1   
 

Junjie Xu 

A Process Development Project For A Case 
Company 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

School of Technology and Innovations 
Master’s thesis in Master of Science in Economics and Business Administration 

Industrial Management 

Vaasa 2023 



 2   
 

UNIVERSITY OF VAASA 
School of Technology and Innovations 
Author:    Junjie Xu 
Title of the Thesis:  A Process Development Project For A Case Company 
Degree:    Master of Science in Economics and Business Administration 
Programme:   Industrial Management 
Supervisor:   Ville Tuomi 
Year:    2023 Sivumäärä: 70 

ABSTRACT: 
This paper presents a case study on a process improvement project undertaken by a company 
in the sustainable energy industry. The project aimed to optimize the gate model for new 
product development, implement a hybrid-gate model, develop a gate checklist, and create an 
R&D process flow chart to better manage the R&D process. The study began with a thorough 
analysis of the existing gate model, which revealed several bottlenecks and inefficiencies. These 
were addressed through a series of process improvements, including better definition of gate 
criteria, improved cross-functional collaboration, and enhanced communication with 
stakeholders. To further improve the R&D process, the company implemented a hybrid-gate 
model, which integrated elements of both the stage-gate and agile development 
methodologies. This approach enabled the company to be more responsive to changes in the 
market and customer needs while maintaining the discipline and rigor of the stage-gate model. 
In addition, the project team developed a gate checklist, which provided a standardized set of 
criteria to evaluate project progress at each gate. This allowed the team to identify and address 
potential issues early in the development process. To provide greater visibility and 
understanding of the R&D process, the team also created an R&D process flow chart, which 
outlined the steps involved in new product development and the flow of information and 
decision-making. The project was successful in improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the 
R&D process, resulting in faster time-to-market for new products and increased customer 
satisfaction. The gate checklist and R&D process flow chart provided greater transparency and 
accountability, helping to ensure that projects were delivered on time and within budget. 
Overall, this case study demonstrates the importance of continuous process improvement in the 
sustainable energy industry and highlights the potential benefits of a hybrid-gate model, gate 
checklist, and R&D process flow chart for managing complex development projects. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

KEYWORDS: Process development, R&D process, stage gate process model, Agile-Stage-Gate 
hybrid process model 

  



 3   
 

Table of Contents 

1. Introduction 6 

1.1 Background of the research 6 

1.2 Objectives of the thesis 6 

1.3 Limitations of the research 7 

2. Literature review 8 

2.1 Stage gate process model 8 

What is stage gate process model? 8 

Benefits of the stage gate process model 18 

Limitation of the stage gate process model 18 

Applicability 19 

2.2 Agile process model 20 

History of Agile 20 

Agile Challenge 21 

Advantages and disadvantages of agile methodology 22 

Limitation 24 

2.3 Agile-Stage-Gate hybrid process model 26 

2.4 R&D and product development 31 

3. Case company introduction 33 

3.1 Background 33 

3.2 Benefits of the current status of the PCP 35 

3.3 Limitations of the current status of the PCP 36 

4. Methodology 38 

5. Results 42 

5.1 Interview summary 42 

5.2 R&D gate checklist 47 

5.3 R&D process flow chart 50 

6. Conclusion and discussion 57 



 4   
 

6.1 Conclusion 57 

6.2 Discussion 59 

References 61 

 

  



 5   
 

Figures 
 

Figure 1. PCP model from the case company 34 

Figure 2. R&D process flow chart, overview 51 

Figure 3. R&D process flow chart, initiation 52 

Figure 4. R&D process flow chart, discovery & ideation 52 

Figure 5. R&D process flow chart, concept design 52 

Figure 6. R&D process flow chart, concept verification 53 

 

 

Tables 
 

Table 1. R&D process document checklist, initiation 47 

Table 2. R&D process document checklist, G-3 48 

Table 3. R&D process document checklist, G-2 49 

Table 4. R&D process document checklist, G-1 50 

 

  



 6   
 

1. Introduction  

 

1.1 Background of the research 

 

The case company (TS) is a fast-growing R&D manufacturing company. Over the years, 

the R&D process used by the company has become outdated and needs planned reforms 

to adapt to the increasing project requirements. I was fortunate to get this opportunity 

to improve the company's R&D process as my graduate thesis project. 

 

While many related discussions and studies have provided some guidance for the 

company's improvement, the company still seeks to identify the key issues and obtain a 

tailored improvement plan. This is another reason why I chose this proposition as a 

research topic. 

 

1.2 Objectives of the thesis 

 

The objective of the research is to assist the case company in gathering information from 

internal and external sources, such as literature and questionnaire interviews, to identify 

the benefits and drawbacks of the current product development process. Based on this 

analysis, the paper will make recommendations to enhance the R&D process. 

 

To guide my research and interviews with the company, I proposed four key questions: 

 

- What are the advantages and disadvantages of the existing PCP process? 

- How can we improve the R&D process based on the existing product design 

process? 

- How can a company improve its R&D process? 



 7   
 

- How can we use the agile-stage-gate method to develop the R&D process? 

 

1.3 Limitations of the research 

 

Due to the sensitivity of the project, the improvement plan will be based on the 

company's current situation and the existing process as a basis for improvement. 

Therefore, the recommendations may be limited to the company's established 

development route, and the scope for learning from other companies and related topics 

may be restricted. 

 

  



 8   
 

2. Literature review 

 

2.1 Stage gate process model 

 

What is stage gate process model? 

 

According to Cooper and Kleinschmidt (1995), "A Stage-Gate System is a conceptual and 

practical roadmap for taking a new product from concept to market. The effort is divided 

into discrete phases separated by management decision gates in the Stage-Gate method 

(gatekeeping). Before getting management clearance to move to the next level of 

product development, cross-functional teams must successfully complete a defined set 

of linked cross-functional tasks at each stage." 

 

Each stage has its own gate, which functions similarly to huddles in a football game. 

Gates are meetings that act as quality control and Go/Kill checkpoints for the process 

(Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1995). Senior management scrutinizes the project at these 

gate meetings: they examine the project's progress, determine if the requirements for 

moving forward have been satisfied, and either approve the task and resources for the 

next stage (Go), request additional information (Recycle), or terminate the project (Kill 

or Hold) (Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1995). The name "Stage-Gate procedure" comes 

from the stage-and-gate structure. Other names for phase-gate and phase-review 

procedures include phase-gate and phase-review processes. 

 

With a little forethought before beginning creation, new items may assist a firm lot more 

rapidly and efficiently. The basic advantages of the stage-gate system are self-evident. 

The approach instills discipline in the new product development process and emphasizes 

quality, which is sometimes lacking in new product initiatives (Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 

1995). 



 9   
 

 

According to Koen, Ajamian, Boyce, Clamen, Fisher, Fountoulakis, Johnson, Puri, and 

Seibert (2001), "Stage gate systems has become a popular method for driving new 

products to market, and the benefits of using such a clear idea-to-launch system has 

been well documented. Indeed, many well-managed companies, such as Procter & 

Gamble (P&G) have prospered and profited from using Stage-Gate systems." 

 

However, as noted by Cooper, Edgett, and Kleinschmidt (2014), "Although theoretically 

relatively straightforward, as we'll see later, stage-gate methods' design, customisation, 

and execution are far more complicated because of the dynamics of time, shifting 

organizational structures, and the transfer of important personnel." 

 

In the 1980s, Robert G. Cooper conducted a study on a wide range of corporate 

innovation and product development processes, drawing on a wealth of experience and 

ideas from front-line managers, and incorporating the benefits of the preceding new 

product development process. Cooper coined the phrase "stage-gate process" in an 

essay published in the Journal of Marketing Management in 1988. He addressed all 

components of the stage-gate process in depth and provided actual data gathered 

through extensive research in his 1986 book "Winning at New Products." 

 

Stages and gates are the two key components of the stage-gate process. The stage 

definition and layout in the stage-gate process are not new compared to the prior 

approach. Although previous process models required review or decision-making at the 

end of each step, the stage-gate process was the first to separate "gates" and "stages" in 

parallel, and it was created as a critical component of the complete new product 

development process. After each stage, the gate is placed in an autonomous and 

conspicuous location, the criteria are enforced, and the gate's decision-making abilities 

are emphasized. Cooper also developed the gatekeeper's particular duty and a special 

gate meeting as part of the gateway procedure. The gatekeeper attends the gate meeting 

and makes decisions at the gate (typically go, no-go, hold, or recycle). Determine and 



 10   
 

redo the four decisions, prioritize the tasks that have already been completed, and assign 

the necessary resources. 

 

The number of separate steps in the stage-gate process can vary depending on the 

scenario. This adaptability also extends to the stage-gate process. As a result, many firms 

have embraced the stage-gate approach from the start, and it is widely used by 

corporations in the United States, Europe, and Japan to lead new product development 

(Cooper, 1990). 

 

The stage is the time between actions and full analysis for delivering outcomes. Each 

stage usually includes a set of tasks that must be followed to ensure that best practices 

are implemented. Each stage consists of a succession of cross-functional simultaneous 

activities carried out by employees from several firm divisions. The project team leader 

leads the participants in forming a team to work together. The steps of a typical stage-

gate process are as follows (Cooper, 1990). 

 

Phase 0: Discovery 

The possibilities identified and the ideas generated are the key outputs of Phase 0: 

Discovery. A skilled product manager has the ability to recognize and capture 

opportunities, and a great concept often leads to a successful product. Due to the 

significance of opportunities and ideas for a business, many companies treat the process 

of discovering opportunities and developing ideas as separate formal stages. 

 

To create a mature and proactive framework for generating and capturing ideas, provide 

IT support and conduct informative research on fundamental technologies. Collaborate 

with lead users or work with customers to evaluate the value of innovative technology 

solutions. Utilize client feedback to identify potential requirements and problem areas. 

