Search results

The paper provides an overview of research published in the innovation and operations management (IOM) literature on 15 methods for cost management in new product development, and it provides a comparison to an earlier review of the management accounting (MA) literature (Wouters & Morales, 2014).

This structured literature search covers papers published in 23 journals in IOM in the period 1990–2014.

The search yielded a sample of 208 unique papers with 275 results (one paper could refer to multiple cost management methods). The top 3 methods are modular design, component commonality, and product platforms, with 115 results (42%) together. In the MA literature, these three methods accounted for 29%, but target costing was the most researched cost management method by far (26%). Simulation is the most frequently used research method in the IOM literature, whereas this was averagely used in the MA literature; qualitative studies were the most frequently used research method in the MA literature, whereas this was averagely used in the IOM literature. We found a lot of papers presenting practical approaches or decision models as a further development of a particular cost management method, which is a clear difference from the MA literature.

This review focused on the same cost management methods, and future research could also consider other cost management methods which are likely to be more important in the IOM literature compared to the MA literature. Future research could also investigate innovative cost management practices in more detail through longitudinal case studies.

This review of research on methods for cost management published outside the MA literature provides an overview for MA researchers. It highlights key differences between both literatures in their research of the same cost management methods.

The purpose of this paper is to identify how project portfolio selection (PPS) methods have evolved and which approaches are more suitable for radical innovation projects. This paper addressed the following research question: how have the selection approaches evolved to better fit within radical innovation conditions? The current literature offers a number of selection approaches with different and, in some cases, conflicting nature. Therefore, there is a lack of understanding regarding when and how to use these approaches in order to select a specific type of innovation projects (from incremental to more radical ones).

Given the nature of the research question, the authors perform a systematic literature review method and analyze 48 portfolio selection approaches. The authors then classified and characterized these articles in order to identify techniques, tools, required data and types of examined projects, among other aspects.

The authors identify four key features related to the selection of radical innovation projects: dynamism, interdependency management, uncertainty treatment and required input data. Based on the content analysis, the authors identified that approaches based on different sources and nature of data are more appropriated for uncertain conditions, such as behavioral methods, information gap theory, real options and integrated approaches.

The research provides a comprehensive framework about PPS methods and how they have been evolving over time. This portfolio selection framework considers the particular aspects of incremental and radical innovation projects. The authors hope that the framework contributes to reinvigorating the literature on selection approaches for innovation projects.

This paper seeks to gain an understanding of how different consumer conceptualisations in marketing may lead to negative outcomes. Every profession has its grand vision. The guiding vision for most marketing professionals is customer orientation. Of course, reality is more complex and nuanced than a single unified vision. Organisations tout their consumer-centric marketing decisions, in that they use consumer research to make operational decisions about products, prices, distribution and the like. However, marketers’ treatment of consumers is often far from the customer’s best interests. It is proposed that by understanding the different conceptualisations of the consumer over time, we can explore their implications for putting authentic consumer-centric marketing into practise.

A thematic analysis of marketing thought as reflected in the marketing literature.

This review of the history of marketing thought bears out a diversity of opinions concerning the role of consumers in aiding marketing efficiency and effectiveness. Not all views of the customer are nurturing of the marketing concept nor predicated on a solicitous relationship with consumers. A demonstrable lack of consumer orientation can lead to a distrust of marketers as well as the extant marketing system. Often additional regulation of marketers and markets is a compensating result and sometimes the structure of the marketing system itself may require adjustment.

This paper is intended to nudge marketing academics to more thoughtfully examine the pragmatic implications of how marketing managers conceive of the typical consumer. After conducting a thematic analysis of marketing thought, a normative ethical argument is then put forward concerning why an adherence to this fragile grand vision of marketing – genuine customer concern – is important for prudential marketing and the overall health of the marketing system.

The purpose of this paper is to create a benchmark and identify best practices for Project Portfolio Management (PPM) for both tangible product‐based and service product‐based development project portfolios.

A questionnaire was developed to gather data to compare the PPM methods used, PPM performance, PPM challenges, and resulting new product success measures in 60 Australian organisations in a diverse range of service and manufacturing industries.

The paper finds that PPM practices are shown to be very similar for service product development project portfolios and tangible product development project portfolios. New product success rates show strong correlation with measures of PPM performance and the use of some PPM methods is correlated with specific PPM performance outcomes.

The findings in this paper are based on a survey of a diverse sample of 60 Australian organisations. The results are strengthened by comparisons with similar North American research; however, they may not be representative of all environments. Research in other regions would further qualify the findings. As each organisation's PPM process is unique, case study methods are recommended for future studies to capture more of the complexity in the environment.

The paper shows that PPM practitioners and executives who make decisions about the development of tangible products and/or service products will benefit from the findings.

This paper extends the existing understanding of PPM practices to include service development project portfolios as well as tangible product development project portfolios and strengthens the links between PPM practices and outcomes.

The paper aims to propose a novel strategic approach, named a Scorecard‐Markov model, combining an evaluation scorecard and a hidden Markov model (HMM) for new product idea screening (NPIS) decisions.

A scorecard is constructed to evaluate new product ideas on several criteria, including customer needs, marketing strength, competency, manufacturing compatibility, and distribution channels, involving a consideration of risk buy. A HMM is then developed accordingly to predict the overall performance of new ideas in terms of success probability. To implement the model, it is trained and tested by the historical dataset of a world‐class, leading company in the power tools industry through a case study.

The approach is proven to be encouraging and meaningful. The scorecard can serve as a guide for new product idea evaluation to convert experts' linguistic judgments to quantifiable and comparable data, whereas the HMM can determine the success probability of new product ideas to support NPIS decision making based on their computed evaluation performance. The optimal cut‐off value for making either a go or kill decision on each idea can thus be determined. Concerning the case company, a go decision should be made when the probability lies in the interval [0.53, 1].

The model can prevent companies from undertaking risky and failed new product development projects. Further, it is believed that this study can assist decision makers in choosing winning new product ideas towards commercialization in an effective and certain manner, thus enhancing the new product success rate in the innovation industry.

The approach incorporating the scorecard method and HMM is novel. Illustrated by the case study, the application of this approach to NPIS decisions is confirmed to be effective.

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.

This research proposes and illustrates a conditional view of lean supply chain management (LSCM) based upon the contextual contingent alignment between lean performance objectives (i.e. a contextual factor) and supply chain management challenges (i.e. a contingent condition) in the selection of lean approaches (i.e. a contingent event).

Drawing on the notions of contingency-based practices and strategic fit, the authors’ LSCM reconceptualization jointly considers contextual and contingency factors in specifying what lean approaches to adopt. The authors illustrate the practical relevance of LSCM reconceptualization for the Canadian agri-food industry using the Delphi method.

The authors highlight that LSCM is founded upon alignment associations between specific lean performance objectives and supply chain challenges as well as their influence on the selection of suitable lean approaches. The empirical illustration shows that those alignment associations do not occur at random, which supports the conditional view of LSCM.

The contextual contingent view of LSCM can inform future scholarly inquiry and can reframe practically relevant middle-range theorization on LSCM.

The Delphi method-derived descriptive model of LSCM provides guidance to managers in the Canadian agri-food sector in identifying suitable lean approaches to adopt given the specific performance objective(s) pursued and supply chain management challenge(s) encountered.

The authors advance scholarly theorization and managerial understanding of LSCM by providing a conditional conceptualization that jointly considers relevant contextual and contingency factors that hitherto have not been examined. In ascribing what lean approach(es) to adopt to the alignment associations influence between lean performance objective(s) pursued and supply chain management challenge(s) encountered, the authors provide compelling conceptual and empirical support for the joint conditional view of LSCM.

A large number of methodologies for R&D project selection have been developed and reported in the literature over the last few decades, and it has become a very popular research topic since the 1960s. The aim of this paper is to classify and characterize the determining aspects behind the research and development project selection process.

After carefully reviewing the literature and analysing the latest contributions the paper identifies the key issues for the comparison of the existing techniques used to evaluate alternative projects and portfolios of R&D projects. In the second phase the main selection methods (including the latest project portfolio optimisation approaches) are reviewed and critically compared.

The strengths, weaknesses, limitations and practicality of the methods analysed allow managers to choose the project selection model appropriate for their specific problems. Some integrated models (hybrid approach) and the latest solutions could fill the gaps in existing selection methods.

Although previous literature has made valid points about this subject, for the most part it concentrates on describing the project selection methods and highlighting their strengths and weaknesses. What seems to be missing, however, is a comparison of these methods. This paper contributes to bridge this gap, offering analysis that can support decision makers in their choice of the most suitable tool useful for evaluating a range of R&D projects.