Conference Agenda

Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).

 
Session Overview
Session
21-PM2-07: G7 - Agility, Ambidexterity and Innovation
Time:
Friday, 21/Jun/2019:
2:45pm - 4:15pm

Session Chair: Rémi Maniak, Ecole Polytechnique
Location: Room 2.3.12 (ENSTA)

Show help for 'Increase or decrease the abstract text size'
Presentations

ASD – Agile Systems Design in Modular Design: Operationalization of agile Principles for cross-platform Agile Boards

Jonas Heimicke1, Kevin Kaiser1, Albert Albers1, Christian Frei2, Sabine Muschik2, Clemens Birk2, Nikola Bursac2

1Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany; 2TRUMPF Werkzeugmaschinen GmbH + Co. KG

Context

Modular kits are widely used in development practice in order to realise a resource-efficient range of variants from a company perspective. However, they also increase the complexity of development at the same time. Agile approaches show potentials to deal with this complexity but present new challenges for modular kit development.

Literature

Modular kits make it possible to reuse components across different products, thereby exploiting synergy potential (Krause and Gebhardt, 2017). On the other hand, they lead to an increase in complexity in development, as more subsystems interrelate and are to be used over longer periods of time (Albers et al., 2015). This causes a higher communication effort between different development teams, which is typically addressed in the context of systems engineering (Feldhusen and Grote, 2013). At the same time, agile approaches show potentials in the development of information technology systems (Honda et al., 2017). These are also increasingly being piloted in mechatronic systems (Punkka, 2012). The approach ASD – Agile Systems Design offers an adequate possibility to design processes according to situation and need with methods to support the developer in his activities. It is based on nine basic principles and can be operationalized by specific practices (Albers et al., 2018).

Literature Gap

The usage of agile approaches to dealing with complexity in modular design holds potentials as well as conflicts in the harmonization of these approaches. This article shows how ASD – Agile Systems Design can be used to resolve individual elements of the conflict using cross-platform agile boards as an example.

Research Questions

What are potentials/challenges in agile cross-platform modular kit development in the context of a project management tool?

How can project management tools for agile cross-platform modular kit development be optimized through agile principles?

Which potentials can be raised and measured by tool optimization in development practice through this approach?

Methodology

TRUMPF GmbH + Co. KG serves as the research environment. This is an ideal choice, as several years of methodological experience are available both in the context of cross-platform modular kit development and agile development in new development projects.

The research is structured by the Design Research Methodology. Based on an analysis of development practice, expert interviews and workshops, potentials/challenges in agile cross-platform modular kit development were identified. As part of the prescriptive study, practices in agile cross-platform development were implemented and evaluated with experts using parameters for measuring efficiency and effectiveness from development practice.

Empirical Material

Interviews (N=11) with product owners and developers responsible for the respective platform were conducted to determine challenges and potentials in the agile modular development. The interviews followed a semi-structured questionnaire and aimed to identify challenges in agile development, cross-platform modular development, tool usage and the combination of the three areas. Accordingly, the questions were already pre-clustered, so that condensation of the answers was possible quickly. In the course of the result development workshops (N=3) took place in which the developed process solutions were discussed and extended. The findings were immediately used to adjust the overall approach.

Results

The needs analysis has shown that in development practice a large number of interdisciplinary teams work together across several product platforms in order to be able to offer a wide variety of products on the market. The modular design concept determines how these products are constructed. Product development teams use other working methods and pursue different goals than module development teams. This can lead to synergy potentials that can be used in the development of products. To be able to guarantee this, there must be a clear structuring and prioritization of development contents as well as a similar way of operating in different agile development teams. Thus the structuring of these contents takes place on the basis of ASD – Agile Systems Design and the prioritization is occurred on one cross-platform backlog and not on those of the respective platforms. The combination of flexible and structuring elements, the operationalization of agile basic principles and a clear prioritization of development contents is implemented through a uniform cross-platform agile board, which was introduced by TRUMPF. A similar way of operating in different agile development teams is also given.

