Data analysis Methodological reflection on Case Study 2

for each case separately and each test result rejection or confirm- ation was evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

5.5.10 Implications for the theory

The hypothesis that successful product innovation projects possessed ideal typical organizational configurations was rejected. None of the six ideal types proved to be a necessary condition for initially expected project success in these 15 cases. Case Study 2 suggests, as one possible implication for the theory, that the proposition itself might not be correct. However, assuming that the exploration phase at the very beginning of the research project was conducted in a serious manner and that, thus, the proposition that was formulated and tested was based on sound practical and theoretical insights, such a conclusion would be a significant one that cannot be drawn lightly, and other possible reasons for the rejection of the hypothesis in all 15 cases should be evaluated. Below we elaborate on the evaluation as presented in 5.4.11. 1. Case Study 2 rejects the likelihood that the test results were the result of a too-strict test procedure. The reason for this rejec- tion was that “a large number of the successful projects deviate not marginally but rather substantially from the predicted pro- file”. However, if something was wrong with the measurement of the four organizational dimensions, this would have had a direct effect on the test. If it is assumed that the measurement of these dimensions was too unreliable for justifying the mid- dle value M and if, for that reason, the researchers would be forced to decide whether the value is H or L, it is possible that a number of tests would have resulted in a confirmation of the hypothesis. Repeating the same test on the same cases with dif- ferent measurement procedures might yield different results. 2. It might be that the ideal type itself not the test was too strict. Why should it be necessary for a success to occur that an organizational configuration is exactly as prescribed on all four dimensions, and for all types of product innovation? Could it be possible that having an ideal typical organizational configuration consisting of only three dimensions is a neces- sary condition for success for one type of product innovation, and an ideal type consisting of specific values of another set of three dimensions for another type of product innovation? Or, in other words, why must an ideal typical configuration have one and only one value on all four dimensions? 3. The theory on which the typology is based has been devel- oped in specific industries not the telecommunications industry. The typology might be correct for those other industries, as discussed in Case Study 2. 4. In the literature on success factors for innovation projects, other measures than “relative success” have been used. If suc- cess is defined in terms of a more stable criterion, it could be easier to show that success is influenced by organizational dimensions. Also, other cases could be identified as “success- ful” and the test could, therefore, involve other cases. 5. Although Case Study 2 is presented as a test of one typology, it is actually a test of six different ideal typical configurations. Test results could be evaluated for each ideal typical configu- ration separately, resulting in specific conclusions for types of innovation. We will expand on this point in the next section.

5.5.11 Replication strategy

Case Study 2 suggests a replication strategy in which the proposition is tested in another domain physical products, rather than software products. This decision is based on an overall assessment of the test result of 15 cases. Another approach would be to have different strat- egies for different types of innovation. For three types of innovation incremental innovation for peripheral components, modular innova- tion, and radical innovation three to five parallel tests were per- formed, which all resulted in a rejection. This could mean that the proposition was not correct and new propositions need to be formu- lated. Case Study 2 suggests that a more thorough literature study is needed to find which results could be confronted with the present findings. However, the conclusion that the proposition must be refor- mulated seems to be premature for the other three types of innovation incremental innovation for core components, architectural innov- ation for core components, and architectural innovation for peripheral components. For these types of innovation, only a single test was con- ducted in which the hypothesis was rejected. A proper strategy would be to replicate this test before the theory is abandoned. The aim of such a replication strategy is to find a “most likely” case i.e. a case in Chapter 5