Stage-Gate Escalation

References

• Adner R, Levinthal D (2004) What is not a real option: Considering boundaries for the application of real options to business strategy. Acad. Management Rev. 29(1):74–85.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arkes H, Blumer C (1985) The psychology of sunk costs. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 35(1):124–140.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arora A, Gambardella A, Magazzini L, Pammolli F (2009) A breath of fresh air? Firm type, scale, scope, and selection effects in drug development. Management Sci. 55(10):1638–1653.Link, Google Scholar
• Bakker RM, Shepherd D (2015) Pull the plug or take the plunge: Multiple opportunities and the speed of venturing decisions in the Australian mining industry. Acad. Management J. 60(1):130–155.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barsky AP, Zyphur MJ (2016) Disentangling sunk-costs and completion proximity: The role of regulatory focus. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 65(1):105–108.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bechky BA, O’Mahony S (2016) Leveraging comparative field data for theory generation. Elsbach KD, Kramer RM, eds. Handbook of Qualitative Organizational Research: Innovative Pathways and Methods (Routledge, New York), 168–176.Google Scholar
• Biyalogorsky E, Boulding W, Staelin R (2006) Stuck in the past: Why managers persist with new product failures. J. Marketing 70(2):108–121.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Booth P, Schulz AKD (2004) The impact of an ethical environment on managers’ project evaluation judgments under agency problem conditions. Accounting Organ. Soc. 29(5):473–488.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boulding W, Guha A, Staelin R (2016) Do we really need to change the decision maker? Counterintuitive escalation of commitment results in real options contexts. Management Sci. 63(10):3459–3472.Link, Google Scholar
• Boulding W, Morgan R, Staelin R (1997) Pulling the plug to stop the new product drain. J. Marketing Res. 34(1):164–176.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bowen GA (2008) Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: A research note. Qualititative Res. 8(1):137–152.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bowen MG (1987) The escalation phenomenon reconsidered: Decision dilemmas or decision errors? Acad. Management Rev. 12(1):52–66.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bragger JD, Bragger D, Hantula DA, Kirnan J (1998) Hyteresis and uncertainty: The effect of uncertainty on delays to exit decisions. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 74(3):229–253.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brasil VC, Eggers JP (2019) Product and innovation portfolio management. Hitt MA, ed. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Brockner J (1992) The escalation of commitment to a failing course of action: Toward theoretical progress. Acad. Management Rev. 17(1):39–61.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brockner J, Houser R, Birnbaum G, Lloyd K, Deitcher J, Nathanson S, Rubin JZ (1986) Escalation of commitment to an ineffective course of action: The effect of feedback having negative implications for self-identity. Admin. Sci. Quart. 31(1):109–126.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brown SL, Eisenhardt KM (1995) Product development: Past research, present findings, and future directions. Acad. Management Rev. 20(2):343–378.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Browning TR, Deyst JJ, Eppinger SD, Whitney DE (2002) Adding value in product development by creating information and reducing risk. IEEE Trans. Engrg. Management 49(4):443–458.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cardinal LB, Turner SF, Fern MJ, Burton RM (2011) Organizing for product development across technological environments: Performance trade-offs and priorities. Organ. Sci. 22(4):1000–1025.Link, Google Scholar
• Chao RO, Kavadias S (2008) A theoretical framework for managing the new product development portfolio: When and how to use strategic buckets. Management Sci. 54(5):907–921.Link, Google Scholar
• Conlon DE, Garland H (1993) The role of project completion information in resource allocation decisions. Acad. Management J. 36(2):402–413.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Conlon EJ, Parks JM (1987) Information requests in the context of escalation. J. Appl. Psych. 72(3):344–350.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cooper RG (1988) The new product process: A decision guide for management. J. Marketing Management 3(3):238–255.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cooper RG (2008) Perspective: The stage-gate idea-to-launch process—Update, what’s new, and nexgen systems. J. Product Innovation Management 25(3):213–232.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cooper RG, Edgett SJ, Kleinschmidt EJ (2001) Portfolio Management for New Products. (Addison Wesley, Reading, MA).Google Scholar
• Crama P, Sting FJ, Wu Y (2019) Encouraging help across projects. Management Sci. 65(3):1408–1429.Link, Google Scholar
• Creswell JW, Clark VLP (2011) Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, 2nd ed. (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
