sembled products contexts such as development of process goods, software and new services would aid
in determining the generalizability of the findings across development contexts.
While this paper studied methods that apply to a single project, it would be interesting to explore the
notion of ‘‘balance’’ in the broader context of all the works being done in a firm. There needs to be
balance between project and ongoing functional work
Ž .
activities Gerwin and Susman, 1996 , and balance between a single project and a portfolio of projects
Ž .
Adler et al., 1995 . For example, some forms of autonomy are not always beneficial in the context of
multiple projects or a hierarchy of projects because the given project may infringe on the resources,
Ž power and work process of other projects Gerwin
. and Moffat, 1997a . This is analogous to the classic
manufacturing issue of ‘‘local vs. global optimiza- tion.’’ It is possible to locally optimize a single
product development project at the cost of global benefits such as an effective overall product develop-
ment portfolio or firm level success. Balancing exe- cution methods and success at the project-level with
execution methods and success at the portfolio-level or firm-level is a complicated and sometimes contra-
dictory management challenge worthy of further study.
7. Research on project execution
We hope this study of project management and product development contributes to a renewed re-
search emphasis on project execution. Operations management literature on project management has
primarily addressed network scheduling techniques Ž
. e.g., PERT . These are valuable tools; however,
‘‘scheduling is only one of several serious problems Ž
that the project manager must solve’’ Meredith and .
Mantel, 1995, p. vii . The management of project execution has an ambiguity that is uncomfortable for
researchers accustomed to precision in the statement of project tasks. And yet, it is exactly this ambiguity
that is common in product development practice Ž
. Smith-Daniels, 1997 .
The need for new theory and investigation of work execution at the project level is now receiving
attention in other disciplines. In the marketing field, Ž
. Moorman and Miner 1998 have advocated an ‘‘im-
provisational’’ approach to project work that in- cludes substantial during-project adaptation. In the
Ž . Ž
. strategy field, Eisenhardt and Tabrizi 1995
p. 93 propose the use of an ‘‘experiential strategy’’ that
provides an overall ‘‘order and routine that serves as a counterpoint to the more freewheeling’’ day-to-day
activities of R D work. We noted earlier that orga- nizational information processing theory may be in-
adequate in its explanatory power for the specific context of development projects. A different theory,
with associated new instrumentation and research methods, may be necessary for a deeper explanatory
basis regarding project execution in product develop- ment projects.
Product development projects are ad hoc task forces. For the most part, extant organizational the-
ory addresses either workgroups or company divi- sion-level activities rather than task forces or pro-
jects, which make up an organizational form at a level in between workgroups and divisions. Further,
there is a tremendous need to understand how to manage transitional organizational structures — tem-
porary or ad hoc organizations — that draw on resources from many functions and where the leader-
Ž ship of the temporary organization e.g., the project
. manager
rarely has primary control over project resources. As such, the concerns noted in this paper
regarding product development project execution also apply to other contemporary operations contexts.
After all, the ad hoc task force is simply one form of the ‘‘ virtual organization’’ central to today’s opera-
tions.
8. Conclusions
This paper aimed to contribute to both the new product development and project management litera-
tures by providing a large-sample, cross-sectional, confirmatory test of the effectiveness of selected
project execution approaches in achieving product development project execution success. Specific hy-
potheses were posed based on theory and field obser- vation. This paper differs from the vast majority of
operations management literature on project manage- ment through its focus on mechanisms employed
during the project, rather than on detailed network scheduling techniques for project planning.
The first research question asked, ‘‘How do the project execution methods of formality, project man-
agement autonomy and resource flexibility influence the execution success of product development pro-
jects?’’ We found that these methods are all posi- tively associated with project execution success, and
that firms should adopt these approaches. Further, these methods are effective together, suggesting that
firms can indeed ‘‘balance firmness and flexibility’’ in product development. The second research ques-
tion asked, ‘‘Does the newness of the technology to be developed during the project influence the strength
of the relationship between project execution prac- tices and project execution success?’’ Surprisingly,
the results suggest that the effectiveness of these methods is not contingent on the technology novelty
inherent in a given development project. Therefore, firms can manage a variety of projects using broadly
similar project execution methods.
