Search results

The challenge of unforeseen uncertainties in exploratory projects requires the lead firm in a project alliance to effectively manage exploratory co-innovation. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the types of capabilities a lead firm required in exploratory projects and how these capabilities enable the exploratory innovation of the project alliance.

A multiple-case study was done to provide empirical evidence for the rationale of the capabilities of the lead firm. The provided analysis used abductive reasoning of two typical exploratory projects in China.

This paper identifies two types of capabilities: innovation-related capabilities and network-related capabilities. Furthermore, a process model of the capabilities of the lead firm is developed that enables exploratory co-innovation in a project alliance. The capabilities of the lead firm input varied at four different stages.

Innovation-related capabilities and network-related capabilities could form the foundation for the lead firm in an exploratory project alliance. This will enable an exploratory co-innovation and collaboratively overcome the barriers of exploratory projects.

Although exploratory project attracts extensive attention for its unique characteristics and universal value, there is limited amount of research on the context of joint exploratory projects. This study starts from the role of lead firm in an exploratory project alliance, contributes toward the comprehension of the link between the lead firm’s capabilities and the process of exploratory co-innovation. The findings will be of value in supporting the management of exploratory innovation in a project alliance.

Existing research on innovation has mainly focused on how to promote technological innovation in megaprojects and management innovation (MI) in megaprojects is still an unknown research field. The purposes of this study are to examine the effect of MI on megaproject performance and how the top management team (TMT) regulatory focus affects the use of MI in projects. At the same time, the moderating effects of project uncertainties are also tested.

On the basis of an explorative/exploitative ambidextrous analysis framework, this study divides MI into two dimensions: explorative and exploitative MI, and integrates the theoretical perspectives of the TMT regulatory focus and project uncertainties into a research model. Taking 314 responses from megaprojects’ TMTs in China as research data, this study empirically tests the above model.

Results show that exploratory MI has a U-shaped relationship with megaproject performance; whereas exploitative MI has an inverted U-shaped relationship with megaproject performance. The TMT promotion focus has a positive effect on exploratory and exploitative MI; and the TMT prevention focus has a negative effect on exploratory MI but has a positive effect on exploitative MI. Project uncertainties have a positive moderating effect on the positive relationship between TMT promotion focus and exploratory MI, whereas it has a negative moderating effect on the negative relationship between the TMT prevention focus and exploratory MI.

By empirically measuring the relationship between two types of MIs and megaproject performance, this study clarifies the differential mechanism of the effect of different MIs on megaproject performance. This study also examines the MI of megaprojects from the perspective of the TMT regulatory focus and expounds how changes in uncertainties affect the relationship between the TMT regulatory focus and MI.

How do organizations respond to negative feedback regarding their innovation activities? In this chapter, the authors reconcile contradictory predictions stemming from behavioral learning and from the escalation of commitment (EoC) perspectives regarding persistence under negative performance feedback. The authors core argument suggests that the seemingly contradictory psychological processes indicated by these two perspectives occur simultaneously in decision makers but that the design of organizational roles and reward systems affects their prevalence in decision-making tasks. Specifically, the authors argue that for decision makers responsible for an individual project, responses given to negative performance feedback regarding a project are dominated by self-justification and loss-avoidance mechanisms predicted by the EoC literature, while for decision makers responsible for a portfolio of projects, responses to negative performance regarding a project are dominated by an under-sampling of poorly performing alternatives that behavioral learning theory predicts. In addition to assigning decision-making authority to different organizational roles, organizational designers shape the strength of these mechanisms through the design of reward systems and specifically by setting more or less ambiguous goals, aspiration levels, time horizons of incentives provided, and levels of failure tolerance.

Networks and learning matter to small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Networks and learning are also further elaborations on the exploration–exploitation (EE) dilemma. Ambidexterity, that is, managing this apparent dilemma, can be difficult as a result of many constraints. One of these constraints is that of mutually exclusive network structures. Consequently, ambidexterity is the ability to change networks, depending on need using mixed data on four small companies formed as part of an undergraduate management class, I hypothesize how specific network properties of the advice-seeking relationship, including density, cohesion, centralization, and embeddedness, affect two outcomes. Specifically, early exploratory learning is proposed to be positively affected by less-dense networks that maintain cohesion without centralization and do not have relations embedded in other relations. In contrast, later exploitative learning should be associated with denser networks that also have higher cohesion, higher centralization, and greater embeddedness. The results provide some support for these hypotheses and suggest further research in two areas that will benefit SMEs. One, how do early networks affect learning mode? Two, how does the ability to rewire networks provide the relational infrastructure to shift from exploration to exploitation – that is, to be ambidextrous in the face of the exploration–exploitation tradeoff?

The purpose of this paper is to provide academic researchers and reflective practitioners of project management with an example of how a dual cycle action research (AR) model can be used to both conduct research and solve a real‐life problem situation.

Provides a brief introduction to the research idea and question and the research strategy defined to address them, including the review of a small number of AR models, which resulted in the choice of a dual cycle AR model that addresses problem solving and research in parallel. The remainder of the paper describes how the selected AR model was applied to a series of five AR cycles to satisfy both the problem solving and research interests.

A dual cycle AR model provides academic researchers and reflective practitioners of project management with an effective and efficient means of addressing the dual imperatives of research and problem solving.

All five problem‐solving projects were from the public sector and of similar complexity and pace, with a focus on expected positive intangible outcomes during the planning stage only, with the groups of problem solving project stakeholders comprising only people responsible for delivering outcomes, not receiving them.

Based on a doctoral research study, the paper provides both academic researchers and reflective practitioners of project management with a practical guide to applying dual cycle AR to both conduct research and solve a real‐life problem situation.

The paper demonstrates how a dual cycle AR model led to the development of an original and highly practical method for defining and aligning project outcomes and associated benefits and outputs; in particular the alignment of intangible outcomes with tangible outputs – helping to make the intangible tangible.

Governance of projects is a dynamic process that involves the interaction of agents, opportunities, rules, instruments and legitimacy. The authors conducted a case study of the governance of exploratory projects in public procurement of innovation in a local government. The authors consider both contextual aspects that impose requirements on the procurement process and procedural aspects of how the different actors interact with each other. In particular, the purpose of this study is to investigate how actors make sense of the projects and how governance evolves over their lifetime.

To engage in an open-system investigation of exploratory public procurement of innovation (PPI) projects, the authors adopted a case study approach in which they collected a variety of data including publicly available documentary evidence, interviews with project participants and project evaluation reports. The authors used transcripts of 17 interviews with project participants conducted independently to gain an initial understanding of the case. They conducted additional semi-structured interviews with projects’ participants (ten interviews in total) and used theory-driven analysis (Pawson and Tilley, 1997) based on Borrás and Edler’s (2014) model of governance.

The authors identified four stages – problem identification, partner selection, partnership development and evaluation and commercialization – these projects. The case demonstrates how governance changes in each stage and at the three levels of policy, network and projects. Each level has its own governance pillar. The results suggest that a multi-level perspective (MLP) can be a fruitful framework to study governance of projects in these contexts.

The authors note that the number of participants in the network of this case is not very large. Other organizations that aim to adopt PPI may need to pay attention to the complementarity and the number of partners in the network. In this case, organizations were motivated to collaborate as each had its own objectives which were distinct but complementary.

Co-creation of value is currently a topic of interest for public policy reform across the globe. The case indicates that procurement for innovation requires a degree of coordinated change across governmental departments, such as planning, legal and procurement to implement the policy and related support systems. Furthermore, the authors observed that a portfolio approach to inter-organizational collaboration with different partners was effective. Each partner has its own objective, but they complement one another. A portfolio of different, though complementary, inter-organizational arrangements enables various complementary instruments and various logics to be used.

The public sector is an important actor in driving innovation in products and services that fulfill societal needs. This is explored in public procurement of innovation. In this process, several partners from private and public sectors are involved. This partnership is mainly used to co-create the value and encourage innovation to benefit the citizens. However, to serve this goal, the case indicates that procurement for innovation requires a degree of coordinated change across governmental departments, such as planning, legal and procurement to implement the policy and related support systems. For this phenomenon MLP should be used as an inclusive framework to study socio-technical change.

The analysis of the case presented in this study demonstrates that even in the case of temporary public procurement of innovation projects, governance is layered. The three pillars of governance not only interact at each layer but also communicate across layers. Even though the interaction of the three pillars of governance is well established in the literature on socio-technical change, the interaction across levels in the context of temporary projects is novel. The authors contribute to the literature on governance of such projects by highlighting the stratification of governance.

There is a widespread agreement in the managerial literature that projects produce much more than what they deliver. However, most of the literature focuses on what project delivers (new products, processes, services …). This can be misleading, especially for highly innovative projects for which neither the goals, nor the means to reach them, are clearly defined at the beginning. Thus, contemporary research argues for a model in which project management is, first and foremost, a way to organize the exploration process. The question becomes the definition of a framework to evaluate the project results (success or failures). The purpose of this paper is to study this question by bridging project management and design literature. Indeed research on design processes propose tools that could help managers to better understand what has been delivered and learned during the exploration journey. The paper relies on the Manhattan case to illustrate the fruitfulness of this approach.

