Increasing Learning and Time Efficiency in Interorganizational New Product Development Teams*

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.     

Knowledge Sharing in Interorganizational Product Development Teams: The Effect of Formal and Informal Socialization Mechanisms*

Working collaboratively with suppliers is increasingly cited as a “best practice” in product development. The importance of sharing knowledge between buyer and supplier in this context has been well recognized, although comparatively little research exists on the interorganizational socialization mechanisms that facilitate it. The present research proposes and tests a theoretical model of the impact of formal and informal socialization mechanisms on the level of knowledge sharing within interorganizational product development projects and the subsequent effect on buyer firm performance. Results from this study of 111 manufacturing organizations in the United Kingdom largely support its hypotheses. It is revealed that informal socialization mechanisms (e.g., communication guidelines, social events) play an important role in facilitating interorganizational knowledge sharing, whereas formal socialization mechanisms (e.g., cross‐functional teams, matrix reporting structures) act indirectly through informal socialization to influence knowledge sharing. The results also show that interorganizational knowledge sharing is positively associated with supplier contribution to development outcomes, which, in turn, improves buyer product development performance and, ultimately, financial performance. Product development managers are encouraged to build social ties between interorganizational development teams to increase the flow of knowledge and to improve both product development outcomes and financial performance.     

Exploring New Product Development Project Review Practices*

Most organizations use new product development (NPD) processes that consist of activities and review points. Activities basically solve problems and gather and produce information about the viability of successfully completing the project. Interspersed between the development activities are review points where project information is reviewed and a decision is made to either go on to the next stage of the process, stop it prior to completion, or hold it until more information is gathered and a better decision can be made. The review points are for controlling risk, prioritizing projects, and allocating resources, and the review team typically is cross‐disciplinary, comprising senior managers from marketing, finance, research and development (R&D), or manufacturing. Over the past four decades, research has greatly advanced knowledge with respect to NPD activities; however, much less is known about review practices. For this reason, the present paper reports findings of a study on NPD project review practices from 425 Product Development & Management Association (PDMA) members. The focus is on three decision points in the NPD process common across organizations (i.e., initial screen, prior to development and testing, and prior to commercialization). In this paper, the number of (1) review points used, (2) review criteria, (3) decision makers on review committees and the proficiency with which various evaluation criteria are used are compared across incremental and radical projects and across functional areas (i.e., marketing, technical, financial). Furthermore, the associations between these NPD review practices and new product performance are examined. Selected results show that more review points are used for radical NPD projects than incremental ones, and this is related to a relatively lower rate of survival for radical projects. The findings also show that the number of criteria used to evaluate NPD projects increases as NPD projects progress and that the number of review team members grows over the stages, too. Surprisingly, the results reveal that more criteria are used to evaluate incremental NPD projects than radical ones. As expected, managers appear to more proficiently use evaluation criteria when making project continuation/termination decisions for incremental projects; they use these criteria less proficiently during the development of radical projects, precisely when proficiency is most critical. At each review point, technical criteria were found to be the most frequently used type for incremental projects, and financial criteria were the most commonly used type for radical ones. Importantly, only review proficiency is significantly associated with performance; the number of review points, review team size, and number of review criteria are not associated with new product performance. Furthermore, only the coefficient for proficiently using marketing criteria was significantly related to new product program performance; the proficiency of using financial and technical information has no association with performance. Finally, across the three focal review points of the NPD process in this study, only the coefficient for proficiency at the first review point, (i.e., the initial screen) is significantly greater than zero. The results are discussed with respect to research and managerial practice, and future research directions are offered.     

