"Managing" Learning by Doing: An Empirical Study in Semiconductor Manufacturing

This article examines the contributions of human resource and organizational practices to the development and supply chain management interface. It addresses this issue in the context of the semiconductor industry by highlighting the importance of these practices for learning‐based improvement in manufacturing. One of the most important factors for competitiveness in the semiconductor industry is the ability to manufacture new process technologies with high yields and low cycle times. The more effective management of new process technologies within the manufacturing facility aids firms in managing production costs, volumes, and inventories. Efficient management of new process development and introduction translates into enhanced internal supply chain management performance by improving the design of internal workflows, manufacturing performance, and the acquisition and installation of new manufacturing processes. Because much of the knowledge that underpins semiconductor manufacturing is idiosyncratic, however, firm‐level differences in human resource and organizational practices are likely to have consequences for performance. The article derives learning curve models of the rate of improvement in manufacturing yield (i.e., the rate of learning) and cycle time (i.e., the speed of production) following the introduction of a new process technology in a manufacturing facility. It then tests the influence of the use by semiconductor manufacturers of teams for problem solving and intrafirm knowledge transfer, the level of internal adoption of information technology (IT), and more extensive and effective workflow and production scheduling systems on manufacturing performance. It finds that the manners in which semiconductor manufacturers allocate engineering resources to problem‐solving activities, utilize information technology in the manufacturing facility, schedule production, and control the “shop floor” influence the levels and rates of improvement in both manufacturing performance measures. The article makes several contributions to the literature on product and process development and, accordingly, to research on the product development/supply chain interface. In particular, the model of organizational‐based learning provides a better understanding of the determinants of learning‐based performance improvement. In particular, better manufacturing performance results not strictly from greater cumulative volume but also from the actions of managers that affect the organization of establishment‐level problem‐solving activities and information exchange. The article also demonstrates that human resource and organizational practices in both the development and the adoption of new process technologies improve manufacturing performance by accelerating new product introduction, improving workflow, and enhancing the efficiency of manufacturing processes.     

Product Development and Learning in Project Teams: The Challenges Are the Benefits*

The value of teams in new product development (NPD) is undeniable. Both the interdisciplinary nature of the work and industry trends necessitate that professionals from different functions work together on development projects to create the highest‐quality product in the shortest time. Understanding the conditions that facilitate teamwork has been a pursuit of researchers for nearly a half century. The present paper reviews existing literature on teams and team learning in organizational behavior and technology and innovation to offer insights for research on NPD teams. Building on prior work, the organizational benefits of NPD teams are summarized, and five attributes of these teams are identified that hinder attainment of their potential: (1) project complexity; (2) cross‐functionality; (3) temporary membership; (4) fluid team boundaries; and (5) embeddedness in organizational structures. It is argued here that effective management of these five attributes allows not only organization‐level benefits but also team‐level benefits in the form of new capabilities and team member resilience. The critical roles of leadership and of communication and conflict management training are then highlighted as strategies for overcoming the challenges to team effectiveness in NPD as well as for realizing five team benefits: (1) project management skills; (2) broad perspective; (3) teaming skills; (4) expanded social network; and (5) boundary‐spanning skills. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of these ideas for conducting future team research.     

Determinants of New Product Development Team Performance: A Meta‐analytic Review

New product development (NPD) has become a critical determinant of firm performance. There is a considerable body of research examining the factors that influence a firm's ability to successfully develop and introduce new products. Vital to this success is the creation and management of NPD teams. While the evidence for the use of NPD teams and the factors that determine their success is accumulating, there is still a lack of clarity on the team‐level variables that are most impactful on NPD success. This meta‐analytic study examines the effects of NPD team characteristics on three different measures of success: effectiveness (market success), efficiency (meeting budgets and schedules), and speed‐to‐market, requiring incorporation of a broader set of team variables than previous studies in order to capture more factors explaining NPD outcomes. Unlike a typical empirical study that considered no more than two team variables to predict NPD performance, this study combines research spanning eight team variables including team input variables (team tenure, functional diversity, team ability, and team leadership) and team process variables (internal and external team communication, group cohesiveness, and goal clarity). Results from 38 studies were aggregated to estimate the meta‐analytic effect sizes for each of the variables. Using the meta‐analytic results, a path analytic model of NPD success was estimated to isolate the unique effects of team characteristics on NPD effectiveness and efficiency. Results indicate that team leadership, team ability, external communication, goal clarity, and group cohesiveness are the critical determinants of NPD team performance. NPD teams with considerable experience and led by a transformational leader are more successful at developing new products. Effective boundary spanning within and outside the organization and a shared understanding of project objectives are paramount to success. Group cohesiveness is also an important predictor of NPD outcomes confirming the importance of esprit de corps within the team. The findings provide product development managers with a blueprint for creating high‐performance NPD teams.     

