IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-00734100.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Risk Management strategies in a highly uncertain environment: undesrtanding the role of common unknown

Author

Listed:
  • Olga Kokshagina

    (CGS i3 - Centre de Gestion Scientifique i3 - Mines Paris - PSL (École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris) - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - I3 - Institut interdisciplinaire de l’innovation - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, ST-CROLLES - STMicroelectronics [Crolles])

  • Pascal Le Masson

    (CGS i3 - Centre de Gestion Scientifique i3 - Mines Paris - PSL (École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris) - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - I3 - Institut interdisciplinaire de l’innovation - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Benoit Weil

    (CGS i3 - Centre de Gestion Scientifique i3 - Mines Paris - PSL (École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris) - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - I3 - Institut interdisciplinaire de l’innovation - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Patrick Cogez

    (ST-CROLLES - STMicroelectronics [Crolles])

Abstract

This work deals with strategies of risk management techniques in projects and portfolios in the situation of radical innovation. Existing literature suggests different methods of risk management at the level of 1) projects (S1) (unknown reduction by selecting a priori the less uncertain projects, depending on the identified market and technological risk) 2) portfolio (S2) (consists in using an existing platform core to construct several options. This strategy increases chances to succeed by increasing the size of the sample, maximizing the total economic value of the portfolio of derivatives). These methods consider different level of uncertainties and are independent from each other. We will show that there exists another strategy (S3) of working on "common unknown" of multiple options but its managerial implementation is not obvious. By testing the proposed framework in two cases of Advanced R&D (explorative phase of new technologies development for unknown markets with fixed budget) in semiconductor industry, we compare identified S3 strategy with existing S1' lead by S2'. The paper demonstrates that management of "common unknown" is possible and could be implemented in the context of largely unknown exploration. The proposed strategy of working on common unknown opens a new way to portfolio risk management in the context of radical innovation. Using S3 framework of knowledge gap identification to construct common unknown core, company can build its innovative capabilities through knowledge management and better position to innovate in emerging fields.

Suggested Citation

  • Olga Kokshagina & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil & Patrick Cogez, 2012. "Risk Management strategies in a highly uncertain environment: undesrtanding the role of common unknown," Post-Print hal-00734100, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00734100
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://minesparis-psl.hal.science/hal-00734100v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://minesparis-psl.hal.science/hal-00734100v1/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. V. Krishnan & Shantanu Bhattacharya, 2002. "Technology Selection and Commitment in New Product Development: The Role of Uncertainty and Design Flexibility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(3), pages 313-327, March.
    2. Svenja C. Sommer & Christoph H. Loch & Jing Dong, 2009. "Managing Complexity and Unforeseeable Uncertainty in Startup Companies: An Empirical Study," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 118-133, February.
    3. Arthur, W Brian, 1989. "Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(394), pages 116-131, March.
    4. Sanderson, Susan & Uzumeri, Mustafa, 1995. "Managing product families: The case of the Sony Walkman," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 761-782, September.
    5. Pascal Le Masson & Armand Hatchuel & Benoit Weil, 2010. "Modeling Novelty-Driven Industrial Dynamics with Design Functions: understanding the role of learning from the unknown," Post-Print hal-00696970, HAL.
    6. Pascal Le Masson & Patrick Cogez & Yacine Felk & Benoit Weil, 2012. "Revisiting Absorptive Capacity with a Design Perspective," Post-Print hal-00870353, HAL.
    7. Carliss Y. Baldwin, 2008. "Where do transactions come from? Modularity, transactions, and the boundaries of firms," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 17(1), pages 155-195, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jérémy Lévêque & Kevin Levillain & Blanche Segrestin, 2020. "A Model of the Innovative Purpose for Responsible Innovation : Towards Design-Based Governance," Post-Print hal-02489027, HAL.
    2. Sophie Hooge & Olga Kokshagina & Pascal Le Masson & Kevin Levillain & Benoit Weil & Vincent Fabreguettes & Nathalie Popiolek, 2014. "Designing generic technologies in Energy Research: learning from two CEA technologies for double unknown management," Post-Print hal-00987214, HAL.
    3. Sophie Hooge & Albert David, 2014. "What makes an efficient theme for a creativity session?," Post-Print hal-00987220, HAL.
    4. Mario Le Glatin & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2017. "Decision design and re-ordering preferences: the case of an exploration project in a large firm," Post-Print hal-01529620, HAL.

    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. Murmann, Johann Peter & Frenken, Koen, 2006. "Toward a systematic framework for research on dominant designs, technological innovations, and industrial change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 925-952, September.
    2. Gawer, Annabelle, 2014. "Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1239-1249.
    3. Gil, Nuno & Tether, Bruce S., 2011. "Project risk management and design flexibility: Analysing a case and conditions of complementarity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 415-428, April.
    4. Lau Antonio, K.W. & Yam, Richard C.M. & Tang, Esther, 2007. "The impacts of product modularity on competitive capabilities and performance: An empirical study," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 1-20, January.
    5. Burton, Nicholas & Galvin, Peter, 2022. "Modularity, value and exceptions to the mirroring hypothesis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 635-650.
    6. Kretschmer, Tobias & Rösner, Mariana, 2010. "Increasing Dominance - the Role of Advertising, Pricing and Product Design," Discussion Papers in Business Administration 11500, University of Munich, Munich School of Management.
    7. Jacobides, Michael G. & Cennamo, Carmelo & Gawer, Annabelle, 2024. "Externalities and complementarities in platforms and ecosystems: From structural solutions to endogenous failures," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(1).
    8. Puay Khoon Toh & Taekyu Kim, 2013. "Why Put All Your Eggs in One Basket? A Competition-Based View of How Technological Uncertainty Affects a Firm’s Technological Specialization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 1214-1236, August.
    9. Gil, Nuno & Miozzo, Marcela & Massini, Silvia, 2012. "The innovation potential of new infrastructure development: An empirical study of Heathrow airport's T5 project," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 452-466.
    10. Agathe Gilain & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2018. "Managing Learning Curves In The Unknown: From ‘Learning By Doing’ To ‘Learning By Designing’," Post-Print hal-01900961, HAL.
    11. Maria Minniti & William Bygrave, 2001. "A Dynamic Model of Entrepreneurial Learning," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 25(3), pages 5-16, April.
    12. Narduzzo, Alessandro & Warglien, Massimo, 1996. "Learning from the Experience of Others: An Experiment on Information Contagion," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 5(1), pages 113-126.
    13. Beomjin Choi & T. S. Raghu & Ajay Vinzé & Kevin J. Dooley, 2019. "Effectiveness of standards consortia: Social network perspectives," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 405-416, April.
    14. Baldwin, Carliss Y. & Bogers, Marcel L.A.M. & Kapoor, Rahul & West, Joel, 2024. "Focusing the ecosystem lens on innovation studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(3).
    15. Zhang, Feng & Jiang, Guohua & Cantwell, John A., 2015. "Subsidiary exploration and the innovative performance of large multinational corporations," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 224-234.
    16. Peter E. Harland & Zakir Uddin & Sven Laudien, 2020. "Product platforms as a lever of competitive advantage on a company-wide level: a resource management perspective," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 137-158, February.
    17. Petersen, Alexander M. & Rotolo, Daniele & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2016. "A triple helix model of medical innovation: Supply, demand, and technological capabilities in terms of Medical Subject Headings," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 666-681.
    18. Pascal Petit, 2010. "Innovation and Services: On Biases and Beyond," Chapters, in: Faïz Gallouj & Faridah Djellal (ed.), The Handbook of Innovation and Services, chapter 17, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Steven Bond‐Smith, 2022. "Discretely innovating: The effect of limited market contestability on innovation and growth," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 69(3), pages 301-327, July.
    20. Georg Erber, 1994. "Verdoorn's or Okun's Law?: Employment and Growth Experiences in OECD Countries, 1960-1993," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 98, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Risk management; uncertainty; common unknown; project portfolio; platform core; platform derivatives;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hal:journl:hal-00734100. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.