Autonomous Teams and New Product Development

An autonomous team is an emerging tool for new product development (NPD). With its high degree of autonomy, independence, leadership, dedication, and collocation, the team has more freedom and stronger capabilities to be innovative and entrepreneurial. Several anecdotal cases suggest that autonomous teams are best when applied to highly uncertain, complex, and innovative projects. However, there is no empirical study to test such a notion. Moreover, autonomous teams are not a panacea, and implementing them can be costly and disruptive to their parent organization. When should this powerful, yet costly tool, be pulled out of the new product professional's toolbox? This paper attempts to answer this question. The objective of this study is to explore under which circumstances an autonomous team is the best choice for NPD. Based on contingency and information‐processing theories, autonomous teams are hypothesized to be more effective to address projects with: (1) high technology novelty and (2) radical innovation. To test these hypotheses, the relative effectiveness of four types of team structures: autonomous, functional, lightweight, and heavyweight are compared. The effectiveness measures include development cost, development speed, and overall product success. Vision clarity, resource availability, and team experience are the controlled variables. The empirical results based on the data from 555 NPD projects generally support the research hypotheses. Relative to other team structures, autonomous teams are more effective in addressing projects with high technology novelty or radical innovation. The results also suggest that heavyweight teams perform better than other teams in developing incremental innovation. These results provide some evidence to support contingency and information‐processing theories at the project level. Given the importance of the development of novel technology and radical innovation in establishing new businesses and other strategic initiatives, the findings of this study may not only have some important implications for NPD practices but may also shed some light on other important topics such as disruptive innovation, strategic innovation, new venture, corporate entrepreneurship, and ambidextrous organization.     

Learning in New Technology Development Teams

One factor that may distinguish effective new product development teams from ineffective ones is the ability to learn in purposeful and cumulative ways. History can sometimes teach important lessons, yet history is not always transmitted efficiently within organizations. Patricia Meyers and David Wilemon present a study of new product development teams' learning in technology-based organizations. They note especially the learning modes employed by teams, the conditions blocking team learning which create errors and the learning transfer among teams. Using findings from previous and current research, the authors establish the importance of effective team learning whenever teams are asked to deal with complex new product development challenges. Further, they suggest ways to create a productive learning climate for new product teams and close with a discussion of both managerial implications and suggestions for further research.     

Leadership Differences in New Product Development Teams

Innovativeness is unlikely without skilled leaders to guide the teams which develop new products and technologies. Although the importance of leadership to innovation success is often discussed, the specific practices of effective team leaders are not. In this study, Gloria Barczak and David Wilemon focus on the roles, functions and methods employed by leaders of operating and innovating types of new product development teams. Operating teams are part of the daily activities of the firm, are involved with current markets and develop products similar to current product offerings. Innovating teams do not routinely engage in day-to-day activities. They pursue new markets and develop products quite different from existing ones. The results suggest that successful leaders of both types of teams perform similar roles and functions. However, the methods they use to achieve them vary by the type of new product development team.     

Using Exploratory and Exploitative Market Learning for New Product Development*

While the need for research on the market‐learning efforts of a firm in relation to its new product development is continuously emphasized, the empirical results on this issue reported so far have been mixed. The current study contends that the inconclusive nature of the empirical evidence is mostly due to the existence of different dimensions of organizational market learning—exploratory and exploitative—and to possible different routes by which these learning dimensions are linked to new product performance. More specifically, this study argues that exploratory market learning contributes to the differentiation of the new product because it involves the firm's learning about uncertain and new opportunities through the acquisition of knowledge distant from existing organizational skills and experiences. By contrast, this study posits that exploitative market learning enhances cost efficiency in developing new products as it aims to best use the currently available market information that is closely related to existing organizational experience. This study provides empirical support for this two‐dimensional scheme of organizational market learning and its consequent effects on two components of new product advantage: new product differentiation and cost efficiency. Further, given that the effectiveness of firms' strategic efforts is contingent upon the nature of the market environment, the current study examines the moderating effects of environmental dynamism and market competitiveness for this market learning—new product advantage relationship. This study is based on survey data from 157 manufacturing firms in China that encompass various industries. The empirical findings support the two‐dimensional market learning efforts that increase new product differentiation and cost efficiency, respectively. The study confirms that exploratory market learning becomes more effective under a turbulent market environment and that exploitative market learning is more contributive when competitive intensity is high. It also suggests that because of their differential direct and moderating effects on new product advantage either exploratory or exploitative market learning may not be used exclusively, but the two should be implemented in parallel. Such learning implementations will help to secure both the feature and cost‐based new product advantage components and will consequently lead to the new product success. The current study attempts to contribute to greater clarity and better understanding of how market learning influences new product success as it theoretically identifies and empirically validates the two forms of new product advantage as the conceptual mediator between market learning and new product performance.     

Crossfunctional Teams in Product Development: Accommodating the Structure to the Process

This article reports the conclusions from a study of crossfunctional product development teams with emphasis on the implications for altering organizational structure to accommodate team process. A comparative study of teams in four U.S.firms, using anthropological and sociolinguistic methods, found that team work is inherently paradoxical. It poses numerous contradictions and paradoxes for individuals, teams, and organizations. At one of the research sites, tacit recognition of this reality and a conviction that teams were critical to product development led to a continuous accommodation of the organization to the requirements of team work and to impressive organizational outcomes. Conceptual and managerial lessons are drawn from this successful case and are offered here to help guide both future research and the actual implementation of team work in firms.     

Procedural Justice Climate in New Product Development Teams: Antecedents and Consequences

With the increasing interest in the concept of justice in the group behavior literature, the procedural justice (PJ) climate attracts many researchers and practitioners from different fields. Nevertheless, the PJ climate is rarely addressed in the new product development (NPD) project team literature. Specifically, the technology and innovation management (TIM) literature provides little about what the PJ climate is, its nature and benefits, and how it works in NPD project teams. Also, few studies investigate the antecedents and consequences of the PJ climate in NPD teams enhancing the understanding of this concept from a practical perspective. This paper discusses the PJ climate theory in a NPD team context and empirically demonstrates how team members' positive collective perceptions of a PJ climate can be developed and how a PJ climate influences a project's performance in NPD teams. In particular, team culture values including employee orientation, customer orientation, systematic management control, innovativeness, and social responsibility were investigated as antecedents, and team learning, speed to market, and market success of new products were studied as outcomes of PJ climate in this paper. By studying 83 NPD project teams it was found on the basis of using partial least squares (PLS) method that (1) the level of employee, customer and innovativeness orientation as well as systematic management control during the project had a positive impact on developing a PJ climate in an NPD team; (2) a PJ climate positively affects team learning and product development time (i.e., speed to market); and (3) team learning and speed to market mediate the relations between the PJ climate and new product success (NPS). Based on the findings, this paper suggests that managers should enhance the PJ climate and team culture in the project team to enhance team learning and to develop products faster. In particular, managers should (1) open a discussion forum among people and create a dialogue for people who disagree with the other project team members rather than dictating or emposing others ideas to them, (2) facilitate information searching and collecting mechanisms to make decisions effectively and to clarify uncertainties, and (3) allow team members to challange project‐related ideas and decisions and modify them with consensus. Also, to enhance the PJ climate during the project, managers should (1) respect and listen to all team members' ideas and try to understand why they are sometimes in opposition, (2) define team members' task boundaries and clarify project norms and project goals, and (3) set knowledge‐questioning values by facilitating team members to try out new ideas and seek out new ways to do things.     

