How entrepreneurial orientation can leverage innovation project portfolio management

Innovation project portfolio management (IPPM) is a key task in R&D management because this decision‐making process determines which R&D projects should be undertaken and how R&D resources are allocated. Previous research has developed a good understanding of the role of IPPM in R&D strategy implementation and of successful IPPM practices. But the fundamental orientations that drive the strategy formation and implementation process have never been investigated in the context of IPPM, and it is unclear whether successful practices are equally valid for different strategic orientations. This study, therefore, investigates the moderating impact of a firm’s entrepreneurial orientation on the relationship between strategic portfolio management practices and portfolio success. An empirical analysis of 257 firms shows that both innovativeness and risk taking as entrepreneurial orientation’s dimensions positively moderate the relationship between managerial practices and performance. Specifically, we find that firms high in innovativeness profit more from stakeholder engagement compared to firms low in innovativeness. Firms high in risk‐taking profit more from a clearly formulated strategy. With increasing innovativeness and risk‐taking propensity, firms also profit more from business case monitoring and agility in portfolio steering. The results suggest that a firm’s entrepreneurial orientation can leverage the effect of IPPM practices. Vice versa, a lacking entrepreneurial orientation can render these practices ineffective. Strategic orientation and IPPM practices should, therefore, be aligned with each other to enable firms to better implement their strategy and generate competitive advantage.     

Innovation Field Orientation and Its Effect on Innovativeness and Firm Performance

New product development (NPD) has become a prime source for gaining a competitive edge in the market. Although a large body of research has addressed the question of how to successfully manage individual innovation projects, the management of a firm's new product portfolio has received comparably less research attention. A phenomenon that has recently emerged on the research agenda is innovation field orientation. Such orientation is understood as the deliberate setup and management of multiple thematically related NPD projects. However, the facets and effects of innovation field orientation are still unexplored. In particular, this study is interested in (1) developing a concept of innovation field orientation, (2) investigating the extent to which innovation field orientation is an established part of the corporate strategic planning practice, and (3) assessing the direct and indirect performance effects of innovation field orientation. For the empirical analysis, data were collected through a mail survey and document analyses from 122 publicly listed firms. Tobin's q was used as an objective performance metric directly related to shareholder value. The results confirm that innovation field orientation is a phenomenon that prevails in practice. In addition, all defining aspects of this orientation have either direct or indirect effects on firm performance. Hence, those firms that deliberately specify and manage innovation fields have a more innovative product portfolio and are more successful than others. Specifically, the findings underline the performance relevance of formally framing innovation fields and assigning a critical mass of resources to them. In addition, empirical support is lent to the suggestion that innovation field orientation has strong indirect performance effects mediated by the innovativeness of the firm's new product portfolio. This implies that firms that deliberately specify focus areas, assign resources to, provide organizational framing for, and stimulate synergies between related NPD projects stand a better chance to achieve a more innovative new product portfolio. This again is highly appreciated by investors and results in a superior stock market evaluation of these firms.     

Product Development as Core Competence: How Formal Product Development Practices Differ for Radical,More Innovative,and Incremental Product Innovations

Although universally recognized as an important consideration in building product development (PD) competency, the effect of a firm's ability to vary its PD practices to develop winning products has been given scant attention in large‐scale, multiorganizational, quantitative studies. This research explores differences in formal new PD practices among three project types—incremental, more innovative, and radical. Using a sample of 380 business units, this research investigates how development practices differ across these three classes of innovation with respect to the formal PD process, project organization, PD strategy, organizational culture, and senior management commitment. Our results diverge from several commonly held beliefs about formal PD processes and the management of radical versus incremental innovations. Our results indicate that radical projects are managed less flexibly than incremental projects. Instead of being an offshoot of less strategic planning, radical projects are just as strategically aligned as incremental projects. Instead of being informally introduced entrepreneurial adventures, radical projects are often the result of more formal ideation methods. While these results may be counterintuitive to suppositional models of how to radical innovation happens, it is the central theme of this research to show how radical innovation actually happens. Our findings also provide a foundation for reexamining the role of control in the management of innovation. As the level of innovativeness increased, so too did the amount of controls imposed—e.g., less flexibility in the development process, more professional, full‐time project leadership, centralized executive oversight for new products, and formal financial assessments of expected NP performance.     

