The impact of organizational characteristics on R&D projects performance in high-tech company

• Autorzy: Kwiotkowska Anna

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.29119/1899-6116.2019.48.4

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

In this study the impact of selected organizational characteristics on R&D projects performance were analyzed. The data for the empirical analysis come from a survey of 131 R&D projects across 53 high-tech business units. This study employs a configurational approach, using fuzzy set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fs/QCA), to analyze the combination of structural differentiation, innovation strategy, cooperation with stakeholders, and project team autonomy with the performance of R&D projects. The results suggest that no single organizational characteristic is crucial to ensure the success of R&D projects but three causality paths lead to that outcome. Because of significant interdependencies, the main organizational characteristic contributing to the success of R&D projects in the high-tech company concern innovation strategy in connection with either cooperation with stakeholders or project team autonomy or structural differentiation.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

organizational characteristics; R&D projects; fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis; high-tech organization

PL

charakterystyka organizacyjna; projekt R&D; rozmyta jakościowa analiza porównawcza; organizacja wysokich technologii

• Wydawca: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Śląskiej
• Czasopismo: Organizacja i Zarządzanie : kwartalnik naukowy
• Rocznik: 2019
• Tom: nr 4
• Strony: 45--57
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 33 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Kwiotkowska Anna

• Silesian University of Technology, Gliwice

Bibliografia

• 1. Beckman, S., and Sinha, K.K. (2005). Conducting academic research with an industry focus: Production and operations management in the high tech industry. Production and Operations Management, 14(2), 115-124.
• 2. Belderbos, R., Carree, M., and Lokshin, B. (2004). Cooperative R&D and firm performance. Research Policy, 33, 1477-1492.
• 3. Belso Martínez, J.A., Molina-Morales, F.X., and Mas-Verdu, F. (2013). Perceived usefulness of innovation programs for high-tech and low-tech firms. Management Decision, 51(6), 1190-1206.
• 4. Bourne, L. (2005). Project relationship management and the stakeholder circleTM, RMIT University.
• 5. Burton, R., Obel, B. (2004). Strategic organizational diagnosis and design: the dynamics of fit. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Press.
• 6. Chandrasekaran, A., Linderman, K., and Schroeder, R.G. (2012). Antecedents to ambidexterity competency in high-technology organizations. Journal of Operations Management, 30(1-2), 134-151.
• 7. Chandrasekaran, A., Linderman, K., and Schroeder, R. (2015). The Role of Project and Organizational Context in Managing High-tech R&D Projects. Production and Operations Management, 24(4), 560-586.
• 8. Dahlgren, J., Söderlund, J. (2010). Modes and mechanisms of control in multiproject organizations: the R&D case. International Journal of Technology Management, 50, 1-22.
• 9. Dent, J.F. (1990). Strategy, organization and control: some possibilities for accounting research. Accounting, Organization and Society, 15(1-2), 3-25.
• 10. Fiss, P.C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393-420.
• 11. Ganter, A., and Hecker, A. (2014). Configurational paths to organizational innovation: Qualitative comparative analyses of antecedents and contingencies. Journal of Business Research, 67, 1285-1292.
• 12. Gerwin, D., and Barrowman, N. J. (2002). An evaluation of research on integrated product development. Management Science, 48(7), 938-953.
• 13. Gilbert, C. 2005. Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resources versus routine rigidity. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 741-763.
• 14. Hoand, H., and Rothaermel, F. (2010). Leveraging internal and external experience: exploration, exploitation, and R&D project performance. Strategic management Journal, 31, 734-758.
• 15. Hoegl, M., Weinkauf, K., and Gemuenden, H.G. (2004). Interteam coordination, project commitment, and teamwork in mutliteam R&D projects: A longitudinal study. Organization Science, 15(1), 38-55.
• 16. Ika, L., Diallo, A., and Thuillier, D. (2012). Critical success factors for world bank projects: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Project Management, 30(1), 105-116.
• 17. Jansen, J.P., Van den Bosch, F.A.J., and Volberda, H.W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661-1674.
• 18. Jepsen, A.L., and Eskerod, P. (2009). Stakeholder analysis in projects: Challenges in using current guidelines in the real world. International Journal of Projects Management, 27(4), 335-343.
• 19. Langfield-Smith, K. (2006). A review of quantitative research in management control systems and strategy. In C.S. Chapman, A.G. Hopwood, M.D. Shield (Eds.), Handbooks of Management Accounting Research, 2, 753-783.
• 20. Lewis, M.W., Welsh, M.A., Dehler, G.E., and Green, S.G. (2002). Product development tensions: Exploring contrasting styles of project management. Academy of Management Journal, 45(3), 546-564.
• 21. March, J.G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2 (special issue: Organizational learning), 71-87.
• 22. Mavi, R.K., and Standing, C. (2018). Critical success factors of sustainable project management in construction: A fuzzy DEMATEL-ANP approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 194, 751-765.
• 23. Miterev, M., Turner, J.R., and Mancini, M. (2017). The organization design perspective on the project-based organization: a structured review. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 10(3), 527-549.
• 24. Project Management Institute, PMI, (2013). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide). United States, PA.
• 25. Ragin, C.C. (2000). Fuzzy set social science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• 26. Ragin, C.C. (2006). Set relations in social research: Evaluating their consistency and coverage. Political Analysis, 14(3), 291-310.
• 27. Ragin, C.C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• 28. Rihoux, B., Ragin, C.C. (2009). Configurational comparitive methods: qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
• 29. Sethi, R., Iqbal, Z., Sethi, A. (2012). Developing new-to-the firm products: The role of micropolitical strategies. Journal of Marketing, 76(2), 99-115.
• 30. Simons, R. (1987). Accounting control systems and business strategy: an empirical analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12(4), 357-374.
• 31. Stewart, G.L. (2006). A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. Journal of Management, 32(1), 29-54.
• 32. Vidgen, R., Wang, X. (2009). Coevolving systems and the organization of agile software development. Information Systems Research, 20(3), 329-354.
• 33. Woodside, A.G. (2013). Moving beyond multiple regression analysis to algorithms: Calling for adoption of a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data analysis and crafting theory, Journal of Business Research, 66(4), 463-472

Uwagi

PL

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa Nr 461252 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2020).