From Spark to Structured Opportunity
Summary
- Give the earliest stage of innovation an explicit process with named decision owners and performance measures, because ad hoc handling is common and failures are often seeded there (Tidd & Bessant, 2018, p. 506).
- Track a handful of early innovation lifecycle measures, such as how many ideas sit in each stage and how long decisions take, instead of counting ideas alone (Kerzner, 2023, pp. 432-433).
- Have participants generate ideas alone before any group discussion (van den Ende, 2021, p. 41).
- Have a program manager source ideas across the organization ahead of time where strategic fit matters.
- Keep ideation groups free of direct reporting lines, and have senior leaders open and close the session rather than sit in it (van den Ende, 2021, p. 41).
- Treat psychological safety as something to build deliberately, and pair it with accountability rather than trading one for the other (Goller & Bessant, 2017, p. 138).
- Publish selection criteria, and reply to every submitter, including those whose ideas are rejected (van den Ende, 2021, pp. 44-45).
- Set portfolio buckets and budgets across core, adjacent and transformational horizons before ideas are ranked, so the pipeline does not drift toward incremental work (van den Ende, 2021, pp. 108, 111).
- Ask every candidate idea to state its main market and technical uncertainties and how they will be reduced before it moves to proposal.
- Bring other functions and senior management in before idea proposal (Tidd & Bessant, 2018, pp. 506-507).
- Use a product owner or product manager as the customer’s proxy.
Structure the front end before you fill it
The fuzzy front end is the period between the first consideration of a product opportunity and the point at which the idea is judged ready for formal development (Tidd & Bessant, 2018, p. 506). It deserves attention because the foundations of failure are often laid at the very beginning, even though projects technically often fail at the end (Tidd & Bessant, 2018, p. 506). In many firms this phase is ill-defined and marked by ad hoc decision-making (Tidd & Bessant, 2018, p. 506).
A review of 39 research articles identified 17 success factors for managing this stage, presented in no order of importance (Tidd & Bessant, 2018, p. 506). They are:
- Idea visionaries or product champions
- Adequate formalization
- Idea refinement and screening
- Early customer involvement
- Cooperation among internal functions
- Attention to competitors’ ideas and legal issues
- Senior management involvement
- Preliminary technology assessment
- Alignment between product development and strategy
- An early and well-defined product definition
- Beneficial external cooperation beyond customers
- Learning from experience in the preproject team
- Clear project priorities
- Project management
- A creative organizational culture
- A cross-functional executive review committee
- Product portfolio planning.
Most of these map onto decisions covered in sections below below. Formalization is discussed in this section (see next paragraph). Screening and the review committee drive distillation, and a creative culture is the subject of the ideation and psychological safety sections. Customer involvement, cross-functional cooperation, senior management and the product definition shape stakeholder outreach. Technology assessment and strategic alignment feed uncertainty grading, and portfolio planning underpins the discussion of horizons. Champions, project management and external cooperation matter most once an idea leaves this stage.
Formalization is the factor to act on first. The process should be explicit, widely known, characterized by clear decision-making responsibilities and contain specific performance measures (Tidd & Bessant, 2018, p. 506). What might those measures be? A raw count of ideas is not enough, because it does not fully reflect a company’s innovative power (Kerzner, 2023, p. 432). GEA Group tracks how many ideas and projects sit in each innovation phase, which shows how many ideas the front end must generate to get a product to market (Kerzner, 2023, p. 432). It also monitors the processing time for decisions and the sales potential in the pipeline, adding an uncertainty factor for early ideas (Kerzner, 2023, p. 433). Speed matters because if early decisions take too long, employee motivation can drop significantly and idea maturation or content quality can suffer (Kerzner, 2023, p. 432).
Other measures track the creative process itself: the quality of ideas, the ability to explore them and their conversion rate into projects and value (Davila et al., 2006, p. 156). Leading indicators can be simpler still, such as the number of interviews with and observations of users and stakeholders, and the number of existing solutions analyzed (Sauzet, 2026, p. 159). Pick three or four, publish them, and review them every cycle.
