Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Project-Based Knowledge in Organizing Open Innovation pp 51–67Cite as

A Project-Based Perspective on Complex Product Development

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

In this chapter we review the literature on complex product development focusing on a project-based perspective. We start from showing the specific nature of complex product development processes, and acknowledge the need for relying on external sources of innovation and evaluating its organizational implications. We then focus on the challenges of leveraging such dispersed knowledge, pointing to the specific problems brought by the crucial role of “learning by doing” in complex product innovation processes. The chapter highlights the necessity of shifting the focus of attention from firms’ knowledge boundaries to the project knowledge boundaries, so as to gain a more fine-grained analysis of some important phenomena that happen “around” the formal boundary of the firm and cope with knowledge development problems. In the conclusion we hint at the necessity to investigate in more depth how using development projects as unit of analysis can contribute to offering new ways of performing organizational ambidexterity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For the arguments in this section, see also Zirpoli and Becker (2011a, b) in which we draw on our empirical work carried out in the automotive industry.

  2. 2.

    Original equipment manufacturers. In the automotive industry, OEM companies include, for example, General Motors, Ford, and Toyota. In some industries, such as electronics, OEMs build products or components used in products sold by another company (often called a value-added reseller, or VAR), in others they are identified as ODM (Original Design Manufacturer). Here, we refer to the OEM as the leader in its value chain, i.e., as the final system integrator.

  3. 3.

    Empirical evidences show that firms that pushed the balance of architectural versus component-specific knowledge to the extreme limit by trying to focus on architectural knowledge and outsourcing as much component-specific knowledge as possible, are reported to have problems (Fine and Whitney 1996; Lincoln et al. 1998). In turn, this implies serious problems in coordinating and governing suppliers, leading to an increasing risk of dependency on suppliers (Fine 1998).

References

  • Ahn, J. H., Lee, D. J., Lee, S. Y., (2006). Balancing business performance and knowledge performance of new product development: Lessons from ITS industry. Long Range Planning 39(5): 525–542.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ancona, D. G., Caldwell, D., (1990). Beyond boundary spanning: Managing external dependence in product development teams. The Journal of High Technology Management Research 1(2): 119–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argote. L., (1999). Organizational learning: creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge. Boston: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argote, L., Epple, D., (1990). Learning curves in manufacturing, Science 247(Feb): 920–924.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayas, K., (1997). Integrating corporate learning with project management. International Journal of Production Economics 51(1–2): 59–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bahemia, H., Squire, B., (2010). A contingent perspective of open innovation in new product development projects. International Journal of Innovation Management 14(4): 603–627.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, C. Y., Clark, K. B., (2000). Design rules: Volume 1. The power of modularity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benner, M. J., Tushman, M. L., (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review 28(2): 238–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonesso, S., Comacchio, A., Pizzi, C., (2011). Technology sourcing decisions in exploratory projects. Technovation 31(10–11): 573–585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bresnen, M., Goussevskaia A., Swan J., (2004). Embedding new management knowledge in project-based organizations. Organization Studies 25(9): 1535–1555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brusoni, S., Prencipe, A., (2001). Unpacking the black box of modularity: technologies, products and organizations, Industrial & Corporate Change 10(1): 179–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brusoni, S., Prencipe, A., (2006). Making design rules: a multidomain perspective. Organization Science 17(2): 179–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brusoni, S., Prencipe, A., Salter, A., (1998). Mapping and measuring innovation in project-based firms. CoPS Working Paper No. 46, SPRU, University of Sussex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brusoni, S., Prencipe, A., Pavitt, K., (2001). Knowledge specialization, organization coupling, and the boundaries of the firm: Why do firms know more than they make? Administrative Science Quarterly 46(4): 597–625.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campagnolo, D., Camuffo, A., (2010). The concept of modularity in management studies: a literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews 12, 259–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassiman, B., Di Guardo, M.C., Valentini, G., (2010). Organizing links with science: Cooperate or contract? A project-level analysis. Research Policy 39(7): 882–892.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H.W., (2003). Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H., Kusunoki, K., (2001). The modularity trap: innovation, technology phases shifts and the resulting limits of virtual organisations, in Nonaka, I., Teece D. (eds). Managing Industrial Knowledge: Creation, Transfer and Utilization. (pp. 202–230). London: Sage Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, J.F., (2006). Wither core competency for the large corporation in an open innovation world?, in Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., West, J. (eds). Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm. (pp. 35–61). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, K.B., (1989). Project scope and project performance: the effect on parts strategy and supplier involvement in product development. Management Science 35(10): 1247–1263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, K.B., Fujimoto T., (1991). Product development performance. strategy, organization and management in the world auto industry. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W.M., Levinthal, D.A., (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1): 128–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cusumano, M., Nobeoka, K., (1998). Thinking beyond lean: how multi-project management is transforming product development at Toyota and Other Companies. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, A., Brady, T., (2000). Organisational capabilities and learning in complex product systems: towards repeatable solutions. Research Policy 29(7–8): 931–953.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Maio, A., Verganti, R., Corso, M., (1994). A multi-project management framework for product development. European Journal of Operational Research 78(2): 178–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dierickx, I., Cool, K., (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science 35(12) 1504–1513.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, R.B., (1976). The ambidextrous organization: designing dual structures for innovation, In Kilman, R.H., Pondy, L.R., Slevin, D.P., (eds). The Management of Organization Design (vol.1, pp. 167–188): North-Holland: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engwall, M., (2003): No project is an island: linking projects to history and context, Research Policy 32(5): 789–808.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fine, C.H., (1998). Clockspeed: winning industry control in the age of temporary advantage. Reading, MA: Perseus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fine, C.H., Whitney, D.E., (1996). Is the make-buy decision process a core competence?, April (MIT unpublished manuscript).

    Google Scholar 

  • Frigant, V., Talbot, D., (2005). Technological determinism and modularity: lessons from a comparison between aircraft and auto industries in Europe, Industry & Innovation 12(3): 337–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gann, D.M., Salter A., (2000). Innovation in project-based, service enhanced firms: the construction of complex products and systems. Research Policy 29(9): 55–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C.B., Birkinshaw, J., (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of management Journal 47(2): 209–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helper, S.R., MacDuffie, J.P., Sabel, C., (2000). Pragmatic collaborations: advancing knowledge while controlling opportunism. Industrial and Corporate Change 9(3): 443–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R.M., Clark, K.B., (1990). Architectural Innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1): 9–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hippel, von E., (1988). The Sources of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoang, H., Rothaermel F.T., (2010). Leveraging internal and external experience: exploration, exploitation and R&D project performance. Strategic Management Journal 31(7): 734–758.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobday, M., (2000). The project-based organization: an ideal form for managing complex products and systems? Research Policy 29(7–8): 871–893.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobday, M., Davies A., Prencipe, A., (2005). Systems integration: a core capability of the modern corporation. Industrial and Corporate Change 14(6): 1109–1143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh K.N., Tidd, J., (2012). Open versus closed new service development: the influences of project novelty. Technovation 32(11): 600–608.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iansiti, M., (1995). Shooting the rapids: managing product development in turbulent environments. California Management Review 38(1): 37–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iansiti, M., Clark K.B., (1994). Integration and dynamic capability: evidence from product development in automobiles and mainframe computers, Industrial and Corporate Change 3(3): 557–605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson, C., Ahlström, P., (1996). The difficult path to lean product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management 13(4): 283–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keegan, A., Turner, J.R., (2002). The management of innovation in project-based firms. Long Range Planning 35(4): 367–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, E.H., Bierly, P.E., Gopalakrishnan, S., (2000). Internal vs. external learning in new product development: effect on speed, costs and competitive advantage. R&D Management 30(3): 213–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., Zander, U., (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science 3(3): 383–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, E.W., Gobeli, D.H., (1989). Significance of project management structure on development success. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 36(2): 119–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton, D., (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal 13(S1): 111–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D.A., March J.G., (1993). The myopia of learning, Strategic Management Journal 14(S2): 95–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, J.R., Ahmadjian, C.L., Mason, E., (1998). Organizational learning and purchase-supply relations in japan: hitachi, matsushita and toyota compared, California Management Review 40(3): 241–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, L., Leitner D., (2012). Simultaneous pursuit of innovation and efficiency in complex engineering projects - A study of the antecedents and impacts of ambidexterity in project teams. Project Management Journal 43(6): 97–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDuffie, J.P., (2013). Modularity-as-Property, Modularization-as-Process, and Modularity-as-Frame: lessons from product architecture initiatives in the global automotive industry. Global Strategy Journal 3(1): 1–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J.G., (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organization learning. Organization Science 2(1): 71–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikkola, J., (2006). Capturing the degree of modularity embedded in product architectures. Journal of Product Innovation Management 23(2): 128–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miozzo, M., Grimshaw, D., (2005). Modularity and innovation in knowledge-intensive business services: IT outsourcing in Germany and the UK. Research Policy 34(9): 1419–1439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mom, T.J., Van Den Bosch, F.A., Volberda, H.W., (2007). Investigating managers’ exploration and exploitation activities: the influence of Top-Down, Bottom-Up, and horizontal knowledge inflows. Journal of Management Studies 44(6): 910–931.