Investigation of Factors Contributing to the Success of Cross-Functional Teams

Although recent empirical research shows that most firms have implemented cross‐functional teams for the majority of the new product development projects undertaken, they are still finding it hard to ensure that these teams are successful in completing the new product development task. In this article, the author first reviews the vast literature on cross‐functional new product development teams to uncover the array of factors that have previously been demonstrated or hypothesized to relate to cross‐functional team success, when measured at the project level. He then analyzes the responses of 112 new product development professionals to determine which factors are more frequently mentioned as leading to project success. In looking at how to achieve successful teams, many factors have been suggested in the literature by a number of different researchers. The author suggests a model of these factors that divides them into three categories that help achieve success. Setting the stage for product development by developing appropriate project goals, empowering the team with the needed decision‐making power, assigning the appropriate human resources, and creating a productive climate should be related to fostering team success. Of these four factors, appropriate project goals is mentioned most often as being associated with success, followed by empowerment. Several specific team behaviors, including cooperation, commitment to the project, ownership of the project, and respect and trust among team members, also have been posited to contribute to team success. Of these, this research finds that cooperation is mentioned most often as being associated with success, followed by commitment and ownership. Finally, a number of researchers have suggested that team leaders, senior managers, and champions provide enabling support to cross‐functional teams in achieving success. Team leadership is the most frequently mentioned enabler, according to these findings, followed by senior management support. The author's results also show that increased use of cross‐functional teams in new product development is related to higher project success. However, achieving cross‐functional team success appears to be more complicated than previously thought. For example, across the set of factors identified in this research, the most frequently mentioned is obtaining the team behavior of cooperation. Setting appropriate project goals, a stage‐setting step that is completed early in the project, follows closely in relative importance. Finally, providing good team leadership as an enabler is the third most frequently mentioned factor in achieving success. This suggests that companies must work in all dimensions to maximize the probability of achieving team success.     

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.     

Integrating the R&D and Patent Functions: Implications for New Product Performance

This paper examines the impact of cross‐functional integration between the research and development (R&D) and the patent functions on new product development (NPD) performance. The attitudinal (collaboration) and the behavioral (contributions of the patent function to NPD) dimension of cross‐functional integration between the R&D and the patent functions are distinguished. It is also investigated if the level of innovativeness moderates the relationship between the attitudinal and the behavioral dimension of cross‐functional integration between the R&D and the patent department and NPD performance. The four hypotheses are tested based on a multi‐informant sample of 101 NPD projects which are nested within 72 technology‐based firms or strategic business units from multiple industries in Germany. The results show that the attitudinal and the behavioral dimensions of cross‐functional integration between the R&D and the patent functions have a significant and positive impact on NPD performance. This lends empirical support for the notion expressed in the literature that certain managerial capabilities are important for understanding the effect of patenting on appropriability outcomes such as value creation and performance. The level of cross‐functional integration between the patent and the R&D functions appears to be one of these critical patent management capabilities that affect the returns from investments into patents. There is support for the hypothesis that the context matters for the effect of cross‐functional integration between the R&D and the patent functions on NPD performance. In line with the initial hypothesis, the level of innovativeness positively moderates the impact of the behavioral dimension of cross‐functional integration between the R&D and the patent department on NPD performance. In contrast to the initial hypothesis, the findings reveal no moderating effect of the level of innovativeness on the link between the attitudinal dimension of cross‐functional integration between the R&D and the patent department and NPD performance. This implies that joint objectives and an open and trustful working relationship between the R&D and the patent functions are not sufficient for achieving higher NPD performance if firms aim to develop very innovative products. In the case of highly innovative products, the actual behavior, that is, the specific contributions of the patent department to the NPD project, matters. Overall, these findings have important implications for improving performance by means of effectively integrating the patent and the R&D functions during NPD.     

Project Management Characteristics and New Product Survival

We develop a conceptual model of new product development (NPD) based on seminal and review articles in order to answer the question, “What project management characteristics will foster the development of new products that are more likely to survive in the marketplace?” Our model adopts Ruekert and Walker's theoretical framework of situational dimensions, structural/process dimensions, and outcome dimensions as an underlying structure. We conceptualize their situational dimensions more narrowly as project management dimensions, allowing us to examine more specifically how project management practices affect the NPD process. In our model, project management dimensions include project manager style, project manager skills, and senior management support. Structural/process dimensions include cross‐functional integration and planning proficiency. Outcome dimensions include process proficiency and new product survival. Our empirical analysis finds support for 20 hypotheses, a reversal of one hypothesis, and nonsignificant results for one hypothesis. These results show that projects are best led by managers with strong technical, marketing, and management skills, using a participative style and enjoying early and continuous support from senior management. These project management dimensions promote cross‐functional integration and planning, which are important to process proficiency and new product survival. Our study suggests two broad conclusions. First, it confirms the links in the extant literature between situational (project management) dimensions, structural/process dimensions, and outcome dimensions in NPD. Second, firms can improve cross‐functional integration and planning through various project management practices. Generally, we find that firms interested in improving both proficiency in their development process and the survival rate of new products should take steps to promote cross‐functional integration and to improve their planning processes. While the linkage between cross‐functional integration and NPD outcomes is well established in the literature, the impact of the planning process on NPD outcomes is a research area ripe with opportunity. Our study highlights three aspects of planning that contribute to NPD outcomes. Plans should be detailed, team members should participate actively in the planning process, and teams should be given flexibility and autonomy to respond to unanticipated issues as they appear.     

Is Integration Enough for Fast Product Development? An Empirical Investigation of the Contextual Effects of Product Vision*

Research into development time performance has suggested that integration—both internal, adopting cross‐functional organizational structures for development, and external, involving customers and suppliers in the process—can be a powerful driver when it comes to compressing cycle times and enhancing development punctuality. Some recent studies have also highlighted the compelling role of product vision to obtain high performances with product development. What these studies seem to suggest is that product vision guarantees the right goals and clarity of direction that integration mechanisms need to quickly develop new products and to stay on the development schedule. However, past studies have rarely considered or measured product vision as a construct and explicitly tested whether or not product vision acts as a contingent factor in determining the relationships between the aforementioned organizational drivers and development time. This research study maintains that product vision is crucial to pushing organizational drivers toward increased development efficiency. To find theoretical support for this position and to define a reference framework for the study, previous literature was analyzed. In the framework, both internal and external development integration are assumed to be positively related to time performance; however, these relationships are moderated by product vision. The model was then tested empirically on an international sample of 157 firms to verify and to obtain empirical support for the hypothesized relationships. The results confirm the importance of external integration in achieving better time performance. However, the influence of this driver on cycle time can also be increased by the presence of a very well‐defined product vision. The relationship between internal integration and time performance is more complex. Though it seems to slow down the process as a single factor, its interaction effect with product vision is in fact positive. These results have several managerial implications. First, externally integrated development can greatly improve time performance; however, the best results in terms of acceleration can be obtained when there is a well‐defined product vision. Furthermore, product vision is essential in the case of internal integration: A cross‐functional process alone would not be enough for development acceleration in the absence of product vision. Hence, managers interested in obtaining high time performances should accompany the adoption of integration mechanisms with increased attention to sharing clear objectives and directions with all those—both inside the firm (i.e., team members and functional representatives) and outside the firm (i.e., customers and suppliers)—involved in development and as well as throughout the firm.     

Technological Innovativeness as a Moderator of New Product Design Integration and Top Management Support

Many war stories, as well as a number of empirical research studies, point to the value of design integration and top management support in new product development (NPD) efforts, where design integration is conceptualized as the coordination of product and process design activities performed by various organizational groups. However, some emerging evidence suggests that these aspects of program management are not equally valuable in all NPD contexts. Furthermore, the benefits of these approaches may not extend to all dimensions of NPD performance. This article addresses these issues as they relate to technological innovativeness. The author reports the results of a research study designed to (1) assess the direct contributions of design integration and top management support to several dimensions of NPD performance, and (2) identify potential moderating influences of technological innovativeness on these direct effects. A survey of 136 NPD projects drawn from firms representing most of the major U.S. manufacturing industries provides data for the study. The overall goals of the study were to amplify our understanding of management's role in NPD and to further the development of contingency theory explaining new product success. The results indicate that design integration is positively associated with higher design quality in NPD, but it is not significantly linked with better financial performance. In addition, design integration appears to be an important influence on achieving NPD time goals, but only in cases of high technological innovativeness. This result suggests that increased design integration produces its greatest impacts when development processes are full of uncertainty. Top management support is positively associated with better time‐based performance, design quality, and financial performance on the whole. However, a significant interaction effect suggests that high levels of top management support are ineffective in securing good financial performance in high technologically innovative environments. Other forces appear to be at work in these circumstances, making top management support less important. The article discusses the implications of these findings for management practice, a contingency‐oriented view of NPD processes, and future research.     

New Product Development Practices and Early‐Stage Firms: Two In‐Depth Case Studies

New product development practices (NPD) have been well studied for decades in large, established companies. Implementation of best practices such as predevelopment market planning and cross‐functional teams have been positively correlated with product and project success over a variety of measures. However, for small new ventures, field research into ground‐level adoption of NPD practices is lacking. Because of the risks associated with missteps in new product development and the potential for firm failure, understanding NPD within the new venture context is critical. Through in‐depth case research, this paper investigates two successful physical product‐based early‐stage firms' development processes versus large established firm norms. The research focuses on the start‐up adoption of commonly prescribed management processes to improve NPD, such as cross‐functional teams, use of market planning during innovation development, and the use of structured processes to guide the development team. This research has several theoretical implications. The first finding is that in comparing the innovation processes of these firms to large, established firms, the study found several key differences from the large firm paradigm. These differences in development approach from what is prescribed for large, established firms are driven by necessity from a scarcity of resources. These new firms simply did not have the resources (financial or human) to create multi‐ or cross‐functional teams or organizations in the traditional sense for their first product. Use of virtual resources was pervasive. Founders also played multiple roles concurrently in the organization, as opposed to relying on functional departments so common in large firms. The NPD process used by both firms was informal—much more skeletal than commonly recommended structured processes. The data indicated that these firms put less focus on managing the process and more emphasis on managing their goals (the main driver being getting the first product to market). In addition to little or no written procedures being used, development meetings did not run to specific paper‐based deliverables or defined steps. In terms of market and user insight, these activities were primarily performed inside the core team—using methods that again were distinctive in their approach. What drove a project to completion was relying on team experience or a “learn as you go approach.” Again, the driver for this type of truncated market research approach was a lack of resources and need to increase the project's speed‐to‐market. Both firms in our study were highly successful, from not only an NPD efficiency standpoint but also effectiveness. The second broad finding we draw from this work is that there are lessons to be learned from start‐ups for large, established firms seeking ever‐increasing efficiency. We have found that small empowered teams leading projects substantial in scope can be extremely effective when roles are expanded, decision power is ground‐level, and there is little emphasis on defined processes. This exploratory research highlights the unique aspects of NPD within small early‐stage firms, and highlights areas of further research and management implications for both small new ventures and large established firms seeking to increase NPD efficiency and effectiveness.     

Integration of Finance with Marketing and R&D in New Product Development: The Role of Project Stage

While the interfaces of marketing, research and development (R&D), and manufacturing in product development have been extensively studied, no large‐scale empirical study has focused on finance's role in the product development team. The present research investigates the role of finance in cross‐functional product development teams, thereby extending existing research on cross‐functional integration in product development. A set of hypotheses is tested with a survey of 389 project team leaders and top management team members from companies in the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, and Austria. The findings suggest that the integration of finance in cross‐functional teams positively impacts project performance and that the importance of the finance interface depends on the project development stage and the innovativeness of the product developed. The results indicate that the R&D–finance interface is most critical at the early stage of a project, while the marketing–finance interface is most important at the late stage, and that the integration between R&D and finance is especially useful in the development of less innovative products.     

Company Competencies as a Network: The Role of Product Development

Product development managers and academics like to assure themselves and each other that new product development is one of the most critical areas of company competence and contributes positively to company success. But does top management agree? Because if they do not, the consequences will heavily influence the resource allocation to product development and career possibilities of new product developments manager. This study examines how top managers view the importance of product development relative to other central competence areas. Although asking managers about their perception is one way of evaluating the importance, its contribution to company success is another important measure. In this study, the impact of product development, relative to other important competence areas, is measured to assess further how critical product development is for overall company success.The authors investigate these matters in a survey of top managers in 513 Danish production companies. Ten areas important for achieving company objectives are identified. These are product development, market intelligence, production management, strategy and vision, sales, market responsiveness, promotion, internal co-operation, image, and supply management. Product development is rated a fairly important competence as it ranks number four, with sales, market responsiveness, and production management ranking numbers one to three. Yet a distressing negative impact on overall company success is found for product development proficiency, whereas success is positively related to production management, image, and differentiation of products. Further analysis reveals that product development contributes positively to success by enabling product differentiation and enhancing promotion proficiency. Influenced by and influencing many other competencies, product development is found to be a central competence.Results support a nonfunctional and broad perspective of how bundles of competences interact and impact on success and establish a positive overall contribution to product development.     

