The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Technological Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Industry: The Use of Organizational Control in Managing Research and Development
Abstract
The literature on the management of R&D professionals strongly advocates managing R&D projects on a project-by-project basis. This literature suggests that projects should be managed differently depending upon project characteristics such as risk, ambiguity, and nonroutineness. While the primary emphasis of the R&D professional literature has been on project teams, the purpose of this study is to examine the impact of organization-wide controls on innovativeness at the firm level. In a sample of 57 pharmaceutical firms, this study investigates the influence of organizational controls on the research and development activities of R&D professionals. This study is one of a handful of studies that simultaneously explores the use of input, behavior, and output controls. Two categories of innovation are considered as dependent variables: incremental innovations in the form of drug enhancements and radical innovations in the form of new drugs. Contrary to existing theory and hypotheses developed in this study, the results show that input, behavior, and output control enhanced radical innovation, and input and output controls enhanced incremental innovation. These results challenge several important features of existing models of R&D management and diverge from common beliefs about R&D management at the project level. While it is commonly accepted that incremental and radical innovation should be managed differently, the results of this study suggest otherwise. In this instance, the management of R&D activities may be considered more similar than previously thought.
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
Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.3.231 · Cited by 11,317
Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity
Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E., & Welsch, R. E. (1980) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471725153 · Cited by 7,297
Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Teams
Barker, J. R. (1993) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393374 · Cited by 2,305
Cited by
Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2006) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1060.0576 · Cited by 3,705
Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B., & Bush, A. A. (2010) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1100.0323 · Cited by 1,514
Van Wijk, R., Jansen, J. J. P., & Lyles, M. A. (2008) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00771.x · Cited by 1,335
From creativity to innovation: The social network drivers of the four phases of the idea journey
Perry-Smith, J. E., & Mannucci, P. V. (2017) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2014.0462 · Cited by 1,121
Adler, P. S., & Chen, C. X. (2011) · Accounting, Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/j.aos.2011.02.002 · Cited by 329
Metadata
- Authors
- Cardinal, L. B.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2001-02
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 19-36
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2099641816
- Cited by
- 860
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 27.01
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Technological Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Industry: The Use of Organizational Control in Managing Research and Development. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/orsc.12.1.19.10119
- The paper
- Cardinal, L. B. (2001). Technological Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Industry: The Use of Organizational Control in Managing Research and Development. Organization Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.1.19.10119
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.