Definition of innovation projects

in small firms: A Spanish study

Sara Marcelino Sádaba1, Amaya Pérez-Ezcurdia1,
Angel M. Echeverría-Lazcano2 and
Marta Benito Amurrio1
1
Department of Project and Rural Engineering, Public University of Navarre, Campus Arrosadia,
Pamplona, Navarre 31006, Spain. sara.marcelino@unavarra.es; amaya@unavarra.es;
martab@unavarra.es
2
Zabala Innovation Consulting, S.A., Paseo Santxiki, 3 bis, Mutilva, Navarre 31192, Spain.
amecheverria@zabala.es

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are the main holders of the European economy
and innovation projects are essential tools for SMEs to ensure their growth. A high per-
centage of innovation projects implemented by SMEs lacks planning and initial manage-
ment, which causes the appearance of important problems for the SMEs survival.
The authors have confirmed with a field study of 72 Spanish small firms that a lot of these
problems arise from an incomplete project definition, so it is necessary to help SMEs to have
a specific methodology that is appropriate to their own characteristics and projects.
The statistical analysis shows how the project management knowledge helps to a better
project definition, contributing to the project alignment with the company strategy. Also, it
reveals other problems related to the project definition as planning, budget, market and
financing.
Of this analysis, it concludes that the definition phase supports the other phases and is
essential in order to achieve project success.
This paper presents an ‘integration model of factors’ that helps SMEs in the management of
the definition phase of their innovation projects. This model relates the various areas of
analysis needed to ensure their integration at the project definition.
The relationships between the different model areas have been defined, showing the way to
integrate the technical, economic and strategic outlooks of project objectives management in
the definition phase of the project.
This model has been implemented in 21 new innovation project definitions. The users’
valuation has been very positive with a 90.4% of success and all of the model users are
interested in implementing the model again in next projects. The main advantages high-
lighted were user-friendliness, intuitive model and easy application.

1. Introduction ensure their growth and therefore the growth of the

whole society.

S mall and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are

the main holders of the European economy and
innovation projects are essential tools for SMEs to
Company policies, both at European and global
level, highlight the need for SMEs to remain the
holders of the economy, since they account for more

© 2015 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

36 1
C 2015 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
Sara Marcelino Sádaba, Amaya Pérez-Ezcurdia, Angel M. Echeverría-Lazcano and Marta
Definition Benito Amurrio
of innovation projects

than 99.88% of existing businesses (Spanish
Department of Industry, 2014), and their contribution
in terms of employment and innovation is critical to
maintain world economy growth, in particular Euro-
pean with a 99% of SMEs (Figure 1; EUROSTAT,
2014).
The growth of all enterprises is mainly through the
implementation of innovation projects (Kapsali,
2011). To achieve this growth, the firms have to be
capable of taking to the market the results of the
innovation activities. A project is, according to
PMI-Project Management Institute (2008a), a tempo-
rary endeavor to create a unique product, service or
result that, when applied to innovation, brings a dif-
ferential value to the company compared with what
was available at the start of the project.
Innovation projects are the major tool for the
implementation of new strategies in organizations
and to facilitate this contribution to the global
economy (Kaufmann and Tödtling, 2002; Van de
Vrande et al., 2009; Turner et al., 2010; Wang et al.,
2010).
The most frequent barrier for innovation in SMEs and
for the development of these projects is the lack of funds
(Vossen, 1998; Kaufmann and Tödtling, 2002), and the
access to finance is an important growth constraint for
SMEs (Beck and Demirguc-Kunt, 2006), although also
there are other problems associated with the size of the
company as the lack of system management of the
innovation (European Commission under the Europe
INNOVA Initiative, 2011).
Despite the voluminous literature on innovation in
SMEs, the aggregate benefits have been marginal in
explaining the innovation process in SMEs (Edwards
et al., 2005).
Project management models described in the
reference standards PMBoK (PMI-Project Manage-
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
% COMPANIES
ment Institute, 2008a), ICB (IPMA-International
Project Management Association, 2006), ISO 21500
(ISO-International Organization for Standardization,
2012), PRINCE2 (OGC-Office of Government
Commerce, 2009) and CMMI (SEI-Software
Engineering Institute, 2010) indicate that to mini-
mize the problems, it is essential to define a project
correctly for its success, integrating all control and
strategic factors. This greatly facilitates planning
implementation. Incorrect definitions of projects
happen mainly because all factors that influence a
project in all its phases and their interrelations are not
taken into account.
A high percentage of SMEs do not have project
management systems to help with these innovation
projects, which are crucial for their survival (Lee
et al., 2010). This fact was identified in the
IMPROVE study (only 56.3% have no formal devel-
opment process) and used as the basis for the devel-
opment of policies and programs to help SMEs in the
identification, definition and documentation of proj-
ects. This was also confirmed in a field study con-
ducted by the authors.
The aim of this paper is to present a model of
integration of factors that help the efficient manage-
ment of the definition phase of innovation projects
in SMEs. This model, defined from information
obtained from SMEs analyzed, integrates the most
significant aspects in a project and their interactions.
The methodology used in this research is shown in
Figure 2.
Based on a previous analysis information, the
authors have realized a research of more data related
to the projects definition. Existing literature and sta-
tistical information and previous studies on this topic
have been consulted. Later, a study through surveys
and interviews in SMEs from the most innovative
Spanish regions (La Rioja, Basque country and
Navarre) (INE, 2013) has been carried out.
(INE-Instituto Nacional de estadística, Gobierno de
España, 2013).
The survey analysis has been done through a
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient to estimate the reliabil-

60.00%
ity of the used test. The value of the coefficient is
50.00% close to 0.6, so the internal consistency could be
40.00% acceptable.
30.00%
20.00%
Through a statistical analysis of the answers
10.00% obtained from the surveys, the authors have
0.00% obtained the most frequent reasons of an incorrect
MICRO SMALL MEDIUM LARGE
EUROPEAN 92.54% 6.25% 1.02% 0.20% project definition. Some contingency tables and
SPANISH 94.07% 5.12% 0.68% 0.13% Chi-squared tests (a = 0.05) have been done to
analyse the relation between these causes and the
Figure 1. Characteristics of European and Spanish enterprises by firm size, in order to know if it is possible to define
size.
Source: EUROSTAT, 2014 a model that helps any SME in the definition of its
2.3.9.2-r1986-2013-10-17 (PROD) Code: tin00145 innovation projects.

C2 2015
V R&D Management
RADMA and John••,Wiley
••, 2015
& Sons Ltd © 2015R&D
RADMA and John46,
Management Wiley & Sons 37
1, 2016 Ltd
Sara Marcelino S
adaba, Amaya P
erez-Ezcurdia, Angel M. Echeverrıa-Lazcano and Marta
Figure 2. Research methodology.
Also the influence of project management meth-
odologies and systems in the occurrence of the prob-
lems has been analyzed.
With the previous analysis conclusions, there has
been design the model for managing the definition of
innovation projects in SMEs. This model has been
applied in 21 projects from 19 SMEs with a 90.4% of
success valuation from its users.
2. Theoretical background: concept
and references
As stated in the UNE 166001:2006 (AENOR,
2006a), in the UNE 166002:2006 (AENOR, 2006b)
and in UNE-CENT/TS 16555-1 EX:2013 (AENOR,
2013), the overall process of project management
comes from the identification of ideas, which, once
studied and analyzed, are selected to form a portfolio
of ideas to later build the project.
The definition of a project is therefore a process
that has selected ideas as inputs to be transformed
into proper projects.
Many authors have worked on this project defini-
tion phase. Following, the authors present a relation
with the most relevant works found in the literature
and their applicability in the innovation projects
tackled by SMEs (Table 1).
As summary of the previous comments and
according to Turner et al. (2009), it is possible to
conclude that SMEs need project management
models that are less bureaucratic, more simple and
intuitive, with a set of non-traditional tools (designed
38
© 2015R&D
RADMA and John 46,
Management Wiley & Sons Ltd
1, 2016
Definition Benito Amurrio
of innovation projects
for medium or large projects), and different variants
according to the average project, small or micro.
In earlier studies by the authors on project manage-
ment in SMEs (Marcelino-Sádaba and Pérez-Ezcurdia,
2010), it was found that most of the problems detected
occurred at the definition phase of projects (53.8%)
compared with the execution and closing phases.
2.1. Innovation projects in SMEs:
improve initiative
The main work done in Europe on the innovation
management in SMEs is part of the IMPROVE initia-
tive (European Commission under the Europe
INNOVA Initiative, 2011), conducted within a Euro-
pean project of the Seventh Frame Work Program,
where the factors that facilitate or hinder the imple-
mentation of projects by companies are analyzed from
an innovation point of view, in more than 1,500 SMEs
of 20 European countries and 13 different industrial
sectors.
The initial mission of the IMPROVE was to
‘improve the innovation management with sustain-
able impact’.
From the data collected in this analysis, we con-
clude that more than 50% of companies participating
in the study (56.3%) lacked a methodology for the
implementation of projects in all phases, including
the definition phase. Only 35.7% of the companies
have no formal system of idea generation and 56%
have no formal development process, providing
really important data regarding the need for project
management.
R&D Management
C 2015 RADMA
V ••, ••,&2015
and John Wiley 3
Sons Ltd
 Definition
Sara Marcelino Sádaba, Amaya Pérez-Ezcurdia, Angel M. Echeverría-Lazcano of innovation
and Marta projects
Benito Amurrio

Table 1. Literature review: project definition models

Author Study characteristics Applicability in SMEs
innovation projects

Kähkönen (1999) Model from the information of large firms that
defines an iterative process, generating some
alternatives documentation until a sufficiently
detailed plan is achieved.
Includes four main characteristics:
1. Riskiness of technology
2. Riskiness of other success factors
3. Project size
4. Project time
Whelton and Analyze the complexity of projects definition
Ballard (2002) due to :
1. Uncertainties about their goals
2. Decision rules and decision making in teams.
They identify the definition of projects as a
learning process.
Cho, C., Gibson, The Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) is
G.E. (2001) defined to address scope definition in the
building sector.
This index is also used to compare different
projects when selecting the most profitable to
greatly increase the chances of success
Webster (1999) Makes a structure of project definition based in
clearly establishing the following aspects:
1. Why the project is needed
2. What options exist
3. How it should be implemented
4. Who should be involved
Turner (1999) Proposes a model for the definition of projects
based on five areas: Scope, Quality, Cost,
Time and Organization.
Cooper (1994) In the area of innovation and new product
development.
Defines the success factors of new products
Logical Frame Proposes nine steps to be considered in initial
Approach planning aimed at meeting the objectives
(1970) (EuropeAid Cooperation Office, 2004)
It should be used in all cooperation projects
seeking admission to the European aid public
programs
Based on large companies experiences
Requires too much bureaucratic work for a
SME.
Lacks a financial factor that is critical for SMEs
Lacks a market factor to analyze how to get it.
The use of multi-disciplinary expertise in this
phase of project development is not available
to most of SMEs
SMEs do not have the knowledge to analyze the
stakeholders proposed.
The tool PDRI is for defining and planning
projects by considering 64 elements affecting
especially construction projects.
The structure is adapted to the SME context.
It does no analyze de relationship between the
different factors.
It does not include When, or the Financial
aspects expressly, though it includes them in
the How aspect.
The strategy analysis is not included as a
separated factor and most SMEs risks to
obviate it.
The authors miss the market factor in the model
(very important in innovation projects).
The model is product development oriented.
The areas of market orientation and alignment
with the business strategy is very interesting.
It proposed too much factors to take into
account.
Not SMEs oriented
Certain rigidity may arise in project management
when external factors are prioritized
(Örtengren, 2003).
Using this methodology usually implies that the
participants have specific training in project
management, requirement not generally met
by project managers of SMEs (especially
micro and small enterprises)

One of the key findings of the study is that Euro-
pean SMEs need to innovate more and with more
impact to increase future growth. SMEs do not fully
exploit the growth potential of innovation manage-
ment and lack a systematic approach.
Data are obtained from IMPROVE, which,
together with our own data research, show that more
than 50% of SMEs do not take into account suffi-
ciently the various factors involved in the definition
phase of the project, nor use the most frequent tools,
seriously affecting not only the development of the
project, but also the future of the company.
Some significant data from the IMPROVE,
observed and upheld later in this study, show that
63% of participating companies in the IMPROVE
did not analyze and plan development time, and 68%

4 2015
C
V R&D Management
RADMA ••,Wiley
and John ••, 2015
& Sons Ltd © 2015R&D
RADMA and John 46,
Management Wiley 39
& Sons Ltd
1, 2016
Sara Marcelino S
adaba, Amaya P
erez-Ezcurdia, Angel M. Echeverrıa-Lazcano and Marta
of companies did not conduct an economic study of
the costs that the project would entail. Added to that,
44% of companies did not have any data that would
enable them to know about the project success.
The study identifies the so-called growth champi-
ons. These companies have the highest and most
sustainable growth in operational margin, income
from sales and number of employees. This growth is
based on innovation management.
Comparing their growth with that of other SMEs,
one can clearly see the influence that management
has in sales results (a difference of 18%). As shown
in this study, a high percentage of SMEs do not
measure innovation management performance (44%
do not have innovation parameters at all) and do not
define clear performance indicators to measure the
success of their innovation projects through measur-
ing key performance indicators such as time-to-
market or time-to-profit (about 70%).
2.2. Spanish field study
From an initial sample of 770 SMEs, we analyzed 72
cases of Spanish SMEs that had faced at least one
innovation project in the last 5 years, in order to
identify the main causes for the projects not to be
considered as properly defined. The information has
been collected using two alternative techniques:
through e-mailed surveys and personal interviews, in
order to identify the needs related to project defini-
tion, the causes of the problems that arise and the link
between both.
The participating companies (17 micro, 24 small
and 31 medium) belong to a wide range of sectors (13
in total) being the strongest equipment (22 firms) and
services (11 firms).
The companies that have taken part in the study
belong to Spanish regions with percentages of
investment in R + D + i (1.97% and 1.95% of Gross
domestic product (GDP)) similar to the European
average (2.06% of GDP) (EUROSTAT, 2014).
In spite of that there are no exact numbers in the
national and European statistics about the percen-
tage of micro SMEs that carry out R + D + I activities,
this percentage is significantly lower than the percent-
age of micro SMEs in Spain (94.2%) and in Europe
(92.7%) (INE-Instituto Nacional de estadística,
Gobierno de España 2013; EUROSTAT, 2014).
The percentage of microcompanies evaluated
(23.6%) is considered to be representative, since
analyzing the percentage of micro SMEs R + D + i
projects approved by the public administrations in
these regions reached 8.3%.
From the IMPROVE data analysis using data
gathered in interviews, we particularly monitored
402015R&D
© RADMA and John Wiley
Management 46, 1, & Sons Ltd
2016
Definition Benito Amurrio
of innovation projects
those areas that caused incorrect project definition,
such as agenda, budget, quality, goal setting, pro-
ject financing, team and relationship with the
environment.
Internal projects undertaken by companies in the
past 5 years amounted to a total of 159 projects, of
which 47.5% were products or processes research
and development (R&D), 16.9% management
system implementations and best practices adoption,
15.3% information and communication technologies
implementation, and 3.4% other projects.
Companies rated on a scale of 1 (failure) to 5
(success) the following project factors: commercial,
time, cost, quality and meeting objectives. Among
the findings, it is noteworthy that the most successful
projects were R&D (3.59 out of 5), and cost was the
most important factor for meeting the objectives
(3.79 out of 5). It can be seen that the least successful
factor was the commercial (2.83 out of 5) despite that
generally market improvement is a key aspect of
project objectives.
The field study identified various success factors
for companies and their influence on project success
(1 – no effect; 5 – total effect). It is interesting to note
that the factors that mattered most, according to the
surveyed companies, were the initial definition of
the scope (4.45) and project management (4.36).
Other success factors identified were problem
solving (4.09), internal communication (3.82),
project planning (3.54), change control (3.55), risk
management (3.27), suppliers management (3.09),
human resources management (3) and financial
management (2.78).
When asking about the problems arisen in man-
agement, we identified the areas where the majority
of SMEs have difficulties. Figure 3 shows the per-
centage of companies that presented problems in dif-
ferent areas related to the correct definition of their
projects. Significantly, the analysis shows that SMEs
had significant problems in more than one of the
seven areas, and only in 12 cases (14.1% of total), the
company did not consider to have had problems in
any of the areas analyzed.
The main problem identified has been the lack of
an accurate definition of the objectives related with
technical and economic aspects, time and expected
results.
Related with the strategic alignment and the
annual objectives alignment, the identified problems
have been the lack of a defined strategy in the
company, the lack of annual plan according to a
strategy and the lack of analysis of the project with
regard to the strategy and the annual plan.
Many of the projects had problems in financing
and deadlines analysis especially due to the lack of
R&D Management
C 2015 RADMA
V ••, ••,&2015
and John Wiley 5
Sons Ltd
Sara Marcelino Sádaba, Amaya Pérez-Ezcurdia, Angel M. Echeverría-Lazcano and Marta
Figure 3. Occurrence frequency of problems identified in project management.
funding for the project activity, not having done an
analysis of the economic risks faced in each of the
project phases and a restricted view of the possibil-
ities for financing the project: own vs. others (public,
banks, leasing, new shareholders, business angels,
crowd funding, etc.).
The uncertainty about the project execution phase
with its activities, participants, dates and cost, the
absence of responsibilities for the tasks and overall
management of the project and the lack of planning
of the project’s non technical activities are the
reasons that in many firms (about 50%) have origi-
nated failures in achieving results efficiently and
timely.
The market analysis is essential for the project
success; nevertheless, more than 35% of the compa-
nies had problems with the incorrect results analysis
against the target market and the market require-
ments analysis to measure the quality of the results.
About 25% had problems related with the project
environment particularly due to the lack of an
analysis of the risks related to the business environ-
ment, such as external stakeholders, applicable law
or new markets’ terms, competitor and possible
additions.
Also in the internal part of the projects, there
were identified problems relating to the project
C6 2015
V R&D Management
RADMA and John••,Wiley
••, 2015
& Sons Ltd
Definition Benito Amurrio
of innovation projects
team as undefined relations between project partici-
pants and a lack of integration of project internal
stakeholders.
All these problems were caused by the absence in
the organization of a proper execution of the project
definition phase, associated with the complexity of
existing methodologies and their inadequacy to
SMEs, as seen in the previous sections.
3. Conceptual model for defining
innovation projects in SMEs
Although the management of a project usually starts
at the time the company decides to embark on it, the
pre-start of a project is a very important process that
must be included in its management, resulting in
what the authors have called the extended project life
cycle based in Project Management Institute (PMI)’s
life cycle (Figure 4).
This preliminary stage includes the management
of generating ideas (in its many aspects) and the
selection of one of them to turn it into a project
before its implementation. This transformation of an
idea into a project is what we have referred to in this
article as project definition phase. The main reason of
© 2015R&D
RADMA and John 46,
Management Wiley & Sons Ltd
1, 2016 41
Sara Marcelino S
adaba, Amaya P
erez-Ezcurdia, Angel M. Echeverrıa-Lazcano
Figure 4. Extended project life cycle based in PMI’s life cycle.
including this aspect inside of the project definition is
the lack of a system of idea generation detected in the
improve study.
The PMI’s life cycle does not include this aspect
because usually the idea generation management is
done through the portfolio and program manage-
ment. The portfolio management provides the means
to translate the organizational strategy into opera-
tional initiatives (PMI-Project Management Institute,
2008b). The problem for SMEs is that, usually, they
don’t have a portfolio of different projects to choose
the best ideas to turn into a innovation project. That’s
the reason why it has been necessary to include it
inside the project life cycle.
The business plan is one of the most used tools
for entrepreneurship. In the SMEs’ context, it
would be interesting to enrich the traditional project
management tools with the strategic point of view
from the business plan (Arrizabalaga-Ceballos
et al., 2013).
Very often, the SMEs had feelings of failure when
they analyse the project results. This feeling is maybe
related to the fact that a small percentage of SMEs
(36% companies participating in the study) had a
validated and implemented project management
methodology, and that many of the projects had an
incomplete definition.
The companies surveyed in the study indicated
that project management from the technological
©
422015R&D
RADMA and John 46,
Management Wiley & Sons Ltd
1, 2016
Definition
of innovation
and Marta projects
Benito Amurrio
point of view is based on the triangle: objectives,
agenda and budget (81.8% had planning and cost
control tools available and 45.5% had quality control
tools).
To generate a new integrative model of these
factors, the authors propose to consider a triple
triangle of project objectives management adding
different outlooks: technical outlook, managed by
technical departments (objectives, agenda and
budget); strategic outlook, managed by the manage-
ment team (objectives, strategies, strategic activities
or annual plan) and economic outlook, managed by
financial and commercial departments (objectives,
financial resources, market).
The factors that influence outlooks (strategic,
technical or economic) are all related and, as is
clear from the data collected from surveys and
interviews, are not to be managed separately. This
article proposes a conceptual model of factors to
define projects which integrates their relations
expanding the triangular vision, which is shown in
Figures 5 and 6.
The model shows that the definition phase of a
project is the process that should support each
of the project phases and must take into account
technical aspects, business environment, basic
strategic aspects of the organization and aspects
related to the global intellectual growth of the
company.
R&D Management
C 2015 RADMA
V ••, ••,&2015
and John Wiley 7
Sons Ltd
Sara Marcelino Sádaba, Amaya Pérez-Ezcurdia, Angel M. Echeverría-Lazcano and Marta
Figure 5. New project management framework for SMEs.
Figure 6. Factors relational model for project definition.
The application of this model should allow com-
panies to have the necessary information to identify
the most significant risks and to minimize or elimi-
nate them, which greatly facilitates the subsequent
management of a project.
The proposed correct definition of a project
involves a detailed study of the following aspects,
C8 2015
V R&D Management
RADMA and John••,Wiley
••, 2015
& Sons Ltd
Definition Benito Amurrio
of innovation projects
which are interrelated factors that determine the
project management.
3.1. Overall project objective:
general strategy
The first issue to be analyzed by the SMEs in project
definition is the relation between the overall project
objective and the company’s strategy, and the
intended solutions to give to the market.
This first and fundamental analysis requires
knowledge of the environment where the SME is in
relation to the project. The SME should consider
whether or not the project is strategic from the point
of view of market opportunity, and the decision
should be consensual and taken directly from the
company’s management.
3.2. Specific objectives: strategy + market
The activity of the company is directly related to the
target market. Collecting specific project objectives
requires knowing what to achieve with each of the
project activities.
The accomplishments to be achieved will facilitate
meeting the general project objective associated with
obtaining results in the market. This reality must be
present in the project definition.
The market requirements should be considered as
a reference to define the quality of the project results
(product, process, management or communication).
© 2015R&D
RADMA and John 46,
Management Wiley & Sons Ltd
1, 2016 43
Sara Marcelino S
adaba, Amaya P
erez-Ezcurdia, Angel M. Echeverrıa-Lazcano and Marta
3.3. Activities and planning:
agenda + budget + strategic
activities + financial resources
Project activities help to achieve each of the project
objectives and, through them, the general objective.
The economic factor affects the temporary man-
agement of the project, so the project agenda
should take into account economic limitations or
restrictions.
The project agenda is a fundamental management
tool and requires critical checkpoints to assist man-
agers in making decisions under strategic manage-
ment supervision.
3.4. Project budget: budget + financial
resources + market
Once the objectives and activities are defined, it
is necessary to quantify the technical, human
and material resources in each of the activities
independently.
This should be helpful to know the project’s
viability by relating it to the economic growth that
the project will bring to the company, according to a
realistic income forecast. Data should be updated
constantly to avoid deviations.
3.5. Financial resources:
budget + financial resources + agenda
SMEs should conduct a balance sheet to ensure
financial resources are available when they are
needed, integrating foreseen assets from an account-
ing perspective (with realistic caution), whatever
their origin and compare the need for resources with
the initial project planning.
Integrating expenditure and agenda with the finan-
cial cost enables to know about the company’s ability
to execute the project profitably and whether its
implementation will bring the company the expected
benefits.
3.6. Learning for entrepreneurship:
strategy + strategic activities
Learning and project definition knowledge ensure
improvement for future project definition activities,
integrating Deming Plan Do Check Act (PDCA)
cycle.
The execution of this task should be simple and
integrated into the overall management of the project.
It should also be reflected as code of good practice, as
it affects the highest management in the organization,
who are the decision makers to approve a project.
442015R&D
© RADMA and John Wiley
Management 46, 1, & Sons Ltd
2016
Definition Benito Amurrio
of innovation projects
4. Results and discussion
Following the approach of Turner et al. (2009), in the
sense that SMEs need to be guided with the set of
project management tools that should be used and not
give them a longer list from which to choose, this
article provides a model for the management of
project definition, based on the systematic interaction
of the model’s different elements, all of which are
essential to ensure proper project management.
The proposed model helps SMEs project managers
to tackle their projects with more confidence avoid-
ing the problem of lack of training in project man-
agement without too much bureaucratic work.
As several authors confirm (Cooper, 1994;
Hoffman et al., 1998; Freel, 2005; Radas and Bozic,
2009), in any project, it is increasingly important to
consider other factors such as strategy, marketing and
finance to the classic ones as budget and agenda. All
of these aspects have been included in the proposed
model.
The main elements identified by Webster (1999)
and Turner (1999) have been included in the model
by relating all the SMEs management areas (agenda,
budget, strategy, market and financial resources) with
the project objectives.
Several authors have identified the factors that
contribute to innovation success (Docter and
Stokman, 1988; Larson et al., 1991; Birchall et al.,
1996; Meer et al., 1996; Le Blanc et al., 1997;
Hoffman et al., 1998; Oerlemans et al., 1998; Keizer
et al., 2002). Most of these factors have been taken
into account in the relationships defined.
It has been verified that many of the problems
detected in the field study (Agenda, Project Objec-
tives definition, Internal Team, Relation with envi-
ronment and Quality) and the size of SME, are
statistically independents. Nevertheless, strategic
alignment, annual objectives alignment, market
results, financing and deadlines and budget are sta-
tistically influenced by the size of the company.
To adapt the model to all the types of SME and due
to the fact that there are no influence between the
SME size and the importance given to the project
success factors, the model includes the knowledge
and better practices of every size of company in each
factor.
The relation between the project management
systems and methodologies and the size of
company have been also statistically analyzed. The
results show that there is a relationship between
these aspects (values of the Spearman’s rank corre-
lation coefficient (rho) between 0.52 and 0.26).
Likewise, there has been verified that the companies
that have project management methodologies have
R&D Management
C 2015 RADMA
V ••, ••,&2015
and John Wiley 9
Sons Ltd

Sara Marcelino Sádaba, Amaya Pérez-Ezcurdia, Angel M. Echeverría-Lazcano
fewer problems than the others (Strategic Align-
ment, Annual Objectives Alignment, Market Results
management).
One of the main conclusions of the documentary
and field research is that the project definition phase
is the key and strategic part of any project, as its
incorrect implementation can fundamentally affect
the rest of the project, and even the choice of an idea.
Usually, companies get numerous ideas and needs
that could or should (as appropriate) become projects
and the easiest way to help SME’s step from an idea
to an innovation project is ensuring that the company
can respond to several strategic questions related to
the overall objective, activities, timelines and
resources.
This model was defined from the information
obtained from companies participating in the study. It
was found that they have simple tools (market
research, profitability studies, budgets, work method-
ologies, schedules, etc.) that are generally used in
their daily activity and that can be applied in a new
project definition.
In Appendix A, the relationship between the
various aspects of the proposed model and the prob-
lems identified in the process of defining innovation
projects (see Section 4.2) is shown.
Since the model was designed, it has been imple-
mented in the definition management of 21 innova-
tion projects in 20 companies (7 micro, 11 small and
2 medium).
The use of the definition of innovation projects in
small firms model has allowed to guarantee the
launch of new projects when the organizations did
not have an innovation management system or an
innovation politics. Three of the chosen projects were
discarded after analyzing them in depth, which sup-
poses 14.2% of the projects initially raised.
The 90.4% of model users considered that the
application of the model was successful. No signifi-
cant differences (by company size) have been appre-
ciated in the valuation that the users have done in the
model.
Though the application of the model has needed a
major initial dedication on the part of the project
managers, it has allowed to improve the strategic
aspects and other critical factors as market, budget
and agenda.
All the companies of the study have showed
interest to repeating the process in the definition of
new projects. The advantages mentioned for this
decision have been user-friendliness (85%), intui-
tive model (95.2%) and easy application (90.4%).
Other advantages that have been mentioned are:
more project control, fewer mistakes and risks
minimization.
102015R&D
C
V Management
RADMA and John ••, ••, 2015
Wiley & Sons Ltd
Definition
of innovation
and Marta projects
Benito Amurrio
5. Conclusions
This article aims to provide support to SMEs to
analyze whether the step that transforms ideas
to projects is feasible or not, and if it is, help them to
properly manage the process. The model helps to
minimize the problems that normally arise in these
activities.
The absence of proper management from the
design phase has a negative effect on the results. The
companies studied have serious difficulties in man-
aging change projects, confirming data from the 2009
Chaos Report (Standish Group, 2009), where project
definition management is critical.
Project definition management based on the trian-
gle objectives-cost/time-market is necessary but not
sufficient. The relational definition of projects needs
its own management methodology, specific for
SMEs, and should be simple.
The main contribution of this research is the pro-
vision of a new management model for project defi-
nition that, in a simple and graphic way, integrates
various factors for project definition, through basic
tools, not specific to project management, that are
generally integrated in SMEs. This new model offers
a methodology that helps SMEs complete project
definition using familiar tools and relates the various
areas of analysis needed to ensure their integration at
the project definition’s phase in order to achieve
project success.
In order to facilitate its use, the different relations
between the model areas have been defined, present-
ing the strongest relationships, surpassing tradi-
tional criteria and promoting an integrated project
management.
The model defined is a relational multidisciplinary
one where different business areas are taken into
account, to avoid projects’ loss of contact with busi-
ness reality. This is a different approach, away from
the traditional view that a project is a punctual work
whose results are discussed at the completion
thereof. It guarantees the involvement of every
person responsible in the SMEs, thereby minimizing
relational problems that usually arise at when prob-
lems appear.
One of the aims of the model is to facilitate
project management and external relations of the
stakeholders involved in it at all stages, including the
operational phase of the results.
The experience in the model utilization shows that
the model promotes the growth of SMEs in terms of
management training, integrating this in the project
definition and that it can help SMEs to have confi-
dence to embark on new projects and new challenges,
in order to continue their upward trend, with strategic
© 2015R&D
RADMA and John 46,
Management Wiley 45
& Sons Ltd
1, 2016
Sara Marcelino S
adaba, Amaya P
erez-Ezcurdia, Angel M. Echeverrıa-Lazcano and Marta
plans for each, using balanced projects according to
the needs and characteristics of each company.
References
AENOR (2006a) UNE 166001: Gestión de la I + D + I:
requisitos de un proyecto de I + D + I. AENOR, Madrid.
AENOR (2006b) UNE 166002: Gestión de la I + D + I:
requisitos del sistema de gestión de la I + D + I.
AENOR, Madrid.
AENOR (2013) UNE-CENT/TS 16555-1 EX: gestión de la
Innovación. Parte 1 Sistema de gestión de la innovación.
Arrizabalaga-Ceballos, A., Perez-Ezcurdia, A., and
Marcelino-Sádaba, S. (2013) Project management in
the entrepreneurship. 17th International Congress on
Project Management and Engineering. Logroño,
17–19th July 2013, 50–58 AEIPRO.
Beck, T. and Demirguc-Kunt, A. (2006) Small and medium-
size enterprises: access to finance as a growth constraint.
Journal of Banking & Finance, 30, 2931–2943.
Birchall, D.W., Chanaron, J.J., and Soderquist, K.E. (1996)
Managing innovation in SMEs: a comparison of compa-
nies in the UK, France and Portugal. International
Journal of Technology Management, 12, 3, 291–
305.
Cho, C. and Gibson, G.E. (2001) Building Project scope
definition using Project definition rating index. Journal
of Architectural Engineering, 7, 4, 115–125.
Cooper, R.G. (1994) New Products: the factors that drive
success. International Marketing Review, 11, 1, 60–76.
Docter, H.J. and Stokman, C.T.M. (1988) Innovation in
SMEs (Innovatiein het industriele midden em
kleinbedrijf). Paper for Symposium on Technology –
Economics, The Hague, March.
Edwards, T., Delbridge, R., and Munday, M. (2005) Under-
standing innovation in small and medium-sized enter-
prises: a process manifest. Technovation, 25, 1119–1127.
European Commission under the Europe INNOVA
Initiative (2011) ‘IMP3ROVE’. Available at https://
www.improve-innovation.eu/ [accessed September 26,
2012].
EuropeAid Cooperation Office (2004) Aid delivery
Methods. Project Cycle Management Guidelines.
Brussels: European Commission. Available at https://
ec.europa.eu/europeaid/home_en [accessed November,
2014].
EUROSTAT (2014) European Commission. Available
at http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/
index.php/Innovation_statistics [accessed April 30,
2014].
Freel, M.S. (2005) Patterns of innovation and skills in
small firms. Technovation, 25, 123–134.
Fry Consultants, Inc. (1970) LFA-Logical Framework
approach. U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID).
Hoffman, K., Parejo, M., Bessant, J., and Perren, L. (1998)
Small firms, R&D technology and innovation in the
UK: a literature review. Technovation, 18, 1, 39–55.
462015R&D
© RADMA and John Wiley
Management 46, 1, & Sons Ltd
2016
Definition Benito Amurrio
of innovation projects
IPMA-International Project Management Association
(2006) NCB 3.1 Bases para la Competencia en
Dirección de Proyectos. AEIPRO (Valencia).
INE-Instituto Nacional de estadística, Gobierno de España
(2013) Encuesta sobre Innovacion en las empresas.
ISO-International Organization for Standardization (2003)
ISO 10006:2003: Quality management systems – Guide-
lines for quality management in projects.
ISO-International Organization for Standardization (2012)
ISO 21.500:2012: Project Management Guidelines
(ISO).
Kapsali, M. (2011) How to implement innovation policies
through projects successfully. Technovation, 31, 615–
626.
Kaufmann, A. and Tödtling, F. (2002) How effective is
innovation support for SMEs? An analysis of the region
of Upper Austria. Technovation, 22, 147–159.
Kähkönen, K.K.E. (1999) Multi-character model of the
construction project definition process. Automation in
Construction, 8, 625–632.
Keizer, J.A., Dijstra, L., and Halman, J.I.M. (2002)
Explaining innovative efforts of SMEs. An exploratory
survey among SMEs in the mechanical and electrical
engineering sector in The Netherlands. Technovation,
22, 1–13.
Larson, E.W., Gobeli, D.H., and Grey, C.F. (1991) Appli-
cation of project management by small business to
develop new products and services. Journal of Small
Business Management, 29, 2, 31–41.
Le Blanc, L.J., Nash, R., Gallagher, D., Gonda, K., and
Kakizaki, F. (1997) A comparison of US and Japanese
technology management and innovation. International
Journal of Technology Management, 13, 5–6, 601–
614.
Lee, S., Park, G., Yoon, B., and Park, J. (2010) Open
innovation in SMEs – An intermediated network model.
Research Policy, 39, 290–300.
Marcelino-Sádaba, S. and Pérez-Ezcurdia, A. (2010)
Gestión del Riesgo en Proyectos Abordados por Pymes.
Dyna, 85, 6, 504–512.
Meer, W., van der Trommelen, G., Vleggnaar, J., and
Vriezen, P. (1996) Collaborative R&D and European
industry. Research Technology Management, 39, 5,
15–18.
Oerlemans, L.A.G., Meeus, M.T.H., and Boekema, F.W.M.
(1998) Do networks matter for innovation: the use full-
ness of the economic network approach in analysing
innovation. Journal of Economic and Social Geography,
89, 3, 298–309.
OGC-Office of Government Commerce (2009) Managing
Successful Projects with PRINCE2TM, 5th edn.
Norwich: OGC, Great Britain.
Örtengren, K. (2003) The Logical Framework Approach. A
Summary of the Theory behind the LFA method. Sida,
Stockholm.
PMI-Project Management Institute (2008a) A Guide to de
Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), 4th
edn. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Insti-
tute, Inc.
C 2015 R&D
V Management
RADMA & Sons 11
••, ••, 2015
and John Wiley Ltd

Sara Marcelino Sádaba, Amaya Pérez-Ezcurdia, Angel M. Echeverría-Lazcano
PMI-Project Management Institute (2008b) The Standard
for Portfolio Management, 2nd edn. Newtown Square,
PA: Project Management Institute, Inc.
Radas, S. and Bozic, L. (2009) The antecedents of SME
innovativeness in an emerging transition economy.
Technovation, 29, 438–450.
SEI-Software Engineering Institute (2010) Capability
Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Version 1.3.
Available at http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/ [accessed
November 5, 2014].
Spanish Department of Industry (2014). Dirección general
de Industria y de la pequeña y mediana empresa. Retrato
de las Pyme 2014. Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y
Comercio, Madrid.
Standish Group (2009) Chaos Report 2009. The Standish
Group International, Inc., MA, USA.
Turner, J.R. (1999) The Handbook of Project Based Man-
agement: Improving the Process for Achieving Your
Strategic Objectives, 2nd edn. London: McGraw Hill.
Turner, J.R., Ledwith, A., and Kelly, J. (2009) Project
management in small to medium-sized enterprises: a
comparison between firms by size and industry. Inter-
national Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 2, 2,
282–296.
Turner, J.R., Ledwith, A., and Kelly, J. (2010) Project
management in small to medium-sized enterprise:
matching processes to the nature of the firm. Interna-
tional Journal of Project Mangement, 28, 744–755.
Van de Vrande, V., de Jong, J.P.J., Vanhaverbeke, W., and
de Rochemont, M. (2009) Open innovation in SMEs:
trends, motives and management challenges.
Technovation, 29, 423–437.
Vossen, R.W. (1998) Relative strengths and weaknesses of
small firms in innovation. International Small Business
Journal, 16, 3, 88–94.
Wang, J., Lin, W., and Huang, Y. (2010) A performance-
oriented risk management framework for innovative
R&D projects. Technovation, 30, 601–611.
Webster, G. (1999) Project definition: the missing link.
Industrial and Commercial Training, 31, 6, 240–244.
Whelton, M. and Ballard, G. (2002) Wicked problems in
Project Definition. Proceedings of the International
Group for Lean Construction 10th Annual Conference,
Brazil.
122015R&D
C
V Management
RADMA and John ••, ••, 2015
Wiley & Sons Ltd
Definition
of innovation
and Marta projects
Benito Amurrio
Sara Marcelino Sádaba is an associate professor of
project management and product design in the Public
University of Navarre (Spain). Her research interests
include project management methodologies for small
firms, innovation management, new product develop-
ment and sustainability and renewable energy. She is
the author of papers related to project management
and in journals as International Journal of Project
Management, International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy and Applied Energy.
Amaya Pérez-Ezcurdia is a full professor of proj-
ects engineering and project management at the
Public University of Navarre. Her research interests
lie within the areas of new product development proj-
ects and project management. She supervises a
number of Master and PhD students in these areas,
and has published in International Journal of Project
Management and Journal of Engineering Design,
between others.
Angel M. Echeverría-Lazcano is a senior consult-
ant in innovation project management in Zabala
Innovation Consulting (Spain). His main research
interest areas are innovation and project manage-
ment, knowledge transfer and management and risk
management. He has published in the International
Journal of Project Management and he is a regular
conference speaker in the area of innovation
management.
Marta Benito Amurrio is a full professor of graph-
ics engineering and rapid prototyping techniques in
the Public University of Navarre (Spain). Her
research interest areas include the renewable ener-
gies, product innovation and new product develop-
ment. She has published in the International Journal
of Hydrogen Energy and Applied Energy between
others.
© 2015R&D
RADMA and John 46,
Management Wiley 47
& Sons Ltd
1, 2016
Sara Marcelino S
adaba, Amaya P
erez-Ezcurdia, Angel M. Echeverrıa-Lazcano and Marta
Definition Benito Amurrio
of innovation projects

Appendix A. Correlation between the model and the identified problems

SME project definition Conceptual model aspect

Area Identified Problems A B C D E F

Annual objectives alignment Lack of annual plan according to a strategy B
No analysis of the project faced the annual plan B C F
Financing and deadlines Lack of funding for the project activity C D E
No analysis of the economic risks faced in each of the project C D E
phases
Restricted view of the possibilities for financing the project: Own D E
vs. Others (public, banks, leasing, new shareholders, business
angels, crowd funding, etc.
Agenda + budget Uncertainty about the project execution phase with its activities, C E
participants, dates and cost.
Absence of responsibilities for the tasks and overall management C D E
of the project.
Lack of planning of the project’s non technical activities that C E
help achieve results efficiently and timely.
Strategic alignment Lack of a defined strategy in the company and project analysis A
No analysis of the project with regard to the strategy A B F
Market results Incorrect results analysis against the target market B D
Project objectives definition Undefined project objectives such as technical, economic, time A B C D E F
and expected results.
Relation with environment No analysis of the risks related to the business environment, such B D
as applicable law, new markets’ terms, etc
No competitor and possible additions analysis B E
Internal team Undefined relations between project participants C E
Lack of integration of project participants D
Quality No market requirements analyzed to measure the quality of the B
results
A, Overall Project Objectives; B, Specific Objectives; C, Activities and Planning; D, Project Budget; E, Financial Resources; F, Learning
for Entrepreneurship.

482015R&D
© RADMA and John Wiley
Management 46, 1, & Sons Ltd
2016 C 2015 R&D
V Management
RADMA & Sons 13
••, ••, 2015
and John Wiley Ltd
Copyright of R&D Management is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.