A Cross‐National Comparative Study of Senior Management Policy,Marketing–Manufacturing Involvement,and Innovation Performance

The marketing–manufacturing interface is important to the success of product development. This research investigates the effect of senior management policies on the effectiveness of the marketing–manufacturing interface. Based on existing literature, a conceptual framework is developed that relates senior management policies, marketing–manufacturing involvement, and new product performance. The proposed framework is contingent on the national culture of the country in which product development occurs. Structural equation modeling is used to test the framework with data from a sample of 146 U.S. marketing managers and 185 Japanese marketing managers. The results suggest that a number of senior management policies are effective in promoting joint involvement between the marketing and manufacturing functions during the innovation process. While the use of formal cross‐functional integration policies was found to promote marketing–manufacturing involvement both in the United States and Japan, team leader autonomy, team rewards, and job rotation were found to promote marketing involvement in the United States but not in Japan. On the other hand, promoting marketing–manufacturing involvement via goal clarity and promotion of teamwork proved to be effective in Japan. The results have a number of implications for product development practice. Foremost among these is the finding that, despite the fundamental ideological differences separating the marketing and manufacturing functions, senior management policies can enhance the level of marketing–manufacturing involvement, and consequently can improve the likelihood of new product success. The second implication is that the effectiveness of specific senior management policies depends on national culture. Thus, managers wishing to improve the marketing–manufacturing interface should select the policies that match the culture in which the product development project is located.     

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.     

A Closer Look at Cross‐functional R&D Cooperation for Innovativeness: Innovation‐oriented Leadership and Human Resource Practices as Driving Forces

Because cross‐functional research and development (R&D) cooperation appears to drive innovation, many firms have invested considerably in it. However, despite substantial efforts to improve information and communication infrastructures or to bring departments in closer proximity with one another, structural investments often fail to produce the desired positive impact on cross‐functional R&D cooperation. This failure may arise because firms undertaking these structural investments do not manage their employees adequately. Extant research acknowledges the importance of motivating and enabling members of the R&D function to cooperate with other functions. Yet empirical studies investigating the relative importance of leadership and different human resource (HR) practices for enhancing cross‐functional R&D cooperation are scarce. Drawing on the resource‐based view and organizational support theory, this study investigates how innovation‐oriented leadership and HR practices might support members of the R&D function and encourage cross‐functional R&D cooperation, which enhances product program innovativeness. Specifically, members of the R&D function who are supported in their innovation efforts through innovation‐oriented leadership and HR practices should reciprocate for the support they receive by intensifying their cross‐functional cooperation to achieve greater product program innovativeness. Relying on multi‐informant data from 125 firms with assessments from marketing and R&D managers, this study shows that innovation‐oriented leadership and HR practices have different effects on cross‐functional R&D cooperation. A structural equation modeling‐based analysis of the hypothesized relationships reveals that innovation‐oriented leadership, rewards, and training and development have considerable positive effects. In contrast, recruitment does not drive cross‐functional R&D cooperation. Because firms usually operate in dynamic markets, and increasingly acquire relevant information from customers when generating innovations, this study also considers market‐related dynamism and customer integration as important contingency factors. For firms facing market‐related dynamism and those relying on customer integration, leadership and training and development are particularly effective for enhancing cross‐functional R&D cooperation. By integrating two theoretical perspectives, this study not only advances knowledge on the antecedents of cross‐functional R&D cooperation, but also helps explain differences in their relative effectiveness. Furthermore, it both adds to the discussion of whether monetary rewards are appropriate means to foster innovation and challenges existing assumptions about the role of recruiting for innovation.     

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.     

Interdepartmental Integration: A Definition with Implications for Product Development Performance

Improved interdepartmental integration yields improved product development performance. But what do we mean by interdepartmental integration? Is it increased interaction between the various departments involved in product development—in other words, more meetings and other formal information flows between R&D marketing and manufacturing? Or is the term integration another way of saying collaboration—that is, various departments working collectively toward common goals? Or are collaboration and interaction both important elements of interdepartmental integration? Kenneth B. Kahn presents the results of a study exploring how collaboration and interaction affect product development performance and product management (post-launch) performance. Survey respondents are marketing, manufacturing, and R&D department managers working for firms in the electronics industry. It is hypothesized that both collaboration and interaction between departments will positively influence product development performance and product management performance. It is further hypothesized that collaboration will have a stronger effect than interaction. The survey responses indicate that collaboration has a strong, positive effect on performance. (The only exception is the effect of manufacturing managers' collaboration with marketing on product development success; the effect of this variable is not statistically significant). However, interaction does not have a significant effect on product development performance or product management performance. In fact, the responses indicate negative effects for meetings and the exchange of documented information. The results support increased emphasis on company policies that facilitate collaboration between departments as opposed to those that only stress meetings and documented information exchange. Although a certain level of interaction is necessary throughout the product development process, such interaction doesn't lead to success; collaboration makes the difference between success and failure. To best manage interdepartmental integration, managers should first assess their firm's levels of interdepartmental collaboration and interaction. The scales presented in this study can be used for this benchmarking effort. The results of this assessment can be used for developing and implementing an action plan for improving interdepartmental integration. For example, a manager faced with a prevailing interaction philosophy might seek to reduce the number of meetings or the amount of paperwork flowing between departments.     

The effect of new product development techniques on new product success in Spanish firms

The rate of market and technological changes has accelerated in the last years. This turbulent environment requires new methods and techniques to bring successful new products to the marketplace. Much attention has focused on new development techniques, but little empirical research has been conducted to validate these techniques. In this study, the relationship between popular new development techniques and new product success is examined. Our findings suggest that only a subset of these popular techniques is significantly related with new product success in Spanish firms. The study also identifies the main contributors to new product development (NPD) effectiveness in Spanish firms.     

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.     

New Product Development Processes and New Product Profitability: Exploring the Mediating Role of Speed to Market and Product Quality

In new product development, faster is not always better. Conceptually, being faster to market should improve financial performance by improving product quality and reducing development expenses. Empirical support is mixed, however, demonstrating that higher speed to market exhibits an inverted U‐shaped relationship with product profitability. Conventional wisdom and empirical research suggest managers make speed to market–product quality–development expense trade‐offs. A particular concern regarding speed to market is that extreme speed may jeopardize product quality. Some researchers suggest that speed to market improves product quality while others suggest firms must balance both speed to market and product quality. Also, shorter lead times may be associated with reduced development expenses, but empirical evidence is conflicting. This research attempts to reconcile conflicting results regarding the speed to market–product quality relationship, their joint impact on product profitability, and their mediation role in the effects of development expenses and cross‐functional integration on product profitability. Partial least squares (PLS) is used to analyze multiplexed archival and survey data collected from NPD managers for 1115 different NPD projects in several firms. The results support the hypothesized equations, explaining 27% of speed to market variance, 35% of product quality variance, and 45% of product profitability variance. This study makes two contributions. First, because speed to market and product quality are related, simultaneous consideration of both factors enhances insight into their joint effect. Second, it provides evidence that speed to market and product quality jointly mediate development expense by NPD phase and cross‐functional integration effects on product profitability. Key results from the large sample data analysis include the following. Speed to market and product quality both enhance product profitability, but the impact of speed to market is larger than that of product quality. Speed to market and product quality partially mediate the impact of fuzzy front end phase expenses on product profitability, while expenses in the latter phases exhibit no impact on the mediators or profitability. Thus, the results suggest that trade‐offs are made not only between time, quality, and expense (i.e., if additional expenses are incurred at all), but also that trade‐offs relate to when (i.e., in which NPD phase) additional development expenses are incurred. Finally, cross‐functional integration (both internal and external) substantially impacts product profitability through a mix of direct and mediated effects.     

PERSPECTIVE: Trends and Drivers of Success in NPD Practices: Results of the 2003 PDMA Best Practices Study*

Since 1990, the Product Development & Management Association (PDMA) has sponsored best practice research projects to identify trends in new product development (NPD) management practices and to discern which practices are associated with higher degrees of success. The objective of this ongoing research is to assist managers in determining how to improve their own product development methods and practices. This paper presents results, recommendations, and implications for NPD practice stemming from PDMA's third best practices study, which was conducted in 2003. In the eight years since the previous best practices study was conducted, firms have become slightly more conservative in the portfolio of projects, with lower percentages of the total number of projects in the new‐to‐the‐world and new‐to‐the‐firm categories. Although success rates and development efficiencies have remained stable, this more conservative approach to NPD seems to have negatively impacted the sales and profits impact of the new products that have been commercialized. As formal processes for NPD are now the norm, attention is moving to managing the multiple projects across the portfolio in a more orchestrated manner. Finally, firms are implementing a wide variety of software support tools for various aspects of NPD. NPD areas still seriously in need of improved management include idea management, project leadership and training, cross‐functional training and team communication support, and innovation support and leadership by management. In terms of aspects of NPD management that differentiate the “best from the rest,” the findings indicate that the best firms emphasize and integrate their innovation strategy across all the levels of the firm, better support their people and team communications, conduct extensive experimentation, and use numerous kinds of new methods and techniques to support NPD. All companies appear to continue to struggle with the recording of ideas and making them readily available to others in the organization, even the best. What remains unclear is whether there is a preferable approach for organizing the NPD endeavor, as no one organizational approach distinguished top NPD performers.     

Reputational Effectiveness in Cross-Functional Working Relationships

The work of innovation management involves cross‐functional coordination among specialists and managers with different work orientations, time horizons, professional backgrounds, and values ( Ford and Randolph, 1992 ). While strong connections across functions are critical for new product development success ( Green et al., 2000 ), some managers may be more adept at fostering effective cross‐functional relationships than others. In this article, the authors empirically examine the factors that distinguish reputationally effective innovation workers from their less effective peers. Drawing on the work of Tsui (1984, 1994) , reputational effectiveness is defined as the degree to which a manager has been responsive to the needs and expectations of constituents. This research examines the relational skills and interaction patterns of more (versus less) reputationally effective managers. A large business unit of a Fortune 500 telecommunications firm provided the context for our study. Using a two‐phase approach, the authors first captured the social network patterns of 268 managers from marketing, research and development (R&D), manufacturing, and other business functions that were involved in the new product development process. In addition, the reputational effectiveness of each person who was identified as a member of the network was measured. In the second phase, the authors examined the relational competencies (e.g., role‐taking ability, interpersonal control, openness) of the managers who participated in Phase I of the research. As predicted, the results indicate that role‐taking ability is related positively to a manager's reputational effectiveness. No support, however, was found for the relationship between interpersonal control and reputational effectiveness. Interestingly, the authors found evidence of an inverse relationship between openness and effectiveness. By sharing too much information—or alternatively information that does not relate to the task at hand—the reputational effectiveness of a manager is damaged. Importantly, the results reveal that the social network characteristics of a reputationally effective manager differ from those of less effective managers. Closeness centrality, a measure of the degree of access one has to other organizational members, was associated strongly with reputational effectiveness. The results demonstrate that managers who are successful in working across functions appreciate the cognitive and emotional perspectives of diverse constituents and develop relationship ties that provide them with ready access to others across the organization.     

The Impact of Organizational Integration and Product Development Proficiency on Market Success

This research investigates three major hypotheses important to new product market success: the greater organizational integration during the development of new products, the greater the market success; the greater organizational integration during the development of new products, the greater new product development proficiency; and the greater new product development proficiency, the greater the market success. “Organizational integration” is defined as the degree of cooperation and communication between internal and external NPD “support” groups and NPD teams. “NPD process proficiency” is defined as how well new product development stages and the new product development process as a whole is performed. “New product market success” is represented by four measures: the degree to which profits and sales exceeded or fell short of what was expected, and the degree to which the new product was perceived to exceed or fall short of expectations related to entering existing and new markets. Information was obtained concerning the most and least successful new products of U.S. firms in the medical instruments, the electrical equipment, and the heavy construction equipment industries. The field survey approach was utilized in which surveys were mailed to recipients such as new product development managers who already had been designated by executives of the sample firms. Several important findings were uncovered during this research. Overall organizational integration was found to be significantly associated with new product market success. Internal integration, the coordination between new product development teams and functional departments, was found to be significantly related to product market success. A significant relationship between new product development proficiency during the NPD “post-launch stage” and the degree of integration between an NPD team and external NPD organizations, such as customers and suppliers, was detected. During the post-launch stage, new product development proficiency also was found to be significantly related to new product market success. These findings suggest several important implications for new product development managers and scholars.