nep-ppm New Economics Papers
on Project, Program and Portfolio Management
Issue of 2008‒06‒13
five papers chosen by
Arvi Kuura
Parnu College - Tartu University

  1. A model of delegated project choice By Armstrong, Mark; Vickers, John
  2. How should donors give foreign aid? Project aid versus budget support By Izabela Jelovac; Frieda Vandeninden
  3. Bringing Science to Market: Commercializing from NIH SBIR Awards By Albert N. Link; Christopher J. Ruhm
  4. Enabling and Sustaining Collaborative Innovation By Blecker, Thorsten; Abdelkafi, Nizar; Raasch, Christina
  5. Intrapreneurship; Conceptualizing entrepreneurial employee behaviour By Jeroen de Jong; Sander Wennekers

  1. By: Armstrong, Mark; Vickers, John
    Abstract: We present a model in which a principal delegates the choice of project to an agent with different preferences. The principal determines the set of projects from which the agent may choose. The principal can verify the characteristics of the project chosen by the agent, but does not know which other projects are available to the agent. Two frameworks are considered: (i) a static setting in which the collection of available projects is exogenous to the agent but uncertain, and (ii) a dynamic setting in which the agent searches for projects.
    Keywords: Delegation; principal-agent; rules; search; merger policy
    JEL: D86 D83 L4
    Date: 2008–06–05
  2. By: Izabela Jelovac (GATE, University of Lyon, CNRS, ENS-LSH, Centre Léon Bérard, France); Frieda Vandeninden (MGSoG, Universiteit Maastricht)
    Abstract: We develop a theoretical model to compare the two major foreign aid modalities: project aid and budget support. These two modalities have a different impact on the production of ‘developmental goods’. Firstly, conditionality can be associated with budget support, but only a subset of the developmental expenses – the observable ones – can be subject to conditionality. Secondly, when using project aid, the donors control the overall allocation of the aid resources. However, we consider that, because of limited harmonisation and coordination, project aid can be associated with a cost of imperfect fit. We develop a unified framework to compare these two modalities where we allow the simultaneous utilisation of both instruments. We show that all the aid should be given via budget support, no matter whether conditionality is used or not. Furthermore, we show that the optimal use of conditionality depends on the recipient’s developmental preferences, the productivity of the inputs and the level of aid compared to the recipient’s budget: when these parameters are relatively high, conditionality should be enforced. Otherwise, the optimal aid allocation is such that all the aid is given through unconditional budget support. We conclude that conditionality does not always improve the aid effectiveness.
    Keywords: conditionality, foreign aid, optimal contract
    JEL: D82 F35 O19
    Date: 2008
  3. By: Albert N. Link; Christopher J. Ruhm
    Abstract: We offer empirical information on the correlates of commercialization activity for research projects funded through the U.S. National Institutes of Health's (NIH's) Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) award program. Based on this analysis we suggest possible recommendations for improving this aspect of the performance of NIH's SBIR program. Specifically, we estimate a model of the probability of commercialization as a function of the project's ability to attract additional developmental funding, along with other control variables. We find that additional developmental funding from non-SBIR federal sources and from own internal sources are important predictors of commercialization success, relatively more so than additional developmental funding from venture capitalists. We also find, among other things, that university involvement in the underlying research increases the probability of commercialization. Thus, these factors should be considered by NIH when making awards, if increased commercialization is an objective.
    JEL: I28 O38
    Date: 2008–06
  4. By: Blecker, Thorsten; Abdelkafi, Nizar; Raasch, Christina
    Abstract: This paper extends the principles of open source software development to a non-industry-specific level by introducing the Open Source Innovation (OSI) model. OSI exhibits main differences to other related models and concepts such as the private-collective model, commons-based peer production, R&D networks and is therefore an innovation model in its own right. In order for OSI projects to be successful, numerous factors need to be fulfilled. We make the distinction between four categories of factors: economic, technical, legal, and social. In each category, we differentiate between enabling and sustaining factors. The enabling factors must be met at the beginning of the project, whereas the sustaining factors must be satisfied as the project progresses.
    Keywords: OSI; open source innovation; R&D
    JEL: O32 L17 O3 O31
    Date: 2008
  5. By: Jeroen de Jong; Sander Wennekers
    Abstract: Intrapreneurship refers to employee initiatives in organizations to undertake something new, without being asked to do so. As the detailed behavioural content of intrapreneurship is still uncharted, this paper surveys three relevant strands of literature. These are early-stage entrepreneurial activity (business founding) and two literatures on employee behaviour inside existing organizations, i.e. proactiveness and innovative work behaviour. By combining insights from these domains with those from the emerging intrapreneurship literature, we derive a detailed list of relevant activities and behavioural aspects of intrapreneurship. Major activities related to intrapreneurship include opportunity perception, idea generation, designing a new product or another recombination of resources, internal coalition building, persuading the management, resource acquisition, planning and organizing. Key behavioural aspects of intrapreneurship are personal initiative, active information search, out of the box thinking, voicing, championing, taking charge, finding a way, and some degree of risk taking. The paper next discusses the similarities and differences between intrapreneurship and independent entrepreneurship. Most but not all of the activities and behavioural aspects of the latter are also typical of the former phenomenon. Key differential elements of independent entrepreneurship are the investment of personal financial means and the related financial risk taking, a higher degree of autonomy, and legal and fiscal aspects of establishing a new independent business. Based on this discussion an integral conceptual model of intrapreneurial behaviour is presented. The paper closes with conclusions.
    Date: 2008–06–04

This nep-ppm issue is ©2008 by Arvi Kuura. It is provided as is without any express or implied warranty. It may be freely redistributed in whole or in part for any purpose. If distributed in part, please include this notice.
General information on the NEP project can be found at For comments please write to the director of NEP, Marco Novarese at <>. Put “NEP” in the subject, otherwise your mail may be rejected.
NEP’s infrastructure is sponsored by the School of Economics and Finance of Massey University in New Zealand.