Samenvatting artikelen:

1. Cardinal LB (2001). Technological innovation in the pharmaceutical

industry: The use of organizational control in managing Research and
Development. Organization Science 12(1): 19-36.
2. Cooper, RG (2008). Perspective: The stage gate idea-to-launch process
update, whats new, and nextgen systems. Journal of Product Innovation
Management 25(3): 213-232.
3. Gassmann O, von Zedtwitz M (2003). Trends and determinants of
managing virtual R&D teams. R&D Management 33(3): 243-262.
4. Jansen JJP, Van den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2006). Exploratory innovation,
exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational
antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science 52(11):
1661-1674.
5. Sethi R, Iqbal Z (2008). Stage gate controls, learning failure, and adverse
effect on novel new products. Journal of Marketing 72(1): 118-134.
6. Song M, Berends H, van der Bij H, Weggeman M (2007). The effect of IT
and co-location on knowledge dissemination. Journal of Product Innovation
Management 24(1): 52-68.

Trends and determinants of managing virtual R&D teams

gassmann and zedtwitz.
Four types of organization for virtual R&D teams:
1. Decentralized self coordination
2. System integration coordinator
3. Core team as system architect
4. Centralized venture team.
Decentralized self-coordination
- No strong central project managers and no singe authority enforces a rigid
time schedule.
- Due to the high degree of decentralization, communication and
coordination is primarily based on modern information and communication
technologies such as the internet etc.
- Intrinsic motivation is important!
- Coordination is relatively weak. Little face-to-face contact.
- Lack of formal project authority.
- Decentralized self-coordinating teams in developments can only emerge if
standards for interfaces between locally developed modules are already
available and clearly defined.
- Is well suited for organizations with independent business units that have a
high self-interest in the development of the product component they
manufacture.
- The overall project is supervised by a steering committee that approves
and assignes the project budget.
- Best in incremental or high modular innovation.
- Since there is relatively little interaction between these teams, it is unlikely
that integrated solutions are found. There is no central project coordination
with strong authority and decision power.
System integrator as R&D coordinator
- Interface problems that occur in self-organizing teams can be reduced if a
system integrator assumes a coordination role.
- A system integrator harmonized interfaces between integrated product
management teams and local teams, defines work packages and
coordinates decentralized R&D activities. Ensure coherence of individual
project team aims.
- This project organisation is used to tap locally available expertise for
product upgrades or refinement of work
- A geographically central location for the integrators office is hence
important in order to reduce the otherwise significant travel burden and to
facilitate meetings between teams and the integrator
- Diverging interest of project teams can endanger project success, since the
system integrator has still little decision authority over the decentralized
teams
o Through communication, personal commitment and frequent travel
the system integrator aims to build and informal network and can
decrease this danger.
The core team as a system architect

Companies whose R&D teams work closely together control their product
developments processes better. But collocating all project members and
equipment may be very costly and sometimes impossible.
o The best solution is to form a core team of key decision makers who
meet regularly to direct decentralized R&D work.
A core team has higher intensity of interlocal communication and a more
integrating problem solution compared to the above two teams.
The core team consists of a project manager, team leaders of
decentralized projects team and internal business customers.
o Teamleaders and project managers meet in one centralized location.
The core team develops the system architecture of a new product and
maintains coherence of the system during the entire project duration.
Good linkages between the core team and the supervising project steering
committee are a must: they guarantee direct info flow between project
teams and product champions.
Core teams are inevitable (noodzakelijk) if highly innovative products
are to be developed and intralocal project execution is not possible
because of restricted resources!

Centralized venture team

- Centralized venture teams can be extremely expensive (due to high costs
of relocating R&D personnel and resource in one location) and therefore
only used for strategic projects!
- A heavyweight project manager exercises unrestricted command over the
resources assigned to him.
o One or several steering committees supervise the project.
- Physical collocation for face-to-face communication and good informal
linkages between team members are regarded as the principal factors for
effective and short-time development.
- Centralizing research teams may be the only way to achieve challenging
goals under intense time pressure until information and communication
technologies become more powerful and versatile.

Determinants of transnational R&D organization

The above concepts differ in: power of the project manager and the geographic
distribution of the greatest part of the team. This explains not why a concept is
chosen.
Four determinants for choosing a specific organizational form of transnational
R&D organization:
1. Type of innovation incremental/radical

2. Nature of the project systematic/autonomous

3. Knowledge mode explicit/tacit
4. Degree of resource bundling redundant/complementary
Ad 1. Type of innovation
- Incremental innovation: affinity of project to existing technology/process is
strong
o Higher continuity, routinization
- Radical innovation: breakthrough project in a new market. Affinity to
existing technology/process is weak.
- Incremental innovation is best suited for decentralized execution!! (as the
required technologies are known and system interfaces are defined).
Ad 2. Nature of projects
- Autonomous innovation projects: highly structured projects with separable
work tasks.
- Systematic innovation: highly interdependent work tasks:
o Pooled, sequential, reciprocal and team oriented.
- First of a kind development projects are often systemic since there is little
previous relevant experience available by which the project should be
structured.
- The seperability of a project decreases with the diversity of information,
communication frequency and unpredictability.
Ad 3. Knowledge mode
- Explicit knowledge: easily articulated and documented, Tacit knowledge:
difficult to communicate(intuition and coordination without words).
o Individual knowledge
Specific to every human being
o Social knowledge
Shared among a group of individuals
- The transformation of knowledge from one mode to another is not trivial
and crucial for effective learning and know-how transfer.
o Explicit knowledge into more explicit knowledge is increasingly
supported by modern information technologies.
Ad 4. Resource bundling
- In international R&D projects, resources are pooled over a number of
locations. This bundling can be redundant (overlaps in competenties and
skills) or complementary (no overlap exists)
- Team members performing similar functions strong redundancy
- Different functions involved low redundancy
Two propositions:
1. The centralization of R&D projects is necessary for radical innovation,
systematic project work, prevalence of tacit knowledge and the
presence of complementary resources.
2. The decentralization of R&D projects is possible for incremental
innovation, autonomous project work, prevalence of explicit knowledge
and presence of redundant resources. (see table page before)

The effects of It and co-location on knowledge

dissemination Song et al.
Co locate or invest in CMC(computer-mediated communication) technologies?
Innovation is almost everywhere carried out in teams enabling the sharing of
different types of knowledge and to create new knowledge on the basis of the
knowledge shared.
Five differences between co-location and IT use that influence their ability to
disseminate knowledge:
1. Media richness (rich = face-to-face, lean=written report)
2. The facilitation of relationship building
3. Ability to share tacit knowledge
4. Spontaneity of encounters
5. Ability to overcome time and space constraints
The first four differences favour co-location. The last favors CMC.
Ad 1.
- Concept of media richness as the ability to change understanding with a
specified time interval
- Cmc technologies are generally regarded as being less rich, suggesting
that their capacity to support information exchange under ambiguity is
weak.
Ad 2.
- The richness of a communication medium influences the capacity to build
relationships.
- CMC is low in social presence compared to face-to-face communication.
Ad 3.
- Co-location enhances the dissemination of tacit and situated knowledge
( communication partners have access to the same oberservational cues
and engage in the same practice)
Ad 4.
- Co-location increases the amount of communication that occurs since it
reduces the effort required to make intentional visits and increases the
chance that staff members will encounter each other unexpectedly and
engage in unplanned, spontaneous exchanges. (for instance coffee corner)
Ad 5.
- CMC are not hindered by different time zones
- A further advantage of CMC is that they almost always come equipped
with a memory function and hence facilitate the retention of and later
retrieval of knowledge!
Hypotheses:
CMC is better suited for the transfer of explicit knowledge, unambiguous
information and for knowledge sharing across time and space
Co-location is valuable for sharing information under conditions of
ambiguity, sharing tacit knowledge and for developing relationships
o Spontaneous encounters stimulate knowledge dissemination in a colocated situation.

 The use of CMC and co-location together of R&D staff will weaken each
other. So when co-location is high, the impact of CMC on knowledge
dissemination is smaller than when co-location is low. (communication with
colleague, room next door means no CMC necessary)
o According to the results this is not true!! Interaction effect is
significantly positive.
Results:
- Co-location of R&D staff is not more poisitevely associated with the level of
knowledge dissemination than CMC. Juist andersom! CMC heeft een meer
positievere relatie dan co-location.
- Both co-location and CMC are positively related (independent) to
knowledge dissemination.
- There is a joint effect when CMC and co-location are used together.
o Both measures use of IT and co-location of R&D staff strengthen
each other in the sharing of technological knowledge, so both
factors are complementary.
- An increasing use of IT is more beneficial for technological knowledge
sharing than an increased level of co-location of R&D staff
Further research:
- Co-location turned into a luxury that is not always within reach.
- The choice for investment in co-location or CMC depends on the scope of
knowledge dissemination to be facilitated.
- Despite the fact that co-location looked more favourable tot knowledge
sharing, CMC is more favourable to knowledge dissemination.

The stage-gate idea-to-launch process Cooper

Each stage consists of:

- Activities: where information is gathered
- Integrated analysis: analysis of the results of the activities by the project
team.
- Deliverables: result of integrated analysis = input to the gate.
The stages:

Each stage costs more than the preceding one.

Each stage is designed to gather information to reduce risk.
The activities within stages are undertaken in parallel and by a team of
people from different functional areas.
Each stage is cross-functional.

The gates:
- Deliverables: what the project leader and team bring to the decision point.
- Criteria against which the project is judged.
- Outputs: a decision (go/kill decision) along with an approved action plan for
the next stage
Debunking the myths about stage gate:
- Not a functional phased review process
o Todays stage gate system is built for speed (by contrast)
- Not a rigid, lock step process
- Not a lineair system
o Steps within each stage, activities and tasks are anything but lineair.
o Even the stages are allowed to overlap.
- Not a project control mechanism
- Not a dated stagnant system
- Not a data entry system
- Not just a back end or product delivery process
- Not the same as project management
o Stage gate is a macro process, whereas project management is a
micro process.
o Not substitutes, but stage gate and project management are used
together.
Dealing with common errors and fail-points
-

Problems with the stage-gate governance process making the

gates work
o Gates with no teeth
The gates are either non-existent or lack teeth. Once a project
is approved, it never gets killed.
o Hollow decisions at gates
The gate review meeting is held and a go decision is made,
but resources are not committed projects are approved, but
resources not.
o Who are the gatekeepers? (many companies have trouble defining
who the gatekeepers are)
The gatekeepers are the senior people in the business who
own the resources required by the project leader and team to
move forward.
o Gatekeepers behaving badly
Executive pet projects receiving special treatment, and bypassing the gates.
Go/kill decisions based on opinion, rather than facts.
Gate meetings cancelled at the last minute by gate keepers.
Gatekeepers missing the meetings and not delegating
authority.
Misapplying cost cutting models innovation projects

Six sigma: should not be used as an idea-to launch new product

process.

Trying to do portfolio management without a stage-and gate process = not

possible
Too much bureaucracy in the idea to launch process.
-

Deliverables overkill
o Most companies new product processes suffer from far too much
information delivered to the gatekeepers at each gate. Several
factors create this deliverables overkill:
The project team is not certain what information is required,
so they over deliver.
Design of the companys stage-gate system itself.
Too much reliance on software as a solution
o The mistaken belief is that the purchase of a software tool will be a
substitute for a robust idea-to-launch process, or is the fix for an
ineffective innovative system.
No pain, no gain
o Stage gate makes certain new demands on project teams, leaders
and gatekeepers.

Next generation stage-gate how companies have evolved and accelerated the
process
-

Scaled to suit different risk level projects

o It has become a scalable process, scaled to suit very different types
and risk-levels of projects.
Management recognized that each project (big/small) has
risk, and thus must be managed: but not all need to go
through the five stage process.
The higher the risk, the more one adheres to the full five
stage process (see picture).
A flexible process
o No activity/deliverable are mandatory. Stage gate is a guide that
suggests best practices. But the project team has discretion over
which activities they execute and which not.
o Simultaneous execution: key activities and even entire stages
overlap.
This adds risk to a project. So the risk must be calculated =
cost of delay must be weighed against the cost and
probability of being wrong.
An adaptable process
o Stage gate has become adaptable to changing conditions and fluid,
unstable information.
o Spiral/agile development is built in: allowing project teams to move
rapidly to a finalize product design.
An efficient, lean and rapid system
o Lean stage gate process: removing waste.
o Value stream analysis
More effective governance to improve gatekeeping:
o Use of scorecards to make better go/kill decisions

Employing success criteria at gates

Specific criteria for each gate.
o Self evaluation as an input to each gate
Let the project team submit their own filled-in scorecard.
o Displays of in-process metrics at gates
Captures how well the project is being executed. (goal/target)
o Integrated with portfolio management
Gates are an evaluation of an individual project in depth, one
at a time.
Portfolio reviews are more holistic, looking at the entire set of
projects, less in depth per project than gates do.
Accelerates the gates
o The need for fast go/kill decisions combined with global and diverse
development teams means that effective and timely gatekeeping
has become a major challenge. Firms can accelerate gates by:
Leaner and simpler gates
From the decision makers perspective: no more
deliverables overkill. The deliverables package should
provide the decision-makers only that information they
need to make an effective and timely decision.
Distinguishing between work done in the stages and
deliverables to the gates.
Result is much bulkier package of deliverables, because
teams want to show everything they have
accomplished.
Self managed gates
The project team conducts their own review and makes
their own go/kill decision
Electronic and virtual gates.
Gate deliverables are distributed to gatekeepers
automatically, than independently they score the
project and hold a conference to discuss the results.
Goal is to reduce absenteeism of gatekeepers and
speed the process.
Accountability, the post launch review and continuous
improvement.
o Post launch review is the final point of accountability for the team.
Actual results achieved are determined.
An open system
o In open innovation, companies look inside out and outside-in, and
across all three aspects of the innovation process, including
ideation, development and commercialization.
o

Stage gate controls, learning failure and adverse effect on new

products sethi & Iqbal
This article exams the following problem: the adverse effect of stage-gate
evaluation on learning in a new product development project.

During the past two decades, there has been a strong desire on the part of senior
managers to control the new product development process in their firms. This is
consistent with the trend in firms toward improving efficiency and lowering costs.
- Stage gate evaluation helps firms product developments efforts in terms of
introducing discipline, improving performance, enhancing efficiency and
reducing new product cycle time.
The stage gate process is inappropriate for radical innovations!
Stage gate evalution, management controls and process improvement
Typical stage gate controls break the traditional new product development
process into a set of discrete and identifiable stages, with each stage consisting
of a set of prescribed activities.
- Gates are designed in the form of meetings that take place between senior
managements and representatives of the product development team.
Control systems and stage-gate evaluation
Two types of formal management controls: Process control and Output control.
The stage gate evaluation process is a combination of both types of
management controls.
Rigor (stijf) gate criteria can be influenced by how strictly, objectively &
consistently, and how frequently criteria are applied.
- Evaluation criteria that are not formally applied and strictly adhered to are
likely to lead to confusion and poor evaluation of projects
- Objectivity is meant to ensure that all projects are evaluated against the
same criteria.
- The project should be evaluated against the criteria at various stages
throughout the development process.
H1. The more strictly the gate review criteria are enforced, the greater is the
inflexibility of the npd project.
H2. The more objective the gate review criteria, the greater is the inflexibility of
the new product development project.
H3. The more frequent the evaluation of the project at gates, the greater is the
inflexibility of the new product development project.
Moderating influence of gate conditionality
Gate conditionality = projects are allowed to proceed further into the process
of development conditional on their meeting required criteria at a subsequent
stage or that certain project activities are approved out of the usual sequence. It
implies that a project will not be held up because of certain criteria remaining
unmet at a particular time.
H4. The greater the gate conditionality, the weaker is the impact of strictly
enforced gate review criteria on the inflexibility of NPD project.
H5. The greater the gate conditionality, the weaker is the impact of objective
gate review criteria evaluations on the inflexibility of NPD project.
H6. The greater the gate conditionality, the weaker is the impact of frequent gate
evaluations on the inflexibility of NPD project.
Effect of project inflexibility of the post approval learning failure
When a project becomes inflexible after approval at gate reviews, it can restrict
the product development team. Such restrictions can have an adverse effect on a
teams ability to learn.

H7. The higher the project inflexibility, the greater is the post approval learning
failure.
Moderating effect of turbulence in the market and technology
environment
Market turbulence = degree of instability/uncertainty in the marketplace.
H8. The greater the turbulence in the technological environment, the stronger is
the impact of project inflexibility on post approval learning failure.
H9. The greater the turbulence in the market environment, the stronger is the
impact of project inflexibility on post approval learning failure.
Effect of post approval learning failure on market performance of novel
products
Organisational learning plays a crucial role in NPD.
- Products with high novelty involve a great deal of exploratory learning
activities.
- If the product is novel, post approval learning failure can harm the market
performance of products.
H10. The greater the product novelty, the stronger is the adverse effect of post
approval learning failure on the market performance of the new product.
Conclusions
-

When gate review criteria are more strict, objective and frequently applied,
they increase the inflexibility of the new project.
Project inflexibility increases learning failre in the product development
team. This adverse effect is worsened when there is turbulence in the
technological sector of the environment.
o Learning failure may occur less often in the case of market
turbulence.
See above which hypotheses are true/false. Green = true, red = false.

Managerial implications
- The stage-gate process has the potential of harming novel new products.

Gate criteria are not appropriate when there is turbulence in the

technology sector of the environment. Rigorous gate criteria make projects
inflexible, and this worsens learning in a turbulent environment. (learning
is crucial for novel products).
o Thus: firms that operate in a technologically volatile environment
need to have different gate review criteria than firms that operate in
stable environments.
Controls shouldnt be too constraining, otherwise implementation of novel
ideas is hindered.

Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation and performance:

effects of organizational antecedents and environmental
moderators, Jansen and Van den Bosch.
Ambidexterity
In Innovation Management: Ability to manage as a firm highly uncertain as well
as highly certain situations.
Firms need to renew themselves by exploiting existing competencies and
exploring new ones.
- Exploratory innovation = require new knowledge and develop new
products and services for would be customers/markets.
- Exploitative innovation = incremental, build on existing knowledge and
extend existing products and services for existing customers.
This study asserts that organizational units use different formal and informal
coordination mechanisms to develop exploratory and exploitative innovations:
- Formal coordination (characteristics of hierarchy of the unit):
o Centralization: reduces exploratory innovation, because exploratory
innovation needs non routing problem solving.
o Formalization: reduces the likelihood of individuals deviating from
structured work and so reduces the exploratory innovations.
- Informal coordination:
o Connectedness: density of social relationships in the unit. Increases
opportunity for informal hall talk and helps individuals combine
knowledge and develop new knowledge underlying exploratory
innovation.
H1. The higher a units centralization, the lower its level of exploratory innovation
and the higher its level of exploitative innovation.
H2. The higher a units formalization, the lower its level of exploratory innovation
and the higher its level of exploitative innovation.
H3. There will be an inverted u-shaped relationshiop between a units
connectedness among its members and the level of exploratory innovation. The
higher a units connectedness among members the higher the level of exploitative
innovation.
H4. Environmental dynamism positively moderatos the relationship between
exploratory innovation and financial performance, and negatively moderates the
relationship between exploitative innovation and financial performance.
Environmental competitiveness = outcomes of exploratory innovations tend to
rapidly become diffused over the population of competitors.

H5. Environmental competitiveness negatively moderates the relationship

between exploratory innovation and financial performance, and positively
moderates the relationship between exploitative innovation and financial
performance.
Dependant variables: financial performance, exploratory and exploitative
innovation.
Independent variables: centralization, formalization, connectedness,
environmental dynamism, environmental competitiveness.
Results:
Centralization negatively influences exploratory innovation and does not
drive exploitative innovation (in service also ideas on incremental
innovations shaped at the shop floor)
Formalization positively influences exploitative innovation and has no
affect on exploratory innovation (formalization enables employees to
better master their tasks and functions, also in case of exploratory
innovation)
Connectedness positively influences both exploratory and exploitative
innovation (and is more important than formal coordination)
Informal coordination mechanisms are more important than formal
coordination mechanisms in predicting both types of innovation.

Technological innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: the use

of organizational control in managing research and development,
Cardinal.
The foundation of competitive advantage in the pharmaceutical industry lies in
successful innovation.
- Drug enhancements involve combinations of existing drugs, new dosage
forms etc (incremental innovations)
- Totally new drugs are radical innovations
Organizational control
R&D activities can be described as unpredictable, labor intensive, long-term and
multistaged, risky, high uncertain.
Hypotheses development
In this study there are three broad classes of control:
- Input
o A form of resource allocation because it regulates the antecedent
conditions of performance. Can be used to create the knowledge
environment desired by firms.
- Output
o Regulates outcomes and results as opposed to the means by which
outcomes are achieved.
- Behaviour
o Consists of monitoring ongoing employee activities and behaviors
and regulating how work gets done.
Input control

Scientific diversity aids in general creativity and brainstorming processes.

Diversity of perspectives, backgrounds and training facilitate the
generation of new ideas.
- Input control through scientific diversity and professionalization increases
the variety of ideas produced and exposure to scientific knowledge.
- Thus:
H1A. As the use of input control increases, the likelihood of drug enhancement
innovation increases.
H1B. As the use of input control increases, the likelihood of new drug innovation
increases.
Behaviour control
- The regulation function of behaviour control is exercised through
centralization and formalization.
- Thus:
H2A. As the use of behaviour control increases, the likelihood of drug
enhancement innovation increases.
H2B. As the use of behaviour control increases, the likelihood of new drug
innovation decreases.
Output control
- R&D projects vary in their return patterns.
- An increased emphasis on output in evaluation and reward may create an
atmosphere were scientist focus on project success of completion short
term (incremental innovation)
- Thus:
H3A. As the use of output control increases, the likelihood of drug enhancement
innovation increases.
H3B. As the use of output control increases, the likelihood of new drug innovation
decreases.
Data
-

and methods:
Input control mechanisms scientific diversity and professionalization.
Behaviour control mechanisms centralization and formalization.
Output control mechanisms goal specifity.

Conclusion of results:
Drug enhancement (incremental innovation)
- The results demonstrate the importance of input and output control.
o Both input and output control are positively related to drug
enhancements.
- Behaviour control is not significant
o Centralization was positively related to the likelihood of drug
enhancements.
o Formalization was negatively related to the likelihood of drug
enhancements.
New drugs (radical innovation)
- Input, output and behaviour control are all positively related to new drug
innovation.
- Behaviour:
o Centralization, formalization and the frequency of performance
appraisals were positively related to the likelihood of new drugs.

Output control findings are in the oppositite as was hypnothised (focus

on short term success rather than long term success)

Summary:
Control plays an important role in the R&D process in the pharmaceutical
industry. Input controls and output controls are important to incremental
innovation. The role that behaviour control plays is less clear in incremental
innovation. Unexpectedly, all three classes of control (behaviour, input and
output) are important for radical innovation.
General conclusion for drug enhancements and new drugs the technological
process is quite similar in the pharmaceutical industry.
Limitations:
- These findings may not apply to other industries.