Replication strategy How to test a sufficient or a necessary condition with a case study

replication strategy to test the proposition in instances that are “less simi- lar”. The replication strategy in such a further series of tests depends on the outcome of each test. If the proposition is supported again and again, then we recommend a replication strategy in instances in which confirmation of the hypothesis is increasingly “less likely”. If the proposition is not supported in a number of instances, and researchers think that the proposition itself is correct, though only for a more limited domain, then a replication in “most likely” cases is rec- ommended. The contrast between an instance in which the propos- ition is confirmed and one in which it is not might indicate the boundary of the domain to which the proposition applies. The number of replications is virtually unlimited. A theory can always be developed further. The only limitations are practical, such as resource constraints. Box 11 An example of a theory-testing single case study Sarker and Lee 2002 tested three “theories-in-use” of business process redesign using what they call “a positivist case study”. These three theories are the technocentric TC, the sociocentric SC, and the sociotechnical ST theories of redesign. Based on the literature, they formulated statements for each of these three theories in which their core beliefs regarding effective business process redesign are expressed: TC statement 1: Effective business process redesign can occur only if the redesigning is IT-driven. TC statement 2: Successful design and installation of enabling IT guarantees the effectiveness of business process redesign and the effectiveness of the implementation of redesigned business processes. SC statement 1: Effective redesign of processes can be accomplished only if the redesign is driven by leadership’s vision regarding the reengineered processes. SC statement 2: Effective redesign of processes can be accomplished only if a balanced team undertakes redesign. ST statement 1: Effective redesign of processes can be accomplished only if an understanding of both the IT and the business processes within the social context is used during redesign. ST statement 2: Effective redesign of a process can occur only if the redesigners seek to enhance the functional coupling in the business process through the use of technological as well as social enablers. Five of these statements namely TC1, SC1, SC2, ST1, and ST2 express a necessary con- dition. One statement TC2 expresses a sufficient condition. These statements were tested in a single instance of successful business process redesign. ■ TC2 could not be tested because enabling IT was not successfully designed in this case. ■ TC1 was rejected because redesigning in this case had not been IT-driven. ■ SC1 was rejected because the redesign was not based on the leadership’s vision of the process flows. ■ SC2 was rejected because there was no evidence of the existence of a balanced team. ■ ST1 was confirmed. The redesign effort involved a sequential-recursive design process in which the relation between the social and the technical was taken into account. ■ ST2 was confirmed as well. Redesigners used technological as well as social enablers as described in this statement. It is interesting that the authors do not use the word “confirmed” but state instead that they “failed to reject” the ST statements. They state that this study has successfully challenged the technocentric theory regarding business process design and also invalidates the socio- centric theory, “thereby demonstrating the lack of survivability of both these perspectives”. This is in accordance with our view that the development of a theory primarily entails seek- ing rejections of propositions in “most likely” cases rather than seeking confirmation. Testing a theory of collaboration characteristics of successful innovation projects 1 by Koen Dittrich

5.2.1 Introduction

Because companies need to be innovative in order to survive in a tur- bulent environment Hamel and Prahalad, 1994, the management of innovation projects is of paramount importance. One way to organ- ize innovation projects is to collaborate with partners in alliances. This chapter describes testing a theory of collaboration characteristics of successful innovation projects.

5.2 Case Study 1: Theory-testing research: testing a necessary condition

1 This chapter is based on: Dittrich, K., 2004. Innovation Networks: exploration and exploitation in the ICT industry. Delft, Delft University of Technology. ISBN: 90-5638-126-1.

5.2.2 Theory

5.2.2.1 Object of study

The object of study in this chapter is an alliance project in which two or more firms collaborated on product innovation. We will call this type of alliance project an “innovation project”.

5.2.2.2 Concepts

The concepts of interest in this study are: ■ type of innovation; ■ success of the project; ■ collaboration characteristics. Generally two main types of innovation are distinguished: radical innov- ation in which both the technology and the market are new and cus- tomer needs are unknown, and incremental innovation, consisting of the improved use of existing technologies to meet known customer needs Henderson and Clark, 1990. The literature on these different types of innovation suggests that for the success of the project, differ- ent kinds of collaboration in alliances are needed. Success in this study is defined as a successful product launch: not in terms of high revenues or sales of a new product after its launch. This new product can also be a new service or new software. Three collaboration characteristics seem to be particularly important: collaboration history, technological capabilities, and level of commit- ment. It is claimed, for instance, that successful incremental innovation projects need partners that are committed to long-term collaboration, whereas such long-term commitment is not considered necessary for radical innovation projects. Collaboration history here means whether or not firms have collaborated in an innovation project before. A new partner firm is a firm with which the company has not previously engaged in an innovation project. Technological capabilities are determined based on the line of business that firms are in. A collaboration with a high level of commitment is an alliance that is explicitly oriented to a long-term relationship such as, for instance, a joint venture that is also targeted at developing other new products or technologies in the future. In con- trast, we considered explicit limitations to the scope of the collaboration such as confining the collaboration only to joint research or only the development of new technology or products, or to the duration of the project as indications of lower commitment.