The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Providing Clarity and A Common Language to the “Fuzzy Front End”
Abstract
OVERVIEW:Eight companies that were Process Effectiveness Network members of the Industrial Research Institute attempted to collectively determine the best practices of the Fuzzy Front End (FFE) of innovation. Comparing one company's processes to those of another proved insurmountable because there was neither a common language nor clear and consistent definition of the key elements of the front end. As a result, the group developed a theoretical construct, defined as the New Concept Development (NCD) model, in order to provide a common language and insights on the front end activities. The model consists of three key parts: five front end elements, the engine that powers the elements, and external influencing factors. Proficiency of the FFE was evaluated at 19 companies by using the NCD model. Highly innovative companies were found to be more proficient in the FFE and in several elements of the NCD model.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Product development: Past research, present findings and future directions
Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258850 · Cited by 3,777
Cited by
Firm's resilience to supply chain disruptions: Scale development and empirical examination
Ambulkar, S., Blackhurst, J., & Grawe, S. (2015) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2014.11.002 · Cited by 1,400
Roles during innovation ecosystem genesis: A literature review
Dedehayir, O., Mäkinen, S. J., & Roland Ortt, J. (2018) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.028 · Cited by 499
Verworn, B., Herstatt, C., & Nagahira, A. (2008) · R&D Management · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2007.00492.x · Cited by 253
Crossing the valley of death: Five underlying innovation processes
Ellwood, P., Williams, C., & Egan, J. (2022) · Technovation · doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102162 · Cited by 126
Metadata
- Authors
- Koen, P., Ajamian, G., Burkart, R., Clamen, A., Davidson, J., D'Amore, R., Elkins, C., Herald, K., Incorvia, M., Johnson, A., Karol, R., Seibert, R., Slavejkov, A., & Wagner, K.
- Venue
- Research-Technology Management
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2001-03
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 46-55
- ISSN
- 0895-6308 (ISSN-L)
- 1930-0166
- OpenAlex
- W1506705075
- Cited by
- 798
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 17.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Providing Clarity and A Common Language to the “Fuzzy Front End”. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/08956308.2001.11671418
- The paper
- Koen, P., Ajamian, G., Burkart, R., Clamen, A., Davidson, J., D'Amore, R., Elkins, C., Herald, K., Incorvia, M., Johnson, A., Karol, R., Seibert, R., Slavejkov, A., & Wagner, K. (2001). Providing Clarity and A Common Language to the “Fuzzy Front End”. Research-Technology Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2001.11671418
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
