Summarize how the organization identified the problems. What techniques did they use, and what steps were taken to address the problems identified? What was done to recogniz

1

MIRED IN PROJECTS
 


by
Sebastian
Kunert

Context
 The company in this case study offers services in hardware, software and technical networks for law firms. They implement standardized products as well as customized solutions. The seven employees (2 sales, 5 technical support) and two managing partners, based in Berlin (Germany) run a stable company with mostly long term business relations. However, the IT market is highly competitive and demands constant innovation. Therefore, in that organization every member takes part in innovation workshops, is involved in several projects simultaneously and invests about 20% of working time to implement ideas.

Innovation

 Most innovations were about new IT services, for example in-house server-based automated data mirrors and automated remote control devices. Few projects focused on internal processes, for example an automated booking and reporting system. Most of the innovations were initiated by one partner, who also monitors, accepts or revises the outcomes. All projects were driven by a single employee and had to be done parallel to the core business. In a handbook all process steps and formalities are deeply fixed (by the way contrary to scientific findings, see van de Veen, Angle & Poole, 2000).

Failure
 An innovation survey (questionnaire and interviews throughout the company) revealed that…

• far too many projects were initiated by management at the same time (over 20) with very long time periods (on average 18 months instead of desired 9). • projects were much more complex for employees (in average 17 steps) than expected by management (7 steps). • management monitored poorly, especially the outcomes. The partners changed success- and outcome expectations during the project or, even worse, at the end. That led to long durations and much frustration. • management offered too little assistance and encouragement, e.g. the bonuses were only paid for customer services and sales, not for innovation projects, hence all colleagues tried to minimize their effort in others projects.

Domain
 Public � Private � Non-profit � Commercial � Business: food safety Start up (0-1yr) � Growth (1-5 yrs) � Mature (5yrs +) � Micro (Staff <10) � SME (10 – 250 Staff) � Large (250+) � Regional � National � Multinational �

Methods
 Longitudinal � Cross-sectional � Access � Exemplar � Random �

Innovation
 Top Down � Bottom-up � Product � Process � Organizational � Radical � Incremental �

2

• projects were communicated as cost factors by management in their annual financial reporting, earnings in the long run were not connected to former initiatives.

In sum, this company had much more ideas than resources to implement them. Project leaders felt mostly left alone. The overall outcome was quite small compared to the investments: increasing unfinished or escalated or failed projects, decreasing volume of sales with new products and services. Transformation Transformation started with moderated survey feedback workshops, followed by a task force with quarterly meetings over 2 years. The partners committed themselves to start less projects, to fix the desired outcomes in a specification sheet, to report gains from former projects and to share financial gains with the project leader. Furthermore, innovation management was installed which acts as a process promoter (c.f. Chakrabarti & Hauschildt, 1989). She mediates between management and staff, hosts supervision meetings, initiates project mentoring, intervenes in crises, connects to resource holders and gives practical advice. Doing that, management tried to erase the stigma of blood, sweat and tears from innovation projects and to bring back fun and glory for successfully implemented ideas.

Role
of
Leadership
 Leadership in this case was ambivalent. On the one hand, they contributed most of the ideas, authorized resources, matched projects with the company’s strategy, and emphasized the relevance of innovations. On the other hand, they built formal barriers to implement ideas and left the project leaders alone most of the time. Most important for leadership was a slight role change: less innovator, idea generator, and process chart producer, more controller, adviser, and strategist. Besides that, the new innovation manager acts as a backing for the management by giving them information and feedback as well as supervising the project leaders.

Further
Readings
 Chakrabarti, A. K. & Hauschildt, J. (1989). The division of labour in innovation management. R&D Management. 19 (2), pp. 161– 171. van de Veen, A. H., Angle, H. & Poole, M. D. (2000). Research on the Management of Innovation: The Minnesota Studies. New York: Oxford University Press.

Failure
 Caused externally � Caused internally � Step1 Invent � Step2 Select � Step3 Implement � Step4 Capture �

Transformation
 Internal to Organisation � External to Organisation � Delivered by Organisation � Delivered by Others �

Role
of
Leadership
 Strategic Recovery � Employee-led Recovery � New Leader Engaged to lead transformation � Existing Leader-led transformation � Recovery Strategy Published � Recovery Led by Operational Activity � Strategy Announced � Recovery Evolved �

Learning
outcomes
  The way of talking about,

monitoring and reporting innovation projects affects the willingness of employees to engage.

 Courage to select: Few and successful projects instead of many failed ones.