Design Thinking and Fuzzy Front End innovation show comparison and could fertilise each other.

Introduction There has been many materials written on Design Thinking. Lately a lot of companies have adopted this methodology in their company like IDEO and Procter and Gamble. (Davis, 2010) The aim for design thinking is to manage creativity and directing this towards an innovative solutions. You could say that it looks like a New Product Development(NPD) process used in lots of companies. Especially the Fuzzy Front End(FFE) stage in NPD shows significant correlation with design thinking. This paper will compare two papers, one on design thinking by Brooke M Davis and the other paper on the FFE by Yung-Ching Ho and Ching-Tzu Tsai. Both the articles show similarity between the two and could gain a lot of expertise from each other. Design thinking is still a considerably new phenomenon ands hasn’t had much academic attention, mainly the positive effects being noticed in the business field.(Davis, 2010) If we look at the NPD and FFE Ho et al.(2011) tell us that there has been done a significant amount of research and the importance of a successful FFE is of great value for further success of the product. The two processes will be shown bellow and will evaluate the similarity between them and how they could improve each other.

Is it equal or different? Davis start by telling that the design process of Design thinking varies each time a new project begins.(p. 6, 2010) Davis divides the process into seven phases that run in an iterative line, not linear as most processes do. The seven phases are as followed(p. 6, 2010):

1. “Problem identification”: Research based approach in which the team is making the problem as clearly as possible. Differing from varies methods like observation, visualising the problem etc.
2. “X statement development”: After the problem has been cleared the purpose of the solvable problem needs to be clear. What does the team want to work towards too? Resulting in a statement that guides the team towards a specific area, that still is broad enough so the end result isn’t fixed.
3. “Ideation”: The generation of ideas based on the statement previously mentioned. Leading towards an actual concept. In this phase brainstorming and idea generation are the main activities.
4. “Evaluation”: The concept or ideas that have been developed are being analysed and sorted. What is interesting enough to the client and what has more potential for further development?
5. “Visualization”: Making the concept tangible which has been picked during the evaluation phase. Going more in depth into the concept in a holistic manner. Testing the case with potential target groups to make sure it is valuable enough.
6. “Analysis”: After working out the concept into a viable solution a validation of the concept is being done. Making a SWOT analyses, measuring the innovativeness for the market perspective and seeking to find the best possible solution to do a successful launch into the market.
7. “Final Concept Direction”: Presenting the final concept to the market or the client and making the final prototype.

All this is being done with in a human centered approach and the process runs iterative.

The FFE process is defined by six phases , Ho et al.(p. 48, 2011) follows the theory of Khurana, A., & Rosenthal, S. R. (1998). HO et al. describe that during the front end innovation stage the organisation is going to formulate a concept that leads to a product and resulting into an assessment that determines if it is a valid business opportunity or not. The six phases are as followed:

1. “Product strategy formulation and communication”
2. “Opportunity identification and assessment”
3. “Idea Generation”: Creating of the product ideas
4. “Product definition”: Defining the product and researching it’s potential and design
5. “Project planning”
6. “Executive reviews”

The defined phases aren’t as specific as of the design thinking phases but the words speak for themselves. Notably Ho et al. mention that the process has been created to lower the “fuziness” of the project and enhances the described process more effectively.(p. 49, 2011) Ho et al. also refers to the process as non-linear and it can change varies times

A look at the similarity and enhancements of both processes The phases of both the processes show significant similarity when compared with each other. In both cases they describe the problem/product identification stage, idea generation, markets perspectives, prototyping and reviews. This similarity shows that both the processes contain creativity and analysing capabilities of a project. The huge difference between the two is in design thinking to be more based on value as a end result and the FFE process more on market perspective. Depending on the market your in the relevance of value based positioning seems more relevant to todays markets. As in design thinking, in FFE the process is not based on a linear approach, they both have the iteration as a leading point. This results in the “fuziness” of the FFE and the chaotic feeling of design thinking. Both the same effect, but named differently. Both the writers address the acceptance of failure. Davis(p. 4, 2010) tells the readers the act of failing as a process of discovering new opportunities and failure helps to keep the team sharp. Ho et al.(p. 50, 2011) describes failure as an essential element in the corporate culture that is dealing with FFE. Failures have a significant impact on the project and companies performance. Davis(p. 56, 2011) states that a clear and efficient procedure can enhance the FFE performance significantly. The same is for Design Thinking, the process makes the innovation and by adapting it in the right manner innovation can be expected in the end. Both have the same end goal and could enhance each other, which could lead into an interesting research in the future. How could both FFE and design thinking make each other stronger or could both be replaced by a more significant theory?

Conclusion This comparative summary shows the similarity between FFE and design thinking. Both having almost the same process which mainly differs in words not in execution. Next to the process there are interesting “cultural” points that could enhance and help each other like the failure or the impact FFE has by having a clear procedure, which could be enhanced by the design thinking process. The interesting point remains if there could be an effective way to combine the two with each other for an even stronger innovative process, but this remains open for future research.

Thank you for focusing your mind on my article!

Share some love and hit the ❤ button