دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی کنترل های رسمی و سازگاری تیم در پروژه های توسعه محصول جدید - امرالد 2018

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effects of two formal controls, namely target rigidity and process autonomy, on team adaptability and project success in new product development (NPD) projects. Target rigidity refers to performance goals that are non-negotiable once they have been set. Process autonomy refers to the extent to which a project team is free to choose ways to achieve its goals. Team adaptability is considered a key factor that explains the relationship between formal controls and project success. Design/methodology/approach – Two separate models related to resource and cost measures are analysed, since different target types may influence managerial perceptions. This study uses data collected from a survey with 113 project managers as respondents. Findings – The findings show that target rigidity and process autonomy support team adaptability. Furthermore, team adaptability mediates the impact of formal controls on project success. The effects are more pronounced for cost targets as compared to resource targets. Practical implications – Firms can increase project success by using formal controls in such a way that they allow project managers to provide their teams with motivating guidelines (target rigidity) and discretion (process autonomy) to adapt to new circumstances. Originality/value – This study reveals the impact of formal controls on NPD project success through team adaptability. A balanced use of target rigidity and process autonomy may help improving NPD project success.

Discussion and conclusion

Discussion

We explore the direct and indirect effects of two formal controls, target rigidity and process autonomy, on team adaptability and project success in NPD projects. Specifically, we hypothesise that target rigidity (output control) and process autonomy (behaviour control) provide NPD teams with both the motivation (target rigidity) and discretion (process autonomy) to adapt to new developments, which subsequently affects NPD project success. We distinguish between two types of measures (resource and cost measures) to enhance our knowledge on how formal controls affect NPD project success by identifying antecedents and consequences of team adaptability in NPD projects. Our results indicate that formal controls have the potential to increase NPD project effectiveness (e.g. Rijsdijk and Van den Ende, 2011; Davila, 2000). The simultaneous use of target rigidity and process autonomy extends previous studies that have highlighted the relevance of control combinations in innovative settings (e.g. Cardinal, 2001; Rijsdijk and Van den Ende, 2011) and emphasised the need for autonomy within project structures (e.g. Bonner et al., 2002).

Our results suggest that companies can improve NPD performance by adequately choosing control configurations, that is, by defining project targets and decentralising process autonomy to the project team. This appears to provide a motivating environment that enhances NPD success. Rather surprising is that these controls appear to be relatively independent. Our correlation analyses suggest that companies make these decisions independently; additional case study research may investigate if, and how companies make these decisions on the (joint) use of controls in NPD settings.