اکتشاف و مدیریت پروژه

Project management in academic studies tends to be regarded as an adequate solution to the problems raised by innovation. This paper sets out to question this tendency to equate projects and innovation which, in our view, can lead to the improper use of projects to manage innovation. We argue that, in line with the work on project classification, a distinction should be made between the various types of design situations to which different types of projects are suited. Qualitative research on automotive telematics allows us to identify the management methods suited to the most innovative projects, i.e. exploration projects for which neither technologies nor customer requirements are known at the start of the project. We will show how these situations shake up traditional project management models and will propose five management principles adapted to this new situation.

The strategic role of new product development and innovation [10], [30], [67] and [57] makes design performance a central concern for managers. Project management therefore appears to be an adequate solution to the integration problems raised by these activities. Adler [3], for example, sees the project as the main way to implement innovations. Work such as that by Clark and Fujimoto [18] has thus helped to make heavyweight project management a dominant organizational model. This is a major characteristic of American managerial literature. The leading US manuals (for example, Burgelman et al. [12]) cover in detail the way in which the innovation process is carried out, technology analysis tools, industry development, etc, but offer little insight into the organization appropriate to innovation. This topic is approached either via the resource-based model [30], from the perspective of functional policies or, when the question of integration is raised, via project management models. The article by Clark and Wheelwright [19] on heavyweight project management is therefore a key point of reference. In this article, we wish to question this tendency to equate projects and innovation. This tendency can, in fact, appear surprising inasmuch as Clark and Fujimoto [18] indicate that their research does not take into account the question of advanced engineering or basic research (p. 26). We therefore believe that it can lead to improper use of the project format to manage innovation. We argue that, in line with work on project classification [5], [60] and [67], a distinction should be drawn between the various design situations to which different types of projects are suited. Qualitative research [23] conducted at a European automobile manufacturer will allow us to identify the management methods suited to the most innovative projects, i.e. those for which neither technologies nor customer requirements are known at the start of the project (referred to by Atkinson et al. [4] as “soft” projects). Following James March’s definition, we will call them exploration projects. We will show how these situations disrupt traditional project management models and we will propose management principles adapted to this situation.

Our analysis shows that the a priori convergence between projects and innovation can be misleading. Following the growing body of research on the contingency theory of project management [59] and [67], we emphasize the need to distinguish different situations and, accordingly, different ways of managing projects. Specifically we demonstrate that organizations that have performed well in new product development are ill-equipped to grasp the opportunities in fields where both technical solutions and uses are highly uncertain. The telematics platform tried out at TelCar constitutes an organizational prototype, which broadly confirms the theoretical model of the project management of exploration projects that we have described in another context [41]. It illustrates the need to set up a dedicated structure to manage the exploration of a “field of innovation” [39] and [40]. But, at the same time, our research reveals some weaknesses. Firstly we explain the difficulty of involving the different departments concerned by the innovation (especially the sales networks, see [47]) or to take in projects initiated before the creation of the TP. Secondly, we show that the TP drift toward pure development, partly because of problems with a supplier and partly because of the reluctance of development projects to support uncertainty. Finally we propose five principles that form the outline of a project management model suited to the most complex innovation situations. They help define the nature of the desired objective (product and knowledge, gradual structuring of the innovation field) and discuss the nature of organizational settings suited to these situations. More fundamentally, this research shows that the fundamental tension between exploitation and exploration, first analysed by March [51], applies to project management. We can therefore distinguish between two different views of projects that are complementary since new ideas are supposed, at least theoretically, to move smoothly from exploration to exploitation/development (see Section 4.2 on the problems raised by this transition). In the exploitation perspective the role of the project is to organize the convergence to a predefined objective within a given set of constraints (time, budget, quality). Projects mainly exploit existing competences. The PMI or instrumental view of the project and the work from Clark and Fujimoto falls within this approach. In the second perspective, projects are a way of organizing the exploration of emerging innovation fields. But entering exploration entails a fundamental shift in project management methodology, with the risk of applying the exploitation framework to exploration. As shown by the present work and other recent research [48] and [59] in exploration situations it is no more possible to define ex-ante the goal and the means to reach it. Projects thus became highly uncertain and reflexive probe and learn processes. In this perspective projects are first and foremost a way to explore and learn. They became a fundamental component of search processes [2]. This should lead us to revisit the fundamental nature of projects which are not only a set of management tools but more generally a way to construct the future and to break with past routines [2], [7] and [26]. This research is a step in this direction.