Meeting up for management control: bracketing interaction in innovation development

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine meetings as a form of meta-practice and investigate their role related to management control of innovation development. Design/methodology/approach This research draws on case studies of two biotechnology firms operating in pharmaceuticals and medicine, which represent different contexts regarding the uncertainty and complexity of innovation development. Findings The study suggests two distinct roles of meetings in the context of innovation development: meetings as regulating and ordering; and meetings as a resource. In the first role, meetings serve as a regulative mechanism that brings together multiple elements of control into a system. Meetings as a meta-practice regulate and order by bracketing elements of innovation in time and space, rendering the innovation process more manageable and allowing actors to handle the complexity of knowledge. In the second role, meetings are used as a resource, sporadically intervening in the ongoing activities of innovation projects. The study explains how these two roles relate to the uncertainty and complexity of innovation development and have different implications for management control. Originality/value The study challenges the instrumental view of meetings by taking a closer look at their structuring potential in the organization. Understanding the roles of meetings provides another perspective on the functioning of management control and opens new avenues for studying the practices of control and decision-making.

Exploring the Role of Management Control Anchor Practices in new Product Development

“…We reason that in the case of Robotics, the specific type of management control used as an anchor practice -an integrative liaison device (Abernethy & Lillis, 1995;Miller, 1988) -played a crucial role for handling the NPD related complexity. We thereby add nuances to previous studies that emphasize the importance of dialogue and interaction and the associated use of social controls in NPD settings (Bürkland et al, 2019;Feeney & Pierce, 2018;Van der Meer-Kooistra & Scapens, 2015). Previous studies demonstrate that management control practices like integrative liaison devices play an important role in this respect as they support as well as guide knowledge sharing and integration (Abernethy & Lillis, 1995;Bürkland et al, 2019, p. 167;Ditillo, 2004Ditillo, , 2012Morris & Empson, 1998).…”

“…The anchor practice in our case was an integrative liaison device (Abernethy & Lillis, 1995;Miller, 1988). Analyzing the functioning of this management control practice thus allows us to expand on prior studies that emphasize the importance of social controls in NPD settings (Bürkland et al, 2019;Feeney & Pierce, 2018;Van der Meer-Kooistra & Scapens, 2015). Integrative liaison devices play an important role as they support knowledge sharing and integration (Abernethy & Lillis, 1995, p. 167;Bürkland et al, 2019;Ditillo, 2004Ditillo, , 2012Morris & Empson, 1998).…”

“…This enabling role of management control practices in NPD settings has been illustrated through studies conducted in various contexts and on different hierarchical levels (Berhausen & Thrane, 2018;Curtis & Sweeney, 2017;Davila, 2000;Davila & Ditillo, 2017;Jørgensen & Messner, 2009;Miller & O'Leary, 2007;Revellino & Mouritsen, 2009). A common theme in this paradigm is that the enabling function stems from the use of multiple control practices, ranging from a budget for development projects and financial measures, to non-financial measures, NPD stage gate models, project team composition guidelines and so-called integrative liaison devices such as cross-functional meetings (Bürkland et al, 2019;Davila, 2000;Henri & Wouters, in press;Revellino & Mouritsen, 2009. Studies hence demonstrate that various types of technical and social controls co-exist and are made use of in the management of new product development projects.…”

“…Rather, subsidiary practices interact with the management control anchor practice in a way that enables the enactment of the latter and eventually the organization's constitutive rule. As already mentioned, previous literature has demonstrated that various types of technical and social controls are made use of, ranging from NPD budgets, cost targets and sales measures to non-financial measures, NPD stage gate models, project team composition guidelines and so-called integrative liaison devices such as cross-functional meetings (Bürkland et al, 2019;Davila, 2000;Henri & Wouters, in press;Revellino & Mouritsen, 2009. As noted by Ahrens (2018), one cannot identify an organization's constitutive rule and management control anchor practice before entering the field.…”

“…Analyzing the functioning of this management control practice thus allows us to expand on prior studies that emphasize the importance of social controls in NPD settings (Bürkland et al, 2019;Feeney & Pierce, 2018;Van der Meer-Kooistra & Scapens, 2015). Integrative liaison devices play an important role as they support knowledge sharing and integration (Abernethy & Lillis, 1995, p. 167;Bürkland et al, 2019;Ditillo, 2004Ditillo, , 2012Morris & Empson, 1998). However, if used as a management control anchor practice that enacts an organization's constitutive rule and frames accountability-induced conflicts and negotiations in a highly visible way (Ahrens, 2018;Swidler, 2001), integrative liaison devices can have a controlling role in the creation of 'anchored prioritizations'.…”