Using design theory to characterize various forms of breakthrough R&D projects and their management: revisiting Manhattan & Polaris

In this paper we propose to revisit two emblematic projects, Manhattan and Polaris, with the models developed by design theory. In particular we demonstrate, relying on recent advances in design theory, how these major projects, traditionally presented as radical innovations, are in fact quite different. We show that this explains the different managerial strategies of this two cases : whereas Polaris focuses on the control of the design process, Manhattan exhibit a very original strategy, characterized by the simultaneous exploration of different solutions, to manage unforeseeable uncertainties. We therefore hope to demonstrate the fruitfulness of the dialogue between design theory and project management.

[1]  Jonas Söderlund,et al.  Making Project History: Revisiting the Past, Creating the Future , 2013 .

[2]  Steve Caplin,et al.  Principles Of Design , 2011 .

[3]  S. Wheelwright,et al.  The interaction of design hierarchies and market concepts in technological evolution * , 2003 .

[4]  Blanche Segrestin,et al.  Towards a New Logic for Front End Management: From Drug Discovery to Drug Design in Pharmaceutical R&D , 2007 .

[5]  Armand Hatchuel,et al.  Towards an ontology of design: lessons from C–K design theory and Forcing , 2013 .

[6]  Jonas Söderlund,et al.  Reinventing project management, by Aaron Shenhar a Dov Dvir , 2008 .

[7]  Yoram Reich,et al.  A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH OF DESIGN THEORIES USING GENERATIVENESS AND ROBUSTNESS , 2011 .

[8]  Sylvain Lenfle,et al.  The strategy of parallel approaches in projects with unforeseeable uncertainty: the Manhattan case in retrospect , 2011 .

[9]  Yoram Reich,et al.  A critical review of General Design Theory , 1995 .

[10]  Judy L. Klein,et al.  How Reason Almost Lost Its Mind: The Strange Career of Cold War Rationality , 2013 .

[11]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .

[12]  Harvey M. Sapolsky,et al.  The Polaris System Development , 2014 .

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

[14]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial - 3rd Edition , 1981 .

[15]  Richard Rhodes,et al.  The Making of the Atomic Bomb , 1989 .

[16]  Armand Hatchuel,et al.  Towards Design Theory and expandable rationality : The unfinished program of Herbert Simon. 1 , 2003 .

[17]  H. Goldwhite,et al.  The Manhattan Project , 1986 .

[18]  Lillian Hoddeson,et al.  Atomic Science. (Book Reviews: Critical Assembly. A Technical History of Los Alamos During the Oppenheimer Years, 1943-1945.) , 1993 .

[19]  Offer Shai,et al.  Infused design. I. Theory , 2004 .

[20]  K. Clark,et al.  Creating project plans to focus product development. , 1992, Harvard business review.

[21]  Armand Hatchuel,et al.  Teaching at Bauhaus: improving design capacities of creative people? From modular to generic creativity in design-driven innovation , 2013 .

[22]  Pascal Le Masson,et al.  The Value of a 'Failed' R&D Project: An Emerging Evaluation Framework for Building Innovative Capabilities , 2009 .

[23]  Richard G. Hewlett,et al.  The New World, 1939-1946. Volume I of "A History of the United States Atomic Energy Commission" , 1963 .

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

[25]  Sylvain Lenfle,et al.  Exploration, project evaluation and design theory: a rereading of the Manhattan case. , 2012 .

[26]  David A. Hounshell,et al.  The Medium Is the Message, or How Context Matters: The Rand Corporation Builds an Economics of Innovation, 1946–1962 , 2000 .

[27]  Armand Hatchuel,et al.  A theoretical analysis of creativity methods in engineering design: casting and improving ASIT within C–K theory , 2012 .

[28]  Stanley L. Falk,et al.  A History of the United States Atomic Energy Commission. Volume I, The New World, 1939/1946 , 1962 .

[29]  D. Malcolm,et al.  Application of a Technique for Research and Development Program Evaluation , 1959 .

[30]  A. Strauss,et al.  The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research aldine de gruyter , 1968 .

[31]  Yoram Reich,et al.  Topological structures for modeling engineering design processes , 2003 .

[32]  Graham Spinardi,et al.  From Polaris to Trident: The Development of US Fleet Ballistic Missile Technology , 1994 .

[33]  Thomas Gillier,et al.  Managing Innovation Fields in a Cross‐Industry Exploratory Partnership with C–K Design Theory* , 2010 .

[34]  H. Sapolsky.  Inventing Systems Integration , 2003 .

[35]  Wolfgang Beitz,et al.  Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach , 1984 .

[36]  Armand Hatchuel,et al.  C-K design theory: an advanced formulation , 2008 .

[37]  Henry DeWolf Smyth,et al.  Atomic Energy for Military Purposes , 1946, Nature.

[38]  D. L. Marples,et al.  THE DECISIONS OF ENGINEERING DESIGN , 1961, IRE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[39]  Kees Dorst,et al.  Design Problems and Design Paradoxes , 2006, Design Issues.

[40]  R. Serber,et al.  The Los Alamos primer : the first lectures on how to build an atomic bomb , 2020 .

[41]  Armand Hatchuel,et al.  Strategic Management of Innovation and Design , 2010 .