Conduct competitive analysis, reverse engineering, and brainstorming to evaluate rival 

products. Establish a program to encourage original suggestions from employees. 

Employ strategic planning activities to identify market interference, gaps with 



 11   
 

competitors, and opportunities. Collect a variety of sources for fresh product concepts 

and make these accessible. A straightforward one-page idea submission form is a smart 

way to make it easy for employees to prepare and submit their ideas. Appoint an 

innovation advocate who specializes in gathering and assessing ideas (Cooper, Edgett, & 

Kleinschmidt, 2017). 

 

According to Cooper, Edgett, and Kleinschmidt (2017), one way to establish a mature and 

proactive framework for generating and capturing ideas is to "establish a creative 

screening committee to act as the Pass 1 gatekeeper and meet monthly to discuss ideas" 

(p. 175). This committee should apply uniform criteria, ensure fair decision-making, and 

provide timely responses to submitters. Additionally, Cooper et al. suggest introducing 

originality in the first stage and allowing gatekeepers to distribute available staff and 

resources during the gate meeting. They also recommend giving symbolic awards to 

successful innovators and creating a creative library accessible to all employees to store 

and contribute ideas. 

 

Stage 1: Screening 

Cooper and Kleinschmidt (1993) stated that the first phase of the Stage-Gate system 

involves rapid exploratory investigations and preliminary assessments of market 

potential, technical needs, and capability availability. The main objective of this low-cost 

phase is to determine the project's technical and market value. A quick market analysis 

is conducted to determine the market size, potential, and acceptance of the product 

concept. This analysis can be done using a variety of low-cost survey methods such as 

internet searches, library access, interviews with key users, distributors, sales staff, focus 

groups, and quick concept testing of a small number of potential users. The primary 

deliverables of this phase are the projects that were chosen after the assessments. 

 

According to Cooper and Kleinschmidt (1993), the preliminary technical evaluation of a 

project includes a rapid and preliminary internal examination of the items to be created. 

The aim of this evaluation is to assess the technology, manufacturing/operational 



 12   
 

viability, time frame, and cost of the development and production route (or resource 

supply). Technological, legal, and regulatory concerns must also be identified and 

evaluated. Market and technical data are gathered quickly and inexpensively using a 

rough approach. The financial and business analysis of Phase 1 will serve as input for 

Phase 2's analysis. A team of multiple people, typically from marketing and technical 

teams, can manage this stage due to the light workload. However, the necessary 

preparations must be made according to the project's size. 

 

Stage 2: Business demonstration 

The primary deliverable at this stage is the business presentation of the project, which 

includes product definition, a thorough project demonstration, and a comprehensive 

project plan (Cooper, Edgett, & Kleinschmidt, 2019). However, despite its significance, 

this stage is often performed poorly. Therefore, it is crucial to ensure enough preparation 

is done for this thorough research stage. In-depth experts undertake technical, market, 

and commercial feasibility studies to precisely describe the product and assess its appeal 

before spending a considerable amount of money in the latter stages. 

 

The key task at this stage is market research, which helps define an excellent and unique 

new product by identifying the needs, wants, and preferences of buyers. Competitive 

analysis is also done at this point, and concept testing is conducted to evaluate the 

potential client's acceptance of the new product. 

 

According to Cooper, Edgett, and Kleinschmidt (2019), the extensive technical evaluation 

at this stage focuses on the project's technical feasibility, i.e., transforming client 

demands and wish lists into technically and economically viable solutions. This 

conversion may involve some early design work or laboratory experiments, but it is not 

yet a full-scale development. The business case often includes a manufacturing or 

operation review that considers manufacturability, supply resources, manufacturing 

costs, and necessary investment. Concurrently, legal, patent, and regulatory evaluations 

must be carried out to identify risks and create associated action plans. The business 



 13   
 

case must also include a thorough business and financial analysis, which employs 

sensitivity analysis to identify potential risks. The substance of financial analysis usually 

comprises investment payback duration, net present value, and internal rate of return. 

 

Stage 3: Development 

The below passages describe the deliverables and activities involved in Stage 3 of the 

new product development process. The prototypes developed during this stage are 

tested extensively through laboratory, internal, and alpha testing to ensure their quality 

and manufacturability. Additionally, manufacturing, operational, and supply chain 

strategies are developed to meet project requirements. The development strategy for 

long-term projects includes milestones and frequent project reviews (Cooper, 2019, pp. 

153-155). 

 

Although technical work is the primary focus of this phase, marketing and operational 

work are also carried out concurrently. For example, market research and gathering 

customer feedback are done concurrently with technological development. Throughout 

the development process, customers are continuously asked for feedback on the product 

as it evolves. To provide the development outcomes, such as the first prototype, to the 

client for assessment and feedback, these steps are repeated or substituted using a spiral 

development technique. Comprehensive test plans, market launch plans, production 

and operation plans, as well as the requirements for the manufacturing facility, are all 

created at once. Additionally, the financial analysis is updated while resolving regulatory, 

legal, and patent challenges. 

 

According to Cooper, Edgett, and Kleinschmidt (2014), in new product development, 

technical activities and market activities should be integrated and managed concurrently, 

as this approach helps ensure that a new product is technically feasible, manufacturable, 

and marketable. The authors suggest that market activities should be conducted at each 

stage of the development process to keep the product development aligned with 

customer needs and preferences. 



 14   
 

 

Stage 4: Testing and Confirmation 

In this stage, the primary deliverables are products that have undergone testing and 

validation. The main objective is to assess the project's overall feasibility, which includes 

the product, the manufacturing process, consumer acceptance, and the project's 

financials, and begin external validation of the product and project (Cooper, 2017). 

 

Internal testing, such as laboratory testing and alpha testing, can be supplemented with 

product field tests or user preference tests to evaluate product performance and quality 

in real-world scenarios and gauge potential customer response to predict purchase 

behavior. Trial production or operation can be used to debug and fine-tune the 

production process, improve cost estimates, and test the operation's capacity (Cooper, 

2017). 

 

Market research or test sales can be used to gauge customer opinions, the effectiveness 

of the launch strategy, and expected market share and revenue. Review financial and 

business analyses and test the project's economic viability and commercial sustainability 

using fresh and more accurate income and cost data (Cooper, 2017). If stage 4 cannot 

meet the requirements, it will revert to stage 3. 

 

Stage 5: Listing. 

At this stage, the deliverables are mass-produced and sold products. This marks the 

beginning of full-scale operations, including manufacturing, marketing, sales, and post-

launch monitoring. The phase encompasses tasks such as implementing the market 

start-up plan, production and operation plan, purchasing and commissioning production 

equipment, logistics setup, and sales initiation (Project Management Institute, 2017). 

 

Typically, two post-market reviews are conducted. The first review takes place after two 

to four months of the product launch, during which the team is still learning about the 

project's details. This mid-term review is an opportunity to assess the project's 



 15   
 

experience and lessons, evaluate short-term performance, and make critical 

adjustments to improve outcomes (Cooper, 2017). 

 

The second and final review is conducted 12 to 18 months after entering the market, 

once the project has stabilized, and the product has become a regular product in the 

company's product line (Project Management Institute, 2017). This review focuses on 

obtaining the latest data on product revenue, cost, expenditure, profit, and duration and 

comparing it with the standards of Pass 3 and Pass 5 to evaluate performance (Project 

Management Institute, 2017). The project team's responsibility is a core question in this 

review, where the team's success is evaluated based on whether they have delivered the 

promised or predicted results (Project Management Institute, 2017). 

 

It is important to note that the project team and the person in charge remain responsible 

for the project's success during the period after the project is listed until the final review 

results are released (Project Management Institute, 2017). 

 

"Stage" in the Gate model 

The concept of the Gate model is widely used in project management, and it has been 

extensively researched and discussed in the literature. The model was first introduced 

by Robert Cooper in the 1980s and has since been modified and adapted by various 

scholars and practitioners (Cooper, 2014). The Gate model's five stages are well-

established in the literature, and each stage's tasks and success factors are based on 

empirical research and case studies (Cooper, 2014; Englund & Graham, 1999; Lee & Kim, 

2000). The importance of cross-functional cooperation and concurrent task execution in 

the Gate model is also well-documented in the literature (Englund & Graham, 1999; Kim 

& Choi, 2010). 

 

The Gate model separates the R&D process into five phases, each defining specific tasks 

that the project team must complete and the information/data to be collected in the 

current stage. The process only advances to the next phase when the gate is passed, 



 16   
 

which requires completion of all the necessary tasks and information collection. 

Although specific stages and gate definitions may differ across enterprises, all stages 

should possess the following characteristics. 

 

Firstly, cross-functional cooperation is crucial. At each stage, the marketing, R&D, 

production, and purchasing departments must collaborate to advance the project 

(Cooper, 2014). Secondly, multiple tasks should be carried out concurrently, with each 

task assigned to different functional departments. This approach reduces project 

unknowns and risks (Englund & Graham, 1999). As the project progresses, the cost and 

resources invested will increase, but the project's risk will decrease. Thirdly, there are 

key success factors for each stage, based on extensive research and comparisons from 

successful cases or the company's prior experiences. These key success factors are the 

focus of each stage and must be completed to ensure the project's success (Cooper, 

2014). 

 

The "doorway" in the Gate model 

The first is cross-functional cooperation, where the marketing, R&D, production, and 

purchasing departments collaborate at every stage to advance the project. The second 

is multitasking, where multiple tasks are assigned to different functional departments 

simultaneously to minimize risks and uncertainties. Thirdly, there is continuous increase 

in stage costs, reflecting the increasing investment in resources and effort required as 

the project progresses, and also the decreasing risk. Fourthly, key success factors/tasks, 

drawn from previous experiences or successful cases, should be completed in each stage 

to ensure project success (Cooper, Edgett, & Kleinschmidt, 2019). 

 

At each gate, the main person in charge of the project holds a gateway meeting to decide 

whether to continue, terminate, or go back to the previous stage. The gateway is the 

checkpoint of a project and needs to be quantifiable, with a series of standards that 

determine whether the project meets the corresponding stage's standards. In addition, 

non-quantitative standards, such as whether the project aligns with the company's 



 17   
 

strategy and enhances its core competitiveness, also need to be considered. Finally, the 

plan for the next stage, including resource allocation, time allocation, and task setting, 

should be outlined (Cooper, Edgett, & Kleinschmidt, 2019). 

 

The first is cross-functional cooperation, where the marketing, R&D, production, and 

purchasing departments collaborate at every stage to advance the project (Cooper, 

Edgett, & Kleinschmidt, 2019). The second is multitasking, where multiple tasks are 

assigned to different functional departments simultaneously to minimize risks and 

uncertainties (Cooper, Edgett, & Kleinschmidt, 2019). Thirdly, there is continuous 

increase in stage costs, reflecting the increasing investment in resources and effort 

required as the project progresses, and also the decreasing risk (Cooper, Edgett, & 

Kleinschmidt, 2019). Fourthly, key success factors/tasks, drawn from previous 

experiences or successful cases, should be completed in each stage to ensure project 

success (Cooper, Edgett, & Kleinschmidt, 2019). 

 

At each gate, the main person in charge of the project holds a gateway meeting to decide 

whether to continue, terminate, or go back to the previous stage (Cooper, Edgett, & 

Kleinschmidt, 2019). The gateway is the checkpoint of a project and needs to be 

quantifiable, with a series of standards that determine whether the project meets the 

corresponding stage's standards (Cooper, Edgett, & Kleinschmidt, 2019). In addition, 

non-quantitative standards, such as whether the project aligns with the company's 

strategy and enhances its core competitiveness, also need to be considered (Cooper, 

Edgett, & Kleinschmidt, 2019). Finally, the plan for the next stage, including resource 

allocation, time allocation, and task setting, should be outlined (Cooper, Edgett, & 

Kleinschmidt, 2019). 

 

 

 



 18   
 

Benefits of the stage gate process model 

 

Well-organized innovation and development activities can provide a competitive 

advantage to organizations by accelerating product development (Cooper, Edgett, & 

Kleinschmidt, 2020). With the product life cycle shortening continuously, adopting a 

stage-level process approach is necessary (Kriz & Nason, 2014). This approach can help 

improve the market success rate of new products by identifying bad product 

development projects early and correcting their development direction (Kriz & Nason, 

2014). It also helps in reasonably subdividing the complex product development process 

of large companies, providing a development outline that helps prioritize projects and 

processes (Song & Lee, 2019). The approach is cross-functional, integrating market 

factors and incorporating the participation and input of people from different functions 

within the organization (Khan & Lew, 2017). Although there is no separate R&D or 

marketing phase, a discovery phase has been added (Cooper, Edgett, & Kleinschmidt, 

2020). This approach can be effectively integrated with various performance 

management tools, making it a comprehensive and efficient method for innovation and 

development (Kriz & Nason, 2014). 

 

Limitation of the stage gate process model  

 

Although the Gate model involves carrying out tasks in parallel in each stage, it is still 

essentially a sequential approach like a waterfall model (Cooper, 2021). Some experts in 

product innovation have suggested that product development activities should follow 

circular and parallel structures (Leifer, McDermott, O'Connor, Peters, Rice, & Veryzer, 

2000). For a long time, the stage-level process approach lacked a process for market 

discovery and generating innovative ideas (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997). This created 

tension between the development organization and the creative process, neither of 

which alone is sufficient for successful product innovation (Biemans, Fisscher, & Frese, 

2008). 



 19   
 

 

Applicability 

 

The stage gate system is best suited for companies with relatively simple new product 

technology, high market risk, and rapid product updates. It leverages flexible market 

opportunities to drive new product development (Cooper, 2008). 

 

The importance of processes in R&D projects can be traced back to the first-generation 

portal-style process proposed by NASA in the 1960s. In 1972, Rothwell conducted a 

theoretical study of the SAPPHO project and found that 41 factors, including process, 

have a statistically significant effect on R&D project success (Rothwell, 1972). Similarly, 

in the subsequent Stanford innovation research project, Maidique and Zirger identified 

eight conditions for new product success, one of which is "good process planning and 

execution" (Maidique & Zirger, 1984). 

 

Building on these research efforts, Cooper and Kleinschmidt (1987) conducted an in-

depth investigation of 203 new product development projects, including 123 successful 

and 80 failed projects. Based on their findings, they identified nine experiences related 

to shortening new product development time and improving project success rates. 

These experiences formed the basis for the second generation portal management 

process model, which breaks down the entire product innovation process into successive 

stages with audit points between them to supervise and control the entire process. 

 

The early version of this model proposed five linear portal processes: preliminary 

investigation and research, in-depth investigation and research, development, testing, 

and formal production and launch. Since the 1980s, many leading companies in Western 

countries have successfully applied this portal process to actual R&D projects. 

 



 20   
 

As business competition intensifies, satisfying customer needs better and faster has 

become the ultimate goal of new product development projects. However, the early 

portal management process had its own limitations, including a long management cycle, 

high time costs, bureaucratic factors, lack of flexibility, and a lack of program/project 

portfolio management. To address these issues, the third-generation portal 

management process was developed. It improves upon the second generation process 

by incorporating more flexibility and portfolio management, among other improvements 

(Cooper, 2008). 

 

2.2 Agile process model 

 

History of Agile 

 

Agile methodology was first introduced in 2001 by a group of 17 software development 

experts who met to discuss a new approach to software development that would reduce 

development time and documentation requirements (Highsmith, 2002). At that time, 

traditional software development methodologies were slow and failed to meet changing 

business requirements. The experts created the "Agile Manifesto," which emphasized 

faster product delivery and continuous feedback as keys to software development 

success (Beck et al., 2001). 

 

However, the agile methodology that exists today has evolved significantly from the 

original conception. The current methodology is considered "lightweight" and fast, 

enabling continuous feedback and reducing the need for later rework (Conboy & 

Fitzgerald, 2004). The original goal of creating a more flexible and responsive approach 

to development has been achieved through the adoption of Agile principles and 

practices. 

 



 21   
 

In summary, the Agile Manifesto was developed to address the shortcomings of 

traditional software development methods and to create a more flexible and responsive 

approach that emphasizes continuous feedback and faster product delivery. This 

approach has been refined over time to become the Agile methodology used by software 

development teams today. 

 

Agile Challenge 

 

Existing waterfall techniques at the time were too cumbersome to provide feedback until 

the final product was ready for delivery (Chowdhury, 2017). The waterfall model of 

development is named so because the team completes one step first and then moves on 

to the next. This means that there is no room for required corrections, and the customer 

has no view of progress until the entire product is ready (Royce, 1970). These were the 

exact issues that the experts who came up with Agile wanted to avoid. They sought a 

solution that allowed for continuous feedback to reduce the cost of rework at a later 

stage. Agile is all about adaptation, continuous improvement, and speed of delivery. 

 

Agile goes beyond just applying set practices to software development. It brings about a 

change in the team's mindset, encouraging them to build better software, work together 

effectively, and ultimately satisfy the customer (Nerur, Mahapatra, & Mangalaraj, 2005). 

The Agile values and principles shift the team's focus and thought process towards 

building better software. Agile is not a set of rules, guidelines, or even a methodology. It 

is a set of principles that encourage flexibility, adaptability, communication, and working 

software over plans and processes, succinctly captured in the Agile Manifesto. 

 

Agile software development enables teams to work together more effectively when 

tackling complex projects. It involves the practice of iterative and incremental techniques 

that are easy to adopt and show great results. There are a variety of Agile-based 

methodologies available to meet the needs of the software development industry, from 



 22   
 

software design and architecture to development and testing, project management, and 

delivery. 

 

Agile methods and methodologies also provide a scope for process improvement as an 

integral part of every delivery (Singh, 2017). Agile is a practical philosophy of software 

development that builds a self-sufficient and cross-functional team committed to 

continuous delivery through iterations and development throughout the process by 

collecting feedback from end users. 

 

The most popular Agile-based methodologies are Scrum, Kanban, and Extreme 

Programming (XP) (Beck et al., 2001). All of these approaches focus on Lean software 

development and help build better software efficiently and effectively. 

 

Advantages and disadvantages of agile methodology 

 

The client receives continuous updates on the progress of the project at the end of each 

iteration/sprint (Khuong & Lethbridge, 2018). Each sprint delivers working software that 

meets the customer's expectations as defined in the completion criteria they provide 

(Beck et al., 2001). The development team is responsive to changing requirements, 

adapting even in the advanced stages of development (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2017). 

Continuous two-way communication with clients keeps all stakeholders, both business 

and technology, informed of project progress (Dikert et al., 2016). The product design is 

efficient and meets business needs. The use of comprehensive documentation, which is 

not needed in agile, should be avoided. Instead, teams should constantly ask themselves 

if they have enough information (Martin & Martin, 2002). At the beginning of a project, 

requirements may not be clear, and the client's vision may change, requiring the team 

to integrate many changes, making it difficult to measure the end result (Highsmith, 

2002). 

