Technology novelty, project complexity, and product development project execution success: a deeper look at task uncertainty in product innovation

By Mohan V. Tatikonda, S. R. Rosenthal. IEEE Trans. Engineering Management, 2000

641 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management of Technology and Innovation, Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/00b05b8ca376ee18b283854b6290d8ff6f797271

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Management of Technology and Innovation

In Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

The Uncertainty of Innovation: A Systematic Review of the Literature (2011, background): “A great deal of work has been done in order to understand how uncertainty affects organizational innovation processes (e.g. Tushman 1978; Souder & Moenaert 1992; Gales & Mansour-Cole 1995; Damanpour 1996; Tatikonda & Rosenthal 2000; Rogers 2003; York & Venkatraman 2010).”
Now, let's make it really complex (complicated): A systematic review of the complexities of projects (2011, background): “In the literature reviewed, the indicators expressed attributes of (absolute) novelty – technology that is cutting edge, or uncommon contractual framework (e.g. Shenhar, 2001; Tatikonda and Rosenthal, 2000), experience – the previous experience of an organisation, manager, team or stakeholder with s”
Dynamic capabilities through continuous improvement infrastructure (2009, background): “Second, there needs to be a balance between projects that are intended to improve existing process capabilities and those that seek to design new processes (Jansen et al., 2006; March, 1991; Tatikonda and Rosenthal, 2000a,b).”
The Mixed Blessings of Technological Innovativeness for the Commercial Success of New Products (2011, result): “Second, while this study offers a possible explanation for the nonsignificant impact of technological innovativeness on commercial performance as found by previous studies (Danneels and Kleinschmidt, 2001; Lynn and Akgün, 2001; Salomo et al., 2007; Storey and Easingwood, 1996; Tatikonda and Rosentha”
Impact of Relationship Value on Project Portfolio Success - Investigating the Moderating Effects of Portfolio Characteristics and External Turbulence (2013, background): “Tatikonda and Rosenthal (2000) refer to the type, number and size of the subtasks as well as their interdependency as dimensions for complexity.”
Complexity of Information Systems Development Projects: Conceptualization and Measurement Development (2005, methodology): “The first dimension, the distinction between structural and dynamic complexity, is supported by prior research [16, 49, 56, 64, 72, 80, 82].”
Does the development of environmental innovation require different resources? Evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms (2015, background): “novelty or newness – that is, the degree of familiarity with the given technology (Tatikonda and Rosenthal, 2000).”
Costs and Benefits of Inter-Departmental Innovation Collaboration (2011, background): “Innovation is a collective process of idea generation and implementation that builds upon resources, skills, and personnel from different organizational functions (Gibson and Gibbs, 2006; Tatikonda and Rosenthal, 2000a).”
Rating defence major project success: The role of personal attributes and stakeholder relationships (2014, background): “…there is evidence to suggest that due to the unique features of major projects, analysis within the framework of smaller scale or more traditional projects may not be effective (Dvir, Sadeh and Malach-Pines, 2006; Hass, 2009; Shenhar, Dvir, Levy and Maltz, 2001; Tatikonda and Rosenthal, 2000).”
On Uncertainty, Ambiguity, and Complexity in Project Management (2002, background): “As a consequence, project failures are numerous in practice; for example, budget and schedule overruns, compromised performance, and missed opportunities, (see, e.g., Morris and Hugh 1987 pp. 7–12, Tatikonda and Rosenthal 2000).”
System-of-Systems Engineering Management: A Review of Modern History and a Path Forward (2008, background): “, [71]; Shenhar and Dvir [12]; Turner and Cochrane [72]; Youker [73]), much of this literature has been focused on a single industry and often on small projects (Soderlund [74]; Tatikonda and Rosenthal [75]).”
New product development processes and new product profitability: Exploring the mediating role of speed to market and product quality (2011, background): “Development expense is modeled as an antecedent of speed to market and product quality because speed to market, technical performance (technical functionality and product quality), and product unit-cost objectives are set early in the project (Tatikonda and Rosenthal, 2000).”
Successful execution of product development projects: Balancing firmness and flexibility in the innovation process (2000, neutral): “Tatikonda and Rosenthal, 2000 .”