20 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
To learn or not to learn from new product development project failure: the roles of failure experience and error orientation
New product development (NPD) project leaders’ learning varies after experiencing project failure, as not all failure experience equally promotes learning and not all project leaders equally learn from failure. Drawing on the sensemaking and error management prespetives, this study focuses on two research questions: to what extent does project failure experience (i.e., the percentage of project failures in the overall project portfolio managed by a project leader and the time elapsed since last project failure) affect NPD project leaders’ learning from failure? To what extent does a project leader’s error orientation (i.e., error competence and error strain) moderate the effect of project failure experience on NPD project leaders’ learning from failure? Based on survey responses collected at two distinct time points from 237 NPD project leaders in high-tech ventures, our results show that the percentage of project failures negatively affects learning from failure, and their negative relationship is weakened as error competence increases. In contrast, the time since project failure positively affects learning from failure, and their positive relationship is weakened as error strain increases. Our findings emphasize that a simplistic approach to learning from failure fails to uncover the transformative mechanisms involved in turning failure into learning in the NPD process. Instead, we suggest a customized approach to comprehending how project leaders can capitalize on project failure
considering their failure experience and error orientation to learn from NPD project failure.</p
How does Team Learning from Failure Affect New Product Performance? The Double-edged Moderating Effect of Collective Efficacy
Abstract</p
How does Team Learning from Failure Affect New Product Performance? The Double-edged Moderating Effect of Collective Efficacy
Abstract</p
Recommended from our members
How does team learning from failure facilitate new product performance? The double-edged moderating effect of collective efficacy
No description supplied</p
How does team learning from failure facilitate new product performance? The double-edged moderating effect of collective efficacy
No description supplied</p
Expression of transporter-associated genes found in corneal endothelium, cultured corneal endothelial cells and corneal stroma.
<p>Transporters expressed in CECs that are at least 2 times higher in young CEC-DM than in stroma, and less than 2 fold difference in expression between young and old CEC-DM. Genes are ranked in descending order of RPM values of young CEC-DM. RPM values are rounded off to the nearest integer, and fold change values are rounded off to the nearest decimal place.</p
Pathway analysis of transcription factors via DAVID Functional Annotation.
<p>Transcription factors expressed in young CEC-DM, old CEC-DM and CEC culture (RPM>10) that are more than two-fold higher in young CEC-DM versus stroma, were analyzed in DAVID. Pathways that are over represented are ranked in descending order of percentage of genes representing this category.</p
High-throughput QPCR analysis of genes lowly or not expressed in corneal stroma.
<p>BM: bone marrow; IVS: interventricular septum; SG: salivary gland; SM: skeletal muscle; SI: small intestine; SC: spinal cord; U/C: uterus/cervix; FB: fetal brain; FL: fetal liver; SF: stromal fibroblast; CC: CEC culture; CEC-DM-y: CEC-DM young; CEC-DM-o: CEC-DM-old.</p
The human corneal tissue, the isolated endothelium and the cultured corneal endothelial cells.
<p>A. Corneal stroma with an intact Descemet’s membrane (DM), arrowed (left) and a corneal stromal without the DM layer (right). B. Peeled CEC-DM complex in a typical DM-roll, with the endothelium on the outside. C. Confluent culture of human CECs at the second passage. Scale bars: 100 µm.</p
Donor information.
<p>A total of 27 donor corneas consisting of 13 single donor corneas and 7 paired donor corneas were used in this study. Donor age ranged from 19–76.</p><p>A: pooled CEC-DM from five young donors;</p><p>B: pooled CEC-DM from five old donors;</p><p>C: Isolated for cell culture;</p><p>D: young CEC-DME control;</p><p>E: old CEC-DME control.</p><p>OS: oculus sinister.</p><p>OD: oculus dexter.</p