Papers by John K. Christiansen
Scandinavian Journal of Management, 1993
Several "perspectives". are assumed to be required in order to reach a sufficient understanding o... more Several "perspectives". are assumed to be required in order to reach a sufficient understanding of complex (implementation) processes. Three perspectives on implementation processes are derived from the literature: an administrative, a political and a network perspective. These reflect different assumptions about the nature and control of implementation processes. The implementation of a formalized project management system in a large Computing Centre is analysed from these three perspectives.
Scandinavian Journal of Management, 2006
Several "perspectives". are assumed to be required in order to reach a sufficient understanding o... more Several "perspectives". are assumed to be required in order to reach a sufficient understanding of complex (implementation) processes. Three perspectives on implementation processes are derived from the literature: an administrative, a political and a network perspective. These reflect different assumptions about the nature and control of implementation processes. The implementation of a formalized project management system in a large Computing Centre is analysed from these three perspectives.
CO-CONSTRUCTING THE BRAND AND THE PRODUCT
International Journal of Innovation Management, 2009
... and Lau, 2001; Wee, 2004; Martinez and de Chernatony, 2004; Freling and Forbes, 2005), brandl... more ... and Lau, 2001; Wee, 2004; Martinez and de Chernatony, 2004; Freling and Forbes, 2005), brandloyalty (Gounaris and Stathakopoulos, 2004; Quester and ... Neither has sought to explain how to integrate brand (s) and product development processes at an action-oriented ...
MANAGEMENT OF PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT: THE IGNORANCE OF INFORMATION AT PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT MEETINGS
Creativity and Innovation Management, 2007
Within some streams of thinking in the management of innovation and product development, the crux... more Within some streams of thinking in the management of innovation and product development, the crux is the manager's active engagement in the evaluation, selection and control of the various activities through gate and portfolio meetings in which information is presented and decisions are made that manage innovation projects at a distance. This traditional managerial perspective regards the meetings as (important) 'obligatory passage points' but cannot explain a number of observations that reveal few decisions being made at those meetings. A network process perspective on the management of innovation is derived as an alternative to the normative linear view. This alternative perspective makes it possible to explain how innovation projects actually consist of myriad actions, negotiations, and micro-decisions in the effort to create strong networks, leaving few decisions for the official gate and portfolio meetings. Through the analysis of two cases, this paper demonstrates how project managers work to stabilize the network in order to involve numerous human and non-human actors and to encourage more and more of them into joining the network. Successfully establishing stable networks and successfully filling the templates for their projects leaves little room -and requires little intervention -for decision makers at portfolio meetings, where approvals are sought rather than decisions made. This study explains how gate and portfolio management meetings are, in some instances, better viewed as checkpoints rather than as decision meetings, how decision making is displaced from the meetings, and how the use of gate and portfolio management systems have created a number of mandatory templates which must be dealt with by the project managers. These mandatory documents function as boundary objects between and among the different worlds of the actors involved and establish new obligatory passage points in the management process; thus boundary objects become transformed into obligatory passage points. Implications for managers and research are outlined, including methods of dealing with the management of product innovation projects when the focus shifts from planning, preparations and decision making toward the co-creation of technology and markets and involves interessement of human and non-human actors.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2009
Many scholars consider the use of formal structured approaches to manage product development as v... more Many scholars consider the use of formal structured approaches to manage product development as very significant for successful product innovation. Others consider them a predictor of the likely outcome of the processes. Structured approaches can be considered management technologies for product development. Prior research has addressed the design of structured approaches and has measured how different types or generations of these are related to different processes and outcomes in different ways. However, only limited research has addressed how managers and employees actually understand and makes sense of these methods. This paper investigates how structured approaches are translated through a number of interpretations into daily practices. The research draws on research in sociology and management accounting to analyze structured approaches for product development as a managerial technology that consists of rules that individuals must understand (i.e., make sense of). The paper presents arguments for building a model of factors that influence the sensemaking of structured approaches for product development based on Scandinavian cases. First, structured approaches are presented as a type of managerial technology that consists of rules. Second, a framework to classify structured approaches for product development according to their degree of elaborateness and exhaustiveness is derived. This helps to identify the types of rule systems in companies—and how these influence everyday practices. The sensemaking from rules to practice is implemented through a number of translations, based on the context, the history, and the authorized statements and feedback processes. Empirical findings show that structured approaches differ both with respect to their degree of elaborateness and exhaustiveness. Additionally, firms differ greatly in terms of how rigorously they enforce the rules. Furthermore, the importance assigned to them by functional managers and project managers differ greatly. Even companies with extensive and elaborate rule regimes enforce the rules in a flexible manner, and rules are often applied at the discretion of project managers. Practices are influenced by the interpretation, use, and feedback from senior managers. Observations make it possible to develop a model for the sensemaking processes that influences how a specific structured approach through sensemaking is altered, modified, and sometimes even cut off from influencing innovation processes. The sensemaking of rules might reverse elaborate and exhaustive rules into quite flexible systems in practice. One implication of this is that individual sensemaking of structured approaches for product development thus needs to be analyzed to understand managerial practices. Another implication is that it cannot be assumed, a priori that formal approaches are the same as exercised practices.
Creativity and Innovation Management, 2005
This paper explores the use of the resource-based view in practice. It focuses upon how managers ... more This paper explores the use of the resource-based view in practice. It focuses upon how managers involved in product development in two different companies interpret what competences are, and how competence strategies relate to organizing product development activities. The interpretations and implications of performing competence strategies are distinctly different in the two companies, and the analysis illuminates how competences may be portrayed as a resource for managers’ intervention in organizational practice, whereby competences are seen to be a cause, rather than an effect, of organizational structure, as it is often depicted in the literature. The meaning of resources and competences in practice are mouldable and flexible, and various interpretations of competences are related to local readings of the strategic situation at hand.
What attracts decision makers' attention? : Managerial allocation of time at product development portfolio meetings
Management Decision, 2011
... ambiguities and loose couplings (March and Olsen, 1979), the influence of politics and instit... more ... ambiguities and loose couplings (March and Olsen, 1979), the influence of politics and institutional settings on decision making (Allison, 1971; March ... processes might be of greater importance than the conscious ones (Allwood and Selart, 2001; Boland and Collopy, 2004; Zong ...
Corporate Reputation Review, 2003
Various factors stimulate firms to bring together knowledge from diverse areas of expertise and p... more Various factors stimulate firms to bring together knowledge from diverse areas of expertise and participate in R&D projects with multiple partners. This is especially true in Europe, where the EU provides financial support for such projects through its various R&D programs. When entering collaborative R&D projects, actors on various organizational levels, eg CEOs, R&D managers, project managers, and project associates face new challenges concerning how to manage and organize such projects. They also hold certain expectations regarding what will make a firm's participation in such projects a success. Analysis of data from six Danish firms initially showed that the firms' expectations as to the outcome of the projects were not fulfilled. But on the other hand, the very same companies did express a broad satisfaction with the overall collaborative experience. This leads to questions about what type of model to use when trying to understand collaborative efforts. The first interpretation employed here is labeled a short-term linear progressive R&D model. This model, based on an economic rational logic, did not seem to be rich enough to reveal the dynamics and factors of importance in R&D collaboration. Hence, an alternative model was needed. The role of reputation and trust in collaborative efforts is discussed; the relationship between trust and reputation, and two models for understanding collaborative R&D efforts are developed and applied on empirical data. A linear progressive model for the R&D collaboration and a processoriented model is developed that introduces and emphasizes the importance of reputation build-ing in R&D project collaboration. The processoriented model consists of five 'phases' or different types of activities: (1) The initial selection and/or matching of partners; (2) The initial phase of the project, where firms demonstrate their knowledge, interact professionally and socially, and demonstrate their competences in handling the project; (3) After the initial project phase, reputation is created based on firstand second-hand information and the intensity and type of interaction made in the prior phase; (4) The creation of a 'reputation' produces different levels of trust among the partners; (5) Levels of trust define the type of further R&D collaboration. Reputation building is found to be an important selection mechanism in R&D collaboration, and it is suggested that this may be especially true when newcomers want to enter a new arena. Furthermore, the role of reputation, reputation building, and trust may be especially important in the high-tech industry due to a high level of uncertainty and complexity. Finally, some implications for research and management are discussed.
How does management happen? Exploring the effects of management technologies within project and product-development
Uploads
Papers by John K. Christiansen