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nesta, L., Dibiaggio, L., (2003). Technology strategy and knowledge dynamics: the case of biotech. Industry & Innovation 10(3): 329–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell, S., Edelman L.F., (2008). Developing a dynamic project learning and cross-project learning capability: synthesizing two perspectives. Information Systems Journal 18(6): 567–591.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nishiguchi, T., (1994). Strategic Industrial Sourcing. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nobeoka, K., (1995). Inter-project learning in new product development. Academy of Management Proceedings August: 432–436. doi:10.5465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nobeoka, K., Cusumano, M.A., (1997). Multi-project strategy and sales growth: the benefits of rapid design transfer in new product development. Strategic Management Journal 18(3): 169–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H., (1995). The knowledge-creating company. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C.A., Tushman, M.L., (2004). The ambidexterous organization. Harvard Business Review (April): 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C.A., Tushman M.L., (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior 28, 185–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W., (2002). Knowing in practice: enabling a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science 13(3): 249–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parmigiani, A., (2007). Why do firms both make and buy? An investigation of concurrent sourcing. Strategic Management Journal 28(3): 285–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parmigiani, A., Mitchell, W. (2009). Complementarity, capabilities, and the boundaries of the firm: the impact of within-firm and inter-firm expertise on soncurrent sourcing of complementary components. Strategic Management Journal 30(10): 1025–1132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prencipe, A., (2003). Corporate strategy and systems integration capabilities - managing networks in complex systems industries. In Prencipe, A., Davies, A., Hobday, M. (eds). The Business of Systems Integration. (pp. 114–132) Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prencipe, A., Tell, F., (2001). Inter-project learning: processes and outcomes of knowledge codification in project-based firms. Research Policy 30(9): 1373–1394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinto, M.B., Pinto J.K., (1990). Project team communications and cross-functional cooperation in new program development. Journal of Product Innovation Management 7 (3): 200–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M., (1966). The Tacit Dimension. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W.W., Koput, K.W., Smith-Doerr, L., (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly 41(1): 116–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothwell, R., (1992). Successful industrial innovation - critical factors for the 1990s. R&D Management 22(3): 221–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salge, T.O., Farchi, T., Barrett, M.I., Dopson, S., (2013). When does search openness really matter? A contingency study of health-care innovation projects. The Journal of Product Innovation Management 30(4): 659–676.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salvador, F., (2007). Towards a product system modularity construct: literature review and reconceptualization. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 54(2): 219–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez, R., Mahoney, J.T., (1996). Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management Journal 17(1): 63–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shenhar, A., Dvir D., (2007). Reinventing project management: the diamond approach to successful growth and innovation. Boston: Harvard Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staudenmeyer, N., Tripsas, M., Tucci, C., (2005). Interfirm modularity and its implications for product development, Journal of Product Innovation Management 22(4): 303–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sturgeon, T.J., (2002). Modular production networks: a new american model of industrial organization. Industrial and Corporate Change 11(3): 451–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swan, J., Scarbrough, H., Newell, S., (2010). Why don’t (or do) organizations learn