Novelty has substantial implications for project management. Because novelty is not objectively determined but perceived by project initiators and participants, diverging perceptions establish first-source managementtasks. Also, novelty is a multidimensional construct. A review of dimensions proposed in empirical measurement of novelty shows that, although about 20 items are used in many studies, no standard measurement approach has yet emerged. This hinders comparability and learning from empirical research on project management. Novelty should be considered as moderating the effects of management on success, because this is the more encompassing approach. The paper presents empirical research results on role structures of project management, team performance, autonomy of project management and clarity of objectives as well as ideal versus real characteristics of project managers. These results are primarily taken from studies by German authors with the aim of introducing this research to a broader audience. Although a substantial wealth of research results is available to support project management, optimisation is not yet possible. But, “one size fits all” is certainly not the right approach, and research results give some indications of how to respond to specific project characteristics. Furthermore, radically innovative projects call for more specific characteristics of projects managers than for more sophisticated planning aids.
BrockhoffK. (1990). Stärken und Schw'dchen industrieller Forschung und Entwicklung [Strength and weaknesses of research and development]. Stuttgart, Germany: C. E. Poeschel Verlag.
2.
BrockhoffK., & SchmaulB. (1996). Organization, autonomy, and success of internationally dispersed R&D facilities. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 43(1), 33–40.
3.
ChakrabartiA., & HauschildtJ. (1989). The division of labour in innovation management. R&D Management, 19(1), 161–171.
4.
ChristensenC. M., & OverdorfM. (2000). Meeting the challenge of disruptive change. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 67–76.
5.
DaneelsE., & KleinschmidtE. J. (2001). Product innovativeness from the firm's perspective: Its dimensions and their relation with project selection and performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18(6), 357–373.
6.
DrummH. J. (1996). Das Paradigma der Neuen Dezentralisation [The Paradigm of new Decentralization.]. Die Betriebswirtschaft, 56(1), 7–20.
7.
ErnstH. (2001). Erfolgsfaktoren neuer Produkte. Grundlagen für eine valide empirische Forschung [Success factors of new products: Foundations of valid empirical research]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler Verlag, Deutscher Universitätsverlag.
8.
ErnstH. (2002). Success factors of new product development: A review of the empirical literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(1), 1–40.
9.
FolkertsL. (2001). Promotoren in Innovationsprozessen. Empirische Untersuchung zur personellen Dynamik [Promotors in innovation processes. Empirical research of the human resource dynamics]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Deutscher Universitätsverlag.
10.
FreseE. (1980). Projektorganisation [Project organization]. In Handwörterbuch der Organisation (2nd ed.) (pp. 1960–1974). Stuttgart, Germany: C. E. Poeschel Verlag.
11.
FriedmanL., FleishmanE. A., & FletcherJ. (1992). Cognitive and interpersonal abilities related to the primary activities of R&D managers. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 9(3), 211–242.
12.
GemündenH. G., & SalomoS. (2005). Der Einfluss der Projektautonomie auf den Projekterfolg [The influence of project autonomy on success]. In AmelingmeyerJ., & HarlandP. E. (Eds.), Technologiemanagement & Marketing - Herausforderungen eines integrierten Innovationsmanagements (pp. 63–82). Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler Verlag.
13.
GarciaR., & CalantoneR. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: A literature review. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(2), 110–132.
14.
GerwinD., & MoffatL. (1997). Withdrawal of team authority during concurrent engineering. Management Science, 43(9), 1275–1287.
15.
GreenS. G. (1995). Top management support of R&D projects: A strategic perspective. IEEE Transactions of Engineering Management, 42(3), 223–232.
16.
GreenS. G., GavinM. B., & Aiman-SmithL. (1995). Assessing a multidimensional measure of radical technology innovation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 42(3), 203–214.
HauschildtJ., & GemündenH. (Eds). (1999). Promotoren. Champions der Innovation [Promotors. Champions of innovation]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler Verlag.
19.
HauschildtJ., & PearsonA. W. (1994). Ends, means and innovation management. Creativity and Innovation Management, 3(3), 162–166.
20.
HauschildtJ., & PulczynskiJ. (1992). Rigidität oder Flexibilität der Zielbildung in Innovationsprozessen? [Rigidity and flexibility of goal formation in innovation processes]. Zeitschrift für Organisation, 61(2), 74–81.
HoeglM., ParboteeahP., & GemundenH. G. (2003). When teamwork really matters: Task innovative-ness as a moderator of the teamwork-performance relationship in software development projects. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 20(3), 281–302.
23.
HoeglM., & WeinkaufK. (2005). Managing task interdependencies in multi-team projects: A longitudinal study. Journal of Management Studies, 42(6), 1287–1308.
24.
HoeglM., WeinkaufK., & GemuendenH. (2004). Inter-team coordination, project commitment, and teamwork in multi-team R&D projects. Organization Science, 15(1), 38–55.
25.
KeimG. (1997). Projektleiter in der industriellen Forschung und Entwicklung [Project managers in industrial research and development]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Deutscher Universitätsverlag.
26.
KerznerH. (1984). Project management (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
27.
KriegerA. (2005). Erfolgreiches Management radikaler Innovationen. Autonomie als Schlüsselvariable [Successful management of radical innovations. Autonomy as key variable]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Deutscher Universitätsverlag.
28.
LangeE. C. (1993). Abbruchentscheidung bei F&E-Projekten [Stopping decisions for R&D projects]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Deutscher Universitätsverlag.
29.
LeavittH. J. (1965). Applied organization change in industry: Structural, technological and humanistic approaches. In MarchJ. G. (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 1144–1170). Chicago: Rand McNally.
30.
LechlerT. (1999). Was leistet das Promotoren-Modell für das Projektmanagement? [What is the contribution of the Promotor Model to project management?]. In HauschildtJ., & GemündenH. G. (Eds.), Promotoren. Champions der Innovation (pp. 179–209). Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler Verlag.
31.
LotkaA. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(6), 317–323.
32.
PapiesS. (2005). Prozessbegleitende Bewertung von Innovationsprojekten [Process-related valuation of innovation projects]. PhD dissertation. Vallendar, Germany: WHU.
RubensteinA. H., ChakrabartiA. K., O'KeefeR. D., SouderW. E., & YoungH. C. (1976, May). Factors influencing innovation success at the project level. Research Management, 19, 15–20.
35.
SchlaakT. M. (1999). Der Innovationsgrad als Schlüsselvariable. Perspektiven für das Management von Produktentwicklungen [The degree of innovativeness as a leading indicator. Perspectives for the management of product development]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Deutscher Universitätsverlag.
36.
SimonM., HoughtonS. M., & GurneyJ. (1999). Succeeding at international corporate venturing—Roles needed to balance autonomy and control. Journal of Applied Management Sciences, 8(2), 145–149.
37.
SouderW. E., & JenssenS. A. (1999). Management practices influencing new product success and failure in the US and Scandinavia: A cross-cultural comparative study. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16(2), 183–203.
38.
TjosvoldD., TangM. M. L., & WestM. (2004). Reflexivity for team innovation in China. The contribution of goal interdependence. Group & Organization Management, 29(5), 540–559.
WitteE. (1973). Organisation für innovationsentscheidungen. Das ptomotorenmodell [Organization for innovation decisions. The Promotor Model]. Goettingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Rupprecht.
