas from outside sources at particular stages in the concepts development. For example, Cisco is adept at obtaining market concept by acquiring small to medium companies for their technology, and then integrating those technologies into their product and service offerings. Other examples are large pharmaceutical companies (Pfizer, Merck, and GSK) which only listen to solicitations from outside drug developers after those drugs have passed FDA phase 2 trials.

165

New product managers should know what level of concept development is typically accepted and utilized by their companys (see Figure 2.1). For example some companies are culturally very skeptical and risk averse and may reject any ideas which at a minimum has not passed a prototype test, whereas other companies may have successfully employed ideas from any phase of the concept life cycle.

Figure 3.17. An Example of a Companys Receptiveness to Outside Ideas at Respective Levels of Concept Development 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 ideas 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.

Figure 3.18. An Example of a Companys Receptiveness to Outside Ideas in Different Innovation Categories

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

In idea generation, tagging can be used in a positive light to improve upon good or successful practices. Knowing how good and great ideas were created allows the company to identify best practices, and gives them the opportunity to reproduce the conditions that created those great ideas. Similarly, it is valuable to know what activities, people, and process produced particular type of ideas, like incremental, or disruptive, market-driven, or customer-driven. For example, knowing that one product development manager was associated with the creation of the companys most valuable ideas, or knowing that the most useful disruptive ideas came out of outcome-based-innovation is a valuable insight. These insights can be used to refine the idea generation process. Product development managers can be used to train others, and outcome-based innovation can be applied to create ideas for other parts of the business. The following paragraphs will explain how tagging is valuable to the later innovation processes by dealing with unknown company biases.

3.3.3.1. Innovation Drivers It seems companies can have cultural and process based bias toward certain types of ideas. For instance, Nortel was only structured to develop ideas from customers, while Volvo was clearly shown to have a bias toward technology ideas (Montoya-Weiss & ODriscoll, 2006; Backman, Borjesson, & Setterberg, 2007). Backman, Borjesson, and Setterberg (2007) write in some detail about how companies can have natural biases toward ideas with different drivers. They categorize ideas as being technology-driven, customer-driven, market-driven, and value-driven (Backman, Borjesson, & Setterberg, 2007; Conway, & McGuinnes 1986; Montoya-Weiss & ODriscoll, 2006). Research of Fortune 1000 companies by Jaruzelski, & Dehoff (2008) presents a more thorough examination of these drivers. According to their findings, these drivers result in similar innovation strategy, including: (1) need seekers, (2) market readers, and (3) technology drivers.

168

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 companys 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 companys strategy, competitive environment, and cultural values.

169

This research revealed an additional category of solution-driven companies is missing from the literature. Consultants often increase their offering based on visible need for a solution in the market place. Thus, these consulting firms spend money developing solution or solution packages which can solve a particular set of problem. One known example is IBM, which shifted towards a solutions-based company in 2002, and utilized their brand name and expertise to offer consulting and implementation solutions to the general market. It is hypothesized that solution-driven companies look for current or impending problem areas in a particular market, or with technology (much like need seekers) and are driven to offer solutions.

3.3.3.2. Idea Category bias Similarly, companies can have biases toward particular idea categories like products over services as shown by Sawhney, Wolcott, and Arroniz (2006) innovation categories. Finally, Christensen (2003) showed how companies structurally and culturally are un-able to develop disruptive and radical ideas (Christensen, 2003; McDermott, & Oconnor, 1999; Verworn & Herstatt, 2001; Backman, Borjesson, & Setterberg, 2007; Bean, & Radford, 2002). To remedy these natural biases, companies initially have to become aware they have a natural bias. This can be first achieved through education by books like Christensens (2003) The Innovators Dilemma and second be achieved through making the innovation process more transparent. Again, the proposed solution of tagging was hypothesized to help make the innovation process more transparent. One proposed way to deal with the bias toward certain types of ideas in the innovation process is by tagging an idea with information. By initially tagging ideas one can track the progress of particular ideas through the innovation processes and visibly see the bias of a company. For example, you can compare how many ideas are tagged as being customerdriven in the idea bank, then compare how many were selected for development in the FFE, and NPD processes.

170

50 of 150 (1/3) are customer-driven in the idea bank 10 of 50 (1/5) projects are developed in the FFE 1 of 20 (1/10) were developed in the NPD 1 of 12 (1/12) made it to market launch The list above shows an example of a companys innovation process and the number of customer-driven ideas being pushed through to market launch. By quickly reviewing the tags associated with projects in the portfolio an innovation practitioner can quickly generate these numbers. One quickly sees that the number of customer-driven ideas drops in the NPD, which might indicate a bias of the NPD process against customer-driven ideas.

3.3.3.3. Controlling tagging Tagging can be controlled rather easily by the input conditions: (1) the method of tagging, (2) the attributes of the tag and (3) by the way tagging is executed.

3.3.3.4. Controlling via method of tagging The method of capture also dictates the method in which the idea can be tagged. So for example, if ideas are captured orally over the phone and then memorized, one must also ask the submitter how the idea was created, what event triggered its creation, and so on. If the idea is submitted in to a suggestion box the act of tagging becomes much more difficult. However, if a standardized forum is used along with a suggestion box, the required tag info can be integrated into the forum. Idea management software allows the greatest flexibility in terms of tagging because they can ask follow up questions and then formally store that information with the idea, and be recalled very quickly. Whatever form the tag takes - written, computer based, or oral - it is just important that the information

171

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.

3.3.3.5. Controlling via Attributes of the Tag Again, the amount of detail captured for the tag must be balance against the energy in obtaining it. Not every piece of information is vital, only a few are. Thus, asking a submitter what time and day he had the idea is much less relevant than what event triggered him to create the idea. Thus, this research concludes there are a few required items which should be captured along with an idea. These items are listed on the following page, and are broken up into process related tags and idea related tags. Collecting information related to the idea like financial potential, feasibility, and so on is not required by the tag, because the tagging function is more concerned with tracing the idea creation back through the process. Additionally, capturing information like financial potential, required resources and so on at the time of submission is a bit premature because, (1) you cannot estimate them without having done a fair bit of analysis, and (2) because you want to take time and develop the idea further to increase the financial potential and or lower the required resources.

172

Source Tag Info Who or what group of people generated the idea? What motivated the source to generate this ideas? What event triggered them to create the idea? (formal or informal) Was the event a formal event held by the company or dictated by management? What incentive motivated them to generate the idea? When did the event occur? What activities did they formally do to come up with the idea? What activates did they informally do to come up with the idea? What was the order of the activities? What tools or resources did they use during idea generation? Where or how was the environment for idea generation? Who managed the idea generation activities? What screens did the idea pass through? Who told you not to submit the idea? Who managed the screening? Who was the idea submitted to? How was the idea submitted? Who encouraged them to submit the idea? Was it hard to submit the idea? Is this idea (technology, customer, market, value) driven? What category is this idea (product, service, process, marketing, ..)? Is this a disruptive or incremental idea? Is anyone committed to this idea? If so who? Who else is aware of this idea?

Event Tag Info

Activities Tag Info

Screen and Filter Tag Info

Capture Tag Info

Tags Related to the Idea

173

3.3.3.6. Controlling via the Execution of Tagging Tagging is highly linked to capture, because tag information is taken at the time of capture. Hence managing the capture function can also include managing tagging. Again, the execution of tagging is important. For example, if a secretary captures an idea and fails to write down the associated tag information because they were short on time, the benefits of tagging are forfeit. Hence, managers much ensure that employees and others submitting ideas are capturing and tagging ideas appropriately. Interestingly, properly selecting the method of capture can reduce the need to manage tagging. For example, idea management softwares can require the user to fill out related tag information prior to submitting the idea, whereas, the good old paper submission system can not. Yet, idea management softwares cannot probe a submitter like a trained manager who can extract accurate tag information. Hence, extra attention should be paid to the selection of the capture method because it may greatly reduce the need to actively manage tagging.

3.3.4. Storage and Categorizing The first part of this section presents a review of how the ideas and opportunities are stored and how they can be categorized. This is followed by the second part showing how to control storage and categorization.

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. Illustration of the Idea Cloud, Idea Bank, and Company Idea Bank

Figure 3.19 illustrates the idea cloud with two idea banks embedded in it. Hence, an idea in a persons 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 companys 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 persons mind whereas highly formal ideas may exist on paper and computer, with fully detailed written descriptions with prototype pictures and so on.

175

Figure 3.20. Illustration of the Continuum of Idea Formality

Interestingly, some companies like IDEO store some of their ideas in a Tech box which just keeps a physical sample of the idea with a short written description (Hardagon & Sutton, 2000; Kelley & Littman, 2005). While other companies may require ideas to be recorded in highly formalized forms (like several written descriptions, with detailed summaries of the idea, technical feasibility, required resources and so). An example of idea banks requiring highly formalized idea submission may be Nortels Galileo idea management system described by Montoya-Weiss & ODriscoll (2006). Evidently, having ideas in a more formal fashion helps later FFE activities, but one must keep in mind that requirements for formality may stop individuals from submitting their ideas. Thus, one must carefully balance the formality requirements for the idea bank against the need to collect more ideas.

3.3.4.2. Categorization of the Idea Bank Unfortunately, none of the literature on idea banks or idea management highlights the diversity of ideas which exists in a formal idea bank. To quickly illustrate how convoluted an idea bank can become, Figure 3.16 was created. Figure 3.14 shows a huge diversity of ideas from new to old; analyzed or unanalyzed; technology or customer driven; product or supply chain; and so on. Of course, Figure 3.14 does not show the overlap among categories, so an idea can be new, customer driven, and radical while another can be old, customer

176

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.

Figure 3.21. Illustration of the Diversity of Idea Banks

177

Figure 3.22. Illustration of Idea Bank Organized by Incremental and Radical Ideas

Figure 3.23. Illustration of Idea Bank Organized by Innovation Category

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

are most appealing to customers or by total possible revenues, because those factors will not be determined with a reasonable level of certainty until after they are analyzed in later FFE activities. Hence, one can see that ideas may have obvious attributes (like new or old, or product or service) which can be easily determined even for new unanalyzed ideas, and conversely, un-obvious attributes (like possible revenues, required resources, competitive advantage, and so on) which require analysis and work to uncover.

3.3.4.3. Examined vs. Un-Examined Ideas It may not be directly obvious, but a quick review with the NPD or FFE team will uncover which ideas have been formally examined verses which have not been examined. Knowing this allows one to better organize their efforts in the late FFE processes. For example, the FFE team may decide to spend three months evaluating un-examined ideas in the idea bank to see if any great ideas can be uncovered. Plus, keeping records of the number of examined versus unexamined ideas in the idea bank will show if the FFE teams are effectively examining ideas, or if there are too many ideas in the bank.

3.3.4.4. Temporary vs. Permanently Stored Ideas IDEOs idea generation process has shown that ideas can be created and stored temporarily (Kelley, Littman, & Peters, 2001). Again, in IDEOs process, ideas are presented to the group, often in a very informal written form, and then used as bases for the next evolution of the concepts. Ideas which do not make the final cut are then trashed. The output of the IDEO process again is one or two well developed ideas. In companies like IDEO, which have so many diverse client projects, it really does not make sense to permanently record ideas because, (1) the chances of getting a similar client project are remote; and (2) the chances of

179

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.

3.3.4.5. Awareness Continuum Some ideas are known to many inside a company while others may be unknown. For example, practically every employee in Apples competitors being Sony, Nokia, and Motorola are aware of Apples touch screen Iphone; while many less employees are aware of new ideas like new OLED displays for cell phones. Obviously, some ideas may have higher levels of awareness than others. Ideas which have higher levels of awareness may be more easily backed by their organization and pushed through the new product development and commercialization process. Having many more people, especially decision makers like key executives, being aware of an idea may be very helpful in getting a project noticed and funded. Hence companies should also consider the levels of awareness associated with an idea (Conley, 2002; Flynn, Dooley, & OSullivan, 2003).

3.3.4.6. Ideas and their Level of Development Differentiating ideas by their level of development may also prove to be a useful factor. Ideas which are undeveloped, in development, or developed have radically different amounts of information associated with them, and may have firm support which can help spread useful ideas across the organization. For example, having a team which is currently developing a new process talk and spread their process may provide the useful energy needed to jumpstart the implementation of those ideas (like process improvements) in other areas of the business.

180

3.3.4.7. Commitment to Ideas Ideas which have a high level of commitment behind them are greatly different than similar ideas with low levels of commitment. For example, an ideas which has the backing and commitment of the executives and upper management stands a far greater chance of passing through the NPD process than those ideas which do not have this support. Also, the employee-driven idea system mentioned by Gorski, & Heinekamp, (2002) where employees became committed to their ideas, showed to have substantially better rates of implementation than those of ideas placed into suggestion box systems. Thus, the FFE team should strongly consider the level of commitment and who is committed to an idea when selecting ideas for development (Montoya-Weiss & ODriscoll, 2006).

3.3.4.8. Newness of the Ideas Some companies are biased toward new ideas, but old ideas are also useful and still hold great value (Vandenbosch, Saatcioglu, & Fay, 2006). Again a new idea was defined as one which is new to the company as a whole. For example, in organizing the idea banks by newness of ideas, one may uncover there is a lack of old ideas being proposed and being analyzed. Or conversely, one may find out that idea generation activities are producing old similar ideas and not enough new ideas. Hence, having a map of the newness of ideas in the idea bank can show front end practitioners where extra work is needed.

3.3.4.9. Controlling Storage and Categorization There are two hypothesized ways to control storage and categorization: (1) the method of storage and categorization, and 2) being the execution of storage and categorization. There are several ways to store ideas as mentioned above, some are formal and some are informal. Regardless of the method chosen or what is

181

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.

3.3.4.10. Control the Execution of Storage and Categorization Yet again, the system being used makes a huge difference in the amount of management effort spent on storage and categorization. Computer software systems can quickly store and retrieve ideas, but must be managed for uptime. Conversely, paper systems may require a secretary to fetch the documents, and management may have to take time to train and monitor the performance for these tasks.

182

Similarly, computer systems can perform categorization according to their programming, and may provide resulting maps of ideas by category in the idea bank very quickly. However, categorization in paper based system may be much more tedious, and require much management to insure ideas are correctly categorized. The amount of management required for any idea storage and categorization system should be known at the time of implementation or purchase.

3.3.5. Process Check and Feedback As mentioned in the section on controlling idea generation, feedback on the generated ideas is critical to improving the idea generation process, and idea capture. Hence, the process check is a quick analysis to see if a) the ideas being created by the ideas generation process are meeting their preset goals or b) the ideas being captured from external sources are meeting the preset goals set for capture of external sources. For example, if the chief innovation officer (CIO) sets an objective of generating twenty plus disruptive ideas and capturing twenty plus disruptive ideas from outside sources. The company then goes off and generates ideas and captures ideas from outside sources. The feedback from these activities shows the company has created four disruptive ideas and captured twenty plus disruptive ideas from outside source. The CIO then knows they need to rework their current internal idea generation process. As shown in the Section 3.2 control model for idea generation, the process check feedback was placed at the end of that process. However, because in this model, idea generation and idea management are combined, it makes perfect sense to combine the process check into idea management section. Hence, the process check function was placed after the storage and categorizing not before it because, (1) the ideas are in a more permanent form for a process check; and (2) one does not have to worry about the process check blocking the storing of ideas.

183

Controlling the process check to some degree depends on the systems being used. Software idea management systems allow quicker access to ideas, and analysis results can be tagged to a group of ideas which were created through a particular set of idea generation activities. Hence, it make be quicker and easier to use and idea management software for large groups of ideas. Paper based process checks are still imagined to be effective, as long as the individuals managing idea generation understand how their strategies are affecting the outputted ideas.

3.3.5.1. Controlling the Process Check via the Selection of People The people performing the analyses were shown to be a major factor in the quality of the analysis performed. Steven, Burley, & Divine (1999) uncovered that certain personality types enjoyed analyzing and distributing new ideas while others quickly tired of this task. Their insight was that certain people are really pre-disposed to this task and they would resemble a person like a technologists who loves looking at new technologies, analyzing them, and talking about them, or the business analysis guy who loves looking at and talking about new business ideas. Hence, one should look for these personality types when selecting individuals for the process check task.

3.3.5.2. Controlling the Execution of the Process Check Like any process, the process check analysis must be monitored and feedback must be given to the appropriate parties. Accountability can be created by allowing the individuals who manage the idea generation process to hold those individuals performing analysis and providing feedback accountable for their reports and their quality. Again, the process check analysis is not supposed to be detailed, it is a quick overview to see if the ideas being generated by the idea generation process are meeting their pre-set targets. Hence, if the initial goal is to create five

184

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.