from projects? Management Learning 41(3): 325–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Takeishi, A., (2001). Bridging inter- and intra-firm boundaries: management of supplier involvement in automobile product development. Strategic Management Journal 22(5): 403–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Takeishi, A., (2002). Knowledge partitioning in the inter-firm division of labor: the case of automotive product development. Organization Science 13(may-june): 321–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Takeishi, A., Fujimoto, T., (2003). Modularization in the car industry: interlinked multiple hierarchies of product, production, and supplier systems. In Prencipe, A., Davies, A. Hobday, M. (eds). The Business of Systems Integration. (pp 254–278). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tatikonda, M.V., Rosenthal, S.R., (2000). Successful execution of product development projects: balancing firmness and flexibility in the innovation process. Journal of Operations Management 18(4): 401–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M.L., O’Reilly C.A., (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review 38(4): 8–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M., Smith W.K., Woody, R.C., Westerman, G., O’Reilly C.A., (2010). Organizational designs and innovation streams. Industrial and Corporate Change 19(5): 1331–1366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, K.T., (1995). The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Research Policy 24(3): 419–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weigelt, C., (2009). The impact of outsourcing new technologies on integrative capabilities and performance. Strategic Management Journal 30(6): 595–616.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, J., Iansiti, M., (2003). Experience, experimentation, and the accumulation of knowledge: the evolution of R&D in the semiconductor industry. Research Policy 32(5): 809–825.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheelwright, S.C., Clark, K.B., (1992a). Revolutionizing product development. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheelwright, S.C., Clark, K.B., (1992b). Creating project plans to focus product development. Harvard Business Review March-April, 70–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, T., (2003). Learning from projects. Journal of the Operational Research Society 54(5): 443–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winch, G., (1997). Thirty years of project management. What have we learned? Presented at British Academy of Management. Aston University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, S.G., Szulanski, G., (2001). Replication as strategy. Organization Science 12(6): 730–743.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zedtwitz, von M., (2002). Organizational learning through post-project reviews in R&D. R&D Management 32(3): 255–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zirpoli, F., Becker, M.C., (2011a). The limits of design and engineering outsourcing: performance integration and the unfulllled promises of modularity. R&D Management 41(1): 21–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zirpoli, F., Becker, M.C., (2011b). What happens when you outsource too much. MIT Sloan Management Review 52(2): 59–64.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Strategic Organization Design Unit, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, 5230, Odense M, Denmark

    Markus Becker

  2. Institute for Service Industry Research (IRAT), Italian National Research Council (CNR), Via Guglielmo Sanfelice, 8, 80134, Napoli, Italy

    Luisa Errichiello

  3. Department of Management, Ca’ Foscari University of Venezia, San Giobbe Cannaregio, 873, 30121, Venezia, Italy

    Francesco Zirpoli

Authors
  1. Markus Becker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luisa Errichiello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Francesco Zirpoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Markus Becker .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Venezia, Italy

    Sara Bonesso

  2. Venezia, Italy

    Anna Comacchio

  3. Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Venezia, Italy

    Claudio Pizzi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Becker, M., Errichiello, L., Zirpoli, F. (2014). A Project-Based Perspective on Complex Product Development. In: Bonesso, S., Comacchio, A., Pizzi, C. (eds) Project-Based Knowledge in Organizing Open Innovation. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-6509-5_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-6509-5_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-6508-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-6509-5

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation