BazEkon - The Main Library of the Cracow University of Economics

BazEkon home page

Main menu

Kwiotkowska Anna (Silesian University of Technology, Poland)
The Impact of Organizational Characteristics on R&D Projects Performance in High-tech Company
Organization & Management : Scientific Quarterly, 2019, nr 4 (48), s. 45-57, tab., bibliogr. 33 poz.
Sfera B+R w przedsiębiorstwie, Zarządzanie projektem, Nowe technologie
R&D in the enterprise, Project management, High-tech
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. (original abstract)
The Library of Warsaw School of Economics
The Library of University of Economics in Katowice
Full text
  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.
Cited by
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on Pinterest Share on LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu