Early termination of R&D projects

Early project termination is one of the most difficult decisions to be made by Research and Development managers. While there is the risk of terminating good projects, there is also the opposite risk of not terminating bad projects and overspend resources in unproductive research. Criteria used for identifying these projects are common subject of research in Business Administration. In addition, companies might take important lessons from its interrupted projects that could improve their overall portfolio technical and commercial success. Finally, the set and weight of criteria, as well as the procedures companies use for achieve learning from cancelled projects may vary depending on the project type. This research intends to contribute to the understanding of policies applied to projects that were once considered attractive, but by some reason is not appreciated anymore. The research addressed the question: How companies deal with projects that become unattractive? More specifically, this research tried to answer the following questions: (1) Are projects killed or (otherwise) they die naturally by lack of resources? (2) What criteria are used to terminate projects during development? (3) How companies learn from the terminated projects to improve the overall portfolio performance? (4) Are the criteria and learning procedures different for different types of projects? In order to answer these questions, we performed a multiple case study with four companies that are reference in business administration and innovation: (1) Oxiteno, considered the base case, (2) Natura, the literal replication, (3) Mahle and (4) AES, the theoretical replications. The case studies were performed using a semi-structured protocol for interviews, which were recorded and analyzed for comparison. We found that the criteria companies use for selecting projects for termination are very similar to those anticipated by the literature, except for a criteria related to compliance. We have evidences to confirm that the set of criteria is not altered when dealing with different project types, however the weight they are applied indeed varies. We also found that learning with cancelled projects is yet very incipient, with very few structured formal procedures being described for capturing learning with early-terminated projects. However, we could observe that these procedures are more common when dealing with projects labeled as innovative, risky, big and costly, while those smaller and cheaper derivative projects aren\'t subject of a complete investigation on the learning they brought to the company. For these, the most common learning route is the informal, where the project team learns and passes the knowledge though interpersonal information exchange. We explain that as a matter of cost versus benefit of spending time to deeply investigate projects with little potential to bring new knowledge to the project team and the organization