Design sessions: individual first, then group
Group brainstorming has a weaker record than its popularity suggests. Groups often generated only half as many ideas as similar numbers of solitary performers, with no higher quality of ideas (Goller & Bessant, 2017, p. 153). Researchers point to three explanatory processes: evaluation apprehension, social comparison and production blocking (Goller & Bessant, 2017, p. 154).
The practical answer is to sequence groups rather than abandon them. In the nominal group technique, people first generate ideas individually, for instance for 10 minutes, and then share them around the table (van den Ende, 2021, p. 41). This uses the creativity of quieter participants, gives people a moment of silence to think, and reduces the tendency to follow one another (van den Ende, 2021, p. 41). Brainwriting works similarly: everybody writes first, then shares, then the group clusters or complements the ideas (Goller & Bessant, 2017, p. 159). Short sessions of ten minutes separated by five to ten minute intervals are one suggested alternative to a single 45-minute session (Goller & Bessant, 2017, p. 159). Breaks between generation sessions also improve later selection and refinement (Schweitzer & Tidd, 2018, p. 84).
Individual ideation can also be supplemented before anyone enters the room. In addition, or alternatively, the facilitator or program manager can source ideas across the organization ahead of time, which may fit better into existing strategy. Brainstorming still has a place: a review of more than 50 studies found more support for it than not, and experienced facilitators and trained groups help (Goller & Bessant, 2017, p. 155).
Composition matters as much as technique. More heterogeneous participants are better placed to generate diverse and novel ideas than homogeneous ones (Schweitzer & Tidd, 2018, p. 85). Direct hierarchical relations in the room should be avoided, and the boss can open and close the workshop but should leave participants alone in between (van den Ende, 2021, p. 41).
Generating ideas versus gathering them
A workshop generates ideas, while an idea management system gathers them, and both should aim at quality rather than volume. A creativity workshop should not just generate a high number of ideas but also make a first assessment of them and a first reflection on implementation (van den Ende, 2021, p. 40). Volume is no longer the hard part, because IT tools make it easy to collect large numbers of ideas from inside and outside a company (van den Ende, 2021, p. 40). Deutsche Post, for example, reported over 200,000 employee ideas in a single year (van den Ende, 2021, p. 41).
Gathering systems need deliberate design. One choice is targeting: a middle ground is to set specific target domains plus an open box, with submitters understanding that the chances of adoption are lower in the open box (van den Ende, 2021, p. 44). Another is feedback. Ignoring ideas appears to lead people not to return with new ones, while feedback keeps them submitting (van den Ende, 2021, p. 45). Managers are advised to show submitters of rejected ideas what good ideas look like, and not only why theirs was rejected (van den Ende, 2021, p. 45).
Peer discussion before submission is worth encouraging. Discussing an idea with colleagues improves it, and more so when those colleagues come from different departments but know each other very well (van den Ende, 2021, p. 45). The reason is that such colleagues bring new perspectives to the idea, while the strong relationship makes an intense discussion possible (van den Ende, 2021, p. 45).
Scale then creates a selection problem. IBM collected more than 40,000 ideas and Google over 150,000, and evaluators will probably give very little attention to the 41st idea they assess (van den Ende, 2021, p. 46). However, with natural language processing and large language models there are opportunities to categorize ideas en masse.
Alternate divergence and convergence
Good ideation is not one long burst but alternating cycles of opening up and narrowing down. The double diamond model has a divergent discover phase, a convergent define phase, a divergent develop phase and a convergent deliver phase (Goller & Bessant, 2017, p. 217). Design thinking stages likewise alternate divergent and convergent thinking (Goller & Bessant, 2017, p. 225), and creative problem solving allows for both within each of its stages (Goller & Bessant, 2017, p. 14).
A single workshop can embody the pattern by moving from idea generation through assessment to implementation planning (van den Ende, 2021, pp. 42-43). In the assessment step, each participant selects one idea to carry forward, with generic criteria such as novelty, feasibility and expected value as a fallback (van den Ende, 2021, p. 43). Closing with pitches, each in a strict time slot such as three minutes, is one way to end (van den Ende, 2021, p. 43).
Build psychological safety on purpose
Psychological safety is the shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking (Goller & Bessant, 2017, p. 144). It matters most where task uncertainty is high and resources are scarce, which describes an innovative journey (Goller & Bessant, 2017, p. 136). Without it, people feel anxious and threatened, and their willingness to speak up and take initiative for innovation is fairly small (Goller & Bessant, 2017, p. 136). Google’s Project Aristotle, which studied 180 teams, found psychological safety to be the single strongest predictor of team success (Benraouane & Harrington, 2021, p. 142).
For ideation the mechanism is concrete. Absent psychological safety, teams tend to focus on shared knowledge only and cannot use the diversity of knowledge or background in the room (Goller & Bessant, 2017, p. 139). This climate does not emerge naturally and needs building and reinforcing (Goller & Bessant, 2017, p. 140). Executives should not mistake it for softness: accountability and psychological safety are separate dimensions, and the learning zone combines high levels of both (Goller & Bessant, 2017, p. 138). Nor is it the same as cohesiveness, which can reduce a team’s ability to challenge and take risks (Goller & Bessant, 2017, p. 137).
Some tactics follow. Criticizing ideas, having no diversity, having no clear purpose, focusing on only a few ideas and offering no follow-up are five ways to ruin a brainstorming session (van den Ende, 2021, p. 40). A fishbowl exercise built around what psychological safety means for the team is one way to practice it (Goller & Bessant, 2017, pp. 159-160).
Distill: from long list to balanced portfolio
Selection starts with screening that combines business and feasibility analysis (Tidd & Bessant, 2018, p. 506). Criteria deserve care. Novelty and feasibility may work against each other, so feasibility is better treated as a boundary condition (van den Ende, 2021, p. 44). Since selection criteria always exist, it is generally better to be open about them to submitters (van den Ende, 2021, p. 44). Strategic leverage, meaning whether the idea adds to the strategy or stimulates new strategic directions, is an alternative to strict strategic fit (van den Ende, 2021, p. 44).
Then comes the portfolio. A reactive, bottom-up process can leave an unbalanced portfolio that frequently over-represents incremental projects, because people tend to have ideas based on problems and opportunities from their current activities (van den Ende, 2021, p. 108). A proactive approach starts from strategy and defines categories, or buckets, and resources before selecting projects (van den Ende, 2021, p. 108).
A common way to define the buckets is three horizons. Core innovations renew existing products or services, adjacencies target customers, behavior or technologies that partially overlap with current target markets but are new to the company, and transformational innovations create completely new markets or overhaul existing ones (van den Ende, 2021, p. 111). Nagji and Tuff mention a division of 70% of the budget for core, 20% for adjacent and 10% for transformational innovations (van den Ende, 2021, p. 113). Strategy shapes the split: a first-mover strategy should result in higher budgets for transformational projects, whereas a defender strategy may put more emphasis on core projects (van den Ende, 2021, p. 113).
The horizons tie directly to the practices above. Fixing the buckets first means an incoming idea competes with others of its own kind rather than with everything at once. Criteria can then differ by bucket: expected profits may be an important criterion for incremental core projects, while strategic reasoning tends to be key for adjacent and transformational ones (van den Ende, 2021, p. 114). NPV calculations generally lead to underestimating the potential of transformational projects (van den Ende, 2021, p. 114). For radical projects, Day proposes asking whether the project is realistic, whether the company can win and whether it is worth doing (van den Ende, 2021, p. 114). This matters for candor too, because under higher uncertainty, stage-gate and portfolio systems tend to reject ideas that do not fit and produce self-censoring among those bringing ideas (Tidd & Bessant, 2014, p. 173).
Evidence should also be judged within a horizon. Uncertainty and project management approach vary so much across horizons that values should not be compared or consolidated across them (Sauzet, 2026, p. 161). Both errors of balance are costly. Nokia underinvested in transformational innovations in smartphone software for a long period of time (van den Ende, 2021, p. 113), while firms with little innovation history can be hurt by overinvesting, since big failures can kill the spirit for innovation (van den Ende, 2021, p. 109). A cross-functional executive review committee and product portfolio planning are both among the success factors for this stage (Tidd & Bessant, 2018, p. 507).
Reach stakeholders and gather requirements
Customers can help construct clear project objectives, reduce uncertainty and evaluate the product concept (Tidd & Bessant, 2018, p. 506). That does not mean the innovation team must engage customers directly. A product owner or product manager can serve as a proxy for the customer, carrying customer needs into the room, so the team can stay focused on generating and testing ideas.
Internal stakeholders matter just as much. Cooperation among functions helps a concept survive criticism from different functional perspectives and creates legitimacy (Tidd & Bessant, 2018, p. 506). Senior management support helps a predevelopment team succeed and can align activities that cut across functional boundaries (Tidd & Bessant, 2018, p. 507).
Requirements can stay light at this stage. A well-defined product definition provides information about target markets, customer needs, competitors, technology and resources (Tidd & Bessant, 2018, p. 507). A rank-ordered priority list of key features lets the team disregard certain attributes if costs force it to (Tidd & Bessant, 2018, p. 507). In agile settings, often the product owner prioritizes user stories into must-haves and should-haves (Schweitzer & Tidd, 2018, p. 214). That is one more reason to involve the future product owner early.
Grade uncertainty before proposal
Before an idea moves to proposal, grade it. Internal uncertainty concerns knowledge and technical problems, while external uncertainty concerns what the market is willing to accept and events in the outside world (van den Ende, 2021, p. 134). Internal uncertainty is reduced by problem-solving that generates knowledge, and external uncertainty by collaborating with customers and observing competitors (van den Ende, 2021, p. 134). If uncertainty does not decrease enough while investment grows, the firm may consider the project out of control (van den Ende, 2021, p. 134).
Two readiness scales give the grading a structure. The technology readiness level scale assesses the maturity of a technology, and the business readiness level scale measures a product or service’s suitability for its market (Sauzet, 2026, p. 158). Plotting the two against each other helps position projects, with the ideal trajectory advancing technological maturity and market understanding at the same pace (Sauzet, 2026, p. 161).
Practical checks complement the scales. Preliminary technology assessment asks early whether the product can be developed, what technical solutions are needed and at what cost (Tidd & Bessant, 2018, p. 507). Risk assessment should cover market, technological, manufacturing and design sources of risk (Tidd & Bessant, 2018, p. 575). Iterating at the start of development reduces market uncertainty early (van den Ende, 2021, p. 139). Match the rigor to the horizon, since strict stage-gate models are best applied to incremental projects and can hurt radical ones by reducing learning (van den Ende, 2021, p. 138).
Bibliography
Benraouane, S. A., & Harrington, H. J. (2021). Using the ISO 56002 innovation management system: A practical guide for implementation and building a culture of innovation. Routledge.
Davila, T., Epstein, M. J., & Shelton, R. (2006). Making innovation work: How to manage it, measure it, and profit from it. Wharton School Publishing. (Page numbers refer to PDF pages.)
Goller, I., & Bessant, J. (2017). Creativity for innovation management: Tools and techniques for creative thinking in practice. Routledge.
Kerzner, H. (2023). Innovation project management: Methods, case studies, and tools for managing innovation projects (2nd ed.). Wiley.
Sauzet, F. (2026). Innovation management in practice: Understanding and acting with ISO 56001. Routledge.
Schweitzer, F., & Tidd, J. (2018). Innovation heroes: Understanding customers as a valuable innovation resource. World Scientific.
Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. (2014). Strategic innovation management. Wiley.
Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. (2018). Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organizational change (6th ed.). Wiley.
van den Ende, J. (2021). Innovation management. Red Globe Press.