Abstract

The aim of the article. Survival in a dynamic competitive environment often requires consistent produce of successful new product and services; therefore, implementing an effective Project Portfolio Management (PPM) in the organization can improve innovation decisions and outcomes of new products, thereby lead to higher competitive advantage. This Paper aims at discovering the causal relationship of Innovation Project Portfolio Management (IPPM) performance. The results of the analysis. Qualitative research design was chosen for this study and through using semi-structured and in-depth interviews with 24 experts in five Iranian organizations producing equipment of the power industry, we use a grounded theory approach to develop a general model of what drives IPPM in detail and how these causes are related to effects on both project performance and business performance. According to the findings from these qualitative data, effective IPPM is the result of three areas of capabilities: IPPM Process, IPPM structure, IPPM people. These causal relationships are moderated by project context. Also the findings show that performance of IPPM consist of an integrated elements of Strategic alignment, portfolio balance, resource fit and value maximization. In the other hand, IPPM performance has influences on project performance and business performance. Finally, a set of propositions regarding the key performance drivers of IPPM were developed. Conclusions and directions of further researches. In conclusion, this study contributes new insights to the emerging research on IPPM. While most IPPM literature is still a theoretical, this paper develops IPPM in the context of the Iran’s power industry. The qualitative research design used in this paper was appropriate for gaining an in-depth understanding how the IPPM capabilities and project context, and certain performance constructs are linked to each other. Our interviews revealed the importance of integrating model consist of the IPPM capabilities and project context. This study reveals potential relationships between identified independent and dependent constructs aiming to sophistically extend the current knowledge of IPPM. Consequently, this paper provides a framework for future empirical research in other industries in developing countries, which will potentially have significant implications for academia and managerial practice.

Keywords: project portfolio management, capability, innovation projects, innovation project portfolio, project context

JEL Classification: G11, L10, L20, O22, O32.

Cite as: Khameneh, A., Sobhiyah M. & Hosseini, H. (2016). Developing project portfolio management model for innovation projects using grounded theory: a case of Iran’s power industry. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 3, 28-40. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2016.3-02

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References

1. Kester, L., Griffin, A., Hultink, E.J., & Lauche, K. (2011). Exploring portfolio decision-making processes. J Prod Innov Manage. 28, 641-661 [in English]. 
2. Cooper, R.G., Edgett, S.J., & Kleinschmidt, E.J. (2001). Portfolio management for new product development: Results of an industry practices study. R&D Manage, 31(4), 361-380 [in English].
3. Hunt, R.A., & Killen, C.P. (2008). Best practice project portfolio management. Int J Qual Reliab Manage, 25(1), 1-6 [in English].
4. Cooper, R.G. (1999). Edgett S J, Kleinschmidt E J. New product portfolio management: Practices and performance, J Prod Innov Manage, 16, 333-351 [in English].
5. Killen, C.P., & Hunt, R.A. (2007). Kleinschmidt E J. Managing the new product development project portfolio: A review of the literature and empirical evidence. In: Proc Portland Int Center Manage Eng Technol, 1864-1874 [in English].
6. Kester, L., Griffin, A., & Hultink, E.J. (2011). An empirical test of the antecedents and consequences of portfolio decision-making effectiveness. 18th Int Prod Develop Manage Conf; Delft, The Netherlands [in English].
7. Kester, L., & Hultink, E.J. (2009). Lauche K. Portfolio decision-making genres: A case study. J Eng Technol Manage, 26(4), 327-341 [in English].
8. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Acad Manage Rev, 14(4), 532-550 [in English].
9. Glaser, B.G. (2010). The future of grounded theory. Grounded Theory Rev, 9(2), 1-14 [in English].
10. Maxwell, J.A. (2005). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE [in English].
11. Holloway, I. (1997). Basic Concepts for Qualitative Research. Oxford, UK: Blackwell [in English].
12. Galloppo, G. (2010). A comparison of pre and post modern portfolio theory using resembling. Global J Bus Res, 4(1), 1-17 [in English].
13. Markowitz, H. (1952). Portfolio selection. J Finance, 7(1), 77-91 [in English].
14. Killen, C.P., Hunt, R.A., & Kleinschmidt, E.J. (2006). Benchmarking innovation portfolio management practices: Methods and outcomes. In: Proc Int Conf Manage Technol, 1-10 [in English].
15. Barczak, G., Griffin, A., & Kenneth, B.K. (2009). Perspective: Trends and drivers of success in NPD practices: Results of the 2003 PDMA best practices study. J Prod Innov Manage, 26, 3-23 [in English].
16. Miguel, P.C. (2008). Portfolio management and new product development implementation: A case study in a manufacturing firm. Int J Qual Reliab Manage, 25(1),10-23 [in English].
17. Ernst, H., & Lichtenthaler, U. (2009). Innovation portfolio management: An understudied driver of innovation success? Int J Technol Intell Planning, 5(2), 111-117 [in English].
18. Killen, C.P., Hunt, R.A., & Kleinschmidt, E.J. (2008). Learning investments and organizational capabilities: Case studies on the development of project portfolio management capabilities. Int J Manage Proj in Buss. 1(3), 334-351[in English]. 
19. Flick, U. (2009). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 4th ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE [in English].
20. Merton, R.K., Kendall, P.L. (2007). The focused interview. Amer J Sociol, 1946; 51(6), 541-557 [in English].
21. Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE [in English].
22. Strauss, A.L, & Corbin, J.M. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE [in English].
23. Coulon, M., Ernst, H., Lichtenthaler, U., & Vollmoeller, J. (2009). An overview of tools for managing the corporate innovation portfolio. Int J Technol Intell Planning, 5(2), 221-239 [in English].
24. Cooper, R.G., Edgett, S.J., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1997). Portfolio management in new product development: Lessons from the leaders. I. Res Technol Manage. 40(5), 16-28 [in English].
25. Martinsuo, M., & Lehtonen, P. (2007). Role of single-project management in achieving portfolio management efficiency. Int J Project Manage, 25(1), 56-65 [in English].
26. Roussel, P.A., Saad, K.N., & Erickson, T.J. (1991). Third Generation R & D: Managing the Link to Corporate Strategy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press [in English].
27. Muller, R., Martinsuo, M., & Blomquist, T. (2008). Project portfolio control and management performance in contexts. Project Manage J., 39, 28-42 [in English]. 
28. Eilat, H., Golany, B., & Shtub, A. (2006). Constructing and evaluating balanced portfolios of R&D projects with interactions: A DEA based methodology. Eur J Oper Res. 172(3), 1018-1039 [in English].
29. Shenhar, A. J., Tishler, A., Dvir, D., Lipovetsky, S., & Lechler, T. (2002). Refining the search for project success factors: A multivariate, typological approach. R&D Manage, 32(2), 111-126 [in English]. 
30. Kerka, F., Kriegesmann, B., & Schwering, M.G. (2009). Evaluating innovation ideas: A comprehensive approach to new product development. Int J Technol Intell Planning, 5(2), 118-136 [in English].
31. Mikkola, J.H. (2001). Portfolio management of R&D projects: Implications for innovation management. Technovation, 21, 423-435 [in English]. 
32. Vorhies, D.W., & Morgan, N.A. (2005). Benchmarking marketing capabilities for sustainable competitive advantage. J Marketing. 69(1), 80-94 [in English]. 
33. Ellonen, H.K., Wikstrom, P., & Jantunen A. (2009). Linking dynamic capability portfolios and innovation outcomes. Technovation. 29, 753-762 [in English]. 
34. Kraaijenbrink, J., Spender, J.C., & Groen, A.J. (2010). The resource-based view: A review and assessment of its critiques. J Manage. 36(1), 349-372 [in English].