Int. J. Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, Vol. 9, No.

4, 2017 293

Knowledge transfer from lean startup method to

project management for boosting innovation projects’
performance

Zornitsa B. Yordanova
Industrial Business Department,
University of National and World Economy,
1700 8mi Dekemvri 1, Sofia, Bulgaria
Email: zornitsayordanova@unwe.bg

Abstract: The paper aims at presenting the results from a study that examines
the possibility, usefulness and existence of knowledge transfer of some tools
and techniques from the lean startup method toward project management. The
research focuses on innovation projects and these projects’ need for more
flexible and innovative tools and techniques so their performance to be
improved. The research includes literature framework, literature analysis,
comparative analysis and empirical research in two parts. The empirical
research first extracts 13 tools and techniques from lean startup method and
then tests the usage and the effect of these techniques implementation in 167
innovation projects. The results show the existing collaboration between the
method and the project management practice as well as outline the most
appropriate tools and techniques with higher positive impact on innovative
projects.

Keywords: lean startup method; LSM; project management; PM; innovation

projects; knowledge transfer; KT; innovation management.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Yordanova, Z.B. (2017)

‘Knowledge transfer from lean startup method to project management for
boosting innovation projects’ performance’, Int. J. Technological Learning,
Innovation and Development, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp.293–309.

Biographical notes: Zornitsa B. Yordanova received her PhD in the area of

Business Innovations Management from the University of National and World
Economy, Sofia, Bulgaria and currently, she is an Assistant Professor. Her
research interest includes innovation management, business innovations,
project management, innovation projects, enterprise management, management
information systems and enterprise software. Her working experience is in the
banking and IT sectors. She is also certified as PMP® and CSM® in the area of
project management and is a practitioner in the field of business applications
software projects.

Copyright © 2017 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

294 Z.B. Yordanova

1 Introduction

In the era of globalisation, some common circumstances tend to occur in every spectrum
of our environment. Intensive processes are being observed of blurring boundaries
between industries, economic sectors and businesses (Wuwei, 2002; Gilsinga et al.,
2011). A tendency for eliminating borders between countries, overlapping of markets
(Sattinger, 2006; Kohonen, 2013), merging of multinational companies (Søderberg and
Vaara, 2003; Heidenreich, 2012) has been reported. In this collaborating and globalising
world, knowledge transfer (KT) is an essential process that aims at boosting
effectiveness, productivity and innovativeness of industries, companies and countries
(Argote and Ingram, 2000). KT between two economic fields is usual/ordinary and
commonplace (Cano-Kollmann et al., 2016). It aims at creating synergy and adding value
by combining some strengths specific to each of the economic fields, which are included
in that interaction (Bagheri et al., 2016). Pursuing effectiveness and boosting productivity
in project management (PM), a possibility the lean startup method (LSM) to bring added
value to PM and to project managers (PMr) in particular is being under a research in the
study. “The specific task of the study is to research and answer if it is possible some tools
and techniques from LSM to be knowledge transferred and used by PM and how this
would impact innovation projects’ performance”. The value of the study comes from the
increasing and successful usage of the LSM in innovative companies and the increasing
number of failures of innovation projects, managed by project managers. By researching
the potential KT from LSM to PM and that KT impact, the papers aims at impact the
management of innovation projects in general. That is why, the study approaches the
LSM tools and techniques only, and not LSM implementation into the PM as a
management process.
The research questions are:
a Might a potential KT from LSM to PM be useful for PM (especially for innovation
projects) and does it already exist?
b Which LSM tools and techniques are used in PM (especially in innovation projects)
and have positive effect on innovation projects?
PM has been acquiring increasing significance during the last 40 years. Nowadays, most
companies use PM as a tool for implementing changes (Filippov and Mooi, 2010;
Ghaben and Jaaron, 2015). It is especially useful and beneficial for implementing
innovations. The relation between PM and innovations is obvious. PM is usually the most
reasonable and used tool for implementing innovations (Van de Ven, 1986). So,
innovations are one of PMs major objects (Artto et al., 2011). That naturally shows the
relation between PM and innovation models, strategies and approaches, because they all
refer to innovation implementation and management.
Generally, PM is a live science with a high level of adaptability. As a temporary
endeavour, projects need to be highly effective in their purpose and project managers
should fight for more tools and techniques which could provide them that ability – to be
flexible and adaptive (PMI, 2013). This is the reason why a KT from a method which
proposes high effectiveness and innovation development could be considered as added
value attempt. This research will verify that.
 Knowledge transfer from lean startup method to project management 295

Potential and beneficial readers of this study are mainly project, program and
portfolio managers, PM office (PMO) as methodical framers and innovation specialists
who try to make their innovation projects more successful.
Although the LSM is usually applied and implemented in innovative companies,
startups or in innovation projects only (Blank, 2013; Furr and Dyer, 2014), the study aims
at proposing some commonly used LSM tools and techniques which could be in use for
any kind of projects and industries.
The structure of the explorative article consists of the following components in order
to present a full discussion and to propose reliable answers to the research questions. First
a literature review is presented. It aims at framing the literature of innovations and
innovation projects, KT, PM and LSM in order to set the main stakeholders in the study.
In the second part of the study the methodology used for achieving the targets of the
study is described. In the third part the results from the empirical research and a
discussion of the study are presented.

2 Theoretical framework

The theoretical framework includes innovations (as main binder and reason for
researching potential KT between LSM and PM), KT (as the means of contributing from
LSM to PM), PM and LSM (as both are the main objectives of the research).

2.1 Innovations and innovation projects

Innovations are considered to be the main driver for national economic growth and a
determinant for companies’ productivity and competitiveness (Kathoeffer and Leker,
2012; Arvanitis et al., 2008; Bekkers and Freitas, 2008). Other researchers claim that
innovations are the growth engine of modern economy and they ensure growth regardless
of the economic environment (Tidd and Bessant, 2009; West and Boders, 2013). Many
companies have declared that improving and increasing innovativeness and the ability to
develop innovations are amongst the most substantial factors for growth (Damanpour,
1991; Crossan and Apaydin, 2010; Lopesa, 2016). Since it has been clarified that
innovations are the most reliable tool for transforming the economy and companies up to
a superior level, the issue how more effectively and successfully innovations should be
managed is still valid (Yordanova, 2017a). Two factors are essential for their successful
implementation. The first one is the capacity of companies to identify and shape both
opportunities and threats, the second one refers to the selection of new ideas to be
addressed properly and the third one is related to their subsequent development and
implementation (i.e., innovation PM) (Aramburu et al., 2010; Steinmo and Rasmussen,
2015). With the increasing innovation significance, the question how companies should
manage innovations and achieve innovation leadership becomes even more urgent
(Yordanova and Blagoev, 2015, 2016). Innovation management is in urgent need of
support. In the same time, PM as the main instrument for change management, generates
more and more failures especially in innovation projects (Volberda et al., 2010).
According to many researchers, projects are the preferred management instrument
especially for implementation of new activities (Filippov and Mooi, 2010; Ghaben and
Jaaron, 2015). A deduction from these brief literature analyses indicates that PM should
296 Z.B. Yordanova

put more efforts in modernising its capabilities to handle innovation projects and
innovations in general. This is the main purpose this study to be conducted. PM needs to
be developed in order to satisfy the extremely increasing and flexible needs of innovation
projects and gaps between PM traditions and innovation projects’ versatile requirements.

2.2 Knowledge transfer

KT is part of knowledge management theory and it handles the most fundamental part of
knowledge management (Swan et al., 1999; Omotayo, 2015) which knowledge spreading
and making knowledge accessible (Paulin and Suneson, 2012). For the purposes of the
current study, both terms KT and knowledge sharing will be used interchangeably, as
Jonsson (2008) did. However, a definition is necessary in order to limit and put a scope of
the proposed KT and interaction between both subjects of the study – LSM and PM. As a
definition, the study accepts the concept of The Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management
for KT and knowledge sharing. The used definition is a compilation of the numerous
definitions and explanations that are given in the Encyclopedia:

“An exchange of knowledge between two individuals, groups, organisations,

disciplines, industries or countries in which/whose interaction one party
communicates knowledge and the other one assimilates it. Knowledge
exchange could be focused or unfocused, but it should be considered as part of
the context and the receiver of that knowledge could interpret it in the light of
its needs and background.” (Schwartz, 2006)

According to the last part of the definition, KT might be used just to improve and extend
the skills and capabilities of the receiver (in the case of the study the receiver is PM)
according to its needs, opportunities and choice. As such, KT is considered to be
predominantly a good practice for any kind of interaction between peers. Because, it
could bring positive effects or at least acceptable effects to the receiver, no matter of the
traditionalism of the industry (Zack, 2003). As it is clarified, KT could be performed
across companies, industries, countries, etc. (King, 2009). The study focuses on KT
between disciplines only in order to set the theoretical frame for the following proposals
for KT from LSM to PM. KT includes the processes of receiving, accumulation and
sharing of particular knowledge, tools and techniques, skills and capabilities (Resnick
and Wolff, 1989).
As one of the methods for measuring KT between disciplines is bibliometric data
(Porter and Chubin, 1985), the discussion part of the study provides such an analysis, in
which some researches and articles concerning both PM and LSM are analysed.
However, Rinia et al. (2002) stated that cross-disciplinary citations in scientific
publications might give just a partial indication of KT between fields or subfields of
science. This is because interdisciplinary impact often is effective in longer timeframes
and might be not visible at citations’ accounting (Vaccario et al., 2017). In terms of that
statement, the study does not aim at evaluating the current KT between LSM and PM as
it is obvious it exists. The article analyses the particular elements (tools and techniques)
which are objects of that interaction between both disciplines. As the definition of KT
states, KT should be evaluated within the context and its measuring is not the purpose.
Integrating KM with PM has been researched by Yeong and Lim (2010) and they have
concluded that KM factors could have significant influence on project success. Ismail et
al. (2009) discussed the controversial observation that although an extensive literature on
 Knowledge transfer from lean startup method to project management 297

knowledge sharing is available, very little is known about how individuals and companies
share knowledge within a project environment. And even more, it is very difficult such an
information to be obtained and researched.

