Factors Affecting the Performance of New Product Development Teams: Some European Evidence

Chapter

Abstract

New product development often necessitates activities that are performed by different departments or units within the same or between different organizations. To counteract coordination and communication problems that may arise across unit boundaries, many enterprises introduce cross-functional new product development (NPD) teams to direct and control the development process. The objective of this work is to address the lack of attention paid to the innovation processes that occurs within organizational teams, when examining innovation in organizations. Most studies focus on individual, organizational, or even interorganizational-level conceptualizations to examine innovation in organizations (Organization Science 3(3): 383–397, 1992; Academy of Management Journal 48(2): 346–357, 2005), thus failing to identify the crucial role that teams play during innovation development.

To this end, we review those factors that exert important influences on the functioning and performance of NPD teams, and we illustrate their relevance by providing concrete evidence from large European organizations that actively engage in collaborative new product development. These illustrations are extracted from Innovation Impact, a major research project focusing on collaborative R&D comprising over 70 detailed case studies from all over Europe (Innovation Impact – Final Report, European Commission, DG Entreprise, 2008).

References

  1. Adler, P.S. and Kwon, S-W. 2002, “Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept”, Academy of Management Review, 27: 17–40Google Scholar
  2. Ancona D.G. and Caldwell D.F., 1992a, “Demography and Design: Predictors of New Product Team Performance”, Organization Science, 3, .3, Focused Issue: Management of Technology, 321–341Google Scholar
  3. Ancona, D. G. and Caldwell D. F. 1992b, “Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson N., De Dreu C.K.W. and Nijstad B.A., 2004, ‘The routinization of innovation research: a constructively critical review of the state-of-the-art’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 147–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Argote L., McEvily B. and Reagans R., 2003, “Managing Knowledge in Organizations: An Integrative Framework and Review of Emerging Themes”, Management Science, 49, 4, 571–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barry D., 1991, “Managing the bossless team: lessons in distributed leadership”, Organizational Dynamics, 20, 1, 31–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bell G.G., 2005, “Clusters, networks, and firm innovativeness”, Strategic Management Journal, 26, 287–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campion M.A., Medsker G.J. and Higgs A.C., 1993, “Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups”, Personnel Psychology, 46, 823–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cannon M.D. and Edmondson A.C., 2001, “Confronting failure: antecedents and consequences of shared beliefs about failure in organizational work groups”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 161–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark K.B. and Wheelwright S.C., 1992, Managing new product and process development: Text and cases, New York: The Free PressGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen S.G. and Bailey D.E. 1997, “What Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness Research from the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite”, Journal of Management, 23, 3, 239–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen S.G., Ledford G.E. and Spreitzer G.M., 1996, “A predictive model of self-managing work team effectiveness”, Human Relations, 49, 5, 643–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Damanpour F., 1996, “Organizational complexity and innovation: developing and testing multiple contingency models”, Management Science, 42, 5, 693–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Dreu C. K. W., Harinck F. and Van Vianen A. E. M., 1999, Conflict and performance in groups and organizations, in C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 369–414), Chichester: WileyGoogle Scholar
  15. Dirks K.T. and Ferrin D.L., 2001, “The role of trust in organizational settings”, Organization Science, 12, 450–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Drazin R. and Schoonhoven C.B., 1996, “Community, population, and organization effects on innovation: a multilevel perspective”, Academy of Management Journal, 39, 5, 1065–1083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Edmondson A. C., 1999, “Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Edmondson A., 2003, “Speaking up in the operating room: how team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams”, Journal of Management Studies, 40, 6, 1419–1452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Edmondson Amy C., 2002, “The Local and Variegated Nature of Learning in Organizations: A Group-Level Perspective”, Organization Science, 13, 2, 128–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Foo M.D., Sin H.P. and Yiong L.P.L, 2006, “Effects of team inputs and intrateam processs on perceptions of team viability and member satisfaction in nascent ventures”, Strategic Management Journal, 27, 4, 389–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gibson C. and Vermeulen F., 2003, “A Healthy Divide: Subgroups as a Stimulus for Team Learning Behavior”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 202–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gupta, A.K., Smith, K.G., & Shalley, C.E. 2006, “The Interplay between Exploration and Exploitation”, Academy of Management Journal, 49, 693–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Guzo R.A. and Dickson M.W., 1996, “Teams in organizations: recent research on performance and effectiveness”, Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hackman J.R., 1987, “The design of work teams”, In: Lorsch J. (ed.) Handbook of Organizational Behavior, 315–342, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar
  25. Hansen M., 1999, “The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 82–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hargadon, A. and Sutton, R.I, 1997, “Technology Brokering and Innovation in a Product Development Firm”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 716–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hirst G. and Mann L., 2004, ‘A model off R&D leadership and team communication: the relationship with project performance’, R&D Management, 34, 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hoegl M., and Gemuenden H.G., 2001, “Teamwork Quality and the Success of Innovative Projects: A Theoretical Concept and Empirical Evidence”, Organization Science, 12, 4, 435–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ilgen D., Hollenbeck J., Johnson M. and Jundt D., 2005, “Teams in organizations: from input-process-output models to IMOI”, Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jehn K., 1995, “A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jehn K.A. and Mannix E.A., 2001, “The dynamic nature of conflict: a longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance”, Academy of Management Journal, 44, 2, 238–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Johnson D. and Johnson F., 1997, Joining together: group theory and group skills, Boston: Allyn & BaconGoogle Scholar
  33. Katzenbach J.R. and Smith D.K., 1993, “The Discipline of Teams”, Harvard Business Review, 71, 111–120Google Scholar
