创新团队公平感知与知识共享行为关系研究——以成员信任为中介变量

创新团队组织形式的蓬勃发展使得团队成员的绩效激励方式成为众多管理者的研究课题。团队中掌握独特隐性知识的成员往往不愿意共享自身的有利于团队的创新知识,从而给团队的发展带来困难。如何针对这类员工做出有利于团队整体绩效提升的激励活动,是创新团队管理者和所有创新团队工作模式研究者的共同目标。通过数据模型的回归,得出如下结论:创新团队的成员公平感知与成员知识共享行为正向相关,成员对互动公平的感知对知识共享行为的影响最为显著。验证了创新团队成员信任在成员公平感知与知识共享行为之间的中介效用。     

The influence of material resources on innovation projects: the role of resource elasticity

More (rather than fewer) material resources are thought to be the key driver in innovation project performance. Recent empirical evidence, however, suggests that the influence of material resource availability on innovation projects is not as simple and straightforwardly positive as it may seem. We build on the concept of an innovation project team's resource elasticity to disentangle the material resource–innovation output conundrum. This concept is analogous to the marketing concept of price elasticity and points to four types of innovation project teams based on their resource elasticity: In resource‐elastic teams, the relationship between material resources and innovation outcomes is positive (hence, they are ‘resource driven’ when able to dispose of adequate material resources or ‘resource victims’ when lacking these material resources). In contrast, and as a significant departure from previous work, resource‐inelastic teams show no or even a negative relationship between material resource adequacy and team performance (thus, the teams are ‘resourceful’ if they can perform with limited material resources or ‘resource burners’ if they show low success with adequate material resources). Because neither adequate nor inadequate material resources seem to be a reliable predictor of success, we synthesize empirical research efforts that point to each team type's key characteristics to derive novel implications for managing innovation projects.     

R&D team diversity and performance in hypercompetitive environments

Research summary : This article examines the effects of an R&D team's composition on its performance outcomes in hypercompetition. The fundamental feature of firms in hypercompetitive settings is that they are constantly challenged to improve their competitiveness in a relentless race to outperform one another. Analyzing a unique data set from the Formula 1 motorsport racing industry, we find an inverse U‐shaped relationship between team diversity in task‐related experience and performance an important result that diverges from well‐established theories developed in more stable environments. Fundamentally, we show that the role of R&D team experience diversity varies depending on the size of the organizations in which R&D teams operate. While we find a moderating effect for firm age, this effect is not as robust as that of firm size. Managerial summary : This article examines the relationship between R&D team composition and performance in fast‐moving environments. Firms in these environments are constantly challenged to improve their competitiveness by outperforming one another. Analyzing a unique data set from the Formula 1 motorsport racing industry, we find that a team's diversity in job‐related experience increases its performance up to a certain extent. Once R&D teams become too diverse, performance decreases because communication and coordination become more difficult. We also show that the role of R&D team diversity varies depending on the size of the organizations in which R&D teams operate. Overall, our findings provide several novel implications for the strategy, innovation, and team literatures. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Soaking It Up: Absorptive Capacity in Interorganizational New Product Development Teams

Prior research has acknowledged the importance of an organization's absorptive capacity—the ability to acquire new knowledge and information, assimilate, transform, and exploit it—for innovation purposes. Because innovations are usually developed by project teams, this suggests that absorptive capacity, as a construct, may also be usefully applied at the team level. Consequently, this study developed a measure for team‐level absorptive capacity, investigated the potential influencing factors, and examined its relationship to team effectiveness in terms of product innovativeness in an interorganizational context. Specifically, building on the theory of homophily and information and decision‐making theories, three factors (social‐category similarity, work‐style similarity, and knowledge complementarity between the recipient and the partner organization teams) were identified as likely antecedents of team absorptive capacity. The hypotheses were tested on data from 98 interorganizational new product development teams and included responses from team members, team leaders, and team‐external managers. With regard to the antecedents of team absorptive capacity in interorganizational settings, the results showed a significant positive association with partners' work‐style similarity and an inverted U‐shaped relationship with partners' knowledge complementarity. Social‐category similarity was not significantly associated with team absorptive capacity. We also examined whether team absorptive capacity was related to interorganizational team effectiveness and found a significant positive relationship between team absorptive capacity and product innovativeness. The study demonstrates that absorptive is indeed related to team effectiveness outcomes in an interorganizational context, which underlines the importance of team‐level absorptive capacity for product innovation management and suggests paying more attention to the lower levels of absorptive capacity.     

