nep-ppm New Economics Papers
on Project, Program and Portfolio Management
Issue of 2010‒07‒10
four papers chosen by
Arvi Kuura
Parnu College - Tartu University

  1. Managing exploratory innovation By Florence Charue-Duboc; Gilles Garel; Franck Aggeri; Valérie Chanal
  2. Plates-formes collaboratives : entre évolution technologique et choix stratégique By Salançon, A.
  3. The Economics of Science - Funding for Research By Paula E. Stephan
  4. Managing Markets for Toxic Assets By Christopher L. House; Yusufcan Masatlioglu

  1. By: Florence Charue-Duboc (CRG - Centre de recherche en gestion - CNRS : UMR7655 - Polytechnique - X); Gilles Garel (Euristik - Equipe de Recherche en management stratégique - Centre de recherche Magellan de l'IAE - Université Jean Moulin - Lyon III); Franck Aggeri (CGS - Centre de Gestion Scientifique - Mines ParisTech); Valérie Chanal (PACTE - Politiques publiques, ACtion politique, TErritoires - CNRS : UMR5194 - Université Pierre Mendès-France - Grenoble II - Institut d'Études Politiques de Grenoble - Université Joseph Fourier - Grenoble I)
    Abstract: Although the concept of exploration has been widely used in management research since James March's seminal article, the literature on exploration remains rather fuzzy. The question of exploration is dominated by the literature on ambidexterity but this research actually says little about concretely managing exploratory innovation itself, although this appears to be a central concern of most industrial firms today. Based on a material (twenty presentations made in a research seminar the authors have organized in the last two years) and a critical review of the literature, this paper provides new theoretical and managerial insights on the management of exploratory innovation. We first identify three complementary perspectives: 1. Managing knowledge for exploration, 2. Organizing for exploration, and 3. Creating new value spaces. Secondly, we recommend focusing the management of exploratory innovation on the following two processes: identifying an exploratory field, creating new opportunities via experimentation.
    Keywords: Exploration, management of innovation, knowledge, value spaces
    Date: 2010–05–19
  2. By: Salançon, A.
    Abstract: The question of how information and communications technologies impact the economic development of businesses has come to the fore in recent years with the emergence of what have been called "platforms for collaborative working" or simply "collaborative platforms". This technological development has given birth to new conceptions about how economic organisations function. In real-life situations, however, the adoption of these new and innovative work mechanisms must complement and be integrated with existing stategies among actors within the organisation. The following article presents a study of one project whose aim was the creation of a collaborative work platform in the fruit and vegetable sector of the food industry. The study presents response elements to various factors which determined the emergence of collaborative platform projects, as well as responses to the strategic choices made by the actors involved in the project in building these platforms. ...French Abstract : La question de l'impact de l'usage des Tic sur le développement économique des entreprises est relancée ces dernières années avec l'émergence des dispositifs appelés "plate-formes de travail collaboratif" ou "plates-formes collaboratives". Cette évolution technologique est porteuse de nouvelles conceptions de fonctionnement des organisations économiques. Dans le même temps et dans les situations concrètes, l'adoption de ce dispositif innovant doit composer avec les stratégies d'acteurs dans lesquelles les plate-formes collaboratives tentent de prendre place. L'article présente l'étude d'un projet de création d'une plate-forme collaborative dans la filière des fruits et légumes. Elle apporte des éléments de réponse sur les facteurs déterminants l'émergence des projets de plates formes collaboratives et sur les ressorts stratégiques de leur construction de la part des acteurs impliqués dans ce projet.
    JEL: D83 L15 O33
    Date: 2010
  3. By: Paula E. Stephan
    Abstract: Scientific research has properties of a public good; there are few monetary incentives for individuals to undertake basic research and the conventional wisdom is that the market, if left to its own devices, would under- invest in research in terms of social benefits relative to social costs. Thus research, especially of a basic nature, has traditionally been supported by either the government or philanthropic institutions. More recently, industry has also begun to support research conducted in nonprofit institutions. This paper explores the various sources of support for research in the university sector. Although the focus is on the United States, the paper discusses trends in other countries as well. The paper also examines mechanisms for distributing funds, including peer review and performance based distribution. The paper closes with a case study of the National Institutes of Health doubling during the period 1998-2002.
    Date: 2010–07
  4. By: Christopher L. House; Yusufcan Masatlioglu
    Abstract: We present a model in which banks trade toxic assets to raise funds for investment. The toxic assets generate an adverse selection problem and, as a consequence, the interbank asset market provides insufficient liquidity to finance investment. While the best investments are fully funded, socially efficient projects with modest payoffs are not. Investment is inefficiently low because acquiring funding requires banks to sell high-quality assets for less than their "fair" value. We then consider whether equity injections and asset purchases can improve market outcomes. Equity injections do not improve liquidity and may be counterproductive as a policy for increasing investment. By allowing banks to fund investments without having to sell high-quality assets, equity injections reduce the number of high-quality assets traded and further contaminate the interbank market. Paradoxically, if equity injections are directed to firms with the greatest liquidity needs, the contamination effect causes investment to fall. In contrast, asset purchase programs, like the Public-Private Investment Program, often have favorable impacts on liquidity, investment and welfare.
    JEL: D53 D82 E22 E44 E5 G18
    Date: 2010–07

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.