Innovation and the dynamics of capability accumulation in project-based firms.

Montgomery, CA and B Wernerfelt (1988) Diversification, Ricardian rents, and Tobin's q. RAND Journal of Economics 19: 623-32.

Patel, P and K Pavitt (1997) The technological competencies of the world's largest firms complex and path-dependent, but not much variety. Research Policy 26: 141-156.

Penrose, ET (1959) The Theory of Growth of the Firm. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Peteraf, MA (1993) The Cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal 14: 363-80.

Perlow, LA (1999) The time famine: Towards a sociology of work time. Administrative Sciences Quarterly 44: 57-81.

Prahalad, CK and G Hamel (1990) The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review 66.

Prencipe, A, and F Tell (2001) Inter-project learning: processes and outcomes of knowledge codification in PBFs. Research Policy 30: 1373-1394.

Repenning, NP (2002) A smulation-based approach to understanding the dynamics of innovation implementation. Organization Science 13(3): 109-127.

Rindova, VP, and S Kotha (2001) Continuous 'morphing': Competing through dynamic capabilities, form and function. Academy of Management Journal 44: 1263-1280.

Rockart, S (2003) Calling spirits from the deep: the effect of social learning on industry structure and competitive dynamics. Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, working paper.

Rothwell, R (1992) Successful industrial innovation: critical factors for the 1990s. R&D Management 22(3): 221-239.

Rudolph, JW and NP Repenning (2002) Disaster dynamics : understanding the role of quantity in organizational collapse. Administrative Science Quarterly 47(1): 1-30.

Rumelt, RP (1984) Towards a strategic Theory of the firm. In: RB Lamb ed., Competitive Strategic Management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Sapsed, JD (2005) How should 'knowledge bases' be organised in multi-technology corporations. International Journal of Innovation Management 9: 75-102.

Saeed, K (1998) Maintaining professional competence in innovation organizations. Human Systems Management 17(1): 69-87.

Sastry, MA (1997) Problems and paradoxes in a model of punctuated organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly 42(2): 237-275.

Schon, DA (1983) The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.

Sterman, JD (2000) Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. Boston, Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

Teece, DJ, G Pisano, A Shuen (1997) Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 18: 509-33.

Warren, K (2002) Competitive Strategy Dynamics. Wiley, Chichester.

Verona, G and D Ravasi (2003) Unbundling dynamic capabilities: an exploratory study of continuous product innovation. Industrial Corporate Change 12(3): 577-606.

Wernerfelt, B (1984) A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 5: 171-80.

Winter, SG (2003) Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal 24: 991-995.

STEFFEN BAYER

Innovation Studies Centre

Tanaka Business School

Imperial College London--South Kensington Campus

London, UK

DAVID GANN

Innovation Studies Centre

Tanaka Business School

Imperial College London--South Kensington Campus

London, UK TABLE 1: RESOURCES AND CAPABILITIES

ASSET STOCKS

Resources

Tangible Intangible Capabilities financial resources, project reputation, functional, organisational

backlog/workload, staff knowledge and project capabilities TABLE 2: CAUSAL LINKS--WORK ACQUISITION AND WORKLOAD Cause Effect Polarity changes workload + complexity of complexity of + new projects projects desired complexity of + complexity of new projects new projects excellence of reputation + completed project loss of reputation - reputation project comp- reputation + letion rate reputation attractiveness +

to highly skilled

employees reputation complexity of +

new projects reputation work +

acquisition resource time allocation + allocation on to acquisition project level share of time allocation + project level to acquisition time allocated to acquisition time allocation work + to acquisition acquisition work workload + acquisition

Meaning (all else Cause being equal!) References changes Changes of project Cooper, 1980;

specifications by clients Lyneis et al., 2001

increase workload. complexity of If the complexity of new logical new projects projects increases, so will the relationship

complexity of the portfolio. desired The company can (depending on Hobday, 1998; complexity of opportunities) determine the Davies & Hobday, new projects complexity of new projects. 2005 excellence of Excellence of completed project very plausible completed results in improved reputation. relationship project loss of Reputation is gradually lost Gann & Salter, reputation over time because past 2000

achievements are forgotten or

considered irrelevant. project comp- Completed projects increase very plausible letion rate reputation relationship reputation Highly qualified experts prefer very plausible

to work for companies with a relationship

good reputation. reputation A good reputation allows the very plausible

company to acquire more complex relationship

work. reputation Reputation increases the amount very plausible

of work that can be acquired. relationship resource The more resources are logical relation- allocation on allocated away from the central ship; see also project level level of the organisation the Hobday, 2000;

more can be spent on work Sapsed, 2005

acquisition by project teams

(keeping "share of project

level time allocated to

acquisition" constant). share of A higher share of time logical project level allocated to acquisition relationship time allocated implies that more time is to acquisition available for acquisition. time allocation The more time is allocated to very plausible to acquisition acquisition the more work will relationship

be acquired. work The acquisition of new work logical acquisition results in an increase in relationship

workload. TABLE 3: CAUSAL LINKS--PROJECT EXECUTION Cause Effect Polarity complexity of financial + projects resources complexity of project - projects completion

rate innovative excellence of + problem completed solving project project financial + completion resources rate project workload - completion rate quality of excellence of + project completed execution project quality of project com- + project pletion rate execution resource time allocation + allocation on to execution project level share of time allocation - project level to execution time allocated to acquisition time allocation project + to execution completion

rate time pressure quality of pro- -

ject execution workload time pressure +