Empowering leadership in R&D teams: a closer look at its components,process, and outcomes

Empowering leadership in R&D teams has gained increasing popularity as it provides a balance between autonomy and control, encourages member participation and self‐leadership, and benefits creativity and innovation. This research examined the unique influences of two behavior components of empowering leadership: group‐focused empowering leadership and differentiated individual‐focused empowering leadership on R&D team's processes and team effectiveness. Using data from 54 R&D teams, we found that group‐focused empowering leadership is strongly related to intra‐team collaboration, which in turn is positively related to both team innovativeness and performance. Differentiated individual‐focused empowering leadership, however, is positively related to intra‐team competition.     

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 Creativity in Product Innovation Teams

The generation of creative ideas and their manifestation as new products (NPs) are fundamental innovation activities of product innovation teams. Despite the importance of generating creative ideas at the fuzzy front end of the product innovation process, our understanding of antecedents and consequences of creativity of product innovation teams is limited. Drawing on Shane and Ulrich's organization design perspective of innovation, this study aims at examining the intermediary role of creativity as a critical link between team dynamics and product competitive advantage. In this study, the authors focus on NP and marketing program (MP) creativity in product innovation teams. They develop and empirically test a model that examines how internal and external team dynamics influence NP and MP creativity, and how NP and MP creativity affect product competitive advantage as a strategic innovation outcome. The study uses 206 matched responses from senior managers and product team leaders in high‐tech manufacturing firms in the United States to avoid common‐method bias. The authors use maximum likelihood estimation in a structural equation model to empirically test the proposed model. They find that two separate dimensions of creativity—novelty and meaningfulness—are differentially affected by team dynamics. For example, NP novelty as a result of divergent process is predominantly influenced by external team factors such as market‐based reward system and planning process formalization. On the other hand, NP meaningfulness as a result of convergent process is dominantly influenced by internal team factors such as social cohesion and superordinate identity. In addition, MP novelty is determined by social cohesion, superordinate identity, planning process formalization, and encouragement to take risks, while MP meaningfulness is influenced by social cohesion and planning process formalization. Our findings also suggest that NP novelty and meaningfulness, but not MP novelty and meaningfulness, play important intermediary roles in determining product competitive advantage. This study contributes to narrowing the important gap in the literature by examining the effect of team dynamics on creativity and by linking creativity to strategic innovation outcomes. Our study suggests that a firm's ability to manage team dynamics toward generating creative NPs and MPs constitutes a dynamic capability that can provide a competitive advantage over the competition.     

Upper management control of new product development projects and project performance

While some degree of freedom and flexibility is an essential ingredient to productive cross‐functional NPD teams, upper‐managers are faced with the challenge of instituting effective control mechanisms which head projects in the right strategic direction, monitor progress toward organizational and project goals, and allow for adjustments in the project if necessary. But too much or the wrong type of control may constrain the team's creativity, impede their progress, and injure their ultimate performance. Therefore, this study examines formal and interactive control mechanisms available to upper‐managers in controlling new product development (NPD) projects, and the relationship between these mechanisms and NPD project performance. Formal output and process controls are examined which consist of the setting and monitoring of outcomes, such as goals, schedule and budgets, and of processes and procedures, respectively. This study also looks at how the effectiveness of these control mechanisms may be contingent upon the degree of innovativeness in the project and the degree to which the project is part of a broad product program. In addition, the use of formal rewards for achieving team performance as opposed to rewards for individual achievement is investigated. Lastly, interactive controls are examined which consist of upper‐managers interacting directly with project members in the development of strategy and operational goals and procedures prior to the start of the project, and upper‐managers intervening in project decision‐making. Questionnaire data are collected on 95 projects across a variety of industries. The findings suggest that while NPD projects teams need some level of strategic direction concerning the objectives to be accomplished and the procedures to be followed, upper‐level managers can exert too much control. In particular, the findings showed a negative association between the use of upper manager‐imposed process controls and project performance. The findings also indicated that the degree to which upper‐managers intervened in project‐level decisions during the project was negatively related to project performance. However, the results showed support for the notion that early and interactive decision‐making on control mechanisms is important for effective projects. In particular, early team member and upper‐management involvement in the setting of operational controls, such as goals and procedures for monitoring and evaluating the project, was positively associated with project performance. This study provides additional insight into our understanding of upper‐management support in new product development. The study suggests that upper‐managers can over control with the wrong type of controls, and suggests effective ways of implementing participative and interactive control mechanisms.     

From Experience: Harnessing Tacit Knowledge to Achieve Breakthrough Innovation

The ability to create a stream of revolutionary new products can represent a sustainable competitive advantage for firms in almost any industry. Whereas evolutionary product improvements often follow predictable trajectories, breakthrough innovations involve unexpected leaps of creativity and insight. Despite its strategic importance, however, little is known about the process by which innovators achieve these valuable breakthroughs. This article proposes that breakthrough innovations result from the harnessing of tacit knowledge possessed by individuals and project teams. Tacit knowledge lies below the surface of conscious thought and is accumulated through a lifetime of experience, experimentation, perception, and learning by doing. Managers who can tap into this vast pool of creative energy can elevate the innovative capabilities of their teams well beyond the incremental and mundane. The article begins by establishing the vital importance of breakthrough innovations to the competitiveness of firms. This strategic mandate is followed by a brief discussion of the nature and implications of tacit knowledge in the context of innovation. The remainder of the article describes three mutually reinforcing methods for encouraging the explication and sharing of tacit knowledge among design team members. The ultimate goal is to establish a generative atmosphere for breakthrough innovation, in which divergent thinking, improvisation, and artistic creativity merge with the practical demands of the product development process. The first step toward harnessing the creative power of tacit knowledge is to foster the emotional commitment and deep personal involvement of design team members. Managers can accomplish this goal through the development of inspiring “innovation stories,” encouragement of reasonable risk‐taking and experimentation, building of unique team identities, and displaying unbridled confidence in a team's creative abilities. Once the emotional commitment of team members has been assured, two techniques are proposed as catalysts for breakthroughs derived from tacit knowledge. These methods are based on evidence that intimate physical interaction during the creative process, both person to object and person to person, may be a catalyst for tacit insights. The first technique highlights the use of early and frequent prototyping as a powerful focal point for the explication of tacit knowledge from both the design team and potential customers. The second technique involves the encouragement of face‐to‐face interaction between innovators during product development, thereby enabling creative improvisation and real‐time knowledge sharing. Several implications for managers are highlighted, including the need for a greater emphasis on employee retention, the importance of developing a nurturing environment for innovation, and the value of intimate physical interaction, including early prototyping, indwelling with customers, and co‐location of teams wherever possible.     

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.     

Trends and determinants of managing virtual R&D teams

The past years have seen a decentralization of R&D to local markets and centres-of-excellence. Supported by modern information and communication technologies, 'virtual project teams' were formed to facilitate transnational innovation processes. With their boundaries expanding and shrinking flexibly with changing project necessities, virtual teams are believed to be an important element in future R&D organization. Based on 204 interviews with R&D directors and project managers in 37 technology-intensive multinational companies we identify four distinct forms of virtual team organizations used to execute R&D projects across multiple locations. Ordered by increasing degree of central project coordination, these four team concepts are based on: (1) decentralized self-organization, (2) a system integrator as a coordinator, (3) a core team as a system architect, and (4) a centralized venture team. Our contingency approach for organizing a transnational R&D project is based on four principal determinants: (1) the type of innovation (radical/incremental), (2) the systemic nature of the project (systemic/autonomous), (3) the mode of knowledge involved (tacit/explicit), and (4) the degree of resource bundling (complementary/redundant). According to our analysis, the success of virtual teams depends on the appropriate consideration of these determinants.     

Reflexivity,stress, and unlearning in the new product development team: the moderating effect of procedural justice

The success of new product development (NPD) depends on a team's abilities to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competences and the flexibility to address rapidly changing environments. To develop innovative products it is desirable that these processes should not be constrained by current beliefs and routines. NPD teams therefore need to engage in an unlearning process to overcome any resistance to new ideas and to facilitate a fresh approach. The paper recognizes that the controlled experience of stress plays a part in unlearning (e.g., confusion about technology or market change can encourage changes) and argues that teams should systematically reflect on the progress they are making in projects and in unlearning. The fairness of procedures used by the management moderates the proposed relationships. Two hundred and ninety eight team members and 77 NPD team leaders participated in the study. The results indicate that team reflexivity positively influences unlearning and product innovation, while team stress has a negative effect. The perceived fairness of management procedures strengthens the positive effects of team reflexivity on unlearning and product innovation, and reduces negative effect of team stress.     

Team reflexivity in innovative projects

In this article, we provide a theoretical extension and empirical test of team reflexivity. Building on West's (1996) conceptual discussions of team reflexivity, we argue that in the context of teams with innovative projects (e.g. product development teams), team reflexivity will be positively related to team effectiveness and efficiency. Furthermore, we specify social skills and project management skills as important determinants of team reflexivity. Using data from 575 members, leaders, and team external managers referring to 145 software development teams, we find that team reflexivity is positively related to team effectiveness but not efficiency. Furthermore, both social skills and project management skills are positively related to team reflexivity. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.     

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.     

Top Management Compositional Effects on Corporate Entrepreneurship: The Moderating Role of Perceived Technological Uncertainty

Because corporate entrepreneurship (CE) is central to firms' ability to compete, adapt, and perform in increasingly turbulent environments, there is a great interest in understanding its origins. To date, prior studies have overwhelmingly focused on the architectural factors—the structures, cultures, resources, and incentives—that shape entrepreneurial processes within organizations and the environmental conditions that stimulate entrepreneurial activity. However, some researchers have recently begun to argue that the requirements and challenges of CE fall most saliently on the shoulders of the firm's top management team. Focusing on various aspects of top managers' activities, roles, and processes, this line of research demonstrates the enabling role of top management teams in their firm's pursuit of CE. We extend this research by examining the impact of top management team composition in terms of human capital and social capital on CE. Additionally, because external environment perceptions within top teams shape their sociopolitical process and framing of the issues facing their firms, we submit that a team's level of perceived technological uncertainty moderates the impact of the team's human and social capital on CE. We find support for these arguments using multisource data from a sample of 99 high‐technology firms. The discussion finally traces the implications of our theory and findings for research and managerial understanding on CE.     

Individual differences, environmental scanning, innovation framing, and champion behavior: key predictors of project performance

Although increasing evidence points to the importance of champions for keeping product innovation ideas alive and thriving, little is known about how champions identify potential product innovation ideas, how they present these ideas to gain much needed support from key stakeholders, and their impact on innovation project performance over time. Jane M. Howell and Christine M. Shea address this knowledge gap by using measures of individual differences, environmental scanning, innovation framing and champion behavior to predict the performance of 47 product innovation projects. Champion behavior was defined as expressing confidence in the innovation, involving and motivating others to support the innovation, and persisting under adversity. Interviews with 47 champions were conducted to collect information about the innovation projects and the champions' tendency to frame the innovation as an opportunity or threat. Survey data were obtained from three sources: 47 champions provided information on their personal characteristics (locus of control and breadth of interest) and activities (environmental scanning), 47 division managers subjectively assessed project performance at two points in time, and 237 innovation team members rated the frequency of champion behavior. The results revealed that an internal locus of control orientation was positively related to framing the innovation as an opportunity, and breadth of interest was positively related to environmental scanning. Environmental scanning of documents and framing the innovation as a threat was negatively related to champion behavior, while environmental scanning through people was positively related to champion behavior. Champion behavior positively predicted project performance over a one‐year interval. Overall, the findings suggest that in scanning the environment for new ideas, the most effective source of information is the champion's personal network of people inside and outside the organization. Also, the simple labeling of an idea as a threat appears to diminish a champion's perceived influence and erode credibility in promoting an innovation. From the perspective of division managers, champions make a positive contribution to project performance over time, reinforcing the crucial role that champions play in new product development process.     

Managing technology development teams – exploring the case of microsytems and nanosystems

New sensor and actuator concepts based on microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) and nanoelectromechanical systems (NEMS) are increasingly being developed from lab status toward commercialization. The associated technology development for the provision of improved functionalities and cost reduction often requires highly interdisciplinary development teams where scientists and engineers from different disciplines closely work together. Managing these teams is a key challenge for MEMS/NEMS organizations. This research examined eight technology developments in MEMS/NEMS in international companies. Based on in‐depth interviews with innovators, we explored the managerial aspects of development teams. We identified and discuss (1) leadership, (2) market, (3) team structure and culture, (4) innovation motivation, (5) innovation driver, (6) experience and know‐how, and (7) product vision and innovation strategy as key influences on teams in the early development phases of MEMS/NEMS. Our study reveals that integrative and manufacturing know‐how and capabilities are the most critical capacities to be developed by the team from the idea to the concept phase. The team's lived experience during long development times from 5 to 10 years or more may allow a fast response to changes from market and technology (e.g. materials and nanotechnology). The results indicate that the process of how know‐how and capabilities are created by the team is more important than the mere existence of specific expertise.     

The Impact of Team Cognitive Styles on Performance of Radical and Incremental NPD Projects

Although prior studies increased our understanding of the performance implications of new product development (NPD) team members' functional backgrounds and demographic variables, they remained relatively silent on the impact of underlying psychological characteristics such as the team members' cognitive styles on project performance. The goal of this study is to explore the effects of NPD teams' cognitive styles on project performance in different kinds of NPD projects. Based on survey data from members of 95 NPD teams gathered in four Dutch manufacturing companies, hypotheses about the relationships between teams' cognitive styles and project performance of radical and incremental NPD projects are tested. Results of linear regression analyses show that the level of teams' analytical information processing positively affects project performance in both incremental and radical NPD projects, whereas the relationship between the level of teams' intuitive information processing and project performance depends on the radicalness of the project. These findings contribute to the academic discussion on team innovation, suggesting that, next to demographic and functional characteristics, cognitive styles in teams also significantly influence project performance.     

Managing the Unexpected Across Space: Improvisation,Dispersion, and Performance in NPD Teams

Organizations are increasingly moving toward a team‐based structure for managing complex knowledge in new product development (NPD) projects. Such teams operate in an environment characterized by dynamic project requirements and emergent nonroutine issues, which can undermine their ability to achieve project objectives. Team improvisation—a collective, spontaneous, and creative action for identifying novel solutions to emergent problems—has been identified as a key team‐situated response to unexpected challenges to NPD team effectiveness. Geographic dispersion is increasingly becoming a reality for NPD teams that find themselves needing to improvise solutions to emergent challenges while attempting to leverage the knowledge of team members who are physically distributed across various locations. However, very little is known about how teams' improvisational actions affect performance when such actions are executed in increasingly dispersed teams. To address this gap in the literature, this paper draws on the emerging literature on different forms and degrees of team dispersion to understand how team improvisation affects team performance in such teams. In particular this paper takes into account both the structural and psychological facets of dispersion by considering the physical distance between team members, the configuration of the team across different sites, as well as the team members' perception of being distant from their teammates. Responses from 299 team leaders and team members of 71 NPD projects in the software industry were used to analyze the relationship between team improvisation and team performance, as well as the moderating effect of the three different conceptualizations of team dispersion. Results of the study indicate that team improvisation has a positive influence on project team performance by allowing team members to respond to unexpected challenges through creative and timely action. However, increasing degrees of team member dispersion (both structural and psychological) attenuate this relationship by making it difficult to have timely access to other team members' knowledge and by limiting real‐time interactions that may lead to the development of creative solutions. The results of this research offer guidance to managers about when to balance the desire to leverage expertise to cope with unexpected events. Moreover, the present paper provides directions for future research on improvisation and team dispersion. Future research is encouraged to investigate factors that may help highly dispersed teams to overcome the shortcomings of team dispersion in dealing with emergent events.     

Resource orchestration for team‐based innovation: a case study of the interplay between teams,customers, and top management

The resource orchestration concept has attracted considerable interest in contemporary innovation research. However, resource orchestration is a manager‐centric framework and not all of its components necessarily reflect the value‐creation processes of organizations focusing on team‐based innovation. Drawing on a single‐case study of an innovative Swedish software company, we illustrate the roles of autonomous teams, customers, and top managers in orchestrating resources for team‐based innovation. Moreover, we introduce the concept of resource flocculation to describe how key actors co‐orchestrate various resource orchestration processes. The study contributes to research on resource orchestration by adapting the model to the conditions characterizing team‐based innovation, and to research on team‐based innovation by addressing how innovative teams are related to overall resource orchestration processes and, ultimately, organizational innovation outcomes.