 



 23   
 

Agile emphasizes value-driven delivery and encourages delivering high-value, high-risk 

requirements first, followed by high-value, low-risk requirements, low-value, high-risk 

requirements, and finally low-value, low-risk requirements (Beck et al., 2001). This 

approach allows the highest risk requirements to be tackled first, ensuring the product's 

feasibility can be determined within the first 1 to 4 weeks (Sutherland et al., 2009). If the 

project fails for any reason, it can be stopped early to reduce risks (Schwaber & 

Sutherland, 2017). Agile promotes accepting changes late in the iteration to respond to 

changes in the market, user expectations, and customer needs quickly, ensuring 

competitiveness in a constantly changing market (Highsmith, 2002). 

 

Agile advocates high-frequency delivery of valuable products, with daily regular 

meetings, iteration planning, review, and retrospective meetings (Schwaber & 

Sutherland, 2017). These meetings allow the team to check the quality of deliverables 

layer by layer, discuss and solve problems, and invite project stakeholders to participate 

in the iterative review meeting to accept and provide feedback on deliverables (Martin 

& Martin, 2002). Agile encourages continuous adjustment and optimization through 

iteration retrospective meetings, where the team analyzes, discusses, and summarizes 

agile iterative development to identify areas for improvement in the process (Beck et al., 

2001). 

 

Agile promotes servant leadership, with the Scrum Master guiding and supporting team 

members, eliminating work problems and obstacles, valuing and respecting team 

members' ideas and opinions, empowering the team to self-organize and manage 

themselves (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2017). Team members decide what, how, and when 

to do the work, monitor and manage progress, and take responsibility for the results 

(Beck et al., 2001). They can discuss and confirm work agreements together to ensure 

everyone's input is considered, and the SM promotes collaboration among team 

members, making them more efficient, improving the quality of work and delivery, and 

increasing team member satisfaction (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2017). 

 



 24   
 

Agile's project scope is flexible, allowing project stakeholders to continuously adjust 

requirements, changes, and priorities in response to market feedback (Highsmith, 2002). 

Agile encourages frequent communication with teams and customers, allowing for 

constant adjustments to management methods, development processes, and 

acceptance criteria based on feedback and opinions (Beck et al., 2001). The Definition of 

Done (DoD) can be adjusted according to the actual situation (Schwaber & Sutherland, 

2017). In summary, Agile is based on value-driven delivery, flexibility, and constant 

adjustment and optimization, resulting in high-quality, successful products and early 

business ROI. 

 

Limitation 

One significant challenge of agile is that the team does not know the final product's look 

from the outset, but rather gains a gradually deeper understanding of it by exploring 

user needs throughout the development process. This presents great difficulties for early 

planning, particularly with regards to cost, time, and resource allocation, especially in 

more extensive projects with greater complexity (Ambler, 2018). 

 

Agile emphasizes software over documentation, meaning that documentation only 

occurs "just-in-time" during the development process, and is often simple and placed at 

the end of the process (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2017). 

 

Although incremental delivery can help bring products to market faster, it is also a major 

drawback of agile methodologies. When individual components are developed at 

different times, the overall output can become fragmented, rather than a cohesive and 

integrated set of components. This challenge becomes more significant when projects 

have higher UI and UX requirements (Stenbeck & Axelsson, 2016). 

 

Agile requires minimal planning at the outset, which makes it easy to veer off course 

when delivering new, unexpected functionality (Martin & Osterling, 2017). Furthermore, 



 25   
 

since agile is delivered incrementally, there is no defined endpoint, and progress tracking 

requires looking across cycles. Setting KPIs at the beginning of a project is difficult, and 

measuring progress becomes relatively challenging, considering the long game of agile 

(Boehm & Turner, 2018). 

  



 26   
 

2.3 Agile-Stage-Gate hybrid process model 

 

Based on several case studies from Denmark, Sweden, Germany, and the United States, 

Agile-Stage-Gate can provide several benefits that can be grouped into five areas 

(Cooper & Sommer, 2016). Research has shown that many new products fail to deliver 

their promised value, mainly due to a lack of understanding of customer needs and the 

product not meeting those needs (Ulrich & Eppinger, 2020). Even with the adoption of 

new product systems like Stage-Gate, there is still room for improvement. However, by 

using iterative sprints that involve many user tests and market validations in the early 

stages of a project, the chances of getting the product right are greatly improved, 

increasing the odds of success (Cooper & Sommer, 2016). 

 

For many companies, selecting the right projects, defining winning product concepts 

early on, getting market feedback, and maintaining focus are challenges that come with 

going public (Sahlman, 1990). The highly iterative, time-bound, and rapid approach of 

Agile-Stage-Gate is a promising solution for addressing these time-to-market challenges. 

The use of a dedicated team focused on one project can also increase speed to market 

(Cooper & Sommer, 2016). 

 

The success rates and development time improvements from implementing Agile-Stage-

Gate can vary by industry and organization type. However, a Danish study of five 

manufacturing companies showed positive results on several performance indicators, 

such as adaptability, better team communication, higher team morale, and most 

importantly, faster time-to-market (Geraldi et al., 2011). 

 

Agile-Scrum provides an easy way to integrate Agile into Stage-Gate, making the 

innovation process more flexible, iterative, and ensuring user feedback and measurable 

output (Cooper & Sommer, 2016). Working in a sprint format emphasizes speed and 

fixed time, and this applies to all stages of the innovation process. The greater content 



 27   
 

flexibility inherent in Agile-Stage-Gate is well-suited for an innovation process that may 

have a lot of uncertainty and ambiguity (Wohlin et al., 2012). 

 

The Agile-Stage-Gate methodology was developed based on several case studies from 

Denmark, Sweden, Germany, and the United States, as noted in a previous section. 

Research has shown that many new products fail to deliver their promised value due to 

a lack of understanding of customer needs and the product not meeting those needs 

(Cooper, 2021). Agile-Stage-Gate is an iterative process that involves many user tests and 

market validations in the early stages of a project to increase the odds of success (Kock 

et al., 2018). 

 

The definition of a "product increment" in Agile-Stage-Gate has been adapted by early 

adopter manufacturing companies to include any tangible deliverable that is the result 

of work done by a project team, including market research results, product concept 

drawings, detailed design drawings, agreements between concepts and prototypes, 

rapid prototyping, and Early Work Models (Kock et al., 2018). 

 

The Agile-Stage-Gate methodology can be applied to both technical stages and the 

earlier "fuzzy front-end" stages of innovation, such as ideation, concept development, 

and building business cases (Dennis & McDonald, 2017). User stories are essential to the 

backlog in the early stages when new solutions are unknown, identifying customer needs, 

pain points, or work to be done, and illustrating how users solve challenges with the new 

solution and the benefits they gain (Kock et al., 2018). 

 

Danfoss, a Danish company, exemplifies "participatory innovation" by co-creating new 

solutions with users (Kock et al., 2018). The approach is part of a second idea sprint, 

guiding subsequent concept sprints (Dennis & McDonald, 2017). Top management buy-

in is crucial for the project's success, and the sprints consist of several repetitive actions 

within the Scrum framework (Kock et al., 2018). The methodology involves sprint checks 



 28   
 

after each sprint and gates that serve as comprehensive assessments of all the 

increments completed in the project so far (Dennis & McDonald, 2017). 

 

The Agile-Stage-Gate approach is commonly used during the technical stages of 

development and testing, but it can also be applied to the fuzzy front-end stages of 

innovation, including ideation, concept development, and building business cases 

(Cooper, 2019). Early iteration sprints, such as Idea sprints and Concept sprints, are 

followed by Development sprints, each consisting of several sprints before entering the 

gate. Each sprint check is a mini gate that evaluates the increment completed. In contrast, 

each gate is a more in-depth assessment of all increments and execution or investment 

decision points completed in the project so far (Liu et al., 2021). 

 

In the Ideation and Concept phase, there are several sprints that typically last 1-4 weeks 

and involve repetitive actions within the Scrum framework. Before the first sprint, 

management defines the "why" and "vision," and top management buy-in is critical for 

the project's success (Cooper, 2019). User stories are crucial to the backlog in the early 

stages when new solutions are not yet known, as they guide the initial idea sprint in two 

ways. Firstly, they identify customer needs, pain points, or work to be done, which are 

derived from customer voice user research. Secondly, they illustrate how users solve 

challenges with the new solution and what benefits they will gain from it (Liu et al., 2021). 

 

Innovation challenges expand the project's scope by grouping reasons, visions, and user 

stories. While there are pros and cons to the waterfall approach, developers and 

customers agree on what will be delivered early in the development lifecycle, making 

planning and design simpler (Bassil & Knuppertz, 2019). Since the full scope of the work 

is known in advance, it is easier to measure progress, and various team members can 

participate or continue other work depending on the active phase of the project. 

However, the validity of requirements is often lacking, and clients may have difficulty 

visualizing applications from written requirements, wireframes, and mockups (Kaur & 

Singh, 2020). 



 29   
 

 

The approach is suitable for projects that require multiple software components to be 

designed and integrated with external systems, as the design is done early in the 

development life cycle. This leads to better software design and reduces the possibility 

of "piecemeal effects" (Bassil & Knuppertz, 2019). Client presence is not strictly required 

after the requirements phase, except for reviews, approvals, and status meetings. 

Nonetheless, gathering and documenting requirements in a way that makes sense to the 

customer is often the most challenging part of software development (Kaur & Singh, 

2020). 

 

To expand the scope of the project, reasons, visions, and user stories are grouped into 

innovation challenges. While there are pros and cons to the waterfall approach, it allows 

developers and customers to agree on what will be delivered early in the development 

lifecycle, making planning and design simpler (Rouse, 2020). Measuring progress is also 

easier since the full scope of work is known in advance, and team members can 

participate in other work depending on the active phase of the project (PMI, 2017). 

Testers can prepare test scripts during the coding process, and business analysts can 

understand and document what needs to be done while developers work on other 

projects (Duggal, 2019). Client presence is not strictly required after the requirements 

phase, which is suitable for projects that require multiple software components 

designed to integrate with external systems (Erdogmus et al., 2013). 

 

However, one potential issue with the pure waterfall development approach is that 

customers may be dissatisfied with the software product delivered. By then, 

implementing changes can be difficult and costly (Boehm, 1988). In contrast, Agile 

development allows for frequent opportunities for clients to see the work being 

delivered and make decisions and changes throughout the development project, 

resulting in a strong sense of ownership. Agile produces working software faster, with a 

basic version built in successive iterations, and is more user-focused due to frequent 

coaching by clients (Beck et al., 2001). 



 30   
 

 

Agile development requires a high level of client engagement, which can be problematic 

for clients with limited time or interest. It is most effective when team members are fully 

committed to the project, and additional sprints or functionality may increase overall 

time and cost (Ambler & Lines, 2012). Close working relationships are easiest to manage 

when team members are in the same physical space, but this can be resolved through 

various tools (Nerur et al., 2005). The iterative nature of Agile development can also lead 

to frequent refactoring, which is crucial to consider in the initial architecture and design 

of large-scale implementations or systems with a high degree of integration to avoid 

overall quality degradation (Kaur & Sohal, 2020). 

 

The traditional way of software development involves a large up-front design that sets 

requirements, specifications, and design documents in stone before any code is written. 

Changes in scope become difficult because each stage is a prerequisite for the next, 

making it inflexible and unsuitable for moving and growing with the business (Boehm, 

1988). 

 

On the other hand, Agile is a successful methodology that accepts the fact that 

requirements and designs change as the product is developed. Changes are welcomed 

and easily incorporated, even in the final stages of development (Beck et al., 2001). Agile 

is an adaptive form of process management that allows businesses to achieve short-, 

medium-, and long-term goals while modifying them as needed. 

 

Iterative development is a key component of Agile, as it allows for validation of the 

product and getting something physical in front of customers early, often, and cheaply. 

This approach deals with changing requirements through fast revisions and 

experimentation, which allows for trial and error in exploring and testing solutions both 

technically and with the customer. Understanding the requirements becomes a part of 

finding the solution (Ambler & Lines, 2012). 

 



 31   
 

Once a sprint begins in Agile, its duration is fixed and cannot be shortened or lengthened. 

Project teams commit to certain deliverables at the beginning of each sprint and are 

under self-imposed pressure to deliver within the agreed time frame. This approach 

improves project efficiency and focuses teams on delivering quality results. Scrum, a 

popular Agile framework, places great emphasis on this approach, leading to its success 

in many major projects (Beck et al., 2001). 

 

In summary, Agile is a flexible and adaptive approach to software development that 

allows for changes in requirements and designs. Its iterative development process 

enables businesses to achieve their goals while modifying them as needed, leading to 

improved project efficiency and quality results (Beck et al., 2001; Boehm, 1988; Ambler 

& Lines, 2012). 

 

2.4 R&D and product development 

 

Research and development (R&D) is an essential process for companies to create and 

improve new goods and services (Ireland, Hitt, & Sirmon, 2003). During the research 

phase, new product concepts are generated and feasibility is tested, which involves 

acquiring new scientific knowledge that can be applied to developing novel goods (Kline 

& Rosenberg, 1986). The process of transforming acquired scientific knowledge into 

practical products that a business can market and sell is called development (Chiesa & 

Frattini, 2011). 

 

R&D activities can vary between businesses and industries, and can be delegated 

internally or to third-party contractors, depending on the size of the organization and its 

goals (Dodgson, Gann, & Salter, 2005). Many businesses prefer to keep their R&D efforts 

in-house to safeguard intellectual property (Chiesa & Frattini, 2011). 

 



 32   
 

Product development encompasses the entire process of developing, marketing, and 

distributing new items (Cooper, 2017). Although R&D is a fundamental initial step in 

creating a new product, product development involves the entire product life cycle, from 

design to sale (Cooper, 2017). This includes creating, developing, and marketing new 

goods or updating older products to add new features or improve sales. Product 

development occurs whenever a new product is developed, sold, or when an existing 

product gets new features added to it and is resold (Kotler, Kartajaya, & Setiawan, 2010). 

 

In conclusion, R&D and product development are both important for businesses to thrive 

and succeed over the long term. R&D is the stage of the product life cycle when ideas 

are first conceived, whereas product development is the complete process of developing, 

producing, and selling new goods or current products with new features (Cooper, 2017). 

  



 33   
 

3. Case company introduction 

 

3.1 Background 

 

The company in question, TS, is a supplier of drive train technology, specializing in key 

components for renewable and industrial applications. Its main focus areas are wind, 

marine, and special industrial applications. TS has independently developed its product 

portfolio, including full power converters and permanent magnet generators. To achieve 

rapid ramp-up and ramp-down manufacturing capabilities, TS has implemented a model 

factory manufacturing concept. This concept not only ensures manufacturability but also 

enables on-time delivery and consistent quality. 

 

Moreover, TS provides comprehensive product life cycle maintenance and after-sales 

services, as well as training for product and software usage, servicing, commissioning, 

and maintenance. Established in 2006, TS is headquartered in Helsinki and operates 

factories in Finland and China. The company also has sales offices in 7 countries, 

including Finland, China, and Japan. 

 

TS employs a product creation process (PCP) based on the stage-gate model, which was 

initially created by its electrical machine functional unit and later transferred to the high 

power converter. The PCP process consists of six or seven different phases, typically 

following the waterfall development model. Iterations are only performed within 

individual phases, and Gates are used to control transitions between them. Each Gate 

has specific criteria that must be met before transitioning to the next phase. 

 



 34   
 

 

Figure 1. PCP model from the case company 

 

The TS product creation process (PCP) is based on the stage-gate model and consists of 

six or seven different phases. These phases ensure the successful development of a new 

product and a smooth transition from one phase to the next. 

 

Phase 0: Project Preparation and Kick-Off 

Preliminary specifications and delivery terms are agreed upon with the customer during 

this phase. The kick-off meeting is conducted to review project information and establish 

mutual understanding on project organization, schedule, and other PCP-related matters. 

 

Phase 1: Concept Design 

The final concept design is collaboratively developed by the project team and the 

customer, with the aim of obtaining customer acceptance. This phase concludes upon 

customer approval of the final concept design. 

 

Phase 2: Overall Technical Design 

During this phase, the primary emphasis is placed on critical design matters, including 

electromagnetic dimensioning, main mechanical designs, cooling arrangements, and 



 35   
 

other fundamental design aspects. The overall design phase concludes upon customer 

approval of the technical design and completion of documentation for purchasing time-

critical main components. 

 

Phase 3: Detailed Technical Design 

In this phase, the technical design and documentation are thoroughly finalized, resulting 

in a comprehensive bill of materials and detailed description of the prototype product 

for the ERP system. 

 

Phase 4: Prototype Assembly and Testing 

In this phase, meticulous preparation is carried out to ensure that the prototype 

assembly and testing conditions are well-planned, including the subcontractor plan, 

assembly plan, and testing plan. 

 

Phase 5: Assembly and Testing 

During this phase, the final assembly and type testing of the product take place. Upon 

successful completion of the type testing, a factory acceptance test is conducted. 

 

Phase 6: Commissioning, Project Evaluation, and Closing 

The primary objective of this phase is to ensure customer satisfaction and collect 

valuable information for the continuous improvement of the company. 

 

3.2 Benefits of the current status of the PCP 

 

The PCP was developed by the EM functional unit and has been mostly applied to EM 

side projects. This is because the nature of projects is different between EM and HPC, as 

EM develops new machines while HPC mainly modifies existing products. 

 



 36   
 

For customer delivery projects in HPC, PCP is effective and typically starts with a 

purchase order (PO) that already provides customer specifications and requirements at 

the first stage. This limits changes and iterations during the process. 

 

PCP also works well for projects such as product cost optimization and product design 

improvement, where products or platforms already exist, and project teams only need 

to focus on making small changes to limit iterations. 

 

PCP also acts as a quality checklist to ensure that all necessary documents are prepared 

and checked before moving to the next gate. This is crucial for quality control to ensure 

that essential documentation is not overlooked, ensuring the final products and 

deliveries are of high quality. 

 

3.3 Limitations of the current status of the PCP 

 

The PCP was originally designed for customer delivery projects where clear product 

specifications and customer requirements are provided at the start of the project. 

However, for R&D projects, which may start from an idea or indication from key 

customers, there are no clear customer specifications or requirements. This can create 

challenges for the project team, especially when there are a lot of changes and iterations 

during the project. This is particularly true for converter platform design projects for HPC, 

where most mechanical, electrical, and software designs need to start from scratch. 

 

While the PCP is based on the stage-gate model, which iterates from the waterfall model, 

it is not suitable for TS and has limitations for R&D projects where change and iteration 

are the nature of the project. Therefore, the current PCP model is not well-suited for 

R&D projects where there is no customer and the nature of the project requires a lot of 

changes and iterations. 

 



 37   
 

However, the PCP model works well for most customer delivery projects where customer 

specifications and requirements are specified. In these cases, the PCP serves as a quality 

checklist to ensure that all necessary documentation is prepared and checked before 

moving to the next stage, ensuring high-quality final products and deliveries. 



 38   
 

4. Methodology 

 

This thesis work was an empirical case study that aimed to explore the implementation 

of the Stage gate process model and the agile-Stage-Gate hybrid process model in R&D 

process development. The study used a mixed-method approach that involved 

conducting interviews with selected professionals from the case company and analyzing 

relevant literature. The Stage gate process model is a widely used framework in product 

development, while the agile-Stage-Gate hybrid process model combines the benefits of 

both agile and Stage-Gate approaches. The interviews provided valuable insights into the 

challenges and benefits of using these models in R&D process development. The findings 

of this study can be useful for companies seeking to improve their R&D processes and 

develop successful products. 