  34. Keller W., 1996, “Absorptive capacity: on the creation and acquisition of technology in development”, Journal of Development Economics, 49, 199–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kogut B. and Zander U. 1992. Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology. Organization Science, 3, 3, 383–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Langfred C.W., 2004, “Too much of a good thing? Negative effects of high trust and individual autonomy in self-managing teams”, Academy of Management Journal, 47, 3, 385–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lawrence P., Lorsch J., 1967, Organization and environment, Boston: Harvard Business School, Division of researchGoogle Scholar
  38. Levi D., 2001, ‘Group Dynamics for Teams’, California: Sage Publications IncGoogle Scholar
  39. Levinthal, D.A., & March, J.G, 1993, “Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning”, Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Locke EA and Latham GP, 2000, A Theory of Goal-Setting and Task Performance, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
  41. Loillier T., 1999, ‘La Realitédes Equips Projects d’Innovation en France’, La cible, 14–18.Google Scholar
  42. Lovelace K., Shapiro D.L. and Weingart L.R., 2001, “Maximizing cross-functional new product teams’ innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications perspective”, Academy of Management Journal, 44, 4, 779–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. March, J. G., 1991, “Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning”, Organization Science, 2, 1, 71–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Marks M.A., Mathieu J.E. and Zaccaro S.J., 2001, “A temporally-based framework and taxonomy of team processes”, Academy of Management Review, 26, 3, 358–376Google Scholar
  45. Mathieu, J., Maynard, M.T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. 2008, “Team Effectiveness 1997-2007: A Review of Recent Advancements and a Glimpse into the Future”, Journal of Management, 34, 410–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McFayden M.A. and Cannella A.A., 2004, ‘Social capital and knowledge creation: Dinishing returns of the number and strength of exchange relationships’, Academy of Management Journal, 47, 5, 735–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Naumann S.E. and Bennett N., 2000, “A case for procedural justice climate: development and test of a multilevel model”, Academy of Management Journal, 42, 5, 881–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nonaka I. and Takeuchi H., 1995, The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Oh H., Chung M.H. and Labianca G., 2004, “Group social capital and group effectiveness: the role of informal socializing ties”, Academy of Management Journal, 47, 6, 860–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Patterson M.G., West M.A., Shackleton V.J., Dawson J.F., Lawthom R., Maitlis S., Robinson D.L. and Wallace A., 2005, “Validating the organizational climate measure: links to managerial practices, productivity and innovation”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 379–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Polt, W., Vonortas, N. & Fisher, R., 2008, Innovation Impact – Final Report, European Commission, DG EntrepriseGoogle Scholar
  52. Reagans R. and McEvily B. 2003, “Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 240–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rentsch J., 1990, “Climate and culture: interaction and qualitative differences in organizational meanings”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 668–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rothaermell F.T. and Deeds D. L., 2004, “Exploration And Exploitation Alliances In Biotechnology: A System Of New Product Development”, Strategic Management Journal, 25, 201–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rousseau, D. M., and R. J. House, 1994, “Meso-organizational behavior: Avoiding three fundamental biases”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1, 1, 13–30Google Scholar
  56. Senge P., 1990, ‘The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization’, New York: DoubledayGoogle Scholar
  57. Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. 2000. “Task Conflict and Relationship Conflict in Top Management Teams: The Pivotal Role of Intragroup Trust”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 102–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Smith K.G., Collins C.J. and Clark K. D., 2005, ‘Existing Knowledge, Knowledge Creation Capability, and the Rate of New Product Development Introduction in High-Technology Firms’, Academy of Management Journal, 48, 2, 346–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stewart G.L. and Barrick M.R., 2000, “Team structure and effectiveness: assessing the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type”, Academy of Management Journal, 43, 135–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tsai W., 2001, “Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business-unit innovation and performance”, Academy of Management Journal, 44, 996–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tsai, W. and Ghoshal, S. 1998, “Social Capital and Value Creation: The Role of Intrafirm Networks”, Academy of Management Journal, 41, 464–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Van de Ven A.H., Polley D.E., Garud R. and Venkataraman S., 1999, The Innovation Journey, Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  63. Van der Vegt G.S. and Bunderson J.S., 2005, “Learning and Performance in Multidisciplinary Teams: the Importance of Collective Team Identification”, Academy of Management Journal, 48, 3, 532–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Webber S.S. and Donahue L.M., 2001, “Impact of highly and less-job related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Management, 27, 141–162Google Scholar
  65. Weingart L.R., 1992, “Impact of group goals, task component complexity, effort, and planning on group performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 682–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. West M. A. and Wallace M., 1991, “Innovation in health care teams”, European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 303–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. West, M. A., and Anderson, N., 1996, “Innovation in top management teams”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 680–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Williams K.Y. and O’Reilly C.A., 1998, Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research, in B. Staw and R. Sutton (eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 20: 77–140, Greenwich: JAI PressGoogle Scholar
  69. Wong, Sze-Sze. 2004, “Distal and Local Group Learning: Performance Trade-offs and Tensions”, Organizational Science, 15, 645–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wong, Sze-Sze. 2008, “Task Knowledge Overlap and Knowledge Variety: The Role of Advice Network Structures and Impact on Group Effectiveness”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 591–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Yukl, G., 2002, Leadership in Organizations, 5th ed., New Jersey: Prentice HallGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Klas Eric Soderquist
    • 1
  • Konstantinos Kostopoulos
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Management Science and TechnologyAthens University of Economics and BusinessAthensGreece
  2. 2.Department of People ManagementEADA Business SchoolBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations