Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Product Development Teams (product + development_team)
Kinds of Product Development Teams 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] Improving the management of concurrent new product development using process modelling and analysisR & D MANAGEMENT, Issue 1 2001Badr Haque This paper focuses on how process modelling and analysis using ,light weight' technology1 supported by focused group discussions and workshops can improve the ,concurrence' and integration within the New Product Development process. This enables managers to improve the management of product design and development through a better understanding of the issues. The paper argues that the traditional changes in human resource management via introduction of multifunctional/collocated teams required by Concurrent New Product Development (CNPD) can be complemented by the introduction of process management, focused on the modelling and analysis of the ,softer' organisational issues. A case study of a domestic appliance manufacturer, developing a new product using a collocated product development team, is described to verify the research. The paper concludes by discussing the issues that emerge from this type of approach to performance improvement in NPD management, such as involvement of all team functions, senior management commitment, standardisation of processes, and training in the process management concept including modelling and analysis techniques. The approach proposed allows one to make both tangible benefits, in terms of cost, delivery (lead times) and quality, and intangible benefits, in terms of communication, people empowerment, motivation, and collaboration. [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] Introducing Templates for Sustainable Product DevelopmentJOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY, Issue 4 2008A Case Study of Televisions at the Matsushita Electric Group Summary We have previously developed a method for sustainable product development (MSPD) based on backcasting from basic sustainability principles. The MSPD informs investigations of product-related social and ecological sustainability aspects throughout a concurrent engineering product development process. We here introduce "templates" for sustainable product development (TSPDs) as a complement. The idea is to help product development teams to arrive faster and more easily at an overview of the major sustainability challenges and opportunities of a product category in the early development phases. The idea is also to inform creative communication between top management, stakeholders, and product developers. We present this approach through an evaluation case study, in which the TSPDs were used for a sustainability assessment of televisions (TVs) at the Matsushita Electric Group. We study whether the TSPD approach has the ability to (1) help shift focus from gradual improvements of a selection of aspects in relation to past environmental performance of a product category to a focus on the remaining gap to a sustainable situation, (2) facilitate consensus among organizational levels about major sustainability challenges and potential solutions for a product category, and (3) facilitate continued dialogue with external sustainability experts, identifying improvements that are relevant for strategic sustainable development. Our findings indicate that the TSPD approach captures overall sustainability aspects of the life cycle of product categories and that it has the above abilities. [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] Increasing 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] From experience: leading dispersed teamsTHE JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, Issue 4 2002Preston G. Smith Although management can gain great performance benefit from colocating cross-functional product development teams, colocation is becoming increasingly difficult to achieve as companies globalize and form alliances. Consequently, this article offers guidance to keep your development team functioning effectively even though it may be dispersed across town or around the world. We aim our suggestions at the team leader, but both team members and managers will find helpful ideas and become sensitive to critical issues. For example, management often underestimates the loss in team performance as the team disperses and incorrectly assumes that communication technologies alone will largely overcome the complications of distance. An effective team depends on open, effective communication, which in turn depends on trust among members. Thus, trust is the foundation, but it is also the very quality that is most difficult to build at a distance. For this reason and for several others that occur in the very front of the project, we suggest that if you can get your team together face-to-face at any time during the project, do it at the beginning. You can establish trust while you are planning the project together, writing the product specification, formulating working approaches, and creating communication protocols (for example, how long before an e-mail must be answered?). Likewise, the most important maintenance activity during the middle of the project is retaining an effective level of trust, which is far easier than having to rebuild trust. In part, you accomplish this by "humanizing" the project: sharing team member biographical information, telling an occasional good-natured joke, and knowing when a colleague's family member is in the hospital. We also cover communication technologies,which ones to select and why you need a variety of media. Although such technologies are necessary for running a dispersed team, they are not nearly as sufficient as many technology suppliers suggest. Another complication is that differences in culture tend to grow as the team spreads over greater distances, encountering different time zones, languages, ethnic groups, and thus corresponding values. Although such differences place challenges before the team, diversity also offers advantages to those who are sensitive to the facets of culture. Consequently, we break culture down into its components and suggest ways of working with each one. Although we tend to underestimate the complications of working at a distance today, in time, teams will learn the skills needed. In the meantime, the perceptive manager and team leader will pay special attention to building these skills. [source] Structural and contextual correlates of charged behavior in product development teamsTHE JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, Issue 3 2001Rajesh Sethi Firms increasingly use cross-functional teams to develop new products, yet we know little about the processes that make teams excel. Although studies have focused on within-team processes like cooperation between and integration of individuals from various functional areas, some emerging literature suggests that the processes that make teams excel are richer and more complex than cooperation and integration. In order to capture the processes that lead to excellent market performance of new products, we introduce the concept of charged team behavior, the extent to which cross-functional product development teams are enthusiastically and jointly driven to develop superior new products. Charged team behavior captures not only the drive, commitment, and joy of team members, but also their collaborative behaviors to achieve an exceptional outcome. We propose and test a series of hypotheses concerning how charged behavior affects new product market performance and how charged behavior is, in turn, influenced by both team structural characteristics (physical proximity, team longevity, and outcome interdependence) and contextual factors (senior management encouragement to take risk, quality orientation, exposure to customer input, extent of competition, and interdepartmental connectedness). It is particularly important to examine the antecedents of charged behavior because there are concerns that some of the team-related factors generally considered to be useful for teams may not necessarily lead to charged teams. Data from new consumer product development teams is analyzed though structural equation modeling for hypothesis testing. We find evidence that highly charged teams are more likely to develop successful new products. Results also indicate that outcome interdependence, exposure to customer input, extent of competition, and interdepartmental connectedness are positively related to charged behavior. Physical proximity, team longevity, encouragement to take risk, and quality orientation do not improve teams' charged behavior. Data suggests that charged team behavior: 1) fully mediates the effects of outcome interdependence and interdepartmental connectedness on performance, 2) partially mediates the influence of exposure to customer input and the extent of competition on performance, and 3) does not mediate the effects of quality orientation and physical proximity on performance. Our study highlights the importance of creating highly charged product development teams in order to achieve exceptional performance. Further, our results indicate that some of the factors suggested by traditional social psychology research for enhancing team effectiveness (e.g., physical proximity and team longevity) may not necessarily create charged teams. Instead, charged teams need a special arrangement, in which members are accountable to the team and where their evaluations and rewards are also linked to the performance of the team. In addition, although a strong emphasis on quality is considered to be beneficial for new products, as our results indicate, such emphasis cannot create a charged atmosphere. Moreover, our research suggests that if the organization structure does not permit frequent contact between individuals across functional boundaries, the creation of a strongly charged team and development of a successful new product will be hindered. [source] Communication Flows in International Product Innovation TeamsTHE JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, Issue 5 2000Rudy K. Moenaert Recently, we have witnessed a strong growth in the internationalization of many firms' product development activities. However, the lack of attention devoted by scientific research to the management of international innovation contrasts sharply with the importance attached to it as a cornerstone of international business success. Although several empirical studies and normative theories have specified the communication requirements in innovation teams, an empirically based insight is definitely needed on the communication requirements and requirements that prevail in the complex context of international innovation teams, in which the participants are located in different company units, countries, and cultures. This article addresses the following research question: viewing international innovation as an interfunctional activity, what are the communication requirements an international innovation team is facing, and what are the communication capabilities (interface mechanisms) that may be adopted to initiate, develop, and launch the new product effectively and efficiently? An extensive case study research project was designed to develop a comprehensive theoretical framework. Over a two year time period, the research team has investigated selected innovation projects in four European multinational corporations. The analysis of the case study data suggests five requirements that determine the effectiveness and efficiency of communication in international product development teams: network transparency, knowledge codification, knowledge credibility, communication cost, secrecy. To cope with these communication requirements, organizations may create firm level capabilities (parallel structures, cross-functional and inter-unit climate, communication infrastructure, goal congruence) and team level capabilities (core team, team leadership, formalization, procedural justice). The evidence from the in-depth case study research indicates that these mechanisms provide a parsimonious and powerful approach to address the communication requirements in international product innovation teams. After the information processing framework proposed by Tushman and Nadler [124], the adoption of these mechanisms is expected to improve innovation effectiveness. This holds important consequences for the management of international product innovation projects. First, the innovating firm must balance centralization and decentralization, employ formal as well as informal strategies, and integrate ad-hoc and permanent strategies. Second, it highlights the critical role of the project leader. Given the fact that companies often select the most available person, rather than the best person for the job, the allocation of light weight project leaders may create heavyweight problems in international teams. Third, following the argument in favor of procedural justice, the absence of involvement may severely hinder cross-functional commitment to international innovation projects. Fourth, the innovating firm must also actively manage the communication flows with external parties. Failure to do so may result in flawed specifications, and a limited understanding about product design and market strategies. [source] | ||||||||||