Fostering Risk Taking in Research and Development: The Importance of a Project's Terminal Value

Large firms face a conflict in managing a portfolio of high-risk projects. When an ongoing project is thought to have a low likelihood of success, project team members take risks to improve its chances of success. However, upper-level managers who allocate resources tend to withhold resources from a project with a low likelihood of success in favor of others in the portfolio that look more promising. Because this paucity of resources influences project team members to avoid risk, the total effect of success likelihood on risk taking is conflicted. The influence on risk taking of a project's terminal value—defined as the value that remains in the firm in the event of project failure—is unequivocally positive, because both senior management resource allocation and project team risk-taking propensity are encouraged by terminal value. Thus, firms can override the ambivalent effect of likelihood of success on project decision making by focusing attention on a project's terminal value.

[1]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Product Development in the World Auto Industry , 1987 .

[2]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Timid choices and bold forecasts: a cognitive perspective on risk taking , 1993 .

[3]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect Theory : An Analysis of Decision under Risk Author ( s ) : , 2007 .

[4]  J. Pratt RISK AVERSION IN THE SMALL AND IN THE LARGE11This research was supported by the National Science Foundation (grant NSF-G24035). Reproduction in whole or in part is permitted for any purpose of the United States Government. , 1964 .

[5]  Henry G. Grabowski,et al.  A New Look at the Returns and Risks to Pharmaceutical R&D , 1990 .

[6]  P. Bromiley Testing a Causal Model of Corporate Risk Taking and Performance , 1991 .

[7]  Jitendra V. Singh Performance, Slack, and Risk Taking in Organizational Decision Making , 1986 .

[8]  J. March,et al.  Variable risk preferences and the focus of attention , 1992 .

[9]  Henry Mintzberg Strategy-Making in Three Modes , 1973 .

[10]  Lawrence R. James,et al.  Personality, affect, and behavior in groups revisited: Comment on aggregation, levels of analysis, and a recent application of within and between analysis. , 1993 .

[11]  Howard Thomas,et al.  Dynamic and risk measurement perspectives on bowman's risk‐return paradox for strategic management: An empirical study , 1986 .

[12]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

[13]  J. March,et al.  Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking , 1987 .

[14]  Peter H. Ritchken,et al.  m,T Group Maintenance Policies , 1990 .