Search results

The purpose of this paper is to show that the entrepreneurial project ongoingly is transformed. Empirically, three defining junctions demonstrate the malleability of the entrepreneurial project in perpetual action, expanding beyond effectuation theory on what constitutes given means, affordable loss, and other key concepts from this theoretical perspective. Drawing upon actor-network theory (ANT), this study demonstrates how different framing and support devices implicate different human and non-human actors in changing interpositions within the entrepreneurial process.

This study uses a longitudinal case study design. The case provides an overview of a new business’s emergence based on three identified translations, each representing critical junctures in the business’s development. An ethnographic approach is selected, which combines observations with qualitative interviews. This design allows the authors to focus on how the project emerges and is continuously supported by allies but is sometimes not supported by various human and non-human actors.

This study demonstrates that the entrepreneurial project undertaken by the entrepreneurial network changes as new humans or non-humans become part of it. Including a resource in the network means simultaneously changing the network. This interactionism shows that what sparks interest or attracts resources to a business idea is not simply an influx of additional resources but is simultaneously a dynamic definition of the entrepreneurial endeavour.

This paper examines how ideas are transformed into business ventures by using the ANT to expand understanding from effectuation theory. This shows that means, for instance, are not given but are co-created by the process of translation. In addition, which losses are affordable can be determined by the process within which the entrepreneur frames the project and manages to associate allies within and into the network.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the drivers that induce companies to change their rules for managing product development. Most companies use a form of rule-based management approach, but surprisingly little is known about what makes companies change these rules. Furthermore, this management technology also has developed over time into different versions, but what drives firms from one version to another has only been suggested, not empirically studied.

The dynamics of the rules of five companies are analyzed over a period of more than ten years based on three rounds of interviews with 40 managers.

Previous research has assumed that the dynamics of product development rules are based on internal learning processes, and that increasingly competent management will stimulate the implementation of newer and more complex rule regimes. However, the analysis here indicates that there are different drivers, both internal and external, that cause companies to adopt new rules or modify their existing ones, such as changes in organizational structures, organizational conflicts and changes in ownership or strategy. In addition, contrary to the predictions in previous research, companies sometimes move back and forth between different generations of rules. Companies that have moved to a more flexible third generation of rules might revert to their second generation rules, or supplement their flexibility with an increased level of management control and information systems. A model is proposed to explain the relationship between the drivers of rule change and the actual dynamics of rules, incorporating two sets of moderators: organizational moderators and rule-related moderators.

The findings indicate that many factors influence the modification of rules, and that there is no simple linear progression from one generation to another. Organizational learning is one among several other factors that influences the dynamics of rules for managing product development. Further research is needed to explore the dynamic relationship between different factors, the proposed moderators and changes to rules. Lack of historical record keeping in companies puts special requirements on research concerning rules.

Companies need to consider how and why their present versions of rules have emerged, whether or not the existing rules can actually solve the challenges they face today, whether or not the rules support the intended company strategy, and what mechanisms influence their product development rules.

A great deal of research has investigated the relationship between the uses of structured rule-based approaches to manage product development, but little is known about what makes these rules change. This is the first study to uncover the multitude of drivers that stimulate change in product development rules and to suggest sets of moderators that influence the outcome.

Managers' attention is a scarce resource in complex innovation settings. Prior research on the factors to which managers pay attention is mostly based on surveys. The present study aims to address the need for knowledge about the behavior of decision makers based on observations from portfolio meetings. The study seeks to investigate how managers allocate their attention and the role of different factors for their attention. Observations also make it possible to compare prior research and expectations with the actual observed behavior of decision makers.

The present analysis draws on insights from previous research into decision making in product and portfolio management and studies on organizational decision making. The authors frame why the attention of decision makers is so critical in complex situations. Data for this study were collected through direct observation, from a portfolio management system, and from an information quality measurement system in an internationally operating petrochemical company. Observations were transcribed, coded and analyzed with regression analysis using the Proc Lifereg procedure in SAS.

Six potential factors that might explain decision makers' attention are identified. The analysis shows that the quality of information was not significant for explaining variations of decision makers' attention; but, even more surprisingly, differences in project status did not explain variations in attention. Delayed projects did not get significantly more attention than those delivered on time. By controlling for other project characteristics, the newness of projects to the corporate portfolio was found to be the most important parameter.

First, the analysis is based on observations from actual meetings rather than from surveys. Second, several observations contradict prior research on product development, e.g. it has been argued that decision makers should pay special attention to certain phases and projects having trouble meeting expectations towards planned deadlines. It is also new that findings on the different treatment of new projects and ongoing projects have been brought forward in research on product and portfolio management.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the behavior of decision makers in portfolio management meetings on innovation projects and to study decision‐making behavior at these meetings.

The paper is based on the case‐study approach; a theoretical framework is derived from sociology to direct the analysis of a portfolio management meeting. Four factors explain the behavior of decision making: the portfolio models as defined by organizational rules; issues related to the organizational context; a tendency to behave as others expect and to make appropriate decisions; and organizational learning processes.

The paper finds that the set of rules for conducting portfolio meetings was only partially followed. The identity of decision makers was not as calculating actors, but was shaped and influenced by four things: the formal system and rules, observations of others, the organizational context, and organizational learning. Systems other than the portfolio management systems compete for the decision makers' attention, as multiple criteria are manifest. Signals from top management influenced the decision makers' interpretations of the organizational context and framed the decision making. As learning showed decision makers what behavior was acceptable, this behavior seems to be further enforced. Decision making thus becomes more a matter of making appropriate decisions than of optimal or rational decision making.

The study is limited to a single case study in one organization. Replications among other samples are needed to validate current findings.

This paper presents a framework for understanding how portfolio decision making is shaped and molded through appropriate decision making rather than by following the normative calculative approach. In practice, the decision maker must deal with multiple factors and criteria that make it difficult to carry out a traditional rational decision‐making process. Still, the functions of decision making meetings can extend beyond decision‐making. They may also serve as social occasions and as occasions for interpreting possible actions and sharing that information, making it possible to make appropriate decisions. Decisions are thus a construct rather than a calculative outcome.

As firms turn their innovation activities toward collaborating with external partners, they face additional challenges in managing their knowledge. While different modes of intellectual property right regimes are applied in closed innovation systems, there seems to be tension between the concepts of “open innovation” and “intellectual property rights”. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how firms best manage knowledge via intellectual property rights in open innovation processes.

Following a mixed methods approach, the authors review relevant literature at the intersection of knowledge management, intellectual property rights, strategic management of intellectual property rights and the open innovation process. The authors identify success drivers through the lenses of – but not limited to – intellectual property rights and classify them in five distinct groups. Expending the view on open innovation beyond its modus operandi, the authors develop the Open Innovation Life Cycle, covering three stages and three levels of the open innovation process. The authors apply their findings to a case study in the pharmaceutical industry.

The authors provide four key contributions. First, existing literature yields inconclusive results concerning the enabling or disabling function of intellectual property rights in open innovation processes, but the majority of scholars detect an ambivalent relation. Second, they identify and classify success drivers of successful knowledge management via intellectual property rights in open innovation processes. Third, they advance literature on open innovation beyond its modus operandi to include three stages and three levels. Fourth, they test their findings to a case study and show how management leverages knowledge by properly using intellectual property rights in open innovation.

The findings support firms in managing knowledge via intellectual property rights in open innovation processes. Management should account for the peculiarities of open innovation preparation and open innovation termination to prevent unintentional knowledge drain.

This is one of the first studies to view open innovation as a process beyond its modus operandi by considering the preparations for and termination of open innovation activities. It also addresses the levels involved in managing knowledge via intellectual property rights in open innovation from individual (personal) to project and firm level.