• Criscuolo P, Dahlander L, Grohsjean T, Salter A (2017) Evaluating novelty: The role of panels in the selection of R&D projects. Acad. Management J. 60(2):433–460.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Denis J-L, Dompierre G, Langley A, Rouleau L (2011) Escalating indecision: Between reification and strategic ambiguity. Organ. Sci. 22(1):225–244.Link, Google Scholar
• Denison CA (2009) Real options and escalation of commitment: A behavioral analysis of capital investment decisions. Accounting Rev. 84(1):133–155.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ding M, Eliashberg J (2002) Structuring the new product development pipeline. Management Sci. 48(3):343–363.Link, Google Scholar
• Drummond H (1995) De‐escalation in decision making: A case of a disastrous partnership. J. Management Stud. 32(3):265–281.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Edmondson AC, McManus SE (2007) Methodological fit in management field research. Acad. Management Rev. 32(4):1155–1179.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case-study research. Acad. Management Rev. 14(4):532–550.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt KM, Graebner ME (2007) Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Acad. Management J. 50(1):25–32.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elfenbein DW, Knott AM (2015) Time to exit: Rational, behavioral, and organizational delays. Strategic Management J. 36(7):957–975.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elfenbein DW, Knott AM, Croson R (2016) Equity stakes and exit: An experimental approach to decomposing exit delay. Strategic Management J. 38(2):278–299.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ethiraj SK, Ramasubbu N, Krishnan MS (2012) Does complexity deter customer‐focus? Strategic Management J. 33(2):137–161.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fuchs C, Sting F, Schlickel M, Alexy O (2019) The ideator’s bias: How identity-induced self-efficacy drives overestimation in employee-driven process innovation. Acad. Management J. 62(5):1498–1522.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gaba V, Dokko G (2016) Learning to let go: Social influence, learning, and the abandonment of corporate venture capital practices. Strategic Management J. 37(8):1558–1577.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garland H, Conlon DE (1998) Too close to quit: The role of project completion in maintaining commitment. J. Appl. Soc. Psych. 28(22):2025–2048.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garud R, Van de Ven AH (1992) An empirical evaluation of the internal corporate venturing process. Strategic Management J. 13(S1):93–109.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garud R, Tuertscher P, Van de Ven AH (2013) Perspectives on innovation processes. Acad. Management Ann. 7(1):775–819.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gavetti G, Greve HR, Levinthal DA, Ocasio W (2012) The behavioral theory of the firm: Assessment and prospects. Acad. Management Ann. 6(1):1–40.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Giachetti C (2013) Competitive Dynamics in the Mobile Phone Industry (Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gibbert M, Ruigrok W, Wicki B (2008) What passes as a rigorous case study? Strategic Management J. 29(13):1465–1474.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gioia DA, Corley KG, Hamilton AL (2012) Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organ. Res. Methods 16(1):15–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Green SG, Welsh MA, Dehler GE (2003) Advocacy, performance, and threshold influences on decisions to terminate new product development. Acad. Management J. 46(4):419–434.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guler I (2007) Throwing good money after bad? Political and institutional influences on sequential decision making in the venture capital industry. Admin. Sci. Quart. 52(2):248–285.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guler I (2018) Pulling the plug: The capability to terminate unsuccessful projects and firm performance. Strategy Sci. 3(3):481–497.Link, Google Scholar
• Harrison PD, Harrell A (1993) Impact of “adverse selection” on managers’ project evaluation decisions. Acad. Management J. 36(3):635–643.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hauser J, Tellis G, Griffin A (2006) Research on innovation: A review and agenda for marketing science. Marketing Sci. 25(6):687–717.Link, Google Scholar
• Jick TD (1979) Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Admin. Sci. Quart. 24(4):602–611.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Joseph JE, Gaba V (2015) The fog of feedback: Ambiguity and firm responses to multiple aspiration levels. Strategic Management J. 36(13):1960–1978.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Joseph JE, Gaba V (2020) Organizational structure, information processing, and decision making: A retrospective and roadmap for research. Acad. Management Ann. 14(1):267–302.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Joseph JE, Klingebiel R, Wilson AW (2016) Organizational structure and performance feedback: Centralization, aspirations, and termination decisions. Organ. Sci. 27(5):1065–1083.Link, Google Scholar
• Keil M, Mähring M (2010) Is your project turning into a black hole? California Management Rev. 53(1):6–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keil M, Depledge G, Rai A (2007) Escalation: The role of problem recognition and cognitive bias. Decision Sci. 38(3):391–421.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keil M, Mann J, Rai A (2000) Why software projects escalate: An empirical analysis and test of four theoretical models. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 24(4):631–664.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keil T, McGrath R, Tukiainen T (2005) Management of uncertain ventures: An exploratory analysis. Working paper, Helsinki University of Technology, Helsinki.Google Scholar
• Kim J, Wilemon D (2002) Focusing the fuzzy front-end in new product development. R&D Management 32(4):269–279.Crossref, Google Scholar
• King G, Zeng L (2001) Logistic regression in rare events data. Political Anal. 9(2):137–163.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klein B, Meckling W (1958) Application of operations research to development decisions. Oper. Res. 6(3):352–363.Link, Google Scholar
• Klingebiel R (2018) Risk-type preference shifts in response to feedback. Strategic Organ. 16(2):141–162.Google Scholar
• Klingebiel R, Adner R (2015) Real options logic revisited: The performance effects of alternative resource allocation regimes. Acad. Management J. 58(1):221–241.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klingebiel R, Joseph JE (2016) Entry timing and innovation strategy in feature phones. Strategic Management J. 37(6):1002–1020.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klingebiel R, Rammer C (2020) Optionality and selectiveness in innovation. Acad. Management Discoveries Forthcoming.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Knight F (1921) Risk, Uncertainty and Profit (Houghton Mifflin, New York).Google Scholar
• Langley A (1995) Between “paralysis by analysis” and “extinction by instinct.” Sloan Management Rev. 36(3):63–76.Google Scholar
• Lechler TG, Thomas JL (2015) Examining new product development project termination decision quality at the portfolio level: Consequences of dysfunctional executive advocacy. Internat. J. Project Management 33(7):1452–1463.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee JS, Keil M, Wong KFE (2015) The effect of goal difficulty on escalation of commitment. J. Behav. Decision Making 28(2):114–129.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levinthal DA (2017) Resource allocation and firm boundaries. J. Management 43(8):2580–2587.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loch CH, Kavadias S (2007) Managing new product development: An evolutionary framework. Loch C, Kavadias S, eds. Handbook of New Product Development Management (Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford, UK), 1–26.Google Scholar
• Long X, Nasiry J, Wu Y (2020) A behavioral study on abandonment decisions in multi-stage projects. Management Sci. 66(5):1999–2016.Link, Google Scholar
• March JG, Shapira Z (1992) Variable risk preferences and the focus of attention. Psych. Rev. 99(1):172–183.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mazmanian M, Beckman CM (2018) “Making” your numbers: Engendering organizational control through a ritual of quantification. Organ. Sci. 29(3):357–379.Link, Google Scholar
• McCain BE (1986) Continuing investment under conditions of failure: A laboratory study of the limits to escalation. J. Appl. Psych. 71(2):280–284.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McGrath R, MacMillan I (2000) Assessing technology projects using real options reasoning. Res. Tech. Management 43(4):35–49.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McNamara G, Bromiley P (1997) Decision making in an organizational setting: Cognitive and organizational influences on risk assessment in commercial lending. Acad. Management J. 40(5):1063–1088.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McNamara G, Moon H, Bromiley P (2002) Banking on commitment: Intended and unintended consequences of an organization’s attempt to attenuate escalation of commitment. Acad. Management J. 45(2):443–452.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miles M, Huberman A (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
• Miller CC, Cardinal LB, Glick WH (1997) Retrospective reports in organizational research: A reexamination of recent evidence. Acad. Management J. 40(1):189–204.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Montealegre R, Keil M (2000) De-escalating information technology projects: Lessons from the Denver International Airport. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 24(3):417–447.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moon H (2001a) Looking forward and looking back: Integrating completion and sunk-cost effects within an escalation-of-commitment progress decision. J. Appl. Psych. 86(1):104–113.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moon H (2001b) The two faces of conscientiousness: Duty and achievement striving in escalation of commitment dilemmas. J. Appl. Psych. 86(3):533–540.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Noda T, Bower JL (1996) Strategy making as iterated processes of resource allocation. Strategic Management J. 17(S1):159–192.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Northcraft GB, Neale MA (1986) Opportunity costs and the framing of resource allocation decisions. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 37(3):348–356.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ocasio W (1997) Toward an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management J. 18(6):187–206.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ocasio W (2011) Attention to attention. Organ. Sci. 22(5):1286–1296.Link, Google Scholar
• Perreault WD, Leigh LE (1989) Reliability of nominal data based on qualitative judgments. J. Marketing Res. 26(2):135–148.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Plowman DA, Baker LT, Beck TE, Kulkarni M, Solansky ST, Travis DV (2007) Radical change accidentally: The emergence and amplification of small change. Acad. Management J. 50(3):515–543.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ross J, Staw BM (1993) Organizational escalation and exit: Lessons from the Shoreham nuclear power plant. Acad. Management J. 36(4):701–732.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rubenstein AH, Schröder HH (1977) Managerial differences in assessing probabilities of technical success for R&D projects. Management Sci. 24(2):137–148.Link, Google Scholar
• Schlapp J, Oraiopoulos N, Mak V (2015) Resource allocation decisions under imperfect evaluation and organizational dynamics. Management Sci. 61(9):2139–2159.Link, Google Scholar
• Schmidt J, Calantone R (2002) Escalation of commitment during new product development. J. Acad. Marketing Sci. 30(2):103–118.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schultze T, Pfeiffer F, Schulz-Hardt S (2012) Biased information processing in the escalation paradigm: Information search and information evaluation as potential mediators of escalating commitment. J. Appl. Psych. 97(1):16–32.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sengul M, Almeida Costa A, Gimeno J (2018) The allocation of capital within firms: A review and integration toward a research revival. Acad. Management Ann. 13(1):43–83.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sethi R, Iqbal Z (2008) Stage-gate controls, learning failure, and adverse effect on novel new products. J. Marketing 72(1):118–134.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shane S, Ulrich K (2004) Technological innovation, product development, and entrepreneurship in management science. Management Sci. 50(2):133–144.Link, Google Scholar
• Shimizu K (2007) Prospect theory, behavioral theory, and the threat-rigidity thesis: Combinative effects on organizational decisions to divest formerly acquired units. Acad Management J. 50(6):1495–1514.Google Scholar
• Simester D, Zhang J (2010) Why are bad products so hard to kill? Management Sci. 56(7):1161–1179.Link, Google Scholar
• Simonson I, Staw BM (1992) Deescalation strategies: A comparison of techniques for reducing commitment to losing courses of action. J. Appl. Psych. 77(4):419–426.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sleesman D, Lennard A, McNamara G, Conlon D (2018) Putting escalation of commitment in context: A multi-level review and analysis. Acad. Management Ann. 12(1):178–207.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sleesman DJ, Conlon DE, McNamara G, Miles JE (2012) Cleaning up the big muddy: A meta-analytic review of the determinants of escalation of commitment. Acad. Management J. 55(3):541–562.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Soman D (2001) The mental accounting of sunk time costs: Why time is not like money. J. Behav. Decision Making 14(3):169–185.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sommer SC, Loch CH (2004) Selectionism and learning in projects with complexity and unforeseeable uncertainty. Management Sci. 50(10):1334–1347.Link, Google Scholar
• Staw BM (1981) The escalation of commitment to a course of action. Acad. Management Rev. 6(4):577–587.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Staw BM (1997) The escalation of commitment: An update and appraisal. Shapira Z, ed. Organizational Decision Making (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 191–215.Google Scholar
• Staw BM, Ross J (1987) Behavior in escalation situations: Antecedents, prototypes, and solutions. Res. Organ. Behav. 9(1):39–78.Google Scholar
• Staw BM, Ross J (1989) Understanding behavior in escalation situations. Science 246(4927):216–220.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Staw BM, Barsade SG, Koput KW (1997) Escalation at the credit window: A longitudinal study of bank executives’ recognition and write-off of problem loans. J. Appl. Psych. 82(1):130–142.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Staw BM, Sandelands LE, Dutton JE (1981) Threat-rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Admin. Sci. Quart. 26(4):501–524.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stevens GA, Burley J (1997) 3,000 raw ideas = 1 commercial success. Res. Tech. Management 40(3):16–27.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tong J, Feiler D, Ivantsova A (2018) Good choice, bad judgment: How choice under uncertainty generates overoptimism. Psych. Sci. 29(2):254–265.Crossref, Google Scholar
• van Oorschot KE, Akkermans H, Sengupta K, van Wassenhove LN (2013) Anatomy of a decision trap in complex new product development projects. Acad. Management J. 56(1):285–307.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vassolo RS, Anand J, Folta TB (2004) Non‐additivity in portfolios of exploration activities: A real options‐based analysis of equity alliances in biotechnology. Strategic Management J. 25(11):1045–1061.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vidal E, Mitchell W (2015) Adding by subtracting: The relationship between performance feedback and resource reconfiguration through divestitures. Organ. Sci. 26(4):1101–1118.Link, Google Scholar
• Yin R (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd ed. (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar