Advertisement

Knowledge Flows in an NPD Team from the Semiconductor Industry

  • Dimitris G. Assimakopoulos
  • Bernard Chapelet
Chapter
Part of the Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management book series (ITKM)

Abstract

This chapter presents empirical findings from a new product development (NPD) team in the Analog and Mixed Signal (AMS) business unit of a large multinational semiconductor company. More specifically, following Rizova (MIT Sloan Management Review 47(3): 49–55, 2006; Journal of Engineering & Technology Management 21(1/2): 51–82, 2004) we investigated three knowledge intensive interpersonal networks: seeking technical and organizational/managerial advice; discussing new ideas/innovation; as well as discussing the internal and external formal and informal structures underlying the NPD process in France and four additional sites in Italy, Czech, Finland, and India. This case study deals head on with the question of how to foster distributed and network NPD teams through the application of social network analysis for studying at the interpersonal level of analysis, a broad range of knowledge-intensive informal relations fuelling NPD processes in a cross-functional and multisite team. Our results highlight key individual roles, such as central connectors and knowledge brokers (Harvard Business Review 80: 104–112, 2002; California Management Review 49: 32–60, 2006), that team members play in such an NPD team, and identify key individuals in our case study. Moreover, based on in-depth semi-structured interviews with these key individuals we put forward a set of organizational capabilities for strengthening similar NPD teams in the semiconductor or other high-tech industries.

Keywords

Project Team Business Unit Dynamic Capability Organizational Capability Knowledge Broker 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Assimakopoulos D, 2007, Technological Communities and Networks: Triggers and Drivers for Innovation, London, Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Autio, E., 1998, Evaluation of RTD in Regional Systems of Innovation, European Planning Studies, 6, 131–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barney, J. B., 1991, Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage, Journal of Management Studies, 17, 99–120.Google Scholar
  4. Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G. and Freeman, L.C., 2002, Ucinet for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.Google Scholar
  5. Borgatti, S.P., 2002, Netdraw Network Visualization Software. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P., 2002, Local Knowledge: Innovation in the Networked Age, Management Learning, 33, 427–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P., 2001, Knowledge and Organization: a Social-Practice Perspective, Organization Science, 12, 198–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P., 2000, Mysteries of the Region: Knowledge Dynamics in Silicon Valley, in Lee, C., M., et al., (Eds.), The Silicon Valley Edge, Stanford, Stanford University Press, 16–39.Google Scholar
  9. Burt, R. S., 1987, Social Contagion and Innovation: Cohesion versus Structural Equivalence, American Journal of Sociology, 92, 1287–1335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carayannis, E., and Alexander, J., 1999, Winning by Co-opeting in Strategic Government – University – Industry Partnerships, Journal of Technology Transfer, 24, 197–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chesbrough, H. W., 2003, The Era of Open Innovation, MIT Sloan Management Review, Spring, 44, 35–41.Google Scholar
  12. Chesbrough, H. W., and Crowther, A. K., 2006, Beyond High-tech: Early Adopters of Open Innovation in Other Industries, R&D Management, 36, 229–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Christensen, J L, and Lundvall, B A, (Eds.), 2004, Product Innovation, Interactive Learning and Economic Performance, Oxford, Elsevier.Google Scholar
  14. Cooper R G, Edgett S J, and Kleinschmidt E J, 2004, Benchmarking Best NPD Processes - III, Research, Technology Management, 47, 43–55.Google Scholar
  15. Cross, R., and Prusak, L., 2002, The People Who Make Organizations Go or Stop, Harvard Business Review, 80, 104–112.Google Scholar
  16. Cross, R., and Parker, A., 2004, The Hidden Power of Social Networks, Boston, Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  17. Cross, R., et al., 2006, Using Social Network Analysis to Improve Communities of Practice, California Management Review, 49, 32–60.Google Scholar
  18. Doak S and Assimakopoulos D, 2007, How Forensic Scientists Learn to Investigate Cases in Practice, R&D Management, 37, 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Doz, Y., Santos, J. and Williamson, P., 2001, From Global to Metanational: How Companies Win in the Knowledge Economy, Boston, Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  20. Dyer, J. H., and Singh, H., 1998, The Relational View, Academy of Management Review, 23, 660–679.Google Scholar
  21. Eisenhardt, K. M., and Martin, J. A., 2000, Dynamic Capabilities, Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1105–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ettlie, J.E. and Pavlou, P.A., 2006, Technology-based New Product Development Partnerships. Decision Science, 37, 117–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Etzkowitz, H., 2003, Research Groups as ‘Quasi Firms’: the Invention of the Entrepreneurial University, Research Policy, 32, 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Feldman, M., 2000, Organizational Routines as a Source of Continuous Change, Organization Science 11, 611–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Granovetter, M., 1982, The Strength of Weak Ties, in Marsden, P. V. and Lin, N. (Eds.) Social Structure and Network Analysis, Beverly Hills, Sage, 105–130.Google Scholar
  26. Hansen, M., 1999, The Search-Transfer Problem, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 82–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kogut, B., and Zander, U., 1996, What Firms Do? Coordination, Identity, and Learning, Organization Science, 7, 502–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kleinschmidt E J., de Brentani U, Salomo S., 2007, Performance of Global New Product Development Programs, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24, 419–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lave, J. and Wenger, E., 1991, Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Leonard, D. and Sensiper, S., 1998, The role of Tacit Knowledge in Group Innovation, California Management Review, 40, 112–132.Google Scholar
  31. Rizova, P., 2004, The Meaning of Success: Network Position and the Social Construction of Project Outcomes in an R&D Lab, Journal of Engineering & Technology Management, 21(1/2), 51–82.Google Scholar
  32. Rizova, P., 2006, Are you Networked for Successful Innovation? MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(3), 49–55.Google Scholar
  33. Rosenkopf, L. and Tushman, M., 1998, The Coevolution of Community Networks and Technology, Industrial and Corporate Change, 7, 311–346.Google Scholar
  34. Santos, J., Doz, Y. and Williamson, P., 2004, Is your Innovation Process Global? MIT Sloan Management Review, Summer, 45, 31–37.Google Scholar
  35. Saxenian, A., 2006, The New Argonauts: Regional Advantage in a Global Economy, Boston, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Spender, J., 1996, Making Knowledge the Basis of a Dynamic Theory of the Firm, Strategic Management Journal, 17, 45–62.Google Scholar
  37. Swan, J., Scarbrough, H. and Robertson, M., 2002, The Construction of Communities of Practice in the Management of Innovation, Management Learning, 33, 477–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Teece, D. J., 1987, Profiting from Technological Innovation, in Teece, D. J., (ed) The Competitive Challenge, Boston, Ballinger, 185–219.Google Scholar
  39. Van Maanen, J. and Barley, S. R., 1984, Occupational Communities: Culture and Control in Organizations, Research in Organizational Behaviour, 6, 287–316.Google Scholar
  40. Von Hippel, E., 2005, Democratizing Innovation, Boston, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. Wasserman, S. and Faust, K., 1994, Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications, Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  42. Wenger, E., 1998, Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LINC LabGrenoble Ecole de ManagementGrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations