131 Advances in Production Engineering & Management ISSN 1854-6250 Volume 20 | Number 1 | March 2025 | pp 131–149 Journal home: apem-journal.org https://doi.org/10.14743/apem2025.1.532 Original scientific paper From Zero to One: A new perspective on the fuzzy front end of innovation and the Stage-Gate® model Alešnik, P. a,* , Vrečko, I. b , Palčič, I. a a University of Maribor, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Maribor, Slovenia b University of Maribor, Faculty of Economics and Business, Maribor, Slovenia A B S T R A C T A R T I C L E I N F O The Stage-Gate® model has historically provided a systematic framework for New Product Development (NPD). However, the evolving landscape of inno- vation necessitates continuous enhancement. This paper redefines the mod- el's foundational structure by advocating for the recognition of the Discovery Phase as Stage 1, emphasizing its essential role in aligning initial ideation with strategic goals, streamlining processes, and enhancing NPD efforts. Using a mixed-methods approach, including a systematic literature review, synthesis of illustrative examples and secondary data and case study analysis, the re- search demonstrates that formalizing the Discovery Phase improves early- stage decision-making, enhances alignment between front-end exploration and downstream execution and mitigates risks by supporting more informed project development. Synthesised sectoral examples show that incorporating the Discovery Phase improves feasibility, reduces risk, and boosts efficiency. For example, simulation planning early in innovation process increased man- ufacturing throughput by 52 %, while early IP checks lowered infringement risk. The proposed revision boosts the Stage-Gate® model's adaptability and integration with modern methodologies such as AI, Agile, Lean Startup, De- sign Thinking and TRIZ. The findings highlight how this change promotes a comprehensive approach to NPD. The implications extend to practical appli- cations and future research, offering organizations a flexible framework that meets modern market and technological demands. Keywords: Stage-Gate® model; Fuzzy front end of innovation (FFEI); New product development (NPD); Innovation management; Discovery phase; Agile; TRIZ; Design thinking; Large language model (LLM); Sustainability *Corresponding author: peter@alesnik.com (Alešnik, P.) Article history: Received 15 November 2024 Revised 27 February 2025 Accepted 15 March 2025 Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence (CC BY 4.0). Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI. 1. Introduction The Stage-Gate® model, developed by Robert G. Cooper in the 1980s, has been a foundational framework to guide New Product Development (NPD) across a wide range of industries [1]. Over time, this model has evolved to meet the changing needs of businesses, reflecting the dy- namic nature of innovation, but its fundamental structure–stages separated by decision-making gates–has remained the same [2, 3]. Traditionally, the model begins with the Discovery Phase, also known as Idea Stage, “pre-stage” or “Stage 0”, often treated as an implicit, preliminary, or optional stage [1, 4]. The Stage-Gate® model has not always given the Discovery Phase the same weight as its subsequent phases, despite its critical role in idea generation and opportunity ex- ploration [5]. Because the label 'Stage 0' can suggest a mere preparatory footnote, we refer to the Discovery Phase as Stage 1 to signal that it stands on equal footing with the later stages. This proposed renumbering is further substantiated in Section 6 and also echoes Thiel’s '0 to 1' met- Alešnik, Vrečko, Palčič 132 Advances in Production Engineering & Management 20(1) 2025 aphor, which portrays innovation as the leap from nothing to the first spark in the innovation process—precisely what happens during the Discovery Phase [6]. The Discovery Phase is described as the “fuzzy front end”, characterised by ambiguity, crea- tivity, and the exploration of new possibilities [7-9]. It involves activities such as opportunity exploration, market analysis, and alignment with organisational goals [1, 2] and, in some cases, can function as a process on its own [10]. Despite its significance, this initial stage has been un- deremphasised in both practice and literature, often considered "pre-work" or a preliminary and implicit activity rather than a formal part of the process [1, 4, 5, 9] Our research explores the evolution of the Stage-Gate® model, with a focus on the rationale for recognising the Discovery Phase as an integral part of the innovation process by establishing it as a Stage 1 rather than Stage 0. Through an analysis of historical trends in innovation models and the increasing importance of early-stage decision-making [11-13], we argue that redefining Stage 1 offers significant theoretical and practical benefits. In particular, we examine how for- malising this phase aligns it more closely with the rest of the NPD process, making it an insepa- rable part of the innovation framework. Furthermore, we discuss the integration of modern innovation techniques, such as open in- novation and data-driven decision-making, and how these approaches fit within the redefined structure. These techniques enable organisations to respond more effectively to emerging mar- ket trends and technological advancements [7, 14-17], solidifying the Discovery Phase as an es- sential part of the Stage-Gate® model. This study begins by examining the origins and development of the Stage-Gate® model, high- lighting key adaptations over time. The central argument focuses on the renumbering of the Dis- covery Phase to Stage 1, supported by theoretical foundations, practical insights, and case stud- ies. We then discuss modern approaches to innovation, illustrating how they align with the re- vised structure of the Stage-Gate® model. Finally, we outline key implications for future re- search and practical applications, providing a forward-looking view on NPD practices. 2. Methodology and research approach We used a mixed-methods research design, combining a systematic literature review (SLR), syn- thesis of illustrative examples and secondary data and case study analysis to deepen under- standing of the Stage-Gate® model and support redefining the Discovery Phase as Stage 1. This approach structured our exploration of existing literature and real-world examples, strengthen- ing the conceptual framework developed throughout the study. The SLR systematically gathered, synthesised, and evaluated existing literature on the Stage- Gate® model and its adaptations in the context of modern innovation methodologies. The re- view followed a defined search strategy, using databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, with search terms including “Stage-Gate model”, “New Product Development”, “Discovery Phase”, “Case Study”, and “Fuzzy Front End”. We restricted the inclusion criteria to peer-reviewed academic papers, industry reports, and case studies published between 2000 and 2024, with most the sources falling within this period, ensuring a focus on recent advancements in innovation management. Key gaps in the literature were identified, particularly the need to redefine the Discovery Phase in light of its actual usage. These findings laid the foundation for the conceptual proposition developed in this study. To complement the SLR, a detailed analysis of case studies and illustrative examples was in- corporated to demonstrate the application of innovation methodologies within organisations. These examples, drawn from published industry cases and validated secondary sources, were synthesised to contextualise how Discovery Phase practices vary across sectors. This analysis highlights how elements of the Discovery Phase are often implicitly integrated into broader NPD frameworks, supporting the argument for formalising this phase as an integral part of the Stage- Gate® model. The research proposes a significant adaptation, redefining the Discovery Phase as a theoreti- cal contribution that structures early-stage ideation in NPD. While the conceptual arguments are supported by the SLR and case study analysis, further empirical research is needed to validate From Zero to One: A new perspective on the fuzzy front end of innovation and the Stage-Gate® model Advances in Production Engineering & Management 20(1) 2025 133 these propositions across various industries and company sizes. Future studies should focus on testing the effectiveness of the proposed renumbering in different industrial contexts and inves- tigating how companies that do not explicitly define a Discovery Phase manage early-stage idea- tion through other stages of the Stage-Gate® model. The proposed framework provides a foundational, conceptual model that requires further test- ing and refinement through empirical studies. The adaptation offers flexibility for modern innova- tion management, but it must be validated to retain the core efficiency of the Stage-Gate® model. 3. Systematic innovation process In increasingly competitive markets, innovation, a critical component of modern business strat- egy, drives growth and success [18, 19]. The innovation process is a complex undertaking that consists of numerous internal and external processes [20, 21]. Through the NPD, the systematic innovation process aligns creativity with strategic goals and market demands [22-24]. The Stage-Gate® model is a prime example of a systematic innovation process [3]. The struc- tured approach offers a clear framework for managing product development from concept to launch, ensuring that innovation efforts are organised, repeatable, and strategically focused [25]. By dividing the innovation process into distinct stages with decision gates, the Stage-Gate® model allows for thorough evaluation and planning at each stage, which helps to mitigate risk and improve efficiency. This systematic approach ensures that organisations maintain alignment between creative exploration and practical constraints, resulting in focused, efficient, and effec- tive innovation [26]. For example, the pharmaceutical industry often employs a systematic innovation process for drug development, ensuring close alignment between research, development, and regulatory bodies [27]. Such alignment not only accelerates the time to market but also ensures compliance with stringent regulations [16]. The high failure rate in NPD is a significant challenge, with top performers succeeding while others face significant failure [28, 29]. To address the challenges in NPD, many firms have implemented the Stage-Gate® process to enhance innovation [15, 30]. Among the most critical key success factors in NPD are speed to market, strategy, and tactics [28, 31-33]. Strategy defines the overall direction of innovation efforts, while tactics provide steps to ensure alignment between execution and resource alloca- tion. These two factors are essential for ensuring the innovation process remains focused on speed and efficiency [1, 25, 34]. However, numerous firms continue to grapple with failures that are often attributed to poor organisation and rigorous execution [29, 35, 36]. Cooper developed the Stage-Gate® model in the late 1980s to improve efficiency and effec- tiveness in product development [3, 37]. The model, which consists of multiple stages separated by gates, initially focused on rigorous planning and evaluation [11]. Despite its success, critics have expressed concern about potential inflexibility in fast-paced environments [9, 38]. One of the primary challenges in systematic innovation is balancing crea- tivity with resource constraints. However, this can be addressed by implementing processes that allow for rapid iteration, granting the organisation greater flexibility [13]. Methodologies such as Agile or Lean can seamlessly integrate into the systematic innovation process, allowing for rapid iterations and continuous hypothesis testing, which improves flexibility in the innovation cycle. By combining the structured approach of Stage-Gate® with the adaptive nature of Agile, firms can better manage uncertainty while maintaining a focus on strategic goals [39]. The Stage- Gate® model's ongoing evolution, including modifications and adaptations, reflects the dynamic nature of the field and the need for continuous refinement to remain competitive [40, 41]. 4. The original Stage-Gate® model Developed on the basis of the 1980’s NewProd system [37, 42], Cooper's original Stage-Gate® model has become a standard framework for managing product development processes. The model consists of distinct stages and gates, each of which serves a distinct purpose in ensuring the project's systematic progression [3]. Alešnik, Vrečko, Palčič 134 Advances in Production Engineering & Management 20(1) 2025 The five stages of the traditional Stage-Gate® model include scoping, business case develop- ment, development, testing and validation, and launch [2]. Each stage consists of high-level tasks and is followed by a gate, which is a decision point at which the project's progress is assessed using predetermined criteria, allowing Go/Kill decisions on further investing [2]. This methodical approach enables innovators and organisations to reduce innovation project failures through planning and control. The model incorporates information gathering, data inte- gration, and analysis at each stage, followed by gates that determine the project's resource in- vestment [2]. Cooper compares this process to purchasing options on an investment, in which low-cost options are acquired initially and subsequent decisions about continuing the invest- ments are made based on increasing levels of information [2]. Each Stage-Gate® stage gathers information to reduce risks and uncertainties [2, 3]. As the project progresses, stages build on one another, requiring different resource allocation at each stage. For example, later stages like testing and validation may require substantial investments in prototypes or market research [14, 15]. The model's reliance on gates ensures that decisions are based on increasingly accurate data, thereby continuously managing risk [43]. The Stage-Gate® model's impact on industry practices has been profound. For instance, large corporations like Procter & Gamble have successfully implemented the model, significantly en- hancing their product development efficiency [14, 15]. Other sectors, such as telecommunica- tions, have applied the model to improve portfolio governance [44]. Academic research recog- nised the model’s value in balancing creativity with control, though some critiques call for indus- try-specific adaptation [13, 41]. The original Stage-Gate® model begins with the Scoping stage and concludes with the post- Launch assessment [3]. The Discovery Phase, or Idea Stage, is important but not considered a standard stage of the Stage-Gate® model. While the initial stages do not require large financial investments, later stages such as Go to Development involve significant and specific resource allocation [2, 14, 15]. The details of the original Stage-Gate® model are summarised in Table 1. Table 1 Details of the original Stage-Gate® model Stage/Gate Name Description Pre-stage, Stage 0 Discovery Phase, Idea Stage The conception and accumulation of innovative new product ideas. Gate 1 Idea screen The selection and priority setting of product ideas for an NPD project regarding a dynamic process with a high degree of uncertainty. Stage 1 Scoping A preliminary analysis of the market and technology, including an evaluation of the most fundamental financial values. Gate 2 2nd screen A decision regarding the project's progression should be made based on the collection and analysis of information that has been subjected to rigorous conditions. Stage 2 Building a business case The conceptualisation of the business case, which includes an in-depth development plan and a launch strategy for the market. Gate 3 Go to development The decision must be made regarding the profitability of the project and the release of revered resources. Stage 3 Development The development of new technologies as well as the analysis of various marketing and production endeavours. Gate 4 Go to testing Evaluation of the project's ability to be technically realised and management of the R&D budget. Stage 4 Testing and validation The validation of the financial plan, the evaluation of the technological performances, and the acceptance of the customers all need to be performed. Gate 5 Go to launch Authorisation to enter the market. Stage 5 Launch Product commercialisation and market entry. Post-launch review Monitoring The launch process is being evaluated. Source: [3] From Zero to One: A new perspective on the fuzzy front end of innovation and the Stage-Gate® model Advances in Production Engineering & Management 20(1) 2025 135 However, critics have pointed out potential weaknesses, such as rigidity, which may hinder flexibility in fast-paced industries like high-tech, where rapid iteration and adaptability are cru- cial [9]. In comparison, Lean or Agile emphasise flexibility and rapid iteration, allowing companies to pivot based on real-time feedback. While the Stage-Gate® model provides structured control, it may not match the speed required in dynamic environments. Nevertheless, it excels in industries where compliance, regulatory considerations, or large-scale investments demand more struc- tured processes, such as deep-tech [16], pharmaceuticals, or consumer goods [2]. In essence, the original Stage-Gate® model is a well-defined and time-tested embedding of clear goals and a competent execution path [2]. In its original form, it has helped improve the efficiency and effectiveness of NPD processes by offering a systematic technique that blends creativity with control [23, 28, 35]. As industries evolve, the need for flexibility has led to mod- ern adaptations [13, 26, 39]. 5. Evolution of the original Stage-Gate® model Introduced by Cooper in 1990, the Stage-Gate® model [3] emerged as a distinct five-stage, five- gate framework, building on the insights and methodologies of the earlier NewProd system [37, 42]. The original version adopted a 'one size fits all' approach for a structured and systematic innovation management [3]. While the NewProd system laid the groundwork, the introduction of the Stage-Gate® model marked a significant advancement in the field, providing a clear and standardised process that would become widely adopted across various industries [1, 2, 40, 45]. However, users of the original Stage-Gate® model found its rigid five-stage structure limiting for smaller projects, leading to early adaptations and community customisations that recognised the need for flexibil- ity and responsiveness in varying project contexts [1]. Table 2 The Stage-Gate® model evolution showcasing the key developments and adaptations Year Name Short description 1985 NewProd NewProd, an industrial new product development process model with seven stages (Idea, Preliminary Assessment, Concept, Development, Launch, Trial, and Launch), includes activities and evaluation points for product develop- ment and marketing, emphasising market orientation and timely evaluation [37, 42]. 1990 Stage-Gate process Stage-Gate® enhances efficiency in product development from idea to launch, treating innovation as a manageable process with stages and gates as quality checkpoints. This improves decision-making, focus, and speed [3]. 2008 Stage-Gate LITE and XPRESS (Spiral Devel- opment) Spiral development allows quick iteration and design adjustments. LITE and XPRESS versions scale the process for different project types; LITE handles simple requests, and XPRESS addresses moderate-risk projects like im- provements, modifications, and extensions [2, 45]. 2016 Agile-Stage-Gate The Agile-Stage-Gate model combines Stage-Gate® structure with Agile methodologies to enhance response times, communication, and productivi- ty, helping industries launch products faster [40, 46]. 2022 5th generation Stage- Gate (Triple A System, Value Stream Manage- ment) The 5th Generation Stage-Gate® Idea-to-Launch Process is comprehensive and a flexible NPD system that enhances efficiency, effectiveness, and suc- cess with additions like Value Stream Mapping, Concurrent Processing, Iterations, Tougher Gates, and Agile integration are added to improve NPD [1]. 5.1 Hybridisation of the Stage-Gate® model Much like species in nature, the Stage-Gate® model has evolved to adapt in complex innovation processes. From its origins as a standard, one-size-fits-all framework [3], it initially underwent small incremental adjustments designed to address the specific needs of different projects [2]. As industries became more complex and innovation processes more dynamic, the model ex- perienced more significant adaptations. New branches of the original Stage-Gate® system emerged–frameworks that shared the same fundamental principles but introduced new, hybrid Alešnik, Vrečko, Palčič 136 Advances in Production Engineering & Management 20(1) 2025 approaches to development [40, 46]. These new hybrids represent major evolutionary leaps, transforming how companies approach product development. By incorporating iterative feed- back, rapid prototyping, and a customer-centric focus, these hybrids have significantly expanded the model's adaptability to a broader range of industries, particularly those requiring continu- ous market responsiveness and flexibility [1, 13]. As Table 2 illustrates, the Stage-Gate® model has transformed over the years to meet evolv- ing industry demands and challenges with modifications addressing various challenges [1, 2, 5, 45]. Some organisations have adapted the Stage-Gate® model to suit specific needs, either by reducing the number of stages to speed up simpler projects [2, 16] or by increasing them for more complex ones, ensuring stringent quality controls [1, 47]. Adaptations have also focused on accelerating product development through parallel processing [46], spiral development [2], and integrating continuous customer feedback [1]. Sector-specific customisations have been intro- duced to keep up with rapid technological advances and meet ever faster market demands [1, 12, 40, 47]. Most adaptations redefine stages or gates, while some expanded the model by introducing entirely new stages that combine traditional Stage-Gate® principles with other innovation methodologies [5, 8, 13, 16]. Agile principles marked a major turning point [2, 40], leading to hybrid models that integrate also other innovation methodologies such as Design Thinking and Lean Startup [12, 13]. This multifaceted approach has enriched the Stage-Gate® model, providing managers with insights into the combinatory possibilities of different methodologies [1, 28, 45]. It enables in- formed decisions, accelerating NPD [28] and represents a significant milestone in the evolution of the Stage-Gate® model, reflecting a growing recognition of the need for flexibility, customisa- tion, and responsiveness in innovation management [1, 28, 45]. In today’s dynamic innovation landscape, flexibility and adaptation remain essential [48, 49]. While the Stage-Gate® model has proven robust and widely adopted, it is not immune to the unique challenges presented by various industries and projects [16]. As a result, the model’s stages and gates have undergone conscious adaptations – referred to as customisation or hy- bridization – to meet diverse industry needs [2, 13, 40]. Customisation extends beyond the integration of methodologies like Agile, Design Thinking, and Lean Startup; reflecting broader shifts in NPD and innovation demands [12]. In industries such as manufacturing and healthcare, process customisation is essential for coping with rapid technological advances and meeting regulatory standards [1, 50, 51]. For instance, the healthcare industry has integrated additional gates for regulatory approvals, ensuring compli- ance with strict medical standards before advancing to development stages [16, 50]. However, customisation brings both benefits and challenges. While customisations enhances the responsiveness and adaptability of the Stage-Gate® model, it can also introduce complexi- ties that must be carefully managed [14, 15, 39]. One of the primary risks of over-customisation is added complexity, which can slow down decision-making and reduce the model’s original effi- ciency customisation [7, 13]. In the technology sector, this has meant combining stages to speed up development [52], while in healthcare, additional gates may ensure regulatory compliance [47, 50]. Balancing flexibility, customisation, and the core principles of the Stage-Gate® model can be challenging [39, 53]. 5.2 Stage-Gate® model hybrids Building on the evolution of the Stage-Gate® model, several hybrid approaches have emerged that integrate other innovation methodologies to enhance flexibility, responsiveness, and cus- tomer-centricity. These hybrids represent significant adaptations of the original model, combin- ing its structured framework with the iterative and collaborative principles of methodologies like Agile, Design Thinking, Lean Startup, and TRIZ. One of the most well-known hybrids is the integration of Agile principles into the Stage- Gate® model [1]. Agile methodology divides the development cycle into sprints, which are char- acterised by iterative development, continuous feedback, and adaptability [36]. This hybrid ap- From Zero to One: A new perspective on the fuzzy front end of innovation and the Stage-Gate® model Advances in Production Engineering & Management 20(1) 2025 137 proach combines the flexibility and rapid iteration of Agile with the structure and discipline of the Stage-Gate® model. Cooper & Sommer [40, 46] report positive results from this integration. In software and technology industries, the Agile-Stage-Gate® model improves time-to- market by enabling faster product iterations without sacrificing strategic oversight [9]. Teams can rapidly prototype and test concepts, allowing for quick development cycles and constant product refinement. The Agile-Stage-Gate® model enhances collaboration by encouraging cross- functional teamwork and breaking down departmental silos that often hinder innovation. It also improves responsiveness to market changes, enabling swift adaptations to shifts in customer demands. Communication becomes more streamlined, with clear feedback loops enhancing un- derstanding among team members and stakeholders. However, integrating Agile with Stage-Gate® comes with challenges. Aligning Agile’s iterative cycles with Stage-Gate®'s sequential decision-making process can cause tension between teams or team members focused on flexibility and those adhering to predefined milestones. Overcom- ing this requires careful planning and open communication to ensure both approaches comple- ment each other. Success stories from industries such as consumer electronics highlight signifi- cant reductions in development time when these challenges are effectively managed [12, 16]. Design Thinking, a human-centred innovation methodology, emphasises empathy, creativity, and iterative problem-solving [54]. When integrated with the Stage-Gate® model, it fosters a user-centric approach to product development, blending innovation with structured develop- ment processes [53]. Teams focus on understanding and addressing user needs, which encour- ages creative ideation and exploration of a wider range of solutions. Design Thinking unfolds through five stages: Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, and Test. This integration enables rapid experimentation, prototyping, and iterative testing for efficient idea validation. It also promotes interdisciplinary collaboration, bringing together diverse per- spectives to enrich the development process. Balancing creativity with systematic development ensures that products align with real user demands, guided by continuous feedback [55]. Maintaining the creative freedom that Design Thinking encourages while adhering to the structured, sequential gates of the Stage-Gate® model, poses certain challenges [12]. Organisa- tions need to foster an environment where innovation thrives within a disciplined framework. This approach has been particularly successful in industries like consumer goods, where deep understanding of user preferences is essential [16, 56]. Integrating Lean Startup principles introduces a business-focused, iterative, customer- centric, and experimental approach [12, 57]. This hybrid emphasises market alignment, efficien- cy, and reduced resource waste [58] by focusing on building minimum viable products (MVPs), conducting rapid testing, and learning from customer feedback to pivot accordingly [16, 58-60]. By minimising waste and optimising resource utilisation, organisations achieve efficiency and prioritise real customer needs throughout the development process. Rapid iterations enable continuous learning and swift incorporation of real-world insights, ensuring the product re- mains aligned with market needs [58, 59, 61]. While highly effective in industries like software development, challenges arise when apply- ing Lean Startup principles in heavily regulated sectors like pharmaceuticals, where compliance demands a more structured approach [53, 57, 59, 62]. The Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ), developed by Genrich Altshuller, is a meth- odology that offers a systematic approach to solving engineering and design challenges, offering tools for creative problem solving, overcoming contradictions, and inventing new solutions [63]. Integrating TRIZ with the Stage-Gate® model combines systematic problem-solving with struc- tured development. This encourages teams to challenge assumptions, think creatively, and de- velop breakthrough innovations within a methodical and disciplined framework [64]. While the hybrid promotes inventive problem-solving and robust decision-making, balancing TRIZ’s analytical rigour with early-stage flexibility can be challenging. Teams must navigate the depth of analysis required by TRIZ without hindering the speed and adaptability necessary in fast-moving sectors [10, 63, 65-67]. A summary of the key benefits of each Stage-Gate® model hybrid is provided in Table 3. Alešnik, Vrečko, Palčič 138 Advances in Production Engineering & Management 20(1) 2025 Table 3 Summary of the key benefits of each Stage-Gate® model hybrids Hybrid Variant Key Benefits Agile-Stage-Gate® model [1, 9, 12, 16, 36, 38-40, 46] − Rapid prototyping and development − Continuous improvement of the product − Enhanced cross-functional collaboration − Quick responsiveness to market changes − Streamlined communication and feedback loops − Improved risk management − Alignment with customer needs Design Thinking and the Stage-Gate® model [12, 16, 53, 56] − User-centric innovation through empathy − Enhanced creativity and ideation − Rapid experimentation with prototypes − Interdisciplinary collaboration − Balanced structure between creativity and systematics − Increased market alignment − Feedback-oriented development Lean Startup Approach and the Stage- Gate® model [12, 57-59, 61] − Cost efficiency by minimising waste − Strong customer alignment − Accelerated learning through rapid iterations − Market responsiveness to trends − Risk mitigation via continuous validation − Enhanced scalability − Data-driven decision-making based on real-world insights TRIZ and the Stage-Gate® model [24, 63-65, 67-70] − Encourages inventive problem-solving − Provides a systematic approach to complex challenges − Facilitates the generation of novel ideas − Help resolve conflicting requirements − Integrates knowledge across industries − Aligns innovations with business goals − Supports robust, analytical decision-making 5.3 Implications of Stage-Gate® model hybridisation Customisation has proven critical in maintaining the relevance and effectiveness of the Stage- Gate® model in an ever-changing landscape [1]. These hybrid approaches – Agile, Lean, Design Thinking, and TRIZ – offer distinct advantages but also introduce complexities that require care- ful management, especially when resources are limited [13, 16, 39, 62]. As industries evolve, balancing flexibility with structured decision-making is essential. Cus- tomisation frameworks help organisations identify key decision points, assess risk levels, and tailor the model to align innovations with strategic goals, avoiding over-complication [1, 13, 53, 59]. The evolution of the Stage-Gate® model through hybrids reflects the recognition that no one- size-fits-all solution exists [23, 28, 35]. Leveraging each methodology’s strengths, organisations can create a more adaptive, customer- or industry-centric, and responsive innovation process, enabling them to stay competitive in today’s rapidly changing markets [8, 12, 26]. This need for adaptability is particularly evident in the early stages of innovation, when ideas take shape and market alignment begins. Focusing on adaptability during these initial phases allows organisations to generate numerous ideas, explore a wider range of concepts, respond swiftly to emerging trends, and integrate customer feedback more effectively. Emphasis the front end of innovation (FEI) helps set a solid foundation for the product development process, increasing success in later stages [2, 13, 25]. 6. The neglected stage The role and importance of the front end of innovation (FEI), have gained increasing attention in the last decade [4, 5, 13, 71]. This NPD stage involves the generation of ideas and their prelimi- nary analysis, forming the foundation of subsequent product development phases [72]. Research consistently emphasises that a well-managed FEI can significantly impact the suc- cess of new products. Florén and Frishammar [4] highlighted the FEI's role in capturing custom- From Zero to One: A new perspective on the fuzzy front end of innovation and the Stage-Gate® model Advances in Production Engineering & Management 20(1) 2025 139 er insights and turning them into innovative product concepts, leading to sustainable competi- tive advantage. Markham [71] noted that neglecting the FEI often leads to cost overruns and delays, as initial uncertainties and risks remain unaddressed. Cooper [1] emphasised that robust FEI processes lead to higher NPD success rates through better market alignment and resource allocation. Building on this foundation, recent research continues to validate and expand upon these findings. Kock et al. [73] demonstrated that effective ideation portfolio management in the FEI enhances innovation performance through better idea selection and prioritization. Eling et al. [74] found that combining rational and intuitive approaches in early idea evaluation improves decision quality and NPD outcomes. Koen et al. [75] confirmed that organisations with effective FEI processes achieve faster time-to-market and greater product success. Moreira and Vidor’s [13] bibliometric analysis showed that emphasising FEI shortens development cycles and im- proves product performance. Despite this consensus, the Stage-Gate® model underemphasises the critical role of the FEI. While, Moreira & Vidor highlight that while the FEI is essential, the original model treats it as a preliminary stage, referring to it as “Idea Stage “, "Stage 0" or the "pre-work" phase [76]. This framing diminishes the importance of Discovery Phase in practice, even though it directly influ- ences the success of product innovation by shaping initial concepts and aligning them with or- ganisational goals [13, 75]. This paper proposes a redefinition of the Stage-Gate® model, renumbering Stage 0, known as Discovery Phase, to Stage 1 and shifting all subsequent stages accordingly. This change empha- sises the importance of the initial idea generation phase and aligns with the views expressed in existing research. By renumbering this phase as "Stage 1", we acknowledge that it is not a mere prelude but a critical phase that sets the tone for the entire innovation process [1, 4, 5, 71]. Renumbering the Discovery Phase addresses the inconsistent treatment of the FEI across in- dustries, despite evidence of its pivotal role in determining the outcome of NPD projects [13]. Renaming the Discovery Phase or Idea Stage as Stage 1 would align the Stage-Gate® model with this evidence, placing greater emphasis on idea exploration and early-stage evaluation. While Cooper [2, 76] describes the fuzzy front end (including ideation, scoping, and building the busi- ness case) in his work, he did not explicitly reclassify it as Stage 1. This research proposal offers an original contribution by advocating for its formal recognition as a critical component rather than a preliminary phase. This shift also addresses emerging challenges in NPD, such as sustainability and data-driven decision-making, which are becoming increasingly important [13, 26]. The FEI should incorpo- rate a more formalised evaluation of environmental and social impacts, as well as comprehen- sive data analysis [14, 15]. Though not fully addressed in the current Stage-Gate® model, inte- grating these considerations into Stage 1 ensures that innovations are aligned with modern ex- pectations and societal goals at inceptions [7, 13, 16]. By treating the FEI as Stage 1, the Stage-Gate® model becomes even more adaptable, allow- ing for the seamless integration of contemporary innovation methodologies. The redefined model fosters flexibility and ensures that organisations can tailor the model to suit their specific project needs and industry trends. The following innovation methodologies can be integrated at different stages of the revised Stage-Gate® model: • Design Thinking: Integrating Design Thinking into Stage 1 encourages creativity and empa- thy-driven problem-solving from the very beginning of the innovation process. This meth- odology focuses on understanding user needs, generating ideas, and prototyping solu- tions—activities that are essential during the Discovery or Idea phase. By embedding De- sign Thinking at this early stage, organisations can ensure that user-centric insights drive the development of ideas, setting a strong foundation for all subsequent stages [12, 16, 55, 56]. • TRIZ: Traditionally applied in later stages, TRIZ can also benefit Stage 1 by fostering sys- tematic innovation from the outset. TRIZ provides a structured approach to solving com- plex design and engineering challenges, making it an effective tool for overcoming contra- dictions and identifying inventive solutions early in the ideation process. Applying TRIZ in Alešnik, Vrečko, Palčič 140 Advances in Production Engineering & Management 20(1) 2025 Stage 1 helps gather valuable insights and shape ideas that are not only creative but also technically viable, streamlining the path to later-stage development [64, 65, 67]. • Agile: Commonly utilised in Stages 4 and 5 for iterative development, Agile practices en- hance Stage 1 by introducing iterative cycles of ideation and feedback right from the start. In the Discovery or Idea Stage, Agile’s flexibility and focus on continuous feedback ensure that ideas evolve rapidly in response to market needs or stakeholder input. This early in- corporation of Agile principles helps reduce risk by refining concepts before they move in- to more resource-intensive stages [38, 39, 46]. • Lean Startup: Though usually applied in Stages 3 and 6, Lean Startup can also be integrat- ed into Stage 1 to emphasise rapid experimentation and customer validation from the ear- liest phases of innovation. By testing hypotheses and gathering feedback early on, organi- sations can ensure that the ideas they pursue are aligned with market demands, thus re- ducing the likelihood of costly pivots in later stages. Lean’s focus on minimising waste and continuous validation makes it particularly effective in ensuring that the ideas generated during Stage 1 are viable and scalable [12, 57-59, 61]. Incorporating these innovation methodologies within the appropriate stages strengthens the Stage-Gate® model, making it more comprehensive and adaptable. This approach aligns the innovation process with modern industry demands, ensuring that each stage – starting with the newly emphasised Stage 1 – captures the strategic and operational needs of organisations more effectively. As the model adapts to different project types and sectors, it becomes a more power- ful tool for managing complexity and fostering continuous innovation. The renumbered Stage- Gate® model, with its increased focus on the FEI, better equips organisations to navigate com- petitive and fast-evolving markets. This is evolutionary step towards sustaining innovation suc- cess and maintaining a competitive edge [1, 13, 16]. 6.1 Representation of the renumbered Stage-Gate® model To clarify the proposed renumbering and restructuring, the Table 4 summarises the changes. Renumbering as Stage 1, and shifting all subsequent stages accordingly, provides clearer guid- ance and emphasises FEI’s integral role. Table 4 Details of the amended Stage-Gate® model Stage/Gate Name Description Stage 1 Idea Stage Conception and accumulation of innovative new product ideas. Gate 1 Idea screen Selection and prioritisation of product ideas for an NPD project within a dynamic, uncertain process. Stage 2 Scoping Preliminary analysis of the market and technology, including basic financial evaluation. Gate 2 2nd screen Decision on project progression based on rigorously analysed infor- mation. Stage 3 Build a business case Conceptualisation of the business case, including an in-depth devel- opment plan and a launch strategy for the market. Gate 3 Go to development Decision on project profitability and resource allocation. Stage 4 Development Development of new technologies as well as the analysis of various marketing and production endeavours. Gate 4 Go to testing Evaluation of technically feasibility and R&D budget management. Stage 5 Testing and validation Validation of the financial plan, evaluation of the technological per- formance, and customer acceptance. Gate 5 Go to launch Market entry authorisation. Stage 6 Launch Product commercialisation and market entry. Post-launch review Monitoring Evaluation of the launch process. The Discovery Phase or Idea Stage serves a critical role in the innovation process. To further substantiate the argument for renumbering this stage as Stage 1, we look to real-world examples where this stage has already been implicitly or explicitly recognised as crucial in various indus- From Zero to One: A new perspective on the fuzzy front end of innovation and the Stage-Gate® model Advances in Production Engineering & Management 20(1) 2025 141 tries. The following case studies provide evidence of how leading organisations have adapted the Stage-Gate® model, supporting the proposed renumbering and its relevance in fostering suc- cessful innovation processes. 7. Case studies Recognising the Discovery Phase as Stage 1 in the Stage-Gate® model is not just theoretical. Re- al-world applications across industries have implicitly or explicitly demonstrated this stage’s crucial role in innovation. This section presents case studies that show how different organisa- tions have adapted the model, supporting the necessity and practical impact of renumbering. 7.1 Case study 1: The Fiat Mio crowdsourcing project in Brazil The Fiat Mio crowdsourcing project presents a compelling case for redefining the Discovery Phase and Idea Stage as Stage 1. The project began when a Fiat executive recognised the need to better respond to consumer demands. This led to the development of a co-creation platform that engaged the public in conceptualising a new car [17]. Fiat started with "Original Idea" stage, setting the foundation for the project’s innovation pro- cess. Redefining the Discovery phase as "Stage 1" in the Stage-Gate® model aligns with Fiat's approach, emphasising the importance of this early ideation stage in fostering innovation [17]. As the project progressed, the remaining five stages focused on development, testing, and com- mercialisation, following a modified version of the Stage-Gate® model. Fiat’s approach shows how integrating consumer input early in the process provided insights that shaped the product from the start. Treating idea generation as a formal phase, Fiat used structured crowdsourcing to refine ideas in real time, demonstrating early-stage collaboration’s value. Additionally, it reflects the growing importance of consumer-centric innovation practices in modern industries. The Fiat Mio project validates redefining the Discovery Phase, illustrating how early-stage ideation, supported by crowdsourcing, is critical to NPD [17]. 7.2 Case study 2: Agile-Stage-Gate® hybrid in the toys and power segments Sommer et al. [38] presents a comparative case study of two companies in the toys and power segments that adopted hybrid Agile-Stage-Gate® models, using “Idea” stage as Stage 1, explicitly recognising it as the initial stage. Recognising "Idea" stage as Stage 1 highlighted its importance for aligning development with market needs. Combining Agile with the Stage-Gate® model enhanced flexibility and responsiveness as de- spite challenges these companies resulted in greater adaptability and faster decision-making in the early stages of innovation [38]. This approach shows that treating the early idea phase as a formal stage can reduce the time and cost of later stages by catching potential problems early on. By implementing Agile cycles of feedback, companies were able to ensure that Stage 1 was not merely a brainstorming session but a rigorously managed phase critical to the success of the entire product development process. Both companies used iterative feedback mechanisms within Stage 1 to adapt to changing market conditions [38]. This operationalisation of the Discovery Stage reflects the need to rede- fine it as Stage 1, showing that modern NPD depend on the flexibility and responsiveness that Agile methodologies can bring to the early stages of innovation. 7.3 Case study 3: Procter & Gamble’s SIMPL model Procter & Gamble (P&G), a leader in product innovation, exemplifies the prioritisation of early- stage innovation through its adaptation of the Stage-Gate® model, called SIMPL [52]. The SIMPL consists of five stages and four gates, with Stage 1 being explicitly named Discovery: • Stage 1: Discovery – This stage focuses on ideation, exploration, and the identification of new opportunities, setting the foundation for subsequent stages. Alešnik, Vrečko, Palčič 142 Advances in Production Engineering & Management 20(1) 2025 • Stage 2: Design – Conceptualising and designing products to align with customer needs and market demand. • Stage 3: Qualify – Rigorous testing and validation to ensure product quality. • Stage 4: Ready – Preparing the product for launch, including supply chain and marketing coordination. • Stage 5: Launch – Product release, including sales and distribution efforts. P&G’s formal implementation of the Discovery Stage as Stage 1 underscores the importance of early-stage innovation. P&G’s framework rigorously evaluates new opportunities to ensure alignment with market needs and strategic goals before progressing, enhancing the likelihood of product success. This operational approach further validates the necessity of redefining the Dis- covery Phase in the broader Stage-Gate® model [52]. Moreover, P&G’s SIMPL model provides a clear example of how Stage 1 can be tailored to meet specific organisational needs, depending on the type of product or market being targeted. This structured yet flexible approach demonstrates that redefining the Discovery Phase is more than symbolic; it is essential for effective innovation management. This case study supports the argument that emphasising Stage 1 helps align ideation with business objectives. 7.4 Case study 4: Sustainability in the I2P³® process at Evonik Industries Wojciechowski et al. [77] describe how Evonik Industries AG implemented the I2P³® Process, a sustainability-focused innovation framework based on the Stage-Gate® model. It includes six stages, starting with Stage 1: Idea Development, which assesses the societal and environmental impact of new ideas through the dimensions of People, Planet, and Profit. Evonik’s approach ensures sustainability is embedded from the start, evaluating ideas not just for ideation but for their impact on people, the environment, and profitability and solidifies the argument that the Discovery Phase or Idea stage should be redefined as Stage 1 to reflect its integral role in assessing sustainability, aligning with the Stage-Gate® model’s goals of balancing innovation with societal and environmental responsibility [77]. Evonik’s I2P³® Process demonstrates how early-stage innovation can incorporate sustaina- bility considerations from the very beginning. The company uses Stage 1 not only for ideation but also as a phase for conducting comprehensive sustainability assessments, evaluating each new idea based on its potential impact on people, the planet, and profitability [77]. This ap- proach ensures that sustainability is not an afterthought but an integral part of the product de- velopment process. By formalising this phase, Evonik rigorously scrutinises ideas before advancing them, align- ing innovations with market and corporate social responsibility goals. This case supports treat- ing the Discovery Stage as a formal NPD step to meet the growing demand for sustainable, re- sponsible innovation. 7.5 Contextual evidence of discovery phase variation across sectors The Discovery Phase is not a one-size-fits-all template. Companies vary its depth, tools, and re- sources according to five context drivers: • Resource & knowledge intensity: industries vary in how much they invest in R&D, particu- larly during early-stage innovation. High-index sectors, such as electronics and pharma- ceuticals, typically allocate more resources to basic, original and high-quality innovation efforts [78]. Cross-national evidence confirms that greater R&D investment, particularly in early phases, is positively associated with enhanced innovation performance across sec- tors and economies [34, 78]. • Regulation & compliance: sectors with high regulatory demands, such as pharmaceuticals, em- bed many more checkpoints early in the Discovery Phase to ensure GMP alignment and tech- nical feasibility for later EMA/IND filings [79]. This increased diligence extends early-stage ac- tivities: preclinical development durations grew by 17 % between 2004 and 2012 [27]. This early diligence improves readiness for downstream development stages by strengthening de- From Zero to One: A new perspective on the fuzzy front end of innovation and the Stage-Gate® model Advances in Production Engineering & Management 20(1) 2025 143 cision making and reducing the risk of late stage project termination, an increasingly critical need given that up to 90 % of drug candidates still fail in clinical trials [80]. • Methods applied in early-stage innovation: the Discovery Phase acts as a performance lever across sectors, particularly when supported by systematic methods and aligned with downstream development stages, reinforcing its role as a strategic driver of innovation success [50]. In software and IT, Agile practices such as iterative sprints and early custom- er feedback are integrated early, improving business case clarity and reducing risk. This approach is linked to gains in speed, cost, and quality [36], as well as a 25 % reduction in project effort and 20 % less rework in hybrid Agile Stage Gate models [46] In discrete manufacturing, simulation-based planning is increasingly embedded into the Discovery Phase to support early feasibility decisions. A print-shop pilot increased weekly output by 52 % and cut job time in half by using pre-execution modelling to optimise production scenarios [81]. • Intellectual-property risk: high-IP sectors such as deep-tech and specialty chemicals embed patent landscaping, Freedom-to-Operate and other IPR related checks into the Discovery Phase. These early evaluations begin with idea screening and intensify through early gates, adding time and coordination effort, but improve decision quality significantly and reduce infringement risk in later stages [21, 78, 82]. • AI integration: Data-rich industries are increasingly embedding generative AI into the Dis- covery Phase to support ideation, customer research, and feasibility assessment. Electron- ics and chemical companies use these tools to auto-rank ideas, simulate synthesis routes, and reduce uncertainty. Industry pilots report a 25-35 % drop-in screening time and more consistent Go/Kill decisions, aligning with broader digital economy trends accelerating in- novation in manufacturing [83, 84]. These examples confirm that, although companies retain the same gate logic, they adjust the Discovery Phase to align with their resource intensity, regulatory requirements, preferred methods, intellectual property risk, and level of AI readiness. Taken together, this evidence rein- forces our argument that the Discovery Phase, previously referred to as Stage 0 or the Idea Stage, is a crucial part of the innovation process and should be renumbered as Stage One to re- flect its central role in driving successful innovation. 8. Discussion This paper has proposed a significant refinement of the Stage-Gate® model by renumbering the Discovery Phase as Stage 1, recognising its essential role in the innovation process [1]. This change is not a superficial adjustment but rather a strategic realignment that simplifies the model and underscores the significance the importance of ideation and creativity [5, 13] within the Stage-Gate® model. By renumbering the Discovery Phase, the model becomes more comprehensive and better aligned with modern innovation methodologies such as Agile, Design Thinking, TRIZ, and Lean Startup [1, 16, 26]. Case studies like the Fiat Mio crowdsourcing project and SIMPL by Procter & Gamble demonstrate that these adjustments improve clarity, flexibility, and strategic focus in the NPD process [17, 52]. The paper shows that ideation has always been a crucial component of NPD, and findings in FEI research confirm that we should never view it as optional or peripheral, but rather as the cornerstone of successful innovation. Modern methodologies further highlight the centrality of the Discovery Phase by integrating it into flexible and iterative innovation frameworks. For in- stance, Agile and Lean Startup approaches stress continuous feedback and adaptability, which aligns with the early-stage ideation process critical to innovation [1, 13, 16, 26]. While the benefits are clear, it is important to acknowledge the challenges that come with this change. Emphasising the Discovery Phase as Stage 1 could risk overloading this phase with too many tasks and expectations, which might slow down the early stages of the NPD process. The Alešnik, Vrečko, Palčič 144 Advances in Production Engineering & Management 20(1) 2025 increased complexity of managing ideation, opportunity exploration, and market analysis as formalised steps could result in longer timelines, especially for companies that need to iterate quickly [13]. Additionally, there is the risk that, by formalising the Discovery Phase, some com- panies might become too rigid in their early-stage exploration, which could stifle creativity and hinder the flexibility that innovation requires [7]. The shift to renumber the Discovery Phase as Stage 1 provides a more intuitive, holistic, and consistent framework for innovation management, emphasising the critical role of early-stage ideation in driving the development of new products. However, this formalisation also introduc- es a potential challenge: balancing the need for structured, organised, orchestrated actions with the creative freedom required for ideation. Over-structuring the Discovery Phase may limit the open-ended exploration that often leads to breakthrough innovations [1]. Emerging trends like artificial intelligence (AI), big data analytics, and sustainability practices will likely shape the future evolution of the Stage-Gate® model [1]. These trends offer significant opportunities to enhance the model's flexibility, efficiency, and innovation capabilities, but they also present challenges that organisations must address. AI and big data, for example, can revolutionise early-stage decision-making by providing pre- dictive insights into market trends and customer preferences, transforming the Discovery Phase [5, 13]. Similarly, sustainability practices may lead to the inclusion of new gate parameters that focus on evaluating the environmental and societal impacts [16, 26, 85]. Meanwhile, the contin- ued rise of iterative innovation methodologies will drive the need for rapid market responses, particularly in industries with fast-moving dynamics [1, 40, 46]. However, integrating these emerging trends presents both challenges and opportunities. One challenge is ensuring that the adoption of these improvements does not over-complicate the model, which could reduce its overall efficiency or introduce decision-making delays [7, 13]. On the other hand, the ability to adapt more seamlessly to technological and regulatory changes will offer a significant competitive advantage [1]. Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in particular may face different challenges when im- plementing a systematic innovation process compared to larger corporations [86]. Limited re- sources, budget constraints, a lack of innovation competencies, and less formalised processes can impact their ability to follow a structured NPD approach like Stage-Gate® [1]. However, these firms can benefit from a more flexible, iterative model that still emphasises early-stage validation and alignment with business goals [13]. The adoption of a revised Stage-Gate® model, starting with the Discovery Phase, enables or- ganisations to rethink their innovation processes. This change, along with modern innovation methodologies, can boost the success rates of NPD in fast-moving industries where speed to market is crucial. Integrating data-driven insights from AI into Stage 1 will not only improve idea validation but also enhance information flow, risk management, and decision-making through- out all stages of the innovation process [13]. As industries and technologies continue to evolve, the revised Stage-Gate® model will remain adaptable, offering a flexible yet structured approach to innovation. Moving forward, the integration of emerging trends such as AI, big data, and sus- tainability will further enhance the model’s relevance and applicability, ensuring that it remains a vital tool for managing innovation in an ever-changing business landscape. 9. Conclusion The continuous evolution of the Stage-Gate® model reflects the growing need for customisation and flexibility in response to emerging trends and industry demands. This paper has proposed a fundamental shift in the model’s structure by renumbering the Discovery Phase as Stage 1, rec- ognising its essential role in the innovation process. This change aligns the model with modern innovation methodologies and emphasises the importance of early-stage ideation and creativity. For practitioners, this renumbering enhances clarity and focus during the early stages of product development. It facilitates cross-functional collaboration, decision-making, and align- ment with methodologies like Agile and Design Thinking, fostering a more flexible and custom- er-centred innovation process. Policymakers should support the adoption of such customisa- From Zero to One: A new perspective on the fuzzy front end of innovation and the Stage-Gate® model Advances in Production Engineering & Management 20(1) 2025 145 tions, especially in industries where rapid innovation cycles and early-stage ideation are critical to market success. While this paper makes a strong argument for renumbering the Discovery Phase, we must acknowledge several limitations. Firstly, empirical validation is required to assess the impact of this change across a broader spectrum of industries and company sizes. Further research is nec- essary to explore the unique challenges that different sectors may encounter when adapting the revised model. Additionally, it is important to recognise that for some organisations, this adapta- tion may not be entirely novel. Certain companies may already be informally integrating Discov- ery Phase activities into other stages of the model. These companies may compensate for not having a distinct Discovery Phase by using innovation techniques and methodologies within other stages, thus performing early ideation and exploration implicitly. Future research should test whether companies are indeed engaging in such implicit activities and assess whether for- malising the Discovery Phase would offer them additional benefits. Secondly, the increased complexity introduced by this customisation must be carefully man- aged to ensure that the Stage-Gate® model retains its core efficiency. Over-complicating the model could lead to decision-making delays, slowing down innovation rather than enhancing it. The balance between structured processes and maintaining flexibility for creative exploration will also be crucial in determining the model’s success. The proposed changes and adaptations of the Stage-Gate® model open new avenues for em- pirical research and practical exploration. Future research should focus on: • Implicit innovation activities: research should examine how companies that do not formal- ly recognise the Discovery Phase still engage in early ideation and exploration implicitly through other stages of the model. It is crucial to test whether such companies use innova- tion techniques and methodologies in these stages, which effectively substitute for a dis- tinct Discovery Phase. Validating these practices will help determine whether formalising the Discovery Phase offers tangible benefits over implicit approaches [13]. • Integration with other models: exploring how the Stage-Gate® model can be effectively in- tegrated with other innovation and project management models, such as TRIZ, Design Thinking, or Lean Startup, to create more holistic and flexible frameworks [1, 9, 13, 38, 40]. • Role of AI in decision-making: investigating the role of AI in enhancing decision-making, particularly in the early stages of innovation. AI could provide more data-driven insights into market trends, customer preferences, and project feasibility [1, 13, 16]. • Impact Innovation: examining how sustainability practices can be more deeply embedded within the Stage-Gate® model. Research could concentrate on creating new gate parame- ters, gates, and stages that evaluate environmental and societal impacts, prioritising sus- tainability throughout the innovation process [13, 26, 39]. • Cross-industry applicability: Investigating the impact of these proposed changes across dif- ferent industries, considering how sector-specific challenges may affect the integration of hybrid models and customisation efforts [46, 49, 59]. • Methodological approaches: Future research on the Stage-Gate® model’s evolution should employ a variety of research methods, including case studies, experimental design, sur- veys, interviews, risk and resource considerations [87]. Cross-industry analysis would provide valuable insights into how different sectors customise the model to meet their specific needs, offering a more comprehensive understanding of the model's adaptability and flexibility. The flexibility and adaptability of the Stage-Gate® model have long been central to its wide- spread adoption across industries. By renumbering the Discovery Phase and incorporating emerging technologies, trends, and methodologies, this revised model holds the potential to sig- nificantly enhance the success of NPD processes. Given the increasing complexity of innovation processes, it is essential that further empirical research is conducted to validate these changes and assess their broader implications. The model’s ability to continuously evolve in alignment Alešnik, Vrečko, Palčič 146 Advances in Production Engineering & Management 20(1) 2025 alongside new innovation practices will ensure that it remains a powerful and relevant tool for organisations navigating the complexities of modern NPD. References [1] Cooper, R.G. (2022). The 5-th generation Stage-Gate idea-to-launch process, IEEE Engineering Management Review, Vol. 50, No. 4, 43-55, doi: 10.1109/emr.2022.3222937. [2] Cooper, R.G. (2008). Perspective: The Stage-Gate® idea-to-launch process–update, what's new, and NexGen systems, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 25, No. 3, 213-232, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2008. 00296.x. [3] Cooper, R.G. (1990). Stage-gate systems: A new tool for managing new products, Business Horizons, Vol. 33, No. 3, 44-54, doi: 10.1016/0007-6813(90)90040-I. [4] Florén, H., Frishammar, J. (2012). From preliminary ideas to corroborated product de�initions: Managing the front end of new product development, California Management Review, Vol. 54, No. 4, 20-43, doi: 10.1525/ cmr.2012.54.4.20. [5] Bhatia, A., Cheng, J., Salek, S., Chokshi, V., Jetter, A. (2017). Improving the effectiveness of fuzzy front end management: Expanding Stage-Gate methodologies through agile, In: Proceedings of 2017 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), Portland, USA, 1-8, doi: 10.23919/picmet. 2017.8125390. [6] Masters, B., Thiel, P. (2014). Zero to one: Notes on start ups, or how to build the future, Random House, New York, USA. [7] Bansal, P.T., Grewatsch, S. (2020). The unsustainable truth about the Stage-Gate new product innovation process, Innovation, Vol. 22, No. 3, 217-227, doi: 10.1080/14479338.2019.1684205. [8] Smolnik, T., Bergmann, T. (2020). Structuring and managing the new product development process-review on the evolution of the Stage-Gate® process, Journal of Business Chemistry, Vol. 17, No. 2, 41-57, doi: 10.17879/ 22139478907. [9] Cooper, R.G., Sommer, A.F. (2020). New-product portfolio management with agile, Research-Technology Management, Vol. 63, No. 1, 29-38, doi: 10.1080/08956308.2020.1686291. [10] Liu, X.W., Wang, X.Z., Lyu, L.C., Wang, Y.P. (2022). Identifying disruptive technologies by integrating multi-source data, Scientometrics, Vol. 127, No. 9, 5325-5351, doi: 10.1007/s11192-022-04283-z. [11] Cooper, R.G. (2011). Perspective: The innovation dilemma: How to innovate when the market is mature, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 28, No. s1, 2-27, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00858.x. [12] Cocchi, N., Dosi, C., Vignoli, M. (2021). The hybrid model matrix enhancing Stage-Gate with design thinking, lean startup, and agile, Research-Technology Management, Vol. 64, No. 5, 18-30, doi: 10.1080/08956308.2021. 1942645. [13] Moreira, L.F., Vidor, G. (2024). The importance of the product development process for companies: A bibliometric analysis of the Stage-Gate model, Paradigm, Vol. 28, No. 1, 7-25, doi: 10.1177/09718907241243188. [14] Cooper, R.G., Edgett, S.J., Kleinschmidt, E.J. (2002). Optimizing the Stage-Gate process: What best-practice companies do—II, Research-Technology Management, Vol. 45, No. 6, 43-49, doi: 10.1080/08956308.2002. 11671532. [15] Cooper, R.G., Edgett, S.J., Kleinschmidt, E.J. (2002). Optimizing the Stage-Gate process: What best-practice companies do—I, Research-Technology Management, Vol. 45, No. 5, 21-27, doi: 10.1080/08956308.2002. 11671518. [16] Kruachottikul, P., Dumrongvute, P., Tea-makorn, P., Kittikowit, S., Amrapala, A. (2023). New product development process and case studies for deep-tech academic research to commercialization, Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 12, No. 1, Article No. 48, doi: 10.1186/s13731-023-00311-1. [17] Prado Saldanha, F., Cohendet, P., Pozzebon, M. (2014). Challenging the Stage-Gate model in crowdsourcing: The case of Fiat Mio in Brazil, Technology Innovation Management Review, Vol. 4, No. 9, 28-35, doi: 10.22215/ timreview/829. [18] Drucker, P .F. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practice and principles, Harper & Row, New York, USA. [19] Christensen, C.M. (2013). Innovator's solution: Creating and sustaining successful growth, Harvard Business Press, New York, USA. [20] Li, Q., Zheng, G. (2008). How to win competitive advantage through disruptive innovation, In: Proceedings of Annual Conference of the Academy of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Beijing, China, 78-81. [21] Pretnar, B. (2020). Intelektualna lastnina in tržno uspešne inovacije: Priročnik za managerje, raziskovalce in izumitelje, Lexpera, GV založba, Ljubljana, Slovenia. [22] Chen, Y.K., Coviello, N., Ranaweera, C. (2021). When change is all around: How dynamic network capability and generative NPD learning shape a �irm’s capacity for major innovation, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 38, No. 5, 574-599, doi: 10.1111/jpim.12595. [23] Cooper, R.G., Edgett, S.J., Kleinschmidt, E.J. (2004). Benchmarking best NPD practices—III, Research-Technology Management, Vol. 47, No. 6, 43-55, doi: 10.1080/08956308.2004.11671662. [24] Kruger, L.L.S.J., Pretorius, J H.C., Erasmus, L.D. (2019). Towards a comprehensive systematic innovation model: A literature review, SAIEE Africa Research Journal, Vol. 110, No. 1, 39-46, doi: 10.23919/saiee.2019.8643149. From Zero to One: A new perspective on the fuzzy front end of innovation and the Stage-Gate® model Advances in Production Engineering & Management 20(1) 2025 147 [25] Tidd, J., Bessant, J.R. (2020). Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organizational change, Wiley, Chichester, UK. [26] Gä rtner, Q., Ronco, E., Cagliano, A.C., Reinhart, G. (2023). Development of an approach for the holistic assessment of innovation projects in manufacturing including potential, effort, and risk using a systematic literature review and expert interviews, Applied Sciences, Vol. 13, No. 5, Article No. 3221, doi: 10.3390/app13053221. [27] Schuhmacher, A., Gassmann, O., Hinder, M. (2016). Changing R&D models in research-based pharmaceutical companies, Journal of Translational Medicine, Vol. 14, No. 1, Article No. 105, doi: 10.1186/s12967-016-0838-4. [28] Cooper, R.G., Edgett, S.J., Kleinschmidt, E.J. (2004). Benchmarking best NPD practices—II, Research-Technology Management, Vol. 47, No. 3, 50-59, doi: 10.1080/08956308.2004.11671630. [29] Kahn, K.B. (2018). Understanding innovation, Business Horizons, Vol. 61, No. 3, 453-460, doi: 10.1016/j.bushor. 2018.01.011. [30] Grif�in, A. (1997). PDMA research on new product development practices: Updating trends and benchmarking best practices, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 14, No. 6, 429-458, doi: 10.1111/1540-5885. 1460429. [31] Markides, C. (2006). Disruptive innovation: In need of better theory, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 23, No. 1, 19-25, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2005.00177.x. [32] Christensen, C.M., Anthony, S.D., Roth, E.A. (2005). Korak pred prihodnostjo: Kako s teorijami o inovacijah napovedati spremembe v industriji, GV založba, Ljubljana, Slovenia. [33] Moore, G.A. (2006). Crossing the chasm: Marketing and selling disruptive products to mainstream customers, Harper Business Essentials, New York, USA. [34] Pegkas, P., Staikouras, C., Tsamadias, C. (2019). Does research and development expenditure impact innovation? Evidence from the European Union countries, Journal of Policy Modeling, Vol. 41, No. 5, 1005-1025, doi: 10.1016/ j.jpolmod.2019.07.001. [35] Cooper, R.G., Edgett, S.J., Kleinschmidt, E.J. (2004). Benchmarking best NPD practices—I, Research-Technology Management, Vol. 47, No. 1, 31-43, doi: 10.1080/08956308.2004.11671606. [36] Bianchi, M., Marzi, G., Guerini, M. (2020). Agile, Stage-Gate and their combination: Exploring how they relate to performance in software development, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 110, 538-553, doi: 10.1016/ j.jbusres.2018.05.003. [37] Cooper, R.G. (1985). Selecting winning new product projects: Using the NewProd system, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 2, No. 1, 34-44, doi: 10.1111/1540-5885.210034. [38] Sommer, A.F., Hedegaard, C., Dukovska-Popovska, I., Steger-Jensen, K. (2015). Improved product development performance through agile/Stage-Gate hybrids: The next-generation Stage-Gate process?, Research-Technology Management, Vol. 58, No. 1, 34-45, doi: 10.5437/08956308x5801236. [39] Walrave, B., Dolmans, S.A.M., van Oorschot, K.E., Nuijten, A.L.P., Keil, M., van Hellemond, S. (2022). Dysfunctional agile–stage-gate hybrid development: Keeping up appearances, International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, doi: 10.1142/S0219877022400041. [40] Cooper, R.G., Sommer, A.F. (2016). Agile-Stage-Gate: New idea-to-launch method for manufactured new products is faster, more responsive, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 59, 167-180, doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman. 2016.10.006. [41] Gro ̈ nlund, J., Sjo ̈ din, D.R., Frishammar, J. (2010). Open innovation and the Stage-Gate process: A revised model for new product development, California Management Review, Vol. 52, No. 3, 106-131, doi: 10.1525/cmr.2010. 52.3.106. [42] Cooper, R.G. (1983). A process model for industrial new product development, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. EM-30, No. 1, 2-11, doi: 10.1109/tem.1983.6448637. [43] Cooper, R.G. (1999). The invisible success factors in product innovation, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 16, No. 2, 115-133, doi: 10.1111/1540-5885.1620115. [44] Milenkovic, M., Ciric Lalic, D., Vujicic, M., Pesko, I., Savkovic, M., Gracanin, D. (2023). Project portfolio management in telecommunication company: A stage-gate approach for effective portfolio governance, Advances in Production Engineering & Management, Vol. 18, No. 3, 357-370, doi: 10.14743/apem2023.3.478. [45] Cooper, R.G. (2014). What's next?: After Stage-Gate, Research-Technology Management, Vol. 57, No. 1, 20-31, doi: 10.5437/08956308x5606963. [46] Cooper, R.G., Sommer, A.F. (2016). The agile-Stage-Gate hybrid model: A promising new approach and a new research opportunity, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 33, No. 5, 513-526, doi: 10.1111/jpim. 12314. [47] Rochford, L., Rudelius, W. (1997). New product development process: Stages and successes in the medical products industry, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 26, No. 1, 67-84, doi: 10.1016/s0019-8501(96)00115- 0. [48] Schmidt, S., von der Oelsnitz, D. (2020). Innovative business development: Identifying and supporting future radical innovators, Leadership, Education, Personality: An Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1, 9-21, doi: 10.1365/s42681-020-00008-z. [49] OECD, Eurostat (2018). Oslo Manual 2018, OECD Publishing, Paris, France, doi: 10.1787/9789264304604-en. [50] Eling, K., Langerak, F., Grif�in, A. (2013). A stage-wise approach to exploring performance effects of cycle time reduction, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 30, No. 4, 626-641, doi: 10.1111/jpim.12019. [51] Christensen, C.M. (2013). The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great �irms to fail, Harvard Business Review Press, New York, USA. [52] Cooper, R., Mills, M. (2005). How P&G achieves such stellar NPD results, PDMA Visions. Alešnik, Vrečko, Palčič 148 Advances in Production Engineering & Management 20(1) 2025 [53] Allen, G.J. (2022). Concepturealize™: A new contribution to generate real-needs-focussed, user-centred, lean business models, Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 11, No. 1, Article No. 6, doi: 10.1186/s13731- 022-00198-4. [54] Lewrick, M., Link, P., Leifer, L. (2020). The design thinking toolbox: A guide to mastering the most popular and valuable innovation methods, Wiley, Hoboken, USA. [55] Nakata, C., Hwang, J. (2020). Design thinking for innovation: Composition, consequence, and contingency, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 118, 117-128, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.038. [56] Franchini, G., Dosi, C., Vignoli, M. (2017). The coexistence of design thinking and stage and gate in the same organisational context - Challenges and need for integration, In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 17), Vancouver, Canada, 301-310. [57] DelVecchio, J., White, F., Phelan, S.E. (2013). Tools for innovation management: A comparison of lean startup and the Stage-Gate system, SSRN, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2534138. [58] Maurya, A. (2016). Delaj vitko: Od načrta A do načrta, ki deluje, Pasadena, Ljubljana, Slovenia. [59] Eddoug, F.-Z., Benabbou, R., Benhra, J. (2023). Adapting P2M framework for innovation program management through a lean-agile approach, International Journal of Information Technology Project Management, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1-18, doi: 10.4018/ijitpm.318125. [60] Nicoletti, B. (2015). Optimizing innovation with the lean and digitize innovation process, Technology Innovation Management Review, Vol. 5, No. 3, 29-38, doi: 10.22215/timreview/879. [61] van der Duin, P.A., Ortt, J.R., Aarts, W.T.M. (2014). Contextual innovation management using a Stage-Gate platform: The case of Philips shaving and beauty, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 31, No. 3, 489- 500, doi: 10.1111/jpim.12109. [62] Goldasteh, P., Akbari, M., Bagheri, A., Mobini, A. (2022). How high-tech start-ups learn to cross the market chasm?, Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, Vol. 12, 157-173, doi: 10.1007/s40497-022-00316-2. [63] Gadd, K., Goddard, C. (2011). TRIZ for engineers: Enabling inventive problem solving, Wiley, Chichester, UK. [64] Abramov, O.Y. (2014). TRIZ-assisted Stage-Gate process for developing new products, Journal of Finance and Economics, Vol. 2, No. 5, 178-184, doi: 10.12691/jfe-2-5-8. [65] Abramov, O.Y., Medvedev, A.V., Rychagov, V.Y. (2019). Evaluation of the effectiveness of modern TRIZ based on practical results in new product development, In: Benmoussa, R., De Guio, R., Dubois, S., Koziołek, S. (eds.), New Opportunities for Innovation Breakthroughs for Developing Countries and Emerging Economies. TFC 2019. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, Vol 572, Springer, Cham. 43-52, doi: 10.1007/978-3- 030-32497-1_4. [66] Louw, L., Schutte, C.S.L., Seidel, C., Imser, C. (2018). Towards a �lexible innovation process model assuring quality and customer needs, South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, Vol. 29, No. 1, 155-168, doi: 10.7166/29-1- 1911. [67] Abramov, O., Kogan, S., Mitnik-Gankin, L., Sigalovsky, I., Smirnov, A. (2015). TRIZ-based approach for accelerating innovation in chemical engineering, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, Vol. 103, 25-31, doi: 10.1016/ j.cherd.2015.06.012. [68] Rantanen, K., Domb, E. (2007). Simpli�ied TRIZ: New problem solving applications for engineers and manufacturing professionals, Second Edition, Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, USA, doi: 10.1201/9781420000320. [69] Trebar, A. (2010). Kreativno snovanje novih proizvodov in storitev, Slovensko združenje za kakovost in odličnost, Ljubljana, Slovenia. [70] Orloff, M.A. (2018). ABC-TRIZ: Introduction to creative design thinking with modern TRIZ modeling, Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland. [71] Markham, S.K. (2013). The impact of front-end innovation activities on product performance, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 30, No. s1, 77-92, doi: 10.1111/jpim.12065. [72] Livotov, P. (2016). Estimation of new-product success by company's internal experts in the early phases of innovation process, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 39, 150-155, doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2016.01.181. [73] Kock, A., Heising, W., Gemu ̈ nden, H.G. (2014). How ideation portfolio management in�luences front-end success, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 32, No. 4, 539-555, doi: 10.1111/jpim.12217. [74] Eling, K., Langerak, F., Grif�in, A. (2015). The performance effects of combining rationality and intuition in making early new product idea evaluation decisions, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 24, No. 3, 464-477, doi: 10.1111/caim.12128. [75] Koen, P. A., Bertels, H.M.J., Kleinschmidt, E. (2014). Managing the front end of innovation—Part I: Results from a three-year study, Research-Technology Management, Vol. 57, No. 2, 34-43, doi: 10.5437/08956308x5702145. [76] Cooper, R.G. (2010). The Stage-Gate idea to launch system, Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing, Wiley, Chichester, UK, doi: 10.1002/9781444316568.wiem05014. [77] Wojciechowski, A., Becker, B., Kirchner, M., Kreidler, B. (2019). Implementation of sustainability in innovation management: The Idea to People, Planet and Pro�it (I2P³®) process, Journal of Business Chemistry, Vol. 16, No. 1, 26-40. [78] Wen, Y., Li, X., Yan, R., Zhu, X. (2024). A comparative empirical study on the product R&D capability of manufacturing industry, Tehnički Vjesnik – Technical Gazette, Vol. 31, No. 1, 88-97. [79] van de Burgwal, L.H.M., Ribeiro, C.D.S., van der Waal, M.B., Claassen, E. (2018). Towards improved process ef�iciency in vaccine innovation: The vaccine innovation cycle as a validated, conceptual stage-gate model, Vaccine, Vol. 36, No. 49, 7496-7508, doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.10.061. [80] Sun, D., Gao, W., Hu, H., Zhou, S. (2022). Why 90% of clinical drug development fails and how to improve it?, Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica B, Vol. 12, No. 7, 3049-3062, doi: 10.1016/j.apsb.2022.02.002. From Zero to One: A new perspective on the fuzzy front end of innovation and the Stage-Gate® model Advances in Production Engineering & Management 20(1) 2025 149 [81] Pervaz, J., Sremčev, N., Stevanov, B., Gusel, L. (2024). Simulation-based algorithm for continuous improvement of enterprises performance, International Journal of Simulation Modelling, Vol. 23, No. 2, 215-226, doi: 10.2507/ IJSIMM23-2-670. [82] Hackl, C., Guillermin, S. (2020). Integration of IP into the 'classical' Stage-Gate model, les Nouvelles - Journal of the Licensing Executives Society, Vol. 55, No. 2, 143-147. [83] Kumar, M., Beninger, S., Reppel, A., Stanton, J., Vlaminck, D., Watson, F. (2025). Your synthetic teammate: Enriching new product development with generative AI, Business Horizons, In press, Journal pre-proof, doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2025.02.008. [84] He, Y., Song, J., Ouyang, W. (2024). Digital economy, entrepreneurship, and high-quality development of the manufacturing industry, Tehnički Vjesnik – Technical Gazette, Vol. 31, No. 3, 851-863, doi: 10.17559/TV- 20231121001135. [85] Li, J., Yang, F., Qi, J., Sun, R., Geng, R. (2022). The in�luence of job satisfaction on entrepreneurial intention: A cross-level investigation, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 40, No. 3, 385-402, doi: 10.1177/ 02662426211018831. [86] Indrawati, H., Caska, C., Suarman, S. (2020). Barriers to technological innovations of SMEs: How to solve them?, International Journal of Innovation Science, Vol. 12, No. 5, 545-564, doi: 10.1108/ijis-04-2020-0049. [87] Stojic, N., Delic, M., Bojanic, T., Jokanovic, B., Tasic, N. (2024). Integrated model of risk management in business processes in industrial systems, International Journal of Simulation Modelling, Vol. 23, No. 3, 412-423, doi: 10.2507/IJSIMM23-3-689.