The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Managing Product Development Projects: On the Significance of Fountains and Deadlines
Abstract
Product development in high-technology industries is often carried out in projects. Managing such projects is a matter of both promoting creative knowledge generation processes and controlling progress towards global goals and time limits. From such a dual perspective, we discuss the meaning and suitability of organizing product development projects in a concurrent rather than a sequential fashion and the use of deadlines as control mechanisms. The empirical case is about the breakthrough in Japan for the Swedish company Ericsson. The system was to be fully operative in 1994. This project forced management to reconsider their traditional way of working with projects and to try a new one instead — labelled the 'fountain model' — which relied more on concurrent work and inter-functional cooperation. As a result, they managed to shorten development time quite considerably and deliver the system on time. The fountain model of project organization is interpreted as expressing a 'coupling logic' suitable for error detection in a systemic complexity context. We also suggest a model, identifying four different project organization logics, that may be used contingent upon the type of error problematic and complexity involved. Using the garbage-can metaphor, we also discuss how deadlines and other time-based controls may support the fountain model by promoting inter-functional responsiveness and 'global' reflection.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning
March, J. G. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71 · Cited by 21,942
A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation
Nonaka, I. (1994) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.5.1.14 · Cited by 17,809
Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm
Grant, R. M. (1996) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250171110 · Cited by 16,157
Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.3.3.383 · Cited by 12,939
Product development: Past research, present findings and future directions
Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258850 · Cited by 3,777
Accelerating Adaptive Processes: Product Innovation in the Global Computer Industry
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Tabrizi, B. N. (1995) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393701 · Cited by 2,426
Cited by
Open source software development—Just another case of collective invention?
Osterloh, M., & Rota, S. (2007) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2006.10.004 · Cited by 281
Boundary object use in cross-cultural software development teams
Barrett, M., & Oborn, E. (2010) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/0018726709355657 · Cited by 194
Metadata
- Authors
- Lindkvist, L., Soderlund, J., & Tell, F.
- Venue
- Organization Studies
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1998-11
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 931-951
- ISSN
- 0170-8406 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-3044
- OpenAlex
- W2132686359
- Cited by
- 311
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 9.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.