The paper opted for an exploratory study using an historical case study: the Manhattan project. The author was able to draw on a large amount of historical material which has not yet been used to study the management of exploration projects. The paper focuses on a specific set of events likely to reveal the problems raised by the evaluation of exploration projects. Given the information available, it was considered that the point of “theoretical saturation”, which Glaser and Strauss proposed as the criterion to stop collecting data, had been attained.

The paper shows how recent development in design theory may provide a fruitful theoretical framework to develop a new evaluation framework to assess the results of exploratory projects in terms of both products designed and knowledge developed.

Because of the chosen research approach, the research results may lack generalisability. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to explore this question further.

The paper includes implications for the development of new evaluation tools for exploratory projects.

The question of project evaluation is of the greatest importance to enhance the management of exploration processes. The paper's bridging of design theory and project management constitutes an original approach.

Portfolios of temporary organisations, particularly portfolios of R&D projects with different project partners, are a common yet understudied phenomenon. We know that these portfolios suffer from tensions inherent in project portfolio ambidexterity (e.g. portfolios balancing R&D projects with new and recurrent partners), yet our understanding of what might lessen these tensions remains limited. This study introduces the idea of project portfolio maturity and theorises how it can mitigate the negative effects of ambidextrous project portfolios. We test our hypotheses by combining proprietary survey and archival data on 136 R&D project portfolios in the German biotechnology industry covering project partnerships with both new and recurrent partners. Our results show that ambidextrous project portfolios hamper firm performance and that portfolio maturity mitigates these negative effects. By introducing a new perspective on project portfolios that accounts for overlooked temporal dimensions, this study provides a new contingency that has the potential to ease the tensions that result from projects with new and recurrent partners. We thereby add to the literatures on temporary organising, project portfolios, and ambidexterity.

The purpose is to explore how the process of action research (AR) can support building legitimacy and organizational learning in innovation project management and portfolio practices in merger contexts.

Meta-reflection on method issues in Action Research through an action research case study with an innovation group during an organizational change process. This case demonstrates an example of an action research cycle focused on building practitioner legitimacy rather than problem-solving.

Key findings include (1) demonstrating how AR can be used for building legitimacy through visualizing the innovation process, and embedding those visuals in top management practices of the organization; and (2) demonstrating how AR can work as an organizational learning tool in merger contexts.

This study focuses on an action research cooperation during a two-and-a-half-year period. Thus, findings offer the depth of a medium term case study. The processes of building legitimacy represent this particular case, and can be investigated in other organizational contexts to see the extent to which these issues can be generalized.

For researchers, this paper offers an additional type of AR cycle to consider in their research design which can be seen as demonstrating a form of interplay between practitioner action and organizational level legitimacy. For practitioners, this paper demonstrates a connection between legitimacy and organizational learning in innovation contexts. The discussion of how visuals were co-created and used for building legitimacy for an innovation process that differs from the standard stage gate model demonstrates how engaging in AR research can contribute to developing visuals as resources for building legitimacy and organizational learning based on connections between theory and practice.

This case rethinks AR practice for innovation project management contexts to include legitimacy and organizational learning. This focus on legitimacy building from organizational learning and knowledge conversion contributes to our understanding of the soft side of innovation project management. Legitimacy is demonstrated to be a key concern for innovation project management practices.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a new model to show how continuous joint learning of participant organisations improves project performance. Performance heterogeneity between collaborative infrastructure projects is typically examined by considering procurement systems and their governance mechanisms at static points in time. The literature neglects to consider the impact of dynamic learning capability, which is thought to reconfigure governance mechanisms over time in response to evolving market conditions.

There are two stages of conceptual development. In the first stage, the management literature is analysed to explain the standard model of dynamic learning capability that emphasises three learning phases for organisations. This standard model is extended to derive a novel circular model of dynamic learning capability that shows a new feedback loop between performance and learning. In the second stage, the construction management literature is consulted, adding project lifecycle, stakeholder diversity and three organisational levels to the analysis to arrive at the collaborative model of dynamic learning capability.

The collaborative model should enable construction organisations to successfully adapt and perform under changing market conditions. The complexity of learning cycles result in capabilities that are imperfectly imitable between organisations, explaining performance heterogeneity on projects.

The collaborative model provides a theoretically substantiated description of project performance, driven by the evolution of procurement systems and governance mechanisms. The model’s empirical value will be tested in future research.