Market Orientation and Innovativeness in Supply Chains: Supplier's Impact on Customer Satisfaction

As today's firms increasingly outsource their noncore activities, they not only have to manage their own resources and capabilities, but they are ever more dependent on the resources and capabilities of supplying firms to respond to customer needs. This paper explicitly examines whether and how firms and suppliers, who are both oriented to the same customer market, enable innovativeness in their supply chains and deliver value to their joint customer. We will call this customer of the focal firm the “end user.” The authors take a resource‐dependence perspective to hypothesize how suppliers' end‐user orientation and innovativeness influence downstream activities at the focal firm and end‐user satisfaction. The resource dependence theory looks typically beyond the boundaries of an individual firm for explaining firm success: firms need to satisfy customer demands to survive and depend on other parties such as their suppliers to achieve customer satisfaction. Accordingly, the research design focuses on three parties along a supply chain: the focal firm, a supplier, and a customer of the focal firm (end user). The results drawn from a survey of 88 matched chains suggest the following. First, customer satisfaction is driven by focal firms' innovativeness. A focal firm's innovativeness depends, on the one hand, on a focal firm's market orientation and, on the other hand, on its suppliers’ innovativeness. Second, no relationship could be established between a focal firm's market orientation and a supplier's end‐user orientation. Market orientation typically has within‐firm effects, while innovativeness has impact beyond the boundaries of the firm. These results suggest that firms create value for their customer through internal market orientation efforts and external suppliers' innovativeness.     

Managing Innovation Champions: The Impact of Project Characteristics on the Direct Manager Role*

A key challenge for organizations seeking to improve the management of innovation lies in determining when to lend direct managerial support, and how much support, to those championing such projects. This research provides insights into the connection between project characteristics and the type and frequency of direct manager involvement. As such, it addresses the following research question: how does the level of project innovativeness, strategic relatedness, and resource requirements impact the level of empowerment of innovation champions and the sponsor or supervisor role played by managers? The research method involves a survey of 89 project champions from four divisions of large, multinational Korean companies. The results show that when innovativeness was high but projects were strategically related, there was greater project champion empowerment but also a more frequent managerial sponsor role. This suggests it may be best to allow innovators, who are close to the project's markets, technologies, and industry conditions, to have greater freedom over objectives and decisions. Yet they may also need the advice and support of their managers to function optimally under the highly uncertain conditions that characterize innovative projects. This combination of empowerment and a sponsor role, though appropriate for highly innovative projects, may also require high strategic relatedness, however. On the other hand, when projects are less strategically related and when resource requirements are high, the analysis suggests managers are more likely to exert control. Managers may therefore need to become more closely involved in decision making for costly ventures representing new strategic directions for their organizations. Overall, this research suggests that both empowerment and manager roles are relevant to the management of innovation. These results offer academic value in recognizing the nature of the direct manager role under different innovation project conditions. It further reveals a need for academics to recognize both the supervisor and sponsor roles in the management of innovation. For managers, the findings suggest that for organizations to effectively develop and commercialize innovations managers need to recognize when certain projects call for different levels and types of involvement.     

On the duality of political and economic stakeholder influence on firm innovation performance: Theory and evidence from Chinese firms

Research Summary

In this study, we propose and test a multi‐stakeholder perspective to address variation in innovation performance across firms. Specifically, we analyze how a focal firm's innovation performance is shaped by its political stakeholders (local and central governments) and economic stakeholders (suppliers, buyers, and competitors). Using a data set consisting of over 26,400 Chinese firms, we first find support for our predictions that a focal firm's innovation performance will be enhanced by both its government connections and the innovativeness of its economic stakeholders. We then analyze whether the interdependent effect of these political and economic stakeholders is more likely to be synergistic versus antagonistic, and find evidence consistent with the antagonistic view.

Managerial Summary

We show how a firm's innovativeness is influenced strongly by its relationships to external stakeholders. Specifically, we examine the potentially dual‐edged role of political stakeholders (local and central governments) and economic stakeholders (suppliers, buyers, and competitors). Using extensive data on Chinese firms, we find: (a) that the higher the level of government connections, the greater a firm's innovativeness; (b) that firms located in proximity with more innovative economic stakeholders also tend to have higher innovation performance. We also look beyond these independent positive effects to examine the joint effect of these two forms of stakeholder influence, and here we see that more influence is not always better. Specifically, we find that the innovation benefit that typically accrues to firms in proximity to more innovative economic stakeholders is weakened when those firms also have higher‐level government connections.     

Measuring New Product Success: The Difference that Time Perspective Makes

Management is often criticized for overemphasizing short-term profits at the expense of long-term growth. On the other hand, although numerous studies have explored the factors underlying new product success and failure, such studies rarely distinguish between short- and long-term success. In fact, little research has been conducted to explore the relationship between a company's time perspective and its choice of criteria for measuring new product success. For that matter, little consensus exists as to just what we mean by the term success. Expanding on work done by a PDMA task force on measurement of new product success and failure, Erik Jan Hultink and Henry S.J. Robben identify 16 core measures of new product success. In a survey of large Dutch companies, they explore managers' perceptions of new product success, hypothesizing that the importance attached to each of the 16 core measures depends on the company's time perspective. For example, they propose that criteria such as development cost and speed-to-market are more important in the short term, and return-on-investiment (ROI) is more important in the long term. The study also examines the type of market served, the innovation strategy, and the perceived innovativeness of the company's products. It is hypothesized that these factors will influence the importance the company attaches to the core measures of new product success. For example, it is expected that speed-to-market is probably more important for technological innovators than for fast imitators or cost minimizers. The findings support the hypothesis that the firm's time perspective influences the perceived importance of the core measures of success. For the short term, the respondents emphasize product-level measures such as speed-to-market and whether the product was launched on time. In the long term, the focus is on customer acceptance and financial performance, including attaining goals for profitability, margins, and ROI. Four factors are perceived as being equally important for short-term and long-term success: customer satisfaction, customer acceptance, meeting quality guidelines, and product performance level. Customer satisfaction was found to be the most important measure, regardless of a company's time perspective. Contrary to expectations, the perceived importance of the 16 core measures does not differ on the basis of the type of market, the innovation strategy, or the product's perceived innovativeness. In addition, the firm's functional orientation—technology push or market pull—does not affect the importance attached to the core measures of new product success.     

When general recommendations fail: how to search in single innovation project settings

External sources are main elements of a firm's search strategy as they positively influence a firm's innovation activities. While previous research has almost exclusively focused on search patterns on firm level, we focus on search mechanisms in single innovation project settings. Based on an inductive case study of eight cross‐industry innovation projects, we present a theoretical framework of three archetypes. In our research, we transfer the concept of breadth and depth from firm to project level and present decisive criteria. We provide evidence that search on project level is not only influenced by breadth and depth, but the character of search represented by its level of abstraction plays a major role. Furthermore, we show that at least in our context and contrary to firm level, not always high levels of breadth and depth are required. In addition, our research contributes to an enhanced operation of search in firms applying our archetypes.     

PDMA Success Measurement Project: Recommended Measures for Product Development Success and Failure

Success is not just elusive; it is also multifaceted and difficult to measure. A firm can assess the success or failure of a development project in any (or all) of many terms, including customer satisfaction, financial return, and technical advantage. To complicate matters, success may be measured not only at the level of the individual project, but also at the program level. With so many variables to consider and so many stakeholders involved, managers face a difficult challenge just deciding which measures are useful for measuring product development success. Recognizing that no single measure suffices for gauging the success of every product development project, Abbie Griffin and Albert L. Page hypothesize that the most appropriate set of measures for assessing project-level success depends on the project strategy. For example, the objectives (and thus, the success criteria) for a new product that creates an entirely new market will differ from those of a project that extends an existing product line. Similarly, they hypothesize that the appropriate measures of a product development program's overall success depend on the firm's innovation strategy. For example, a firm that values being first to market will measure success in different terms from those used by a firm that focuses on maintaining a secure market niche. To test these hypotheses, product development professionals were presented with six project strategy scenarios and four business strategy scenarios. For each project strategy scenario, participants were asked to select the four most useful measures of project success. For each business strategy scenario, participants were asked to choose the set of four measures that would provide the most useful overall assessment of product development success. The responses strongly support the idea that the most appropriate measures of project-level and program-level success depend on the firm's project strategy and business strategy, respectively. For example, customer satisfaction and customer acceptance were among the most useful customer-based measures of success for several project strategies, but market share was cited as the most useful customer-based measure for projects involving new-to-the-company products or line extensions. At the program level, firms with a business strategy that places little emphasis on innovation need to focus on measuring the efficiency of their product development program, while innovative firms need to assess the program's contribution to company growth.     

Getting More from Cross‐Functional Fairness and Product Innovativeness: Contingency Effects of Internal Resource and Conflict Management

This research investigates how organizations' internal resource and conflict management influence the relationship between cross‐functional fairness and product innovativeness. It considers two contextual dimensions of both internal resource management (job rotation and internal rivalry) and conflict‐handling mechanisms (integrating and avoiding) as key components of the firm's ability to convert fair interactions, across departments, into product innovativeness. The tests of the study's hypotheses, based on a sample of more than 200 Canadian‐based firms, confirm that the cross‐functional fairness–product innovativeness relationship is amplified at higher levels of job rotation and integrative conflict handling but suppressed at higher levels of internal rivalry and avoidance of conflict handling. The authors discuss the study's implications and future research directions.     

Boards of Directors,Innovation, and Performance: An Exploration at Multiple Levels

This work reports on an investigation of the dynamics of governance over breakthrough innovation within Fortune 1000 firms. The primary research question investigates the boundary of agency theory within the firm. Using agency and stakeholder theoretic perspectives, the study tests the hypothesis that innovation will thrive in firms that combine a board of directors operating in accordance with a high agency theoretic focus in addition to an innovation governance board operating deeper within the firm that employs a strong stakeholder theoretic orientation in its behavior. The model is tested with data from 98 large firms. Results suggest that the relationship between board of directors' behavior and the firm's overall innovativeness is mediated by innovation decision‐making boards that (1) promote projects that are breakthrough in scope, (2) incorporate input of diverse constituencies within the firm, (3) exhibit patience with financial results, and (4) engage in frequent, informal interactions with project teams. Firms exhibiting high board of director agency orientation in combination with loyalty to mandate, patient financial capital disposition, inclusiveness, and project team interaction as described above for innovation governance board decision‐making prove to be the most innovative as measured by external indicators. For firm innovativeness, consolidated managerial power and behavior is frequently present at the upper levels of the firm, but must be broken down at deeper levels of the firm. This research offers implications to innovation decision‐makers as to how to proceed if the intent is to offer commercializably successful breakthrough innovations.     

Value creation and firm sales performance: The mediating roles of strategic account management and relationship perception

Research on relationship management has extolled the virtue of sellers creating value for their customers. Indeed, loyal relationships, defined as repeated business exchanges, tend to flourish when firms create and deliver value to their customers. While few argue this premise, questions remain regarding the precise delineation of a firm's value creation competence and the mechanism by which it influences the firm's performance. In the current study, the authors define the value creation competence concept and find empirical evidence for its positive effects on firm sales performance (e.g., new customer leads, close rates, retention, revenue, etc.). Interestingly, the results suggest this effect is mediated by strategic account management and the perception of the relationship held between buyer and seller. Both of these findings have implications in establishing that a firm's value creation competence translates into improved sales performance, mediated by strategic account management and relationship perceptions.     

A Causal Model of the Impact of Skills, Synergy, and Design Sensitivity on New Product Performance

Notwithstanding the best efforts of outstanding managers, project team members, researchers, and consultants, no product development plan can guarantee success. Every new products organization will experience its fair share of failures, but a firm can take steps to ensure that its failures do not outweigh its successes. By benchmarking the competition, a firm can gain insight into best practices–the factors that lead most directly to new product success. To help identify these best practices, X. Michael Song, William E. Souder, and Barbara Dyer develop and test a causal model of the relationships among the key variables leading to new product performance. The proposed model identifies five factors that lead to marketing and technical proficiency: process skills, project management skills, alignment of skills with needs, team skills, and design sensitivity. According to the model, marketing and technical proficiency directly determine product quality, and ultimately lead to new product success or failure. The causal model was tested using information on 65 completed projects–34 successes and 31 failures–from 17 large, multi-divisional Japanese firms. The study participants develop, manufacture, and market high-technology consumer and industrial products. These firms judged the success or failure of the projects in this study by using seven criteria: return on investment, profit, market share, sales, opportunities for technical leadership, market dominance, and customer satisfaction. These firms generally assigned the greatest importance to customer satisfaction, opportunity creation, and long-term growth. For the most part, the responses from these firms support the relationships presented in the causal model. According to the respondents, marketing proficiency and product quality have a strong, positive influence on their new product performance, as do process skills, project management skills, and alignment of skills and needs. The responses highlight the importance to these firms of responsiveness to customer wants and needs, as well as ensuring a close fit between project needs and the firm's skills in marketing, R&D, engineering, and manufacturing. Somewhat surprisingly, the responses do not support the model's suggested relationships between skills/needs alignment and technical proficiency or between technical proficiency and product quality.     

Subjective Performance Assessment of Innovation Projects*

Performance assessment of innovation projects is a central issue in innovation management research. Using existing literature, a model is developed to assess the performance of new product and new service development projects. In this model, project performance is defined as a combination of a formatively indicated operational performance construct and a reflectively indicated product performance construct. The validity of this model is tested based on a sample of 219 innovation projects assessed by innovation managers. Using only the innovation managers' responses, it is, however, not possible to distinguish between operational and product performance. The impact of common method bias and informant bias is subsequently assessed using a subsample of 128 of these 219 innovation projects that are assessed by the innovation manager and the project leader. These latter results show that operational and product performance are two distinct constructs. In addition, the multitrait–multimethod analyses show that especially the more abstract items of performance, such as the perceptions of quality, captured knowledge, competitive advantage, gained reputation, and customer satisfaction, suffer from random error and informant bias. Project leaders appear to be better informed to assess operational performance, while innovation managers are better in assessing product performance. The paper concludes with a qualitative comparison of several alternative performance models: the project performance model as derived from the literature, a similar (misspecified) reflective performance model, two stand‐alone models in which operational and product performance are assessed separately, and a mixed model that uses a combination of innovation managers' and project managers' data. Based on this comparison, it is advised to use either the stand‐alone models for operational performance and product performance or the mixed model whereby the project leader assesses operational performance and the innovation manager the product performance of an innovation project.     

The influence of material resources on innovation projects: the role of resource elasticity

More (rather than fewer) material resources are thought to be the key driver in innovation project performance. Recent empirical evidence, however, suggests that the influence of material resource availability on innovation projects is not as simple and straightforwardly positive as it may seem. We build on the concept of an innovation project team's resource elasticity to disentangle the material resource–innovation output conundrum. This concept is analogous to the marketing concept of price elasticity and points to four types of innovation project teams based on their resource elasticity: In resource‐elastic teams, the relationship between material resources and innovation outcomes is positive (hence, they are ‘resource driven’ when able to dispose of adequate material resources or ‘resource victims’ when lacking these material resources). In contrast, and as a significant departure from previous work, resource‐inelastic teams show no or even a negative relationship between material resource adequacy and team performance (thus, the teams are ‘resourceful’ if they can perform with limited material resources or ‘resource burners’ if they show low success with adequate material resources). Because neither adequate nor inadequate material resources seem to be a reliable predictor of success, we synthesize empirical research efforts that point to each team type's key characteristics to derive novel implications for managing innovation projects.     

Product Design Innovation and Customer Value: Cross‐Cultural Research in the United States and Korea

Innovation is one of the key drivers of success that a firm must utilize to develop a competitive advantage. The ability to innovate is especially important for a firm's survival in dynamic, changing environments. Customer demands are constantly changing, and more purchases are made when a firm's product design incorporates what customers perceive as cutting‐edge innovations. Satisfying customer demands is a distinct challenge for product designers because firms must develop a clear understanding of what aspects of design the customer wants. Although the importance of design has increased, very little research has been done to explain the relationship between product innovation and product design. Studies indicate that design innovation may create greater customer value through improvements in design value. Previous research has been limited and has not provided a clear concept of design innovation or defined the relationship between design innovation and marketing competencies. This paper seeks to offer a conceptual definition of design innovation, and to define the link between design innovation and marketing competencies. This paper utilizes cross‐cultural research to discover how these concepts differ due to cultural differences between the United States and Korea. This research contributes substantially to our understanding of the relationship between design innovation and customer value.     

The Mixed Blessings of Technological Innovativeness for the Commercial Success of New Products

This study addresses the contradiction that, although technological innovativeness of new products is often seen as a major driver of competitive advantage and commercial success, empirical research is not always able to show a significant performance influence. In order to find an explanation, the effects of technological innovativeness are decomposed as its influence on the market, the innovating firm, and the firm's environment is considered. The proposed model is tested on a sample of new product development projects. In order to avoid systematic biases, this paper uses a longitudinal survey design with two informants and a sample that includes both incremental and highly innovative projects. The results show that technological innovativeness has both positive and negative effects on the commercial success of new products. On the one hand, technological innovativeness can increase customer value, which in turn has a positive effect on success. On the other hand, incorporating new technologies into new products also implies changes in the innovating firm and potentially in its environment. These changes have a negative impact on commercial success. The positive and negative effects compensate for each other, so that the total effect of technological innovativeness on commercial success is close to zero. The findings imply that firms developing new products through incorporating radically new technologies often seem to underestimate the inherent complexities with respect to both internal and external changes. Developing and introducing new products with a radically changed technology also implies anticipating the need for new competences, processes, structures, and network partners. Social and political resistance against technological changes, large investments in new infrastructures, and the long duration of these changes additionally become frequent features of such innovation endeavors. Hence, firms embarking on a path of exploiting radically new technologies should consider those complexities very carefully when making their new product development decisions.     

Relationship between innovativeness,quality, growth,profitability, and market value

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between innovativeness, quality, growth, profitability, and market value at the firm level. Building on concepts from a resource‐based view of a firm and organizational learning, innovation and quality literature, we propose the innovativeness–quality–performance model, which describes how a firm's capability to balance innovativeness with quality drives growth and profitability, and in turn drives superior market value. Results of structural equation models indicate that (1) innovativeness mediates the relationship between quality and growth, (2) quality mediates the relationship between innovativeness and profitability, (3) both innovativeness and quality have mediation effects on market value, and (4) both growth and profitability have mediation effects on market value. Implications for theories and practices are discussed. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A rolling stone gathers no moss: the effect of customers' perceived business model innovativeness on customer value co‐creation behavior and customer satisfaction in the service sector

Both researchers and practitioners have been focusing extensively on business model innovation, as it has shown to positively influence business performance. Although the effect of business model innovativeness on customer behavior might be an important mediator between business model innovation and business performance, it has not yet been analyzed. In line with recent calls to consider the customer side in business model innovation research, our paper addresses this problem by studying the influence of customers' perceived business model innovativeness (CPBMI) on customer satisfaction and customer value co‐creation behavior in the service sector. We, therefore, emphasize customers' perceptions and reactions to business model changes. Relying on data from a large‐scale survey of restaurant customers, we find that perceived value creation innovativeness and value proposition innovativeness positively affect customer satisfaction and customer value co‐creation behavior. In addition, we identify a significant indirect effect of CPBMI on customer satisfaction via customer value co‐creation behavior. Our findings allow deriving concrete implications for both researchers and practitioners.     

Upper management control of new product development projects and project performance

While some degree of freedom and flexibility is an essential ingredient to productive cross‐functional NPD teams, upper‐managers are faced with the challenge of instituting effective control mechanisms which head projects in the right strategic direction, monitor progress toward organizational and project goals, and allow for adjustments in the project if necessary. But too much or the wrong type of control may constrain the team's creativity, impede their progress, and injure their ultimate performance. Therefore, this study examines formal and interactive control mechanisms available to upper‐managers in controlling new product development (NPD) projects, and the relationship between these mechanisms and NPD project performance. Formal output and process controls are examined which consist of the setting and monitoring of outcomes, such as goals, schedule and budgets, and of processes and procedures, respectively. This study also looks at how the effectiveness of these control mechanisms may be contingent upon the degree of innovativeness in the project and the degree to which the project is part of a broad product program. In addition, the use of formal rewards for achieving team performance as opposed to rewards for individual achievement is investigated. Lastly, interactive controls are examined which consist of upper‐managers interacting directly with project members in the development of strategy and operational goals and procedures prior to the start of the project, and upper‐managers intervening in project decision‐making. Questionnaire data are collected on 95 projects across a variety of industries. The findings suggest that while NPD projects teams need some level of strategic direction concerning the objectives to be accomplished and the procedures to be followed, upper‐level managers can exert too much control. In particular, the findings showed a negative association between the use of upper manager‐imposed process controls and project performance. The findings also indicated that the degree to which upper‐managers intervened in project‐level decisions during the project was negatively related to project performance. However, the results showed support for the notion that early and interactive decision‐making on control mechanisms is important for effective projects. In particular, early team member and upper‐management involvement in the setting of operational controls, such as goals and procedures for monitoring and evaluating the project, was positively associated with project performance. This study provides additional insight into our understanding of upper‐management support in new product development. The study suggests that upper‐managers can over control with the wrong type of controls, and suggests effective ways of implementing participative and interactive control mechanisms.