Factors Affecting the Process of Collaborative Product Development: A Study of UK Manufacturers of Information and Communications Technology Products

Product development is inherently risky, particularly when new technology is involved. Although collaborative product development is promoted as a means for reducing or at least sharing risk, such partnerships present their own challenges. Collaboration can also accentuate many of the risks inherent in product development. For example, any product development project requires effective communication among development team members. In a collaborative effort, this challenge is even greater because the development team spans organizational as well as functional boundaries. Dale Littler, Fiona Leverick, and Margaret Bruce describe the results of a survey that was conducted to identify the risks and benefits of collaborative product development as well as the key success factors for such relationships. The main reasons cited for collaborating on product development projects include satisfying customer requirements, taking advantage of market opportunities for which the firm lacks necessary skills and technical expertise, and responding to changes in technology. Other reasons for collaboration include reducing the cost and risk of product R&D, improving time to market, and gaining access to new markets. In addition to the risks associated with product development by a single company, the partners in a collaborative effort face several other challenges. For example, one company might gain inside knowledge of its partner's unique skills and expertise. Despite the cost and time involved in managing the collaboration, such a relationship usually results in less direct control over product development. Of particular concern are the difficulties of coordinating the divergent management styles and budgeting processes of the collaborating firms. Collaboration requires frequent communication among all involved parties. The likelihood of success is greatly enhanced by the presence of a product or collaboration champion. Other success factors include ensuring that partners contribute as expected, creating the perception of equal benefits among partners, and building trust between partners. Firms that are more experienced with collaboration also cite the importance of flexibility in corporate systems and management style, fit with existing businesses, and the choice of a partner.     

Identifying and prioritizing critical success factors for conflict management in collaborative new product development

Conflict management is crucial to the success of client-supplier collaborative new product development (NPD). This paper examines the critical success factors of conflict management in collaborative NPD. Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), the importance of 4 categories of success factors, namely relationship management, conflict handling system, new product development process management and communication, totally 13 factors, are prioritized. The results show that communication management, trust and commitment to the collaboration are the most important factors. Based on the factors identified, a hierarchy model of conflict management is proposed, with which clients and suppliers can formulate action plans for better conflict management.     

Collaboration: The Challenge of ICT

Information and communications technology (ICT) brings many potential benefits to technology education, though the evidence of improved performance on traditional tasks is not yet proven. Areas such as computer-aided design and manufacture are now becoming standard elements of any student's technology education. These applications of ICT require changes to the arrangements of the teaching and the learning, but teachers may see few implications for what is learned. Network technologies, on the other hand, offer a new dimension of ICT for tasks such as designing. These dimensions may require a transformation in some aspects of technology education. This article will outline what such networking could do for collaborative learning in technology education, drawing on recent findings from research on learning. It will explore an example of collaborative designing, to see how its potential can be exploited and how it may transform learning in a way that ICT has probably not done so far. Such an exploration will look at both 'learning to collaborate' and 'collaborating to learn', two inter-related themes that are important in, and for, modern design practice in the world outside schools, as well as in research on learning. Although the technologies may yet have to reach maturity to become reliable and easy enough to use in schools, technology educators must be prepared to exploit the learning potential, and this paper is intended to encourage that preparation. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

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.     

Effects of Collaborative Communication on NPD Collaboration Results: Two Routes of Influence

Although NPD collaboration with external partners has become the next generation in NPD practice, the discussion concerning how to organize collaboration so as to obtain better results is far from over. Since communication is the most important element in successful interfirm exchange, this study focuses on the impact of collaborative communication and its facets—frequency, formality, reciprocal feedback, and rationality—on NPD collaboration results. In order to explain how collaborative communication can best be managed to enhance NPD collaboration results, this research combines the relational and resource‐based views, proposing the existence of two routes of influence: the direct resource‐based route and the indirect relational route mediated by trust. Using a sample of 207 NPD collaboration projects of innovative firms, empirical findings indicate that reciprocal feedback–rationality and frequency play an important role in product quality and adherence to budget and schedule, respectively, even without trust. Moreover, the trust between partners substantially reinforces the positive influence of reciprocal feedback–rationality on NPD collaboration results and makes the effect of formality significant. Therefore, the two alternative routes are confirmed as important paths to new product success, which provides relevant managerial implications.     

Technological collaboration in the korean electronic parts industry: patterns and key success factors

This study empirically examines different patterns of collaborative technological development projects and the key success factors (KSFs), using data from 82 projects in the Korean electronic parts industry. The patterns of technological collaboration were categorized into 4 types by two contingency variables: development motive (technology–push or market–pull) and source of initiation (focal firm– or partner–initiated). The bivariate relationships revealed that project characteristics (technological complexity, demand certainty, and financial support of the government), partner characteristics (the level of trust with partners), and collaborative management practices (commitment of the focal firm, and information sharing in the collaboration process) appear to be different depending on the two contingency variables. Each type of collaborative R&D project also had different KSFs. While diverse characteristics like strategic importance, goal compatibility and information sharing with partners are critical for the success of technology–push projects, just only specificity of collaboration process and outcome appears important to the success of demand–pull projects. For focal firm–initiated projects, project characteristics are KSFs, whilst partner characteristics and collaboration management practice are found to be more critical for the success of partner–initiated projects. The findings suggest that the different contingencies such as development motive and source of initiation bring about different patterns of collaborative technology development projects, which in turn lead to a different set of KSFs, since different information, roles of partners and the focal firms, and collaboration management practices are needed to successfully implement the different types of projects. Based on empirical results, this study discusses managerial, policy, and theoretical implications for the collaborative R&D activities taking place in the Korean electronic parts industry.     

Department Status: An Exploratory Investigation of Direct and Indirect Effects on Product Development Performance

To date only a limited number of product development studies have examined the construct of department status. These studies mostly report that departments can reflect different levels of status among themselves during product development activities and that often the marketing department reflects greater status. These studies do not clarify the role that department status may pose for product development performance and product management performance. Some research would suggest that department status has a direct effect on performance, while other research would suggest that department status has an indirect effect on performance. The present study investigates whether the bestowing of department status is important to product development performance and product management performance, and, if so, how? Based on empirical results from a cross‐industry study involving 668 marketing, manufacturing, and R&D managers, department status is found to have a significant indirect effect on product development and product management performance. Results further show that equal status among the three departments of marketing, manufacturing, and R&D correlates with higher levels of interdepartmental collaboration, which in turn manifests the benefits of higher levels of performance. Interdepartmental collaboration is therefore shown to be a mediating variable between department status and performance. The empirical results of this study suggest that no one department should dominate the product development effort and/or product management effort. While study data tend to correspond with prior studies in that the marketing department tends to reflect higher status compared to R&D and manufacturing, simply bestowing more status to marketing (or to another department for that matter) does not appear to be a proper course for facilitating interdepartmental collaboration nor for manifesting higher product development performance. Rather, equal status across marketing, manufacturing, and R&D departments appears to represent the proper course of action to establish collaboration between these three departments and subsequently to reap the benefits of higher performance. Given the exploratory nature of this study, subsequent study is warranted. Avenues for future research along with tentative managerial implications are discussed.     

Governance of supplier collaboration in technologically uncertain NPD projects

Firms that are searching for new technologies from suppliers through collaborative new product development (NPD) need to devise effective approaches for governing the supplier relationship. Based on in-depth case studies of four collaborative NPD projects, this paper shows that in projects with a high degree of uncertainty (1) firms achieve governance by simultaneously limiting supplier involvement and allowing for high levels of collaboration, (2) transactional and relational governance have distinct roles in achieving limited supplier involvement and establishing high levels of collaboration, and (3) transactional and relational governance are organizationally separated. These findings have implications for the complementary use of relational and transactional governance, as well as for the role of purchasing and R&D in technologically uncertain NPD projects.     

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.     

Organizing Continuous Product Development and Commercialization: The Collaborative Community of Firms Model

The increased importance of knowledge creation and use to firms' global competitiveness has spawned considerable experimentation with organizational designs for product development and commercialization over the last three decades. This paper discusses innovation‐related organizational design developments during this period, showing how firms have moved from stand‐alone organizations to multifirm network organizations to community‐based organizational designs. The collaborative community of firms model, the most recent organizational design in this evolutionary process, is described in detail. Blade.org, a purposefully designed collaborative community of firms dedicated to the continuous development and commercialization of blade servers, a computer technology with large but unforeseeable market potential, is used as an illustrative case. Blade.org's organizational design combines a community “commons” for the collective development and sharing of knowledge among member firms with explicit institutional mechanisms for the support of direct intermember collaboration. These design elements are used to overcome the challenges associated with (1) concurrent technological and market experimentation and (2) the dynamic coordination of a complex emergent system of hardware, software, and services provided by otherwise independent firms. To date, Blade.org has developed more than 60 new products, providing strong evidence of the innovation prowess of the collaborative community of firms organizational model. Based on an analysis of the evolution of organizational designs and the case of Blade.org, implications for innovation management theory and practice are derived.     

R&D Partnerships and Innovation Performance: Can There Be too Much of a Good Thing?

R&D collaboration facilitates the pooling of complementary skills, learning from the partner as well as the sharing of risks and costs. Research therefore stresses the positive relationship between collaborative R&D and innovation performance. Fewer studies address the potential drawbacks of collaborative R&D. Collaborative R&D comes at the cost of coordination and monitoring, requires knowledge disclosure, and involves the risk of opportunistic behavior by the partners. Thus, while for lower collaboration intensities the net gains can be high, costs may start to outweigh benefits if firms perform a higher share of their innovation projects collaboratively. For a sample of 2735 firms located in Germany and active in a broad range of manufacturing and service sectors, this study finds that increasing the share of collaborative R&D projects in total R&D projects is associated with a higher probability of product innovation and with a higher market success of new products. While this confirms previous findings on the gains for innovation performance, the results also show that collaboration has decreasing and even negative returns on product innovation if its intensity increases above a certain threshold. Thus, the relationship between collaboration intensity and innovation follows an inverted‐U shape and, on average, costs start to outweigh benefits if a firm pursues more than about two‐thirds of its R&D projects in collaboration. This result is robust to conditioning market success to the introduction of new products and to accounting for the selection into collaborating. This threshold is, however, contingent on firm characteristics. Smaller and younger as well as resource‐constrained firms benefit from relatively higher collaboration intensities. For firms with higher collaboration complexities in terms of different partners and different stages of the R&D process at which collaboration takes place, returns start to decrease already at lower collaboration intensities.     

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.     

A Comparison of New Service versus New Product Development: Configurations of Collaborative Intensity as Predictors of Performance

Collaboration among firms for innovation has received considerable attention. However, little is known about how firm‐to‐firm collaboration is configured in new service development (NSD) versus new product development (NPD). This study takes a multidimensional approach and measures firm‐to‐firm collaboration on different intensity dimensions of (1) processes (mutual communication, joint engagement, sharing responsibilities) and (2) ownership (relationship commitment and mutual trust). By showing that the phenomenon of collaboration is multifaceted, this study is able to knit a more comprehensive and cohesive understanding of the differences between NSD and NPD success as the result of different patterns of collaboration. Specifically, it utilizes survey data collected from 194 alliances to substantiate how NSD and NPD differ on these collaborative dimensions and then explores their impact on NSD versus NPD performance. The findings suggest that collaboration between firms in NSD is configured and works differently than collaboration between firms in NPD. The results further show that there is a stronger, positive relationship of intensity levels of joint engagement among firms involved in product development and performance than when a new service is developed. However, the intensity of mutual trust has a stronger, positive relationship with development performance when a new service is developed than when a new product is developed. Implications are discussed, and suggestions for future research are given.     

Stakeholder management in complex product systems: Practices and rationales for engagement and disengagement

Collaboration with stakeholders has become a cornerstone of contemporary business; however, absolute collaboration is not trouble-free. The present study explores how and why firms engage and disengage external stakeholders in their value-creating activities in complex product systems over time. From the existing research on stakeholder management, we know that actor roles, strategies, reasons and challenges of engaging external stakeholders in innovation and business activities vary across contexts. However, additional research is needed to construct a more comprehensive understanding of the practices as well as their rationales by which firms engage or disengage external stakeholders in complex product systems. Our empirical study of a European district development megaproject improves the current understanding of stakeholder management in complex product systems contexts. We derive nine practices and four rationales that timely describe the engagement and disengagement of external stakeholders. The study develops a processual model of stakeholder management in complex product systems with implications for both stakeholder management literature and managerial practice.     

Clustering and the R&D management of high-technology small firms: in theory and practice

Much of the policy assistance for high-technology small firms (HTSFs) over recent years has been directed at encouraging their research and development (R&D) collaboration through local networking and technology transfer. Following a consideration of why HTSFs are formed, and how they perform R&D in order to cope with the competitive environment, this paper explores the value of external collaborative R&D to internal R&D management, inside geographically concentrated incubators, science parks or clusters. It is concluded that, although R&D collaboration with external partners occurs in limited instances, much HTSF R&D is highly confidential, competitive and wholly internalised. This tendency, as far as it relates to R&D management, is significant in that it minimises the likelihood that local management collaboration between co-located firms will improve the performance of R&D projects.     

Collaborative Prototyping: Cross‐Fertilization of Knowledge in Prototype‐Driven Problem Solving

This paper presents an inductive study that shows how collaborative prototyping across functional, hierarchical, and organizational boundaries can improve the overall prototyping process. Our combined action research and case study approach provides new insights into how collaborative prototyping can provide a platform for prototype‐driven problem solving in early new product development (NPD). Our findings have important implications for how to facilitate multistakeholder collaboration in prototyping and problem solving, and more generally for how to organize collaborative and open innovation processes. Our analysis reveals two levels of prototyping. Besides the more formal managerial level, we identify the informal designer level, where the actual practice of prototyping takes place. On this level, collaborative prototyping transforms the act of prototyping from an activity belonging exclusively to the domain of design engineers to an activity integral to NPD, with participants from within the organization (different functions and managers) and from outside (consultants and users). In effect, this collapses the discrete steps in the prototyping process (at the managerial level) to an essentially continuous process of iterative problem solving (at the designer level) that is centered around the collaborative prototype, which allows participants to see their suggestions implemented and exposing them to the design constraints. The study, moreover, shows how, at various stages of the prototyping process, the actual prototype was used as a tool for communication or development, thus serving as a platform for the cross‐fertilization of knowledge. In this way, collaborative prototyping leads to a better balance between functionality and usability; it translates usability problems into design changes, and it detects emerging usability problems through active engagement and experimentation. As such, the collaborative prototype acts as a boundary object to represent, understand, and transform knowledge across functional, hierarchical, and organizational boundaries. Our study also identifies some constraints in involving the appropriate stakeholders at the right time. The paper specifically elaborates on the role of users in collaborative prototyping, which is important in order to cover all phases of the problem‐solving cycle but triggers an interesting challenge due to the “reverse empathy” that a user may develop for the design constraints—parallel to the designer empathy for the user context. Finally, our study shows that despite the continuous nature of the (designer) practice of prototyping, there are certain windows of opportunities (at the managerial level) during which the collaborative prototyping approach actually leads to changes in the product design.     

Assessing collaborative, pre-competitive R&D projects: the case of the UK LINK scheme

The paper addresses the evaluation of outcomes of collaborative, pre-competitive R&D projects. It draws on some empirical analysis carried out on data and information gathered under the UK 'LINK' scheme, a programme supporting R&D collaborative projects and assessing collaboration outcomes. A new indicator of performance, based on the outputs of LINK projects, has been constructed. It provides a relative and quite consistent measure of performance for making comparisons among different LINK projects. However it does not correlate with the more subjective grade applied by LINK's own management. For further improving evaluating mechanisms, more attention should be paid to the benefits that universities and companies as well as governments are drawing from R&D collaborations.     

Learning to collaborate through collaboration: How allying with expert firms influences collaborative innovation within novice firms

Research summary : Strategic alliances have been recognized as a means for firms to learn their partners' proprietary knowledge; such alliances are also valuable opportunities for partner firms to learn tacit organizational routines from their counterparts. We consider how relatively novice technology firms can learn intraorganizational collaborative routines from more experienced alliance partners and then deploy them independently for their own innovative pursuits. We examine the alliance relationships between Eli Lilly & Co. (Lilly), a recognized expert in collaborative innovation, and 55 small biotech partner firms. Using three levels of analysis (firm, patent, and inventor dyad), we find that greater social interaction between the partner firm and Lilly subsequently increases internal collaboration among the partner firm's inventors. Managerial summary : Can collaborating externally advance internal collaboration? Yes. Our research found that collaboration among scientists at small, early‐stage biotechnology firms significantly increased after these firms formed highly interactive R&D alliances with a large pharmaceutical company known for its expertise in such collaboration. It is well known that alliances help new firms learn specific new technologies and commercialize innovations. Our study broadens the scope of potential benefits of alliances. New firms can also learn collaboration techniques, deploying them internally to enhance their own abilities in collaborative innovation. Managers should take this additional benefit into consideration in developing their alliance strategies. Pursuing alliance partners with expertise in collaboration and keeping a high level of mutual interactions with partner firm personnel should be important considerations to extract this value. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Evaluating internal and external knowledge sources in firm innovation and productivity: an industry perspective

Both internal knowledge – investment in internal R&D and information and communication technologies (ICT) as well as external knowledge – knowledge spillovers and active collaboration with partners are rapidly fostering firm productivity and innovation. In this study, we investigate the role of internal and external knowledge in firm productivity and innovation. In addition, we test interactions between investment in R&D and ICT as well as between knowledge spillovers and knowledge collaboration in their association to firm innovation and productivity. We use a recombinant innovation approach and four samples for firms in manufacturing, creative, ICT and science, and professional services industries during 2002–2014 and for pre-and post-crisis periods to perform our analysis. In addition to innovation and productivity, we also examine the role of internal and external knowledge as a conduit to the development of innovation internally and the co-creation of innovation with external partners. Our results lead to managerial and policy implications.     

Access to and penetration of ICT in rural Thailand

This paper presents an econometric study of information and communication technology (ICT) in all 70,000 rural villages in Thailand, where the ICT considered consists of fixed-line telephone service, mobile telephone service, public telephones, computers, and Internet service. The results may provide information that helps policymakers decide where to put limited resources to promote ICT, and helps profit-seeking ICT companies target regions that maximize revenues. The study found that education is far more important than income in predicting the percentage of households who adopt ICT services, and that some unexpected variables such as the penetration of pickup trucks are useful predictors as well. Even in areas where fixed-line phone service is available, 70% of households with computers choose not to become Internet subscribers, although many presumably have enough money and technical knowledge. By separating availability from penetration of ICT, the study found that they can have different predictors, which means that researchers who do not separate them may get misleading results. There is no evidence showing mobile telephone service as a substitute for fixed-line telephone service. Also, public telephone service had little or no impact as a substitute for fixed-line or mobile telephone service, so phone companies need not fear that deployment of more public telephones will decrease their subscribership. Finally, there appears to be significant unmet demand for telephone service in rural Thailand where the infrastructure does not yet exist.