Comparison between Front End and Development Phases

Previous chapters pointed out the differences between the tasks and illustrated flow of work of front end and development phases. Furthermore, these two phases of innovation process differ a lot in their characteristics and atmospheres.

It is commonly agreed that the front end of the innovation process is the most challenging part of the innovation process. Because the uncertainty is highest at the front end of the innovation and there is very little information at this phase it is often

called “the fuzzy front end” (FFE), a term made popular by Smith and Reinertsen (1991; see Verworn et al. 2008). According to Zhang and Doll (2001) this “fuzziness”

derives from unclear customer requirements, unproven and changing technologies as well as from unpredictable business environment. Koen et al (2001) note that compared to the front end phase, development phase is more structured and linear and the nature of working is disciplined and goal-oriented. Where front end is uncertain and unpredictable, development phase is clear and defined. Furthermore, speed and timing issues play an important role on this phase.

As opposite to the development phase, the front end is dynamic and unstructured by nature (Murphy & Kumar 1997, Kim & Wilemon 2002b) and requires out-of-box thinking (Buijs, 2007). Buckler (1997) characterizes the front end phase as experimental, requiring high tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity, and the willingness to consider the unreasonable. In addition to experimental, Koen et al. (2001) characterize the front end as often chaotic and difficult to plan. Uncertainty and unpredictability are seen as central characteristics (Zien & Buckler 1997, Koen et al., 2001). The nature of working in the front end, on the other hand, is based on “trial-and-error” where high failure rate is typical (Kim & Wilemon, 2002b). Where the development phase is considered to be linear, the front end phase is non-linear and iterative, including “looping back”,

“redirecting”, and “redoing” (Koen et al., 2001). Kim and Wilemon (2002b) argue that since there are still lots of things unknown, front end is characterized by seeking knowledge and learning while being creative. They further argue that one must learn to accept approximate solutions since the information available for decision making during the front end is typically qualitative, informal and approximate. Montoya-Weiss and O’Driscoll (2000) state that the early stages of innovation process typically involve ad-hoc decisions and ill-defined processes. Smith et al. (1999) emphasize the importance of “fast failure” or “rapid risk reduction” during the front end by rapidly shifting from many ideas to find those most likely to succeed. Furthermore, management methods are unstructured, experimental and creativity is needed (Kim &

Wilemon, 2002b).

The differences between the characteristics of the front end of innovation and development phase are presented in Table 3.

Table 3 Comparison between the Front end and Development phase

Factors General Characteristics of Front End Phase

General Characteristics of Development Phase State of and idea Probable, fuzzy, easy to

change

Determined to develop, clear, specific, difficult to change Features of information for

decision making

Qualitative, informal, approximate

Quantitative, formal and precise

Outcome A blueprint A product

Action Diminishing ambiguity to

decide whether to make it happen

Making it happen

Nature of work Experimental, often chaotic, difficult to plan, eureka moments

Structured, disciplined and goal-oriented with project plan

Width and depth of focus Broad and thin Narrow but detailed Ease of rejecting an idea Easy More difficult

Degree of formalization Low High

Personnel involvement Individual or small project team

A full development team

Budget Small / none Large designated

Revenue expectations Often uncertain, sometimes done with a great deal of speculation

Believable and with

increasing certainty, analysis and documentation as the product release date gets closer

Commercialization date Unpredictable Definable Management Methods Unstructured, experimental,

creativity needed

Structured, systematic

Visible damage if abandoned

Usually small Substantial

Commitment of the CEO None or small Usually high

Source: Adapted from Koen et al. 2001 and Kim & Wilemon 2002b.

As the table depicts, development phase is characterized by high-levels of formality and routine working as opposite to front end which is characterized by low levels of formalisation and non-routine working (Kim and Wilemon, 2002b). The state of an idea in development phase is determined, clear and specific, and it is difficult to change.

Also the information available at this phase is usually quantitative and precise. Smith et al. (1991) note avoidance of failure to be critical in the development project.

Furthermore, management methods are structured and systematic (Kim & Wilemon, 2002b). Also funding is accurately budgeted and revenue expectations are increasingly accurate as opposite to the front end, where funding in this phase is variable, often small or even non-existent (Koen et al., 2001). In comparison, revenue expectations at the front end are uncertain and often done with speculations (Koen et al. 2001).

Furthermore, Smith and Reinertsen (1991, see Nobelius & Trygg, 2000) argue that the early stages of innovation process are often neglected with regard to resources, attention and top management support due to the indefinite objectives and lack of traditional project management focus.

As can be noted from the table above, the different characteristics of FEI and development phase require different methods for managing the processes. While management methods in front end are unstructured, experimental and lot of creativity is needed, management in development phase requires more structured and systematic approach. The differences in the management approaches during the front end and development phase are discussed in the following chapters.