Project Management in the Development of Dynamic Capabilities for an Open Innovation Era

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors must make the following corrections in the paper:

-  Authors should explain better the academic contribution of the work developed. Highlighting what is innovative / original about the existing literature.

- Authors should compare the results obtained in this work with the results of other scientific papers in the field,

-Authors should explain the criteria used to select the companies that participated in this study.

 

Author Response

Thank you for all the points. We took all points into account and inserted all recommendations.

Authors must make the following corrections in the paper:

-  Authors should explain better the academic contribution of the work developed. Highlighting what is innovative / original about the existing literature.

1. Thanks for pointing this out. This was added to the introduction in the following text on pages 1, 2, 3. We have explained the literature review conducted earlier and can be found at Patrício, V; Lopes da Costa, R; Pereira, L.; António, N. Dynamic Capabilities and Project Management: a systematic literature review. Int. J. Bus Innov and Research (in press), the gaps found in this study and to what extent this paper responds to these gaps, innovating in empirical and academic terms the contribution of PM to the development of DC. The added text explains what exists in terms of literature on PM and CD, the gaps, the contributions of this study and its innovation:

 

This study is part of an investigation with the following phases: 1) systematic literature review about the interrelationship between PM and DCs; 2) how PM leverages DCs in organizations.

In phase 1 of the systematic literature review, 25 articles, published between 2014 and 2019, with research focused on the topic of DCs and PM were analyzed. From the search for the key words DC's and PM 733 articles were obtained, which after refinement, exclusion process and detailed reading, 25 articles were obtained [4].

The study analyzed what the literature referred to about the interrelationship between the two areas of study. It was found that there was a limited number of articles published in the literature with the relationship between CD's and PM's.

This detailed analysis led us to conclude that one of the themes addressed by the literature is the relationship between DCs and operational capabilities in project [5-10]. The literature also identifies DCs found in specific projects [11-13], in specific industries and that contributed to the success of the projects or DCs that were present in certain projects [10, 14, 15, 16, 17].

 One of the contributions of this literature review was the identification of the DCs identified in previous studies, facilitating a clear understanding of which DCs we are talking about when it comes to projects. Another contribution was the clarification of which theoretical bases were being used in these studies. We found the connection of DCs in projects to themes such as exploration, exploitation [5, 6, 9, 15], seizing, sensing [10, 18, 19].

 

The literature addresses existing DCs from the perspective of their contribution to project success and not how PM contributes to the development of DCs. In other words, the literature does not provide a theoretical and practical basis for answering what the PM should implement and use in order to leverage DCs.

It was also found that Eriksson's (2014) DC processes remain to be applied and detailed in practice in terms of PM. The question of how PM ensures the accumulation, integration, utilization and reconfiguration of capabilities and knowledge acquired in projects in order to build DCs is not analyzed in the literature, especially the application of this theoretical basis in the framework of DCs in PM.

The 2nd phase of the study in this paper innovates and contributes to deepening this analysis empirically.

 

Projects are implemented, but the challenge of using the knowledge acquired in routines, processes, people and ensuring the transformation of capacities is still a current challenge.

It was verified in this LR that the relation of the sensing and seizing concepts with DCs and PM is still to be explored, namely, how PM develops DCs through projects (opportunities for change, new GP methodologies, new products/services) and how they integrate and disseminate methodologies such as agile and waterfall in order to reconfigure capabilities [10].

 

What is innovative about this study is the analysis of how PM can leverage DCs, through best practices, techniques, tools that PM in organizations should develop and implement in order to build DCs through the accumulation, integration, use and transformation of knowledge through projects. This is the new perspective and original contribution of this 2nd phase of the study about the existing literature.

Results are also achieved by linking change management and continuous improvement with PM, as well as resource turnover in order to leverage DCs and pass on knowledge.

 

Another contribution relates to the analysis and articulation of these good practices and techniques with theoretical concepts such as accumulation, integration, utilization and reconfiguring by Eriksson (2014) and sensing and seizing by Teece (2007) from the perspective of the contribution of PM to DCs.

 

2. In terms of results in tables 4,5 and 6 was added the comparison of the results of the study with the existing literature where we can see that to my extent each result is innovative and does not exist in the current literature.

 

3. A figure 5 (page 14) has been added summarising the results obtained and the theoretical dimensions used, allowing for further clarification of the results and how this study analyses how MP leverages DCs

 

- Authors should compare the results obtained in this work with the results of other scientific papers in the field,

1. Thanks for pointing this out. This was added to the text referred at the above point in the introduction on pages 1, 2, 3 explains what exists in terms of literature, the gaps found and the originality of this paper;
2. From the recommendation of the indicated literature (such as Strauss and Corbin, 1994), we added the identification and explanation of the Grounded Theory that we used as the methodology for the analysis and findings. We have added on Research Methodology and Discussion and Findings sessions the explanation of the grounded theory methodology used in this study. Following the Grounded Theory method, the results of the study were compared with the existing literature which allowed increasing the quality of the theory presented (Tables 4, 5 and 6), in order to identify studies in line with the results obtained through new literature review.

In order to support the relationship between the concepts for a better understanding of the phenomenon under study, Grounded Theory was used, an inductive methodology [45, 46].

 

Following the Grounded Theory method, the results of the study were compared with the existing literature [46] which allowed increasing the quality of the theory presented [3, 22] (Tables 4, 5 and 6), in order to identify studies in line with the results obtained through new literature review.

4. In the tables 4, 5 and 6 a detailed comparison of the results with existing literature in the area of Dcs and PM was introduced (Comparison with the literature - Autor Reference)

 

-Authors should explain the criteria used to select the companies that participated in this study.

1. Thanks for pointing this out. This was added to the text the explanation about the criteria used to select the companies that participated in this study. Because we use grounded theory methodology, the sample was oriented towards theory building this means that we identified interviewees and companies that could generate necessary categories. The importance of having selected a diversified sample in terms of industries in order to fill one of the gaps found in the literature, where existing studies were very focused on specific industries, was also reinforced in the text. we can find the detailed explanation added on the page 7:

The sample was oriented towards theory building [43] this means that we identified interviewees and companies that could generate necessary categories. [47].

Due to the complexity of the study and the fact that the current literature focuses more on specific industries [14, 15, 16,], this study was applied to several companies from different industries and organizational areas related to projects and competency development. We focused on companies on a national context, namely Portugal. The sample is diverse, including companies with various characteristics to enhance the development of concepts [46].

We carried out 22 semi-structured interviews with participants from nine companies of different industries (Figure 1), professionals with years of experience and responsible for areas of project management, responsible for areas with projects, responsible for areas of skills development and members of executive committees capable of generating the categories and concepts necessary for the study. The quantity of interviews ended when the identification of new categories and data was exhausted (theoretical saturation) [43].

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I enjoyed reading your paper. The paper provides appropriate background information and clear three research questions: A) How does PM ensures the accumulation, integration, utilization, and reconfiguration of capabilities and knowledge acquired in projects in order to build DCs? B) How does the PM develop DCs through the identification and implementation of project management opportunities? And C) How does the resources turnover between projects allow for the accumulation, integration, utilization, and reconfiguration of knowledge?

I think the research questions are interesting. However, the method needs substantial improvement in terms of analysis and interpretation of the data. I suggest to review these papers:

• Strauss, A. and Corbin, J.(1994), “Grounded theory methodology”, Handbook of Qualitative Research, Vol. 17, No. 1 , pp. 273-285.
• Radnejad, A. B., Osiyevskyy, O., & Vredenburg, H. (2020). Barriers to radical process innovation: A case of environmental technology in the oil industry, Journal of Strategy and Management, 13, 4, 453-476 (ABDC Ranking: C Level)
• Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of management review, 14(4), 532-550.

 As mention, you need to put attention to the way the evidence is analyzed. The analysis needs to be much deeper and more robust. In developing a stronger theoretical framing upfront, you should then demonstrate where and how your findings make a contribution. Currently this contribution is not articulated. This will require further and new analysis of the data directed by more carefully developed theory. Furthermore, a much more nuanced discussion on the theoretical contribution is needed that explains how your research advances the literature.

Wish you all the best

 

Author Response

Thank you for all the points. We took all points into account and inserted all recommendations.

Dear authors,

I enjoyed reading your paper. The paper provides appropriate background information and clear three research questions: A) How does PM ensures the accumulation, integration, utilization, and reconfiguration of capabilities and knowledge acquired in projects in order to build DCs? B) How does the PM develop DCs through the identification and implementation of project management opportunities? And C) How does the resources turnover between projects allow for the accumulation, integration, utilization, and reconfiguration of knowledge?

I think the research questions are interesting. However, the method needs substantial improvement in terms of analysis and interpretation of the data. I suggest to review these papers:

• Strauss, A. and Corbin, J.(1994), “Grounded theory methodology”, Handbook of Qualitative Research, Vol. 17, No. 1 , pp. 273-285.

1. Thanks for pointing this out. We have added this reference throughout the text on the pages: 7, 10, 13, 37.
2. We have added to the article an explanation of the use of grounded theory, which was the methodology used in the research methodology and data analysis in this study. we used this reference for that (pages: 7, 10, 13, 37).
3. We have added and used other references related to Grounded theory and this reference (Charmaz, 2006; Bryman, 2016; Strauss, A., & Corbin, 2008; Glaser, B. G., & Strauss (1967)).

Thank you very much.

• Radnejad, A. B., Osiyevskyy, O., & Vredenburg, H. (2020). Barriers to radical process innovation: A case of environmental technology in the oil industry, Journal of Strategy and Management, 13, 4, 453-476 (ABDC Ranking: C Level)

1. Thanks for pointing this out. We have added this reference throughout the text on the pages: 34, 37
2. We have placed in future research the importance of deepening this article with PM to DC, related to the new challenges indicated and their link with DC in this industry:

Sustainability is a current challenge, especially in the energy sector, which requires companies to innovate [59]. […] This scenario imposes a new requirement in the development of DC's so that organisations can respond to these current challenges, adding the complexity that these are industries that are very dependent on suppliers, with complex and high-risk projects.

• Radnejad, A. B., Vredenburg, H., & Woiceshyn, J. (2017). Meta-organizing for open innovation under environmental and social pressures in the oil industry. Technovation, 66, 14-27. (ABDC Ranking: A Level)

1. Thanks for pointing this out . We have added this reference throughout the text on the pages: 34, 37
2. We have placed in future research the importance of deepening this article with PM to DC, related to the new challenges indicated and their link with DC in this industry in future studies. The connection of the challenges indicated in this paper in terms of sustainability, cost reduction and efficiency with DC's and the nature of the projects that these industries have becomes fundamental to study empirically in order to help organizations to respond to the various internal and external demands. This explanation has been added to the paper (page 34):

Another current challenge of this industry, for example, is the innovation of processes to increase efficiency related to this issue of sustainability and cost reduction [60]. This scenario imposes a new requirement in the development of DC's so that organisations can respond to these current challenges, adding the complexity that these are industries that are very dependent on suppliers, with complex and high-risk projects. The chal-lenges in terms of sustainability, cost reduction and efficiency with DCs and the nature of the projects that these industries have been developing has made it essential to study empirically in order to help organisations respond to the various internal and external demands.

 

• Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of management review, 14(1), 57-74.

1. Thanks for pointing this out. We have added this reference throughout the text on the pages: 2, 36
2. We related the article to the demand for speed in decision-making processes and the capacity development in organizations to respond internal and external challenges (page 2). We have added in the text:

The demand for speed in decision-making processes [3, 22], the challenges facing organizations in their internal and external responses, the challenge of greater collaboration and communication between teams has led organizations to transform and develop new capacities and implement new methodologies (…).

 

• Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of management review, 14(4), 532-550.

1. Thanks for pointing this out . We have added this reference throughout the text on the pages: 1, 36
2. We related this article with the evolution in organizations (page 1, 2). We have added in the text:

Studies show the evolution of capacities in organizations [3].

 

The demand for speed in decision-making processes [3, 22], the challenges facing organizations in their internal and external responses, the challenge of greater collaboration and communication between teams has led organizations to transform and develop new capacities and implement new methodologies (…).

As mention, you need to put attention to the way the evidence is analyzed. The analysis needs to be much deeper and more robust. In developing a stronger theoretical framing upfront, you should then demonstrate where and how your findings make a contribution. Currently this contribution is not articulated. This will require further and new analysis of the data directed by more carefully developed theory. Furthermore, a much more nuanced discussion on the theoretical contribution is needed that explains how your research advances the literature.

 

1. Thanks for pointing this out. We added the explanation of how we used grounded theory in the data survey and data analysis, through which we built theory. The study followed the GT process to the new literature review for comparison of the study findings with the existing literature. The qualitative analysis, the construction of the categories followed the Grounded Theory method. This explanation was added along the article.
2. The Grounded theory that was the methodology used for the analysis of results was added and explained in all steps of the analysis in Research Methodology, Data Analysis and discussions and Findings sessions. The description of all the steps of the Grounded Theory methodology used during the study explained how the analysis was robust. The use of this methodology and its explanation was added in the paper. We have added in the text:

 

Page 6: Research Methodology:

In order to support the relationship between the concepts for a better understanding of the phenomenon under study, Grounded Theory was used, an inductive methodology [45, 46].

The sample was oriented towards theory building [43] this means that we identified interviewees and companies that could generate necessary categories [47].

 

The sample is diverse, including companies with various characteristics to enhance the development of concepts [46]. We carried out 22 semi-structured interviews with participants from nine companies of different industries (Figure 1), professionals with years of experience and responsible for areas of project management, responsible for areas with projects, responsible for areas of skills development and members of executive committees capable of generating the categories and concepts necessary for the study. The quantity of interviews ended when the identification of new categories and data was exhausted (theoretical saturation) [43].

 

Page 9: Data Analysis:

 

Using the practices of Grounded theory, these helped greater control and insight into the work [43]. By using Grounded Theory, data collection and analysis was done simultaneously, codes and categories were constructed from the data collected, comparisons were made at each stage of analysis, theory was constructed as the data was collected and analyzed, notes were written for the categories in terms of what each meant, the relationships and related gaps [43, 45, 46]. Categories and subcategories were identified taking into account their relationship and the general category was identified, around which the remaining categories were developed [46] (Table 3).

The categories were defined a posteriori based on the data collected in the interviews [42, 45, 46, 47].

 

The data were interpreted, resulting in a set of concepts that were then coded, compared, organized, merged and renamed, giving rise to the matrix of codes and the categories and sub-categories that allowed to understand and explain the phenomenon under study [43, 45].

 

Page 14: Discussion and Findings

Following the Grounded Theory method, the results of the study were compared with the existing literature [45, 46] which allowed increasing the quality of the theory presented [3, 22] (Tables 4, 5 and 6), in order to identify studies in line with the results obtained through new literature review.

 

3. This was added to the introduction in the following text on pages 1, 2, 3. We have explained the literature review conducted earlier and can be found at Patrício, V; Lopes da Costa, R; Pereira, L.; António, N. Dynamic Capabilities and Project Management: a systematic literature review. Int. J. Bus Innov and Research (in press), the gaps found in this study and to what extent this paper responds to these gaps, innovating in empirical and academic terms the contribution of PM to the development of DC. The added text explains what exists in terms of literature on PM and CD, the gaps, the contributions of this study and its innovation. We have added in the text:

 

This study is part of an investigation with the following phases: 1) systematic literature review about the interrelationship between PM and DCs; 2) how PM leverages DCs in organizations.

In phase 1 of the systematic literature review, 25 articles, published between 2014 and 2019, with research focused on the topic of DCs and PM were analyzed. From the search for the key words DC's and PM 733 articles were obtained, which after refinement, exclusion process and detailed reading, 25 articles were obtained [4].

The study analyzed what the literature referred to about the interrelationship between the two areas of study. It was found that there was a limited number of articles published in the literature with the relationship between CD's and PM's.

This detailed analysis led us to conclude that one of the themes addressed by the literature is the relationship between DCs and operational capabilities in project [5-10]. The literature also identifies DCs found in specific projects [11-13], in specific industries and that contributed to the success of the projects or DCs that were present in certain projects [10, 14, 15, 16, 17].

 One of the contributions of this literature review was the identification of the DCs identified in previous studies, facilitating a clear understanding of which DCs we are talking about when it comes to projects. Another contribution was the clarification of which theoretical bases were being used in these studies. We found the connection of DCs in projects to themes such as exploration, exploitation [5, 6, 9, 15], seizing, sensing [10, 18, 19].

 

The literature addresses existing DCs from the perspective of their contribution to project success and not how PM contributes to the development of DCs. In other words, the literature does not provide a theoretical and practical basis for answering what the PM should implement and use in order to leverage DCs.

It was also found that Eriksson's (2014) DC processes remain to be applied and detailed in practice in terms of PM. The question of how PM ensures the accumulation, integration, utilization and reconfiguration of capabilities and knowledge acquired in projects in order to build DCs is not analyzed in the literature, especially the application of this theoretical basis in the framework of DCs in PM.

The 2nd phase of the study in this paper innovates and contributes to deepening this analysis empirically.

 

Projects are implemented, but the challenge of using the knowledge acquired in routines, processes, people and ensuring the transformation of capacities is still a current challenge.

It was verified in this LR that the relation of the sensing and seizing concepts with DCs and PM is still to be explored, namely, how PM develops DCs through projects (opportunities for change, new GP methodologies, new products/services) and how they integrate and disseminate methodologies such as agile and waterfall in order to reconfigure capabilities [10].

 

What is innovative about this study is the analysis of how PM can leverage DCs, through best practices, techniques, tools that PM in organizations should develop and implement in order to build DCs through the accumulation, integration, use and transformation of knowledge through projects. This is the new perspective and original contribution of this 2nd phase of the study about the existing literature.

Results are also achieved by linking change management and continuous improvement with PM, as well as resource turnover in order to leverage DCs and pass on knowledge.

 

Another contribution relates to the analysis and articulation of these good practices and techniques with theoretical concepts such as accumulation, integration, utilization and reconfiguring by Eriksson (2014) and sensing and seizing by Teece (2007) from the perspective of the contribution of PM to DCs.

 

4. In terms of results in tables 4,5 and 6 was added the comparison of the results of the study with the existing literature where we can see that to my extent each result is innovative and does not exist in the current literature.

 

5. A figure 5 (page 14) has been added summarizing the results obtained, and the theoretical dimensions used, allowing for further clarification of the results and how this study analyses how MP leverages DCs

 

6. This was added to the text referred at the above point in the introduction on pages 1, 2, 3 explains what exists in terms of literature, the gaps found and the originality of this paper;

 

7. We have added on Research Methodology, Data Analysis and Discussion and Findings sessions the explanation of the grounded theory methodology used in this study. Following the Grounded Theory method, the results of the study were compared with the existing literature which allowed increasing the quality of the theory presented (Tables 4, 5 and 6), in order to identify studies in line with the results obtained through new literature review. We have added in the text:

 

Page 7: In order to support the relationship between the concepts for a better understanding of the phenomenon under study, Grounded Theory was used, an inductive methodology [45, 46].

 

Page 13: Following the Grounded Theory method, the results of the study were compared with the existing literature [46] which allowed increasing the quality of the theory presented [3, 22] (Tables 4, 5 and 6), in order to identify studies in line with the results obtained through new literature review.

8. In the tables 4, 5 and 6 a detailed comparison of the results with existing literature in the area of Dcs and PM was introduced (Comparison with the literature - Autor Reference).