Harvard Business School
Stevens Institute of Technology
Flynn et al. (2003)
Wilhelm Büchner Hochschule
Aerojet Technology Council
Brem & Voigt (2009)
Lulea University of Technology
Source: The author.
, São Carlos
The funnel-shaped model begins with the stage
of collecting and creating ideas, which develops
according to the level of creativity and innovative
culture of the organization.
The created and collected ideas are compared to
those in the database of ideas. Later, these ideas go
through the first review, where some may be rejected
and postponed other then being stored in the bank
of ideas for future contributions. The ideas that are
still in the process are classified and enriched, then
by passing a new revision, where more ideas may
be rejected or delayed. After this process the ideas
are prepared for implementation.
Finally, the model Kurkkio et al. (2011) is the
latest found through systematic bibliographic review
and focuses on innovations in processes rather than
products. It is the result of a multiple case study
conducted through 28 interviews and semi-structured
in four companies being them two metallurgical and
two mining. The model has four stages: informal
start-up; formal study of ideas; formal pre-study;
formal pre-project. For each of the phases activities
have been identified. The generation of ideas and
discussion of ideas for innovation start at start-up
phase. This phase is often unclear and informal.
Many ideas may originate from senior management
suggestions, or conversations between managers
and co-workers in informal situations. In the next
phase, formal idea study, a little idea is specified
and a clearer conception of the problem is defined.
The result of this phase serves as input for the
pre-formal study. In this phase the solution begins to
be considered in the implementation point of view and
is characterized by conducting empirical tests to the
solution. The formal pre-project is where are carried
out large-scale experiments and feasibility analyzes
(Kurkkio et al., 2011). It is possible to perceive that
although proposed by different authors at different
times, these models have similarities and are in
some cases changes from previous models. Whitney
model (2007), for example, is strongly influenced by
the work of Koen et al. (2001), especially regarding
the consideration of “influencing factors” in the
pre-development performance, on which companies
do not have full control. Whitney model is also
presented in a circular format comprises three main
interfaces that resemble the three-dimensional model
of Koen et al. (2001).
The Voigt and Brem model (2009) resembles in
theoretical contribution to the Cooper (1988) and
the Koen et al. (2001). For being the latest model
Brem & Voigt (2009) adds aspects not covered in
the reference work (Cooper, 1988), for example, the
study of market dynamics and technology.
Models of Murphy & Kumar (1997) and Khurana
& Rosenthal (1998) are clearly based on the model
of Cooper (1988), resembling the activities and
information flow. The Cooper models (1988), Murphy
& Kumar (1997) and Boeddrich (2004) gives the
impression of linearity, i.e., the pre-development
activities occur in defined time sequence, not being
explicitly the effect of feedback or feedback that
occur in the process.
As to the models Khurana & Rosenthal (1998),
Koen et al. (2001), Flynn et al. (2003), Whitney (2007),
Reid & Brentani (2004), Brem & Voigt (2009) and
Kurkkio (2011) suggest the existence of interaction
between the activities and among those involved in
As shown in Chart 3, most models emphasizes the
pre-development of new products with the exception
of Whitney models (2007) and Brem & Voigt (2009)
that deal with the development of new technologies
that support new products.
Because of the complexity of the pre-development
phase the described models suggest, in some way,
means to become their management more efficient and
effective, either through the establishment of activities,
organization, development of common nomenclature,
establishing tools, gathering management information
for the stage or the listing of best practices.
However, it is observed in all the models some
limitation concerning to its applicability, as shown
in Chart 3. These limitations are not exhibited by the
authors of the works giving the idea that the models
are generic and applicable to any kind of company.
Only the works of Brem & Voigt (2009) and Kurkkio
(2011) mention the impossibility of generalization
because they are models developed having as object
of study very specific sector companies, such as
technology and metallurgy respectively. It is importante
to highlight that the models presented are based on
literature reviews or developed through case study.
Those derived from literature reviews are based on the
best practices cited in the literature and therefore they
do not present the results of its practical application,
but only cite the benefits that can be expected from
The models developed from review and case study
were not practiced in the surveyed companies, ie
companies were used only as a source of information
for its elaboration and again the authors only cite the
expected benefits from the adoption of these models.
Thus, it is not possible to identify and analyze the
actual effectiveness of the models proposed by the
3.3.2 Correspondence between the
activities of pre-development
The number of stages or phases in those models
does not vary much from one to another (Chart 4),
however it is known that for each activity there is a
set of other necessary sub-activities for its realization.
may be significantly different depending on the kind
of project that is being developed, the urgency of
the project, the company’s objectives among others.
However, some activities appear recurrent in all
models, as Chart 4 shows.
Although occur at different times, the phases
(1) and (2) the models of Cooper (1988); Murphy &
Kumar (1997); Khurana & Rosenthal (1998); Brem
& Voigt (2009); Kurkkio (2011), Boeddrich (2004);
(2) Whitney (2007), (3) Koen et al. (2002) and (3) and
(4) Flynn et al. (2003) represent the moment in which
ideas should be generated, refined, selected and
improved. In the model of Reid & Brentani (2004,
2012) ideas are built along its three interfaces.
Other activities present in almost all models
are: the identification, analysis and opportunities
selection, or verification by techniques and tools to
support management of internal or external factors
to the company and may result in amelioration or
creation of a new product. These activities can be
Chart 3. Comparison of the models for pre-development.
Cooper (1988) Consumer
Propose model that helps in better
activities aimed at reducing failures
in new products development.
Requires relatively large
time, money and people with
Kumar (1997) Capital goods
Gather and provide information to
and activities undertaken prior to
the development of the product.
The model was developed
considering observations in a
small sample of companies.
List activities, problems and
Few details on how to
operationalize the activities.