3.3.6. Diffusing and Routing Diffusion is the act of spreading the ideas and opportunities through the organization, and routing is sending a particular idea or opportunity to the most relevant individuals. Diffusion was highlighted in the innovation value chain model; however, diffusion in is this model is slightly difference. Diffusion here is the act of taking anything from a rough idea to a developed concept and spreading it around the organization so that a) future development projects can be created from it or b) current or future development projects can be aided by it. Again, to reiterate, ideas can be a) used directly with little or no modification, and or b) can be modified to suit the needs of the company, and or c) can be used to seed people inside the company with stimulus (see Figure 3.24).

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-toface 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.

Figure 3.25. Diffusion Power Spectrum

186

Note that ideas can be diffused by internal or external sources, so a large competitor launching a new product has a lot of power to diffuse that idea to other companies. Sought diffusion is different than forced diffusion because, here an individual is seeking out the idea, not having it forced on them. This can entail anything from and individual requesting ideas of others, scanning periodicals or media, or searching databases or the internet for ideas or opportunities. Sought diffusion is a different mindset than forced diffusion because of its structure. Sought diffusion is allowing access to tools and resource which would enable an individual to seek and find ideas relevant to their needs. The fields of knowledge management and Informatics have shed much light on the way to enable individuals to seek and find information. For example, GE and Mckinsey both have elaborate knowledge management systems which would allow individuals to access an expert, find relevant knowledge, or get solutions to particular problems. Hence, a company can create systems, tools, and resources which would allow individuals to more quickly find ideas. It is hypothesized that company culture has some effect on sought diffusion. This is because it requires a different mindset, I will find an idea, instead of, I will wait till an idea comes to me. Regardless of culture, structures and systems can be put in place to enable sought diffusion. For example, expert directories allow employees to search out relevant experts and ask for new ideas which are relevant to their needs. Also, idea management software enable employees to search the idea banks for ideas relevant to their needs. IDEOs Tech box, allow employees to physically search for materials and products which could seed their idea generation activities. Idea conferences allow individuals to talk about ideas and opportunities. Unfortunately, no data exists on which types of diffusion are taking place in companies or if sought or forced diffusion is more prevalent. Nonetheless, the best strategy is to enable both forced and sought diffusion to occur.

187

3.3.6.1. Controlling via Methods of Diffusion There is great value in forcing the diffusion of select ideas in the organization, and enabling systems and tools so sought diffusion can occur. To aid practitioners in selecting methods which could be applied to their company, this research offers a rough table of possible methods of diffusion. Table 3.3. Diffusion Methods, Forced, and Sought Diffusion
Diffusion method Referance Internal Force Diffusion Executive product champion product champion Idea fairs & conference (3M) Hardagon & Sutton (2000) & (1997) Weekly new idea session Idea promo video Hardagon & Sutton (2000) & (1997) Idea posters Internal Idea blog Idea newsletters Idea booklets, catalogues Idea memos, emails, calls, mail Idea retreats Passive Forced diffusion methods Work space design Kelley & Littman, (2005) Community areas (free coffee bars) Kelley & Littman, (2005) After work get together Kelley & Littman, (2005) Online idea forums or news groups Kelley & Littman, (2005) Internal sought diffusion Expert networks Idea management software Idea databanks Recommended list of databases Recommended list of search resources Idea booklets, catalogues

3.3.6.2. Controlling Diffusion and Routing via Selection of People Networking theory has shown that some people inherently like to distribute information (Facilitators). In addition, some people like to distribute ideas. The point can be quickly made, if one imagines the archetype technologist talking relentlessly about the newest inventions, technologies, and product ideas.

188

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.

3.3.6.3. Controlling the Execution of Diffusion Again, one must differentiate among forced and sought diffusion. Not everyone needs to know about every idea in the idea bank; they only need to know about the ones which are relevant to them at that particular time. As Hardagon & Sutton (2000) showed their idea brokers distributed ideas in a just-in-time means to solve problems relevant to the individuals they were helping. However, Kelley, & Littman (2005) stressed that Cross-Pollinators should spread ideas regardless of whether or not there was a need. Hence, one can measure the effectiveness of forced diffusion by looking at the effectives of a) getting idea solutions to people who have problems, b) spreading new or useful ideas around the organization to the relevant individuals. Opinions and metrics can be used to manage diffusion. If the development team members feel they are not getting exposed to enough new ideas, then possibly forced diffusion maybe failing to work. In addiction, measuring the

189

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 companys 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.

3.3.7.1. Controlling via the Method and Execution of Routing There are several methods of routing ideas, and they resemble the methods of routing information. First, ideas and information can be routed to a particular individual, group, or department. Second, ideas can be routed via email, memo, document, meeting, or any other method of conveying information. Additionally, Hardagon & Sutton (1999) suggest that idea-brokers route ideas to the relevant individuals. Hence, the act of routing could be a formal task assigned to a group of individuals. Interestingly, idea management software could also be programmed to automatically route ideas to particular individuals in a company. However, there is a benefit to having a personal idea-broker who knows your needs and present the most relevant ideas at appropriate times. As mentioned for diffusion, opinions and metrics can be used to manage the execution of routing.

3.4. Linking Idea Banks to Portfolio Management Similarly, idea banks and idea management can be linked to early portfolio management. Typically companies determine their current portfolio of projects by assessing the projects in the NPD process and commercialization process. Also they determine their options for projects, by assessing the projects in the FFE ready to move into the NPD process as shown by Figure 3.26.

191

Figure 3.26. How Portfolio Management Determines Options for New Projects

Interestingly, by assessing the ideas in the idea bank product portfolio managers can get an earlier understanding of options for their portfolio (Figure 3.27). As well, by analyzing the ideas in the idea bank, portfolio managers can get a better understanding of the weakness in their companys innovation processes. Finally, portfolio managers can also selectively force fuzzy front end processes to develop ideas particular for gaps in their portfolio.

Figure 3.27. How Assessment of Idea Banks can be Used by Portfolio Managers

192

Figure 3.28. Late FFE Activities Linking to Screening and Filtering

193

CHAPTER 4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

4.1. Purpose of Study The purpose of this study is to answer the research questions as follows. First, can the proposed control model aid in a conceptual understanding of idea generation and idea management and, second can this control model be supported as capturing the required factors needed to manage and control idea generation and idea management?

4.2. Limitations Effecting the Selection of the Type of Study Prior to discussing the study the factors limiting the study must be elaborated on. This will greatly help in the selection of the appropriate study type and methodology.

4.2.1. Lack of Metrics for Success in Idea Generation Unfortunately, the lack of understanding of successful outcomes for idea generation and idea management limits the number studies that can be perform to support the research questions. The recent article by Hsig & Kohn (2003), had to go to great efforts to develop a set of criteria which they could measure the success of front end activities. Unfortunately, neither idea generation nor idea management has any metrics defining successful outcomes. As mentioned in the previous chapter the output of the idea generation process can be generally measured in: 1) the quality of ideas, 2) the quantity of ideas, and 3) the attributes of ideas.

194

Unfortunately, one companys definition of successful idea generation can vary greatly from anothers, and often vary based on that companys needs and situation. This researchers primary research has show that Siemens Power Generation Division goals for idea generation are based on a quantity metric; whereas, design firms like IDEO considers quality of generated ideas as being most important (Kelley & Littman 2005). Finally, some companies consider creating ideas of a very specific set of attributes (financial potential, feasibility, required resources, and so on) as being a successful outcome of idea generation. Now, one way to test a control model is through the application of controls and the monitoring of outputs. If the given control produces the required successful output then the model is supported as useful. In a process, like manufacturing, where quality is the main output this is a relatively straight forward. However, for a process like idea generation where the outputs are so variable and dependent upon a huge variation of needs, testing the impact a control has on the output is tremendously more complicated, and may be to a large degree futile because of the large interdependency amongst the control variables. Hence, the standard approach of testing control variables against their outputs may help support this control model for a small set of instances, but will not provide the needed evidence to support it broadly as a means of controlling idea generation. As for idea management, the process is so poorly understood that besides not having models to describe its basic functions, there again is no metrics describing successful idea management. Hence, a similar argument can be made against doing causal studies to support specific control variables for idea management.

195

4.3. Study Type Which Will Not Be Used The goal of this section is to make a rational argument for the selection of the survey and interview based studies, by showing that the other optional studies are inadequate.

4.3.1. Observational Based Support Studies There are more limitations and downsides to conducting an observational study than benefits. Observational studies are not going to be chosen for this research because it: Is not economical and can be inefficient Will not allow the author to obtain a large enough sample size Requires extensive time to conduct

Additionally, because there are no particular behaviors which are trying to be uncovered, examined, or validated, there is little need for an observational study. Additionally, practitioners will accurately self-identify their current management practices through tools like interviews or surveys. As a result, verifying this via observations is redundant and inefficient.

4.3.2. Application Based Support Study Testing this model was excluded from the research options because to truly test a control model it must be applied in practice. This would require a company to use the model to control their idea generation activities. Several companies have expressed a willingness to implement this model; however, due to the time required to gather results it will not fit within This researchers expected graduation dates. Finally, application to a small set of companies will not provide the evidence needed to support this model across industries. For these reasons, an application based study will not appropriate.

196

4.3.3. Laboratory Testing Base Support Study Although, laboratory base tests are a common means to supporting a control model, the author does not feel it would provide the needed support for this study. First, practitioners will not see a laboratory reproduction of the idea generation process as being an accurate representation of idea generation in their companies, and often they scoff at laboratory studies. Again this is because of the large disconnection between the complex worlds of actual business and the idealized laboratory environment. Finally, it is extremely difficult to reproduce the specific and changing needs of a company, and the pre-set conditions of the business environment in a laboratory setting. For example, asking a group of random individuals in a lab to generate ideas for new cell phone technology will not accurately reflect a group of telecommunication engineers with years of design experience producing ideas in their own company environment. Hence for these reasons, laboratory tests will not be performed.

4.3.4. Analysis of Secondary Research Unfortunately, a secondary research study cannot be conducted because there is no existing quantitative data on companies idea generation processes, practices, or behaviors. Only, a few case studies on a companys idea generation process exist. Thus, the data must be generated through primary research.

4.3.5. Interview Based Support Interviews will be used to support this model, however due to the limitation in sample size they cannot be the only means of support. Additionally, interviews can give detailed case examples of how companies manage idea generation and idea management. However, interviewing requires substantial time and resources if done over a large sample. Thus, interviews can be used in this study but must be augmented with data from other supporting studies.

197

4.3.6. Electronic Survey Study A survey based study was chosen as the primary research design for this study. This research design is appropriate because: o o o It is economical and efficient Can capture a wide target population Can generate quantitative and qualitative data on practices, perceptions, and needs. There are several additional reasons why a survey was chosen as the primary study instrument. First, the survey will be able to determine the practices and satisfaction of the respondents with respect to idea generation and idea management processes over a large sample size. Second, a large set of data showing other companies best practices will be viewed a creditable and provide the supporting evidence needed to develop broad acceptance of this model. Third, surveying of practices, perceptions, and needs will show weaknesses in current practices which may need to be addressed. Hence, solid data on these weaknesses will help raise awareness of a problem area, and will aid in the adoption of new practices. Finally, by having the large pool of supporting evidence across several industries will help the board acceptance of this control model. None, the less surveying alone has weaknesses which are it: 1. Will not show if additional points of control can be used 2. Will not show if the model produces understanding 3. Will not show if the model accurately represent the idea generation process? To eliminate these weaknesses, this study will be combined with interviewing. In particular, additional missed points of control may be uncovered through interviewing with practitioners and researchers. Supporting evidence that this control model generates understanding can also be obtained through interviewing of a small sample. Finally, the weakness of accurate representation cannot be solved through this study, and must be addressed in future research.

198

4.4. Parts to the Study To strengthen the support evidence for the research questions this study has been split into two separate studies. 1. A series of case studies based on three very different companies 2. A normative and correlative study using an electronic survey with over thirty respondents

4.5. Study Part One The case studies consist of three companies with mature product development processes in different industries. First, the companys sponsors were asked to identify the top three individuals in the company responsible for or most knowledgeable about idea generation and idea management practices. These individuals were sent an online survey (see Appendix C) of which they collaboratively answered. The surveys answers were reviewed by This researcher and sets of questions were formulated for the individual interviews. Interview questions were based partially on areas of strength and weakness determined from the survey responses. Each of the respondents was interviewed for 1 hour, in which pre-determined questions were asked as well as follow-up questions. Other interview questions revolved around the following topics: A) Current company situation and strategy B) Market served by the company B) Current practices for idea generation and idea management, C) Current needs for the early front end of innovation D) Level of satisfaction with their current idea generation and idea management practices E) Detailed examples for use of each point of control. All information captured from the interviews and online surveys were analyzed and transformed into three case studies with recommendations for improvements. The information was analyzed with the help of this researchers proposed model.

199

As compensation for their participation the companies sponsors will receive the case studies and associated recommendations in a written report and is considered a pro-bono consulting job. Case study companies were selected from a pre-known batch of large mature companies which was already personally contacted, and selected to show diversity of size, situation, and industry.

4.6. Study Part Two

4.6.1. Description of Part Two The second part of this study was structured into three elements. First the study consisted of a (1) small number of interviewees, and then move to a (2) small pilot survey study, and then towards a (3) full survey study. This format is a variation on the total design study recommended by (Dillman, 1978). The interviews will be conducted for the following purposes: 1. Test to see if the control model develops understanding and satisfies the first research question. 2. Obtain case examples of points of control at specific companies. 3. Uncover points of control which should be included in the model, hence further developing the model. The interviews were first conducted with two expert researchers (Michael Menefee and Kenneth Kahn) who were shown the model, and asked about the overall setup of the questionnaire. The recommendations were integrated into the survey instrument. This helped refine the structure of the survey and reduce possible measurement errors.

200

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 surveys 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 surveys 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.coms front end of innovation group and product development group. These had very low completion rates.

4.6.2. Description of Survey Tool The survey tool will have three main parts: a) identification questions, b) satisfaction questions, and c) current practice questions. Identification questions will be: who they are, how much knowledge they have of their companies practices, the company they work for, industry, revenues, number of employees, and so on. This will help qualify the

201

respondents as a reputable source of data, and provide data to compare respondents and their companies. All published data will be de-identified from the companys and respondents names. Unfortunately, the best dependent variable which could be selected was the satisfaction based variable. Many research studies have shown satisfaction to have a strong correlation with output and results because respondents innately have a sense of what works and what does not and correlate their satisfaction respectively. Dependent quantitative variables such as number of ideas, revenues generated per ideas, number of ideas captured from the employees, number of ideas captured from outsides sources, average revenues per idea were noted in the case studies to vary greatly between industries and company size. Further, respondents accounts of these numbers were found to be totally un-reliable because they did not keep track of these numbers. Other dependent qualitative variables such as: quality of ideas generated quality of ideas captured from employees, and quality of ideas in the idea bank, were found to be highly objective and mostly unknown amongst interviewees of the case studies, and hence were deemed totally un-reliable. Unfortunately, amongst all the reviewed literature no articles were noted to measure output of the idea generation or the idea management process, or even link idea generation to development output such as: revenues, or new product releases. Consequently, there were no dependent variables to build upon. Only one article was found to have a correlation linking idea generation to marketing information (Husig, Kohn, & Poskela, 2005). Due to these problems, the only logical and halfway reliable dependent variable was that of satisfaction. The respondents level of satisfaction was split up with respect to the outcomes of their companies, a) idea generation processes, b) idea management processes, and c) development process. This allowed one to draw valuable correlations between levels of satisfaction and actual practices.

202

Questions regarding current practices looked for points of control which are currently in use in their business. This will develop the needed support for each control point mentioned in the model. More interestingly, this will give a general understanding of how much control is placed on a particular activity. Current practice questions were broken up into amount, and frequencies and all used a five-point Likert scale (never, rarely, some-times, most-of-the-time, always, dont know, NA). The survey can be seen in Appendix C.

4.6.3. Description of the Respondent Pool RYMA solution community consisted of 50,000 members of which 90% product development managers from companies all over the world. On average, 100 members read the blog daily, and over 150 members on average attend their web seminars.

4.6.4. Data Analysis This survey tool output all responses in an excel file format. Exported data from the survey was automatically organized by the survey tool by respondent. The analysis of the data was rather straight forward, and required comparing data by respondent companies, industries, satisfaction, and so on. Graphs were created showing results of the data, and all data were de-identified from the respondent companies. Comparison and correlations were drawn, and examined to determine statistical significances. Normative data, graphs, and charts were created showing the current practices and methods controlling the idea generation and idea management process. Finally, this research shows the practices most associated with satisfactory outcomes for idea management and idea generation. The resulting data gave a strong base for future researchers to attack and make great strides in idea generation and idea management.

