Search results

According to the authors research, Agile approaches are increasingly being deployed successfully alongside phase-gate processes in engineering and R&D functions outside software, with a very positive result.

An Agile approach to product development has been a mainstay of the software industry since the turn of the century. In recent years, some non-software product-based companies have successfully combined both Agile and non-Agile methods in a complementary way to pursue breakthrough innovation. The article reports on how to make this combination work.

The study found companies adopting two general approaches when trying to introduce Agile into an existing phase-gate process: integrating Agile into a single innovation process or adding a partly parallel Agile path.

As a measure of Agile’s potential, the software industry has consistently produced patents at three times the level of the next-most prolific sectors.

Arthur D. Little’s research reveals that companies that have successfully added Agile methods to their toolboxes and tailor their innovation approaches by the type of innovation – incremental or breakthrough–perform significantly better than those that stick to single phase-gate approach.

Companies and organizations use various innovation governance structures, processes and metrics to make decisions about allocation of resources to the development of an innovative idea. Although many metrics measuring the process of innovation and the performance of the enterprise have been developed, a fundamentally solid and complete metric speaking to the quality and viability of the innovative idea itself is lacking. The business, applied innovation, creativity, unmet user needs and problem-solving (BACUP) model of innovation quality is proposed as such a metric based on viewing innovation from the five different viewpoints mentioned in its definition. BACUP is shown to facilitate discussion and analysis in innovation theory and is proposed as a tool allowing any innovation governance structure to achieve innovation assurance by mitigating risk and uncertainty and maximizing an innovation’s chance for success.

The BACUP framework was inspired by researching definitions of innovation and coming upon a survey in which different definitions were obtained from several different roles in companies and organizations. To use BACUP as a metric, the author and research assistants made qualitative judgments about innovations. Several judgments were obtained independently and consensus was plotted on the BACUP graphs.

BACUP can be used to illustrate and discuss major concepts in innovation theory. BACUP can be used to compare the relative viability of different innovative ideas. BACUP can be used to detect vulnerabilities in innovative ideas and provide information to innovation management and governance so that corrective measures can be taken. BACUP can be extended by other researchers and practitioners.

In its current form, BACUP is not a quantitative tool; however, the authors envision other researchers applying existing quantitative tools and incorporating them into the BACUP framework.

BACUP is an innovative idea quality metric employable in any existing innovation management/governance structure or methodology. BACUP also gives practitioners a way to engineer innovative ideas into successful innovations.

BACUP can lead to predictable and repeatable improved innovation outcomes, resulting in superior solutions to problems in all domains.

The BACUP framework is a novel, multi-dimensional view of innovation. Application of BACUP as a metric yields a new type of capability for innovation governance called innovation assurance.

Projects are one of the main ways used to develop organisations and turn their strategic initiatives into a reality. To support project management, several entities (e.g. associations, institutes, etc.) provide standards, guides and project management methodologies. However, despite its wide coverage of project management knowledge areas, standards currently have no specific processes focused on planning and evaluating success. The absence of these processes can limit the vision of managers and their teams on what most contributes to the success of a project. Aiming at contributing to fill this gap, this paper proposes the integration of success management processes in the ISO 21500 standard.

To develop the integration model, a Design Science Research approach was adopted for the construction and evaluation of the resulting artefact.

The result is an integrated model and insights for its application in practice. The model aims to help managers and their teams to identify which success management activities need to carry out and how to integrate them with the other processes of the ISO 21500 standard.

The integrated model was applied in only one project. Another limitation is the difficulty in comparing the results obtained due to the small number of works focused on success management (namely related to planning, measuring, controlling and reporting success in practice) and its integration with project management standards, guides and methodologies.

The integrated model, based on success management and the ISO 21500 standard, is an important and original contribution to understand and achieve success in projects. This promotes a new vision of balanced management, directing the management effort to the areas that effectively contribute to success in each project.

The complexity of construction projects and the fragmentation of the construction industry undertaking those projects has effectively resulted in linear, uncoordinated and highly variable project processes in the UK construction sector. Research undertaken at the University of Salford resulted in the development of an improved project process, the Process Protocol, which considers the whole lifecycle of a construction project whilst integrating its participants under a common framework. The Process Protocol identifies the various phases of a construction project with particular emphasis on what is described in the manufacturing industry as the ‘fuzzy front end’. The participants in the process are described in terms of the activities that need to be undertaken in order to achieve a successful project and process execution. In addition, the decision‐making mechanisms, from a client perspective, are illustrated and the foundations for a learning organization/industry are facilitated within a consistent Process Protocol.

Project managers' competencies contribute toward project success in a considerable manner. The significance of technical competencies' (TCs) contribution toward success in Oil and Gas (O&G) projects is even higher due to the complexity and the technology-intensive nature of these projects. However, technical competencies have often been overlooked in favor of behavioral competencies or simply identified and listed in terms of their significance. Thus, there is currently very limited research-based knowledge concerning the contribution mechanisms of technical competencies toward project execution success. Hence, the aim of this study is to explore the contribution mechanisms of TCs toward success in O&G projects.

A case study was employed as the research strategy through which data was collected from project professionals in O&G projects in the Kingdom of Bahrain using semi-structured interviews. Transcripts of the interviews were then analyzed through thematic analysis method with the aid of NVIVO 12.

The findings reveal six mechanisms through which technical competencies of project managers contribute toward execution success in O&G projects. TCs not only act as a launch pad toward project success, but also help in optimizing engineering designs throughout the project life cycle.

Instead of simply identifying and listing TCs, the obtained results enhance our current understanding of their contribution mechanisms toward project success in O&G projects.

Market uncertainties require organizations to consistently revisit their product portfolio. Theoretically the link between corporate strategy, supply chain and operations for Product Deletion (PD) decisions is lacking. The purpose of this study is to develop a decision support tool that enables managers to evaluate PD decisions across business, supply chain strategies and customer considerations; rationalizing product portfolio variety while realizing long-term organizational competitiveness.

This study applies Quality Function Deployment (QFD) to formalize PD decision-making across multiple functional strategy perspectives. Manufacturing, supply chain, finance and marketing functions are included along with incorporating multiple stakeholder voices from multiple organizational levels—including top-management team members, cross-functional managers and customers. A case study application is conducted using an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) perspective.

The interrelationships between business, supply chain strategies and customer requirements are identified, along with tensions and tradeoffs using a series of “houses” or relationship matrices. The methodology provides managers with a decision support tool that can be flexible and applicable to aid sound PD decision-making incorporating multiple stakeholders.

Product decisions at the decline stage—for example product retirement or deletion—are neglected both in research and in practice. Having a formalized systematic process can make PD outcomes more objective. The proposed QFD approach is one of the early PD decision support tools—products can be deleted for strategic, operational and customer-related reasons, and the hierarchical interrelationships among various reasons need to be carefully managed to ensure sound product portfolio rationalization.