Koen et al.
Consolidate best practices and
the activities of pre-development.
Flynn et al.
Propose a model for improving
for new products with support to
It takes time, resources and
skills. It depends on team
Propose systematization of part of
the pre-development. It also lists
requirements for an efficient flow
of ideas in the pre-development.
Absence of details on the
practical implementation of
Establishes activities for the
operationalize these activities.
It does not address or show
practical outcomes or benefits
of adopting the suggested
Propose a model for management
products, based on the flow of
information and in the decision
have practical results.
Brem & Voigt
Model with pre-development bank
Based on a single case,
Propose a model for development
from a field research in
metallurgical and mining
industries, making it difficult
to generalize their application.
Focus in the continuous
, São Carlos
Comparison of activities / sub-phases of the pre-development of the models analyzed.
Ideas generation (1)
and selection (1)
Informal startup (1)
Formal study of
Phase one (3)
Formal pre- study (3)
seen in (1) and (2) from Cooper (1988); Murphy &
step (1) and (4) Koen et al (2002), (1) Khurana &
Rosenthal (1998); Whitney (2007), (2) Kurkkio
(2011), and (3) Flynn et al. (2003). The model of
Boeddrich (2004) does not identify when to take place
the identification of opportunities, but cites the need
for innovative companies analyze the opportunities
contained in the generated ideas, however abstract
they may be, if well used may result in successful
projects. The model of Brem & Voigt (2009) is also
not clear as to the identification of opportunities, on
the other hand, analyzing more carefully it can be seen
that the activities of stage (1) refer the possibilities
of identifying opportunities through the creativity
and the company’s innovation culture.
All authors mention the need for financial and
commercial viability analysis, and analyzing the
organizational capacity and alignment between the
new product and the company’s strategy. Yet, not
all models bring this account explicitly in the form
of stages or phases. It is more evident in the models
of Cooper (1988), Khurana & Rosenthal (1998),
Koen et al. (2001), Flynn et al. (2003).
From the ten cited models, seven mention the
definition and concept test as an important activity
for the pre-development. This can be seen in stages
(3) from Cooper (1988) & Boeddrich (2004), (2) Murphy
& Kumar (1997) and Khurana & Rosenthal (1998),
(4) Whitney (2007), (5) Koen et al. (2002) and in
stages (2), (3) and (4) Kurkkio (2011). The models
of Flynn et al. (2003) and of Brem & Voigt (2009)
comprise only the management of ideas, not applying,
therefore, the concept definition. The model of Reid
& Brentani (2004, 2012) focuses on the flow of
information and decision making, not directly addressing
the concept definition. However, it is important to
consider that the management of information flow
and decision-making in pre-development guides the
definition of new concepts.
From this analysis it was observed that regardless
of the type, the emphasis, the number of stages or
runtime major pre-development components activities
can be grouped into: identification of opportunities;
opportunities selection; idea generation or ideation;
selection of ideas; concept development; concepts
selections and project planning. These activities,
even with different names, are present in all models.
Performing these activities requires a set of
techniques or tools that can operationalize them and
make the pre-development more efficient and effective.
Chart 5 shows the list of techniques and tools
cited in the analyzed models and, according to the
authors, can be adopted for the implementation of
the pre-development activities.
According to Project Management Body of
Knowledge (PMI, 2008), technique is a systematic
procedure used to perform an activity to produce
a product or result or provide a service, and may
employ one or more tools for its execution. Since
tool is defined as a template or a software program
used in performing an activity to produce a product
or a result.
It is noteworthy, however, that frame neither intends
to group different nature techniques and nor limit the
operation of the activities only to these techniques.
4 Final considerations
The analysis of the Works collected by BSR
showed that pre-development is not a well established
theme indicating, therefore, the need and possibility
of various related studies.
It was observed the presence of 10 different models
for the stage of pre-development. These models were
published between 1988 and 2013 and seek, where
possible, organize the pre-development and guide
managers in conducting phase.
It is important to note that each model analyzed
has a different purpose and proposes solutions for the
pre-development companies belonging to different
sectors, but all were, somehow, developed based on
the pioneering work of Cooper published in 1988.
While these models refer to the work of Cooper
(1988), they diverge from each other in several aspects.
Each model is composed of a number of different
activities and each author presents a diverse set of
techniques and tools to assist in the implementation
of these activities.
It was observed that some activities are recurring
in all the models. Such activities, in some cases are
given different names, but basically refers to activities
of identification of opportunities; opportunities
selection; idea generation; selection of ideas; concept
development; concepts selection and project planning.
We conclude, therefore, based on the bibliographic
review, these activities are essential and must be
present in the pre-development phase, regardless of
the kind of product or industry in which the company
Were also identified, as shown in Chart 5, 57 different
techniques, according to the authors, may be effective
for the conduction of the pre-development activities.
According to the authors the same technique can be
adopted in different activities of the pre-development
to achieve different goals, nonetheless, it was not
mentioned in the Works any reference indicating the
real effectiveness of the application of such techniques.
It was also observed that the analyzed models do not
mention the practical results of their application, setting
up a limitation to this research and reinforcing the
, São Carlos
Chart 5. Techniques and tools for pre-development.
Market research; direct contact with consumers; systematic
collection of market information.
Formal techniques (techniques of creativity, problem-
solving techniques, brainstorming); Informal techniques
(discussions in cyberspace, ad hoc sections, individual
employees; creativity techniques.
software for cross-
Flynn et al.
Market research; analysis of market segments;
of consumers, consumers’ assessment; scenario planning;
tecnology roadmapping; SWOT analysis; Relevance tree,
Focus groups; market research; technical “what-if”;
competitive intelligence; trend analysis.
analysis; interactive methods; artificial intelligence;