 

Empirical case study methodology is a research approach that involves in-depth 

investigation of a specific phenomenon within its real-life context. This methodology 

involves collecting data from multiple sources such as interviews, documents, and 

observations to understand the intricacies of the case being studied. The author then 

analyzes the data to draw conclusions and develop theoretical frameworks that can be 

applied to similar cases. 

 

According to the book "Building Theories from Case Study Research" by Kathleen M. 

Eisenhardt (1989), the empirical case study methodology is an effective way to build new 

theories and understand complex phenomena. Eisenhardt argues that case studies are 

particularly useful when the research questions require an in-depth understanding of a 

specific context or when the phenomenon being studied is not well understood. She also 

notes that case studies can be useful for testing and refining existing theories and models. 

 



 39   
 

Overall, empirical case study methodology offers a unique and valuable approach to 

research, allowing researchers to gain deep insights into real-world phenomena and 

develop theories that can guide future research and practice. 

 

Based on the discussions with the case company, the research will provide an 

improvement plan for the company's current process. The plan will be based on 

academic research from the dissertation and internal company interviews, with the aim 

of recommending the best direction for process improvement that aligns with the 

company's goals. 

 

Qualitative research methods will be used in the form of carefully designed and selected 

interview questions. The purpose of these questions is to gain a thorough understanding 

of the advantages and disadvantages of the company's current R&D process, as well as 

to explore expectations for future process improvements and directions for optimization. 

 

Interviewees will be selected in advance through negotiations with the steering group, 

and interviews will be conducted in a one-on-one manner. The questions will focus on 

evaluating the current PCP gate model within each department, as well as exploring 

potential improvements to the R&D process. The following questions will be asked 

during the interviews: 

 

Interview Questions: 

 

1. Benefits and Positivity of the current PCP: 

a. In which kind of projects or circumstances does the PCP process run well 

and smoothly? 

b. Please describe at least three satisfying functions of the PCP process. 

1. Limitations and Challenges of the current PCP: 

a. In which kind of projects or circumstances does the PCP process run 

problematically? 



 40   
 

b. Please describe at least three unsatisfying functions of the PCP process. 

 

2. R&D process development 

a. In your experience, what are the key differences between R&D and 

product delivery processes? 

b. In your experience, what are the most critical functions to be developed 

in the next version of the R&D process? 

 

3. Including R&D process into current PCP framework 

a. What are the challenges and risks associated with including the R&D 

process into the current PCP framework? 

 

Research questions Data Analysis 

What are the advantages and 

disadvantages of the existing 

PCP process? 

Interviews: 

6 persons, average length 

120 minutes 

Document: 

20 internal documents 

Content analysis 

Thematic analysis 

How can we improve the R&D 

process based on the existing 

product design process? 

Interviews: 

6 persons, average length 

120 minutes 

Document: 

20 internal documents 

Content analysis 

Thematic analysis 

How can a company improve its 

R&D process? 

Interviews: 

6 persons, average length 

120 minutes 

Document: 

20 internal documents 

Content analysis 

Thematic analysis 

How can we use the agile-stage-

gate method to develop the 

R&D process? 

Interviews: 

6 persons, average length 

120 minutes 

Document: 

20 internal documents 

Content analysis 

Thematic analysis 

 



 41   
 

Firstly, the research methodology used in this thesis was an empirical case study 

approach. This approach involved collecting data from multiple sources such as 

interviews, documents, and observations to gain an in-depth understanding of the R&D 

process development in a company. 

 

To begin, identify a company or organization that has an R&D process in place and is 

willing to participate in the study. Once you have identified the company, schedule 

interviews with key personnel involved in the R&D process, such as R&D managers, 

engineers, and product managers. During these interviews, ask open-ended questions 

that allow the interviewees to provide detailed information about their role in the R&D 

process, their experiences, and their thoughts on the process. 

 

In addition to the interviews, gather relevant documents such as project reports, 

meeting minutes, and product specifications. These documents will provide further 

insights into the R&D process and its outcomes. 

 

Finally, observe the R&D process in action, if possible. Attend meetings, participate in 

discussions, and take notes on the process as it unfolds. This will provide a more 

complete picture of the R&D process and its challenges. 

 

Once all data has been collected, analyze it to draw conclusions and develop theoretical 

frameworks that can be applied to similar cases. Use qualitative data analysis techniques 

such as coding and theme identification to identify patterns and themes in the data. 

 

In summary, to replicate this thesis work, identify a company with an R&D process, 

conduct interviews, gather relevant documents, observe the process, and analyze the 

data to draw conclusions and develop theoretical frameworks. 

  



 42   
 

5. Results 

 

5.1 Interview summary 

 

Following a detailed conversation with the interview team, the key points from the 

results were summarized. The current PCP process is well-suited for improving and 

optimizing mature products, including product cost optimization, component 

replacement and upgrades, and performance improvement. It is also considered 

appropriate for the supply process of mature products, from receiving the customer's 

purchase order to final shipment. However, it is not suitable for the R&D process of new 

products, as it is too rigid and inflexible to handle frequent iterations and changing 

progress in the product development process. This view was consistently expressed by 

all interviewees. It was surprising to learn that the PCP process is not widely 

implemented in the company, including in critical departments. Below is a summary of 

each interview, which will serve as a reference for the upcoming process improvement. 

 

Product Manager A 

The transfer of responsibilities between gates is a critical aspect of project management 

that requires clear definitions and guidelines. In particular, sourcing and purchasing 

responsibilities in the gate model are not well-defined, and gate owners should not make 

decisions in these areas. It is also important to set deadlines between gates. Currently, 

G0 is scheduled one week after PO, and engineering is ready eight weeks before 

assembly starts. However, IAT and FAT are missing from the process, and critical 

document deadlines are not reflected in the PCP model, making it difficult to track and 

manage project progress. Waiting until everything is fully engineered to start placing 

orders is too late, and the current PCP process has limitations in moving steps back when 

necessary. 

 



 43   
 

In the R&D process, creating something entirely new for the market can provide 

advantages such as increased sales, competitiveness, and reputation, but it also requires 

heavy technology creation or modification. R&D creates the foundation, while product 

development adjusts and refines it for specific needs. Implementing minus gates could 

be a suitable way to include the R&D process into the current PCP process. However, 

sourcing brings limitations to the R&D process as the selection of materials is highly 

dependent on price, and R&D doesn't have the freedom to purchase the exact parts 

needed for necessary testing. Therefore, sourcing needs to ensure a second source for 

the most critical components to facilitate product delivery. Additionally, although the 

high-level framework may be the same, the details can deviate significantly between 

different operational units. 

 

Product Manager B 

After a detailed conversation with the interviewee, it was concluded that the current 

structure for normal delivery projects is satisfactory. However, challenges arise due to 

the pressure from the management team to proceed without proper gates, lack of 

standardization in quality management, and undefined engineering processes. The PCP 

model only provides a checklist, making it difficult to create certain documents, estimate 

project length, and allocate resources. When the starting point is undefined, or changes 

occur after the process has begun, estimating resources and allocations becomes more 

challenging. 

 

To improve the next generation process, a requirement management process and a 

standard template for all the documents in the PCP checklist are needed. The verification 

process also requires improvement. Additionally, the nature and target of the current 

PCP and R&D processes differ, with the former serving delivery projects and the latter 

providing engineering solutions and approved libraries to engineering. The challenge lies 

in harmonizing the different requirements in product design across different business 

units and industries. 

 



 44   
 

The responsibility transfer between gates is critical in project management, and the 

sourcing and purchasing responsibilities in the gate model need clear definitions and 

guidelines. Deadlines between gates are important, but critical document deadlines are 

not reflected in the PCP model, making it difficult to track project progress. 

Implementing minus gates could be a suitable way to include the R&D process into the 

current PCP process, but sourcing brings limitations as material selection is highly 

dependent on price. A second source for critical components is needed to facilitate 

product delivery. 

 

Overall, standardization and harmonization are crucial in the next generation process, 

along with clear definitions and guidelines for responsibilities transfer and document 

management. 

 

Lead Engineer 

The Product Creation Process (PCP) is a system used for normal delivery projects, but it 

may not be suitable for Research and Development (R&D) projects due to its rigidity and 

complexity. The R&D process involves creating documents that are only used in meetings, 

with little content. The R&D team is only involved in the first few gates, and the final gate 

has not been organized for the projects they have been involved in. Proper introduction 

and education of the PCP process throughout the company is lacking, including training 

and workshops. Furthermore, there is no management or supervisory level follow-up of 

the usage and implementation of the process. 

 

While the PCP process works well for machine development projects, it may not work as 

effectively for converter-side projects. The PCP process is beneficial for mutual design 

projects that require only minor adjustments. The advantages of the PCP process include 

improved documentation, better traceability, and standardization of different projects. 

However, it is difficult to evaluate if the problems come from the process itself or from 

people who have not been using and managing the process properly. 

 



 45   
 

To improve the R&D process, it should be clearly defined, including what should and 

should not be included. The definition of the R&D process should recognize that there 

will be a lot of failures, mistakes will be allowed, and the time required can be quite long, 

possibly more than two years. Additionally, a requirement management process should 

be developed for the next generation process, and a standard template for all documents 

in the PCP checklist should be created. The verification process also needs improvement. 

Finally, organizational roles and responsibilities should be harmonized, as different 

business units and industries have different requirements in product design. 

 

Engineering Manager 

The Product Creation Process (PCP) is a quality management tool developed for 

engineering-to-order processes, primarily focused on delivery rather than developing 

new products. It works very well for well-specified delivery projects with a defined scope. 

The PCP includes a comprehensive checklist and is not suitable for standard product 

delivery. In contrast, Research and Development (R&D) is focused on exploring and 

developing new ideas with a scope that is not fixed. The R&D process begins with a 

feasibility study and has the ability to halt the project immediately if it is deemed too 

risky. 

 

It is essential to understand that the PCP and R&D processes have different objectives 

and scopes, and therefore, they require different approaches. While the PCP process is 

ideal for delivery projects, the R&D process is better suited for developing new ideas and 

exploring uncharted territories. Therefore, it is essential to have a clear definition of the 

R&D process, including what to include and what to exclude. The R&D process should 

allow for experimentation, mistakes, and a longer timeframe, possibly extending beyond 

two years. 

 

To conclude, the most important thing that emerged from the interviews was the need 

for a clear R&D process development that incorporates feedback loops to ensure 

continuous improvement. The interviews revealed different opinions regarding the 



 46   
 

effectiveness of the Stage Gate process model versus the Agile-Stage-Gate hybrid 

process model. Some interviewees expressed a preference for the Stage Gate model, 

citing its structure and predictability, while others preferred the Agile-Stage-Gate hybrid 

model, citing its flexibility and ability to adapt to changing market conditions. However, 

all interviewees agreed on the importance of customer feedback and involvement 

throughout the R&D process, as well as the need for effective communication and 

collaboration among cross-functional teams. 

 

The interviews had different opinions on the level of detail required in the initial proposal 

stage of an R&D project. Some interviewees felt that a high level of detail was necessary 

to justify the investment of resources, while others believed that a general overview was 

sufficient to proceed to the next stage. 

 

Additionally, there were different opinions on the ideal number of gates and iterations 

in the R&D process. Some interviewees believed that a higher number of gates and 

iterations allowed for better verification and decision-making, while others felt that it 

increased complexity and hindered progress. 

 

On the other hand, the interviews had the same kind of opinions regarding the 

importance of a NOGO decision and the need for a clear decision-maker in the R&D 

process. All interviewees agreed that it was essential to have a clear and straightforward 

NOGO decision, and that the decision-maker should be identified and held accountable 

for the decision. 

 

Furthermore, everyone agreed on the importance of having a well-defined product 

description and a clear business case to justify investing resources in an R&D project. 

The interviews also highlighted the need for continuous review and improvement of the 

R&D process to ensure its effectiveness and efficiency. 

 



 47   
 

5.2 R&D gate checklist 

 

The following is an R&D gate checklist that has been developed based on interviews and 

related studies. The documentation has gone through many iterations, and a method 

similar to Sprint has been used to refine it. The iteration interval is one week, and the 

goal is to have a new releaseable version after four weeks. At the start of each weekly 

sprint, the Steering group sets the goal for the next week. At the end of the sprint, the 

results are presented to the Steering group, and the achievement of the goal is reviewed. 

The goal for the next week is then set, and the process repeats. 

 

The checklist comprises four gates: initiation, gate-3, gate-2, and gate-1. As shown in the 

table 1 below, the initiation phase outlines the necessary approvals and preparations 

needed before starting an R&D project. The required documents include the R&D project 

plan, which should cover project scope and objectives, staffing, project investment and 

budget, and other relevant information. These documents will be evaluated by the 

product and technical direction management team, who will either pass, be prepared to 

iterate, or fail the project. 

 

Table 1. R&D process document checklist, initiation 

 

 

After passing the initiation gate, the project will move forward. Table 2 below shows an 

overview of Gate 3, Discovery & Ideation. In this gate, the project team will reflect on 



 48   
 

the intention and significance of the R&D project through more detailed analysis and 

reports. This includes analyzing the target market, creating technical specification 

sketches, conducting analysis of existing technology, and more. At the end of the gate, 

the product and technical direction management team will review the provided 

documents and make the final decision for the gate. 

 

Table 2. R&D process document checklist, G-3 

 

 

If G-3 is successfully passed, the project will then move forward to G-2 Concept Design. 

In this gate, the project team will undertake more detailed prototype design steps, and 

provide a more comprehensive overview of the new product, including mechanical 

design, electrical design, software design, product price estimation, and risk assessment. 

Various factors will be described in detail. At the end of this gate, the management will 

make an investment decision on whether to allocate funds for purchasing and 

assembling the prototype, and to carry out the next series of prototype testing. Table 3 

below illustrates the detailed checklist for G-2 Concept Design. 



 49   
 

 

Table 3. R&D process document checklist, G-2 

 

 

In the final gate of the research and development process, the prototype of the product 

will be presented in more detail. Based on the accumulation of knowledge from previous 

gates, the project team will provide a more comprehensive overview of the product's 

technical specifications. They will also start preparing for the productization of the new 

product, which includes negotiating with factories for product assembly, constructing 

the product supply chain, and proposing product listing plans. At the end of the research 

and development process, the project team will provide a detailed project summary that 

includes venture capital, future prospects, and other relevant information. This 



 50   
 

information will be presented to management for evaluation as the research and 

development project comes to a close and the subsequent connection process begins. 

 

Table 4. R&D process document checklist, G-1 

 

 

5.3 R&D process flow chart 

 

Along with the checklist, the process introduction diagram is another critical document 

for the R&D process. The flowchart is created using a similar approach, setting goals in 

advance and going through weekly sprints, reviewing results, and setting new goals for 

the following week. The final version is released after a four-week sprint. The flowchart 

provides a visual representation of the R&D process, illustrating the different gates and 

stages of the project. The diagram helps to ensure that everyone involved in the project 

understands the process and their roles, promoting transparency and collaboration. 

With clear and well-defined steps, the R&D team can work more efficiently and 

effectively towards achieving their goals. 



 51   
 

 

 

Figure 2. R&D process flow chart, overview 

 

The flow chart provides a more detailed description of the R&D project process in a visual 

format that corresponds to the checklist. The standardization of the process is 

emphasized, including the input and output of each certification meeting. The chart 

defines the required work goals, sprint deadlines, personnel involved, and specific goals 

to be achieved. Because R&D projects are inherently uncertain, the management 

reserves the right to terminate the project if it is deemed too risky or not aligned with 

the company's development strategy. In such cases, the management must provide clear 

and detailed reasoning for the termination decision. The terminated project will be 

immediately stopped or returned for reconsideration, and the decision will be discussed 

at the meeting.  

 

After the release of the flow chart, a round of interviews was conducted to introduce 

and promote it, as well as to collect feedback. The feedback was then used to carry out 

the final iteration of the flow chart. The figures below depict the final version, which 

provides more detailed information about the various gates in the process. 

 



 52   
 

 

Figure 3. R&D process flow chart, initiation 

 

 

Figure 4. R&D process flow chart, discovery & ideation 

 

 

Figure 5. R&D process flow chart, concept design 

 



 53   
 

 

Figure 6. R&D process flow chart, concept verification 

 

During the interviews, the importance of the flow chart as a tool for standardizing the 

R&D process was emphasized. Feedback was collected on the clarity and 

comprehensiveness of the chart, as well as on specific areas that needed improvement. 

Based on the feedback, the final iteration of the flow chart included updates such as 

more detailed descriptions of the gates and the addition of specific tasks to be 

completed at each gate. The minutes of each interview are presented below, along with 

the updates made during the final iteration of the flow chart. 

 

Overall, the final version of the flow chart was well-received and seen as a valuable 

resource for managing R&D projects. 

 

Interview with the head of engineering  

The R&D process flow chart is well received initially, as it facilitates the planning meeting 

before each gate to ensure readiness. Additional document templates can be created to 

standardize results and enhance efficiency, but they should remain flexible and 

adaptable to accommodate different project requirements. 

 



 54   
 

In R&D, solutions should be developed not just for specific customers but for potential 

markets, applications, and customers. Collecting more practical data through real case 

piloting can improve the process by providing insights for further refinement and 

development. 

 

Interview with the head of marketing 

The initial impression of the R&D process flow chart is positive, and it's important to 

have a clear and straightforward NOGO decision in the process. This is necessary when 

project conditions don't allow us to proceed further, even after the concept design is 

ready. However, even in such situations, the efforts made can be worthwhile as valuable 

insights can be gained for the next project. 

 

To start process piloting, it would be ideal to begin with high-speed machine and 

converter projects, and finalize the estimated project timeline within the next six months. 

Real case piloting can also help to collect practical data, which will further refine and 

develop the process. The next step is to review the process feedback with business unit 

(BU) directors and product managers by the end of next week, and agree on the next 

steps with CTO and Engineering director. 

 

To improve the process, additional document templates can be created for repeatable 

work to standardize results and make the process more efficient. However, it's essential 

to keep these templates flexible and easily modified to meet the needs of different 

projects. Developing solutions not only for a specific customer but also for potential 

markets and their various applications and customers will help to improve the process 

further. 

 

Interview with the head of key account manager (KAM) 

To initiate an R&D project, it is crucial to provide an initial proposal that not only focuses 

on technical aspects but also includes a comprehensive business case, highlighting the 

reasons and drivers behind the project to justify resource investment. It is equally 



 55   
 

important to carefully evaluate all the feedback from the sales director and modify the 

flow chart accordingly. It is recommended to use SwitchOn, the primary platform 

associated with the process chart, and consult with the quality director if necessary. 

 

Interview with KAM 

After reviewing the R&D process flow chart, the initial impression is positive. However, 

there are some areas that need clarification and improvement. Firstly, it is necessary to 

clearly define who is responsible for presenting the meeting for the product technical 

directive board (PTDB). Secondly, a more specific product description, such as "Converter 

TDB" and "Machine TDB", could be considered to better define the TDB. To improve 

cooperation at a higher level, other operating units, such as Norway and China, should 

be more involved in the process. It is important to note that sharing resources between 

R&D and customer delivery projects will become more demanding and should be 

carefully managed. Overall, the process shows promise and can be further refined with 

input from all relevant stakeholders. 

 

Interview with product manager A 

The initial impression of the new R&D process is positive, but it's essential to ensure that 

the process is not only created but also followed correctly. Therefore, the product 

manager will review the flow chart in detail and provide additional comments to further 

refine the process. 

 

 

Interview with product manager B 

Consider adding an iteration loop to the PTDB review stage as the process may not 

always proceed in a straightforward manner in reality. Finalizing the entire prototype 

verification process within just one gate can be cumbersome. Therefore, it is important 

to have milestones to advance the project. Additionally, consider having a separate gate 

process or gate model specifically for prototype verification projects. 

 



 56   
 

Interview with product manager C 

The initiation phase of an R&D project can be time-consuming, especially when it comes 

to preparing all the necessary analyses. It is important to consider the level of detail in 

the contents to avoid wasting time on irrelevant information. Therefore, having a general 

flow chart that can be applied to different types of R&D projects, such as component or 

software development, is beneficial. 

 

During the prototype verification process, it is crucial to make a decision on whether or 

not to sell a product or prototype that has not been thoroughly verified. This decision 

should be based on facts, and the decision-maker should be clearly identified. It is 

recommended to consider adding an iteration loop into the PTDB review stage to allow 

for more flexibility in the process, as finalizing the entire verification process within one 

gate can be cumbersome. 

 

To further improve the flow chart, it is important to take into account the review 

comments in the PDF and update it accordingly. 

  



 57   
 

6. Conclusion and discussion 

 

6.1 Conclusion 

 

The aim of this thesis work was to find answers to the following research question: 1) 

What are the advantages and disadvantages of the existing PCP process? 2) How can we 

improve the R&D process based on the existing product design process? 3) How can a 

company improve its R&D process? 4) How can we use the agile-stage-gate method to 

develop the R&D process? As an answer to the first research question, the advantages 

of the existing PCP process may include its ability to systematically manage the R&D 

process from idea generation to product launch, its focus on customer needs and market 

trends, and its use of clear criteria for evaluating project success. However, some 

disadvantages may include its tendency to prioritize short-term goals over long-term 

innovation, its rigid structure that can stifle creativity and flexibility, and its potential for 

bureaucratic delays and inefficiencies. 

 

To address the second research question, there may be several ways to improve the R&D 

process based on the existing product design process. One approach may involve 

incorporating more user feedback and involvement throughout the process, from initial 

concept development to prototype testing and product launch. This can help ensure that 

the final product meets the needs and preferences of the target market. Another 

approach may involve adopting more agile development methodologies, such as rapid 

prototyping and iterative testing, to allow for greater flexibility and faster adaptation to 

changing market conditions. 

 

Additionally, companies can improve their R&D process by investing in training and 

development programs for employees, fostering a culture of innovation and risk-taking, 

and providing the necessary resources and support for R&D initiatives. Finally, using the 



 58   
 

agile-stage-gate method can help companies develop their R&D process by combining 

the benefits of agile development with a structured, stage-gate approach for managing 

projects and ensuring their alignment with overall business objectives. 

 

I have completed my study assignment and research on the R&D project process. After 

consulting with the company, the checklist will serve as a reference for creating the R&D 

checklist in the future. The flow chart was well received by the company's management 

and will be updated to the company's internal process and tested on actual projects. 

Going forward, I will continue to apply the excellent experience I gained in the Agile 

system to my daily work. 

 

I would like to express my gratitude to my university thesis supervisor, Ville Tuomi, 

colleagues in the company, and management team for their help and encouragement 

throughout this project. Without their support, I would not have been able to complete 

this project alone. 

 

Most of the research results are based on the real environment and real situation within 

the company, and therefore, they are specific to the company to some extent. However, 

they can serve as a valuable reference for other companies facing similar challenges and 

problems. Through this study and research, the company was able to sort out its internal 

R&D process and pave the way for subsequent improvements. In the future, I will 

continue to provide relevant improvement suggestions for the company. 

 

Through the analysis and discussion of the interview questions, as well as the targeted 

documents and flow charts created from the discussion results, the company now has a 

comprehensive and clear understanding of the necessary improvements to the R&D 

process. 

 



 59   
 

6.2 Discussion 

 

Validity refers to the extent to which a study measures what it intended to measure. 

Reliability refers to the consistency and stability of a measure or a study over time and 

across different settings. Based on my own evaluation, it appears that the thesis has 

taken measures to ensure validity and reliability. The research questions were clearly 

stated, and the methods used to collect and analyze data were described in detail. 

Additionally, the study employed multiple sources of data, such as interviews and 

surveys, to increase the validity and reliability of the results. 

 

However, as with any study, there may be limitations that affect the validity and reliability 

of the results. For example, the study was conducted in a specific company and industry, 

which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other contexts. Additionally, the 

sample size and selection process may have limitations that could impact the validity and 

reliability of the study. Therefore, while the results of the study may provide useful 

insights, it is important to consider the limitations and potential sources of bias when 

interpreting the findings. 

 

The generalizability of the results of a case study depends on the scope and focus of the 

study. Since case studies typically focus on a specific organization or situation, the results 

may not be fully generalizable to other organizations or contexts. In this particular thesis, 

since the study focused on a single organization, the results may only be partially 

generalizable to other companies in similar industries or situations. However, the 

insights and recommendations provided may still be valuable for other organizations 

looking to improve their R&D processes. 

 

Based on the research questions and findings of the thesis, there are several areas that 

could benefit from further research. Here are a few potential research ideas: 

 



 60   
 

1. Investigating the effectiveness of the agile-stage-gate method in improving the 

R&D process: While the thesis suggests that this method can be effective, more 

research could be done to further test and refine the approach. 

 

2. Exploring the impact of PCP on other aspects of product development: The thesis 

primarily focused on the advantages and disadvantages of the PCP process itself. 

However, future research could look at how PCP impacts other areas of product 

development, such as cost, time-to-market, and customer satisfaction. 

 

3. Comparing the effectiveness of different R&D process improvement methods: 

The thesis identified several potential ways to improve the R&D process, such as 

using the agile-stage-gate method and implementing cross-functional teams. A 

comparative study could be conducted to assess the effectiveness of these 

methods and identify the most efficient ways to improve the R&D process. 

 

4. Examining the factors that influence successful R&D process improvement: While 

the thesis provides some insights into how companies can improve their R&D 

process, more research could be done to identify the key factors that lead to 

successful process improvement initiatives. This could help companies develop 

more effective improvement strategies. 

 

5. Investigating the impact of organizational culture on R&D process improvement: 

The thesis notes that a supportive organizational culture is important for 

successful R&D process improvement. Future research could explore how 

different types of organizational culture impact the success of improvement 

initiatives, and identify ways to create a culture that is more conducive to 

innovation and continuous improvement. 

  



 61   
 

References 

 

Ambler, S. W., & Lines, M. (2012). Disciplined agile delivery: A practitioner's 

guide to agile software delivery in the enterprise. IBM Press. 

 

Ambler, S. W. (2018). Disciplined Agile Delivery: A Practitioner's Guide to Agile 

Software Delivery in the Enterprise. IBM Press. 

 

Bassil, Y., & Knuppertz, P. (2019). Pros and cons of the waterfall and Agile project 

management approaches in software development projects. Information 

Systems and e-Business Management, 17(4), 685-713. 

 

Beck, K., Beedle, M., Bennekum, A. V., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, 

M., ... & Sutherland, J. (2001). Manifesto for Agile Software Development. 

Agile Alliance. Retrieved from http://agilemanifesto.org/ 

 

Biemans, W. G., Fisscher, O. A., & Frese, R. W. (2008). Innovation processes in 

small high-tech firms: An empirical exploration. R&D Management, 38(4), 

357-369. 

 

Boehm, B. W. (1988). A spiral model of software development and enhancement. 

Computer, 21(5), 61-72. 

 

Boehm, B., & Turner, R. (2018). Management challenges to implementing agile 

processes in traditional development organizations. IEEE Software, 35(2), 

74-81. 



 62   
 

 

Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking 

complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting 

organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 1-34. 

 

Chowdhury, S. (2017). Agile software development methodologies: An overview 

and comparison. 2017 IEEE Calcutta Conference (CALCON), 1-6. 

 

Chiesa, V., & Frattini, F. (2011). R&D and the market value of firms: a review and 

meta-analysis. European Management Journal, 29(6), 341-361. 

 

Conboy, K., & Fitzgerald, B. (2004). Toward a conceptual framework of agile 

methods: A study of agility in different disciplines. Information and 

Software Technology, 46(4), 255-274. 

 

Cooper, R. G. (1986). Winning at new products: Accelerating the process from 

idea to launch. Addison-Wesley. 

 

Cooper, R. G., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1987). New products: What separates 

winners from losers? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 4(3), 

169-184. 

 

Cooper, R. G. (1988). The new product process: A decision guide for management. 

Journal of Marketing Management, 3(3), 238-252. 

 

Cooper, R. G. (1990). Stage-gate systems: A new tool for managing new products. 

Business Horizons, 33(3), 44-54. 



 63   
 

 

Cooper, R. G., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1993). New products: What separates 

winners from losers? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10(1), 

64-75. 

 

Cooper, R. G., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1995). New product development: The Stage-

Gate system. Journal of marketing management, 11(8), 469-486. 

 

Cooper, R. G. (2008). Perspective: The stage-gate® idea-to-launch process—

Update, what's new, and NexGen systems. Journal of Product Innovation 

Management, 25(3), 213-232. 

 

Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (201