IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/syseng/v6y2003i3p123-134.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From a single discipline product to a multidisciplinary system: Adapting the right style to the right project

Author

Listed:
  • Dov Dvir
  • Aaron J. Shenhar
  • Shlomo Alkaher

Abstract

The premise of this paper is that systems engineering, and project management as well, are all but universal and that different projects should employ different management and organizational styles. While this idea is not new and many managers use their own ways for identifying project differences, this paper offers to use a more formal, research‐based framework for distinction among projects and adapting management style. Using a recently developed conceptual framework for project classification, this study demonstrates that a proper identification of project characteristics and adaptation of a suitable style is critical for success. To illustrate this concept, we analyzed the evolution and lessons learned from a complex high‐tech defense system development project. The project, seen a priori as an extension of previous experience, turned out to be a completely new kind of effort, particularly in terms of complexity and the use of new technology. Management was not ready for this type of task, and it had initially chosen a traditional style that was successfully used by the company in previous projects. It turned out that what worked in the past, does not necessarily apply to all projects. When the project went into serious trouble, it had to be “saved,” by significant reconstruction and changing of management style. The result was extensive budget overrun and substantial delay in delivery. Using the classification framework for distinction among projects, we show that an early and careful analysis of project characteristics during the project conceptual and planning phases could have led management to a different style from inception, and might have helped avoiding many of the difficulties encountered later. We conclude by a set of implications and recommendations to management at large, and system house organizations in particular. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Syst Eng 6: 123–134, 2003 DOI 10.1002/sys.10041

Suggested Citation

  • Dov Dvir & Aaron J. Shenhar & Shlomo Alkaher, 2003. "From a single discipline product to a multidisciplinary system: Adapting the right style to the right project," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(3), pages 123-134.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:6:y:2003:i:3:p:123-134
    DOI: 10.1002/sys.10041
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.10041
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sys.10041?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark W. Maier, 1998. "Architecting principles for systems‐of‐systems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(4), pages 267-284.
    2. Hubert Gatignon & Michael L. Tushman & Wendy Smith & Philip Anderson, 2002. "A Structural Approach to Assessing Innovation: Construct Development of Innovation Locus, Type, and Characteristics," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(9), pages 1103-1122, September.
    3. Robert D. Dewar & Jane E. Dutton, 1986. "The Adoption of Radical and Incremental Innovations: An Empirical Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(11), pages 1422-1433, November.
    4. Aaron J. Shenhar, 2001. "One Size Does Not Fit All Projects: Exploring Classical Contingency Domains," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(3), pages 394-414, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sébastien Brion & Caroline Mothe & Maréva Sabatier, 2010. "The Impact Of Organisational Context And Competences On Innovation Ambidexterity," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(02), pages 151-178.
    2. Xiaoping Chen & Hongming Xie & Huanhuai Zhou, 2024. "Incremental versus Radical Innovation and Sustainable Competitive Advantage: A Moderated Mediation Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-18, May.
    3. Xin Xu & Viswanath Venkatesh & Kar Yan Tam & Se-Joon Hong, 2010. "Model of Migration and Use of Platforms: Role of Hierarchy, Current Generation, and Complementarities in Consumer Settings," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(8), pages 1304-1323, August.
    4. Louise Lindbjerg & Theodor Vladasel, 2021. "Hiring Entrepreneurs for Innovation," Working Papers 1309, Barcelona School of Economics.
    5. Massimo Maoret & Marco Tortoriello & Daniela Iubatti, 2020. "Big Fish, Big Pond? The Joint Effect of Formal and Informal Core/Periphery Positions on the Generation of Incremental Innovations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 1538-1559, November.
    6. Flor, M. Luisa & Cooper, Sarah Y. & Oltra, María J., 2018. "External knowledge search, absorptive capacity and radical innovation in high-technology firms," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 183-194.
    7. Brian Sauser, 2006. "Toward mission assurance: a framework for systems engineering management," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(3), pages 213-227, September.
    8. Bouncken, Ricarda B. & Kraus, Sascha, 2013. "Innovation in knowledge-intensive industries: The double-edged sword of coopetition," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(10), pages 2060-2070.
    9. Orfila-Sintes, Francina & Mattsson, Jan, 2009. "Innovation behavior in the hotel industry," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 380-394, April.
    10. Kristina McElheran, 2015. "Do Market Leaders Lead in Business Process Innovation? The Case(s) of E-business Adoption," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(6), pages 1197-1216, June.
    11. Christoph Grimpe & Wolfgang Sofka & Andreas P. Distel, 2022. "SME participation in research grant consortia—the emergence of coordinated attention in collaborative innovation," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 59(4), pages 1567-1592, December.
    12. Chang, Dae Ryun & Cho, Hang, 2008. "Organizational memory influences new product success," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 13-23, January.
    13. Pankaj Tiwari & B Suresha, 2021. "Moderating Role of Project Innovativeness on Project Flexibility, Project Risk, Project Performance, and Business Success in Financial Services," Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Springer;Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management, vol. 22(3), pages 179-196, September.
    14. Lamin, Anna & Dunlap, Denise, 2011. "Complex technological capabilities in emerging economy firms: The role of organizational relationships," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 211-228, September.
    15. Manuel Alfonso Garzón Castrillón & Alberto Ibarra Mares, 2013. "Innovación empresarial, difusión, definiciones y tipología. Una revisión de literatura," Dimensión Empresarial, Universidad Autónoma del Caribe, June.
    16. Joel O. Wooten, 2022. "Leaps in innovation and the Bannister effect in contests," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(6), pages 2646-2663, June.
    17. Emilio Domínguez-Escrig & Francisco Fermín Mallén-Broch & Rafael Lapiedra-Alcamí & Ricardo Chiva-Gómez, 2019. "The Influence of Leaders’ Stewardship Behavior on Innovation Success: The Mediating Effect of Radical Innovation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 159(3), pages 849-862, October.
    18. Dahlin, Kristina B. & Behrens, Dean M., 2005. "When is an invention really radical?: Defining and measuring technological radicalness," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 717-737, June.
    19. Yang, Kuo-Pin & Chou, Christine & Chiu, Yu-Jen, 2014. "How unlearning affects radical innovation: The dynamics of social capital and slack resources," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 152-163.
    20. J. Cameron Verhaal & Stanislav D. Dobrev & Lyda Bigelow, 2017. "When incremental is imperative: tactical innovation in the in-vitro fertilization industry," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 26(4), pages 709-726.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:6:y:2003:i:3:p:123-134. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6858 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.