A deeper understanding of project execution pro- vides relevant guidance to practicing managers. We
found that there are ways to better manage product development projects. In addition, we hope that this
study contributes, in general, to the dialogue on managing projects, and, in particular, to motivating a
renewed research emphasis, including theory devel- opment, on project execution.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to our colleagues who aided in the development of this paper: Barry Bayus, Cecil
Bozarth, J. Robb Dixon, Anne Ilinitch, Lawrence Menor, Jeffrey Miller, Christine Pearson, and Pieter
VanderWerf. We acknowledge the constructive com- ments of the associate editor and anonymous review-
ers. The Product Development Management Associa- tion and the Boston University Center for Enterprise
Ž .
Leadership CEL provided access to member com- panies. The CEL and the Marketing Science Institute
provided financial support.
Appendix A. Variable operationalizations
A.1. Project execution methods The formality scale is made up of the three items
below. The scale is seven-point Likert type, with: 7 s
Completely; 4 s Somewhat; 1 s Not At All. To what degree were project management rules and
procedures formalized via documents such as con- tract book, sign-off forms, and such?
To what degree were formal project management rules and procedures actually followed for this
project?
To what degree were formal progress reviews held Žsometimes also called design, gate, phase or stage
. reviews ?
The project management autonomy scale is made up of the first three items below. The resource flexibil-
ity scale is made up of the second three items. The scale is seven-point Likert type, with: 7 s
Completely Free; 4 s Somewhat Free; 1 s Not Free At All.
With respect to upper management, how free was project management to:
Determine interim schedule targets; Determine the project management approach;
Choose the format of progress reviews; Reallocate financial resources during the project;
Reallocate personnel resources during the project; and
Reallocate equipment resources during the project.
A.2. Technology noÕelty The product technology noÕelty scale is made up
of the first three items below. The process technol- ogy noÕelty scale is made up of the second three
items.
The scale is seven-point Likert type, with: 7 s Completely New; 4 s Somewhat New; 1 s Not New
At All. The following questions ask about the newness of
the technologies to your company, as perceived by the project group, at the beginning of the project.
The beginning of the project is the time by which the major technological approach had been chosen
and project go-ahead was given.
How new, on average, were the product modules
1
? How new was the product configuration
1
? Overall, how new were the product technologies
to be employed in this project? How new, on average, were the individual manu-
facturing stages
2
? How new was the process layout
2
? Overall, how new were the manufacturing tech-
nologies to be employed with this project?
These definitional footnotes were provided.
1
A product is made up of major subsections called modules. Modules may be subassemblies, subsys-
tems, major components, etc. The way the modules are linked together is the product configuration, also
called product architecture or systems design.
2
The manufacturing process is made up of major individual manufacturing stages. A manufacturing
stage can be a fabrication, machining, assembly or packaging process. The order of the stages, and
linkages among the stages, constitutes the process layout.
A.3. Project execution success The overall success of the execution of the prod-
uct development project is a composite of the achievement of the individual project objectives.
Achievement of an individual project objective is Ž
measured with a single item each of the first three .
items below . The scale is nine-point Likert type, with: 9 s
Significantly Better Than Expectations; 7 s Achieved Our Optimistic Estimates; 5 s Exactly On Target;
3 s Achieved Our Pessimistic Estimates; 1 s Significantly Worse Than Expectations.
The questions below address the achievement of the original project objectives. Answer these ques-
tions with respect to how your project group per- Ž
ceived these aspects at the end of the project i.e.,
.
at the time of first customer shipment . To what degree was the:
Original product performance objective met? Original product unit-cost objective met?
Original product time-to-market objective met? Original combination of project objectiÕes met?
The composite project execution success measure is a weighted sum of the individual achievement
Ž .
measures the first three items
and the overall Ž
. achievement measure the fourth item . The fourth
item was weighted 25, while the first three items were collectively weighted 75. This 75 weight
was in turn allocated among the three items based on the relative importance of achieving that project
objective. The items regarding importance of each objective are below.
The scale is seven-point Likert type, with: 7 s Great Importance; 4 s Some Importance; 1 s No
Importance. Project objectives also vary in their importance. At
the beginning of the project, how important was achieving each objective thought to be for project
success:
product performance; unit-cost; and
time-to-market.
This definitional material had been provided ear- lier in the survey:
Project objectives, also called project targets or Ž .
Ž . requirements, are:
1 product performance,
2 Ž .
product unit-cost, and 3 product time-to-market. Product performance includes the technical func-
tionality, quality, and reliability of the product. Time-to-market means the approximate date for
which first customer shipment was planned.
References
Abernathy, W.J., Clark, K.B., 1985. Innovation: mapping the Ž
. winds of creative destruction. Research Policy 14 , 3–22.
Adler, P.S., 1995. Interdepartmental interdependence and coordi- nation: the case of the designrmanufacturing interface. Orga-
Ž . nization Science 6 2 , 147–167.
Adler, P.S., Mandelbaum, A., Nguyen, V., Schwerer, E., 1995. From project to process management: an empirically based
framework for analyzing product development time. Manage- Ž .
ment Science 41 3 , 458–484. Bailetti, A.J., Callahan, R., DiPietro, P., 1994. A coordination
structure approach to the management of projects. IEEE Ž .
Transactions on Engineering Management 41 4 , 394–403. Bailyn, L., 1985. Autonomy in the industrial RD lab. Human
Resource Management 24, 129–146. Barnett, B.D., Clark, K.B., 1996. Technological newness: an
empirical study in the process industries. Journal of Engineer- ing and Technology Management 13, 263–282.
Boyer, K.K., Leong, G.K., Ward, P.T., Krajewski, L.J., 1997. Unlocking the potential of advanced manufacturing technolo-
gies. Journal of Operations Management 15, 331–347. Bozarth, C., Handfield, R., Das, A., 1998. Stages of global
sourcing strategy evolution: an exploratory study. Journal of Operations Management 16, 241–255.
Burns, T., Stalker, G.M., 1961. The Management of Innovation. Tavistock Publishers, London.
Capon, N., Farley, J.U., Lehmann, D.R., Hulbert, J.M., 1992. Profiles of product innovators among large U.S. manufactur-
Ž . ers. Management Science 38 2 , 157–169.
Cardinal, L.B., 2000. Technological innovation in the RD labo- ratory: the use of input, behavior, and output controls in the
pharmaceutical industry. In: Organization Science. forthcom- ing.
Clark, K.B., 1989. Project scope and project performance: the effect of parts strategy and supplier involvement on product
Ž .
development. Management Science 35 10 , 1247–1263. Clark, K.B., Fujimoto, T., 1991. Product Development Perfor-
mance. Harvard Business School Press, Boston. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., 1983. Applied Multiple RegressionrCorrela-
tion Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Cohen, W.M., Levinthal, D.A., 1990. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Sci-
ence Quarterly 35, 128–152. Cooper, G., 1983. A process model for industrial new product
development. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management Ž .
30 1 , 2–11. Cooper, R.G., Kleinschmidt, E., 1990. Stage gate systems for new
Ž . product success. Marketing Management 1 4 , 20–24.
Cronbach, L., 1987. Statistical tests for moderator variables. Psy- chological Bulletin 102, 414–417.
Daft, R.L., Lengel, H., 1984. Information richness: a new ap- proach to managerial behavior and organization design. In:
Ž .
Staw, Cummings Eds. , Research in Organizational Behavior 6pp. 191–233.
Daft, R.L., Lengel, R.H., 1986. Organizational information re- quirements, media richness and structural design. Management
Ž . Science 32 5 , 554–571.
Dean, J.W., Snell, S.A., 1991. Integrated manufacturing and job design: moderating effects of organizational inertia. Academy
Ž . of Management Journal 34 4 , 776–804.
Donnellon, A., 1993. Cross-functional teams in product develop- ment: accommodating the structure to the process. Journal of
Product Innovation Management 10, 377–392. Dougherty, D., 1992. Interpretive barriers to successful product
innovation in large firms. Organization Science 3, 179–202. Eisenhardt, K.M., 1985. Control: organizational and economic
approaches. Management Science 31, 134–149. Eisenhardt, K.M., Tabrizi, B.N., 1995. Accelerating adaptive pro-
cesses: product innovation in the global computer industry. Administrative Science Quarterly 40, 84–110.
Ettlie, J.E., 1995. Product process development integration in Ž .
manufacturing. Management Science 41 7 , 1224–1237. Ettlie, J.E., Bridges, W.P., O’Keefe, R.D., 1984. Organization
strategy and structural differences for radical versus incremen- Ž .
tal innovation. Management Science 30 6 , 682–695. Galbraith, J.R., 1973. Designing Complex Organizations. Addi-
son-Wesley, Reading, MA. Galbraith, J.R., 1977. Organization Design. Addison-Wesley,
Reading, MA. Gerwin, D., Moffat, L., 1997a. Authorizing processes changing
team autonomy during new product development. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 14, 291–313.
Gerwin, D., Moffat, L., 1997b. Withdrawal of team autonomy Ž .
during concurrent engineering. Management Science 43 9 , 1275–1287.
