Governing product co-development projects: The role of minimal structures

Abstract

a b s t r a c tIn this paper we study the governance of product development projects in which multiple parties with diverse technical knowledge together co-develop new products and bring them to market. We use a minimal structures framework which consists of economic, institutional, social and technical structures. We investigate how these structures provide the firmness and flexibility needed to stimulate creativity and, at the same time, coordinate the various parties who are contributing to the product co-development project. In addition, we use the concepts of temporal embeddedness and a-temporality drawn from the literature on temporary organisations. In a case study of product co-development we observe that, while the social and technical structures govern the day-to-day product development activities, the economic and institutional structures provide the context for the project and also govern the relationships between the collaborating organisations. Although management accounting and management accountants are not directly involved in the day-to-day management of the product development process, accounting-based information is used to set the boundaries for the project. We discuss how these boundaries can provide both the firmness and the flexibility needed to promote the creativity and innovation which are needed in new product co-development projects. We suggest that these boundaries can be either broad or narrow and either permeable or impermeable, thereby creating different forms of flexibility.

Management control design in long-term buyer-supplier relationships: Unpacking the learning process

“…They questioned the long-term impact of some contractual controls, because of which FN's operating managers focused on short-term, cost-reduction activities rather than innovating their FM activities having effects in the long term. Scholars who investigate new product development projects argue that controls have to provide room to manoeuvre otherwise they hinder creativity (Dunk, 2011;Kamoche and Cunha, 2001;Van der Meer-Kooistra and Scapens, 2015). This was the lesson MG's operating managers learned over time and discussed with MG's corporate managers.…”

Exploring the Role of Management Control Anchor Practices in new Product Development

“…We reason that in the case of Robotics, the specific type of management control used as an anchor practice -an integrative liaison device (Abernethy & Lillis, 1995;Miller, 1988) -played a crucial role for handling the NPD related complexity. We thereby add nuances to previous studies that emphasize the importance of dialogue and interaction and the associated use of social controls in NPD settings (Bürkland et al, 2019;Feeney & Pierce, 2018;Van der Meer-Kooistra & Scapens, 2015). Previous studies demonstrate that management control practices like integrative liaison devices play an important role in this respect as they support as well as guide knowledge sharing and integration (Abernethy & Lillis, 1995;Bürkland et al, 2019, p. 167;Ditillo, 2004Ditillo, , 2012Morris & Empson, 1998).…”

“…The anchor practice in our case was an integrative liaison device (Abernethy & Lillis, 1995;Miller, 1988). Analyzing the functioning of this management control practice thus allows us to expand on prior studies that emphasize the importance of social controls in NPD settings (Bürkland et al, 2019;Feeney & Pierce, 2018;Van der Meer-Kooistra & Scapens, 2015). Integrative liaison devices play an important role as they support knowledge sharing and integration (Abernethy & Lillis, 1995, p. 167;Bürkland et al, 2019;Ditillo, 2004Ditillo, , 2012Morris & Empson, 1998).…”

“…Studies hence demonstrate that various types of technical and social controls co-exist and are made use of in the management of new product development projects. This multiplicity of controls has been studied through, for instance, the Simons (1995) levers of control framework (Bedford, 2015;Bisbe & Malagueño, 2009;Bisbe & Otley, 2004;Curtis & Sweeney, 2017), the notion of directional and inspirational systems (Davila & Ditillo, 2017), minimal structures (Feeney & Pierce, 2018;Van der Meer-Kooistra & Scapens, 2015) and mediating instruments Christner & Strömsten, 2015;Miller & O'Leary, 2007). Some studies analyze how management control practices change over time to maintain the enabling role in NPD activities (Christner & Strömsten, 2015;Revellino & Mouritsen, 2009 while others emphasize the combined use of different control practices at specific points in time (e.g.…”

“…The literature shows that management control practices, for instance, can enable NPD activities by supplying information to reduce uncertainty (Davila, 2000), integrating different sources of knowledge (Ditillo, 2004), generating dynamic tensions (Curtis & Sweeney, 2017;Simons, 1995), and mediating between NPD activities and wider organizational concerns (Christner & Strömsten, 2015;Davila & Ditillo, 2017;Jørgensen & Messner, 2009Mouritsen et al, 2009). The literature shows that a multiplicity of various control practices is usually employed in these settings and interact with the NPD activities as well with each other at particular points in time (Davila & Ditillo, 2017;Jørgensen & Messner, 2009Van der Meer-Kooistra & Scapens, 2015) as well as over time (Christner & Strömsten, 2015;Revellino & Mouritsen, 2015).…”