Search results

Knowledge is supposedly a good ally of the future. Postproject reviews aim to create knowledge and improvements based on the past, but what happens when those observations are ambiguous? Based on intriguing observations on developing structured postproject reviews, implications of the ambiguities of the past are analyzed and discussed.

The present research departed from an interactive clinical action research approach (Schein, 1987), employing several rounds of interaction over 11 months. The studied company had a clear objective to improve its project evaluations and learn from three past projects to improve future ones by developing a framework to facilitate project evaluation.

Despite top management support and a benevolent organizational climate, the development process encountered problems. The list of issues to consider grew ever more extensive, and the expected data refinement and accompanying insights did not happen. Participants debated what to observe, and there was uncertainty about how to link the elements and confusion and disagreement about what was learned.

Learning from past projects was more problematic and difficult than predicted based on the postproject review literature. The past did purvey multiple interpretations.

Learning from the past is not effective if the goal is generating causal knowledge, scoring forms and checklists for future use. Postproject reviews provide an opportunity to decide what the past should be about rather than identifying what it was about.

The past might appear stable, but, when examined, ambiguity emerges. Research on knowledge generation from postproject reviews assumes that a project’s past is more or less stable and agreed upon. However, this study addresses the critical role of ambiguity about the past and the challenges when organizations try to learn from history through project reviews and evaluation processes.

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.

Although Danish democracy is not currently facing the same decline in the trust in politicians and government as seen in other countries, it faces some of the same destabilising forces as do other ‘old’ representative democracies. While the various forms of citizen participation introduced in the 1980s and 1990s enhanced politician–citizen tensions, we are currently witnessing a wave of highly innovative, hybrid forms of democracy that both integrate representative and direct forms of democracy and push elected politicians towards an interactive political leadership style. These hybrid forms provide occasion for citizens and politicians to meet and debate pressing political matters. Although we are still in early days and dilemmas remain to be addressed, this development holds considerable potential for democracy in Denmark and elsewhere.

The overall goal of science is to build a valid and reliable body of knowledge about the functioning of the world and how applying that knowledge can change it. As personnel and human resources management researchers, we aim to contribute to the respective bodies of knowledge to provide both employers and employees with a workable foundation to help with those problems they are confronted with. However, what research on research has consistently demonstrated is that the scientific endeavor possesses existential issues including a substantial lack of (a) solid theory, (b) replicability, (c) reproducibility, (d) proper and generalizable samples, (e) sufficient quality control (i.e., peer review), (f) robust and trustworthy statistical results, (g) availability of research, and (h) sufficient practical implications. In this chapter, we first sing a song of sorrow regarding the current state of the social sciences in general and personnel and human resources management specifically. Then, we investigate potential grievances that might have led to it (i.e., questionable research practices, misplaced incentives), only to end with a verse of hope by outlining an avenue for betterment (i.e., open science and policy changes at multiple levels).