Project portfolio approaches consider various concurrent project interdependencies but typically neglect longitudinal interdependencies. These are important for exploratory projects, which create strategic options. If these options are not exploited in successive projects they become lost opportunities. This study analyzes 138 firms regarding their extent to consciously manage project sequences. We differentiate between proactive lineage (planning a roadmap of future projects) and reactive lineage (using learnings from past projects). Results show that both practices are positively and independently related to portfolio success. We derive suggestions for future research and discuss which theoretical foundations could be used to better understand the impact of lineage management.
BartschV.EbersM.MaurerI. (2013). Learning in project-based organizations: The role of project teams’ social capital for overcoming barriers to learning. International Journal of Project Management, 31(2), 239–251.
3.
BengtssonM.LindkvistL. (2017). Mapping the road to future projects: Roadmapping as a balancing and transformation process. Project Management Journal, 48(2), 39–54.
4.
BerggrenC. (2019). The cumulative power of incremental innovation and the role of project sequence management. International Journal of Project Management, 37(3), 461–472.
5.
BeringerC.JonasD.KockA. (2013). Behavior of internal stakeholders in project portfolio management and its impact on success. International Journal of Project Management, 31(6), 830–846.
6.
BradyT.DaviesA. (2004). Building project capabilities: From exploratory to exploitative learning. Organization Studies, 25(9), 1601–1621.
7.
BuvikM. P.RolfsenM. (2015). Prior ties and trust development in project teams—A case study from the construction industry. International Journal of Project Management, 33(7), 1484–1494.
8.
CooperR. G.EdgettS. J.KleinschmidtE. J. (2001). Portfolio management for new products (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.
9.
DaviesA. (2017). Projects: A very short introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
10.
DaviesA.BradyT. (2000). Organisational capabilities and learning in complex product systems: Towards repeatable solutions. Research Policy, 29(7–8), 931–953.
11.
DaviesA.DodsonM.GannD. (2016). Dynamic capabilities in a temporary organization: The case of London Heathrow Terminal 5. Project Management Journal, 47(2), 26–46.
12.
DietrichP. (2006). Mechanisms for inter-project integration—Empirical analysis in program context. Project Management Journal, 37(3), 49–61.
13.
EkrotB.KockA.GemündenH. G. (2016). Retaining project management competence—Antecedents and consequences. International Journal of Project Management, 34(2), 145–157.
14.
ElingK.HerstattC. (2017). Managing the front end of innovation—Less fuzzy, yet still not fully understood. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34(6), 864–874.
15.
FrederiksenL.DaviesA. (2008). Vanguards and ventures: Projects as vehicles for corporate entrepreneurship. International Journal of Project Management, 26(5), 487–496.
16.
GemündenH. G.LehnerP.KockA. (2018). The project-oriented organization and its contribution to innovation. International Journal of Project Management, 36(1), 147–160.
17.
HoeglM.WeinkaufK. (2005). Managing task interdependencies in multi-team projects: A longitudinal study. Journal of Management Studies, 42(6), 1287–1308.
18.
HoeglM.WeinkaufK.GemündenH. G. (2004). Interteam coordination, project commitment, and teamwork in multiteam R&D projects: A longitudinal study. Organization Science, 15(1), 38–55.
19.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453.
20.
JahanshahiA. A.BremA. (2017). Does real options reasoning support or oppose project performance?Project Management Journal, 48(4), 39–54.
21.
JissinkT.SchweitzerF.RohrbeckR. (2019). Forward-looking search during innovation projects: Under which conditions it impacts innovativeness. Technovation, 64–85, 71–85.
22.
JonasD.KockA.GemündenH. G. (2013). Predicting project portfolio success by measuring management quality—A longitudinal study. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 60(2), 215–226.
23.
JullienB.LungY.MidlerC. (2013). The Logan epic: New trajectories for innovation. Paris, France: Dunod.
24.
KeeganA.TurnerJ. R. (2001). Quantity versus quality in project-based learning practices. Management Learning, 32(1), 77–98.
25.
KillenC. P. (2013). Evaluation of project interdependency visualizations through decision scenario experimentation. International Journal of Project Management, 31(6), 804–816.
26.
KillenC. P.HuntR. A. (2010). Dynamic capability through project portfolio management in service and manufacturing industries. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 3(1), 157–169.
27.
KillenC. P.JugdevK.DrouinN.PetitY. (2012). Advancing project and portfolio management research: Applying strategic management theories. International Journal of Project Management, 30(5), 525–538.
28.
KillenC. P.KjaerC. (2012). Understanding project interdependencies: The role of visual representation, culture and process. International Journal of Project Management, 30(5), 554–566.
29.
KlingebielR.AdnerR. (2015). Real options logic revisited: The performance effects of alternative resource allocation regimes. Academy of Management Journal, 58(1), 221–241.
30.
KockA.HeisingW.GemündenH. G. (2016). A contingency approach on the impact of front-end success on project portfolio success. Project Management Journal, 47(2), 115–129.
31.
KopmannJ.KockA.KillenC. P.GemündenH. G. (2015). Business case control in project portfolios—An empirical investigation of performance consequences and moderating effects. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 62(4), 529–543.
32.
KopmannJ.KockA.KillenC. P.GemündenH. G. (2017). The role of project portfolio management in fostering both deliberate and emergent strategy. International Journal of Project Management, 35(4), 557–570.
33.
LenfleS. (2008). Exploration and project management. International Journal of Project Management, 26(5), 469–469.
34.
LenfleS. (2016). Floating in space? On the strangeness of exploratory projects. Project Management Journal, 47(2), 47–61.
35.
LockeE. A.LathamG. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
36.
LockeE. A.LathamG. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation—A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717.
37.
ManiakR.MidlerC. (2014). Multiproject lineage management: Bridging project management and design-based innovation strategy. International Journal of Project Management, 32(7), 1146–1156.
38.
ManiakR.MidlerC.LenfleS.Le Pellec-DaironM. (2014). Value management for exploration projects. Project Management Journal, 45(4), 55–66.
39.
MarchJ. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science: A Journal of the Institute of Management Sciences, 2(1), 71–87.
40.
MarshS. J.StockG. N. (2006). Creating dynamic capability: The role of intertemporal integration, knowledge retention, and interpretation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(5), 422–436.
41.
MartinsuoM. (2013). Project portfolio management in practice and in context. International Journal of Project Management, 31(6), 794–803.
42.
MartinsuoM.HoverfältP. (2018). Change program management: Toward a capability for managing value-oriented, integrated multi-project change in its context. International Journal of Project Management, 36(1), 134–146.
43.
MeskendahlS. (2010). The influence of business strategy on project portfolio management and its success—A conceptual framework. International Journal of Project Management, 28(8), 807–817.
44.
MidlerC. (2013). Implementing a low-end disruption strategy through multiproject lineage management: The Logan case. Project Management Journal, 44(5), 24–35.
45.
MidlerC.JullienB.LungY. (2017). Rethinking innovation and design for emerging markets: Inside the Renault Kwid project. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
46.
MidlerC.SilberzahnP. (2008). Managing robust development process for high-tech startups through multi-project learning: The case of two European start-ups. International Journal of Project Management, 26(5), 479–486.
47.
MölleringG.SydowJ. (2019). Trust trap? Self-reinforcing processes in the constitution of inter-organizational trust. In SasakiM. (Ed.), Trust in contemporary society, pp. 141–160. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill Publishing.
48.
MuellerJ. (2015). Formal and informal practices of knowledge sharing between project teams and enacted cultural characteristics. Project Management Journal, 46(1), 53–68.
49.
MüllerR.MartinsuoM.BlomquistT. (2008). Project portfolio control and portfolio management performance in different contexts. Project Management Journal, 39(3), 28–42.
50.
MyersM. B.RosenbloomR. S. (1996). Rethinking the role of research. Research-Technology Management, 39(3), 14–18.
51.
NewellS.EdelmanL. F. (2008). Developing a dynamic project learning and cross-project learning capability: Synthesizing two perspectives. Information Systems Journal, 18(6), 567–591.
52.
PellegrinelliS.Murray-WebsterR.TurnerN. (2015). Facilitating organizational ambidexterity through the complementary use of projects and programs. International Journal of Project Management, 33(1), 153–164.
53.
PetitY. (2012). Project portfolios in dynamic environments: Organizing for uncertainty. International Journal of Project Management, 30(5), 539–553.
54.
PetitY.HobbsB. (2010). Project portfolios in dynamic environments: Sources of uncertainty and sensing mechanisms. Project Management Journal, 41(4), 46–58.
55.
PichM. T.LochC. H.De MeyerA. (2002). On uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in project management. Management Science, 48(8), 1008–1023.
56.
PrencipeA.TellF. (2001). Inter-project learning: Processes and outcomes of knowledge codification in project-based firms. Research Policy, 30(9), 1373–1394.
57.
Project Management Institute (PMI). (2017). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide) – Sixth edition. Newtown Square, PA: Author.
58.
RohrbeckR.BattistellaC.HuizinghE. (2015). Corporate foresight: An emerging field with a rich tradition. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 101, 1–9.
59.
RohrbeckR.KumM. E. (2018). Corporate foresight and its impact on firm performance: A longitudinal analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 129, 105–116.
60.
RubinG. D.AbramsonR. G. (2018). Creating value through incremental innovation: Managing culture, structure, and process. Radiology, 288(2), 330–340.
61.
SalomoS.WeiseJ.GemündenH. G. (2007). NPD planning activities and innovation performance: The mediating role of process management and the moderating effect of product innovativeness. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(4), 285–302.
62.
SethiR.IqbalZ. (2008). Stage-gate controls, learning failure, and adverse effect on novel new products. Journal of Marketing, 72(1), 118–134.
63.
ShenharA. J. (2001). One size does not fit all projects: Exploring classical contingency domains. Management Science, 47(3), 394–414.
64.
SicotteH.DrouinN.DelerueH. (2014). Innovation portfolio management as a subset of dynamic capabilities: Measurement and impact on innovative performance. Project Management Journal, 45(6), 58–72.
65.
SitumeangF.BuengelerC.EerdeW. (2016). Never change a winning team? How management team experience affects project performance and the moderating role of project innovativeness. Paper presented at the EURAM2016, Paris.
66.
TeeceD. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.
67.
TellerJ.KockA. (2013). An empirical investigation on how portfolio risk management influences project portfolio success. International Journal of Project Management, 31(6), 817–829.
68.
TellerJ.UngerB. N.KockA.GemündenH. G. (2012). Formalization of project portfolio management: The moderating role of project portfolio complexity. International Journal of Project Management, 30(5), 596–607.
69.
TiwanaA.WangJ.KeilM.AhluwaliaP. (2007). The bounded rationality bias in managerial valuation of real options: Theory and evidence from IT projects. Decision Sciences, 38(1), 157–181.
70.
TongT. W.ReuerJ. J. (2007). Real options in strategic management. In ReuerJ. J.TongT. W. (eds.) Real options theory (Advances in Strategic Management, Volume 24, pp. 3–28). Bingley, England: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
71.
TushmanM.O’ReillyC. (1996). Ambidextrous organization: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30.
72.
von ZedtwitzM. (2002). Organizational learning through post-project reviews in R&D. R&D Management, 32(3), 255–268.
73.
VossM.KockA. (2013). Impact of relationship value on project portfolio success—Investigating the moderating effects of portfolio characteristics and external turbulence. International Journal of Project Management, 31(6), 847–861.
74.
WheelwrightS. C.ClarkK. B. (1992). Creating project plans to focus product development. Harvard Business Review, 70(2), 70–82.
