航天研发项目流程管理与组合风险分析研究

<正>随着现代科技的飞速发展,国家建设对高技术含量、综合化、系统化航天工程项目的研发需求日益增加,这些项目往往面临高难度技术攻关、多学科研究交叉、复杂分系统交互对接等考验,为了实现最终指标,还需要大量的开发、迭代及测试,这就对研发项目的流程管理提出了巨大的挑战。一是技术攻关难度大,研发过程中涉及的核心技术点众多,进度及风险把控困难,无论是传统的瀑布式管理模式,还是按照敏捷开发进行模块化管理,都无法很好地解决技术攻关带来的累加风险;二是学科专业交叉多,     

Antecedents to Decision‐Making Quality and Agility in Innovation Portfolio Management

Innovation portfolio management (IPM) is a dynamic decision‐making process, in which projects are evaluated and selected, and resources are allocated. Previous research has developed an understanding of IPM success and its influencing factors. However, little research investigated the quality of the decision‐making process and the ability to quickly adapt the portfolio. This study focuses on the antecedents of decision‐making quality and agility (i.e., responsiveness to changes in the environment). Based on a decision‐making framework, five structural and cultural IPM components are derived as important antecedents of decision‐making quality, which in turn influences agility. The structural components (1) clarity of strategic goals, (2) formality of the IPM processes, and (3) controlling intensity serve a coordinating function. The cultural components (4) innovation climate and (5) risk climate serve a motivating function in IPM. An analysis of a sample of 179 firms and their innovation portfolios through structural equation modeling using a double‐informant design documents that these five components all positively influence portfolio decision‐making quality, which in turn positively influences agility. Results further show that environmental turbulence moderates some of these relationships. While the positive effect of process formality is weakened under increasing turbulence, the effects of controlling intensity and climate for innovation are strengthened by environmental turbulence. The findings have theoretical implications for the understanding of IPM as a dynamic capability and practical implications for the management of portfolios in turbulent environments.     

三峡：机电工程的管理创新

背景链接: 三峡电站的机电工程管理工作,面临着水轮发电机组单机容量世界上最大(70 万千瓦)、电站装机数量最多(26台)、技术要求高、国内装备制造能力相对较弱等困难。三峡建设者经过十多年的努力,2005 年9月15日实现了三峡左岸电站14台机组(980万千瓦)提前一年投产的佳绩,创造了多项水电建设的世界纪录。机电工程管理创新是三峡工程的亮点之一。     

Modelling a Research Portfolio Using AHP: A Group Decision Process

The problem of choosing a research portfolio has been in the literature for many years. Suggested solutions have ranged from simple scoring models to complex mathematical resource allocation models, but the acceptance rate has been low. In this paper we present an application of a model based on the Analytical Hierarchy Process to a group decision situation. The results are encouraging, showing the positive nature of a model as a focal point in the process. They show that the interactive nature of the methodology encourages the development of subjective estimates and their subsequent discussion. An attempt to counter the problems of biasing has also been made. The methodology presented is seen to be easy to use and adaptable, and becomes an integrating mechanism for the group.     

New Product Portfolio Management: Practices and Performance

Effective portfolio management is vital to successful product innovation. Portfolio management is about making strategic choices—which markets, products, and technologies our business will invest in. It is about resource allocation—how you will spend your scarce engineering, R&D, and marketing resources. It focuses on project selection—on which new product or development projects you choose from the many opportunities you face. And it deals with balance—having the right balance between numbers of projects you do and the resources or capabilities you have available. In this article, the authors reveal the findings of their extensive study of portfolio management in industry. This study, the first of its kind, reports the portfolio management practices and performance of 205 U.S. companies. Its overall objective was to gain insights into what portfolio methods companies use, whether they are satisfied with them, the performance results they achieve with the different approaches, and suggestions for others who are considering implementing portfolio management. The research first assesses management's satisfaction with portfolio methods they employ and notes that some firms face major problems in portfolio management. Next, businesses are grouped or clustered into four groups according to management's view of portfolio management: Cowboys, Crossroads, Duds, and Benchmark businesses. The research first assesses management's satisfaction with portfolio methods they employ and notes that some firms face major problems in portfolio management. Next, businesses are grouped or clustered into four groups according to management's view of portfolio management: Cowboys, Crossroads, Duds, and Benchmark businesses. Various performance metrics are used to gauge the performance of the business's portfolio. The results reveal major differences between the best and the worst. Benchmark businesses are the top performers. Their new product portfolios consistently score the best in terms of performance—high-value projects, aligned with the business's strategy, the right balance of projects, and the right number of projects. The authors take a closer look at these benchmark businesses to determine what distinguishes their projects from the rest. Benchmark businesses employ a much more formal, explicit method to managing their portfolio of projects. They rely on clear, well-defined portfolio procedures, they consistently apply their portfolio method to all projects, and management buys into the approach. The relative popularity of various portfolio methods—from financial methods to strategic approaches, bubble diagrams, and scoring approaches—are investigated. Not surprisingly, financial approaches are the most popular and dominate the portfolio decision. But what is surprising is the dubious results achieved via financial approaches. Again, benchmark businesses stand out from the rest: they place less emphasis on financial approaches and more on strategic methods, and they tend to use multiple methods more so than the rest. Strategic methods, along with scoring approaches, yield the best portfolios; financial methods yield poorer portfolio results. The authors provide a number of recommendations and suggestions for anyone setting out to implement portfolio management in their business.     

Interorganizational Collaboration and Innovation: Toward a Portfolio Approach*

In the literature on innovation, interorganizational collaboration has been advanced as beneficial for the innovative performance of firms. At the same time, large‐scale empirical evidence for such a relationship is scarce. This article examines whether evidence can be found for the idea that interorganizational collaboration supports the effectiveness of innovation strategies. This article empirically addresses this research question by analyzing data on Belgian manufacturing firms (n=221) collected in the Community Innovation Survey, a biannual survey organized by Eurostat and the European Commission aimed at obtaining insights into the innovation practices and performance of companies within the various European Union (EU) member states. Tobit analyses reveal a positive relationship between interorganizational collaboration and innovative performance. At the same time, the impact on innovative performance differs depending on the nature of the partner(s) involved. These findings strongly suggest the relevance of adopting a portfolio approach to interorganizational collaboration within the context of innovation strategies.     

流动性在组合投资管理中的认识

在传统的均值-方差模型中,“市场流动性是充分的”假设使投资者忽略了流动性在组合投资管理中的重要性。流动性作为金融资产的三大属性之一,体现并作用于组合投资管理整个过程中。本文从流动性的内涵、流动性的股票交易特征、流动性与均值-方差模型的结合及行业流动性对组合投资的影响等角度探讨了流动性在组合投资管理中的作用,将组合投资的思维从二维空间拓展至三维空间,丰富了现代资产组合选择理论。     

创新项目组合管理绩效关键影响因素的实证研究

为了维持长期的竞争优势,企业需要不断进行技术创新和产品创新。如何在有限的研发资源下使创新项目组合的绩效最大化是企业进行创新管理中面临的主要问题。本文从创新项目组合的战略一致性、平均项目绩效和业务协同3个指标来度量创新项目组合管理绩效,并从流程和管理者的视角研究其关键影响因素。通过实证研究发现,高管参与和项目组合管理流程的设计与实施对项目组合的战略一致性有显著的正向影响;高管参与、项目经理胜任力和项目终止质量对平均项目绩效有显著正向影响;项目经理胜任力、项目组合管理流程的设计与实施和项目中止质量对业务协同有显著正向影响。     

New Product Portfolio Management Decisions: Antecedents and Consequences

This research employs organizational information processing theory to propose and examine the antecedents and consequences of new product portfolio management (NPPM) decisions. Understanding NPPM decisions is an important research area because these decisions affect firm profitability but are difficult to make because of limited reliable information. Recent survey results of Product Development and Management Association members and other NPPM professionals suggest nearly half of initial new product ideas are chosen to advance through the new product development (NPD) pipeline via informal processes. Thus, managers wield considerable influence in NPPM. Yet only limited research quantitatively examines how NPPM decisions impact performance and the role of manager dispositions. Using as the research context a marketing simulation exercise conducted with mid‐level managers, this research reveals important insights into the impact of the three NPPM dimensions—value maximization, balance, and strategic fit—on NPD and firm performance. The analysis suggests a critical role for the NPPM dimension of balance as it is the single dimension impacting performance. However, value maximization is relevant as a criterion for competing because, overall, managers see this dimension as important. At the same time, managers are cautioned in their use of strategic fit as it appears this dimension may constrain innovative choices. Furthermore, three manager dispositions proposed from organizational information processing theory—directive leadership style, need for cognition, and risk perceptions—all influence NPPM dimensions. Managers are recommended to consider the personality traits of managers involved in NPPM decisions to ensure thorough consideration of all dimensions.     

Product Innovation Processes in Small Firms: Combining Entrepreneurial Effectuation and Managerial Causation

This article reports a multimethod study of product innovation processes in small manufacturing firms. Prior studies found that small firms do not deploy the formalized processes identified as best practice for the management of new product development (NPD) in large firms. To explicate small firms' product innovation, this study uses effectuation theory, which emerged from entrepreneurship research. Effectuation theory discerns two logics of decision‐making: causation, assuming that means are selected to attain goals; and effectuation, assuming that goals are created based upon available means. The study used a process research approach, investigating product innovation trajectories in five small firms across 352 total events. Quantitative analyses revealed early effectuation logic, which increasingly turned toward causation logic over time. Further qualitative analyses confirmed the use of both logics, with effectual logic rendering product innovation resource‐driven, stepwise, and open‐ended, and with causal logic used especially in later stages to set objectives and to plan activities and invest resources to attain objectives. Because the application of effectuation logic differentiates the small firm approaches from mainstream NPD best practices, this study examined how small firms' product innovation processes deployed effectuation logic in further detail. The small firms: (1) made creative use of existing resources; (2) scoped innovations to be realizable with available resources; (3) used external resources whenever and wherever these became available; (4) prioritized existing business over product innovation projects; (5) used loose project planning; (6) worked in steps toward tangible outcomes; (7) iterated the generation, selection, and modification of goals and ideas; and (8) relied on their own customer knowledge and market probing, rather than early market research. Using effectuation theory thus helps us understand how small firm product innovation both resembles and differs from NPD best practices observed in larger firms. Because the combination of effectual and causal principles leverages small firm characteristics and resources, this article concludes that product innovation research should more explicitly differentiate between firms of different sizes, rather than prescribing large firm best practices to small firms.     

Strategies of Product and Process Innovation: A Loglinear Analysis

Utterback and Abernathy (1975) developed a dynamic innovation model to explain the patterns of product and process innovation and to show which types of innovation would be most strategically appropriate for firms with particular objectives. In this paper the relation-ships between type and/or source of innovation and a number of firm-characteristic variables are examined. Loglinear regression is employed to determine the extent of the postulated relationships in a set of actual industry data on product innovation. The loglinear model provided results which were highly consistent with predictions made on the basis of previous research into product and process innovation.     

Innovation in Process Plant: A Case Study of Ethylene

Successful companies in any industry recognize the importance of involving customers and suppliers in the design and development of products and services. When complex product and process technologies are involved, these relationships create a network of companies and industries, each of which is a potential source for technological innovation. At the same time, however, such interrelationships further complicate the already challenging task of analyzing the evolving nature and sources of innovation. Using ethylene manufacture as a case study, Peter Hutcheson, Alan Pearson, and Derrick Ball present a three-stage model of innovation. The model provides a framework for understanding the evolution of technological innovation in ethylene manufacturing, as well as the changing roles of the equipment suppliers, the process plant suppliers, and the operating companies througout this evolution. The applicability of this approach to other sectors of the chemical processing industry is also evaluated. In much the same way that a product's life cycle can be traced through distinct phases of creation, growth, maturity, and decline, technological innovation progresses through three main phases: uncoordinated, segmental, and systemic. The progression through these three phases is marked by changes in the relative levels of product and process innovation activity. In this three-stage model, innovative activity progresses from an extreme of high product and low process innovation during the uncoordinated phase, through the segmental period of low product and high process innovation, to the low product and medium process innovation levels of the systemic phase. In other words, as the industry matures, the focus of innovative activity gradually shifts from the product to the process. As illustrated by the example of ethylene manufacturing, companies operating in an industry that has reached the systemic stage will find little or no scope for innovation in the end product or the core manufacturing technologies. In such a mature market, the product is a commodity item, and the fundamentals of the manufacturing process are well known. At this stage, the quest for productivity improvements focuses on cost reductions from task structuring and specialization, task integration, and automation. As such, equipment manufacturers play an increasingly important role in refining existing technologies and improving equipment reliability and capabilities. Such efforts are facilitated by close cooperation with the operating companies, which can contribute process expertise that the equipment manufacturers might otherwise lack.     

改革创新求发展精细管理增效益--中油唐山石油销售有限公司经营管理之道

这是怎样一个公司,能够在成立后短短的5个月内就收回全部投资,特别是在国内市场疲软、价格普遍不到位、成品油销售系统出现全线亏损的2001年,它能够再实现利润超过1500万元！这不是一个奇迹,却又的确是一个奇迹,一个刚成立一年多、资本规模在一千多万元的石油销售公司创造的奇迹——     

创新行为与企业经营绩效:微观实证

创新是企业保持长久竞争力的不竭动力,创新行为对企业经营绩效会产生重要影响.运用面板随机效应模型和分位数回归方法,以2007年、2008年及2009年共3年的微观企业数据为样本,就创新行为与创业板公司的经营绩效进行了实证分析,研究表明:创新投入对经营绩效有正向促进作用,但缺乏弹性,并且其对经营业绩不好与经营业绩很好的公司影响都较小,最大受益者是经营业绩一般的公司.专利与企业经营绩效正相关,但专利对公司经营绩效条件分布的影响幅度并不稳定,表现出较大的波动性,非参数BootSrap方法表明以上回归结果具有稳健性.     

Innovators, Organization Structure and Management of the Innovation Process in the Securities Industry

This article examines innovation in the securities industry with the central objective of identifying factors that separate innovators from non-innovators. Akira Iwamura and Vijay Jog report results based on their survey of corporate finance vice presidents or CEO's of 43 investment houses from around the world. They conclude that innovative companies seem to be larger and have a well-defined strategy, with management defining the focus of the business. In addition, the firms have developed better communication channels, both internally and with their customers. Yet, the most significant difference that separates innovators from non-innovators is their management of the idea generation process, including concept generation and management's support. Innovators tend to approach idea generation in the following ways: they employ a variety of idea sources, both internal and external; they assign a specific person or group to be in charge of developing new ideas; they encourage employees at all levels to generate new ideas; they use a variety of innovative techniques to stimulate creativity; they reward their employees by non-monetary means; and they encourage group-level participation in evaluation decisions.     

The Role of Real Estate in the Portfolio Allocation Process

This study explores the role of direct real estate investment in a portfolio context incorporating the real estate imperfections of indivisible assets and no short sales. Mean-variance efficient portfolios are calculated using Treasury-bills, bond and equity indices together with cash flows and appraised values from a set of twenty-two properties having an aggregate appraised value of $336 million. Real estate diversification benefits are shown to be the greatest with smaller properties and are most advantageous at higher target levels of return. The study suggests that a 9% allocation to real estate is optimal, rather than the 20% figure suggested in other studies.