nep-ppm New Economics Papers
on Project, Program and Portfolio Management
Issue of 2010‒07‒03
five papers chosen by
Arvi Kuura
Parnu College - Tartu University

  1. Getting Incentives Right: do we need ex post CBA? By Massimo Florio; Davide Sartori
  2. Setting Incentives for Collaboration Among Agricultural Scientists: Application of Principal-Agent Theory to Team Work By Wallace E. Huffman
  3. R&D alliances, knowledge flows, and innovation: three studies on the value of collaborative R&D. By Frankort, Johannes Theresia Wilhelmus
  4. The role of learning in innovation: in-house versus externally contracted R&D experience By Pilar Beneito López; Amparo Sanchis Llopis; María Engracia Rochina Barrachina
  5. From creativity to success: barriers and critical success factors in the creative process By De Stobbeleir, K.; De Clippeleer, I.; Dewettinck, K.

  1. By: Massimo Florio (DEAS, Universit di Milano); Davide Sartori (Centre for Industrial Studies (CSIL))
    Abstract: This paper, presented at the Sixth European Conference on Evaluation of Cohesion Policy (Warsaw, 30 November-1 December 2009), discusses why there is a strong need of ex-post Cost-Benefit analysis and which conditions should be met for a proper ex-post exercise to be carried out in the framework of Cohesion Policy major projects. After an introduction about the objectives and instruments of the 2007-2013 EU Cohesion Policy, and in particular the legal framework for co-financing environmental and transport projects, the paper illustrates and discusses some methodological choices which have been made by the authors of the EC CBA Guide. It is showed that, without an ex-post Cost-Benefit analysis, the ex-ante exercise is also weakened as a decision making tool. In particular, in the light of evidence from literature about the most common mistakes and pitfalls in ex-ante project appraisal, it is explained how systematic ex-post evaluation is important in particular linked to ex-ante incentives to reveal true information about the projects characteristics (especially on investment costs and demand forecast which are often respectively under and overestimated due to an optimism bias) and ex-post performance assessment. The EC has a unique role to play in this context, and recommendations are given about how to improve the use of CBA for investment decisions and how to contract co-funding of major projects in the framework of incentive theory.
    Keywords: CBA, Cohesion Policy, Incentives
    JEL: D61 H43 R58
    Date: 2010–01–12
  2. By: Wallace E. Huffman
    Abstract:  The USDA is attempting to shift more research funds into competitive grants involving collaboration across disciplines on large projects. This type of research structure raises a host of information and incentive issues. The objective of this paper is to shed new light on principal-agent problems that are likely to arise in this new funding structure.
    Keywords: incentives; Principal-agent model; team research; competitive grants; multi-disciplinary research
    Date: 2010–06–22
  3. By: Frankort, Johannes Theresia Wilhelmus (Maastricht University)
    Date: 2010
  4. By: Pilar Beneito López (Universitat de València); Amparo Sanchis Llopis (Universitat de València); María Engracia Rochina Barrachina (Universitat de València)
    Abstract: En este trabajo se analiza el papel del aprendizaje en el éxito innovador de las empresas, tomando en consideración la naturaleza heterogénea de las actividades innovadoras, y en particular, distinguiendo entre el aprendizaje que proviene de la realización interna de actividades de I+D y el aprendizaje que proviene de la contratación externa de estas actividades. Para este trabajo se utiliza una muestra representativa de empresas manufactureras en España durante el período 1990-2006, y dentro del marco de una función de producción de innovaciones, se estiman modelos ¿count¿ con el fin de investigar la influencia que tiene en la obtención de resultados innovadores la experiencia que proviene de la I+D realizada dentro de la empresa y de la contratada externamente. Nuestros resultados muestran que el aprendizaje tiene un papel importante en la obtención de innovaciones de producto cuando las empresas organizan sus actividades de I+D internamente, y que la experiencia que proviene de la contratación externa de actividades de I+D no influye sobre el número de innovaciones de producto. This paper analyses the role of learning in firms¿ innovation success, taking into account the heterogeneous nature of innovation activities, and in particular, distinguishing between learning arising from the internal organization of R&D activities and learning from externally contracting these activities. We use a representative sample of Spanish manufacturing firms for the period 1990-2006, and within an innovation production function approach, we estimate count data models to investigate the influence of firms¿ in-house and externally contracted R&D experience in the achievement of innovative results. Our results show that learning is important in the achievement of product innovations when the firms organize R&D activities internally, and that experience from externally contracted R&D activities does not influence the number of product innovations.
    Keywords: innovation, accumulation of knowledge, in-house R&D experience, externally contracted R&D experience, count data models. innovación, acumulación de conocimiento, experiencia en I+D interna, experiencia en I+D contratada externamente, modelos para datos ¿count¿.
    JEL: O30 O34 C23 C10
    Date: 2009–10
  5. By: De Stobbeleir, K.; De Clippeleer, I.; Dewettinck, K. (Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School)
    Abstract: Considerable research efforts have been invested in identifying the individual and contextual factors that facilitate employee creativity. However, the literature also abounds with conflicting research results regarding critical factors for employee creativity. At the basis of these contradictions is the lack of attention that has been given to the study of the potential differential impact of these antecedents on specific sub-processes of creativity. Historically, scholars have focused on studying the antecedents of creativity as an outcome variable, but far less is known about how these factors differentially impact the various stages within the creative process. Building on this research gap, the aim of this study is to explore the possible differential impact on the phases of the creative process of five antecedents previously identified as important predictors of creativity: (1) personality; (2) rewards; (3) the role of co-workers; (4) leadership; and (5) the configuration of work settings. The present study demonstrates the need to conceive creativity as a process if we want to advance in building a comprehensive theory of employee creativity. We found that the factors that emerged in one phase of the creative process were not necessarily the same as the factors observed in other phases. In fact, the prerequisites for creativity in one phase sometimes contradicted the necessary conditions for creativity in another phase. Specifically, we found evidence for six countervailing forces.
    Date: 2010–06–22

This nep-ppm issue is ©2010 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.