The Effect of Multiknowledge Individuals on Performance in Cross‐Functional New Product Development Teams*

This study examines the effect of multiknowledge individuals (especially those possessing both marketing and technological knowledge) on performance in cross‐functional new product development teams. A survey of 62 cross‐functional teams shows that the proportion of multiknowledge individuals has an indirect positive effect through information sharing on product innovativeness and a direct positive effect on time efficiency of new product development teams.     

Help or Hindrance? Causal Ambiguity and Supplier Involvement in New Product Development Teams

Suppliers are increasingly being involved in interorganizational new product development (NPD) teams. Successful management of this involvement is critical both to the performance of the new product and to meeting the project's goals. Yet the transfer of knowledge between buyer and supplier may be subject to varying degrees of causal ambiguity, potentially limiting the effect of supplier involvement on performance. Understanding the dynamics of causal ambiguity within interorganizational product development is thus an important unanswered empirical question. A theoretical model is developed exploring the effect of supplier involvement practices (supplier involvement orientation, relationship commitment, and involvement depth) on the level of causal ambiguity experienced within interorganizational NPD teams, and the subsequent impact on time to competitor imitation, new product advantage, and project performance. The model also serves as a test of the paradox that causal ambiguity both inhibits imitation by competitors, but adversely affects organizational outcomes. Survey data collected from 119 research and development‐intensive manufacturing firms in the United Kingdom largely support these hypotheses. Results from structural equation modeling show that supplier involvement orientation and long‐term relationship commitment lower causal ambiguity within interorganizational NPD teams. The results also shed light on the causal ambiguity paradox showing that causal ambiguity during interorganizational NPD decreases both product and project performance, but has no significant effect on time to competitor imitation. Instead, competitor imitation is delayed by the extent to which the firm develops a new product advantage within the market. A product development strategy based upon maintaining interfirm causal ambiguity to delay competitor imitation is thus unlikely to result in a sustainable competitive advantage. Instead, managers are encouraged to undertake supplier involvement practices aimed at minimizing the level of knowledge ambiguity in the NPD project, and in doing so, improve product and project‐related performance.     

Structural and contextual correlates of charged behavior in product development teams

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.     

Can Quality‐Oriented Firms Develop Innovative New Products?

Research suggests that a strong focus on quality improvement can adversely affect exploration and thus the development of innovative new products. The focus on quality improvement including total quality management (TQM) has been termed quality orientation. The literature suggests that one way to reduce the adverse effect of a quality orientation on innovativeness is to adopt ambidextrous or dual organizational forms. However, dual organizational forms are cumbersome and expensive to implement. This paper argues that a less demanding structural arrangement for developing innovative products in quality‐oriented organizations involves the creation of cross‐functional teams that are explicitly encouraged to take risk and granted autonomy. In this model, the two dimensions of innovativeness—namely, novelty and appropriateness— are treated separately because quality orientation and encouragement to take risk can have differential effects on these two dimensions. A survey of 141 new product development projects reveals that quality orientation does not adversely affect product novelty in cross‐functional product development teams. However, encouragement given to cross‐functional teams to take risk leads to more novel products. On the other hand, while a quality orientation improves product appropriateness, encouragement to take risk affects it adversely. Quality orientation is able to mitigate the adverse effect of encouragement to take risk on appropriateness. But encouragement to take risk does not influence the relationship between a quality orientation and novelty. Autonomy improves the positive effect of encouragement to take risk on new product novelty but does not influence the effect of a quality orientation on novelty. Both novelty and appropriateness enhance a new product's performance, and both these dimensions of innovativeness partially mediate the effect of quality orientation and fully mediate the effect of encouragement to take risk on new product performance.     

Spurring Cross‐Functional Integration for Higher New Product Performance: A Group Effectiveness Perspective*

Spurring integration among functional specialists so they collectively create successful, or high‐performing, new products is a central interest of innovation practitioners and researchers. Firms are increasingly assembling cross‐functional new product development (NPD) teams for this purpose. However, integration of team members' divergent orientations and expertise is notoriously difficult to achieve. Individuals from distinct functions such as design, marketing, manufacturing, and research and development (R&D) are often assigned to NPD teams but have contrasting backgrounds, priorities, and thought worlds. If not well managed, this diversity can yield unproductive conflict and chaos rather than successful new products. Firms are thus looking for avenues of integrating the varied expertise and orientations within these cross‐functional teams. The aim of this study is to address two important and not fully resolved questions: (1) does cross‐functional integration in NPD teams actually improve new product performance; and if so, (2) what are ways to strengthen integration? The study began by developing a model of cross‐functional integration from the perspective of the group effectiveness theory. The theory has been used to explain the performance of a wide range of small, complex work groups; this study is the first application of the theory to NPD teams. The model developed from this theory was then tested by conducting a survey of dual informants in 206 NPD teams in an array of U.S. high‐technology companies. In answer to the first research question, the findings show that cross‐functional integration indeed contributes to new product performance as long conjectured. This finding is important in that it highlights that bringing together the skills, efforts, and knowledge of differing functions in an NPD team has a clear and coveted payoff: high‐performing new products. In answer to the second question, the findings indicate that both intra‐ (or internal) and extra‐ (or external) team factors contribute and codetermine cross‐functional integration. Specifically, social cohesion and superordinate identity as internal team factors and market‐oriented reward system, planning process formalization, and managerial encouragement to take risks as external team factors foster integration. These findings underscore that spurring integration requires addressing the conditions inside as well as outside NPD teams. These specialized work groups operate as organizations within organizations; recognition of this in situ arrangement is the first step toward better managing and ensuring rewards from team integration. Based on these findings, managerial and research implications were drawn for team integration and new product performance.     

The Role of Market and Technical Information Generation in New Product Development

Firms are investing an increasing amount of time and resources to gather information about market and technology in new product development (NPD). Yet there is a lack of consistent understanding of whether such costly information generation activities can improve product outcomes. More importantly, it is unclear how the benefit of market information and technical information generation may differ and how they may jointly impact new product performance. This study examines the role of market and technical information generation in NPD in three ways: (1) It contrasts the effects of market and technical information generation on product outcomes; (2) it identifies conditions that moderate the effects of market and technical information generation and further investigates how the moderating effects differ for these two types of activities; and (3) it examines the joint effect of market and technical information generation to understand potential synergies between them. Using survey data at the NPD project level, we find that market information generation has an inverted U‐shaped effect on new product advantage, whereas the effect of technical information generation follows a U‐shape. Furthermore, these effects are moderated differently by two conditions: a firm’s R&D intensity that influences NPD projects’ need for different types of information, and the use of multidisciplinary teams that affects the degree to which information can be shared and utilized to improve product design. The findings provide important implications for organizational learning and shed light on how to manage information generation activities to achieve NPD success.     

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.     

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.     

Modified Stage‐Gate® Regimes in New Product Development*

The purpose of this research was to explore the nature of the Stage‐Gate^®process in the context of innovative projects that not only vary in new product technology (i.e., radical versus incremental technology) but that also involve significant new product development technology (i.e., new virtual teaming hardware‐software systems). Results indicate that firms modify their formal development regimes to improve the efficiency of this process while not significantly sacrificing product novelty (i.e., the degree to which new technology is incorporated in the new offering). Four hypotheses were developed and probed using 72 automotive engineering managers involved in supervision of the new product development process. There was substantial evidence to creatively replicate results from previous benchmarking studies; for example, 48.6% of respondents say their companies used a traditional Stage‐Gate^®process, and 60% of these new products were considered to be a commercial success. About a third of respondents said their companies are now using a modified Stage‐Gate^®process for new product development. Auto companies that have modified their Stage‐Gate^®procedures are also significantly more likely to report (1) use of virtual teams; (2) adoption of collaborative and virtual new product development software supporting tools; (3) having formalized strategies in place specifically to guide the new product development process; and (4) having adopted structured processes used to guide the new product development process. It was found that the most significant difference in use of phases or gates in the new product development process with radical new technology occurs when informal and formal phasing processes are compared, with normal Stage‐Gate^®usage scoring highest for technology departures in new products. Modified Stage‐Gate^®had a significant, indirect impact on organizational effectiveness. These findings, taken together, suggest companies optimize trade‐offs between cost and quality after they graduate from more typical stage‐process management to modified regimes. Implications for future research and management of this challenging process are discussed. In general, it was found that the long‐standing goal of 50% reduction in product development time without sacrificing other development goals (e.g., quality, novelty) is finally within practical reach of many firms. Innovative firms are not just those with new products but also those that can modify their formal development process to accelerate change.     

Antecedents and consequences of team sensemaking capability in product development projects

With the increasing popularity of organizational sensemaking in the literature, sensemaking capability of firms attracts many researchers and practitioners from different fields. Nevertheless, sensemaking capability is rarely addressed in the new product development (NPD) project teams in the technology and innovation management literature. Specifically, we know little about what team sensemaking capability is, its ingredients and benefits, and how it works in NPD projects (e.g., its antecedents and consequences). By investigating 92 NPD project teams, we found that (1) team sensemaking capability, which is composed of internal and external communication, information gathering, information classification, building shared mental models, and taking experimental actions, has a positive impact on the information implementation and speed‐to‐market; (2) information implementation and speed‐to‐market mediate the relationship between team sensemaking capability and new product success; and (3) team sensemaking capability mediates the relationship between team processes and information implementation and partially mediates the relationship between team processes and speed‐to‐market. We also found that team autonomy, interpersonal trust among team members, and open‐mindedness of team members positively influence the development of team sensemaking capability. Theoretical and managerial implications of the study findings are discussed.     

The contingent value of exploratory and exploitative learning for new product development performance

This study endeavors to extend research on organizational learning by investigating the complicated effects between exploratory — exploitative learning and new product performance in a single new product project. Specifically, premised on contingency theory the authors investigate the negative nonlinear and interaction effects of project-level exploratory and exploitative learning behaviors on product development performance, and examine internal organizational and external environmental factors to recognize their differential moderating effects between the two learning behaviors and new product performance. Most of the hypotheses are supported based on questionnaire survey results of 253 new product projects. The results indicate that the two type of learning have curvilinear (inverted U-shaped) effects on new product performance, and suggest that product development performance will be enhanced when one learning is at higher level and the other is at lower level. Furthermore, the authors discover that process-based reward, encouragement to take risk, and environment dynamics strengthened the benefits of exploratory on new product performance. On the other hand, the advantages of exploitative learning on new product performance is further enhanced when output-based reward, project development formalization, and environment competitiveness is high. Finally, this study suggests that project managers should pay careful attention to employ the two learning behaviors during new product development.     

Exploring the Nonlinear Impact of Organizational Integration on New Product Market Success

This article explores the nonlinear relationship between organizational integration and new product market success (NPMS). The concept of organizational integration was measured by assessing the degree of integration among various groups of people involved in the development of new products including new product development (NPD) teams that are typically the focal points of NPD efforts. New product market success was measured by examining four often‐used measures of NPD success. The mail survey research approach was used to gather empirical data from NPD managers in three major industries. The data gathered from this survey process were used as the basis from which to extract information to address this study's major research questions, which include: (1) How is the degree of new product market success related to the nonlinear degree to which groups of people (including NPD teams) integrate during NPD processes? and (2) How is the degree of new product market success related to the nonlinear degree to which separate groups of people (e.g., customers, suppliers, and functional departments) integrate during NPD processes? This study found that high levels of organizational integration (overall organizational integration and supplier organizational integration) during NPD processes are associated with high levels of new product market success. Additionally, this study found that the relationship between new product market success and organizational integration (customer organizational integration and functional organization integration) during NPD processes exhibit nonlinear, U‐shaped relationships. Therefore, the first important finding of this study confirms that various forms of organizational integration impact in a positive way the market success of new products. This suggests that management responsible for all NPD projects should consciously integrate important groups of people to support such developments. This study's findings also confirm and imply that new product developers in the studied industries should integrate marketing and research and development (R&D) over the duration of the NPD process. This suggests that new product managers must be proactive to assure that members of NPD teams are actively engaged with groups of supporting people within and outside new‐product–producing organizations. Unlike prior research, a major finding of this study suggests that the association between organizational integration and new product market success does not form inverted U‐shaped relationships. Data from this research imply that new product market success is linearly influenced by overall and supplier organizational integration. However, this study's data suggest that new product market success is nonlinearly influenced by customer and functional organizational integration. This study's data suggest that when customer organizational integration and/or functional organizational integration is increased, new product market success can be increased at a rate which is greater than a linear rate.     

Collapsing New Product Development Times: Six Case Studies

Today's customers are sophisticated. They demand product variety, functionality and performance. To survive in this arena, successful companies in a global economy must rapidly introduce new products (new product lines or improvements to existing lines) by collapsing their product development times. Vincent Mabert, John Muth and Roger Schmenner report results from a comparative case study of six new product introduction projects at six different firms, identifying those elements that are important to product introduction lead time and how they are influenced by customer and organizational and technical factors. They note that the new product innovation process is very complex, sensitive to external forces like customer demands or expectations and to internal issues like how team leadership is defined for the development team. The article describes the participating companies and analyzes the six projects with particular attention to four structural elements: motivation, workings of teams, external vendor's cooperation with the teams and project control. The authors conclude by identifying the top priority factors influencing new product introduction time.     

Supportiveness of Organizational Climate, Market Orientation, and New Product Performance in Chinese Firms

Most knowledge development efforts in new product development have focused on Western economies and companies. However, due to its size, rapid growth rate, and market reforms, China has emerged as an important new context for new product development. Unfortunately, current understanding of the factors associated with new product success in China remains limited. We address this knowledge gap using mixed methods. First, we conducted 19 in‐depth interviews with managers involved in new product development in 11 different Chinese firms. The qualitative fieldwork indicated that firm behaviors and employee perceptions consistent with the phenomena of market orientation and the supportiveness of organizational climate both are viewed as important drivers of the new product performance of Chinese firms. Drawing on the marketing, management, and new product development literature this study develops a hypothetical model linking market orientation, supportiveness of organizational climate, and firms' new product performance. Direct relationships are hypothesized between both market orientation and supportiveness of organizational climate and firms' new product performance, as well as a relationship between supportiveness of organizational climate and market orientation. Data to test the hypothetical model were collected via an on‐site administered questionnaire from 110 manufacturing firms in China. The hypothesized relationships are tested using structural equation modeling. Results indicate a positive direct relationship of market orientation on firms' new product performance, with an indirect positive effect of supportiveness of organizational climate via its impact on market orientation. However, no support is found for a direct relationship between the supportiveness of a firm's organizational climate and its new product performance. These findings are consistent with resource‐based view theory propositions in the marketing literature indicating that market orientation is a valuable, nonsubstitutable, and inimitable resource and with similar propositions in the management literature concerning organizational culture. However, this study's findings also indicate that in contrast to a number of organizational culture theory propositions and empirical findings in some consumer service industries, the impact of organizational climate on firm performance in a new product context is indirect via the firm's generation, dissemination, and responsiveness to market intelligence. These results suggest that an effort to improve firms' new product performance by enhancing the flow and utilization of market intelligence is an appropriate allocation of resources. Further, this study's findings indicate that managers should direct at least some of their efforts to enhance a firm's market orientation at improving employee perceptions of the supportiveness of the firm's management and of their peers. This study indicates a need for further research concerning the role of different dimensions of organizational climate in firms' new product processes.     

Organizational Learning Ambidexterity,Strategic Flexibility,and New Product Development

Although organizational ambidexterity has gained momentum in recent innovation research, previous literature still offers a confusing and partial picture about how to leverage ambidexterity for new product development because of two limitations. First, previous research mainly focuses on static resource endowment and thus offers little insight about how firms should dynamically reconfigure resource portfolios to leverage organizational ambidexterity. Second, conceptual confusion on the notion of the balance dimension of organization ambidexterity still exists. This study seeks to explore how firms should dynamically reconfigure resource portfolios to leverage organizational ambidexterity for new product development and to bring greater conceptual clarity to the notion of balance. By extending the static resource assumption, which is central to the extant debate in organizational ambidexterity literature, this research unpacks ambidexterity into a relative exploratory dimension and an interactive dimension. We further investigated the moderating effect of resource flexibility and coordination flexibility on the impacts of the two dimensions on new product development performance. Based on the dynamic resource management view and organizational learning theory, we proposed six hypotheses and collected data from 213 firms through a survey to examine the hypotheses. Our results indicate that relative exploratory dimension and interactive dimension have different effects on new product development. Specifically, the relative exploratory dimension has an inverse U‐shaped effect on new product development while the interactive dimension has a positive effect. Furthermore, we find that resource flexibility and coordination flexibility have positive moderating effects on the relationships between the two dimensions of ambidexterity and new product development performance. Our study contributes to the ambidexterity research in three ways. First, from a dynamic resource management view, this study extends previous ambidexterity research from a static view to a dynamic view by exploring the moderating effects of resource flexibility and coordination flexibility. Second, we extend the understanding on ambidexterity by bringing greater conceptual clarity to the notion of balance. Third, this research provides new evidence on the effects of ambidextrous learning on new product development performance in transition economy such as China, where ambidextrous learning is crucial for firms to adapt to a dynamic environment.     

Customer and Competitor Insights,New Product Development Competence,and New Product Creativity: Differential,Integrative, and Substitution Effects

Developing creative new products requires a synthesis among customer‐oriented and competitor‐oriented learning, and new product development competence. However, underlying this synthesis is a paradox: how to integrate both customer and competitor insights within a technology‐centric new product development process. In order to examine the nature of this organizational tension, this study develops a conceptual framework and tests a series of six hypotheses with data generated from our study of creative new products within 187 high‐technology ventures in China. Differential effects are found in the way in which customer‐oriented learning (neutral) and competitor‐oriented learning (positive) relate to new product creativity. Their integration, meanwhile, is positively related to this new product outcome. Results also reveal that new product development competence, both independently and when integrated with customer‐oriented learning, positively impacts new product creativity. However, the study also reveals a surprising finding of a substitution effect where the combination of competitor‐oriented learning with new product development competence is inversely related to new product creativity. These findings are discussed, and their implications are derived for further research and both market and technology management.     

“Squeezing R&D”: A Study of Organizational Slack and Knowledge Creation in NPD,Using the SECI Model

During new product development (NPD), functional areas such as marketing, R&D, and manufacturing work together to understand customer needs, create product concepts, and solve technical issues. NPD is dependent on the creation of new knowledge and the interplay between tacit knowledge (knowledge that is difficult to articulate and codify) and explicit knowledge (knowledge that can be codified and documented). Knowledge creation requires time and resources, and the dichotomy facing senior management is how much spare capacity in NPD teams—so‐called organizational slack—is appropriate. Too much organizational slack and precious development resources will be wasted; but when slack is eliminated, there is a danger that knowledge creation will be severely hindered. There have been very few studies of organizational slack at the project level, and so the aim of our research was to examine the impact of changes in organizational slack on knowledge creation in NPD projects. Six projects were studied at two companies, over a two‐year period. Multiple sources of data were used to determine how changes in organizational slack impacted knowledge creation, which was operationalized using Nonaka's socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization (SECI) model. It was found that the creation of knowledge in NPD projects is susceptible to changes in organizational slack. A significant finding was that every time there were changes in organizational slack, there was always some impact on knowledge creation. Increased slack enabled knowledge creation; but, importantly, the impacts of decreasing organizational slack were often very negative and disrupted the work of NPD teams, particularly at the end of projects. Managers who feel that “squeezing R&D” is important should think again—their action might disrupt knowledge creation and compromise innovation.