Learning from Postproject Reviews: A Cross‐Case Analysis^*

Abstract

Every new product development (NPD) project should not only deliver a successful new product but also generate learning for the organization. Post-project reviews (PPRs) are recognized by both practitioners and academics as an appropriate mechanism to stimulate and capture learning in NPD teams. However, relatively few companies use PPRs, and those that do utilize them often fail to do so effectively. Although they are widely perceived to be a useful tool, empirical research on how PPRs are typically organized and the learning that results is limited.This article addresses this gap in the extant knowledge and describes five indepth case studies, which were conducted at leading companies in Germany. A detailed investigation was made of how PPRs are conducted, and the type of learning that can result. Three main sources of data were used for each case: company documentation; in-depth interviews with managers responsible for NPD; and observation of an actual PPR. The different data sources enabled extensive triangulation of data to be conducted and a high degree of reliability and validity to be achieved.The analysis enabled a number of key characteristics of the way PPRs are managed to be identified. Various characteristics of PPRs influence their utility, such as the time at which they take place and the way discussions are moderated. In addition, the data show that participants in the discussions at PPRs often use metaphors and stories, which indicates that PPRs have the potential to generate tacit knowledge. Interestingly, the data also showed that there are various different ways in which metaphors and stories appear to stimulate discussions on NPD projects.Based on the cross-case analysis, a wide range of implications are identified. Researchers need to investigate PPRs further to identify how they can generate tacit and explicit knowledge and support project-to-project learning. Especially the topic of tacit knowledge generation in a NPD context needs further investigation. The research also led to a range of recommendations for practitioners. Companies need to strongly communicate the purpose and value of PPRs, run them effectively to stimulate the maximum possible learning, and disseminate the findings widely. PPRs have the potential to create and transfer knowledge amongst NPD professionals but, as they are seldom currently used, many companies are missing an important opportunity.

Learning between projects: More than sending messages in bottles

“…Koners and Goffin, 2007;Koskinen et al, 2003;Schindler and Eppler, 2003). At the same time, barriers of knowledge transfer are well documented.…”

“…Maqsood et al, 2006;Koners and Goffin, 2007;Newell and Edelman, 2008;Paranagamage et al, 2012). The majority of these studies, often implicitly, adopt a sender/receiver perspective on learning which assumes the possibility of engineering communication channels for transferring knowledge between projects and "lubricating their operation with the proper tools and motivated context" (Kasper et al, 2013, p.334).…”

Designing the Organization for User Innovation

“…they are expected to foster the dialogue between internal and external individuals involved in innovation processes (allen, 1967; hauschildt & schewe, 2000). another important function of these actors is to facilitate project-to-project learning (Koners & Goffin, 2007). If involved in lead-user projects on a continuous basis, gatekeepers accumulate valuable procedural know-how and skills with regard to the search for lead-users and the management of lead-user workshops (see design principles for searching strategies).…”

Methods of Learning in Product Development Contexts

“…It has the specific objective of transferring learning between projects and has been widely studied in the literature. According to Koners and Goffin [16], they have the function of preventing similar problems experienced by previous projects, but despite its importance are rarely used. The same authors described how PPR are conducted and what kind of learning they generate.…”