Project portfolio management for product innovation

Killen, CP; Hunt, R; Kleinschmidt, E

Project portfolio management for product innovation

Killen, CP

Hunt, R Kleinschmidt, E

Permalink

Publisher:: Emerald Group Publishihg Ltd
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 2008, 25 (1), pp. 24 - 38
Issue Date:: 2008-01

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download full textAdobe PDF (111.68 kB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Killen, CP https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2370-7856	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Hunt, R	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Kleinschmidt, E	en_US
dc.date.issued	2008-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 2008, 25 (1), pp. 24 - 38	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	0265-671X	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/10093
dc.description.abstract	The purpose of this paper is to create a benchmark and identify best practices for Project Portfolio Management (PPM) for both tangible product-based and service product-based development project portfolios. A questionnaire was developed to gather data to compare the PPM methods used, PPM performance, PPM challenges, and resulting new product success measures in 60 Australian organisations in a diverse range of service and manufacturing industries. The paper finds that PPM practices are shown to be very similar for service product development project portfolios and tangible product development project portfolios. New product success rates show strong correlation with measures of PPM performance and the use of some PPM methods is correlated with specific PPM performance outcomes. The findings in this paper are based on a survey of a diverse sample of 60 Australian organisations. The results are strengthened by comparisons with similar North American research; however, they may not be representative of all environments. Research in other regions would further qualify the findings. As each organisation's PPM process is unique, case study methods are recommended for future studies to capture more of the complexity in the environment. The paper shows that PPM practitioners and executives who make decisions about the development of tangible products and/or service products will benefit from the findings. This paper extends the existing understanding of PPM practices to include service development project portfolios as well as tangible product development project portfolios and strengthens the links between PPM practices and outcomes.	en_US
dc.publisher	Emerald Group Publishihg Ltd	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1111/jpim.12217	en_US
dc.rights	This article is (c) Emerald Group Publishing and permission has been granted for this version to appear here - https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12217. Emerald does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission from Emerald Group Publishing Limited.	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Business & Management	en_US
dc.title	Project portfolio management for product innovation	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	1	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	25	en_US
utslib.for	150307 Innovation and Technology Management	en_US
utslib.for	0102 Applied Mathematics	en_US
utslib.for	1503 Business and Management	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building/School of Built Environment
utslib.copyright.status	open_access
pubs.consider-herdc	true	en_US
pubs.issue	1	en_US
pubs.volume	25	en_US

Abstract:

The purpose of this paper is to create a benchmark and identify best practices for Project Portfolio Management (PPM) for both tangible product-based and service product-based development project portfolios. A questionnaire was developed to gather data to compare the PPM methods used, PPM performance, PPM challenges, and resulting new product success measures in 60 Australian organisations in a diverse range of service and manufacturing industries. The paper finds that PPM practices are shown to be very similar for service product development project portfolios and tangible product development project portfolios. New product success rates show strong correlation with measures of PPM performance and the use of some PPM methods is correlated with specific PPM performance outcomes. The findings in this paper are based on a survey of a diverse sample of 60 Australian organisations. The results are strengthened by comparisons with similar North American research; however, they may not be representative of all environments. Research in other regions would further qualify the findings. As each organisation's PPM process is unique, case study methods are recommended for future studies to capture more of the complexity in the environment. The paper shows that PPM practitioners and executives who make decisions about the development of tangible products and/or service products will benefit from the findings. This paper extends the existing understanding of PPM practices to include service development project portfolios as well as tangible product development project portfolios and strengthens the links between PPM practices and outcomes.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/10093