Influences of cross-functional collaboration and knowledge creation on technology commercialization: Evidence from high-tech industries

Technology commercialization (TC) contributes to maintaining the competitive advantage of high-tech firms, but although researchers have established that product innovation and new product development are enhanced by cross-functional collaboration and organizational knowledge activities, this may not be the case for TC. Drawing on the knowledge-based view and the influence of cross-functional collaboration, the main goal of this study is to unravel the relationships among cross-functional collaboration, knowledge creation and TC performance in the high-tech industry context. Empirical findings from our survey of 203 marketing and R&D managers and employees in Taiwanese high-tech companies indicate that cross-function collaboration reveals fresh opportunities for creating knowledge and commercializing technologies. Our results also suggest that knowledge creation plays an important role in TC performance by partially mediating the relationship between cross-functional collaboration and TC performance. The contributions of this study provide new insights into industrial marketing literature by proposing a cross-functional collaboration-enabled TC model that takes into account the effect of knowledge creation.     

The effectiveness of different mechanisms for integrating marketing and R&D

The integration of marketing and R&D is a major concern for companies that want to improve their new product performance (NPP). For this integration, companies are using mechanisms such as physical proximity, cross-functional teams, and job rotation. This study examines the effectiveness of these mechanisms by developing a model that distinguishes between indirect effects of mechanisms on NPP (i.e., through a higher level of integration) and direct effects. The model is tested with data collected from 148 pharmaceutical companies. We were able to measure and compare the effectiveness of seven different integration mechanisms, which produced insights that are interesting and relevant for theory as well as practice.
We found that housing marketing and R&D closer to each other and using an influential cross-functional phase review board are the most effective mechanisms to foster integration. Equal remuneration and career opportunities for marketing and R&D and cross-functional teams are somewhat less effective, whereas personnel movement and informal social group events contribute little. ICT appears to be a very effective tool for enhancing NPP. ICT not only fosters integration between marketing and R&D, but it also has an independent direct positive effect on NPP. Through ICT the day-to-day communication between the different parties in the companies becomes much easier, and we think that this fosters the knowledge creation process within marketing and R&D. For cross-functional phase review boards we found a negative direct effect on NPP. Notwithstanding its strong positive effect on integration, a price is paid in terms of NPP. This may be related to the amount of formalization and complexity accompanying this mechanism.     

International R&D partnerships and intrafirm R&D–marketing–production integration of manufacturing firms in emerging economies

Although cross-functional integration is important for research and development (R&D), research about implications of cross-functional integration has been rather sparse. In new product development (NPD), no study to date has examined intrafirm as well as interfirm integration of key functions such as intrafirm R&D–marketing–production together with interfirm integration of host R&D–partner R&D. Such marketing and operations interface contributes to a better understanding of how operational and marketing activities impact on competitiveness and firm performance. This study collected data from 202 electronics manufacturing firms operating in an emerging economy, mainland China and Hong Kong with international R&D partnerships. The findings indicate that a high level of R&D integration between firms improved NPD performance when cross-functional integration is based on existing rather than new product configurations and key technologies. Interestingly, in high distance situations, cross-functional integration in the production validation stage generated NPD success. The findings show that high environmental uncertainties lead to a high level of host and partner firms R&D integration. However, product newness has no significant effects on R&D integration in any of the NPD stages.     

Does the use of knowledge integration mechanisms enhance product innovativeness?

This study draws upon the perspectives of organizational learning and environmental contingency to investigate how the use of knowledge integration mechanisms affects product innovativeness under different levels of technological turbulence, market turbulence, and competitive intensity. Based on a sample of 102 high-tech product projects, hierarchical moderated regression analyses reveal that product innovativeness is related to knowledge integration mechanisms in a curvilinear manner under different levels of competitive intensity, market turbulence, and technological turbulence. Specifically, under a low level of competitive intensity, market turbulence and technological turbulence, the relationship between knowledge integration mechanisms and product innovativeness is an inverted U-shape. By contrast, under a high level of competitive intensity, market turbulence, and technological turbulence, product innovativeness is related to knowledge integration mechanisms in a U-shaped manner.     

Lifting the veil on the link between absorptive capacity and innovation: The roles of cross-functional integration and customer orientation

Drawing on the integration of organizational learning, contingency theory, and theory of jobs to be done, this study develops a moderated mediation model of how a firm's absorptive capacity influences innovation performance. We hypothesize that cross-functional integration may mediate the absorptive capacity-innovation performance link and that customer orientation may positively moderate the mediating effect of cross-functional integration. To test our hypotheses, we conducted a mail survey of manufacturing firms, obtaining 456 valid responses for data analysis. Regression and bootstrap analyses reveal that cross-functional integration partially mediates the effect of absorptive capacity on innovation and that customer orientation enhances the mediated effect. Specifically, the mediating effect of cross-functional integration is stronger and significant when customer orientation is high. In contrast, the mediating effect of cross-functional integration is weaker and insignificant when customer orientation is low. Overall, this study's findings contribute to advances in marketing theory on innovation by identifying cross-functional integration and customer orientation as two key factors that together explain why and under what conditions absorptive capacity affects innovation. The findings also advise managers that in addition to developing absorptive capacity, firms should cultivate a strong customer orientation, which directs cross-functional integration toward converting external knowledge into increased innovation performance.     

An Examination of Collaboration in High-Technology New Product Development Processes

For more than a decade, researchers have explored the benefits of eliminating organizational boundaries between participants in the new product development (NPD) process. In turn, companies have revamped their NPD processes and organizational structures to deploy cross-functional teams. These efforts toward interfunctional integration have produced a more responsive NPD process, but they don’t represent the endgame in the quest for more effective NPD. What’s next after the interfunctional walls come down?Pointing out that many high-tech firms have already taken such steps as integrating customers and suppliers into the NPD process, Avan Jassawalla and Hemant Sashittal suggest that such firms need to go beyond integration and start thinking in terms of collaboration. Using information from a study of 10 high-tech industrial firms, they identify factors that seem to increase cross-functional collaboration in NPD, and they develop a conceptual framework that relates those factors to the level of cross-functional collaboration achieved in the NPD process.Compared to integration, collaboration is described as a more complex, higher intensity cross-functional linkage. In addition to high levels of integration, their definition of cross-functional collaboration includes the sense of an equal stake in NPD outcomes, the absence of hidden agendas, and a willingness on the part of participants to understand and accept differences while remaining focused on the organization’s common objectives. Collaboration also involves synergy—that is, the NPD outcomes exceed the sum of the capabilities of the individual participants in the NPD process.Their framework suggests that structural mechanisms such as cross-functional teams can provide significant increases in NPD-related interfunctional integration. However, high levels of integration do not necessarily equate to high levels of collaboration. Characteristics of the organization and the participants also affect the level of collaboration. For example, achieving a high level of collaboration depends on participants who contribute an openness to change, a willingness to cooperate, and a high level of trust. Their framework also points to key organizational factors that affect the level of collaboration—for example, the priority that senior management gives to NPD and the level of autonomy afforded to participants in the NPD process.     

A dynamic model of supplier–customer product development collaboration strategies

This study examines transitions between different types of product development collaboration in supplier–customer settings, the events that trigger such transitions, and the emerging requirements for suppliers. The current study contributes to the literature regarding supplier and customer involvement by combining previously discovered types of collaboration into a dynamic model that describes these different types as alternative modes of collaboration that can be implemented in a relationship. Transitions between different types of collaboration are identified in a longitudinal case study. Three of the four transitions identified took place in the same dyad, which demonstrates that it is possible to change the type of collaboration without losing the advantages of a long-term relationship with a customer. The most radical change in collaboration—the change from supplier involvement to customer involvement—involved temporarily discontinuing the original relationship, which indicates that this transition incorporates the highest risk of relationship termination. By offering a dynamic model for product development collaboration, this study is the first to analyze changes between different types of customer–supplier product development collaboration from a supplier's perspective. The dynamic view is important for companies seeking to take advantage of their long-term relationships instead of starting new ones when new requirements for product development collaboration emerge.     

The performance impact of post-M&A interdepartmental integration: An empirical analysis

This study investigates how post-M&A interdepartmental integration affects the efficiency and effectiveness of new product development (NPD).The total sample size was 251 respondents. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM) were used for statistical analysis. Analytical results indicate that, although collaboration interdepartmental integration positively correlates with product vision, interaction interdepartmental interaction integration does not reach a significant level. Despite the fact that some interaction is essential when developing new product competitive advantage (NPCA), such interaction does not necessarily achieve success. Further, product vision positively correlates with new product competitive advantage and NPD performance, and new product competitive advantage positively correlates with NPD performance. In addition, an examination of the mediation effect in terms of Sobel t-test reveals that product vision is a significant mediator for the influence of interdepartmental integration on new product competitive advantage, while the new product competitive advantage is also a significant mediator for the influence of interdepartmental integration on NPD performance. Moreover, this study provides a framework for managing post-M&A integration and closes with a discussion of the theoretical and practical implications of the research findings.     

Transforming entrepreneurial posture into a superior first product market position via dynamic capabilities and TMT prior start-up experience

First product commercialization is the first entrepreneurial act of new technology ventures. However, little is known about mechanisms that transform these firms' entrepreneurial posture into first product advantage. Building on the dynamic capability view of the firm, this study examines the role of capabilities exploitation (i.e., in the form of complementarity), top management team start-up experience, cross-functional collaboration and information and communication technology assets in driving entrepreneurial posture toward first product advantage. A multi-informant study of 137 B2B new technology ventures was undertaken. The results show that entrepreneurial posture can contribute to first product advantage indirectly by fostering R&D-marketing capability complementarity. Furthermore, our results indicate that the entrepreneurial posture - capabilities complementarity relationship is augmented when top management team possess prior start-up experience. Finally, our findings indicate that the benefits of R&D-marketing capability complementarity for first product advantage are contingent on the exploitation of cross-functional collaboration and ICT capabilities.     

An Empirical Study of the Relationships among Co-location, Integration, Performance, and Satisfaction

Co-locate or perish. In this era of cross-functional integration, are these the only choices for the departments that participate in the new product development (NPD) process? Bringing together different departments certainly seems like a good idea. After all, breaking down the walls between functions improves the quality of the inputs to NPD and thus increases the likelihood of success. On the other hand, a firm would be ill-advised to implement co-location simply because it seems like a good idea. Such a complex undertaking requires careful consideration of the costs, the benefits, and the effects of co-location. Noting the need for more in-depth knowledge in this area, Kenneth Kahn and Edward McDonough present the results of a study that explores several issues regarding co-location and its relationship to interdepartmental integration, performance, and satisfaction. For example, does co-location relate directly to improved performance and satisfaction in working with personnel from other departments? Or does co-location play a moderating role, fostering improved interdepartmental collaboration and interaction, which in turn increase performance and satisfaction? And finally, do the effects of co-location depend on which departments are involved? For example, do the benefits of co-locating marketing and R&D exceed those of co-locating manufacturing and R&D? The 514 survey respondents work as department managers in member companies of the Electronic Industries Association. The study includes an even distribution of responses from managers of marketing, manufacturing, and R&D departments. Most respondents have firsthand knowledge of the effects of colocation; 68% of the marketing managers report that they are co-located with manufacturing, and 80% of the marketing managers are co-located with R&D. R&D and manufacturing managers fall between those levels, with roughly 75% indicating that they are co-located with the other departments. While generally supporting the premise that co-location is helpful for integrating departments, the survey results indicate that co-location has department-specific effects. For example, the findings indicate that co-location facilities collaboration between R&D and marketing, but not between manufacturing and the other departments. The findings do not point to a direct relationship between co-location and performance. On the other hand, the results suggest direct links between collaboration and both performance and satisfaction.     

程序公平对新产品开发成功的影响——跨职能整合的中介作用

本文通过对中外汽车合资企业的实地调研，提出将程序公平引入现有关于跨职能整合与新产品开发成功的模型中，并进一步提出跨职能整合在合资企业程序公平与新产品开发成功关系中的中介作用。通过对获取数据的分析，发现合资企业程序公平不仅可以直接影响合资企业的新产品开发成功，而且也可以通过跨职能整合间接影响新产品开发成功，而跨职能整合在程序公平与新产品开发成功关系中起中介作用。     

Managing R&D-marketing integration in the new product development process

Cross-functional coordination and collaboration between R&D and marketing is crucial to the success of the new product development process. By understanding how organizational characteristics influence the quality and quantity of information exchanged during the planning and implementation stages of innovation, managers can take steps to increase the communication within their firm, and thereby increase the probability of new product development success. This examines the effects of several organizational characteristics posited to play an important role in the effective cross-functional information exchange using data collected from 376 U.S. firms. The authors found (1) positive impacts on information exchange are attributed to a formalized system of procedural interaction, the quality of the cross-functional relationship, and a joint-rewards structure; and (2) the quality and quantity of cross-functional information exchanges are influenced negatively by the lack of credibility, and positively by rewards for interaction and a high quality of cross-functional relationship.     

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.     

Shared knowledge and product design glitches in integrated product development

Product development processes based on the joint collaboration of the cross-functional team, suppliers, and customers can minimize project glitches. Glitches in the product development project can cause project cost over-runs and delay a project past when first mover advantages are possible. While previous theoretical work has suggested a negative relationship between shared knowledge and product development glitches, empirical studies have not identified how different types of shared knowledge are associated with each other and the design glitches. This study proposes a model of the relationship between specific types of shared knowledge and design glitches in integrated product development (IPD) projects. We test our model using a sample of 191 projects from the automotive industry in the United States. The major findings were that: (1) shared knowledge of the development process can be built by improving a team's shared knowledge of customers, suppliers, and internal capabilities, (2) shared knowledge of the development process for a project reduces product design glitches, and (3) reduced product design glitches improve product development time, cost, and customer satisfaction.     

Salesperson competitive intelligence and performance: The role of product knowledge and sales force automation usage

This research models and tests the relationship between a salesperson's product knowledge, competitive intelligence behaviors (SCIB), and performance. Moreover, the research examines how a salesperson's use of a sales force automation (SFA) system influences the knowledge–SCIB–performance relationship. Our model and empirical evidence suggest that a salesperson's product knowledge influences performance indirectly through SCIB, and that this indirect influence is moderated by salesperson SFA use. Results show that the indirect positive influence of salesperson product knowledge on salesperson performance through SCIB is attenuated as SFA use increases, and enhanced when SFA use decreases. Theoretical and managerial implications are presented, followed by a discussion of limitations and future research.     

The Impact of Cross-Functional Joint Involvement Across Product Development Stages: An Exploratory Study

Cross-functional integration offers numerous, well-documented benefits for new-product development (NPD), but it also can carry significant costs. Joint involvement of R&D, manufacturing, and marketing personnel can increase the quality, the manufacturability, and the marketability of the final product. However, building consensus among these groups, with their differing perspectives and goals, may require time-consuming meetings as well as tremendous finesse from the managers who guide the NPD effort. Those managers require an approach to cross-functional integration that strikes a balance between efficiency and effectiveness. X. Michael Song, R. Jeffrey Thieme, and Jinhong Xie propose that the right mix of cross-functional involvement may differ depending on the stage in the NPD process. They also suggest that blindly promoting the involvement of all functional areas in all stages of the NPD process may actually decrease NPD performance. They test these propositions in a study that examines the relationships between new product performance and cross-functional joint involvement between R&D, manufacturing, and marketing in five major stages of the NPD process: market opportunity analysis, planning, development, pretesting, and launch. Their objective in this study is to identify patterns of effective cross-functional involvement in different NPD stages. The study uses data collected from 236 managers working in the R&D, manufacturing, and marketing departments of 16 Fortune 500 firms. Their findings suggest that new-product success may be more likely when a firm employs function-specific and stage-specific patterns of cross-functional integration than it is when the firm attempts to integrate all functions during all NPD stages. For example, during the market opportunity analysis stage, the findings suggest that joint involvement between R&D and marketing may be productive, but joint involvement between R&D and manufacturing and among all three functions may be counterproductive. The results also indicate that joint involvement among all three functions either does not have a significant effect on new product success or may be counterproductive in all stages of the NPD process. For the firms in this study, the three functions seem to take turns playing the central role in cross-functional activities. During the product planning, development, and testing phases, the role of the focal function, or communication hub, shifts from manufacturing to R&D and then to marketing. (c) 1998 Elsevier Science Inc.     

Effects of collaborative communication on the development of market-relating capabilities and relational performance metrics in industrial markets

Research in marketing suggests that collaborative communication is important for firms to sustain competitive advantage, especially in industrial markets. This study integrates relational and resource-based views to articulate how collaborative communication influences different relational performance metrics. Based on a survey of 167 marketing executives in Taiwan's electronics industry, empirical findings indicate that market-relating capabilities (i.e., market-linking and marketing capabilities) completely mediate the collaborative communication–financial performance relationship, while market-relating capabilities partially mediate the collaborative communication–customer-focused performance relationship. In addition, collaborative communication directly influences customer cooperation performance instead of indirectly affecting it through the development of market-relating capabilities. The results of this study provide new insights into the role of collaborative communication as well as important theoretical and managerial implications.     

Examining cross-functional coopetition as a driver of organizational ambidexterity

Despite the growing number of articles on coopetition, research in the area still lacks insights into this phenomenon on an intraorganizational level. Therefore, this study examines the effect of cross-functional, firm-internal coopetition on organizational ambidexterity (i.e., exploitation and exploration) and the moderating role of social cohesion. Drawing on organizational learning theory and analyzing survey data obtained from 392 department heads and project leaders of new product development teams, we demonstrate that cross-functional coopetition has a significant positive effect on exploratory innovation. Moreover, we find support for the moderating influence of social cohesion on the relationship between coopetition and exploitative innovation. These results not only provide valuable insights for managers in the fields of new product development and innovation, they also highlight the need for further research on the dynamic interplay of competitive and cooperative elements within firms.     

Antecedents and Consequences of Cross-Functional Cooperation: A Comparison of R&D, Manufacturing, and Marketing Perspectives

By breaking down the walls among the R&D, manufacturing, and marketing functions, techniques such as concurrent engineering and quality function deployment can pave the way to more effective new product development (NPD). Recognizing the benefits of such cross-functional efforts, practitioners and researchers have examined the interrelationships among various groups in the NPD process, paying particularly close attention to the R&D–marketing interface. However, manufacturing also plays an important role in NPD. Consequently, any thorough exploration of the relationship between cross-functional cooperation and NPD success must consider manufacturing's perspective. X. Michael Song, Mitzi M. Montoya-Weiss, and Jeffrey B. Schmidt provide such a balanced perspective in a study of cross-functional cooperation during NPD in Mexican high-tech firms. Notwithstanding the differing functional goals, objectives, and reward systems present in R&D, manufacturing and marketing, they hypothesize that all three functions recognize that successful NPD requires crossfunctional cooperation. In particular, they expect that representatives of these three functional groups will share similar perceptions, regarding both the drivers and the consequences of cross-functional cooperation. The survey results support the hypothesis that R&D, manufacturing, and marketing professionals share the same perceptions, regarding the drivers and the consequences of cross-functional cooperation. Respondents from all three groups view internal facilitators as the drivers of cross-functional cooperation. In other words, regardless of their functional area, the survey respondents believe that the strongest, most direct effects on cross-functional cooperation and NPD performance come from a firm's evaluation criteria, reward structures, and management expectations. Respondents perceive these internal facilitators as having a greater effect on cross-functional cooperation than that of external forces such as market competitiveness and technological change. In fact, contrary to expectations, the respondents do not view these external forces as having a significant effect on cross-functional cooperation or NPD performance. And contrary to persistent reports about friction between technical and nontechnical personnel, all three groups perceive a strong, positive relationship between cross-functional communication and NPD performance.     

Building Dynamic Capabilities in New Product Development through Intertemporal Integration

Although successful development of a given product may help explain the current success of a firm, creating longer‐term competitive advantage demands significantly more attention to developing and nurturing dynamic integration capabilities. These capabilities propel product development activities in ways that build on and develop technological and marketing capabilities for future product development efforts and create platforms for future product development. In this article, we develop a conceptual model of a dynamic integration process in product development, which we call intertemporal integration (ITI). In its most general form ITI is defined as the process of collecting, interpreting, and internalizing technological and marketing capabilities from past new product development projects and incorporating that knowledge in a systematic and purposeful manner into the development of future new products. Research propositions outlining the relationship of ITI to performance are presented. We provide specific examples of managerial mechanisms to be used in implementing ITI. We conclude with implications for research and practice. Effective management of ITI can increase new product development success and long‐term competitive advantage. This implies that management needs to engage in activities that gather and transform information and knowledge from prior development projects so that it can be used in future development projects. Project audits, design databases in computer‐aided design (CAD) systems, engineering notebooks, collections of test and experimental results, market research and test market results, project management databases, and other activities will all be important in the acquisition of knowledge from prior new product development (NPD) projects. Managers also should initiate the creation and maintenance of databases of technical and marketing information from prior projects, job performance reports, seminars and workshops related to technological issues and advances, and publication of technical journals to assist in the process of knowledge acquisition. Similarly, techniques such as assigning project managers from earlier development projects, reusing key components and technologies, and developing a company‐wide methodology for managing projects can be used to boost the application and use of knowledge.