Interorganizational Development of Flexible Capital Designs: The Case of Future-Proofing Infrastructure

This mixed-methods study investigates a dilemma that interorganizational groups formed to develop long-lived capital assets invariably face at the project front end: either invest in flexible design structures that cope economically with change in requirements, this is design to evolve - at risk of the extra costs not paying off if the uncertainties fail to resolve favorably later on, or endorse cheaper but more rigid designs - at risk of higher adaptation costs if the uncertainties materialize in the future. Through an empirical study grounded in the British railway sector, we reveal that groups regularly engage in informal future-proofing discussions to address this dilemma. But faced with tight budgets and timescales as well as differing interests, the groups struggle to achieve consensus over the need for flexible designs. Through lab experiments and taking a flat governance structure as given, we unexpectedly find that an administrative device to facilitate multiparty future-proofing talks has limited impact on the outcomes. Hence, we argue that a collective action problem is central to interorganizational development of flexible capital designs. We conclude by discussing alternative structures to govern the project front end, and how to better exploit the value of flexible designs.

[1]  Peter W. G. Morris,et al.  The management of projects , 1994 .

[2]  M. Sherif Superordinate Goals in the Reduction of Intergroup Conflict , 1958, American Journal of Sociology.

[3]  C. Hardy,et al.  Institutional effects of interorganizational collaboration: The emergence of proto-institutions , 2002 .

[4]  Rebecca Henderson,et al.  Relational Contracts and Organizational Capabilities , 2011, Organ. Sci..

[5]  W. Marsden I and J , 2012 .

[6]  J. Hackman,et al.  Leading Teams: Setting the Stage for Great Performances , 2002 .

[7]  Nuno Gil,et al.  Design Reuse and Buffers in High-Tech Infrastructure Development: A Stakeholder Perspective , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[8]  K. Pavitt,et al.  Knowledge Specialization, Organizational Coupling, and the Boundaries of the Firm: Why Do Firms Know More than They Make? , 2001 .

[9]  Beth A. Bechky Gaffers, Gofers, and Grips: Role-Based Coordination in Temporary Organizations , 2006, Organ. Sci..

[10]  R. Hinde,et al.  The Possibility of Cooperation@@@Cooperation: The Basis of Sociability.@@@Cooperation and Prosocial Behavior.@@@Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. , 1990 .

[11]  Eun Suk Suh,et al.  Flexible product platforms: framework and case study , 2007 .

[12]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations , 2000, Theory in CSCW.

[13]  J. Orr,et al.  Talking About Machines: An Ethnography of a Modern Job. , 1997 .

[14]  Dov Dvir,et al.  Plans are nothing, changing plans is everything: the impact of changes on project success , 2004 .

[15]  Ian C. MacMillan,et al.  Assessing Technology Projects Using Real Options Reasoning , 2000 .

[16]  HERBERT A. SIMON,et al.  The Architecture of Complexity , 1991 .

[17]  John C Doyle,et al.  Architecture, constraints, and behavior , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[18]  Karl T. Ulrich,et al.  The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm , 2011 .

[19]  Daniel D. Frey,et al.  Empirical evaluation of procedures to generate flexibility in engineering systems and improve lifecycle performance , 2013 .

[20]  M. Clowes Talking to Machines , 1972, Nature.

[21]  P. Biernacki,et al.  Snowball Sampling: Problems and Techniques of Chain Referral Sampling , 1981 .

[22]  L. Trigeorgis Real Options: Managerial Flexibility and Strategy in Resource Allocation , 1996 .

[23]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Delusions of success. How optimism undermines executives' decisions. , 2003, Harvard business review.

[24]  Diane M. Lander,et al.  Challenges to the practical implementation of modeling and valuing real options , 1998 .

[25]  James J. Lindsay,et al.  Research in the Psychological Laboratory , 1999 .

[26]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Design Rules: The Power of Modularity , 2000 .

[27]  Stefan H. Thomke,et al.  The Role of Flexibility in the Development of New Products , 1997 .

[28]  Christoph H. Loch,et al.  Lost Roots: How Project Management Came to Emphasize Control over Flexibility and Novelty , 2010 .

[29]  Raghu Garud,et al.  Justification and Interlaced Knowledge at ATLAS, CERN , 2014, Organ. Sci..

[30]  Theodore M. Newcomb,et al.  The prediction of interpersonal attraction , 1956 .

[31]  Lenos Trigeorgis,et al.  Strategic Investment: Real Options and Games , 2004 .

[32]  Jaideep Anand,et al.  Using Experiments in Corporate Strategy Research , 2007 .

[33]  Robert Kramer,et al.  Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems , 1990 .

[34]  Amy C. Edmondson,et al.  Too Hot to Handle? How to Manage Relationship Conflict , 2006 .

[35]  Organizations , 1992, Restoration & Management Notes.

[36]  C. Gersick MARKING TIME: PREDICTABLE TRANSITIONS IN TASK GROUPS , 1989 .

[37]  Jeff Sauro,et al.  A method to standardize usability metrics into a single score , 2005, CHI.

[38]  James R. Lewis,et al.  Psychometric Evaluation of the PSSUQ Using Data from Five Years of Usability Studies , 2002, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[39]  Elinor Ostrom,et al.  The value-added of laboratory experiments for the study of institutions and common-pool resources , 2006 .

[40]  Burton H. Klein,et al.  Application of Operations Research to Development Decisions , 1958 .

[41]  B. Tether,et al.  Project risk management and design flexibility: Analysing a case and conditions of complementarity , 2011 .

[42]  William Miller,et al.  Flexibility in Engineering Design , 2012 .

[43]  N. Gil Sustaining Highly-Fragile Collaborations: A Study of Planning Mega Infrastructure Projects in the UK , 2015 .

[44]  H. Leavitt Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance. , 1951, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[45]  Nikolaos Georgiopoulos Real Options , 2006 .

[46]  Roger Miller,et al.  The Strategic Management of Large Engineering Projects: Shaping Institutions, Risks, and Governance , 2001 .

[47]  S. Kimmel Architecture , 2013, Arsham-isms.

[48]  Michel-Alexandre Cardin,et al.  Enabling Flexibility in Engineering Systems: A Taxonomy of Procedures and a Design Framework , 2014 .

[49]  Nuno Gil,et al.  The (Under) Performance of Mega-Projects: A Meta- Organizational Perspective , 2015 .

[50]  P. Lawrence,et al.  Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations , 1967 .

[51]  Phanish Puranam,et al.  The (Under) Performance of Mega-projects: A Meta-organizational Perspective , 2014 .

[52]  Nuno Gil,et al.  On the value of project safeguards: Embedding real options in complex products and systems , 2007 .

[53]  M. Grbeša,et al.  Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions of collective action , 2006 .

[54]  Kasper Hornbæk,et al.  Current practice in measuring usability: Challenges to usability studies and research , 2006, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[55]  Nicolaj Siggelkow Persuasion with case studies , 2007 .

[56]  Dan Lovallo,et al.  Delusions of Success , 2003 .

[57]  J. Pinto,et al.  Antecedents and consequences of project team cross-functional cooperation , 1993 .