Gerwin, D., Susman, G., 1996. Guest editorial: special issue on concurrent engineering. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Ž . Management 43 2 , 118–123.
Griffin, A., 1997a. The effect of project and process character- istics on product development cycle time. Journal of Market-
ing Research 34, 24–35. Griffin, A., 1997b. PDMA research on new product development
practices. Journal of Product Innovation Management 14, 429–458.
Griffin, A., Page, A.L., 1996. PDMA success measurement pro- ject. Journal of Product Innovation Management 13, 478–496.
Gupta, A.K., Wilemon, D.L., 1990. Accelerating the development of technology-based new products. California Management
Review, 24–44, Winter. Hackman, J.R., Oldham, G.R., 1980. Work Redesign. Addison-
Wesley, Reading, MA. Hauptman, O., Hirji, K.K., 1996. The influence of process concur-
rency and project outcomes in product development: an empir- ical study of cross-functional teams. IEEE Transactions on
Ž . Engineering Management 43 2 , 153–164.
Henderson, R.M., Clark, K.B., 1990. Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the fail-
ure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly 35 Ž .
1 , 9–30. Iansiti, M., 1995. Science-based product development: an empiri-
cal study of the mainframe computer industry. Production and Ž .
Operations Management 4 4 , 335–359.
Imai, K., Ikujiro, N., Takeuchi, H., 1985. Managing the new product development process: how Japanese companies learn
Ž .
and unlearn. In: Hayes, Clark, Lorenz Eds. , The Uneasy Alliance. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, pp. 337–375.
Jaccard, J., Wan, C.K., Turrisi, R., 1990. The detection and interpretation of interaction effects between continuous vari-
ables in multiple regression. Multivariate Behavioral Research 25, 467–478.
Kahn, W., Kram, K., 1994. Authority at work: internal models and their organizational consequences. Academy of Manage-
ment Review 19, 17–50. Katz, R., 1982. The effects of group longevity on project commu-
nication and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly 27, 81–104.
Khurana, A., Rosenthal, S.R., 1997. Integrating the fuzzy front end of new product development. Sloan Management Review
Ž . 38 2 , 103–120.
Kim, Y., Lee, B., 1995. RD project team climate and team Ž .
performance in Korea. RD Management 25 2 , 179–197. Klein, J., 1991. A re-examination of autonomy in light of new
Ž . manufacturing policies. Human Relations 44 1 , 21–38.
Koys, D.J., DeCotiis, T.A., 1991. Inductive measures of psycho- logical climate. Human Relations, 282–318.
Mabert, V.A., Muth, J.F., Schmenner, R.W., 1992. Collapsing new product development times: six case studies. Journal of
Product Innovation Management 9, 200–212. Malhotra, M.J., Grover, V., 1998. An assessment of survey re-
search in POM: from constructs to theory. Journal of Opera- tions Management 16, 407–425.
Meredith, J.R., Mantel, S.J., 1995. Project Management: A Man- agerial Approach. Wiley, New York.
Meyer, M.H., Roberts, E.B., 1986. New product strategy in small technology-based firms: a pilot study. Management Science 32
Ž . 7 , 806–821.
Meyer, M.H., Tertzakian, P., Utterback, J.M., 1997. Metrics for managing research and development in the context of the
Ž . product family. Management Science 43 1 , 88–111.
Meyer, M.H., Utterback, J.M., 1995. Product development cycle time and commercial success. IEEE Transactions on Engineer-
Ž . ing Management 42 4 , 297–304.
Moenaert, R.K., DeMeyer, A., Souder, W.E., Deschoolmeester, D., 1995. RDrmarketing communication during the fuzzy
front-end. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 42 Ž .
3 , 243–258. Moorman, C., Miner, A.S., 1998. The convergence of planning
and execution: improvisation in new product development. Journal of Marketing 62, 1–20, July.
Myers, S., Marquis, D.C., 1969. Successful industrial innovations. National Science Foundation Report 69-17, Washington, DC.
Neter, J., Wasserman, W., Kutner, M.H., 1985. Applied Linear Statistical Models. Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Nunnally, J.C., 1978. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York.
O’Connor, D., 1994. Implementing a stage gate process: a multi- company perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Manage-
ment 11, 183–200. Oldham, G.R., Hackman, J.R., 1981. Relationships between orga-
nizational structure and employee reactions: comparing alter- native frameworks. Administrative Science Quarterly 26, 66–
83. Ouchi, W.G., 1977. The relationship between organization struc-
ture and organizational control. Administrative Science Quar- terly 22, 95–113.
Price, J.L., Mueller, C.W., 1986. Handbook of Organizational Measurement. Pitman Publishing, Marshfield, MA.
Project Management Institute, 1998. Membership Literature, Up- per Darby, PA.
Rosenthal, S.R., 1992. Effective Product Design and Develop- ment. Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Rosenthal, S.R., Tatikonda, M.V., 1993. Time management in new product development: case study findings. IEEE Engi-
Ž . neering Management Review 21 3 , 13–20.
Rothwell, R., Freeman, C., Horlsey, A., Jervis, V.T.P., Robertson, A.B., Townsend, J., 1974. SAPPHO updated — project SAP-
PHO phase II. Research Policy 3, 258–291. Rubenstein, A.H., Chakrabarti, A.K., O’Keefe, R.D., Souder,
W.E., Young, H.C., 1976. Factors influencing innovation suc- cess at the project level. Research Management, 15–20, May.
Schilling, M.A., Hill, C.W.L., 1998. Managing the new product development process: strategic imperatives. Academy of Man-
Ž .
agement Executive 12 30 , 67–81. Scott, W.R., 1981. Organizations. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ. Smith, P.G., Reinertsen, D.G., 1998. Developing Products in Half
the Time. Van Nostrand-Reinhold, New York. Smith-Daniels, D., 1997. Teaching project management to MBAs.
Decision Line, 11–13, May. Souder, W.J., 1974. Autonomy, gratification and RD outputs: a
Ž . small sample field study. Management Science 20 8 , 1147–
1156. Spector, P.E., 1992. Summated Rating Scale Construction. Sage
Publications, Newbury Park, CA. Suh, N., 1990. The Principles of Design. Oxford Univ. Press, New
York. Susman, G.I., Dean, J.W., 1992. Development of a model for
predicting design for manufacturability effectiveness. In: Sus- Ž
. man, G.I. Ed. , Integrating Design and Manufacturing for
Competitive Advantage. Oxford Univ. Press, New York, pp. 207–227.
Swink, M., 1998. A tutorial on implementing concurrent engineer- ing in new product development programs. Journal of Opera-
Ž . tions Management 16 1 , 103–116.
Tatikonda, M.V., 1999. An empirical study of platform and derivative product development projects. Journal of Product
Ž . Innovation Management 16 1 , 3–26.
Tatikonda, M.V., Rosenthal, S.R., 2000. Technology novelty, project complexity and product development project execution
success. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 47 Ž .
1 , 74–87. Thamhain, H.J., 1990. Managing technologically innovative team
efforts toward new product success. Journal of Product Inno- vation Management 7, 5–18.
Tushman, M.L., 1978. Technical communication in RD labora- tories: the impact of project work characteristics. Academy of
Ž . Management Journal 21 4 , 624–645.
Tushman, M.L., 1979. Work characteristics and sub-unit commu- nication structure. Administrative Science Quarterly 24, 82–98.
Tushman, M.L., Nadler, D.A., 1978. Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design. Academy of
Management Review 3, 613–624. Tyre, M.J., Hauptman, O., 1992. Effectiveness of organizational
response mechanisms to technological change in the produc- Ž .
tion process. Organization Science 3 3 , 301–320. Ulrich, K.T., Ellison, D.J., 1999. Holistic customer requirements
Ž . and the design-select decision. Management Science 45 5 ,
641–658. Utterback, J.M., 1994. Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation.
Harvard Business School Press, Boston. Van de Ven, A.H., Ferry, D.L., 1980. Measuring and Assessing
Organizations. Wiley-Interscience, New York. Vickery, S.K, Droge, C., Markland, R.E., 1997. Dimensions of
manufacturing strength in the furniture industry. Journal of Operations Management 15, 317–330.
Wheelwright, S.C., Clark, K.B., 1992a. Creating project plans to focus product development. In: Harvard Business Review. pp.
70–82, MarchrApril. Wheelwright, S.C., Clark, K.B., 1992b. Revolutionizing Product
Development. Free Press, New York. Wind, J., Mahajan, V., 1997. Issues and opportunities in new
product development. Journal of Marketing Research 34, 1–11, February.
Zirger, B.J., Hartley, J.L., 1996. The effect of acceleration tech- niques on product development time. IEEE Transactions on
Ž . Engineering Management 43 2 , 143–152.
Zirger, B.J., Maidique, M.A., 1990. A model of new product Ž .
development: an empirical test. Management Science 36 7 , 867–883.