203

4.7. Human Subjects For the purposes of this research, human subjects approval was sought and obtained prior to the studys commencements, as required by the Purdue University, and consistent with current research standards. The studys reference number is 0808007117.

204

CHAPTER 5. RESEARCH RESULTS

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.

5.1. Summary of Case Study Results These three case studies show distinctly different companies and their respective idea generation and idea management processes. These companies provided an adequate diversity, with the first company being a multinational large cap company with products in every geographic market. The second being a small cap company with products mainly in the US, and the third being a small company marketing a new software technology to a pre-adoption marketplace.

205

Table 5.1. Attributes of the Three Companies

Company Name Company size Employees Revenues Product area Market Age
Business Model Situation Major Recommendation

Alpha Company Large Cap 125,000 $5 billion + Consumer Food products Highly Mature Sells products to food retail chains Lack of capturing ideas from outside sources

Fairbank's Scales Mid cap 500 $100 mill + Scales - machinery Highly Mature Product manufacturer Need disruptive ideas Broader perspective of their business

Cartgraph Small 80 $30 to $50 mil Software management Pre-adoption Subscription based business model Needs help crossing chasm Have idea generation create ideas to help cross the chasm

Reorganization of process

5.1.1. Benefits of the Case Studies There was a great benefit to conducting these detailed case studies. First, the detailed analysis allowed this researcher to probe deeper into the situation than the simple online survey would have allowed. This probing uncovered company situation and market age played a large role in all case studies. Further, the case studies uncovered motivations and underlining issues which would not have been picked up by the survey. Simply put the detailed analysis through interviewing allowed for much more detailed analysis and a rich learning opportunity.

5.1.2. Analysis of the Company To aid in this analysis, company Alphas idea generation and idea management practices were compared to this researchers idealized (Glassman Model) idea management model. It was found that these comparisons allow the author to quickly identify areas of weakness & strength and in detail and see how the minor differences in their practices affected the overall process.

206

5.1.3. Brief Summary of Each Case Study In order to highlight the lessons learned, each case study will be summarized and its associated lessons will be briefly discussed. Again, each detailed case study is listed in the following section. Please note that each case study contain recommendations made to the companys sponsor which are interwoven into body of each study. As mentioned previously, all companies were analyzed with the assistance of the Glassman model.

5.1.3.1. Summary of Company Alpha Company Alpha (de-identified) presented an interesting case of a large multinational with multiple dedicated research facilities. This case study focused only on one of their research facilities located in Europe which concentrated on developing food products: hot drinks, chocolates, coffees and employed 500 researchers. This R&D center had a 2007 $110 million R&D budget. This research center had great difficulties in capturing, storing, and diffusing ideas generated by their large number of employees. Unfortunately, researchers did not use the idea management software offered by the company because it was cumbersome and lacked major features. The main lesson learned here was that an effective idea management software system is needed for idea management inside of large companies which handle large number of ideas. Second, the company only practiced a limited range of idea generation activities and did not conduct any more beneficial idea generation activities involving customer research. This major error was found to limit the number and quality of the generated ideas. Third, the company did not capture or accept ideas from outside sources being: partners, suppliers, customers, inventors, or universities. Because of the size and visibility of the company they could easily receive many dozens of ideas per day. Not the having means to capture ideas from these sources was an error.

207

5.1.3.2. Summary of Fairbanks Scales Fairbanks Scales is a small capitalization company with revenues around $100 million, and 500 employees, of which only 16 are involved in R&D. Fairbanks Scales strictly produces scales and weighting equipment. Interestingly, their strict adherence to the scale concept seemed to have stalled their idea generation process. Their multiple markets for scale products are highly mature and attempts by Fairbanks to generate scale ideas for these very saturated markets resulted in fruitless ends. As a result, Fairbanks Scales rely interiorly on capturing ideas from a multitude of sources: partners, lead users, customers, suppliers, universities, and on. To avoid stalling the idea generation process, this researcher recommended (based on Levitts Marketing Myopia article) that they broaden their strategic view to being in the business of providing assurance and information on any physical attributed instead of being in the business of making scales. In addition, this research recommended that they look at the whole job process of their customers so they can generate product ideas which integrate other functions and functionalities in addition to weighing. For example, a potato chip bagger can also integrate a scale into one machine to assure the proper product weight. Associated idea generation activities were recommended based on this larger strategic view and they should bring about many fruitful ideas.

5.1.3.3. Summary of CartGraph CartGraph is the smallest company studied at $50 million in revenues and 100 employees and produces software management tools for local governments to manage maintenance on items like: roads, streetlights, sewage pipes, and so on. Interestingly, only 1% of local governments use software to aid in managing their infrastructure, hence this technology can be considered a pre-adoption market. Given the pre-adoption status of their market and that the bulk of their future profits lie in the mass market adoption of this technology, this researcher thought

208

it best if the idea generation activities focused exclusively on creating ideas which specifically helped the mass market in adopting this technology. As well, this researcher highly recommended integrating crossing the chasm strategy by Moore into the strategy and development decision processes of the company (Moore, 2003). CartGraphs idea management process was very haphazard and many recommendations were made for improvement. In all, it was interesting to see how important it was to tie idea generation into the larger company strategy.

5.2. Case Study 1: Company Alpha

5.2.1. Background on the Company Company Alpha (cover name) is a large company with consumer food products in every major geographic market. Company Alphas R&D divisions are spread out into individual R&D centers around the world. Because of the R&D center approach, innovation efforts are decentralized which allow the company to specialize in particular markets/country preferences. This study concentrated only on one R&D center located in Europe, employing more than 250 workers and with a R&D budget larger than 50 million.

5.2.2. Sources of Ideas for Idea Generation Company Alpha always uses employees in idea generation activities. Unfortunately, customers, universities, suppliers, independent inventors, & partners are rarely asked to participate in these activities, and it is strongly thought that efforts should be made to include these groups. It is thought that the companys use of social awards is a very weak way of incentivizing employees to participate in idea generation activities, aside from the activities which require participation. Handing out strong incentives like larger

209

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.

5.2.3. Events and Activities Used to Generate Ideas Employees are the main group that participates in Company Alphas idea generation events, which mainly entail a short half day brainstorming session. Unfortunately, more effective idea generation activities like: contextual / ethnographic research, lead user innovation, portfolio analysis, and blue ocean strategies were not mentioned to be used. There is clearly a very strong need for idea generation activities which generate ideas from a depth of consumer understanding, like contextual / ethnographic research. It was also found that company Alpha has no or very few customers participating in idea generation activities; hence, there is a very strong need for customers to participate in idea generation. Interviewees mentioned in-house customer focus groups are used; however, research has shown that these are not as effective in extracting ideas from customers as other activities, and in many cases merely extract opinions and preferences. More valuable ideas and opportunity areas can be uncovered by holding sponsored events like idea competitions (Pillsburys bake-off), idea fairs (recipe fairs), and ethnographic / contextual research studies. This researcher strongly feels that money should be put into sponsoring, hosting, promoting, and incentivizing these events with awards and prize money. This has been shown to be effective in generating new ideas in the food products category, as well as, has helped increasing consumer loyalty (Stach, Lonsdale, & La Venka, 1992).

210

Intellectual property concerns should not be a factor for these public events, mainly because patents are a weak form of protection in the food industry. Also the benefits of finding new opportunity areas, like finding a need for longer-keeping ice-cream, are much greater than the IP risks. In-house competition and idea fairs use only employees are a great way for the company to build their expertise in holding these events. As well, in-house competitions can be conducted for a minor cost and does not have the intellectual property issues or liability issues of a public event. During the brainstorming sessions the company seemed to offer participants adequate resources; such as, samples from the competition, competitors TV commercials, magazine ads, paper, pencils, whiteboard space, and food to eat as snacks which seems to provide a substantial incentive to participate. Without too much more effort the company could use more effective idea generation activities like: 6-3-5, visualization experiments, scenario activities, experimentation activities, during the time used for the traditional brainstorming session. Additionally, any customer site visits should be combined with idea generation activities so more value can be extracted from the visit. Interestingly, employees usually did not scan the idea database prior to attending idea generation activities. This leads this researcher to believe there is a need for more idea seeding activities taking place prior to the idea generation activities. Hence this researcher would recommend employees perform some of the following activities prior to participating in an idea generation session: scanning the idea database, reviewing new competitor ideas/products, attending conferences (if possible), review trends affecting the food industry or the consumers food preferences, review market research reports. Other seeding activities like food fairs where employees show off new food ideas in a close internal forum (say once every 6 months) are a fun, effective, & low cost way to seed ideas across the research centers employee base (Hardagon & Sutton, 2000).

211

5.2.4. Screening Ideas upon First Submission Screening of ideas usually is applied correctly at Company Alpha, with ideas being submitted to team leaders or project directors and then screened using a strategic screen before being entered into the idea database. The decision results of the screen are a) yes store idea, b) hold idea, & c) reject idea, and usually are performed by the employees team leaders. The innovation support officer mentioned that some ideas may be rejected for technology feasibility reasons, this is a mistake First because the first screen is strategic not technical, and Second because the technically infeasible ideas may become feasible in the near future or are unknowingly feasible, and should be stored in the idea database and used as seeding ideas. Proctor & Gamble showed that many good ideas should not be limited by technical feasibility, for example they had the idea of printing words and funny phrases on potato chips but no clear way of doing so. After soliciting their solution network it was found that a company in Italy had the technology to make this idea technically feasible. If the first screen was a technical screen, this valuable idea would have been lost. Hence, ideas which are technically infeasible but strategically appropriate can be accepted, but it is recommended that they be tagged and stored in the idea database as technically infeasible this way the can be revisited or researched further in the future, as well as be used as a seeding idea in other idea generation activities.

5.2.5. Capturing Ideas from Internal and External Sources There are several major issues associated with capturing ideas and formally placing them in the idea database which are severely limiting this activities effectiveness, being: (1) energy required to capture an idea, (2) the lack of functionality of the idea management software, and (3) the limitations in feedback associated with submitting an idea.

212

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. Accolades 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.

5.2.6. Sources Tapped for Ideas Currently company Alpha is only capturing ideas from employees and is unfortunately not receiving ideas from consumers, suppliers, partners, universities, or independent inventors. Great efforts should be made to capture ideas from consumers; however for this to occur, a large deal of companywide decision making must take place. Consumers must be aware that company Alpha is open to ideas, and for this to occur the companys websites, product packaging, customer service representatives, and sales people must have mechanisms & processes to solicit and capture ideas. Because of the difficulties associated with capturing ideas from all consumers, it is recommended that company Alpha focus first on lead consumer and thus approaches and solicits specialist clubs or groups for ideas, like a chocolates cooking group which are pushing the boundaries of their craft (Von Hippel, Tomke, & Sonnack, 1999). Partners and suppliers are deemed much easier to solicit and capture ideas from since they can be made to contact one person; however, they must be properly incentivized. A generic licensing or royalty agreement should be enough to entice patentable products, and an idea submission bonus should be put in place for submission of justified opportunity areas. One noted method of gathering ideas from a partner or supplier is to describe a problem area or particular problem and request the partner to submit ideas. This was shown to be effective in P&Gs open innovation network (Von Hippel, Tomke, & Sonnack, 1999).

214

Interestingly, company Alpha has a detailed competitive intelligence process which notes their competitors newest products; however, these product ideas and opportunities areas are not being placed into the idea database. Company Alpha noted intellectual property is a concern when accepting ideas from outside sources. However, the IP process should be made to check on the IP concerns for submitted ideas not limit the ability of the company to accept ideas from outside sources. They have demonstrated limited IP risk in their open innovation practices by restructuring their IP process to check IP concerns throughout the process not to mitigate risks upfront as would be the case in most companies. This goes back to the old adage lawyers are not there to make business decision.

5.2.7. Tagging Ideas during Capture The company is properly tagging ideas by recording upon capture who created them, when they were created, and who else participated in their creation; however, they are not capturing what activities lead to the ideas creation. This is valuable because as more advance idea generation activities are used, the ability to track which activities generate a particular idea will be very valuable in selecting future idea generation activities and recording ROI for a particular idea generation activity.

5.2.8. Storing and Categorizing Ideas Currently, the idea management software Accolade is not allowing for effective storing and categorizing of ideas. Ideas should be stored with pictures and other media as mentioned. As well, categorizing of ideas is in-adequate. Ideas are currently categorized by product category, exploratory, & technical. But this researcher recommended that they should also be categorize by, date, batch number, associated submitters, detailed source (consumer, partner, supplier, employee), opportunity area, reviewed or not-reviewed, technical feasibility, and

215

developed or not-developed. More categories help employees in quickly reviewing ideas prior to participating in future idea generation activities, and help the innovation directors to see where the gaps are in the idea database.

5.2.9. Process Check Used to Improve the Idea Generation Process Luckily this companys research center has at least three individuals dedicated to refining and improving the idea generation and idea management process. The interviewees were mentioned to sometimes review the process based on the outputted ideas. Ideally the open innovation director should review ideas submitted during a period of time to see if the past changes had the desired effect and if the idea generation activities are having a positive ROI. These reviews would be best made every 4 or 6 months.

5.2.10. Diffusing Ideas to Employees inside the Company Again there are two reasons for diffusing ideas being: (1) to get ideas to turn into new product development projects, and (2) to use the ideas to seed employees brains so they are more able to generate new ideas. At Company Alpha, much work needs to be done in diffusing idea to employees. Sought diffusion (allowing employee to freely scan the idea database) is mentioned by interviewee not be effective since very few access the database. Employees in particular groups like chocolates or hot beverages should be made aware of newly submitted ideas in their area via forced diffusion. Force diffusion can be performed by email notification of best ideas every week or month, or newly submitted ideas can be diffused to employees in batches a mandatory bi-weekly meeting. Further, a culture should be developed where ideas are sought from internal and external sources and discuss frequently, the best way to start this is to force lots of ideas on employees till they get used to discussing ideas on a regular bases. The fifteen individuals responsible for receiving ideas in this research center should be also responsible for distributing these idea emails or

216

idea memos to respective employees. Routing of ideas is being performed correctly by the idea coordinator and seems to be the only way which ideas are currently being distributed.

5.2.11. Comparison with Measures of Satisfaction The satisfaction variables in the survey were compared across the three interviewees and it was found that their opinions differed. The minor differences were mainly due to the responsibility areas of the interviewee and knowledge in that area, for example the open innovation officer was dissatisfied with their ability to capture ideas from outside the company, whereas, the idea coordinator had a neutral opinion on this matter. The results for the satisfaction variables are shown in tables 5.2 and 5.3 below. Note number 1, 2, 3, are the number of interviews which responded at that particular level of satisfaction for the given question. Table 5.2. Idea Generation Satisfaction Variable Results for Alpha
Satisfaction Variables Very Dissatisfied 1. Quality of ideas 2. Number of ideas 3. Generating idea with a specific set of attributes 4. Time for generating ideas 5. Ability to fill frontend portfolio 6. Overall idea generation process 3 2 1 3 1 1 3 2 2 Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied

Interestingly, overall satisfaction with the idea generation process (being dissatisfied) was much lower than the dependent satisfaction factors mentioned above. This initially led the author to believe the first five factors are not substantial factors in determining overall satisfaction.

217

Table 5.3. Idea Management Satisfaction Results Variables for Alpha

Satisfaction Variables Very Dissatisfied 7. Capturing ideas from employees 8. Capturing ideas from outside sources 9. Storing & capturing ideas 10. Amount, quality, & type of ideas 11. Ability to distribute and route ideas 12. Ability of ideas bank to fill frontend portfolio 3 3 3 3 3 3 Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied

Interestingly, interviewees seem dissatisfied with three out of the five activities in the idea management process. This researcher hypothesizes that the interviewees satisfaction with the overall idea generation process is taking into account factors which are associated with idea management. Since both idea generation and idea management are very new areas of research with very new terminology, it is reasonable to suppose that the interviewees consider idea generation to include the factors 1 to 5 & 7 to 12. Hence, one can hypothesize that above satisfaction factors can, in sum, correlate to overall satisfaction with idea generation.

5.2.12. Late Front End Activities at Company Alpha Through out the interviews, additional insights were gain into Company Alpha Late Front End activities which are note worthy. Interviewees noted that after an idea is captured and screened, the ideas are usually rushed to a second screen. This researcher feels this is an error, because the ideas need time to be developed before being placed in the second screen. Coopers Stage gate process demonstrates this well. By looking at the Figure 2.9 and Appendix B one

218

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.

5.2.13. Recommendations for Late Front End Activities To avoid ideas from being rushed into a second screen, this researcher recommends some initial work be performed on raw ideas to turn them into more refined concepts. This can be done by assigning a batch of ideas to a group of researcher and requesting that 2 to 3 concept ideas be developed, regardless of the quality of the ideas in the batch. This will force researchers to be more creative and seek out better ideas from the idea database if their batch is full of poor ideas.

5.3. Case Study 2: Fairbanks Scales

5.3.1. Background on the Company Fairbanks Scales was established more than 150+ years ago has 500 employees and creates scales of all types. Their scales range from small doctors scales all the way to large truck scales, and they have 5000 product model variations and over 100 scale product lines with all product lines being strictly scales or weighting equipment. The company has a typical centralized organizational structure, with sales, service, manufacturing, development, and admin/finance departments all located at the US headquarters. The development department has 16 engineers with 10 of those individuals involved in R&D, and a R&D budget of less than $2 million.

219

Fairbanks Scales has a manufacture/sales business model and generates additional revenues via servicing scales and 2007 revenues were $100 million +. Technical details of their products will not be discussed because they were not found to be relevant to the analysis of Fairbanks Scales innovation process. The VP of development stated that Fairbanks Scales, as well as, the rest of the scale industry has been waiting for the next major development in scales, and consequently they have been actively looking for the next disruptive technology, product, or major market application. Evidently, the scale markets are extremely mature. Case study evidence and market theory shows that extreme segmentation only occurs in highly mature markets. Evidence of market maturity is Fairbanks Scales highly segmented product portfolio and the general age of the product markets many of which are more than 50 years old.

5.3.2. Overall Situation & Broader Strategic View Prior to discussing the details of the idea generation and idea management process this researcher would like to discuss a larger and more urgent issue which affects the greater innovation process at Fairbanks Scales. This section is of interest to the CEO and board because it suggests a broader view of the companys strategy. Research on Fairbanks Scales current markets and offerings and interviews with the VP of engineering/development and director of development have lead this researcher to question if Fairbanks Scales narrow view of scales as their core business will provide them with the required future growth? Aside from entering new major geographic markets like Asia, or South America, growth will come mostly from developing new products for their currently served geographic markets. As the VP of engineering/development put it we are looking for the next big thing.

220

This researchers 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 1800s and early 1900s 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 companys 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 customers 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 Levitts 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 Levitts 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

5.3.3. Adopting a Broader View of Their Core Business As for (a), Fairbanks should understand that they are not in the business of providing scales but actually in the business of providing assurance and information on a physical item. Again people dont buy drills; they are buying the ability to make a hole. Following this logic, Fairbanks has been providing information and assurance on weight for a multitude of physical items for more than a century through their scales. Remember weight is only one physical metric of an item which a customer may want information or assurance on. Here is a list of other aspects of a physical item: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Number of items Volume Dimensions Density Hardness Color 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Odors Temperature Pressure Orientation Integrity Item information (serial #)

222 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.

Figure 5.1. Vertical Packaging Machine with Integrated Scales

223 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 cattles 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 cows ear tag could be scanned by the computerized scales by a simple RFID chip embedded in the cows ear tag or bar code printed on the ear tag. The scales memory would then pull up the cows 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.

5.3.5. Idea Generation It was found that Fairbank Scales did not have a process for, or conduct any activities for idea generation. More specifically, they did not hold idea generation activities, host idea generation events, or select individuals to generate ideas. This finding was confirmed among both interviewees, where one interviewee mentioned we conducted several brainstorming activities and found that they

224 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.

5.3.6. Recommendations for Idea Generation Again, it is recommended that Fairbanks Scales take a broader view of their business so they can venture into related products and grow successfully. Their narrow view of producing just scales has stalled all idea generation activities, and it strongly felt that shifting perspectives, as elaborated on, will reinvigorate the companys idea generation process and produce worthwhile new product ideas. To do this, the new perspectives must be discussed and infused within the larger company, being sales, service, engineering, and development. As well, the intent for these new perspectives must also be discussed. Next the management inside of Fairbanks Scales namely the VP of engineering and development and the product development director must familiarize themselves with the recommendations for the idea generation process, namely because they will be the parties managing and conducting this process.

225 To generate ideas, Fairbanks Scales should use formal idea generation events where a set of employees are assigned and required to generate ideas, obviously the most observant and creative employees are preferable for these activities. The exact mix and number of employees is based upon the selected idea generation activities. The VP of development/engineering desires large revenue ideas, which can be classified as A) disruptive ideas or B) new opportunity areas. Strictly speaking disruptive products are those which are set to supersede a preceding product and utilize some major shift in function, technology, or use. For example, flat screen TVs were a disruptive product when compared to tube televisions. A new major opportunity area maybe a new application for a product like integrating scales into medical beds or GPS for cars, where previously no product or technology was filling the need. One should note that the idea generation activities used to generate disruptive or new major opportunity areas are much different than the activities used to generate incremental product ideas. Hence, this researcher is recommending idea generation activities which will primarily generate disruptive ideas or new opportunity areas. Table 5.4 shows a list of idea generation activities which fill the prior mentioned goals, remember each activity requires a moderator or director who is trained (self-training possible) on how to properly conduct that activity. Further, the company should not spare budget on particular idea generation activities, for this will greatly affect their output. Note that idea generation techniques are used inside of idea generation activities. For example, a scenario games can be used to augment a brainstorming activity; whereas, problem inventory analysis is a 1 hour long activity in itself. As well, the list above shows several idea generation activities, and the cost and time associated with each activity will vary based on that activity. It is recommended that at least 3 to 5 activities (with one of them being a large budget activity) be conducted per month till a sufficient number of new ideas and

226 opportunity areas are discovered. Remember an opportunity area only highlights a particular customer need, and that further idea generation activities should be used to generate specific new product ideas which can capitalize on that opportunity. As a result, many more than three activities should be conducted per month if a valuable new opportunity area is discovered.

Table 5.4. Recommended Idea Generation Techniques and Activities

Idea Generation Techniques
Experimentation Charting and plotting Measure, tests, validate, via physical, virtual, or thought experimentation with the goal of confirming a hypothesis or gathering data Helps visualize unknown or un-seen relationships Use this technique in problem inventory analysis

Scenario games Adaption Reduction Elimination Raise or increase Division of parts Perspective shifts Removing boundaries Detailed observation

Create scenarios and play them out to their logical end Adapting a solution, offering, or process to suit a companies need by modifying it as needed Reducing the amount, functionality, or features of a particular thing Eliminating a particular, feature, attribute Increasing a particular feature, attribute or factor above the norm Breaking up the whole into smaller and smaller features, functions, or pieces Using a perspective or view to aid in generating new ideas Removing boundaries, and retesting base assumptions, do not assume restriction unless strictly told Looking closely at something, trying to understand every facet, function, and behavior Creating ideas in open discussion, (typically many techniques are applied) See appendix B IDEO Idea Generation Process see appendix A See the article the customer centered Innovation map on page 1 Brainstorming using techniques above and using the two (2) suggested views on page 3 & 4 A collected group of individuals (customers) focused on giving feedback on a particular product, service, or process Generating a list of negatives or problems with an offering, product, or process, and then finding solutions to eliminate those negatives Graphically representing activities their duration and fining gaps and problems with their flow Use hybrid using each one of the above techniques

Idea Generation Activities

Brainstorming Contextual research IDEO process Job Mapping HybridBrainstorming Customer Focus groups Problem Inventory Analysis Critical path mapping

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.

5.3.7. Screening of Ideas Screening of ideas created from formal idea generation activities should be done differently than ideas which are captured from internal and external sources. Ideas created as a result of a formal activity should be submitted to one individual inside the company, where a high level strategic and capability screen is applied. For example, a contextual research activity may generate an idea for integrating a dimension monitor into a production line weighing system, in which case it would pass a strategic screen and a company capability screen. Note that a feasibility screen was not applied. Screening of ideas captured from internal and external sources should be also done by one individual inside the company, but instead a capability screen should be applied. One goal of capturing outside ideas is to identify new opportunity areas, and using a strategic, or feasibility screen may inadvertently throw away a valuable opportunity area. As well, there is little harm in storing poor ideas, and turning down poor or low quality ideas submitted by employees too promptly will make them less likely to submit ideas in the future. For example, an employee may relay that a

228 customer wants a very cheap scale for cooking. This may highlight a larger opportunity which is integrating scales into kitchen appliances like microwaves.

5.3.8. Capturing Ideas from Internal and External Sources Fairbanks Scales strength is capturing ideas from any source possible. The survey shows that Fairbanks Scales always captures ideas from: employees, customers, universities, external research labs, suppliers, consultants, partners/alliances, in-direct competitors, independent inventors, & media magazines by phone, email, in-person, or through the idea management software. As well they monitor direct competitors for new product releases. The large number of sources which they capture ideas from was confirmed to be the result of a (1) strong need to obtain ideas for new applications, (2) the lacking of an idea generation process, and (3) the lack of any one source providing an adequate number of ideas. One recommendation for improvement may be to further incentivize the sources so that they can submit more ideas. This can be done with small royalty agreements or bonuses to the submitters think of it as incentivizing someone who refers you a customer. Additionally, the solutions group should advertise that they can assist in developing ideas in-order to obtain more submissions.

5.3.9. Tagging Ideas during Capture The company is tagging ideas by always recording upon capture who created them, however, they sometimes record when the ideas were created, who else participated in their creation, and what activities lead to the ideas creation. Always recording this information is valuable because as more advance idea generation activities are used, the ability to track which activities generated a particular idea will be useful in selecting future idea generation activities and recording ROI for a particular idea generation activity.

229 5.3.10. Storage and Categorization Fairbanks Scales refers to their idea database as an Idea vault and has a mix of formal (software) and informal means (computer documents) for storing ideas. Their idea management software is called quick base and can store images, documents, and text. An interviewee noted that metrics and categories can be added to help store and evaluate ideas. This researcher recommended that Fairbanks Scales categorize ideas by: date, batch number, associated submitters, detailed source (consumer, partner, supplier, employee, ), opportunity area, reviewed or not-reviewed, technical feasibility, developed or not-developed, and finally idea driver (technology, market, customer, solution driven). More categories help employees in quickly reviewing ideas prior to participating in future idea generation activities, and help the innovation directors see where the gaps are in the idea database. Finally, idea should be stored all in one place, the idea management software or a document, not both.

5.3.11. Process Check Used to Improve the Idea Generation Process Fairbanks Scales sometimes performs process checks on ideas and refines the idea generation process as a result of these checks. Because all ideas will be captured and screened by one individual (being idea manager) the act of performing a process check becomes much simpler. By keeping a tally of the results of each idea generation activity the idea manager can quickly discern which activities are working and which are not, and modify the activities accordingly.

5.3.12. Diffusing Ideas to Employees inside the Company There are two reasons for diffusing ideas across the company: (1) to seed employees with ideas so they can generate more ideas, and (2) to have an idea developed and converted into a new product.

230 Diffusing ideas across the companys 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 companys 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.

5.3.13. Late Front End Activities The VP of development/engineering has requested that other parts of the early innovation process be examined and the following section is a result of that examination. This researcher has determined that three major items should be improved in the early innovation process (late front end of innovation being:

231 1. Two separate processes should be created, where one should be used to a) select, develop, and appropriate funds to new product ideas which are exploring new opportunity areas, and the other should be used to 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 Koens 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. Interestingly, Clayton Christenson highlights that larger companys process of selecting and prioritizing new product projects inadvertently prefer low risk and high return projects, and mostly reject projects which are seeking to explore new application areas which usually have unknown risk levels and unknown returns (Christenson, 2003). Hence, as Koen recommends there should be two different new product development processes one for exploring new applications (like drilling for new oil fields) and one for exploiting a proven area (like adding extra rigs to a proven oil field). Both processes should include a means of A) evaluating, B) selecting, & C) prioritizing projects for new products; however, the exploratory process should be pushed toward rapid exploration and testing and not worry as much about return on investment. For example, consider a new product which can measure the density and weight of a food item on a production line at the same. This new product idea would be an exploratory idea because it combines a new feature unknown to the company. In evaluating this new product idea traditional metrics like ROI and

232 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.

5.3.14. Skunk Works Team To insure the exploratory process is absorbed into the organization a group called the skunk works team should be responsible for executing ideas entered into this process. This group should include two or three engineers, two or three sales/marketing, and service employees. Individuals selected for this group should be those which fundamentally love new products, talk about new products, and are creative and observant. These individuals should be incentivized with large bonuses (more than 10K for product successes), and several of these members should participate in any idea generation activities especially customer visits. Further, these individuals if properly motivated will push exploratory products through an often resistant organization, and quickly, test, evaluate, experiment on, and iterate on these new product ideas. Remember, departments like sales are often not motivated to sell a new and unproven small revenue

233 product. Hence having a skunk works team pushing new exploratory products through development, sales, and manufacturing will greatly help in exploratory product successes.

5.3.15. Comparison with Measures of Satisfaction The satisfaction variables in the survey were compared across the two interviewees and it was found that their opinions were exactly similar. The interviewees were very dissatisfied with the quality of their ideas because they were primarily searching for large opportunities and were receiving incremental ideas. This would relate to why they were dissatisfied with their ability to fill the frontend portfolio as well.

Table 5.5. Idea Generation Satisfaction Variable Results for Fairbanks

Satisfaction Variables Very Dissatisfied 1. Quality of ideas 2. Number of ideas 3. Generating idea with a specific set of attributes 4. Time for generating ideas 5. Ability to fill the frontend portfolio 6. Overall idea generation process 2 2 2 2 2 2 Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied

The inconsistency in their satisfaction in being able to generate ideas with specific set of attributes, is strange and was attributed to a miss understanding of the question as noted during interviewing. Overall, dissatisfaction with the idea generation process seems to correlate well to the depended variables 1 to 5.

234

Table 5.6. Idea Management Satisfaction Results Variables for Fairbanks

Satisfaction Variables Very Dissatisfied 7. Capturing ideas from employees 8. Capturing ideas from outside sources 9. Storing & capturing ideas 10. Amount, quality, & type of ideas 2 2 2 Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied 2

11. Ability to distribute and routing idea 12. Ability of ideas bank to fill frontend portfolio

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 5.4. Case Study 3: CartGraph

5.4.1. Background on the Company CartGraph has around 100 employees and produces management software which allows public governments (towns, cities, & counties) to managed things like: public signs, streets, street lights, road markings, bridges, storm sewers, waste sewers, water distribution, and public lighting. They were founded less than 12 years ago, and are currently one of four major software producers for this market. The combined customer based for local government asset management software is small, at less than 1% of US local government entities, and thus can be considered to be in a pre-chasm market (Moore, 2006; G. Moore, 2004). The company is split into sales, service, marketing, product development, and finance/admin with 30 employees roughly in development. CartGraph generates money via the subscription based business model, and needs only a few customers to justify the ROI for investing in a new product. Development times take any where from one month to seven months per product line extension. Currently, 90% of product in their pipeline are: feature ideas (1000+), and 2% being product line extensions, and another 8% being new product lines. Technical details of their products will not be discussed because they were not found to be relevant to the analysis of their innovation process.

5.4.2. Idea Generation It was found that CartGraph did not have a process for, or conduct any activities for idea generation. More specifically, they did not hold idea generation activities, host idea generation events, or select individuals to generate ideas. This finding was confirmed amongst all four interviewees. One interviewee noted that management were unclear how to conduct an idea generation activity, and all interviewees noted that their company captured enough ideas from customers, or customer service. Preliminarily, this researcher

236 supposes that companies which capture adequate ideas through their idea management process do not see a need for conducting an idea generation process.

5.4.3. Technology Adoption Obviously, not having an idea generation process is an error; hence this researcher will recommend the following structure for the idea generation process. First, the officers of the company should note that the bulk of their future revenues will not come from releasing new products to their current customer base (which is 1% of total market size), but will come from expanding their customer based to new adopters of this technology. For the company to effectively encourage the adoption of their new technology across the broader local government market (i.e cross the chasm) they must integrate future product releases in closely with mid-&-long term strategies targeted at crossing the chasm. For example, the personal accounting software market was taken across the chasm by Inuit softwares. This was done by making the current accounting softwares, which were very complex, difficult to use, and feature rich, to a more simple, easier to use software with fewer features, and more elaborate help guides. Inuit realized that for mass adoption to occur these changes had to be made, and hence they adapted their idea generation process to output new features, new products, and new product lines, which targeted the major factors which they believed were required to cross the chasm. Again, because Inuit was first to cross the chasm and effectively launch into the tornado (which triggered mass adoption of their technology market) they became the market share leaders and captured the lion share of revenues. Moore again showed that the company first to market does necessarily win; it is the company that gains market leadership during mass adoption (i.e. wins the tornado) that wins market leadership in the long run (G. Moore, 2004).

237 CartGraph is in a similar position; interviewees noted they were in a prechasm market (mass adoption has not occurred). Unfortunately, interviewees were not aware of the major factors required to cross the chasm nor did they have any market research to suggest what factors were required. One interviewee took a guess that one factor was ease of installation and maintenance because the current customers mentioned that installing and maintaining servers was a very tedious process. Thus, this researcher recommends that CartGraph conduct a formal research study, contacting prospective customers (pragmatic and conservative customers not current customers) which have not adapted this technology yet, and determine which major factors are needed for these customers to seriously consider adopting this technology. For example, contacting 20 pragmatic and 20 conservative customers may reveal that the major factors required to adopt this software is: 1) no installation requirements, 2) no new personnel requirements, 3) and up and running in less than 2 weeks with training and support. These factors should then be converted to measurable metrics which new products can be compared to. For example installation times should be measured in hours and compared to the uncovered metric for adoption which was noted by customers to be around 4 hours (half day installation). Given this, CartGraph should push a large percentage of its offerings (say 30% of their product portfolio) toward meeting factors required to cross the chasm. To achieve this, idea generation activities must be run to identify new features, new products, and new product lines which can meet these factors. Then after the company can confirm that one or two product lines have the major factors required to force adoption, they should launch a large marketing campaign targeted at forcing adoption for these product lines as described in Moore (2006), G. Moore (2004).

238 5.4.4. Types of Idea Generation Activities Ideally, a small part of the idea generation activities should be put toward generating new ideas for the current customer base; while the bulk of the activities should be dedicated toward generating ideas toward meeting the factors needed to cross the chasm. This requires the idea generation activities to be more problem solving based and use normative creativity patterns. Idea generation activities should be held once to three times a week, at least 1 hour long each, and reduce in frequency when a sufficient set of solution ideas are obtained. Creative employees from marketing, sales, engineering, and support and some customer groups should be required to participate in idea generation activities, at least 10 creative employees per department. Incentives such as reduced future or free subscriptions should be given to prospective pragmatic customers for their participation. This researcher has recommended a long list activities and techniques which should be conducted to provide new features, new products, or new product lines which meet the factors required to cross the chasm. See the list of recommended idea generation activities and techniques below. Note techniques are used inside of activities, for example a scenario game can be used to augment a brainstorming activity; whereas, problem inventory analysis is a 1 hour long activity in itself.

5.4.5. Idea Management Much can be improved in CartGraphs idea management process, but their strength definitely is capturing ideas from customers and successfully converting those ideas into products.

239 5.4.6. First Screen of ideas It was not clear what type of screening criteria CartGraph used for their first screen of ideas. However, because ideas submitted from the idea generation activities will be mainly directed towards solving the factors needed to cross the chasm, a strategic screen is redundant, and a rough feasibility screen should instead be applied. Ideas directed to current product lines may also be put through a very rough feasibility screen.

5.4.7. Capturing Ideas from Internal and External Sources CartGraphs strength is capturing ideas from customers, in particular their current customer base. However, to cross the chasm, the pragmatic and conservative customers in their markets must be tapped for ideas which, in particular should be those which will help those customers adopt this new technology. Their current customer bases should definitely be tapped for feature, product, and new product line ideas, but keep in mind that the needs of their current customers (being technologists and visionaries) are often different than the needs of the mass market being pragmatic and conservative customers. CartGraph does not seem to tap partners, inventors, consultants, universities, or suppliers for ideas. Interviewing could not determine if they monitored competitors offerings for new product ideas, but it seems reasonable, given their small market, that they would. The company captures ideas from employees, but it seems like a large percentage of these ideas were ideas from customers communicated to sales or service employees. Development engineers do submit ideas but most ideas are feature based with very few being new product, or new product line ideas. The capturing of ideas seems to be done haphazardly, sometimes ideas are submitted to their department heads, sometimes they are submitted to the marketing manager, and sometimes the customers submit ideas to sales or support employees, which may or may not pass the ideas forward.

240 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.

5.4.8. Recommendations for Capturing Ideas This researcher recommends that all ideas should be submitted to one or two main personnel, and that ideas from customers should be submitted to their associated sales or support person. Then those sales or support personnel are responsible for submitting that ideas (orally, or over email) to the two main personnel. This will help organize the capture of ideas, and given the relatively small number of submitted ideas (less than 1000), this structure is reasonable. For example, new product ideas or larger could be submitted to the marketing manager, and feature ideas could be submitted to the product development manager in person or through the database. Given, the relative small number of ideas it is reasonable to store the ideas in an excel sheet. Interestingly, CartGraph seems to have an internal favoritism toward accepting customer driven ideas (ideas which are driven by a strong customer expressed need). This is reasonable considering that their subscription based business model only needs a few customers to justify a ROI decision for a new feature or product. However, one must remember that the internal favoritism toward customer driven ideas may be damaging efforts to crossing the chasm. To cross the chasm, very often companies must make development decisions and support products which meet the factors needed to force adoption, and hence market driven ideas are more appropriate. Market driven ideas are those which are more appropriate given the larger context of the market, for example cereal companies develop ideas which try to gain market share percentages instead of concentrating on satisfying a small group of customers.

241 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 inorder to cross the chasm (Moore. G, 2004).

5.4.9. Tagging Ideas during Capture The company is tagging ideas by recording upon capture who created them, however, they are not capturing when the ideas were created, who else participated in their creation, and what activities lead to the ideas creation. Recording this information is valuable because as more advance idea generation activities are used, the ability to track which activities generated a particular idea will be useful in selecting future idea generation activities and recording ROI for a particular idea generation activity.

5.4.10. Storage & Categorization The CartGraph stores feature ideas in a development database and ideas for new product, new service, and new product line ideas in a excel document. These means of storage are adequate for the current size of the company; however, some tagging criteria (mentioned in the above paragraph) should be added to the storage of feature ideas in the development software system. Unfortunately, CartGraph is not categorizing ideas in storage. Categorizing of feature ideas is very valuable because of the great number of feature ideas (1000+) and will help direct a particular feature idea to the appropriate development team. As well, categorizing new product, and new product line ideas will help in the selection and evaluation of these ideas. This researcher recommends that CartGraph should categorize ideas by: date, batch number, associated submitters, detailed source (consumer, partner, supplier, employee), opportunity area, reviewed or not-reviewed, technical

242 feasibility, developed or not-developed, and finally idea driver (technology, market, customer, solution driven). More categories help employees in quickly reviewing ideas prior to participating in future idea generation activities, and help the innovation directors see where the gaps are in the idea database.

5.4.11. Process Check Used to Improve the Idea Generation Process CartGraph did not perform process checks on ideas or refined the idea generation process as a result of these checks. It is recommended that an Innovation manager knowledgeable in idea generation and idea management be assigned and accountable for reviewing ideas captured by the company, and ideas generated by the company. In doing so, they should check that the idea generation activities are producing the desired ideas. For example, the innovation manager should check that an idea generation activity such as whole product solution analysis produced ideas which will help the company cross the chasm.

5.4.12. Diffusing Ideas to Employees Inside the Company CartGraph also seems very poor at diffusing ideas across the company and it was mentioned that ideas are not getting spread across the company. As well, monthly development & sales progress meeting are being used to talk about new ideas. It is hypothesizes that these new idea conversations must compete for time against the more pressing sales and development conversations, and inevitability lose priority. Ideally, given the small size of the company (70 to 90 employees) there should be a separate monthly or bi-monthly meeting dedicated to discussing new ideas. A group of ideas should be selected and assigning ideas to individuals to conduct preliminary market research. The result of their market research will be used in the next idea meeting to select ideas. As well, meeting to discuss new ideas should be combined with, and held right before idea generation activities.

243 5.4.13. Late Front End Activities This researcher noted that there were several issues with CartGraphs Innovation process which need urgent attending to. These issues are: a) The need for a portfolio management process, and b) The need to integrate crossing the chasm strategy into the companys development process and company strategies. Portfolio management is a vital process which is the act of selecting, managing, and prioritizing the mix of development projects (a portfolio of projects) so to manage the risk, returns, and strategic implication of the companys future product offerings. Metaphorically think of it, as managing a portfolio of stocks & bonds that will mature anywhere from three months to five years out. Having a detailed and sound process for selecting and managing the portfolio will greatly increase returns when compared to a haphazard investing strategy. Currently, CartGraph does not have a portfolio management process, and all interviewees requested a process by which new products can systematically be selected for development. Hence, this researcher recommends that all executives should download and read the portfolio management articles from the page. From those teaching the executives should structure their own portfolio management process and communicate it to the boarder company so to create alignment and understanding. As previously mentioned the books Crossing the Chasm and Inside the Tornado highlighted that companies in pre-adoption markets should integrate company strategies towards forcing market adoption. In doing so they can force themselves into market leadership for their emerging markets. This was true for HP in the desktop printer market, Intuit for accounting software, Nikon for digital cameras, and so on.

244 This researcher recommends that the prior mentioned marketing research project be carried out to determining the major 4 or 5 crossing the chasm factors. The portfolio manager should then collaborate with the board and other executives to push a part of their companys product portfolio towards meeting those factors, maybe 20% of next years products. Again, sales will not be able to cross the chasm without a massive push to do so, thus, preliminary sales and market responses for these products will, most the time, be false indicators of their actual ability to cross the chasm without a massive push to do so. However, great efforts should be taken to uncover if these new products are: a) lacking factors preventing pragmatic customers from adopting, or b) the pragmatic customers are not adopting because they lack confidence in the market and need to see their friends adopt it first. If (a) is the case, more product development work needs to be done to ready the products for chasm crossing. If (b) is the case, work must be done to prove to the market that these products are ready and a small portion of the pragmatic customer must be forced into adopting and providing references to the greater market (i.e. running the market crossing battle mentioned in Moore 2006). Again, no market research study is ever 100% correct, and hence pushing the whole product portfolio towards the factors needed to cross the chasm is risky. Hence some portion of the product portfolio should be dedicated to crossing the chasm, while the remainder of the portfolio should generate revenues from the current customer base.

5.4.14. Comparison with Measures of Satisfaction The satisfaction variables in the survey were taken from only one interviewee (marketing manager) and were found not to be reliable. After the survey was completed, the respondent was interviewed, during which point he noted that the levels of satisfaction were in retrospect much lower than that entered into the

245 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 CartGraph 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 Second, the Glassman Model helped this researcher systematically examine the vital points of the idea generation and idea management process and according to the interviewee help create a very detailed set of recommendations. Third, it was found that the Glassman model resulted in a superior analysis when compared to simple interviews conducted around general activities such as generating ideas, screening ideas, capturing ideas, storing ideas, and diffusing ideas. The resolution offered by the Glassman models point of control for each activity directly helped create many interview questions which uncovered a great deal of valuable information which otherwise would not have been uncovered. The Glassman model also guided interviewing questions to follow a logical flow. Fourth, the model uncovered major and minor problem areas in the companies idea generation and idea management processes. The model and comprehensive list of factors and points of control helped in uncovering major problem areas in their companys process that otherwise may have been missed during un-guided interviewing. The case studies highlight the many problems uncovered for each company, and attest to the models value in these areas. Fifth, the proposed model definitely aided in making recommendations. The models comprehensive factors and points of control insured that a comprehensive list of recommendations was made to each company. Without the model, it would be very easy to forget to include a recommendation for a particular part of the process. Lastly, all information gathered from the interviews, both solicited and unsolicited, could be fully understood in the context of the proposed model. This is considered to be a major step because prior to this model interviewing often uncovered information which did not result in an understanding of the process or was information too difficult to piece together. The purposed model aided in mapping and understanding of the companies processes which were previously convoluted and difficult to comprehend.

247 5.6. Case Study: Major Lessons Learned The case studies again provided a rich learning opportunity, and from this many major lessons were learned, the following section discusses the major lessons being: (1) a need to integrate company strategy into idea generation, (2) the structure of idea management, (3) process dependence and (4) the need for an idea manager. In all three of the case studies, this researcher used the structure of the Glassman Model to recommend changes to the companies idea generation process. But the specific options for each company varied based holy on their strategic need. For example, CartGraph required an idea generation process which assisted their major strategic goal of forcing market adoption of their technology by generating ideas which assisted in market adoption. As well, Fairbanks Scales strategically sought large opportunity areas, and hence had to change their strategic scope and idea generation process to follow suit. Company Alpha also required a process to better utilize their researchers in generating ideas. All cases demonstrated that the idea generation process relies heavily on company strategy. This is logical considering that the process can output a great range of ideas. In-order to focus its output, the company strategy must be well known and used to select the specific options for the idea generation process. This lesson highlights a major weakness in the Glassman model which must be addressed. The Glassman model does not contain the factors needed to align the idea generation process with a company strategy. Hence, the model must be appended to include activities for strategic alignment such as: 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. Two examples will be used to explain these activities. In the CartGraph case study, this researcher was told the major strategic goal was to gain market share, from their currently paltry 1%. Given the state of their market it was obvious that they needed to force adoption of their

248 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 researchers 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.

5.6.1. Structure of Idea Management In reviewing the case studies, it was determined that the structure of the idea management process did not depend upon company strategy, but rather it depended upon the number of captured ideas. One can imagine the idea management process as a logistical process much like a post office, where ideas/packages are: captured, tagged, stored, categorized/sorted and diffused/delivered to the appropriate people. In this view, the particular options for each activity depend holy upon the number of ideas going through the process. For example, Fairbanks Scales which only required a few ideas could feasible perform an idea management process conducted mostly on paper; whereas, Company Alpha which received many thousands of ideas required an elaborate idea management software system. From this conclusion it should also be noted, that companies which capture large numbers of ideas most likely will need an idea management software to conduct this process effectively. This is because a paper system, or email system cannot feasibly deal with a large number of ideas.

249 5.6.2. Situational Dependence on Idea Generation or Idea Management Fairbanks Scales had a highly evolved set of idea capture activities which tapped every available source of ideas known to the company. This was a direct result of a stalled internal idea generation process. Conversely, Company Alpha captured very few ideas from outside sources and relied entirely on their R&D staff to generate ideas. Both these cases highlight that a company can become dependent upon either idea generation or capturing idea via idea management. Nonetheless, this researcher believes that both processes can be fruitfully utilized together regardless of the company situation.

5.6.3. Assigned Idea Manager In all of the case, this researcher recommended an owner/manager of the idea generation and idea management process. It is believed that having and single or set of individuals responsible for obtaining ideas imparts needed internal accountability on getting ideas into the pipeline. As noted by the literature, the lack of clarity of this process and lack of accountability was responsible for many problems. Given the proposed Glassman model and the review of material presented in this dissertation, it is very reasonable that a manager could learn to effectively manage these processes and be accountable for their results.

5.6.4. Expertise is Needed Although the above information supports that the model contains the factors needed to manage both processes, it was found that some expertise is required to use this model to manage these processes. In particular, an innovation practitioner requires the expertise to knowledgeably select amongst the options presented for each point of control. For example, the selection of the appropriate idea generation activity for Fairbanks Scales required a general understanding of all activities and the output for each activity. Only then could an innovation practitioner effectively select the appropriate idea generation activities.

250 5.7. Survey: Method of Cleaning the Data and Analysis Several actions were taken to prepare the survey data for analysis. The first was scanning the data to remove incomplete surveys. The survey had a completion rate of 60%; however, this would have been higher if the survey links were not put on online forums. Interestingly, an 85% completion rate was associated with individuals who were invited to take the survey after watching this researchers online presentation. Surveys which were 85% complete were left in the data set. Next, the reliability of the data was checked for all the dependent satisfaction variables and found to have a Cronbach Alpha of 0.91, the reliability for the activity variables were found to have a Cronbach Alpha of 0.91. All variables were measured on a single item scale so individual measures of Cronbach could not be computed. Although this may reduce reliability, many of the questions were thought to be so straight forward that repeating them would annoy respondents, as well as, lengthen the survey time to an unreasonable 50 + mins. The average time to complete this survey was 25 minutes with some individuals taking up to 40 minutes. Nonetheless, the correlations in the following section show some strong evidence of reliable data. Next the respondent groups were compared amongst themselves using Cronbach Alpha and some of the uncovered correlations. It was noted that respondents who identified themselves solely as support, researcher, or advisors introduced substantial error into the data set and greatly offset all of the correlations, hence these groups were removed. If an individual selected any of the following roles they were kept: project manager, division manager, R&D manager, VP of R&D. Keep in mind an individual could be a R&D manager and a researcher in which case their response was kept. This left 40 respondents from the total sample of 60 completed surveys.

251 It was determined that management responsibilities produced more reliable responses than those individuals which were solely support, researcher, or advisors. This is obviously due to the higher amount of exposure and familiarity management has with the process when compared to a line worker (like researchers, advisors, or support) who may be only exposed to small parts of the process. Unless otherwise noted all correlations in the following section were found to have two tailed significances to 0.001, with the critical value for N=40 being 0.393. In most cases, the correlation R squared value was even above the critical value of 0.393. These author only considered correlations, of 0.6 or greater to be of interest because, 1) 40 responses is a very small sample population of the millions of businesses in existences, 2) this researcher wanted to avoid making weak correlations which could lead to faulty conclusions, 3) many correlation existed in the data between 0.4 to 0.6 and rationalizing each of these for such a small sample size would be to cumbersome and most-likely unfruitful. This researcher considered a correlation of 0.8 or above to be very strong, 0.64 to 0.8 to be strong, and 0.6 to 0.64 to be moderate. A Pearsons correlation calculation was used for all correlations. Satisfaction items were converted to ordinal scales as shown in figure 5.2 and denoted by a number followed by an S as such #S. Questions about the frequency, amounts, or degree of an activity were converted to ordinal scales as shown in figure 5.2 and denoted by a number preceded by a V as such V#.

Figure 5.2. Conversion of Answers from Likert to Ordinal Scales

252 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 Pearsons Correlation.

5.8. Survey: General Demographic Statistics for the Sample The following section presents the demographics of the respondents who were kept in the survey for analysis. IRB dictated that all companies and respondents names be de-identified. The respondent companies range greatly across several industries, revenue size, employee size, but the vast majority seem to be located in the US, with a majority in Ohio (see Figure 5.5). Figure 5.3 shows the distribution for the respondents amongst their respective industries. Software and chemical seem to have a large number, but the software & chemical companies varied greatly within the sub-industry, hence, a very even distribution of company industries was sampled. Figure 5.4 shows respondent companies by both revenues and by number of employees. The sample seems to bias larger revenue companies; whereas, the number of employees seems to be bias toward companies larger than 501 and between 101-300 employees. Thus, this samples results should be strongly applicable to large to mid size companies measured by number of employee and revenues; however, it is unclear how applicable the results of the survey would be to companies with less than 500K in revenue.

Figure 5.3. Distribution of Respondents Companies amongst their Respective Industries

$5B + $1B to $5B $500M to $1B $50M to $500M $1M to $50 M $500K to $1M $100K to $500K less than $100K 0 1 2 4 6 8 2 3 4 5 6 7

dem ic/ un ivers in es ity s Co ns ul ting Che mica ls Con sulti ng Ele c tr on ics Ene rgy Fina nce Hea lthca re Indu HVA st ria C l Eq uipm ent Lab or at ory IT Equ ipem L ife ent Man Scie ufac nces tu rin g (A utom ot ive Mar , Av Offi c ine iat io e Pr n, H odu e av Pow cts y Du er G ty C en e onst rat io ruct n Pub ion lis hi eqp ng t .) Sof t Sof t ware ware Con su lt i Sof t ng ware Ven dor Tele com Thin k Ta nk T rav el

253

Respondents' Industry Distribution N=40

Number of companies sampled in that industry

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Aca

Bus

Respondent Company Organized Revenues

Respondent Company Organized # of Employees

5001+ 1001-5000 501-1000 301-500 101-300 51-100 21-50 1-20" 10 0 2 4 1 4 5 6 8 2 3 4

10

# of Respondents

# of Respondents

Figure 5.4. Distribution of Respondents Companies by Revenues and Number of Employees

254

Number of Companies

Distribution of Respondents Country & States

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 7

3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2

3 1 1 1 1

3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

Figure 5.5. Distribution of Respondents Companies by Locations

Aside from companies, the respondents were also analyzed on their project responsibilities, company roles, and years of experience in that company. Figure 5.6 shows the respondents organized by their roles, again the sample is purposefully bias toward management. Out of the respondents, 1 respondent managed one project, 24 managed two or more projects, 14 managed one division, and 16 managed the whole company (see appendix D). This again shows a purposeful bias toward management responsibilities. The average years of experience within their current company for respondents were 6.03 years, with a standard deviation of 5.73 years, with one respondent having 28 years experience. On the low end seven respondents had 2 years experience and six had 1 year of experience. Keep in mind this has no relation to the actual years of experiences of the respondents.

o Il lin ois Iow a Mar ylan Mas d sac hu s etts Mic higa n Mis sou ri New Jer sey New Yor Nor k th C aro lina Ohi o Ore gan Tex as Virg inia Pen nsy l van ia UK Spa in Nor way It aly Indi a Fra nce Chi na Can ada

ifori n Cal

Idah

255

Respondent Roles for N = 40

Number of Respondent who selected that role
18

16
16 14 12 10 8

15

Note a respondents can select more than one Role. Also,respondents who solely selected "assistance", "support", or "Research" were removed from the data set.

8 6 6 5

6 4 2

2 0 0 0

No statistical tests have been conducted to determine this samples relation to the greater population. Because the survey was promoted in conjunction with a webseminar on idea generation and idea management, it is thought that the vast majority of the respondents were interested in this topic which may be due to: (1) a need they see in their company for improvement in these areas, or (2) a general interest in these subjects. Product development managers are typically fairly busy and it is thought the first explanation may be the main reason for taking this survey. Hence, it is thought that the sample is bias toward respondents who see a need for improvement in these given areas for their companies. However, question 21S shows a normal distribution of satisfaction for respondents with their overall idea generation process, suggesting no bias. But questions 51S to 56S suggest that respondents are more dissatisfied with their idea management processes. Question V132 shows 85% of respondents are interested in learning

M an ag er m an ag er A dv C is hi R or ef es In no ea r ch va er t io n O ffi ce V r P of R & D C on D su iv is lta io nt n M an ag er E ng in ee D r ev el op er S up er vi so A ss r is ta nc e S up po rt N o R ol Te e ch ni ci M an in im al R ol e R & D

P ro je ct

Figure 5.6. Respondents Organized by their Roles

5.8.1. Samples Relation to the Greater Population

256 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.

5.9. Survey: Correlations between Satisfaction Variables It would be helpful to start the discussion of the data obtained from the survey with an analysis and discussion of the satisfaction variables. In this section the dependent satisfaction variables were compared with each other to see if any logical correlations could be developed. Figure 5.7 below shows that out of the sixteen variables only one (61S) could not be correlated with the others.

Figure 5.7. Correlations of the Satisfaction Variables

5.9.1. Idea Generation The first most important correlation found in this group was the correlation that 49S (Overall Satisfaction with the Idea Generation process) had with the sum of factors 44S, 45S, 46S, 48S, 54S, shown in Figure 5.8.

257 The correlation in Figure 5.8 was found to have a Pearson 0.833 significant to 0.01, and is of extreme interest because it encompasses 70% of the variation in an individuals overall satisfaction with their companies idea generation process.

Figure 5.8. Correlation for Overall Satisfactions with the Idea Generation Process

This is a logical correlation because the quality, number of ideas, time to generate ideas, and ability to generate a specific set of ideas are in sum the major outcomes of the idea generation activities and should obviously be tightly correlated with overall satisfaction with the idea generation process. The factors of 54 (quality and amount of ideas in the idea bank) and 48 (the ability of idea generation process to fill the front end portfolio) are also the result of the output of idea generation process, and should also be tightly correlated with overall satisfaction. The true importance of this correlation is that a consultant can use a single question (What is your overall satisfaction with your companys idea generation process?) to fairly accurately gauge an individuals sum satisfaction with important outputs of their companys idea generation process.

258

Figure 5.9. Correlation of V48 Ability to Fill Front End Portfolio

Figure 5.9 shows the correlation between the satisfaction of 48S (ability of your companys idea generation process to fill the front end portfolio needs) and 56S (the ability of your companys idea bank to fill the front end portfolios 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).

5.9.2. Idea Capture Another impressive relationship is the strong 0.728 Pearson correlation between 51S (the satisfaction with the companys ability to capture ideas from employees at all levels) and the sum of (53S the companys ability to store and organize captured ideas, and 55S the companys ability to distribute or route ideas across the company), show in figure 5.10. The following hypothesis is offered to explain this relationship. As shown in the initial version of Glassmans model (Figure 3.16), capturing ideas comes before storing, organizing, and distributing ideas, yet they are all connected in a continuous linear process. If any one part of the process (capture, storing, organizing, or distributing) is inefficient, obviously the whole idea management process will be inefficient. This is further back by all three variables having strong correlations between each other of 0.61 or greater.

259 This correlation can be used as supporting evidence for this researchers idea management process as being linear.

Figure 5.10. Correlation of 51S Ability to Capture Ideas from Employees

The next correlation, which seems to be less useful, relates satisfaction variable 52S (companys ability to capture ideas from outsides sources) to the sum of 49S (overall satisfaction) and 54S (quality and amount of ideas in the idea bank), shown in figure 5.11. This moderate correlation (R2 = 36%) is less obvious and may be rationalize by an innovation director being satisfied with ideas in his idea bank, and thus being satisfied with his idea generation process and by their ability to capture ideas from outside sources. Remember some confusion still exists in the term idea generation process where many innovation practitioners also take it to include many activities in idea management like capturing ideas.

Figure 5.11. Correlations of 52S Ability to Capture Ideas from Outside Sources

260 5.9.3. Development Outcomes Satisfaction variables dealing with development outcomes (58S, 59S, 60S) were compared and found to have a strong correlation as shown in Figure 5.12. This is an obvious correlation and just verifies that the survey is acting correctly. The variation in this correlation can be attributed to the difference between comparing a ratio and the ability to convert a single idea.

Figure 5.12. Correlation of Dependent Development Variables

Interestingly two unexpected correlations were noted as shown in figure 5.13. Given these correlations are moderate ones, one explanation is that an innovation director is more satisfied with their development departments use of resources when they see their department can create a number of quality ideas with these given resources.

Figure 5.13. Correlations with Company Resources

261 5.10. Survey: Discussion of Correlations Between Satisfaction Variables and Measures of Activities The following section will discuss the correlations found between the dependent satisfaction variables and the independent activity variables. The section will be arranged by the descending order of activities as shown in the authors proposed model.

Figure 5.14. Correlations of Activities to Quality of Ideas Generated

The strongest and most significant correlation uncovered in this study is 0.851 Pearson R correlation shown in figure 5.14. The sum of the variables in the left side of this correlation can be thought of as the quality of the output from the idea generation process. A high quality idea generation process produces large numbers of quality ideas for a specific purpose. Obviously, high quality ideas are going to be stored in the idea bank as shown by 54S in the left side of Figure 5.14.

262 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 Glassmans 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 authors 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 Glassmans proposed model.

263

Figure 5.15. Correlation 0.851 Comparison with Model

The right hand side of Figure 5.14 shows that those activities are highly interrelated. Thankfully, this strongly supports the authors 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 Glassmans proposed model. Amazingly, screening in Glassmans 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 Glassmans 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 authors idea generation model.

5.10.1. Correlations for the Idea Management Process

5.10.1.1. Capturing and Screening Ideas The next set of correlations are those dealing with the activities described under idea management, starting with capturing of ideas from employees.

Figure 5.16. Weak Correlation for Capturing Ideas from Employees

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 The correlation shown in Figure 5.17 displays a strong relationship between 51S and the ten activities on the right which were clumped into similar groups. The screening activities all had individual correlations of 0.5 with V85 having a 0.55 correlation with 51S. This says, that screening is important part of capturing ideas from employees. Next, the capturing activities, V88, V98, V104, V105, had correlations of 0.433, 0.59, 0.56, 0.60 with 51S, respectively. It was interesting that V98 (capturing ideas from media) correlated with 51S. Consider this, the only ways ideas are captured from magazines or media source are if employees read or watch them, then submit the ideas. Given this, one can deduce that to be better at capturing ideas from media sources, they must be effective at capturing idea from employees.

Figure 5.17. Strong Correlation for Capturing Ideas from Employees

266 Interestingly, V105 (actively managing capture from outsides sources) increased satisfaction with capturing ideas from employees. This may be because companies which are effective at capturing ideas from employees are also effective at capturing ideas from outside sources? Or this may be because, the respondents considered many of the ideas captured from outsides sources (like media sources) to be observed and submitted by employees. Nonetheless, the strength of this correlation (0.60) suggests that companies should also actively manage the capture of ideas from outsides sources in their efforts to capture ideas from employees. Finally, idea management activities being V114 (actively managing the system for storing ideas), V115 (degree of formality of this system), and V116 (use of idea management software) have individual correlations with 51S of 0.58, 0.51, 0.64, respectively. Obviously, actively managing the system for storing ideas is important. But it was surprising for V115 that a more formal system for capturing ideas increased satisfaction. During the case studies, this researcher learned that employees (especially at large companies) are often confused about how to submit ideas, so clearly having a more formal system reduces this confusion. In hindsight this is logical because the more formal the system is the more employees would be aware, and knowledgeable in how to submit ideas. As was mentioned in the conclusions of the case studies, the idea management process is highly logistical and idea management software are ideal for dealing with high volumes of ideas, and the strong 0.64 correlation shows this. As well, idea management software are really tailored toward capturing ideas from employees. Most importantly, the strong correlations in figure 5.17 provide support for the importance of the management activities described in Glassmans model for idea management. In particular the activities of: screening, capturing, storing, and organizing ideas were shown to be interdependent. As mentioned in chapter 3, only a linear process makes sense for these activities.

267

Figure 5.18. Correlation for Capturing Ideas from Outsides Sources

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 directors 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 Yet another explanation for this correlation may be this. In some companies employees are responsible for capturing ideas from outsides sources, and if they notice that higher quality ideas in the idea bank are coming from outside sources they may be more inclined to tap those outside sources for ideas in the future. Regardless of these correlations, this researcher still feels that capturing ideas from outside sources is only efficient when the whole idea management process is effective. Further this researcher feels that variable 52S satisfaction with capturing ideas from outsides sources as measured does not reflect accurately the actual effectiveness of capturing ideas from outsides sources.

5.10.1.2. Tagging Ideas Moving on, one correlation was found for tagging ideas of 51S (satisfaction with capturing ideas from employees) and V107 (who submitted the idea) of 0.465. Obviously innovation directors are going to be satisfied with capturing ideas from employees when they no who submitted them. The fact that no other tagging activities had correlation should not detract from the importance of this activity. Again, when new practices are recommended they are usually not practiced and this was very much the fact with tagging (see Section 5.12.2 for details on tagging). Very few companies practiced recording tag info other than who created an idea. So it is no surprise that there was no correlation found for the tagging activities. Nonetheless, this researcher still feels that tagging is a vital and easy to perform activity, which gains great importance as process checks are conducted.

269 5.10.1.3. Storing & Categorizing Ideas

Pearson 0.648 R2=0.41 V114. To what degree does your company actively manage the system for storing ideas? V122. How often does your company refine the idea generation process?

53S. Satisfaction with Storing & Categorizing Ideas

Figure 5.19. Correlation for Storing and Capturing Ideas

There were substantial correlations found for storing of ideas in figures 5.15. Outside of that, figure 5.19 shows a moderate correlation between 53S and V114 and V122. Alone, V114 correlated to 53S with a 0.61 Pearson which can be obviously explained by increase quality associated with increase management activity. Interestingly, there was no notable correlation found between 53S and V115 degree of formality of this system. This researcher thought there would be a strong correlation, but in review this lack of correlation may be due to small companies not needing a formal system for storage. A weak 0.5 correlation was found for this correlation using only large companies (more than 500 employees), thus this researcher is unsure how formality alone affects satisfaction with storing and categorizing ideas.

5.10.1.4. Process Check Activities Process check was found to be important in figure 5.19 as well, in figure 5.20 below. The rational for this correlation was already mentioned to be due to a innovation director needing to review the ideas to see which outside sources are producing ideas.

Figure 5.20. Correlation for Process Improvement

270 5.10.1.5. Diffusion Activities Satisfaction with diffusion was correlated to activities shown in table 5.7. Out of these the V114 (degree to which a company actively manages the system for storing ideas) had a weak 0.493 correlation, saying that 25% of the satisfaction is due to this activity. Amazingly, all diffusion activities had poor or no correlations with 55S; therefore, this result cannot be explained. Again Figure 5.18 shows the diffusion activities related to satisfaction with capturing ideas from outsides sources. Otherwise, V127 (exposing employees to ideas from the idea bank) showed the highest but weak correlation with 56S. Rationalizing this, one would say that more new product projects can be made if employees are exposed more to ideas from the idea bank. The weak correlation developed for diffusion activities, except for that of Figure 5.18, seem to understate the importance of these activities. Again, idea management is a linear process and it makes very little sense to be efficient in the rest of the process yet be poor in diffusion. As well, the literature review on diffusion in this dissertation stresses the importance of these activities. There seems to be some weak correlation between 54S (quality and amount of ideas in idea bank) and V126 (staff referring to idea bank), V127 (exposing employees to ideas from idea bank), and V128 (routing ideas to employees), as shown in Table 5.7. Again, the more employees are exposed to ideas the higher the chance that ideas are created serendipitously. As well, many idea generation activities (like IDEO process) recommends that employees to review the idea bank prior to participating in idea generation activities. Hence, these correlations follow predicted logic.

271 Table 5.7. Correlation for Diffusion Activities

54S. The amount, quality, type of ideas in your company s idea bank or idea pool? V114 V122 55S. How satisfied are you with your company s ability to distribute or route ideas across the organization? 56S. The ability of your company's idea bank to fill the front end portfolio's needs?

V123

V125

V126

V127

V128

To what degree does your company actively manage the system for storing ideas? How often does your company refine the idea generation process? How much does your company use the outputted ideas to refine the idea generation process? How frequently does your companys employees search the idea bank when they need new ideas? How frequently does your product development staff refer to or search the idea bank during idea gene... To what degree does your company actively expose its employees to ideas from the idea bank? To what degree does your company actively route particular newly submitted ideas to the employees wh...

0.400 0.402 0.382 0.280 0.422 0.519 0.547

0.493 0.426 0.188 0.357 0.208 0.354 0.287

0.351 0.418 0.349 0.381 0.432 0.523 0.412

5.10.1.6. Development Activities As an additional measure the survey tested satisfaction with respect to four development activities. Out of these only one 60S (satisfaction with their companys ability to convert an idea into a marketable product) was found to have a moderate correlation of 0.6 to V126 (a diffusion activity) as shown in figure 5.21. It does not make sense that later development activities are improved by referring to the idea bank. Instead, one can hypothesize those employees which refer to the idea bank more, purposefully create ideas that are more in line with the needs of the company and create ideas which have higher chance making it to market launch. The other two correlations shown in figure 5.21 support this thought.

272

Figure 5.21. Correlation for Development Activities

5.10.1.7. Idea Management Software Idea management software is an upcoming tool to aid idea management, and again, this researchers case studies concluded that idea management software is almost necessary for companies with large number of employees. Table 5.8, shows the correlation that the use of idea generation has to levels of satisfaction.

Table 5.8. Correlations for Idea Management Software

V116. To what degree does your company: Use Idea management software for storage?
How satisfied are you with:Your company s ability to capture ideas from employees at all levels? Your company s ability to capture ideas from outside sources like competitors, suppliers, consultant... Your companys ability to store and organize captured ideas? The amount, quality, type of ideas in your company s idea bank or idea pool? Your company s ability to distribute or route ideas across the organization? How satisfied are you with: The development outcomes of ideas that enter into your pipeline?

51S

0.643 0.389 0.293 0.268 0.203 0.105 0.092 0.084 0.047 -0.013 -0.025

strong correlation

52S 53S

No correlation No correlation

54S 55S

No correlation No correlation

58S 49S

No correlation No correlation

Overall idea generation process of your company?

Your company s ability to convert an idea into a marketable product or service?

60S 56S

No correlation No correlation

The ability of your company's idea bank to fill the front end portfolio's needs?
Your company s ability to use resources during development in an effective manner? The ratio of ideas that make it through to market launch?

61S 59S

No correlation No correlation

273 Again, Idea management softwares main goal is to capture ideas from employees and hence that correlation 0.643 supports that point. Interestingly, the use of idea management software did not correlate with any other activities. Now, this is by no means conclusive, because idea management software is evolving greatly in effectiveness and functionality, even over the last year (2008). It is totally reasonable not to see any correlations with idea management software until they gain wider market acceptance, and have a common level of functionality. Keep in mind not all idea management software have the same functionality, some companies even used Microsoft SharePoint which is a knowledge management program, and claim it to be their idea management software, which in reality it is not! From this one can conclude that the correlations in table 5.8 can be deemed totally inaccurate for future reference. This researcher sees much potential in the use of idea management software to formalize and stream line the idea management process. But again, one should understand the process before using a tool to manage it.

274 5.11. Survey: Discussion of Support for Proposed Model

Table 5.9. Support Found for the Authors Proposed Model

Support found for points of control in the author's proposed I-Gen model (Idea Management part of model only) Screening ideas
Method of screening (input) Attributes of the screen (input) Execution of screening (process) Level of Support Figures or Table location of supporting correlation 5.15 5.15 5.15 5.15 5.15 5.15 Supporting Activity Question

Strong Strong Strong Strong Strong Strong

84 85 86 116 88,98,104 105

Capturing Ideas
Method of Capture (input) Sources of Capture (input) Execution of capture (process)

Tagging
Method of Tagging (input) Attribute of the Tag (input) Execution of Tagging (process) Storage and Categorization Method of Storage & Categorization (input) Execution of Storage & Categorization (process) Process Check Methods of Process Check (input) People performing the Process Check (input) Execution of Process Check (process) Diffusion Methods of Diffusion & Routing (input) People executing diffusion & routing (input) Execution of Diffusion & Routing

Not Tested for in survey Weak Weak Strong Strong

5.15 5.15

107 107 115, 116 114 122, 123

Strong 5.16, Table 5.7 Not Tested for in survey Strong 5.17 Strong 5.16, Table 5.7 Not Tested for in survey Strong 5.16, Table 5.7

122, 123
127

125,126,127,128

Table 5.9 compiles the support for the points of control in Glassmans 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 In all the supporting correlations discussed in this section lend great validity to the authors proposed idea management model. Combining this with the support for the points of control listed in figure 5.15, the combined model of idea generation and idea management is well supported.

5.12. Survey: Discussion of Normative Results The results for all of the questions of the survey were summarized in graphic form and are displayed in Appendix D, so please refer to it often while reading this section. For the satisfaction questions a higher mean resulted in higher dissatisfaction and for the activity questions a higher mean resulted in higher frequency, of amount of that activity occurring. Very few of the questions had normal distribution of answers (44S, 47S, 54S, V115), the bulk of the questions were double humped or skewed left or right with a few having flat distributions. For the sake of brevity, the most interesting findings will be discussed below.

5.12.1. Normative Results for Satisfaction Questions Out of all the questions dealing with satisfaction with idea generation outputs only questions 46S had a high skew where 49% of the respondents were satisfied with their companys ability to generate a set of ideas with a specific set of attributes. Most of the questions had slight double distributions with only 45S, 46S having right skews towards being more satisfied. Three of the questions for dealing with satisfaction with idea managements outputs produced interesting results. Question 52S showed that 51% were satisfied or very satisfied with capturing ideas from outside sources. Yet the activity questions V63-V72, & V87-V97, shows that most companies did a poor job of tapping a variety of outside sources for ideas. One may hypothesize that (1) respondents only need to tap a small number of sources to be satisfied, or *2) respondents are not aware of the number of outside sources and outside

276 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 companys 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.

5.12.2. Normative Results for Activity Questions Moving on to activities, question V75 showed that the bulk of the respondents (79%) did not frequently hold events to generate ideas, where only 4 respondents (10%) always held events to generate ideas, and to that questions V76 showed that 61% of the respondents undermanaged these events. Not hosting and managing events is a systemic problem in this sample, and should be improved upon because the correlations in Figures 5.12, showed that holding and managing events is vital factor in generation a number of quality ideas. Another systemic problem was found in V77 and V78 in the lack of incentives across all respondents. It seems companies go cheap, and expect employees who often have other major responsibilities outside of generating ideas, to take the time and generate and submit ideas. Incentive theory showed that for employees to make something a priority they must be incentivized rightly.

277 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.

5.13. Survey: Major Lessons Learned There were several major lessons learned from conducting the survey research study. The first and most important lesson was that most of the correlations and normative data supported Glassmans model for idea generation and idea management. Once more, table 5.9 and figure 5.15 showed a summary of support for the model. This helps to answer the second research question further. Combined with the case studies there is substantial evidence that the proposed model will be effective in managing and controlling the idea generation and idea management processes. The second major lesson was that screening activities are really considered by respondents to be part of the idea management process. This lesson is applied in the following chapter 5 Updated Control Models. The third major lesson is the importance of people, events, and idea generation activities in creating a number of quality ideas in a timely fashion. This lesson was highlighted in detail in the discussion surrounding figure 5.14. Unfortunately, the normative data in appendix D showed that a majority of the respondents did not host or manage idea generation activities correctly. The forth major lesson is how satisfaction with capturing ideas from employees is greatly affected by the screening, capturing, and storing activities, see the discussion surrounding figure 5.17. The fifth major lesson is how satisfaction with capturing ideas from outside sources depended highly on diffusion activities as shown by figures 5.18 and table 5.7. The last major lesson was the systemic dissatisfaction with: capturing ideas from outside sources, storing and categorizing of ideas, and diffusion and routing of ideas, amongst the respondents. Yet again, this may hint at a larger systemic issue with these items for the greater population.

279

CHAPTER 6. UPDATED CONTROL MODELS

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.

6.1. Screening Moved into Idea Management The first improvement to this model was the movement of screening activities into the idea management portion of the model. Section 3.28 discusses screening in detail but fails to mention that most of the screening occurs during the capturing of ideas, in addition, to screening occurring during idea generation. The importance of screening as part of the idea management process was established from the very strong correlation in Figure 5.17, in which all three acts of screening V84 (degree to which a company does screening), V85 (setting the attributes for the screen), and V86 (actively managing the screen) had 0.5 or better correlations with 51S (satisfaction with capturing ideas from employees). Screening is an activity which all respondents of the survey seemed to understand and perform (V84), yet actively managing the screen (V86) and setting the attributes for the first screen (V85) were not as well performed with only 43% respondents most-the-time or always performing these activities.

280 To keep an emphasize on screening activities they will be separated from capturing activities, even though in practice they can be conducted at the same instance. For example, an innovation director would capture an idea via a phone call and be simultaneously screening it. Screens can be applied before capturing, in which case it prevents certain types of ideas from being submitted. Or screening can be practiced after capturing in which case it prevents ideas from being stored. Out of the two options, this researcher feels it is much worse to inhibit the capturing of ideas via a pre-screen. The rationality for this is simple; (1) there is very little harm in capturing a poor idea then screening it out later, (2) it gives one the option to screen a potentially valuable idea, and (3) it allows the employee or outside individual to feel satisfied with their aid, and (4) it allows the screen to be malleable and postadjusted to allow potential great ideas (which may initially not meet the first screen) to be captured. The harm in having the screen before capture is (1) significant loss of revenues and competitive advantage associated with screening out good or great ideas, (2) it is difficult to tell if the screen is eliminating good or bad ideas, and (3) the de-motivating effects a pre-screen would have on employee or outside sources who would like to submit an idea. For these reasons, screening was put after capturing in the updated management model. Once more, individuals applying a screen should be trained in how to apply it correctly and how to avoid de-motivate individuals while screening ideas.

6.2. Strategic Alignment Activities The case studies clearly demonstrated that the idea generation process requires strategic alignment to focus its outputs; whereas, the idea management process is purely logistical. Given this, the idea generation part of the model was appended to include four activities designed to align the outputs of the idea

281 generation process with the companys 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 Fairbanks 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 6.3. Final Version of the Glassman Control Model

Idea Generation Processes (External or Internal)
Strategic Aligment 1. 2. 3. 4. Review Strategy Select General Areas to Generate Ideas for Confirm Areas Align Idea Generation Process Inputs Major Activity
Source AKA People

Points of control over that major activity Selecting the sources (input) General incentive (input)

The source

Event

The Event

Event timing (input) Promotion (process) Event Execution (process)

Idea Generation Activities

Idea Generation Activities

Selection & combination of activities (input and process) Execution of activities (process) Tool & Resources (process) Environment (process)

Using ideas as stimuli for idea generation activities

Ideas Ideas Opportunity

Idea Management & Idea Banks (Internal)

Capture Capture Method of Capture (input) Sources of Capture (input) Execution of capture (process)

Process check needed to tune idea generation

Screen and filter

Screening and Filtering

Method of screening (input) Attributes of the screen (input) Execution of screening (process)

Tagging

Tagging

Method of Tagging (input) Attribute of the Tag (input) Execution of Tagging (process)

Storing & categorizing

Storage & Categorization

Method of Storage & Categorization (input) Execution of Storage & Categorization (process)

Process Check

Process Check

Methods of Process Check (input) People performing the Process Check (input) Execution of Process Check (process)

Diffusion & Routing

Diffusion & Routing

Methods of Diffusion & Routing (input) People executing diffusion & routing (input) Incentives (input) Execution of Diffusion & Routing

Late FFE Activities (or NPD process)

Figure 6.1. Updated Glassman Model

BIBLIOGRAPHY

284

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. Aguilar, FJ (1967). Scanning the Business Environment. New York: Macmillan. 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. Ajamian, G. M., & Koen, P. A. (2002). Technology stage gate: A structured process for managing high risk, new technology projects. The PDMA Toolbook for New Product Development ,p. 267-295. Alam, I. (2003). Commercial innovations from consulting engineering firms: An empirical exploration of a novel source of new product ideas. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 20(4), 300-313. Aljumaih, Khalid Abdulaziz (1995) Group decision support systems impacts on group process and outcomes with idea generation tasks: An experimental investigation using four group facilitation techniques. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Mississippi, Mississippi. Amabile, TM (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, (Sept. Oct.),7787.

285 Ashton, T. S. (1997). The Industrial Revolution 1760-1830, Oxford New York: Oxford University Press 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/ Auster, E and C Choo (1993). Environmental scanning by Chief Executive Officers in two Canadian industries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 44(4), 194203. Auster, E., & Choo, C. W. (1992). Environmental scanning: Preliminary findings of a survey of CEO information seeking behaviour in two Canadian industries. Paper presented at the , 29 48-54. Axelrod, Alan, (2008). Edison on Innovation: 102 Lessons in Creativity for Business and Beyond, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Backman, M., Borjesson, 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., Borjesson, 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 Balasubramanian, V. (1998). A systematic methodology to support the creative idea generation phase of the user interface design process. Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers The State University of New Jersey - Newark, United States 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. Bharadwaj, S., & Menon, A. (2000). Making innovation happen in organizations: Individual creativity mechanisms, organizational creativity mechanisms or both? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17(6), 424-434. Boeddrich, H. J. (2004). "Ideas in the workplace: A new approach towards organizing the fuzzy front end of the innovation process". Creativity and Innovation Management, 13(4), 274-285. 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 Innovators Solution, creating and sustaining successful growth Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Christensen, C.M., (1997). The Innovators 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 Conley, C.V., (2005). 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. Conway, H.A., & McGuinness, N. W. (1986). Idea Generation in TechnologyBased Firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management,(4), 276-291 Cooper, R. G. (1990). Stage-Gate Systems: A New Tool for Managing New Products. Business Horizons, 33(3), 44. Retrieved April 29, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 198913). 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. G., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2007). Winning businesses in product development: The critical success factors. Research Technology Management, 50(3), 52-66. Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., & Kleinschmidt, E. I. (2002). Portfolio management: Fundamental to new product success. The PDMA Toolbook for New Product Development, , 331-364. Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1997). Portfolio management in new product development: Lessons from the leaders-II. Research Technology Management, 40(6), 43-52. Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2004). Benchmarking best NPD practices - III. Research Technology Management, 47(6), 43-55. 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. Cooper, R.G. (2008). Perspective: The Stage-Gate Idea-to-Launch Process Update, What's New, and NexGen Systems. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(3), 213. Covey S. R. (2004). The 7 habits of highly effective people Powerful lessons in personal change, New York, New York, Free Press Crawford, C.M., & Benedetto, C.A. (2005) New Products Management, New York, New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin

289 Derry, T.W. (2004). Idea Generation as Process. Association Management, 56(6), 51-53. Dillman, D.A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Drucker, P. F. (1985a). The discipline of innovation. Harvard Business Review, 63(3), 67-72. Dwyer, J. (2005). Problem solving the ventive way. Engineering Management, 15(2), 10-13. Eisenberg, J. (1999). How individualism-collectivism moderates the effects of rewards on creativity and innovation: A comparative review of practices in japan and the U.S. Creativity and Innovation Management, 8, 251-261. Flint, D. J. (2002). Compressing new product success-to-success cycle time deep customer value understanding and idea generation. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(4), 305-315. Flynn, M., Dooley, L., O'Sullivan, D., & Cormican, K. (2003). Idea management for organizational innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 7(4), 417-442. Foster, J. (1996). How to Get Ideas, Berret-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco Front End of Innovation Conference, (2008). Front end of innovation. Boston, Massachusetts, May 19-21, 2008 PDMA Gallagher, N., George, S. & Kadakia, P. (2006). Innovate or die trying, Qualitynot-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. Guimaraes, T. and Langley, K. (1994). Developing innovation benchmarks: an empirical study, Benchmarking for Quality Management & technology, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 1351-3036. Hansen, M. T., & Birkinshaw, J. (2007). The innovation value chain. Harvard Business Review, 85(6), 121-130. Hardagon, A. and Sutton, R.I (1997) Technology Brokering and Innovation in Product Development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 716-749. http://andrewhargadon.com/writing.html 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), 421443. Hsig, 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, 545566. 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. Judith Lamont (2004, November). Idea management: Everyone's an innovator. KM World, 13(10), 14-15. 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, Americas 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), 5774. 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 Klein, Esther E. (1996) Computer-supported groups: An experiment in innovative information system idea generation and gender effects. Ph.D. dissertation, City University of New York, New York 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.; Hsig, 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.; Hsig, 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. Kirsch, L. (1997, September). Portfolios of Control Modes and IS Project Management. Information Systems Research, 8(3), 215. Kristensson, P., Gustafsson, A., & Archer, T. (2004). Harnessing the creative potential among users. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(1), 414. Kucmarski, T.D., & Johnston, Z.T. (2005) Chapter 7: Service 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. Lashinsky, A. (2006, October). Chaos by Design, Fortune Magazine, 28-35. Lawson, B., & Samson, D. (2001). 'Developing innovation capability in organizations: A dynamic capabilities approach'. International Journal of Innovation Management, 5(3), 384. Leenders, R. T. A. J., Van Engelen, J. M. L., & Kratzer, J. (2007). Systematic design methods and the creative performance of new product teams: Do they contradict or complement each other? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(2), 166-179.

294 Lichtenthaler, E., Savioz, P., Birkenmeier, B., & Brodbeck, H. (2004). Organisation of the early phases of the radical innovation process. International Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning, 1(1), 100-114. Lu. I.M. (1992). Supporting Idea Management in a Shared Drawing Tool. Masters Thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto Canada Luthje, C., & Herstatt, C. (2004). The lead user method: An outline of empirical findings and issues for future research. R and D Management, 34(5), 553568. Majaro, S. (1988), Managing Ideas for Profit, McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead Mark Fritz (2002, August). Akiva: Idea management enabler. Content, 25(8), 5051. Marsh, Peter (2000, September 29). Students overflow with ideas: MANAGEMENT WORK PLACEMENTS: School-leavers are gaining industrial experience under a scheme that also benefits employers, says Peter Marsh :[London edition]. Financial Times,p. 19. Maston, J. V. (1996). Innovate or Die: A Personal Perspective on the Art of Innovation. Washington, DC: Paradigm Press Ltd. 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. McDermott, C.,& OConnor, G. (2001). Managing radical innovation: an overview of emergent strategy issues. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19 (2002) 424438.

295 Mike Heck (2005, August). Open Channels for Innovation. Review. InfoWorld, 27(31), 28-29. 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. Moenaert, R.K., Meyer, A.D., Souder, W.E., & Deschoolmeester, D. (1995) R&D/Marketing Communication During the Fuzzy Front-End, Transactions on Engineering Management, 42(3), August, 243-258. Montoya-Weiss, M. M., & O'Driscoll, T. M. (2000). From experience: Applying performance support technology in the fuzzy front end. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17(2), 143-161. Moore, Geoffrey, (2004). Crossing the Chasm, HarperCollins Publishers, New York, New York, Moore, Geoffrey, (2006). Inside the Tornado, HarperCollins Publishers, New York, New York, Morse, G. (2005, November). Crap Circles. Harvard Business Review, 83(11), 20-22. Moskowitz, H. (1997). Concept development and optimization for foodservice (2): accelerating concept development at the fuzzy front end by combining ideation and consumer evaluation, Journal of Foodservices systems,175-192. 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 Pissarra, J., & Jesuino, J. C. (2005). Idea generation through computer-mediated communication: The effects of anonymity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(3-4), 275-291 Proctor, T (1999). Creative Problem Solving for Managers. London: Routledge. Raynor, M. E. (2007). The Strategy Paradox, why committing to success leads to failure an what to do about it. London, England: Currency and Double Day 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 Rickards, T. (1999). Brainstorming revisited: A question of context. International Journal of Management Reviews, 1(1), 91-110. Robert B Tucker (2002, November). Sparking growth. Executive Excellence, 19(11), 18. Robert B Tucker (2003). 7 strategies for generating ideas. The Futurist, 37(2), 20-25. Rochford, L. (1991). Generating and screening new product ideas. Industrial Marketing Management, 20(4), 287-296. Tadepalli, R. (1992, January). Marketing Control: Reconceptualization and the Implementation Using the Feedforward Method. European Journal of Marketing, 26(1), 24. Satzinger, J. W., Garfield, M. J., & Nagasundaram, M. (1999). The creative process: The effects of group memory on individual idea generation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 15(4), 143-160. 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. Schwepker Jr., C., & Good, D. (2004, Summer2004). MARKETING CONTROL AND SALES FORCE CUSTOMER ORIENTATION. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 24(3), 167-179. Schlicksupp, H. (1977). Idea-generation for industrial firms - report on an international investigation. R&D Management, , 61-69.

298 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. Janejira, Sutanonpaiboon, (2006). The effects of creativity software's characteristics on electronic brainstorming in different proximity settings. Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, United States Sutton, N. (2007). Outcome-driven innovation: A critical review. Masters thesis, Cranfield CERES 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/ Thongpapanl, N, O'Connor, G. C., & Sarin, S. (2008). Understanding the Role of Early Application Exploration Processes in the Realization of Major Innovations, PDMA conference proceedings. September, 2008. Orlando Florida. Toubia, O. (2006). Idea generation, creativity, and incentives. Marketing Science, 25(5), 411-425. Ulwick, A. W. (2007, Fall). Turn customer input into innovation. Harvard Business Review, 80(1), 91-97.

299 Un-authored (2004). Office of planning services and professional development, Research Parks and the University http://www.uri.edu/pspd/planserv/researchparks.pdf Van Dijk, C., & Van Den Ende, J. (2002). Suggestion systems: Transferring employee creativity into practicable ideas. R and D Management, 32(5), 387395. Vandenbosch, B., Saatcioglu, A., & Fay, S. (2006). Idea management: A systemic view. Journal of Management Studies, 43(2), 259-288. 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. (2001). PERSPECTIVE: User toolkits for innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18(4), 247-257. 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. Williams, S. (2005, February). Unnatural Selection: Machines using genetic algorithms are better than humans at designing other machines. Technology Review Inc. Retrieved 5 14, 2008, from http://www.technologyreview.com/biotech/14148/?a=f 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. Zien, K. A., & Buckler, S. A. (1997). From experience: Dreams to market: Crafting a culture of innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14(4), 274-287.

APPENDICES

301 Appendix A. Concept Life Cycle By C. Merle Crawford in New Product Management 5th Ed Opportunity concept a company skill, or resource, or a customer problem Idea concept The first appearance of an idea Stated concept a form or a technology, plus a clear statement of benefit Test concept it has passed an end user concept test, needs have been confirmed Full screened concept tested and found to fit with the companys situation Protocol concept a statement (product definition) of the intended user, including the perceived problem, the benefit to users Prototype concept a tentative physical product or system, including features and benefits Batch concept first full test of fit with manufacturing, specs are written, on what product features will be along with their characteristics and standards Process concept the full manufacturing process is complete designed Pilot concept passes a pilot production run where the product is produced in a small quantity and used with a small test group of users Market concept increased to full levels of productions Successful concept it meets the goal set for it at the start of the project.

302 Appendix B. Details of Stage Gate Process Appendix B: Table showing the tasks and activities in each stage of the stagegate processes

Adapted from Borja de Mozota (2003)

303 Appendix C. Survey Instrument V1 Welcome to a Research Survey on Idea Generation and Idea

Management held by Brian Glassman a Ph.D student in Innovation Management at Purdue University, and distributed by Ryma Technology Solutions V2-V9 This survey was designed to obtain data on current management practices in idea generation and idea management, and is expected to directly benefit respondents. Here are the benefits of the survey: 1. It is a valuable self-assessment of your company's idea generation and idea management processes. A similar assessment would cost $5K + from a consultant 2. It will roughly show the respondents where they strong or weak in controlling their idea generation and idea management processes. 3. It will give the respondents new ideas about how to improve their own idea generation practices. 4. All publications, white papers, and learnings will be email to respondents who provide their email addresses.

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
(Yes to continue)

purpose of this study. (Html link to information sheet ) V12 I consent to participating in this study.

(Yes to continue)

304 Demographic Questions V13 V14 V15 V16 V17 V18 Name (optional) Email (optional) Companys name _________ (not disclosed) _________ (not disclosed) _________ (not disclosed)

Please enter the position & title you hold at your company? ________ Please enter the department or functional areas you work for? ________ Please enter the department or major functional area you work for? _____ What role do you play in your company's innovation process?

V19-V33

check all that apply: (No role) (project manager) (support) (technician) (division manager)
(R&D manager) (engineer) (researcher) (developer) (VP of R&D) (chief innovation officer) (advisor) (minimal role) (supervisor) (assistance) (consultant)

V34

What part of your companys new product or new service development

(2 or more project) (One division) (The whole companys)

process do you manage?

(None) (1 project)

Companys Demographic Information V37 What are the approximate revenues of your company this year?
(>100K) (100K to 500K) (500K to 1M) (50M to 500M) (500M to 1B) (1B to 5B) (5B +)

V38

What is the number of employees in your company?

(1-20) (21-50) (51-100) (101-300) (301- 500) (501-1000) (1001-5000) (5001+)

V39 V40 V41

What specific industry or service sector does your company operate in? What city & state is your branch of the company operating in? What is the approximate R&D budget of your company this year?

305 All of the following satisfaction questions use the following scale
(Very Dissatisfied) (Dissatisfied) (Neutral) (Satisfied) (Very Satisfied) (Do not know) (NA)

Satisfaction with Idea Generation How satisfied are you with the: 44S 45S 46S Quality of the ideas produced from your companys idea generation Number of ideas produced from your companys idea generation process? Ability of your company to generate a set of ideas with a specific set of process?

attributes? An example of this is creating ideas for a specific market, or product ideas that can create at least 1 million in revenue and be implemented in six months. 47S 48S 49S Time it takes to generate ideas? Ability of your company's idea generation process to fill the front end Overall the idea generation process of your company?

portfolio's needs?

Satisfaction with Idea Management How satisfied are you with: 51S 52S 53S 54S pool? 55S 56S Your companys ability to distribute or route ideas across the The ability of your company's idea bank to fill the front end portfolio's organization? needs? Your companys ability to capture ideas from employees at all levels? Your companys ability to capture ideas from outside sources like Your companys ability to store and organize captured ideas? The amount, quality, & type of ideas in your companys idea bank or idea

competitors, suppliers, consultants, customers, and partners?

306 Satisfaction with Development How satisfied are you with: 58S 59S 60S 61S The development outcomes of ideas that enter into your pipeline? The ratio of ideas that make it through to market launch? Your companys ability to convert an idea into a marketable product or Your companys ability to use resources during development in an

service? effective manner?

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)

Idea Generation Process Points of Control Sources of Ideas How frequently does your company: V63-V72 Actively select the following groups to participate in generating ideas? V63 V64 V65 V66 V67 V68 V69 V70 V71 V72 V73 Employees Customers Universities External Research Labs Suppliers Consultants Partners/Alliances Direct competitors In-direct competitors Independent Inventors

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 V76 V77 V78 Actively hold events to generate ideas? For example, idea competitions, Actively manage these events? Provide incentives specific to these events? Provide general incentives for generating ideas? (For example a patenting ideas fairs, idea campaigns, & formal requests?

bonuses)

Idea Generation Activities To what degree does your company: V80 V81 V82 Actively select the type and mix of activities use to generate ideas. Actively manage the idea generation activities? Provide tools and resources specifically for idea generation activities?

Screening and Filtering To what degree does your company: V84 V85 V86 Screen newly submitted ideas prior to storing them, in say an idea bank? Set the attributes of the first screening for newly submitted ideas? Actively manage the first screen and filter to insure the screen is applied

correctly?

308 Capturing Ideas To what degree does your company: V88-V98 V88 V89 V90 V91 V92 V93 V94 V95 V96 V97 V98 V99 Accept ideas submitted from, or capture ideas by observing the Employees Customers Universities External Research Labs Suppliers Consultants Partners/Alliances Direct competitors In-direct competitors Independent Inventors Media (magazines, publications, trade journals) following groups?

Use the following methods to capturing ideas from internal or external V99 Idea management software

sources? V100 Idea suggestion box V101 Particular person for capturing ideas V102 Email V103 Voice mail V104 Actively manage the capturing of ideas from employees? V105 Actively manage the capturing of ideas from outside source?

309 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

Storage and Categorization of Ideas To what degree does your company: V115 Have a formal system for storing ideas? V116 Actively manage the system for storing ideas? V117 Use of the following idea storage systems V117 Idea management software V118 Idea data bank V119 Idea data bank (print or physical form) V120 Categorize ideas in the idea bank?

Process Check & Process Improvement V122 How often do you refine the idea generation process? V123 How much do you use the outputted ideas to refine idea generation process?

310 Diffusing and Routing of Ideas V125 How frequently does your product development staff refer to /search the idea bank during idea generation activities? V126 How frequently do your companys employees search to the idea bank? V127 To what degree does your company expose its employees to ideas from the idea bank? V128 How frequently do your companys actively route particular newly submitted ideas to the individuals who could best use them? (For example sending a new idea about a consumer product submitted by a customer to the consumer product director) V132 Would you like to learn more about how to conduct and manage the idea generation and idea management? (Yes or No)

311 Appendix D. Normative Survey Results 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.

Scale only used for Scale only used for Satisfaction Questions All other questions (V#) 1 2 3 4 5 0 0 = = = = = = = Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied Do not know NA 1 2 3 4 5 0 0 = = = = = = = Never Rarely Sometimes Most-of-the-time Always Do not know NA 1 2 3 4 5 0 0

Scale for V115. Only = = = = = = = There is no system Highly Informal System Mix of Formal & Informal Mostly Formal Highly Formal Do not know NA

312

44S

45S How Satisfied are you with the:

46S How Satisfied are you with the:

313

47S

48S How Satisfied are you with the:

49S How Satisfied are you with the:

314

51S

52S How Satisfied are you with the:

53S How Satisfied are you with the:

315

54S How Satisfied are you with the:

55S How Satisfied are you with the:

56S How Satisfied are you with the:

316

58S

59S How Satisfied are you with the:

60S How Satisfied are you with the:

317

61S How Satisfied are you with the:

V63, V64, V65, V66, V67, V68, V69, V70, V71, V72

318

V73

V75

V76 To what degree does your company:

319

V77 To what degree does your company:

V78 To what degree does your company:

V80

320

V81 To what degree does your company:

V82 To what degree does your company:

V84

321

V85

V86

322

V87, V88, V79, V90, V91, V92, V93, V94, V95, V96, V97

323

V100, V101, V102, V103

V104

V105

324

V107, V106, V107, V108, V109, V110

V114

325

V115

V116, V117, V118, V119

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 Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana Ph.D., in Technology, Department of Organizational Leadership and Supervision GPA 3.88 Specializing in commercialization of technology & innovation management Generalizing in management and strategy Duke University Durham, NC Masters of Engineering Management GPA 3.750 Graduate with Honors May-2006 no class ranking was given Concentration on New Product Development & Innovation Management GlaxoSmithKline a consulting project Facilitated GSKs in implementing RFID in to their supply chain NASA a consulting project Consulted for NASAs technology transfer Prestigious national business plan competition 2nd winner for pitched business to licensing executive society University of Central Florida Orlando, FL Masters of Science in Mechanical Engineering GPA 3.635 Graduated with honors: 2nd in class (for Mechanical Eng. Masters) US AirForce Research Labs (work experience) Researched and designed cooling systems for laser weapons Publications: 3 publications in total Florida Institute of Technology Melbourne, FL Bachelors of Science in Mechanical Engineering Graduated Magna Cum Laude Graduate 2nd in M.E. class out of 45 students GPA 3.62