Contribution to Scholarship

The state of research could be extended with the transformation of the ASD - Agile Systems Design. First, the need for this approach was extended by the requirements from the modular kit development. In addition, effects during transformation were identified (e.g. the necessity of extending possible practices for the operationalisation of the principles), which will be examined in more detail in further work. In addition, it is shown that agile development methods are unavoidable in the future due to increasing context dynamics, but that the fixed structures of a development process cannot be completely eliminated. For example, these indicate concrete times at which physical hardware components are also required in mechatronic system development in order to plan development content precisely on the one hand and to be able to evaluate the identified customer requirements in reality on the other. These aspects will also be investigated in future research work.

Contribution to Practice

The approach outlined in this article has improved the handling, coordination and planning of development content in agile product development processes. This was achieved by clearly structuring the content with the help of ASD - Agile Systems Design and its different viewing levels. Furthermore, the systematic operationalization of the ASD principles can help to meet the requirements of the development process in case of existing challenges in development practice. This allows an optimal process design and procedure in the development process of mechatronic systems in every situation and depending on the requirement basis, combining the advantages of classic and agile approaches.

Fitness

The findings show the applicability of agile practices in the context of physical modular development and thus go beyond pure software development. They are presented in the field of modern innovation management and in particular in organisational innovation. The results can be transferred to further areas of application.

Bibliography

Albers, A.; Scherer, H.; Bursac, N.; Rachenkova, G. (2015): Model Based Systems Engineering in Modular Kit Development – Two Case Studies. In: Procedia CIRP, 36, 129–34.

Albers, A.; Heimicke, J.; Hirschter, T.; Richter, T.; Reiß, N.; Maier, A.; Bursac, N. (2018): Managing Systems of Objectives in the agile Development of Mechatronic Systems by ASD – Agile Systems Design.

Feldhusen, J.; Grote, K.-H. (2013): Pahl/Beitz Konstruktionslehre. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Hoda, R., Salleh, N., Grundy, J. & Tee, H. M. (2017). Systematic literature reviews in agile software development: A tertiary study. In: Information and Software Technology, 85, 60-70.

Krause, D.; Gebhardt, N. (Hrsg.) (2017): Methodische Entwicklung modularer Produktfamilien: Hohe Produktvielfalt beherrschbar entwickeln. Springer Vieweg.

Punkka, T. (2012): Agile Hardware and Co-Design. In: Embedded Systems Conference 2012.



Emerging Strategy Recognition in Agile Portfolios

Carsten Kaufmann1, Alexander Kock1, Hans Georg Gemünden2

1Technische Universität Darmstadt, Germany; 2BI Norwegian Business School, Norway

Context

The application of agile practices in single project management—describing project structuring approaches characterized by an iterative and recurring work structure—is becoming increasingly popular (Dybå & Dingsøyr, 2008; Williams, 2012). This development presents a challenge for the traditional portfolio process (Stettina & Hörz, 2015).

Literature

Several studies support a project portfolio’s role in a firm’s strategy formulation and implementation process (Clegg, Killen, Biesenthal, & Sankaran, 2018; Killen & Hunt, 2010; Kopmann, Kock, Killen, & Gemünden, 2017). This strategy formation process is generally bi-directional, including deliberate (top-down) and emergent (bottom-up) approaches (Mintzberg, 1978). In practice, usually combinations of both types of strategies are implemented (Johnson, Scholes, & Whittington, 2008). The project portfolio thus presents an entity that fosters emerging strategic initiatives by recognizing emergent patterns (Kopmann et al., 2017). This tendency is supported by the fact that portfolio processes in practice are often flexible and emergent themselves (Christiansen & Varnes, 2009; Jerbrant & Karrbom Gustavsson, 2013; Martinsuo, 2013). Emerging strategy recognition has been shown to be positively related to project portfolio success (Kopmann et al., 2017), which raises interest in how these emergent processes can be enhanced or supported.

Literature Gap

The increasing share of projects using agile practices poses a challenge for traditional multi-project management (Stettina & Hörz, 2015). Surprisingly few studies concentrate on these challenges (Sweetman & Conboy, 2018) or propose corresponding adjustments of portfolio processes (Cooper & Sommer, 2016; Leffingwell, 2007, 2011).

Research Questions

Simultaneously addressing the need for more research on agile practices in a multi-project context and the antecedents of emerging strategy recognition, our paper addresses the research questions: What is the relevance of agile capabilities for strategy emergence in multi-project management? What are the organizational antecedents of agile capabilities in portfolios?

Methodology

We pursue a quantitative research approach, deducting our hypotheses from literature and then testing the hypotheses using structural equation modelling. Apart from agile capabilities, for which we developed new measurement scales, we operationalize our constructs using established item measures. Furthermore, we control for several characteristics of the portfolio (e.g., portfolio type and size) and of the firm (e.g., such as industry or size).

Empirical Material

We test our hypotheses using a cross-industry sample of medium- to large-sized firms. The survey-sample consists of 135 portfolios with three kinds of informants for each portfolio: a senior manager, who (co-)decides on selection, prioritization, or termination of projects; a portfolio manager or coordinator, who possesses an overview of portfolio practices; and several project managers, who experience project work within the focal multi-project environment. The multi-informant setup of the survey reduces the likelihood of common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).

Results

In our analysis we focus on strategic and cultural aspects of organizational initiatives supporting the autonomous mindset of project staff thus supporting agile capability implementation. Specifically, we investigate the role of entrepreneurial orientation (EO), a particularly important strategic orientation of a firm (Anderson, Kreiser, Kuratko, Hornsby, & Eshima, 2015; Covin & Slevin, 1991; Meskendahl, 2010; Rauch, Wiklund, Lumpkin, & Frese, 2009). Complementing this top-down perspective, we include voice behavior (VB) as a cultural, bottom-up aspect of the organizational context. Voice behavior relates to organizational environments that encourage employees to generally voice initiatives aiming for organizational or functional improvements (Bashshur & Oc, 2015; LePine & van Dyne, 1998; Morrison, 2011).

Our findings confirm that agile capability mediates the influence of entrepreneurial orientation and voice behavior on emergent strategy recognition and ultimately on overall portfolio success.

Contribution to Scholarship

This study contributes to existing literature by examining the antecedents and strategical consequences of agile capability in project portfolios. Our findings not only stress agile capability’s relevance for portfolio success, but also its effect on strategy formation. In addition, we identify strategic and cultural antecedents to agile capability.

Contribution to Practice

For practitioners, the study’s results support the implementation of agile competence to not only achieve better individual project results (such as adaptability and customer satisfaction) but also to affect the firm’s strategy formation process. Promoting an autonomous mindset of employees, for example by actively enhancing EO and VB, constitutes a valid approach to foster agile competence in portfolios.

Fitness

Project portfolios hold an essential role in terms of innovation strategy recognition and implementation (Kopmann et al., 2017; Schultz, Salomo, & Talke, 2013). By combining portfolios’ strategic aspect with the increasing relevance of agile capabilities, our paper forms a bridge between research, industry, and society.

Bibliography

Anderson, B. S., Kreiser, P. M., Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & Eshima, Y. (2015). Reconceptualizing entrepreneurial orientation. Strategic Management Journal, 36(10), 1579–1596. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2298

Bashshur, M. R., & Oc, B. (2015). When Voice Matters. Journal of Management, 41(5), 1530–1554. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314558302

Christiansen, J. K., & Varnes, C. J. (2009). Formal Rules in Product Development: Sensemaking of Structured Approaches. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(5), 502–519. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00677.x

Clegg, S., Killen, C. P., Biesenthal, C., & Sankaran, S. (2018). Practices, projects and portfolios: Current research trends and new directions. International Journal of Project Management, 36(5), 762–772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.03.008

Cooper, R. G., & Sommer, A. F. (2016). The Agile-Stage-Gate Hybrid Model: A Promising New Approach and a New Research Opportunity. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(5), 513–526. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12314

Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1991). A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship as Firm Behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879101600102

Dybå, T., & Dingsøyr, T. (2008). Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review. Information and Software Technology, 50(9-10), 833–859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.01.006

Jerbrant, A., & Karrbom Gustavsson, T. (2013). Managing project portfolios: balancing flexibility and structure by improvising. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 6(1), 152–172. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538371311291071

Johnson, G., Scholes, K., & Whittington, R. (2008). Exploring corporate strategy (8. ed.). Harlow: FT Prentice Hall.

Killen, C. P., & Hunt, R. A. (2010). Dynamic capability through project portfolio management in service and manufacturing industries. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 3(1), 157–169. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538371011014062

Kopmann, J., Kock, A., Killen, C. P., & Gemünden, H. G. (2017). The role of project portfolio management in fostering both deliberate and emergent strategy. International Journal of Project Management, 35(4), 557–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.02.011

Leffingwell, D. (2007). Scaling software agility: Best practices for large enterprises. The Agile software development series. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison-Wesley.

Leffingwell, D. (2011). Agile software requirements: Lean requirements practices for teams, programs, and the enterprise. Agile software development series. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison-Wesley.

LePine, J. A., & van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 853–868. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.6.853

Martinsuo, M. (2013). Project portfolio management in practice and in context. International Journal of Project Management, 31(6), 794–803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.10.013

Meskendahl, S. (2010). The influence of business strategy on project portfolio management and its success — A conceptual framework. International Journal of Project Management, 28(8), 807–817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.06.007

Mintzberg, H. (1978). Patterns in Strategy Formation. Management Science, 24(9), 934–948. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.24.9.934

Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee Voice Behavior: Integration and Directions for Future Research. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373–412. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2011.574506

Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G. T., & Frese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial Orientation and Business Performance: An Assessment of Past Research and Suggestions for the Future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 761–787. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00308.x

Schultz, C., Salomo, S., & Talke, K. (2013). Measuring New Product Portfolio Innovativeness: How Differences in Scale Width and Evaluator Perspectives Affect its Relationship with Performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(1), 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12073

Stettina, C. J., & Hörz, J. (2015). Agile portfolio management: An empirical perspective on the practice in use. International Journal of Project Management, 33(1), 140–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.03.008

Sweetman, R., & Conboy, K. (2018). Portfolios of Agile Projects. Project Management Journal, 49(6), 18–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972818802712

Williams, L. (2012). What agile teams think of agile principles. Communications of the ACM, 55(4), 71. https://doi.org/10.1145/2133806.2133823



Managing the Dynamics of Ambidexterity: A longitudinal case study of the European Envelope-Industry

Elena Krause1, Kathrin Möslein2, Angela Roth2, Christian Schaller3

1Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Baden-Wuerttemberg Cooperative State University Stuttgart; 2Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany; 3Baden-Wuerttemberg Cooperative State University Stuttgart

Context

Field research takes place in the largest European enterprise in the envelope Industry.The group consists of 35 companies in 18 countries. The case mirrors a good example for an organization that is confronted with the challenge to change their exploration-exploitation configuration and to observe how ambidexterity was changed over time.

Literature

Birkinshaw, J., & Gupta, K. (2013). Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 287-298.

Gulati, R., & Puranam, P. (2009). Renewal through reorganization: The value of inconsistencies between formal and informal organization. Organization science, 20(2), 422-440.

Langley, A. (2009). Studying processes in and around organizations. In The Sage handbook of organizational research methods. (pp. 409-429). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.

Luger, J., Raisch, S., & Schimmer, M. (2018). Dynamic Balancing of Exploration and Exploitation: The Contingent Benefits of Ambidexterity. Organization Science, 29(3), 449-470.

March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization science, 2(1), 71-87.

Pettigrew, A. M. (1990). Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organization science, 1(3), 267-292.

Literature Gap

Although first studies on the dynamics of ambidexterity have produced important results (e.g. Luger, Raisch, & Schimmer, 2018; Zimmermann, Raisch, & Birkinshaw, 2015) we know far less about the dynamic processes underlying the change of ambidexterity and the organization´s ability to handle the tensions over time (Luger et al., 2018).

Research Questions

Refering to an in-depth case study of a market leading company in the paper processing industry, the study aims to answer the question: How do organizations, and thus the actors in organizations, change ambidexterity?

Methodology

To meet the complexity of the research field and to gain a higher level of knowledge, a qualitative interpretative approach is chosen, and a processual perspective is taken, due to the special interest in understanding events and activities as experienced by actors from their own perspective.In directing the attention to the actors social interactions and learning this research moves back closer to the behavioural roots of March (1991).We applied a discovery-oriented procedure that involved the iterative collection and analysis of field data. Data for the empirical investigation is obtained from a longitudinal in-depth case study (Eisenhardt, 1989; Pettigrew, 1990).

Empirical Material

The primary data derives from several sources: observational material, ethnographic and semi-structured interviews, and documentary data (both private and publicly available). As usual for process researchers (Langley, 2009), our temporal orientation was a combination of tracing back into the past (i.e. historical, retrospective) and heading forward (i.e. being there in real-time). Observational research is carried out since January 2017 and is still ongoing. Until now we participated in 3 board meetings, 12 sub-project workshops, 4 kick-off meetings of different project initiatives and two days on-site observation. In 2019, inspired by the interpretative history approach introduced by Vaara and Lamberg (2016), a series of extensive, retrospective interviews with senior and middle managers as well as employees started as further important source of data to examine how the organization changed ambidexterity over time. All interviewees share an extensive experience in the industry, based on their active roles as key players in the envelope market, and vary in their age from 20 to 40 years. Their working experience and employment background are wide-ranging from experts in sales, production, finance or strategy making. These data will be supplemented with archival material, including strategy presentations, administrative documents, and other documentary sources.

Results

While the longitudinal data collection is ongoing, intermediary results are already visible. Data revealed exploration-exploitation as a multi-level construct, that is associated with different sensemaking processes and interpretation modes and demonstrated that different exploration-exploitation configurations, and thus different ambidexterity-realities, are changed in a co-constructed way. The single most striking observation at this stage of analysis was that we recognized differences in the learning processes of ‘exploitors’ and ‘explorers’ (those with a change focus on exploitation and those with a change focus on exploration) and the resulting social interactions between both parties. The results demonstrated that taking responsibility in managing the ambidexterity change crosses the multiple levels. Changing of ambidexterity, however, not only means reinforcing exploration and exploitation activities (more efficient in the core business and more innovative in new business areas), but also and in particular the management of the tensions across all levels and thus the influence of these sensemaking processes and change of interpretation modes. Changing the exploration-exploitation configuration remains in justification of the actor’s usual perspective and it seems that the management does not fulfill its (necessary) role in overcoming these tensions to avoid misunderstanding, mistrust and a drifting-apart.

Contribution to Scholarship

In this research a dynamic perspective on ambidexterity is adopted. This study enhances the understanding of the dynamics of ambidexterity under uncertainty and thus contributes to the current debate on the dynamic aspects of ambidexterity (e.g. Luger et al., 2018). While ambidexterity research to date has mainly focused on static aspects and almost always adopted a cross-sectional research design (Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008), this study takes a longitudinal time horizon and processual approach. Second, despite strong calls of prior reviews for research crossing multiple-levels (Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008) and promising initial results (e.g. Knight & Paroutis, 2017), an understanding of the interrelations between different levels is in the infancy. Taking perspectives on organizing and learning as starting point, we analyze the organization`s actors changing investment in explorative and exploitative activities and their social multi-level interactions.

Contribution to Practice

Besides being relevant for theory this research offers considerable managerial implications. The research context of an established European market leading company in an uncertain industry, facing the challenge to change its current investment in exploration and exploitation, builds a unique data base, because, especially incumbent organizations are often confronted with their long-trained habit to focus on exploitation, rather than exploration (March, 1991; O’Reilly III & Tushman, 2008). In analyzing these dynamics on multiple levels could also bring important insights on “who ends up taking responsibility for managing the tension between exploration and exploitation” (Birkinshaw & Gupta, 2013, p. 294).

Fitness

With this research we make an initial step in understanding the dynamics of ambidexterity in an uncertain industry. This is important for today´s organizations, especially those in uncertain industries and their challenge to improve efficiency while pushing innovativeness. The research is therefore of high relevance for the R&D Management conference.

Bibliography

Birkinshaw, J., & Gupta, K. (2013). Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 287-298.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of management review, 14(4), 532-550.

Knight, E., & Paroutis, S. (2017). Becoming salient: The TMT leader’s role in shaping the interpretive context of paradoxical tensions. Organization Studies, 38(3-4), 403-432.

Langley, A. (2009). Studying processes in and around organizations. In The Sage handbook of organizational research methods. (pp. 409-429). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.

Luger, J., Raisch, S., & Schimmer, M. (2018). Dynamic Balancing of Exploration and Exploitation: The Contingent Benefits of Ambidexterity. Organization Science, 29(3), 449-470.

March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization science, 2(1), 71-87.

O’Reilly III, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma. Research in organizational behavior, 28, 185-206.

Pettigrew, A. M. (1990). Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organization science, 1(3), 267-292.

Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational Ambidexterity: Antecedents, Outcomes, and Moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375-409.

Vaara, E., & Lamberg, J.-A. (2016). Taking historical embeddedness seriously: Three historical approaches to advance strategy process and practice research. Academy of Management Review, 41(4), 633-657.

Zimmermann, A., Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2015). How is ambidexterity initiated? The emergent charter definition process. Organization Science, 26(4), 1119-1139.



Novel approach for identification of performance metrics in product development

Aksel Elkjaer, Geir Ringen

Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway

Context

Product development is becoming increasingly competitive with greater pressure to adapt to global and technological trends. There is however a lack of leading performance measurements which can be used to assess if the changes in development methods to tackle this pressure will yield success.

Literature

Globalization, technological advancements and open innovation are making it easier for new competitors to enter the market. Products however are becoming more complicated and multidisciplinary both technically and organizationally. A response has been the proponent of agile methods to accomplish highly communicative, responsive and versatile development teams [1].

The problem however is that dynamic projects and teams can be difficult to coordinate at the organizational level and the best suited metrics are under investigation [2]. To manage appropriately a portfolio of dynamic projects, it is necessary to appreciate their contextual differences while assessing their ongoing performance. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in product development are widely criticized for their lack of predictive ability [3]. The focus is often on the result and not the influencing factors, so only limited instantaneous evaluation can be achieved. This prevents assessment and adjustment of the process in real time to achieve optimal performance.

Literature Gap

There is a lack of empirical investigations regarding flexibility with respect to product and process innovations [4]. There is a need for such investigations to improve the selection of appropriate measures for successful management during development [5].

Research Questions

RQ1 How do critical success factors in the product development process of the manufacturing industry vary depending on type (design, manufacturing or market) of product innovation?

RQ2 How can the identified factors and their differences be used to improve leading performance measurement during the development process?

Methodology

A survey has been conducted within the Norwegian manufacturing industry evaluating both successful and unsuccessful projects. The survey contained 24 questions and participants were asked to answer the questions for a project they themselves considered successful. They were then were asked to answer the same 24 questions for another project which they considered unsuccessful. The survey was structured so that the first three questions characterized the type of project innovation by assessing the newness of the product, production and market. A subsequent 21 questions were then defined to assess influencing factors in conducting the project.

Empirical Material

The survey was distributed at workshops concerning the Norwegian manufacturing industry with currently a total of 22 survey participants. The respondents were experienced industrialists with only 6% under the age of 35. The respondents were predominantly male (95%) from a total of 12 different companies.

The mean response value of each question was calculated and the response for successful subtracted from the unsuccessful. The Student's T test was applied to the distribution of responses for each question to determine the significance of the differences in mean values. The differences which had a probability less than 0.05 of having the same mean value were highlighted as significant. The significant differences were analysed by filtering the first three questions into 3 innovation categories for low (1-2), medium (3-5) and high (6-7) innovation. The definition of the categories allows for successful and unsuccessful projects of the same characteristics to be compared for each type of innovation

The comparative assessment of successful and unsuccessful projects identified a number of crucial factors. The results showed many of the defined questions had significant differences in distribution (p<0.01) from applied students t-test. The importance of significant factors are presented with respect to product, production and market innovations.

Results

The study found resource adequacy and communication, both internally to develop solutions and externally to sell the solution to the customer, were the most important factors across all innovation types. Product innovations contained greater pivotal factors than production and market innovations therefore offering the most influential possibilities for measurement.

The identified factors are discussed as areas for leading performance measurement. The areas are considered with respect to current trends in performance measurement and opportunities for further contributions identified.

Despite the currently low N on which the empirical results are based, the study provides initial insight for further development. The approach has provided a definition of influential factors and relation established to underlying performance measurement theory. Both the significant and insignificant results provide evidence for the improvement of methods and models regarding the selection of leading indicators.

The results are differentiated from well-established previous empirical studies on factors for success by providing focus on current performance measurement literature.

Contribution to Scholarship

A novel approach to the identification of pivotal factors for success with respect to their use for KPIs is presented. This provides the academic with a method and empirical evidence for the definition of performance metrics. By comparing both successful and unsuccessful projects directly it has been possible to identify the factors that separate success from failure, which investigation of success or failure alone cannot separate. The outcome therefore provides new insight to the selection of KPIs which can provide leading indication of performance.

The additional insight into the measurement of product development allows for more research theory and best practice, such as agile and lean development, to be implemented and assessed. It can be argued that the empirical evidence these fields is lacking. Establishing performance indicators with shorter response time will provide the feedback needed to see the effect of actions.

Contribution to Practice

The practitioner can use this information to assess the importance of KPIs in their performance measurement systems. The investigation found product portfolio innovations, designing new products to the company, provided the most decisive factors. Focus on stabilization of management and processes were identified as important factors with good communication to develop ideas having greatest importance. The findings are subsequently linked to metrics and previous research which practitioners can review for application in their business context.

Furthermore, the identified factors can be used by companies to develop their own indicators relating the factors with respect to their specific processes.

Fitness

Despite the lack of immediate relevance to the key themes of this years conference the research is applicable to broad range product development research. Measurement of development is a integral aspect of its management and therefore relevant to the application and assessment of the key themes under discussion.

Bibliography

[1] R. G. Cooper and A. F. Sommer, "The Agile-Stage-Gate Hybrid Model: A Promising New Approach and a New Research Opportunity," J. Prod. Innov. Manag., vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 513-526, 2016.

[2] J. Mascarenhas Hornos da Costa, J. Oehmen, E. Rebentisch, and D. Nightingale, "Toward a better comprehension of Lean metrics for research and product development management," RD Manag., vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 370-383, 2014.

[3] F. J. O’Donnell and A. H. Duffy, Design performance. Springer Science & Business Media, 2005.

[4] A. Awwad and D. M. N. Akroush, "New product development performance success measures: an exploratory research," EuroMed J. Bus., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 2-29, 2016.

[5] K. Henttonen, V. Ojanen, and K. Puumalainen, "Searching for appropriate performance measures for innovation and development projects," RD Manag., vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 914-927, 2016.



 
Contact and Legal Notice · Contact Address:
Privacy Statement · Conference: R&D Management Conference 2019
Conference Software - ConfTool Pro 2.6.129+TC
© 2001 - 2019 by Dr. H. Weinreich, Hamburg, Germany