Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
New Product Development Teams (new + product_development_team)
Selected AbstractsIncreasing Learning and Time Efficiency in Interorganizational New Product Development Teams,THE JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, Issue 4 2010Ludwig Bstieler Despite the growing popularity of new product development across organizational boundaries, the processes, mechanisms, or dynamics that leverage performance in interorganizational (I-O) product development teams are not well understood. Such teams are staffed with individuals drawn from the partnering firms and are relied on to develop successful new products while at the same time enhancing mutual learning and reducing development time. However, these collaborations can encounter difficulties when partners from different corporate cultures and thought worlds must coordinate and depend on one another and often lead to disappointing performance. To facilitate collaboration, the creation of a safe, supportive, challenging, and engaging environment is particularly important for enabling productive collaborative I-O teamwork and is essential for learning and time efficient product development. This research develops and tests a model of proposed factors to increase both learning and time efficiency on I-O new product teams. It is argued that specific behaviors (caring), beliefs (psychological safety), task-related processes (shared problem solving), and governance mechanisms (clear management direction) create a positive climate that increases learning and time efficiency on I-O teams. Results of an empirical study of 50 collaborative new product development projects indicate that (1) shared problem solving and caring behavior support both learning and time efficiency on I-O teams, (2) team psychological safety is positively related to learning, (3) management direction is positively associated with time efficiency, and (4) shared problem solving is more strongly related to both performance dimensions than are the other factors. The factors supporting time efficiency are slightly different from those that foster learning. The relative importance of these factors also differs considerably for both performance aspects. Overall, this study contributes to a better understanding of the factors that facilitate a favorable environment for productive collaboration on I-O teams, which go beyond contracts or top-management supervision. Establishing such an environment can help to balance management concerns and promote the success of I-O teams. The significance of the results is elevated by the fragility of collaborative ventures and their potential for failure, when firms with different organizational cultures, thought worlds, objectives, and intentions increasingly decide to work across organizational boundaries for the development of new products. [source] A Model of Supplier Integration into New Product Development*THE JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, Issue 4 2003Kenneth J. Petersen In many industries, firms are looking for ways to cut concept-to-customer development time, to improve quality, and to reduce the cost of new products. One approach shown to be successful in Japanese organizations involves the integration of material suppliers early in the new product development cycle. This involvement may range from simple consultation with suppliers on design ideas to making suppliers fully responsible for the design of components or systems they will supply. While prior research shows the benefit of using this approach, execution remains a problem. The processes for identifying and integrating suppliers into the new product development (NPD) process in North American organizations are not understood well. This problem is compounded by the fact that design team members often are reluctant to listen to the technology and cost ideas made by suppliers in new product development efforts. We suggest a model of the key activities required for successful supplier integration into NPD projects, based on case studies with 17 Japanese and American manufacturing organizations. The model is validated using data from a survey of purchasing executives in global corporations with at least one successful and one unsuccessful supplier integration experience. The results suggest that (1) increased knowledge of a supplier is more likely to result in greater information sharing and involvement of the supplier in the product development process; (2) sharing of technology information results in higher levels of supplier involvement and improved outcomes; (3) supplier involvement on teams generally results in a higher achievement of NPD team goals; (4) in cases when technology uncertainty is present, suppliers and buyers are more likely to share information on NPD teams; and (5) the problems associated with technology uncertainty can be mitigated by greater use of technology sharing and direct supplier participation on new product development teams. A supplier's participation as a true member of a new product development team seems to result in the highest level of benefits, especially in cases when a technology is in its formative stages. [source] Knowledge transfer barriers between research and development and marketing groups within Taiwanese small- and medium-sized enterprise high-technology new product development teamsHUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS IN MANUFACTURING & SERVICE INDUSTRIES, Issue 6 2008Chung-Ming Huang This article reports on efforts to explore barriers to the transfer of knowledge from provider to seeker and the role of knowledge management strategies during the new product development (NPD) period. The study used the cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) framework from Hasan and Gould (2001) to examine the cross-functional knowledge creation process and details surrounding the concept of stickiness (Szulanski, 1996). Strategies we observed can be categorized as being classical or processual oriented (Whittington, 1993). We describe how NPD teams can reduce barriers by aligning strategies in the four knowledge-creation steps: socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization. This CHAT framework was verified on the basis of samples from 107 Taiwanese NPD teams. Results show that the barriers differed among stages within the NPD period. During the transfer process, the processual strategy reduced barriers to knowledge transfer during the planning, developing, and commercialization stages of the NPD period. In contrast, the classical strategy was shown only to have a positive effect during the marketing stage. Survey results also showed that the highly formalized communication model and periodic meetings advocated by Song and colleagues (Song, Sabrina, & Zhao, 1996; Song, van der Bji, & Weggeman, 2005) and Ingelgard, Roth, Shani, and Styhre (2002) were gradually replaced by bounded transfer and a less formalized approach. These preliminary results suggest that if team leaders can use classical and processual strategies in real time, the barriers to the transfer of knowledge from provider to seeker in the four steps of the NPD period can be effectively reduced. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. [source] Critical success factors for cross-functional teamwork in new product developmentINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT REVIEWS, Issue 3 2000Sarah Holland There is consensus that the effective implementation of cross-functional teams is critical to new product success. However, such teams face particular challenges because of well-documented barriers between functions. Furthermore, there is little evidence-based guidance for practitioners on how to achieve effective cross-functional teamwork. In order to address this gap, the literature on cross-functional teamwork was analysed to identify critical success factors. Using a heuristic team effectiveness model, these were categorized into six groups: task design, group composition, organizational context, internal processes, external processes and group psychosocial traits. Recent theory on group effectiveness has increasingly recognized the significance of a supportive organizational context, and this is particularly pertinent for cross-functional teams. Key success factors include strategic alignment between functions, a climate supportive of teamwork and team-based accountability. The findings are integrated into a diagnostic model which is intended to be of practical benefit to people designing, leading and facilitating cross-functional new product development teams. [source] An analysis of predictors of team satisfaction in product development teams with differing levels of virtualnessR & D MANAGEMENT, Issue 5 2009Eric M. Stark The purpose of this study is to empirically examine and assess the moderating effects of extent of virtualness on a variety of well-established predictors of new product development team satisfaction. We focus our study on 178 different new product development teams from a variety of industries and use extent of virtualness as a structural characteristic of the teams, measuring it on a continuum. The predictors of team satisfaction we studied are relationship conflict, familiarity, goal clarity and preference for group work. Primary findings include: (1) relationship conflict has a more deleterious effect on team member satisfaction as teams become more virtual, mainly because it is very difficult for team members of virtual teams to resolve their interpersonal disputes; (2) the relationship between preference for group work and team satisfaction is moderated by extent of virtualness, such that preference for group work increases team satisfaction more as virtualness increases; (3) goal clarity and familiarity are not moderated by extent of virtualness, but have a significant direct effect on team satisfaction. Managerial and research implications of these findings relative to new product development teams are also discussed. [source] A Model of Supplier Integration into New Product Development*THE JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, Issue 4 2003Kenneth J. Petersen In many industries, firms are looking for ways to cut concept-to-customer development time, to improve quality, and to reduce the cost of new products. One approach shown to be successful in Japanese organizations involves the integration of material suppliers early in the new product development cycle. This involvement may range from simple consultation with suppliers on design ideas to making suppliers fully responsible for the design of components or systems they will supply. While prior research shows the benefit of using this approach, execution remains a problem. The processes for identifying and integrating suppliers into the new product development (NPD) process in North American organizations are not understood well. This problem is compounded by the fact that design team members often are reluctant to listen to the technology and cost ideas made by suppliers in new product development efforts. We suggest a model of the key activities required for successful supplier integration into NPD projects, based on case studies with 17 Japanese and American manufacturing organizations. The model is validated using data from a survey of purchasing executives in global corporations with at least one successful and one unsuccessful supplier integration experience. The results suggest that (1) increased knowledge of a supplier is more likely to result in greater information sharing and involvement of the supplier in the product development process; (2) sharing of technology information results in higher levels of supplier involvement and improved outcomes; (3) supplier involvement on teams generally results in a higher achievement of NPD team goals; (4) in cases when technology uncertainty is present, suppliers and buyers are more likely to share information on NPD teams; and (5) the problems associated with technology uncertainty can be mitigated by greater use of technology sharing and direct supplier participation on new product development teams. A supplier's participation as a true member of a new product development team seems to result in the highest level of benefits, especially in cases when a technology is in its formative stages. [source] | ||||||||||