Using Intuition in Fuzzy Front‐End Decision‐Making: A Conceptual Framework

Abstract

The goal of decision‐making during the execution of the fuzzy front end (FFE) is to develop a creative new product concept. Although intuitive decision‐making has been found to increase new product creativity, the theoretical knowledge base as to why and under which conditions intuition use during the process of generating a creative outcome is beneficial, is rather limited. Therefore, this study develops a conceptual framework theorizing why and under which conditions using intuition in FFE execution decision‐making may or may not be (as) beneficial for new product concept creativity. To develop this framework, the authors combine a creativity perspective of the FFE and a dual‐processing perspective of intuition. Interviews with eight FFE practitioners are used to support and illustrate the framework development. The theorizing leads the authors to postulate that intuition use may be beneficial to making generation and evaluation decisions during FFE execution because of the capabilities of the unconscious mind from which intuition results. However, the framework acknowledges that, due to the shortcomings of the unconscious mind, intuition may not be as beneficial to FFE decision‐making in some situations. The authors believe that this framework offers researchers a fertile area for further research and practitioners better insight into when intuition might be effective in FFE execution decision‐making.

Innovation processes: Which process for which project?

“…Cankurtaran et al (2013) employed a meta-analysis approach to address the speed of new product development, following Griffin's research trajectory on cycle time. Eling et al (2013b) developed a conceptual framework for understanding the role of intuition on decision making during the execution of fuzzy front end. De Clercq et al (2013) used the contingency approach to investigate contextual ambidexterity and firm performance.…”

Rational Versus Intuitive Gatekeeping: Escalation of Commitment in the Front End of NPD

“…Conversely, the advantages of intuitive decision making are not that useful in preventing escalation of commitment at the final gate of the front end of NPD. An explanation could be that, despite the higher capacity and natural information weighing processes of the unconscious (Dijksterhuis and Nordgren, ; Eling et al, ), intuitive gatekeepers are unable to emotionally detach themselves from the project. Negative emotions such as anticipated regret and fear of decision consequences can lead to wrongful weighing of information and, consequently, poor decision making (Ku, ; Wong and Kwong, ).…”

“…Intuition, in contrast, can be interpreted as a “gut feeling” or attitude whereby the gatekeeper is unable to verbalize the underlying reasoning (Dijksterhuis and Nordgren, ; Shapiro and Spence, ), as the thought process leading up to the intuition is unconscious (Sadler‐Smith and Shefy, ; Shapiro and Spence, ). Thus, intuition is a signal from the unconscious to the conscious mind that provides the gatekeeper with an unsubstantiated attitude toward continuing or stopping the NPD project (Dijksterhuis and Nordgren, ; Eling et al, ).…”

“…Thus, when being rational, gatekeepers are aware of their decision process and can control it (Epstein, Pacini, Denes‐Raj, and Heier, ; Evans, ). This is a clear advantage over intuitive thought, which is an unconscious process that is more difficult to control and explain (Eling et al, ). In an ambiguous context such as the front end of NPD, rational thinking could therefore make it easier to identify and reject fruitless NPD projects, preventing escalation of commitment.…”

How preference markets assist new product idea screening

“…We argue that the attitudes to decision making of a committee and of a crowd of R&D professionals differ, because R&D managers ground their NPD decisions on both rational/analytic reasoning and on intuition (Eling et al 2014) and interpretation of signals (Bentzen et al 2011). Reputation is a mechanism that reduces complexity in decision making (Ferris et al 2014;Ching et al 1992), so evaluators will direct their limited attention and cognitive resources to ideas submitted by employees who signal better innovation capabilities.…”