This paper explores how project management performance varies with the degree to which development projects are “integrated” with the organization(s) that manages them. Integration is measured over multiple dimensions and related to performance as rated by managers of 15 pharmaceutical firms and their 117 drug development projects. Preliminary results support the theory that “dis-integrating” the project from the traditional functional hierarchy can provide the “distance” necessary for high-performance product development.
ClarkKFujimotoT.Product Development Performance: Strategy, Organization, and Management in the World Automobile Industry.Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press; 1991.
2.
TuckerS.The outcome of research on New Molecular Entities. Prepared for the economics staff of the Food and Drug Administration, Office of Planning and Administration; 1988.
3.
DiMasaJACost of innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. J Health Econ.1991;10.
4.
PrahaladCKHamelG.The core competencies of the corporation. Harvard Business Rev.1990; May-June: 79–91.
5.
TushmanM.Technical communication in research and development laboratories: Impact of project work characteristics. Academy Manage J.1978;21:624–645.
6.
AllenTCohenS.Information flow in R&D labs. Administrat Sci Quarterly.1969;14:12–19.
7.
BenneKDSheatsP.Functional roles of group members. J Social Issues.1948;4:41–49.
8.
BalesRFInteraction Process Analysis.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1950.
9.
AllenTCohenS.Information flow in R&D labs. Administrat Sci Quarterly.1969;14:12–19.
10.
GalbraithJ.Organization design: An information processing View. Interfaces.1974;4(May):28–36.
11.
AllenTJManaging the Flow of Technology.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1977.
12.
TushmanM.Technical communication in research and development laboratories: Impact of project work characteristics. Academy Manage J.1978;21: 624–645.
13.
HackmanJr.The Design of Self-Managing Work Groups.New Haven, CT: Yale University, School of Organization and Management; 1976.
14.
KellerRTPredictors of the performance of project groups in R&D organizations. Academy Manage J.1986;29(4):715–726.
15.
PelzDAndrewsF.Scientists in Organizations.Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press; 1976.
16.
KatzRTushmanM.Communication patterns, project performance and task characteristics: An empirical evaluation and integration in an R&D setting. Organization Behavior Human Perform.1981;23: 139–162.
17.
BurgelmanR.A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm. Administrat Sci Quarterly.1983;28:223–244.
18.
van de VenA.Central problems in the management of innovation. Manage Sci.1986;32:590–607.
19.
StarbuckJ.Managerial Innovations. In KimberlyW. Ed. Handbook of Organizational Design.New York: Oxford University Press; 1981, 1:84–104.
20.
KatzR.The effects of group Longevity on project communication and performance. Administrat Sci Quarterly.1982;27:81–104.
21.
TakeuchiHNonakaI.The new product development game. Harvard Bus Rev.1986.
22.
MarquisDGStraightDLOrganizational factors in project performance. Unpublished Working Paper, Sloan School of Management; 1965.
23.
KatzRAllenTJProject performance and the focus of influence in the R&D matrix. Academy Manage J.1985;28(1):67–87.
24.
ClarkKFujimotoT.Product Development Performance: Strategy, Organization, and Management in the World Automobile Industry.Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press; 1991.
25.
LarsonEWGobeliDHOrganizing for product development projects. J Product Innovat Manage.1988;5:180–190.
26.
PfefferJ.Understanding power in organizations. California Manage Rev.1992;34(2):29–50.
27.
KellerRTHollandWECommunicators and innovators in research and development organizations. Academy Manage J.1983;26:742–749.
28.
KellerRTHollandWEIndividual characteristics of innovativeness and communication in research and development organizations. J Appl Psychol.1978;63:759–762.
29.
ScarpelloVWhittenBJAn exploration of critical personalities in research and development organizations. J High Tech Manage Res.1991;2(2):151–168.
30.
AbbeyADicksonJWR&D work climate and innovation in semiconductors. Academy Manage J.1983;26(2):362–368.
31.
AikenMHageJ.Organizational interdependence and intra-organizational structure. Am Sociolog Rev.1968;33:912–930.
32.
PaolilloJGBrownWBHow organizational factors affect R&D innovation. Research Manage.1978;7: 12–15.
33.
BergenSAProductivity and the R&D production interface in Japan. R&D Manage.1986;16(1): 15–24.
34.
HayesRHWheelwrightSCGerman approaches to manufacturing management. Chapt. 11 In Restoring Our Competitie Edge: Competing Through Manufacturing, New York: John Wiley; 1984.
35.
HoskissonREHittMAStrategic control systems and relative R&D investment in large multiproduct firms. Strateg Manage J.1988;9:605–621.
36.
BasaF.Project Management and Organization Structure in Drug Development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation at MIT; 1995.
37.
CaseR.Managing For Failure: Intrafirm and Interfirm Perspectives on Risk Taking in Pharmaceutical R&D. Unpublished dissertation, Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania; 1993.
38.
CaseRShaneS.Fostering risk taking in research and development: The importance of a project's terminal value. Decision Sci.1998.
