Search results

The purpose of this paper is to develop a conceptual framework and propositions on a capability-based view that examine the role of a firm’s primary type of alliances, i.e., exploration or exploitation, in the determinants and impact of alliance portfolio capability.

This is a conceptual research paper, which builds on prior conceptual and empirical management research.

Regarding determinants, capability-based arguments indicate that firms with an emphasis on exploration alliances have higher levels of alliance portfolio capability. However, a focus on exploration alliances aggravates the development of alliance portfolio capability through alliance experience and a dedicated alliance function. Regarding impact, alliance portfolio capability may positively affect a firm’s alliance, innovation, and financial performance. While alliance portfolio capability is assumed to have an equally positive effect on alliance performance for all types of alliance portfolios, a relative focus on exploration alliances is expected to limit the positive effects of alliance portfolio capability on innovation and subsequent financial performance.

These new conceptual arguments help to reconcile inconsistent earlier findings, and they deepen the understanding of interfirm differences in alliance portfolio capability and performance.

The purpose of the paper is to shed light on the output of project management (PM) dynamic capabilities Specifically, the study investigates what effect PM dynamic capabilities have on company performance, both directly and indirectly, through the mediation effect of project and portfolio performance. Additionally, it tests whether program performance might also mediate the relationship.

The hypotheses were tested using partial least squares with a sample of 63 international firms that engage in projects globally.

The main finding of this research is that PM dynamic capabilities do not influence firm performance directly but do so indirectly by increasing firms' performance in projects, programs and portfolios. Both project and portfolio performance have a mediation effect on the relationship between dynamic capabilities and firm performance, but portfolio performance absorbs all this effect when the two performances are in the model.

This paper sheds light on the link between dynamic capabilities and firm performance. It tests the real outcome of dynamic capabilities by making an explicit distinction between firm performance at three intermediate levels (project, program and portfolio) and overall firm performance. Moreover, it opens the black box of dynamic capabilities and empirically operationalizes the theoretical model of sensing-seizing-transforming as the three constituting routines of dynamic capabilities.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how organizations manage and integrate exploration and exploitation across the innovation project portfolio. Such ambidextrous capabilities are required for organizations to innovate and succeed in today's rapidly changing competitive environment. Understanding how exploration and exploitation projects are integrated can illustrate ways to enhance ambidexterity and boost learning for the benefit of both approaches.

A multiple-case study approach was used to explore innovation portfolio management in six large organizations that emphasize innovation in their strategies.

The findings draw upon concepts of paradox and contingency to reveal that the inherent tension between formality and flexibility in managing innovation project portfolios is aligned with the need for organizational ambidexterity that maintains effective exploitative innovation while supporting explorative innovation capabilities. Four integration mechanisms are identified that enhance ambidexterity across the innovation portfolio by embedding processes for transition from exploration to exploitation and cross-fertilizing knowledge to build innovation capability across both exploration and exploitation.

Managers may find inspiration on ways to enhance learning by bridging exploration and exploitation projects from the four types of integration mechanisms. Recognizing the paradoxical nature of the tension between formality and flexibility in project and portfolio management may also help guide organizations to effectively develop ambidextrous approaches to enhance overall innovation outcomes.

In contrast to perspectives which suggest that paradox and contingency approaches represent disparate perspectives, the authors demonstrate how they can complement each other and work together through innovation portfolio management to support ambidexterity at the portfolio and project levels.

Social capital is critical for firms to conduct business activities; however, whether it is always beneficial for exploratory innovation and the specific and contingent effects of each dimension remain unknown. This paper aims to examine the role of three dimensions of social capital in determining exploratory innovation and investigate how firms’ portfolio management capabilities shape these links.

Survey data from 276 firms in high-tech industries in China are used to test the hypotheses.

The authors find that cognitive social capital negatively affects exploratory innovation, whereas relational and structural social capital both demonstrate inverted U-shaped relationships with exploratory innovation. In addition, portfolio management capability positively moderates the relationships between the three dimensions of social capital and exploratory innovation.

Given the advantages and disadvantages, managers should be prudent in the establishment of social capital; moreover, firms should develop and improve their portfolio management capabilities to effectively manage their relationships in the pursuit of exploratory innovation.

This research contributes to the social capital theory and innovation literature in two ways. First, it provides a multi-dimensional examination of the effects of social capital on exploratory innovation and the empirical evidence of the negative side of social capital. Second, it extends the extant literature by introducing a more holistic perspective and proposing that portfolio management capability helps firms to overcome the negative effects and strengthen the positive effects of social capital on exploratory innovation.

The purpose of this paper is to increase understanding of project portfolio management (PPM) capability evolution, in order to guide the implementation and ongoing development of robust capabilities.

This research adopts a dynamic capabilities perspective and draws on organizational learning theory to investigate the path‐dependent nature of PPM implementation and development. It employs a multiple‐case study of six organizations.

Each of the case organizations reported a high level of evolution and change within their PPM capabilities, both purposeful and unintended. Potential “fragilities” are identified, such as the emergence of a “success trap” that inhibits explorative innovation and difficulties in stopping poor projects to reallocate resources. Based on findings from the literature and the multiple‐case study, a capability maturity model is proposed to assist in the development of robust PPM capabilities that will continue to evolve and stay relevant in dynamic environments.

The research is based on six organizations and may not be representative of all environments. The proposed maturity model has only been used in initial trials to evaluate capability maturity, and its use in guiding capability development has not been studied. Further research is required to test and evolve the maturity model.

The maturity model will be of interest to managers as a tool to analyze PPM maturity and identify areas for further development or to guide new PPM implementations.

The proposed maturity model extends existing maturity models by incorporating organizational learning capabilities, by recognizing antecedents for maturity stages that build upon other capabilities, and by including steps to recognize and avoid potential “fragilities” and to ensure robust PPM performance over time.

Organizations have always faced the possibility of disruptions. Traditional approaches, such as shifting risks through insurance or improving organizational resiliency, view disruptions as threats. This study aims to propose a new perspective where disruptions can also be opportunities. By adopting project portfolio management (PPM), organizations can develop proactive capabilities to manage uncertainty and prepare to exploit future disruptions.

Drawing on publicly available research reports, company reports, professional standards and press reports, this study describes key features of PPM and provides detailed practical guidance on how to apply PPM in daily operations, especially in preparation for the next disruption.

The key steps in applying PPM in daily operations are: align portfolios and projects with strategic goals and objectives; establish a robust governance framework; optimize resource capability and capacity; build and implement appropriate implementation methodologies; continuously monitor, review and optimize the project portfolio; and develop a culture that embraces risks, innovation and adaptability.

This research has several limitations and implications. On limitations, the study was constrained by publicly available data, an in-depth interview with a consulting firm and a survey based on convenient sampling. These limitations will impact the generalizability of the findings. On implications, this paper shows how organizations can prepare for future disruptions by applying PPM. There are other ways to prepare for the unpredictable future, and further research is needed to explore other methods.

The results of this study have important practical implications for all organizations and in all sectors. Major disruptions are matters of “when,” not “how,” and responsible organizations need to pay attention. Based on the PPM discipline, this research provides an approach for business executives and project management practitioners to tackle this challenge. Furthermore, portfolio managers should use this information to promote and advocate for more disciplined planning to confront the uncertain future.

The findings of this paper carry important social implications. As the recent events showed the vastness of disruptions, from extreme heat to fires in Maui, sitting idly and waiting passively for an unpredictable future is not an option. This paper advocates the need for more awareness and preparation for future disruption by applying PPM. Furthermore, this research provides concrete guidelines for organizations and practitioners to consider as they confront the unknown. Additional research should investigate other effective strategies to meet the challenges of an uncertain and volatile future.

This study offers practical steps on how organizations may manage not only to survive but also to thrive in an uncertain and volatile world.

The purpose of this paper is to improve understanding and provide guidance for investments in organizational learning mechanisms for the establishment and evolution of organizational capabilities such as project portfolio management (PPM) and project management capabilities.

A multiple‐case study research project investigates the development of PPM capabilities in six successful organizations across diverse industries.

The research indicates that PPM and organizational learning are dynamic capabilities that enhance an organization's ability to achieve and maintain competitive advantage in dynamic environments. PPM capabilities are shown to co‐evolve through a combination of tacit experience accumulation, explicit knowledge articulation and explicit knowledge codification learning mechanisms. Although all three learning mechanisms are important throughout the establishment and evolution of PPM capability development, the research indicates that the development of an effective PPM capability will require particularly strong investments in enhancing tacit experience accumulation mechanisms and explicit knowledge codification mechanisms during the initial establishment or during periods of radical change to the PPM process.

The research includes a sample of six case studies and the results may not be generalisable. In addition, the research was conducted over a short period of time whereas a longitudinal study would be required to gain more detailed information about the development of capabilities over time.

The findings suggest that managers can enhance and sustain competitive advantage by investing in tacit experience accumulation as well as explicit knowledge articulation and codification learning mechanisms to develop their PPM capability. Strengthened investment in experience accumulation and knowledge codification learning mechanisms is recommended during establishment of the PPM capability.

This paper contributes to the understanding of the links between organizational learning and the development of dynamic capabilities. Original hypotheses are proposed and some initial support for these hypotheses is provided through multiple‐case study research.

This paper aims to examine the notion of maturity assessment and maturity models more broadly and goes on to examine the findings from the assessments of project, programme and portfolio maturity undertaken across Australian Government agencies.

A statistical analysis was performed to determine the level of maturity that best represents the Australian Federal Government agencies as a whole. The unit of analysis in this study is the agencies overall scores in each sub-model across the seven perspectives of the portfolio, programme and project management maturity model (P3M3) maturity model.

This study has identified a number of interesting findings. First, the practices of project, programme and portfolio across the dataset practiced independently of each other. Second, benefits management and strategy alignment practices are generally poor across Australian Government agencies. Third, programme management practices are the most immature. Finally, the results showed a high sensitivity to the “generic attributes” of roles and responsibilities, experience, capability development, planning and estimating and scrutiny and review.

All data used in this analysis are secondary data collected from individual Australian Government agencies. The data were collected by accredited consultants following a common data collection method and using a standard template to ensure a consistent approach.

The study poses some implications for practice, particularly given the context of Australian Federal Government agencies current plans and action to improve organisational maturity. The study suggests that benefits management processes at the project level and benefits management, governance and stakeholder management processes at the programme level should be an area of focus for improvement.

This study is the first attempt to systematically review the data collected through such an assessment and in particular identify the findings and the implications at a whole of government level.

The purpose of this paper is to summarise a recent doctoral thesis on the relationship between project portfolio management (PPM) and competitive advantage in service and manufacturing organisations.

This two‐phase mixed method study comprises a quantitative questionnaire‐based survey and a qualitative multiple‐case study to address the “what” and the “how” of the research questions.

This paper adopts a “dynamic capabilities” perspective, drawing on organisational learning theory to explain the path‐dependent nature of PPM capability development and how PPM capabilities work with the resource base to enhance competitive advantage. Findings support prior PPM studies and suggest a positive relationship between structured PPM capabilities and improved outcomes. The research compares service and manufacturing environments; future challenges are likely to result from the increasing blurring of the boundaries between service and manufacturing industries.

The research has four main practical outcomes: development of a model representing the overall PPM capability; a benchmark for and guidance on specific PPM processes and methods; guidance on the types of organisational learning investments that enhance the establishment and evolution of PPM capabilities; and the initial development of an outcomes and learning‐based maturity model for PPM capabilities.

This paper produces the first benchmark of innovation PPM capabilities in Australia, and is the first to include service product‐focused portfolios. It is the first study that identifies PPM capabilities as dynamic capability, allowing existing research to be viewed through the dynamic capability lens and, more importantly, providing a theoretical underpinning that may influence future research and practice.

The research finds how much the different types of capabilities influence the performance outcome of a company. A special focus is put on companies that use projects in their daily work; project-orientation is an expanding field, but their capabilities and influence on performance are not enough investigated. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Quantitative research setting was applied in EU member country Estonia. Survey was carried out with 189 responses.

Interestingly, project-related capabilities are singly more significant to performance than business capabilities. Capabilities mostly influence financial performance and less project performance (PP). Traditional project time/scope/cost management (iron triangle) and project delivery capabilities significantly influence the variance of outcome indicators. Surprisingly, companies should be careful in aligning projects with strategy and pay great attention to teamwork threats, as these present the most negative influence on the outcome in circumstances where they have been conventional benefit factors.

Estonia is a small and innovative country, which makes results generalizable for similar types of countries worldwide and/or neighboring countries with geographical and cultural proximity.

Companies behave in isomorphic environments (e.g. high competition, short new product development cycle, full of imitations, standardized business models), and therefore companies look for ways how to differentiate. Usually, findings that describe a 5 percent variance of outcome gain attention, variables used in this research provide much higher variance (48-83 percent). Due to constant environmental changes, companies should put more focus on project-related capabilities due to their high impact on performance.

Capabilities are complex and not widely researched empirically from different angles, such as project management. This research takes a comprehensive base by involving a large variety of capabilities, including project-specific capabilities, not only a few common large companies' specific capabilities. The capabilities impact on PP is not yet investigated, also the influence from project capabilities on performance is not thoroughly researched.