IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-00881700.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Testing whether major innovation capabilities are systemic design capabilities: analyzing rule-renewal design capabilities in a case-control study of historical new business developments

Author

Listed:
  • 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)

  • Sylvain Lenfle

    (CRG - Centre de recherche en gestion - X - École polytechnique - IP Paris - Institut Polytechnique de Paris - 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)

Abstract

In this paper, we empirically test the proposition that major innovation (MI) capabilities are systemic, dynamic capabilities. We rely on design theories and characterize the systemic, dynamic capabilities as design capabilities that renew a core of stabilized design rules. For the specific case of projects leading to new business development, we conducted a case-control study of 46 historical projects; 26 of these led to new business development, and 20 do not lead to new business development. Utilizing this sample, we show that our measurement model, based on rule-reuse vs. rule-renewal design capabilities, has a good fit. We find that rule-renewal design capabilities are positively related to new business development, whereas rule-reuse design capabilities (maintaining an invariant set of design rules) are independent of new business development. We discuss different combinations of rule-reuse and rule-renewal design capabilities. This paper contributes to the literature on MI capabilities. It also theoretically and methodologically contributes to the analysis of the dynamic capabilities of design activities

Suggested Citation

  • Pascal Le Masson & Sylvain Lenfle & Benoit Weil, 2013. "Testing whether major innovation capabilities are systemic design capabilities: analyzing rule-renewal design capabilities in a case-control study of historical new business developments," Post-Print hal-00881700, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00881700
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://minesparis-psl.hal.science/hal-00881700v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://minesparis-psl.hal.science/hal-00881700v1/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sylvain Lenfle & Christoph Loch, 2010. "Lost Roots: How Project Management Came to Emphasize Control Over Flexibility and Novelty," Post-Print hal-00557549, HAL.
    2. Pascal Le Masson & Maria Elmquist, 2009. "The value of a "failed" R&D project : an emerging evaluation framework for building innovative capabilities," Post-Print hal-00449662, HAL.
    3. Alfred Kieser, 1994. "Why Organization Theory Needs Historical Analyses—And How This Should Be Performed," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 608-620, November.
    4. Andrew M. Pettigrew, 1990. "Longitudinal Field Research on Change: Theory and Practice," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(3), pages 267-292, August.
    5. Andrew A. King & Christopher L. Tucci, 2002. "Incumbent Entry into New Market Niches: The Role of Experience and Managerial Choice in the Creation of Dynamic Capabilities," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(2), pages 171-186, February.
    6. Kim B. Clark & W. Bruce Chew & Takahiro Fujimoto, 1987. "Product Development in the World Auto Industry," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 18(3, Specia), pages 729-782.
    7. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Michael T. Pich & Christoph H. Loch & Arnoud De Meyer, 2002. "On Uncertainty, Ambiguity, and Complexity in Project Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(8), pages 1008-1023, August.
    9. Constantine Andriopoulos & Marianne W. Lewis, 2009. "Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 696-717, August.
    10. Billie Jo Zirger & Modesto A. Maidique, 1990. "A Model of New Product Development: An Empirical Test," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(7), pages 867-883, July.
    11. Kathleen M. Eisenhardt & Jeffrey A. Martin, 2000. "Dynamic capabilities: what are they?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 1105-1121, October.
    12. Isabelle Huault & V. Perret & S. Charreire-Petit, 2007. "Management," Post-Print halshs-00337676, HAL.
    13. 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.
    14. Stanislav Kolenikov, 2009. "Confirmatory factor analysis using confa," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 9(3), pages 329-373, September.
    15. Sebastian Raisch & Julian Birkinshaw & Gilbert Probst & Michael L. Tushman, 2009. "Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 685-695, August.
    16. Armand Hatchuel & Ken Starkey & Sue Tempest & Pascal Le Masson, 2010. "Strategy as innovative design : an emerging perspective," Post-Print hal-00509557, HAL.
    17. Sylvain Lenfle, 2011. "The strategy of parallel approaches in projects with unforeseeable uncertainty: the Manhattan case in retrospect," Post-Print hal-00658346, HAL.
    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. Benjamin Cabanes & Philippe Galy & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2016. "Technical Staff Management for Radical Innovation in Science-based Organizations: a New Framework Based on Design Theory," Post-Print hal-01291190, 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. Pascal Le Masson & Armand Hatchuel & Mario Le Glatin & Benoit Weil, 2018. "Designing Decisions In The Unknown: Towards A Generative Decision Model For Management Science," Post-Print hal-01937103, HAL.
    2. Pascal Le Masson & Armand Hatchuel & Benoit Weil, 2016. "Innovation theory and the logic of generativity: from optimization to design, a new post-decisional paradigm in management science," Post-Print hal-01481881, HAL.
    3. Sylvain Lenfle, 2008. "Exploration and Project Management," Post-Print hal-00404168, HAL.
    4. Laura B. Cardinal & Scott F. Turner & Michael J. Fern & Richard M. Burton, 2011. "Organizing for Product Development Across Technological Environments: Performance Trade-offs and Priorities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 1000-1025, August.
    5. Sylvain Lenfle & Christoph Loch, 2017. "Has Megaproject management lost its way ? Lessons from History," Post-Print hal-03640779, HAL.
    6. Priyono Anjar & Nursyamsiah Siti & Darmawan Baziedy A., 2019. "Managing ambidexterity in internationalisation of SMEs from an emerging country: A dynamic capability perspective," HOLISTICA – Journal of Business and Public Administration, Sciendo, vol. 10(3), pages 7-26, December.
    7. Lerch, Christian M. & Horvat, Djerdj & Jasny, Johannes, 2024. "When manufacturers turn into digital platform providers: A transformation model to understand the platformization pathway," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 273(C).
    8. Bhattarai, Charan Raj & Kwong, Caleb C.Y. & Tasavori, Misagh, 2019. "Market orientation, market disruptiveness capability and social enterprise performance: An empirical study from the United Kingdom," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 47-60.
    9. Úbeda-García, Mercedes & Claver-Cortés, Enrique & Marco-Lajara, Bartolomé & Zaragoza-Sáez, Patrocinio, 2020. "Toward a dynamic construction of organizational ambidexterity: Exploring the synergies between structural differentiation, organizational context, and interorganizational relations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 363-372.
    10. Bustinza, Oscar F. & Vendrell-Herrero, Ferran & Gomes, Emanuel, 2020. "Unpacking the effect of strategic ambidexterity on performance: A cross-country comparison of MMNEs developing product-service innovation," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 29(6).
    11. Aga, Deribe Assefa, 2016. "Factors affecting the success of development projects : A behavioral perspective," Other publications TiSEM 867ae95e-d53d-4a68-ad46-6, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    12. Erwin Danneels & Rajesh Sethi, 2011. "New Product Exploration Under Environmental Turbulence," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 1026-1039, August.
    13. Cristina Fernandes & João J. Ferreira & Mário L. Raposo & Cristina Estevão & Marta Peris-Ortiz & Carlos Rueda-Armengot, 2017. "The dynamic capabilities perspective of strategic management: a co-citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 529-555, July.
    14. Yasser Alizadeh & Antonie J. Jetter, 2019. "Pathways for Balancing Exploration and Exploitation in Innovations: A Review and Expansion of Ambidexterity Theory," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(05), pages 1-33, August.
    15. Alessio Cozzolino & Gianmario Verona, 2024. "Decision tree for adaptation after radical changes: linking dynamic capabilities, ambidexterity, and strategic alliances," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 28(3), pages 745-769, September.
    16. Sylvain Lenfle, 2011. "The strategy of parallel approaches in projects with unforeseeable uncertainty: the Manhattan case in retrospect," Post-Print hal-00658346, HAL.
    17. Luz Stella Cardona-Meza & Gerard Olivar-Tost, 2017. "Modeling and Simulation of Project Management through the PMBOK® Standard Using Complex Networks," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2017, pages 1-12, December.
    18. Gang, KwangWook, 2018. "The impact of pre-entry experiences on entry decisions and firm survival," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 249-258.
    19. Ansari, Shahzad (Shaz) & Krop, Pieter, 2012. "Incumbent performance in the face of a radical innovation: Towards a framework for incumbent challenger dynamics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1357-1374.
    20. Robert Wayne Gregory & Mark Keil & Jan Muntermann & Magnus Mähring, 2015. "Paradoxes and the Nature of Ambidexterity in IT Transformation Programs," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 26(1), pages 57-80, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    major innovation; design capabilities; renewal design capabilities; history; project management principles;
    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-00881700. 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.