The development and application of a process model for R&D project management in a high tech firm: A field study

Abstract In R&D organizations of high tech firms, multiple R&D projects are executed concurrently and timeliness of project completion – i.e., developing the right products at the right times – is a matter of serious concern. Given that the priority of R&D projects and the interdependencies between the projects in a high tech firm change dynamically, high tech R&D project management is a complex and challenging endeavor. To improve the understanding and management of high tech R&D projects, this paper reports the findings of a field study where we, first, develop and empirically estimate a model that relates project priority over time with the generative mechanisms of market pull and technical challenge associated with R&D projects. Next, we develop and demonstrate the application of a process model within which the time-varying project priority model is embedded. The process model makes it possible to allocate fixed resources among competing projects with time-varying interdependencies, thereby improving the timeliness of project completion. This research was conducted in collaboration with a major U.S. high tech firm. The corporate R&D center of the firm served as the research setting for the field study. We present an application of the process model to delineate the evolution of the R&D organization with the merger of its (technology driven) parent firm with another (market driven) high tech manufacturing firm. The application of the process model generates theoretical insights that are used to develop testable propositions. Implications of the study findings and directions for future research are discussed.

[1]  Christoph H. Loch,et al.  Implementing a strategy-driven performance measurement system for an applied research group , 2002 .

[2]  Robert G. Cooper,et al.  A process model for industrial new product development , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[3]  C. Prahalad,et al.  Competing for the Future , 1994 .

[4]  Averill M. Law,et al.  Simulation Modeling and Analysis , 1982 .

[5]  Cigdem Z. Gurgur,et al.  Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company Optimizes Infrastructure Project-Portfolio Selection , 2008, Interfaces.

[6]  H. Tsoukas.  The Validity of Idiographic Research Explanations , 1989 .

[7]  M. Tushman,et al.  Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change , 1996 .

[8]  Stephen C. Graves,et al.  Technology portfolio management: optimizing interdependent projects over multiple time periods , 2001, IEEE Trans. Engineering Management.

[9]  A. Abbott.  Transcending General Linear Reality , 1988 .

[10]  Stylianos Kavadias,et al.  Resource allocation and new product development portfolio management , 2007 .

[11]  Barney G. Glaser,et al.  Organizational Scientists: Their Professional Careers , 1964 .

[12]  James D. Thompson.  Organizations in Action , 1967 .

[13]  Karl T. Ulrich,et al.  50th Anniversary Article: Technological Innovation, Product Development, and Entrepreneurship in Management Science , 2004, Manag. Sci..

[14]  Scott B. MacKenzie,et al.  Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[15]  George B. Kleindorfer,et al.  Validation in Simulation: Various Positions in the Philosophy of Science , 1998 .

[16]  Clayton M. Christensen,et al.  Innovacion disruptiva para el cambio social , 2006 .

[17]  Donald Gerwin,et al.  An Evaluation of Research on Integrated Product Development , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[18]  Karl T. Ulrich,et al.  Valuing R&D Projects in a Portfolio: Evidence from the Pharmaceutical Industry , 2007, Manag. Sci..

[19]  D. Dillman.  Mail and internet surveys , 1999 .

[20]  Thomas J. Allen,et al.  Age, education and the technical ladder , 1992 .

[21]  Karl T. Ulrich,et al.  Special Issue on Design and Development: Product Development Decisions: A Review of the Literature , 2001, Manag. Sci..

[22]  A. Edmondson,et al.  METHODOLOGICAL FIT IN MANAGEMENT FIELD RESEARCH. , 2007 .

[23]  Stylianos Kavadias,et al.  OPTIMAL PROJECT SEQUENCING WITH RECOURSE AT A SCARCE RESOURCE , 2009 .

[24]  Marshall L. Fisher,et al.  Strengthening the Empirical Base of Operations Management , 2007, Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag..

[25]  D. Simester,et al.  Customer Satisfaction Incentives , 1994 .

[26]  George Stalk,et al.  Japan's dark side of time , 1993 .

[27]  Christoph H. Loch,et al.  Dynamic Portfolio Selection of NPD Programs Using Marginal Returns , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[28]  J. March.  Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning , 1991, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[30]  John R. Hauser,et al.  Internal Customers and Internal Suppliers , 1996 .

[31]  Mariano Corso,et al.  A multi-project management framework for new product development , 1994 .

[32]  K. K. Sinha,et al.  Toward a theory of project interdependencies in high tech R & D environments , 2002 .

[33]  Alan W. Pearson,et al.  R&D project termination decisions: Processes, communication, and personnel changes , 1996 .

[34]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Nothing Is Quite So Practical as a Good Theory , 1989 .

[35]  Indranil R. Bardhan,et al.  Prioritizing a Portfolio of Information Technology Investment Projects , 2004, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[36]  Kathleen M. Carley,et al.  Simulation modeling in organizational and management research , 2007 .

[37]  Paul S. Adler,et al.  From project to process management: an empirically-based framework for analyzing product development time , 1995 .

[38]  Jack R. Meredith,et al.  Project Management: A Managerial Approach , 1989 .

[39]  Mary J. Benner,et al.  Exploitation, Exploration, and Process Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited , 2003 .