2.3 Project management

In order the study to notice, research and properly discuss how PM could be modernised
in terms of KT from some innovation management disciplines as LSM is, a brief
literature review is given. The purpose of it is ‘the receiver’ of the supposed KT to be
indicated and some specifics to be taken into consideration. A project as it is the main
structural element in PM is “a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product,
service or result” (PMI, 2013) or “a temporary organization that is created for the purpose
of delivering one or more business products according to an agreed business case”
(Office of the Government Commerce, 2009). According to the Project Management
Association of Japan’s Project & Program Management guide (P2M), “project refers to a
value creation undertaking based on a specific, which is completed in a given or agreed
time frame and under constraints, including resources and external circumstances”
(Ohara, 2005).
PM is defined in Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) as “the
application of knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques to project activities to meet the
project requirement” (PMI, 2013) or as PRojects IN Controlled Environments, version 2
(PRINCE 2) guides it is “the planning, delegating, monitoring and control of all aspects
of the project, and the motivation of those involved, to achieve the project objectives
within the expected performance targets for time, cost, quality, scope, benefits and risks”
(Office of the Government Commerce, 2009). The Project Management Association of
Japan defines PM as “the professional capability to deliver, with due diligence, a project
/product that fulfills a given mission, by organizing a dedicated project team, effectively
combining the most appropriate technical and managerial methods and techniques and
devising the most efficient and effective work breakdown and implementation routes”
(Ohara, 2005).
Thomas et al. (2012) have suggested in their research on PM and innovation
management’s overlapping elements that PM implementation can be considered as a
form of management innovation. There are studies that even examine PM as an
organisational innovation and project themselves as an element and a consequence of
implementation this organisational innovation in different organisations (Hobbs et al.,
2008).
Generally, PM success is referred to as an accomplishment of the main goals such as
scope, time and budget. However, as Turner (2009) states there are different criteria of
completing successfully a project and they differ a lot amongst the specific goals and
expectations of the stakeholders (sponsors, users and project managers). For sure, there is
no one and unique definition. For the purposes of this study, a successful project is
considered to be a project that achieves its goals within its planned and expected frames,
receives a positive feedback from the stakeholders and achieves efficiency. The last
criteria, i.e., efficiency, the author refers it to introducing LSM tools and techniques into
PM.
298 Z.B. Yordanova

2.4 Lean startup method

The LSM has been developed by Ries (2011) and presents a business model, which
provides companies a method mostly for product development and innovations (Nientied,
2015; Bonazzi and Purrechoud, 2014). Lean startup helps entrepreneurs and companies to
reduce costs of developing new products and services by ensuring that they do not waste
time and money designing features that customers would not want (Boufleur et al., 2016).
It emphasises on the importance of getting customer feedback at the earliest stage of the
development process and at each following step afterwards. Lean startup combines
different concepts with fast, iterative and agile development techniques (Blank and Dorf,
2012). The method consists of elements, tools and techniques, whose main purpose is to
build and manage a continuous feedback loop with customers during product
development cycles (Maurya, 2012). When the concept originated it was just “a
combination of agile and customer development, and building on preexisting systems to
eliminate redundant effort” (Ries, 2009). Later on, when Ries (2011) wrote his book “The
Lean Startup – how today’s entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically
successful business”, the concept was transformed into a method. The book presents the
LSM as “the application of lean thinking to the process of innovation” (Ries, 2011). The
core principles of lean startup are based on the lean manufacturing (LM) approach by
Toyota, including customer’s centricity and value, as well as continuous flow of
innovation activity, continuous improvement and improvisation (Ohno, 1988; Womack et
al., 1991). The method uses experiments of company’s business model on iterative
principle, doing this in short sprints with a focus on learning, based on the conducted
experiments (Blank and Dorf, 2012).

3 Methodology

The methodology, used in the study implies a complex of activities for the purpose of
researching the full picture of the potential collaboration and KT of tools and techniques
from LSM to PM for innovation projects.
The first part of the empirical section of the study provides a comparison analysis
between LSM and PM in order to frame their common and different characteristics and
elements and a brief discussion of both methods. The discussion includes:
1 analysis on KT from LSM to other disciplines, in order such a transfer to be
evaluated as appropriate and valuable
2 comparison analysis between LSM and PM in order these two disciplines’ cross and
common points to be outlined.
Within these analyses also an analysis on the literature is included that refers both to
LSM and PM together. This aims at evaluating the existing level of collaboration
between these two disciplines. The research sub-questions that this part aims at
answering are: Is there a reasonable cause a KT between LSM and PM to be proposed, if
it would be appropriate and if it already exists? The answers act as a trigger and a reason
for conducting the following empirical research with subject-matter experts on innovation
management and PMr. The first stage of the empirical research is conducted solely by the
author.
 Knowledge transfer from lean startup method to project management 299

The second part of the empirical section includes in-deep-interviews for elicitation of
useful tools and techniques that might be of use in PM for innovation projects. Twelve
innovation managers familiar with/aware of the LSM are selected to participate in that
research stage. The experts were selected and contacted via LinkedIn. The selection
procedure required any of them to mention lean startup as a skill in their profiles and their
job positions to be related to innovation/product development. The final product of that
second research stage is a list with extracted LSM tools and techniques assessed from the
focus group as potentially valuable for PM in terms of innovation projects. That final list
is extracted by asking the experts to pointing out the main characteristics of the LSM, its
main strengths and specifics.
Thus, by conducting the first and the second parts of the empirical study, a
questionnaire has been formed as the third stage of the empirical research. It aims at
evaluating if the elicited tools and techniques have already been used in innovation
projects by PMr and if that usage has had a positive impact for these projects result. The
questionnaire was broadcasted in PM professional LinkedIn groups for achieving
publicity and reaching more respondents (the questionnaire is provided as an attachment
to the paper and the dataset is available on request). Each project manager was supposed
to choose his/her last innovation project and note which of the listed tools and techniques
(from a questionnaire with 13 LSMs tools and techniques) had been used and if they have
had a positive effect on the project result (+1 – for positive effect; 0 – for not used;
–1 – for negative effect). The results are presented in a three dimensional chart (1st
dimension for positive/negative effect – an average of the results; 2nd dimension for
frequency of usage – count of innovation projects and 3rd dimension for effectiveness –
if there is a positive effect, when it is used). The survey reached more than 12,000
potential respondents (PMr) and 167 of them sent back their answers.

4 Results and discussion

It is obvious that LSM differs from the traditional business models (Blank, 2013; Bortz,
2014). The iterations in the empirical research aims at answering if it could impact PM
and especially innovation projects’ performance.

4.1 Literature analysis and a comparison analysis

4.1.1 Analysis on KT from LSM to PM
Matsudaira (2015) states that LSM advocates fast iteration and data collection by
implementing them on the right product and requirements as quickly as possible. These
approaches can also be applied in the technical development of products. It means that
fast iteration and data collection could not only improve the features and characteristics
of a product, but also its production. When it comes to PM, fast iterations are well
known, but data collection is something that is performed for particular tasks (for
example time or quality estimations) and not for real PM work. Moreover, there have
been no automated tools to collect such data as it is in LSM. Usually PMr use Dephi
technique or three/five point estimations which both are based on not-systematically or
complex analysis. In LSM data collection is integrated into the business model and the
strategy and collected data automatically enter in exploitation for improving products/
300 Z.B. Yordanova

process/organisation. If such an automatically processing data (data mining) tool is

integrated in PM work, it could shorten processes, support decision making, risk
assessment, planning or monitoring and control.
National Science Foundation with its Innovation Corps program, increasingly
encourage engineers and scientists to bring their basic research results to market through
embracing the LSM (Weiblen and Chesbrough, 2015). This advice means knowledge
transferring of main tools and techniques from LSP to engineers and scientists’ work,
such tools as constantly searching for customer/user feedback, involving potential users
into the development stages of work, using minimal viable product (MVP) for decreasing
implementation costs and timely pivoting. In PM, this advice would mean to use LSM
tools and techniques not for the projects’ purposes, but for the PM work of PMr. Most
PMr still prefer to remain in secret their methodologies, decision making process and
practices, particular steps in their daily issues and PMr know-how. By doing this, they
defend their intellectual property on their own PM work, but meanwhile limit the
opportunity for improvement or to allow these lessons leant and knowledge base to be
replicated by other PMr in similar cases and projects (which actually is the innovation).
LSM is based, although it is a new concept, on LM theory. As such, it is aligned and
gives answers to many questions and requirements of LM as they both (LM and LSM)
target lean performance. So, for LSM, some results and conclusions based on LM are
also valid and relevant. Nesensohn et al. (2013) highlights that lean approach develop a
philosophy which makes Lean second nature for companies. A lean organisation, as well
as PM, is aware of process thinking, the need to eliminate waste and additionally uses
customised Lean techniques which are adapted to suit the organisational requirements. As
a result, they foster long-term and deep-rooted cultural change within organisation and
make their PM approach leaner (Nesensohn et al., 2013). The term ‘leaner’ in PM means
focus on effectiveness in order some wastes to be decreased and it is directed to a scale
KT from both LM and LSM to PM. According to Ballard and Howell (2003), those
projects which emphasise on delivering products by maximising value and minimising
waste are considered as lean projects. These projects differ from ordinary projects in
terms of PM, basically in their characteristics and focus. However, this gives us the
assurance that ‘lean’ projects exist in literature and they focus on decreased wastes,
alignment amongst stakeholders, consideration of product life cycles in the design phase,
including commercialisation as part of PM, etc. [according to Ballard and Howell
(2003)]. Ansah Sorooshian and Mustafaah (2016) concludes in their research of Lean
construction as an effective approach for PM that tools that PM utilises such as work
breakdown structure, critical path method, and earned value management have been
criticised to be deficient in handling the present unique challenges of projects. As a result,
the industry is characterised by a number of wastes including: overproduction, lead time,
transportation, inappropriate processing, inventories, unnecessary movements, rework
and producing more wastes.
Yeong and Lim (2010) emphasise on the need for continuous feedback and alignment
of knowledge in the project environment. As continuous feedback and alignment of
knowledge are amongst the most important elements of LSM, both researchers predicted
the proposed in the paper KT of tools and techniques between these two disciplines.
One of the controversial moments in both LSM and PM are the metrics. They play
important role for effective planning, performing, monitoring and control, closing phases
and projects as a whole. They are essential in LSM too – by accountable and vanity
metrics. But if metrics are project related issues in most of the organisations and these
 Knowledge transfer from lean startup method to project management 301

metrics correspond to particular projects or programs only, the big picture is missing. The
metrics should be set, performed and controlled on company’s level, not on project one.
And if it is so, then PM could be even more effective, because most of the metrics would
be used as a prerequisite and set as ground rules in the projects. Leon and Farris (2011)
emphasise on the gap in literature between correlation of lean management, R&D and
performance measurement. That reveals an additional challenge for program and PMr to
select appropriate metrics for lean management of their R&D programs (Mascarenhas
Hornos da Costa et al., 2014).
In literature and in practice, also the term ‘lean projects’ exists. According to Ballard
and Howell (2003), lean projects are structured to deliver a product while maximising
value and minimising waste. Lean PM differs from traditional PM in the goals, in the
structure of its phases, as well as in the relationship between phases and the participants
in each phase.

4.1.2 Comparison analysis between LSM and PM

Table 1 Comparison analysis between PM and LSM in terms of differentiations

PM LSM
Focus on customer satisfaction Focus on customer value
Science Method
Focus on deliver targets within specified Focus on eliminating waste
frames
Centred organisation (round the project Collaborative and stakeholders’ integrated
product and purpose)
Focus on achieve the target within specified Focus on outrunning the set frames
frames (time, scope, budget)
Aims at keeping and shorten the life cycle Aims at increasing the life cycle
Accepts scope creep as disadvantage Accepts scope creep as a result from
validation learning (customer feedback)
Analyse reason for project change Respond to change immediately
Limit stakeholders for better management Extent stakeholders for larger customer
feedback
Plan-centric Fast changing and flexible/decentral

4.2 Interviews for elicitation of useful tools and techniques that might be of use
in innovation projects and in PM in general
In Table 2, 13 tools and techniques from LSM are provided that are considered as
potentially valuable for PM and especially for managing innovation projects based on
interviews with innovation experts. The listed tools are elicited from more than 25 tools
and techniques, specific for the LSM, but ranked as the most important by more than
75% of the experts who took part in the research’s stage.
302 Z.B. Yordanova

Table 2 LSM tools and techniques with description (evaluated as important for PM)

# Tool and technique Brief description

1 Minimum viable A product that is not completely finalized with all the features of its
product potential. This product is introduced into the market in order the
producer to gather customer feedback which features to emphasise
on and then to develop and which are not important or valuable for
customers.
2 Build-measure-learn The main process of LSM and it includes all high-level necessary
process activities that companies should follow in order to develop their
products based on customer feedback. The tool is a process that
describes the chain creating (build) – test (measure) – improve
(learn).
3 Validation process/ A process of gathering customer feedback during each innovation
validated learning stage (from innovation development, during its commercialization
and till the end of the innovation life cycle) and incorporation of this
customer feedback within the innovation development.
4 Decision-based It seeks to find the most effective and profitable design based on
design enterprise needs, by means of understanding of the project’s big
picture, while simultaneously paying attention to engineering details
in order to meet the technical requirements together with the
economic rationality (Pease et al., 2014)
5 Problem-solution Tools that focus on identifying needs and appropriate ways for
and product-market covering these needs by an intensive cooperation and collaboration
approaches with potential customers.
6 Measurements Measurements and metrics are essential tools at the LSM. In order
they to be well exploit they should be well structured, specific, able
to measure repeating actions, event/product/trigger based, totally
visible, comparable, refer to the main targets and results, pro rata, to
provide traceability, to be easily performing by non-trained staff.
7 Tests and They are carried out directly on the market and using potential
experiments customers for their purposes.
8 Pivoting It stands for changing the current strategy and adoption of the
innovation according to the tests’ results or some other new factors.
9 Customer alignment An implication of customer feedback in all life cycle stages of
innovation development and application of the main customer
considerations into the innovations.
10 Customer Feedback It should be asked for at any stage of the innovation development
and especially afterwards – during its commercialisation as a
reference to the continuous deployment process.
11 Continuous It represents shortening of the process of the product development
deployment and the product release.
12 Innovation A tool for measuring progress, setting milestones, prioritising and
accounting allocating work.
13 Split testing It helps innovators to identify the best combination of products,
prices, or features by introducing into the market a set of products or
versions of products with different features by giving the customers
opportunity to select the best bundle or set for themselves.
 Knowledge transfer from lean startup method to project management 303

4.3 Results from questionnaire

The elicited specifics for the LSM tools and techniques above were provided to PMr with
their description for noting if they have used them in their last innovation project and if
yes, what impact (negative or positive) these tools and techniques had on the project’s
result. Figure 1 presents the results using three-dimensional approach. The first
dimension shows the positive/negative effect of the analysed LSM tools and techniques
over innovation projects and it is expressed on the left section of Figure 1 (an average of
the results). The second dimension shows the frequency of usage and it is expressed via
the scale at the bottom part of Figure 1 (count of innovation projects). The third
dimension shows the effectiveness of that usage – if there is a positive effect, when it is
used. The third dimension is expressed by the size of the balloon on Figure 1 (QlikView
– a business intelligence tool is used for the presentation and processing the results from
the questionnaires.

Figure 1 Three dimensional chart for LSM tools and techniques impact over innovation projects,
frequency and efficiency (see online version for colours)

One hundred sixty seven respondents gave answers for their last innovative project. The
note 1 point for used tool that had positive effect, 0 point for not used tool and –1 point
for used tool that had negative effect on the project results. The scatter diagram in
Figure 1 shows the 13 tools ordered by their average result from the assessment of the
PMr (on the vertical axis), the frequency of usage (on the horizontal axis) and effective
usage (the size of the balloon). The average result is calculated from all the answers of
the respondents having in mind both those projects which used and those who did not use
304 Z.B. Yordanova

the mentioned tool. The frequency of usage is calculated based on just those answers
different from 0 (0 is not used). The effectiveness of usage is calculated as the average
result from projects that used the tool (no matter with positive or negative effect on the
project’s result) is divided by the number of projects where the particular tool was used.
The idea of that third dimension of the diagram is to outline the positive effectiveness of
using these tools.
The results show that Tests and experiments is the highest ranked tool, used in
innovation projects (positive effect in 76% of all projects within the research scope) as
well as measurements (72% in the cases). A positive effect on the project’s result in more
than 50% of the innovation projects were also continues deployment, split testing and
validation learning. These four are the highest scored in terms of their benefit to
innovation projects. The most frequently used tools are: problem-solution and
product-market approaches (in more than 95% of the projects), measurement and tests
and experiments. The most effective tool is Innovation accounting, which tool is not used
frequently at all, in addition its average result is not high (because it was not used), but
whenever it happened, it would be with positive effect on the performance of the project.
The lowest average result from the assessment received the MVP technique, which
was the less effective too. It is because not all industries allow using that technique and
also because it requires high quality of both project and innovation management.
Customer alignment and Customer feedback were not-so-often used tools, but the
results show that if they were used, they brought generally positive effect on the project’s
results. Further author research will be focused on customer involvement in innovation
projects and if the protection of business secrets might be the reason for avoiding that
business-customer interaction in innovation projects. Brestnichka (2016) noted in her
research that existing protection stimulates or at least breaks the main barriers for
announcement of company/project secrets as would be the case in the innovation
projects.
Table 3 Summary of results for usage and impact assessment (see online version for colours)

LSM tools and techniques Usage Impact assessment

Build-measure-learn process 158 85
Measurements 148 117
Tests and experiments 143 128
Problem-solution and product-market approaches 142 69
Validation process/validated learning 140 83
Pivoting 136 55
Split testing 133 96
Decision-based design 129 62
Continuous deployment 127 94
Minimum viable product 124 16
Customer feedback 111 50
Customer alignment 98 51
Innovation accounting 84 39
 Knowledge transfer from lean startup method to project management 305

On Table 3 is presented a summary of the results. The usage presents how many of the
analysed 167 innovation projects utilised the LSM tool or technique and the impact
assessment shows how that usage impacted the project (the calculation is made using
average, extracting the zeros).
In general, all the tools and techniques subject to research were widely used in
innovation projects, as the least used tool was used in more than 50% of the innovation
projects.

5 Conclusions

After all, the employed methods for answering the research questions have given the
pursued outcome. However, the results hint even more, they provoke new and deeper
interest on: how PM work might be improved by using different approaches; how
frequently PMr use the elicited from the LSM techniques and what concrete results that
use might bring; how extensive is the interaction with customers during project work;
how the end-product of these innovation projects is affected by using the mentioned
techniques; what kind or types of measures are used in innovation projects, etc. These
additional questions and research niches will be analysed and studied as part of the future
research work of the author.
Finally, a KT of some tools and techniques from LST to PM is definitely possible,
useful and it also exists in practice. Focused analysis of each of the techniques would
bring deeper view how they actually are used, out of the best practices. But since the
research focuses on innovation projects only and it aims at explore the frame of the
research KT and use of LSM tools and techniques from PMr, a conclusion could be made
just for innovation projects and only an assumption for PM in general is possible. Thus,
the first research question is not only answered, but also backed with empirical results
from 167 innovation projects. KT from LSM to PM is dementedly existing when it comes
to innovation projects. In the research 13 LSM tools and techniques are first outlined and
then assessed with their impact on innovation projects. By doing this, the second research
question also receive its answer by assessment of the main tools and techniques of LSM
over innovation projects. So, both research targets are achieved and the paper provides
useful structured data for further analysis of the topic. The top used and positive impacted
tools and techniques are: measurements, tests and experiments, problem-solution
approach and product-market technique.
The interdisciplinary character of the research promises high added value for readers
from different research and science areas. Limitations and extensions of the study are:
Limitation 1 The research focuses on potential KT of some LSM tools and techniques
toward PM in order to contribute with some useful approaches which
could support PM and make innovation projects more successful (LSM
tools and techniques only, not the whole method; the researched course of
KT is from LSM to PM only; the research focuses on innovation projects
mostly).
306 Z.B. Yordanova

Limitation 2 The study does not focus on LSM as iterative manner for (project)
management; no comparisons between LSM, waterfall and agile PM are
made (PM is considered to be both waterfall or agile, without examining
the specifics of these methods).
Extension 1 The research does not focus on PM only in companies that implement or
use LSM; it does not focus on PM required for implementing LSM in a
company.

References
Ansah, R.H., Sorooshian, S. and Mustafa, S.B. (2016) ‘Lean construction: an effective approach for
project management’, ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Vol. 11, No. 3,
pp.1607–1612, ISSN 1819-6608.
Aramburu, N. and Sáenz, J. (2010) ‘Knowledge sharing in management processes: impact on
innovation project management and innovation performance’, Proceedings of the 11th
European Conference on Knowledge Management, Vol. 1, pp.10–18.
Argote, L. and Ingram, P. (2000) ‘Knowledge transfer: a basis for competitive advantage in firms’,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, May, Vol. 82, No. 1, pp.150–169.
Artto, K., Kulvik, I., Poskela, J. and Turkulainen, V. (2011) ‘The integrative role of the project
management office in the front end of innovation’, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp.408–421.
Arvanitis, S., Kubli, U. and Woerter, M. (2008) ‘University-industry knowledge and technology
transfer in Switzerland: what universities scientists think about co-operation with private
enterprises’, Research Policy, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp.1865–1883.
Bagheri, S., Kusters, R., Trienekens, J. and van der Zandt H. (2016) ‘Classification framework of
knowledge transfer issues across value networks’, Product-Service Systems across Life Cycle,
Procedia CIRP, Vol. 47, pp.382–387.
Ballard, G. and Howell, G. (2003) ‘Lean project management’, Building Research & Information,
Vol. 31, No. 2, pp.119–133, DOI: 10.1080/0961321031000083922, ISSN 0961-3218 print/
ISSN 1466-4321 Publisher Taylor & Francis Group [online] http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
(accessed 20.12.2016).
Bekkers, R. and Freitas, I.M.B. (2008) ‘Analyzing knowledge transfer channel between universities
and industry: to what degree do sectors also matter?’, Research Policy, Vol. 37, No. 10,
pp.1837–1853.
Blank, S. (2013) ‘Why the lean start-up changes everything’, Harvard Business Review, May,
Vol. 11, pp.1–9 [online] http://host.uniroma3.it/facolta/economia/db/materiali/insegnamenti/
611_8959.pdf (accessed 20 April 2017).
Blank, S. and Dorf, B. (2012) The Startup Owner’s Manual: The Step-by-Step Guide for Building a
Great Company, K&S Ranch Inc, New York.
Bonazzi, R. and Purrechoud, A. (2014) ‘Combining the notions of ‘lean startup’ and ‘effectuation’
to train future entrepreneurs’, Interdisciplinary European Conference on Entrepreneurship
Research IECER, Chur, Switzerland.
Bortz, D. (2014) ‘Launching ‘lean’’, Money, Vol. 43, No. 2, p.40.
Boufleur, J.P., Ayala, N.F. and Frank, A.G. (2016) ‘An analysis of implementation of lean startup
methodology in a firm of digital entertainment’, IX Simposio Internacional de Ingeniería
Industrial: Actualidad y Nuevas Tendencias 2016, pp.1–10, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Brestnichka, R. (2016) ‘Trade secret role in technology knowledge sharing’, International
Conference Economic Welfare by Sharing Knowledge, 9–10 November, pp.454–459, Sofia,
Bulgaria.
 Knowledge transfer from lean startup method to project management 307

Cano-Kollmann, M., Cantwell, J. and Hannigan, T. et al. (2016) ‘Knowledge connectivity: an

agenda for innovation research in international business’, Journal of International Business
Studies, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp.255–262, DOI:10.1057/jibs.2016.8.
Crossan, M.M. and Apaydin, M. (2010) ‘A multi-dimensional framework of organizational
innovation: a systematic review of the literature’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 47,
No. 6, pp.1154–1191.
Damanpour, F. (1991) ‘Organizational innovation – Ameta – analysis of effects of determinants
and moderators’, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp.555–590.
Filippov, S. and Mooi, H. (2010) ‘Innovation project management: a research agenda, RISUS’,
Journal on Innovation and Sustainability, ISSN 2179-3565 [online] http://revistas.pucsp.br/
risus (accessed 6 January 2017).
Furr, N. and Dyer, J. (2014) The Innovator’s Method: Bringing the Lean Startup into your
Organization, pp.2–17, Harvard Business Review Press, Boston, Massachusetts.
Ghaben, R. and Jaaron, A. (2015) ‘Assessing innovation practices in project management: the case
of Palestinian construction projects’, International Journal of Innovation and Scientific
Research, August, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp.451–465, ISSN 2351-8014.
Gilsinga, V., Bekkersb, R., Freitasc, I. and Steend, M. (2011) ‘Differences in technology transfer
between science-based and development-based industries: transfer mechanisms and barriers’,
Technovation, Vol. 31, No. 12, pp.638–647.
Heidenreich, M. (2012) ‘The social embeddedness of multinational companies: a literature review’,
Socia-Economic Review, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp.549–579.
Hobbs, B., Aubry, M. and Thuillier, D. (2008) ‘The project management office as an organizational
innovation’, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 26, No. 5, pp.547–555.
Ismail, W., Nor, K. and Marjani, T. (2009) ‘The role of knowledge sharing practice in enhancing
project success’, Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research, Vol. 1, No. 7, pp.34–53.
Jonsson, A. (2008) ‘A transnational perspective on knowledge sharing: lessons learned from
IKEA’s entry into Russia, China and Japan’, The International Review of Retail, Distribution
and Consumer Research, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.17–44.
Kathoeffer, D. and Leker, J. (2012) ‘Knowledge transfer in academia: an exploratory study of the
not-invented-here syndrome’, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 37, No. 5, pp.658–675.
King, W. (2009) ‘Knowledge management and organizational learning’, Annals of Information
Systems, Springer, Vol. 4, pp.3–13, DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-0011-1_1.
Kohonen, A. (2013) ‘On detection of volatility spillovers in simultaneously open stock markets’,
Journal of Empirical Finance, June, Vol. 22, No. C, pp.140–158.
Leon, H.C.M. and Farris, J.A. (2011) ‘Lean product development research: current state and future
directions’, Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp.29–52.
Lopesa, A. (2016) ‘Innovation management: a systematic literature analysis of the innovation
management evolution’, Brazilian Journal of Operations and Production Management,
Vol. 13, No. 1, pp.16–30, DOI: 10.14488/BJOPM.2016.v13.n1.a2.
Mascarenhas Hornos da Costa, J., Oehmen, J., Rebentisch, E. and Nightingale, D. (2014) ‘Toward
a better comprehension of Lean metrics for research and product development management,
R&D Management, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp.370–383, DOI: 10.1111/radm.12074.
Matsudaira, K. (2015) ‘Lean software development: building and shipping two versions’, The Soft
Side of Software Development, Vol. 58, No. 12, pp.56–58, DOI: 10.1145/2814346.
Maurya, A. (2012) Running Lean: Iterate from Plan A to a Plan That Works, O’Reilly Media Inc,
California, USA.
Nesensohn, C., Demir, S.T. and Bryde, D.J. (2013) ‘Developing the True North route map as a
navigational compass in a construction project management organization’, Lean Construction
Journal, pp.1–18.
Nientied, P. (2015) ‘Polis university as lean startup innovation’, International Business Research,
Vol. 8, No. 5, pp.19–29.
308 Z.B. Yordanova

Office of the Government Commerce (2009) Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE2TM, The
Stationary Office, Norfolk, UK.
Ohara, S. (2005) A Guidebook of Project & Program Management for Enterprise Innovation,
Project Management Association of Japan (PMAJ), Vol. 1, pp.15.
Ohno, T. (1988) Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production, Productivity Press,
Cambridge, Mass.
Omotayo, F. (2015) ‘Knowledge management as an important tool in organisational management: a
review of literature’, Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), Spring, Vols. 4–10,
pp.1–24.
Paulin, D. and Suneson, K. (2012) ‘Knowledge transfer, knowledge sharing and knowledge barriers
– three blurry terms in KM’, The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10,
No. 1, pp.81–91 [online] http://www.ejkm.com.
Pease, J.F., Dean, J.H. and Van Bossuyt, D.L. (2014) ‘Lean design for the developing world:
making design decisions through the use of validated learning techniques in the developing’,
World. Proc. ASME Int. Mech. Eng. Congr. Expo., pp.1–11, DOI:10.1115/IMECE2014-
36612.
PMI (2013) A Guide to the Project Management Knowledge (PMBOK), 5th ed., pp.5–19, Project
Management Institute, Inc.
Porter, A.L. and Chubin, D.E. (1985) ‘An indicator of cross-disciplinary research’, Scientometrics,
Vol. 8, No. 3, pp.161–176.
Resnick, S. and Wolff, R. (1989) Knowledge and Class: A Marxian Critique of Political Economy,
pp.206–220, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Ries, E. (2009) ‘Startup lessons learned: combining agile development with customer development’
[online] http://www.startuplessonslearned.com/2009/03/combining-agile-development-
with.html (accessed 28 December 2016).
Ries, E. (2011) The Lean Startup: How Today’s Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to
Create Radically Successful Businesses, Crown Business, USA.
Rinia, E.J., Van Leeuwen, T.N., Bruins, E.E.W., Van Vuren, H.G. and Van Raan, A.F.J. (2002)
‘Measuring knowledge transfer between fields of science’, Scientometrics, Vol. 54, No. 3,
pp.347–362, DOI: 10.1023/A:1016078331752.
Sattinger, М. (2006) ‘Overlapping labor markets’, Labor Economics, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp.237–257.
Schwartz, D.G. (2006) Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management, IGI Global [online]
http://library.books24x7.com/toc.asp?bookid=14700 (accessed 29 December 2016).
Søderberg, A.M. and Vaara, E. (2003) Merging Across Borders: People, Cultures and Politics,
CBS Press, Copenhagen.
Steinmo, M. and Rasmussen, E. (2015) ‘How firms collaborate with public research organizations:
the evolution of proximity dimensions in successful innovation projects’, Journal of Business
Research, 35th DRUID Celebration Conference 2013, Barcelona, Spain, 17–19 June [online]
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.09.006; http://druid8.sit.aau.dk/acc_papers/
05982cotpuk0393hi636mcvq7aua.pdf (accessed 6 January 2017).
Swan, J., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H. and Hislop, D. (1999) ‘Knowledge management and
innovation: networks and networking’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 3, No. 4,
pp.262–275, DOI: 10.1108/13673279910304014.
Thomas, J., Cicmil, S. and George, S. (2012) ‘Learning from project management implementation
by applying a management innovation lens’, Project Management Journal, Vol. 43, No. 6,
pp.70–87, © by the Project Management Institute, Published online in Wiley Online Library,
DOI: 10.1002/pmj.21308 [online] http://wileyonlinelibrary.com (accessed 03.12.2016).
Tidd, J. and Bessant, J. (2009) Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and
Organizational Change, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., West Sussex.
Turner, J.R. (2009) The Handbook of Project-Based Management, McGraw Hill, London.
 Knowledge transfer from lean startup method to project management 309

Vaccario, G., Medo, M., Wider, N. and Mariani, M.S. (2017) ‘Quantifying and suppressing ranking
bias in a large citation network’, arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.08071.
Van de Ven, A. (1986) ‘Central problems in the management of innovation’, Management Science,
Vol. 32, No. 5, pp.590–607.
Volberda, H., Bosch, F. and Burgers, H. (2010) ‘Why innovative business development projects
fail’, RSM Discovery-Management Knowledge, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.7–9.
Weiblen, T. and Chesbrough, H.W. (2015) ‘Engaging with startups to enhance corporate
innovation’, Calif. Manage. Rev., Vol. 57, No. 2, pp.66–90, DOI:10.1525/cmr.2015.57.2.66.
West, J. and Bogers, M. (2013) ‘Leveraging external sources of innovation: a review of research on
open innovation’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp.814–831.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. and Roos, D. (1991) The Machine that Changed the World: The Story of
Lean Production, Harper Perennial, New York City.
Wuwei, L. (2002) ‘Industry amalgamation and industry innovation’, Shanghai Management
Science, Vol. 4, No. 4.
Yeong, A. and Lim, T.T. (2010) ‘Integrating knowledge management with project management for
project success’, Journal of Project, Program and Portfolio Management, Vol. 1, No. 2,
pp.8–19.
Yordanova, Z. (2017a) ‘Innovation project tool for outlining innovation projects’, International
Journal of Business Innovation and Research.
Yordanova, Z. (2017b) ‘Lean startup method hampers breakthrough innovations and company’s
innovativeness’, Int. J. of Innovation and Technology Management.
Yordanova, Z. and Blagoev, D. (2015) ‘Company innovative leadership model’, Economic
Alternatives, No. 2, pp.5–19.
Yordanova, Z. and Blagoev, D. (2016) ‘Measuring the Bulgarian IT sector innovations capabilities
through company innovative leadership model’, Economic Alternatives, No. 3, pp.379–393.
Zack, M.H. (2003) ‘Rethinking the knowledge-based organization’, Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 44, No. 4, pp.67–71.