A Project-Based Perspective on Complex Product Development

  • Markus Becker
  • Luisa Errichiello
  • Francesco Zirpoli
Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

In this chapter we review the literature on complex product development focusing on a project-based perspective. We start from showing the specific nature of complex product development processes, and acknowledge the need for relying on external sources of innovation and evaluating its organizational implications. We then focus on the challenges of leveraging such dispersed knowledge, pointing to the specific problems brought by the crucial role of “learning by doing” in complex product innovation processes. The chapter highlights the necessity of shifting the focus of attention from firms’ knowledge boundaries to the project knowledge boundaries, so as to gain a more fine-grained analysis of some important phenomena that happen “around” the formal boundary of the firm and cope with knowledge development problems. In the conclusion we hint at the necessity to investigate in more depth how using development projects as unit of analysis can contribute to offering new ways of performing organizational ambidexterity.

Keywords

Product Development Product Development Process Project Level Product Architecture Organizational Mechanism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ahn, J. H., Lee, D. J., Lee, S. Y., (2006). Balancing business performance and knowledge performance of new product development: Lessons from ITS industry. Long Range Planning 39(5): 525–542.Google Scholar
  2. Ancona, D. G., Caldwell, D., (1990). Beyond boundary spanning: Managing external dependence in product development teams. The Journal of High Technology Management Research 1(2): 119–135.Google Scholar
  3. Argote. L., (1999). Organizational learning: creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge. Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  4. Argote, L., Epple, D., (1990). Learning curves in manufacturing, Science 247(Feb): 920–924.Google Scholar
  5. Ayas, K., (1997). Integrating corporate learning with project management. International Journal of Production Economics 51(1–2): 59–67.Google Scholar
  6. Bahemia, H., Squire, B., (2010). A contingent perspective of open innovation in new product development projects. International Journal of Innovation Management 14(4): 603–627.Google Scholar
  7. Baldwin, C. Y., Clark, K. B., (2000). Design rules: Volume 1. The power of modularity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Benner, M. J., Tushman, M. L., (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review 28(2): 238–256.Google Scholar
  9. Bonesso, S., Comacchio, A., Pizzi, C., (2011). Technology sourcing decisions in exploratory projects. Technovation 31(10–11): 573–585.Google Scholar
  10. Bresnen, M., Goussevskaia A., Swan J., (2004). Embedding new management knowledge in project-based organizations. Organization Studies 25(9): 1535–1555.Google Scholar
  11. Brusoni, S., Prencipe, A., (2001). Unpacking the black box of modularity: technologies, products and organizations, Industrial & Corporate Change 10(1): 179–205.Google Scholar
  12. Brusoni, S., Prencipe, A., (2006). Making design rules: a multidomain perspective. Organization Science 17(2): 179–189.Google Scholar
  13. Brusoni, S., Prencipe, A., Salter, A., (1998). Mapping and measuring innovation in project-based firms. CoPS Working Paper No. 46, SPRU, University of Sussex.Google Scholar
  14. Brusoni, S., Prencipe, A., Pavitt, K., (2001). Knowledge specialization, organization coupling, and the boundaries of the firm: Why do firms know more than they make? Administrative Science Quarterly 46(4): 597–625.Google Scholar
  15. Campagnolo, D., Camuffo, A., (2010). The concept of modularity in management studies: a literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews 12, 259–283.Google Scholar
  16. Cassiman, B., Di Guardo, M.C., Valentini, G., (2010). Organizing links with science: Cooperate or contract? A project-level analysis. Research Policy 39(7): 882–892.Google Scholar
  17. Chesbrough, H.W., (2003). Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  18. Chesbrough, H., Kusunoki, K., (2001). The modularity trap: innovation, technology phases shifts and the resulting limits of virtual organisations, in Nonaka, I., Teece D. (eds). Managing Industrial Knowledge: Creation, Transfer and Utilization. (pp. 202–230). London: Sage Press.Google Scholar
  19. Christensen, J.F., (2006). Wither core competency for the large corporation in an open innovation world?, in Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., West, J. (eds). Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm. (pp. 35–61). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Clark, K.B., (1989). Project scope and project performance: the effect on parts strategy and supplier involvement in product development. Management Science 35(10): 1247–1263.Google Scholar
  21. Clark, K.B., Fujimoto T., (1991). Product development performance. strategy, organization and management in the world auto industry. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  22. Cohen, W.M., Levinthal, D.A., (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1): 128–152.Google Scholar
  23. Cusumano, M., Nobeoka, K., (1998). Thinking beyond lean: how multi-project management is transforming product development at Toyota and Other Companies. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  24. Davies, A., Brady, T., (2000). Organisational capabilities and learning in complex product systems: towards repeatable solutions. Research Policy 29(7–8): 931–953.Google Scholar
  25. De Maio, A., Verganti, R., Corso, M., (1994). A multi-project management framework for product development. European Journal of Operational Research 78(2): 178–191.Google Scholar
  26. Dierickx, I., Cool, K., (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science 35(12) 1504–1513.Google Scholar
  27. Duncan, R.B., (1976). The ambidextrous organization: designing dual structures for innovation, In Kilman, R.H., Pondy, L.R., Slevin, D.P., (eds). The Management of Organization Design (vol.1, pp. 167–188): North-Holland: New York.Google Scholar
  28. Engwall, M., (2003): No project is an island: linking projects to history and context, Research Policy 32(5): 789–808.Google Scholar
  29. Fine, C.H., (1998). Clockspeed: winning industry control in the age of temporary advantage. Reading, MA: Perseus Books.Google Scholar
  30. Fine, C.H., Whitney, D.E., (1996). Is the make-buy decision process a core competence?, April (MIT unpublished manuscript).Google Scholar
  31. Frigant, V., Talbot, D., (2005). Technological determinism and modularity: lessons from a comparison between aircraft and auto industries in Europe, Industry & Innovation 12(3): 337–355.Google Scholar
  32. Gann, D.M., Salter A., (2000). Innovation in project-based, service enhanced firms: the construction of complex products and systems. Research Policy 29(9): 55–72.Google Scholar
  33. Gibson, C.B., Birkinshaw, J., (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of management Journal 47(2): 209–226.Google Scholar
  34. Helper, S.R., MacDuffie, J.P., Sabel, C., (2000). Pragmatic collaborations: advancing knowledge while controlling opportunism. Industrial and Corporate Change 9(3): 443–488.Google Scholar
  35. Henderson, R.M., Clark, K.B., (1990). Architectural Innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1): 9–30.Google Scholar
  36. Hippel, von E., (1988). The Sources of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Hoang, H., Rothaermel F.T., (2010). Leveraging internal and external experience: exploration, exploitation and R&D project performance. Strategic Management Journal 31(7): 734–758.Google Scholar
  38. Hobday, M., (2000). The project-based organization: an ideal form for managing complex products and systems? Research Policy 29(7–8): 871–893.Google Scholar
  39. Hobday, M., Davies A., Prencipe, A., (2005). Systems integration: a core capability of the modern corporation. Industrial and Corporate Change 14(6): 1109–1143.Google Scholar
  40. Hsieh K.N., Tidd, J., (2012). Open versus closed new service development: the influences of project novelty. Technovation 32(11): 600–608.Google Scholar
  41. Iansiti, M., (1995). Shooting the rapids: managing product development in turbulent environments. California Management Review 38(1): 37–58.Google Scholar
  42. Iansiti, M., Clark K.B., (1994). Integration and dynamic capability: evidence from product development in automobiles and mainframe computers, Industrial and Corporate Change 3(3): 557–605.Google Scholar
  43. Karlsson, C., Ahlström, P., (1996). The difficult path to lean product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management 13(4): 283–295.Google Scholar
  44. Keegan, A., Turner, J.R., (2002). The management of innovation in project-based firms. Long Range Planning 35(4): 367–388.Google Scholar
  45. Kessler, E.H., Bierly, P.E., Gopalakrishnan, S., (2000). Internal vs. external learning in new product development: effect on speed, costs and competitive advantage. R&D Management 30(3): 213–222.Google Scholar
  46. Kogut, B., Zander, U., (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science 3(3): 383–397.Google Scholar
  47. Larson, E.W., Gobeli, D.H., (1989). Significance of project management structure on development success. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 36(2): 119–125.Google Scholar
  48. Leonard-Barton, D., (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal 13(S1): 111–125.Google Scholar
  49. Levinthal, D.A., March J.G., (1993). The myopia of learning, Strategic Management Journal 14(S2): 95–112.Google Scholar
  50. Lincoln, J.R., Ahmadjian, C.L., Mason, E., (1998). Organizational learning and purchase-supply relations in japan: hitachi, matsushita and toyota compared, California Management Review 40(3): 241–264.Google Scholar
  51. Liu, L., Leitner D., (2012). Simultaneous pursuit of innovation and efficiency in complex engineering projects - A study of the antecedents and impacts of ambidexterity in project teams. Project Management Journal 43(6): 97–110.Google Scholar
  52. MacDuffie, J.P., (2013). Modularity-as-Property, Modularization-as-Process, and Modularity-as-Frame: lessons from product architecture initiatives in the global automotive industry. Global Strategy Journal 3(1): 1–125.Google Scholar
  53. March, J.G., (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organization learning. Organization Science 2(1): 71–87.Google Scholar
  54. Mikkola, J., (2006). Capturing the degree of modularity embedded in product architectures. Journal of Product Innovation Management 23(2): 128–146.Google Scholar
  55. Miozzo, M., Grimshaw, D., (2005). Modularity and innovation in knowledge-intensive business services: IT outsourcing in Germany and the UK. Research Policy 34(9): 1419–1439.Google Scholar
  56. Mom, T.J., Van Den Bosch, F.A., Volberda, H.W., (2007). Investigating managers’ exploration and exploitation activities: the influence of Top-Down, Bottom-Up, and horizontal knowledge inflows. Journal of Management Studies 44(6): 910–931.Google Scholar
  57. Nesta, L., Dibiaggio, L., (2003). Technology strategy and knowledge dynamics: the case of biotech. Industry & Innovation 10(3): 329–347.Google Scholar
  58. Newell, S., Edelman L.F., (2008). Developing a dynamic project learning and cross-project learning capability: synthesizing two perspectives. Information Systems Journal 18(6): 567–591.Google Scholar
  59. Nishiguchi, T., (1994). Strategic Industrial Sourcing. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Nobeoka, K., (1995). Inter-project learning in new product development. Academy of Management Proceedings August: 432–436. doi:10.5465.Google Scholar
  61. Nobeoka, K., Cusumano, M.A., (1997). Multi-project strategy and sales growth: the benefits of rapid design transfer in new product development. Strategic Management Journal 18(3): 169–186.Google Scholar
  62. Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H., (1995). The knowledge-creating company. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  63. O’Reilly, C.A., Tushman, M.L., (2004). The ambidexterous organization. Harvard Business Review (April): 1–9.Google Scholar
  64. O’Reilly, C.A., Tushman M.L., (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior 28, 185–206.Google Scholar
  65. Orlikowski, W., (2002). Knowing in practice: enabling a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science 13(3): 249–273.Google Scholar
  66. Parmigiani, A., (2007). Why do firms both make and buy? An investigation of concurrent sourcing. Strategic Management Journal 28(3): 285–311.Google Scholar
  67. Parmigiani, A., Mitchell, W. (2009). Complementarity, capabilities, and the boundaries of the firm: the impact of within-firm and inter-firm expertise on soncurrent sourcing of complementary components. Strategic Management Journal 30(10): 1025–1132.Google Scholar
  68. Prencipe, A., (2003). Corporate strategy and systems integration capabilities - managing networks in complex systems industries. In Prencipe, A., Davies, A., Hobday, M. (eds). The Business of Systems Integration. (pp. 114–132) Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Prencipe, A., Tell, F., (2001). Inter-project learning: processes and outcomes of knowledge codification in project-based firms. Research Policy 30(9): 1373–1394.Google Scholar
  70. Pinto, M.B., Pinto J.K., (1990). Project team communications and cross-functional cooperation in new program development. Journal of Product Innovation Management 7 (3): 200–212.Google Scholar
  71. Polanyi, M., (1966). The Tacit Dimension. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  72. Powell, W.W., Koput, K.W., Smith-Doerr, L., (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly 41(1): 116–145.Google Scholar
  73. Rothwell, R., (1992). Successful industrial innovation - critical factors for the 1990s. R&D Management 22(3): 221–239.Google Scholar
  74. Salge, T.O., Farchi, T., Barrett, M.I., Dopson, S., (2013). When does search openness really matter? A contingency study of health-care innovation projects. The Journal of Product Innovation Management 30(4): 659–676.Google Scholar
  75. Salvador, F., (2007). Towards a product system modularity construct: literature review and reconceptualization. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 54(2): 219–240.Google Scholar
  76. Sanchez, R., Mahoney, J.T., (1996). Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management Journal 17(1): 63–76.Google Scholar
  77. Shenhar, A., Dvir D., (2007). Reinventing project management: the diamond approach to successful growth and innovation. Boston: Harvard Business.Google Scholar
  78. Staudenmeyer, N., Tripsas, M., Tucci, C., (2005). Interfirm modularity and its implications for product development, Journal of Product Innovation Management 22(4): 303–321.Google Scholar
  79. Sturgeon, T.J., (2002). Modular production networks: a new american model of industrial organization. Industrial and Corporate Change 11(3): 451–496.Google Scholar
  80. Swan, J., Scarbrough, H., Newell, S., (2010). Why don’t (or do) organizations learn from projects? Management Learning 41(3): 325–344.Google Scholar
  81. Takeishi, A., (2001). Bridging inter- and intra-firm boundaries: management of supplier involvement in automobile product development. Strategic Management Journal 22(5): 403–433.Google Scholar
  82. Takeishi, A., (2002). Knowledge partitioning in the inter-firm division of labor: the case of automotive product development. Organization Science 13(may-june): 321–338.Google Scholar
  83. Takeishi, A., Fujimoto, T., (2003). Modularization in the car industry: interlinked multiple hierarchies of product, production, and supplier systems. In Prencipe, A., Davies, A. Hobday, M. (eds). The Business of Systems Integration. (pp 254–278). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Tatikonda, M.V., Rosenthal, S.R., (2000). Successful execution of product development projects: balancing firmness and flexibility in the innovation process. Journal of Operations Management 18(4): 401–425.Google Scholar
  85. Tushman, M.L., O’Reilly C.A., (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review 38(4): 8–30.Google Scholar
  86. Tushman, M., Smith W.K., Woody, R.C., Westerman, G., O’Reilly C.A., (2010). Organizational designs and innovation streams. Industrial and Corporate Change 19(5): 1331–1366.Google Scholar
  87. Ulrich, K.T., (1995). The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Research Policy 24(3): 419–440.Google Scholar
  88. Weigelt, C., (2009). The impact of outsourcing new technologies on integrative capabilities and performance. Strategic Management Journal 30(6): 595–616.Google Scholar
  89. West, J., Iansiti, M., (2003). Experience, experimentation, and the accumulation of knowledge: the evolution of R&D in the semiconductor industry. Research Policy 32(5): 809–825.Google Scholar
  90. Wheelwright, S.C., Clark, K.B., (1992a). Revolutionizing product development. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  91. Wheelwright, S.C., Clark, K.B., (1992b). Creating project plans to focus product development. Harvard Business Review March-April, 70–82.Google Scholar
  92. Williams, T., (2003). Learning from projects. Journal of the Operational Research Society 54(5): 443–451.Google Scholar
  93. Winch, G., (1997). Thirty years of project management. What have we learned? Presented at British Academy of Management. Aston University.Google Scholar
  94. Winter, S.G., Szulanski, G., (2001). Replication as strategy. Organization Science 12(6): 730–743.Google Scholar
  95. Zedtwitz, von M., (2002). Organizational learning through post-project reviews in R&D. R&D Management 32(3): 255–268.Google Scholar
  96. Zirpoli, F., Becker, M.C., (2011a). The limits of design and engineering outsourcing: performance integration and the unfulllled promises of modularity. R&D Management 41(1): 21–43.Google Scholar
  97. Zirpoli, F., Becker, M.C., (2011b). What happens when you outsource too much. MIT Sloan Management Review 52(2): 59–64.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Markus Becker
    • 1
  • Luisa Errichiello
    • 2
  • Francesco Zirpoli
    • 3
  1. 1.Strategic Organization Design UnitUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdense MDenmark
  2. 2.Institute for Service Industry Research (IRAT)Italian National Research Council (CNR)NapoliItaly
  3. 3.Department of ManagementCa’ Foscari University of VeneziaVeneziaItaly

Personalised recommendations