Antecedents and Consequences of Unlearning in New Product Development Teams

Unlearning, which first appeared almost 30 years ago as a subprocess of the organizational learning process, has received only limited attention in the literature. Rather than building on empirical research, the existing scholarship is largely anecdotal, aimed at reviewing the literature and generating new insights. Further, unlearning studies tend to analyze the organizational level and neglect smaller units such as work groups and teams. To address this gap in the understanding of unlearning, this article empirically investigates unlearning in work groups in general and new product development (NPD) teams in particular. This study, based on the literature of organizational memory and change, operationalized team unlearning as changes in beliefs and routines during team‐based projects and then discussed the importance of unlearning behavior in NPD teams. Specifically it was argued that unlearning guards beliefs and routines against rigidity to cope with environmental turbulence. This is of particular note when rigid product development procedures and group beliefs inhibit the reception and evaluation of new market and technology information and reduce the value of perceived new information. To test the antecedents and consequences of the team unlearning model, 319 NPD teams were investigated. Using structural equation modeling, it was found that (1) team crisis and anxiety have a direct impact on team unlearning; (2) environmental turbulence also has a direct impact on both team crisis and anxiety and team unlearning; and (3) after team beliefs and project routines have changed, implementing new knowledge or information positively affects new product success. Specifically, the findings revealed that changes in team members' collective beliefs in accordance with environmental changes and the in‐process planning or adjustment of project work activities and procedures as the projects evolve enable teams to develop and launch new products successfully. Also, results indicated that team crisis and anxiety in NPD projects assist team members in revising their previous beliefs and routines when project teams are performing in turbulent environments. This article suggests that managers can enhance team unlearning by (1) creating a sense of urgency by introducing an artificial crisis; and (2) avoiding the groupthink phenomena by bringing in an outsider to challenge existing policies and procedures, and training the team on lateral thinking. In addition, managers can plan project activities in a flexible manner that allows changes as the project evolves to facilitate team unlearning. However, managers should also be cautious when promoting team unlearning. Without careful and considerable evaluation, change in beliefs and routines can cause information/knowledge loss.     

Learning to Reduce Interorganizational Learning: An Analysis of Architectural Product Innovation in Strategic Alliances*

There is wide agreement in analyses of strategic alliances that, regardless of the purpose of the alliance, members of the partner organizations should engage in intensive mutual learning to make the alliance a success. In contrast to this view, the present article shows that in strategic alliances aimed at product innovations by recombining partners' extant technologies, learning between specialists can be reduced considerably without jeopardizing success. This is made possible through four interconnected mechanisms integrated into the concept of transactive organizational learning (TOL): (1) modularization, which allows specialists of different domains to develop modules to a large extent independently of each other and to concentrate communication between themselves on the design of interfaces between modules; (2) storing of knowledge in artifacts instead of in organizational members' memories; (3) localization of knowledge not present in the project team but for which a need has arisen through transactive memory; and (4) knowledge integration by prototyping (i.e., by repeated testing of modules and of interactions between modules until a satisfactorily working end product is achieved). Although these four mechanisms reduce the need for cross‐learning between specialists of different domains, some common knowledge and some cross‐learning between the partners' specialists is still required. Case studies on four of SAP's strategic alliances for product innovation with different partners lend empirical support to this study's concept. The article concludes with implications for practice: Companies should find out whether the TOL mechanisms that reduce time to market are present, to what extent their potential is exploited, and how well they work together.     

The Impact of Product Innovativeness on the Link between Development Speed and New Product Profitability*

A review of the literature reveals that the relationship between development speed and new product profitability is not as strong and straightforward as conventional wisdom suggests. A number of studies show positive results, others show mixed results, and some present no evidence of a relationship. In other words, the valence of the link between development speed and new product profitability is unclear at this time. Therefore, this study investigates whether or not speeding new products to market has positive or negative effects on new product profitability. Prior research shows that product innovativeness influences both development speed and new product profitability. This raises the question of whether increasing speed is equally successful in improving profitability across new products that differ in their degree of innovativeness. Therefore, this study also investigates the moderating effect of product innovativeness on the relationship between development speed and new product profitability. The results from a survey‐based study of 233 manufacturers of industrial products in the Netherlands reveal an inverted U‐shaped relationship between development speed and new product profitability. The findings also show that the optimal point is different for two new product types—product improvements and line additions—that vary in their innovativeness. These results provide an onset for the development of a decision tool that helps managers to determine how much to spend on accelerating the development of individual new products and how they should allocate that spending across products in their new product portfolio.     

Managing New Product Development Teams in a Globally Dispersed NPD Program

Globalization is a major market trend today, one characterized by both increased international competition as well as extensive opportunities for firms to expand their operations beyond current boundaries. Effectively dealing with this important change, however, makes the management of global new product development (NPD) a major concern. To ensure success in this complex and competitive endeavor, companies must rely on global NPD teams that make use of the talents and knowledge available in different parts of the global organization. Thus, cohesive and well‐functioning global NPD teams become a critical capability by which firms can effectively leverage this much more diverse set of perspectives, experiences, and cultural sensitivities for the global NPD effort. The present research addresses the global NPD team and its impact on performance from both an antecedent and a contingency perspective. Using the resource‐based view (RBV) as a theoretical framework, the study clarifies how the internal, or behavioral, environment of the firm—specifically, resource commitment and senior management involvement—and the global NPD team are interrelated and contribute to global NPD program performance. In addition, the proposed performance relationships are viewed as being contingent on certain explicit, or strategic, factors. In particular, the degree of global dispersion of the firm's NPD effort is seen as influencing the management approach and thus altering the relationships among company background resources, team, and performance. For the empirical analysis, data are collected through a survey of 467 corporate global new product programs (North America and Europe, business‐to‐business). A structural model testing for the hypothesized effects was substantially supported. The results show that creating and effectively managing global NPD teams offers opportunities for leveraging a diverse but unique combination of talents and knowledge‐based resources, thereby enhancing the firm's ability to achieve a sustained competitive advantage in international markets. To function effectively, the global NPD team must be nested in a corporate environment in which there is a commitment of sufficient resources and where senior management plays an active role in leading, championing, and coordinating the global NPD effort. This need for commitment and global team integration becomes even more important for success as the NPD effort becomes more globally dispersed.     

PERSPECTIVE: Empirical Generalization and the Role of Culture in New Product Development*

Empirical generalization continues to be a challenge in most applied fields that favor publication of original results. The purpose of this study was to report on a new product development exercise in one, controlled cultural setting, which replicates and extends Ettlie (2002) . Results from four recent graduate business classes in Portugal show that the background of students—technical versus other or mixed—is a nearly perfect predictor of the average or central estimates the class makes tendency (median) of new product success in the exercise. Country matters little. These results have now persisted over nearly seven years, and implications are discussed concerning theory, practice, and future research.     

Trust Formation in Collaborative New Product Development*

This research examines antecedents of trust formation in new product development partnerships and the effect of trust on performance. Trust is modeled as an outcome of communication behavior, shared problem‐solving, perceived fairness, the existence of conflicts during the development project, and partner egoism. The hypotheses are tested with data on 44 product development partnerships representing the perspective of the manufacturer. The findings suggest that communication behavior and fairness are positive contributors to trust. In contrast, conflicts during product development and perceived egoism of the partner appear to have a detrimental effect. High levels of trust were found to create the conditions for successful outcomes. A higher level of trust clearly differentiates between high‐ and low‐performing collaborative relationships in new product development. Trust also was found to be a powerful mediator, particularly as it relates to mitigating conflicts during such partnerships.     

The Roles of Marketing and Industrial Design in Discontinuous New Product Development*

Radical or “discontinuous” products based on new technological breakthroughs are playing an ever‐increasing role in the success of firms. However, little research has been conducted that investigates the roles of marketing and industrial design (ID) in the development of these types of products. Further, past research has tended to overlook the role that industrial design, and the impact of the marketing‐industrial design interaction, can have on the development of discontinuous new products. Frequently, the term design is used broadly or is equated with engineering; thus, while the marketing–research and development (R&D) interaction is studied, the marketing–ID as well as the industrial design–R&D relationships are not considered. This article examines the roles of marketing and industrial design in the product development process for discontinuous innovations. Specifically, questions concerning how and the degree to which marketing and industrial design are integrated into the development process are investigated. The investigation employs multiple methods, or triangulation, in order to secure an in‐depth understanding of the roles of these disciplines. In the course of examining these questions, key factors influencing industrial design and marketing involvement are identified and preliminary models are examined. The research, which was conducted in two phases, employed a mixed‐method, multiple sample design. The methods used included a survey, field observation study, and depth‐interviewing. Data were collected from three different samples: R&D managers, project team members (including personnel from various disciplines—marketing, R&D, industrial design, engineering, etc.), and industrial design managers. The use of the different data sources and sampling of various groups of managers was employed in order to provide a rich context for investigating the research questions of interest. In addition, a preliminary analysis of factors (e.g., degree of product discontinuity, product innovation objectives, process discontinuity, process formality) identified in the first phase was conducted, and these relationships were explored further in the second phase of the research. Findings across the two phases of this research suggest that the development of discontinuous new products involves a process that is different from more conventional new product development—particularly as it concerns the roles of marketing and industrial design. The high degree of discontinuity inherent in such projects, along with the strong R&D orientation often surrounding them, results in delayed involvement of marketing and ID, as well as altering their roles in the new product development (NPD) process. Factors such as the degree of product discontinuity (DPD), process discontinuity (PCD), and process formality (PF) seemed to exert a differential influence on the involvement of marketing and ID. Although their roles and involvement are altered in discontinuous new product development, this research suggests that marketing and ID roles in this context involve increased challenges with respect to validation of key assumptions and product application directions. Additionally, managers operating in this development context need to explicitly consider the influence of factors such as discontinuity level in undertaking NPD projects with respect to how it affects the execution of industrial design and marketing activities.     

New Product Development: Impact of Project Characteristics and Development Practices on Performance

Concurrent product development process and integrated product development teams have emerged as the two dominant new product development (NPD) “best practices” in the literature. Yet empirical evidence of their impact on product development success remains inconclusive. This paper draws upon organizational information processing theory (OIPT) to explore how these two dominant NPD best practices and two key aspects of NPD project characteristics (i.e., project uncertainty and project complexity) directly and jointly affect the NPD performance. Contrary to the “best practice” literature, the analysis, based on 266 NPD projects from three industries (i.e., automotive, electronics, and machinery) across nine countries (i.e., Austria, Finland, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, Sweden, and the United States), found no evidence of any direct impact of process concurrency or team integration on overall NPD performance. Instead, there is evidence of negative impact of the interaction between project uncertainty and concurrent NPD process and positive impact of the interaction between project complexity and team integration on overall NPD performance. Moreover, the study found no evidence of any direct negative impact of project uncertainty or complexity on overall NPD performance as suggested in the literature, but found evidence of a direct positive relationship between project complexity and overall NPD performance. The practical implications of these results are significant. First, neither process concurrency nor team integration should be embraced universally as best practice. Second, process concurrency should be avoided in projects with high uncertainty (i.e., when working with unfamiliar product, market, or technology). Finally, team integration should be encouraged for complex product development projects. For a simple product a loosely integrated team or a more centralized decision process may work well. However, as project complexity increases, team integration becomes essential for improved product development. There is no one‐size‐fits‐all solution for managing NPD projects. The choice of a product development practice should be determined by the project characteristics.     

Exploring the Relationships Between Product Development and Environmental Turbulence: The Case of Mobile TLC Services*

Managing innovation in turbulent environments (e.g., in environments with extreme uncertainty and complexity in market needs and technological opportunities) is a major challenge. A recent stream of studies in the management literature has suggested that when facing turbulent environments, firms should deploy more flexible development processes. This paper approaches this issue by looking at the Italian mobile telecommunications (TLC) industry. Nine in‐depth case studies were conducted in five different companies. Data analysis showed some important results. First of all environmental turbulence should be considered to be project specific rather than company or industry specific. Moreover, it can come from both shift in the market needs and in the technology. Nevertheless, it seems clear that having rapid changes is not enough to have environmental turbulence. If rapid changes can be somehow foreseen, there is no turbulence at all. Hence, when approaching projects in potentially turbulent environments, managers should assess both rapidity and unpredictability of the environment. Finally, looking at the in‐depth cases, the paper points out what of the main practices to increase flexibility that are described in literature are actually adopted by companies. In case of turbulence (both in the market and/or in the technology) companies delay concept freezing point. Moreover, in the case of technological turbulence, they also leverage on rapid project iterations, whereas in case of market turbulence they more likely adopt early experiments involving customers, formal and cross‐functional project teams, and flat organizational structures.     

Interfirm Modularity and Its Implications for Product Development*

Industries characterized by interfirm modularity, in which the component products of different firms work together to create a system, are becoming increasingly widespread. In such industries, the existence of a common architecture enables consumers to mix and match the products of different firms. Industries ranging from stereos, cameras, and bicycles to computers, printing, and wireless services are now characterized by interfirm modularity. While the increasing presence of this context has been documented, the implications for the product development process remain underdeveloped. For the present study, in‐depth field‐based case studies of seven firms experiencing an environment of interfirm modularity were conducted in order to deepen understanding of this important phenomenon. What unique challenges did this context pose and why? What solutions did firms experiment with, and which seemed to work? Based on an inductive process of data analysis from these case studies, three primary categories of challenges raised by this environment were identified. First, firms were frustrated at their lack of control over the definition of their own products. The set of features and functions in products were constrained to a great extent by an architecture that the firm did not control. Second, while an environment of interfirm modularity should in theory eliminate interdependencies among firms since interfaces between products are defined ex‐ante, the present study found, ironically, that interdependencies were ubiquitous. Interdependencies continually emerged throughout the product development process, despite efforts to limit them. Third, firms found that the quantity and variegated nature of external relationships made their management exceedingly difficult. The sheer complexity was daunting, given both the size of the external network as well as the number of ties per external collaborator. Partners with whom control over the architecture was shared often had divergent interests—or at least not fully convergent interests. The solutions to these challenges were creative and in many cases counter to established wisdom. For instance, research has suggested many ways for a firm to influence architectural standards. While the firms in the present sample followed some of this advice, they also focused on a more neglected aspect of architecture—the compliance and testing standards that accompany modules and interfaces. By concentrating their efforts in a different area, even smaller firms in this sample were able to have some influence. Instead of focusing on the elimination of interdependencies, it was found that firms benefited from concentrating on the management of interdependencies as they emerged. Finally, while layers of management and “bureaucracy” are often viewed as unproductive, these firms found that adding structure, through positions such as Relationship Manager, was highly beneficial in handling the coordination and control of a wide range of external relationships.     

Links between Internal and External Cooperation in Product Development: An Exploratory Study*

While there is an overwhelming amount of publications on cooperation in product development projects, they mainly focus on cooperation between business functions within an organization (internal cooperation) or on cooperation between organizations (external cooperation). Yet the relationship between internal and external cooperation has received only scarce attention. This article studies how internal and external cooperation relate. Following an extensive literature study and 12 exploratory interviews with managers in eight organizations, a case‐research design was set up. More specifically, six product development projects were studied in depth, combining data from interviews, questionnaires, and information from secondary sources. Based on these cases, the authors present four different links between internal and external cooperation: (1) Internal cooperation may serve as a mechanism to coordinate external cooperation; (2) Internal cooperative norms are similar to external cooperative norms; (3) External cooperation may stimulate internal cooperation; and (4) Internal cooperation may be an essential part of organizational learning from external partners. The results of this exploratory study prove the interaction between internal and external cooperation to be a subject worthy of investigation and demonstrate that in order to appreciate fully the quality of a firm's external cooperation efforts, they should be studied in combination with the firm's internal interfaces. The authors also show the managerial implications of these links, as well as some directions for further research.