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

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

Team control mode,workers' creativity,and new product innovativeness

Scholars of creativity and innovation argue that successful innovations originate from the creative ideas of workers. However, few studies have empirically examined how management mechanisms, such as the control mode adopted by the new product development team, may work together with workers' creativity to deliver a successful new product. Drawing on the theory of opposing action strategies of team innovation, we propose that different team control modes may work together with team members' creativity to jointly influence the innovativeness of teamwork outcomes. With survey data collected from different sources in new product development teams, we find that restrictive control can effectively help teams composed of very creative members to successfully develop innovative new products. Conversely, promotive control can effectively help teams composed of less creative members to deliver innovative new products.     

Voices from the Field: How Exceptional Electronic Industrial Innovators Innovate

This exploratory research uses in‐depth qualitative interviews to investigate how 11 exceptional innovators in the electronics industry initiated, created, and commercialized radical innovations in their firms. From the data, two initial frameworks emerged for how radical innovations were created by these individuals. Four themes emerged associated with what these innovators bring to the organization as an underpinning for being able to radically innovate. Additional themes emerged as to the process by which they innovate. Across the literatures of innovation, psychology, and management, creativity is discussed in terms of person, product, or process. This research samples on highly creative innovations (products) and finds that it appears that both person and process need to be considered in attaining radical innovation. One may not be able to consider separately the person who achieves radical innovation from the process he or she uses to achieve it. These exceptional innovators have specific personality characteristics that support radically creative behavior, supplemented by a perspective or worldview that focuses on having a business orientation yet also a somewhat idealistic attitude. They have prepared for innovation by studying deeply, within not just one primary technology topic but also a secondary or peripheral technology topic. In addition, they have prepared broadly, across technology, business, and markets. They are both extrinsically and intrinsically motivated to innovate. People communicating what problems are urgently important to them to be solved produce external motivation for the innovator, who is then intrinsically motivated to solve these people's problems by creating new products. In terms of how they innovate, these exceptional innovators are organizationally savvy and both understand and participate in the politics necessary to gain acceptance of and resources for their project. They use an innovation process that emphasizes the up‐front aspects of finding interesting problems, planning first before executing, and understanding customer needs in great detail. This allows them to generate insights into how to solve those problems profitably for the firm. Once they have obtained and validated their insights for solving the problem, they participate in the actual implementation of the concept to a commercialized product. However, this development aspect of innovating is not much spoken of, as if it is taken for granted. Finally, they actively disseminate knowledge and acceptance of the innovation postinvention.     

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

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

创新团队公平感知与知识共享行为关系研究——以成员信任为中介变量

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

Antecedents and Consequences of Creativity in Product Innovation Teams

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

The Role of Future‐Market Focus in the Early Stages of NPD across Varying Levels of Innovativeness

The concept of future‐market focus (FMF) arose out of the debate about firm size and incumbency in the face of radical or disruptive innovations, and has been demonstrated to have a positive correlation with radical innovation (RI) success. This study examines the relationship between FMF and the processes used in the early stages of NPD for four types of innovation projects: incremental innovations, technological breakthroughs, market breakthroughs, and radical innovations. We found that the future‐market focus of a project team can influence the early stage processes used in a new product innovation project, and does so differentially across levels of innovativeness. In particular, the concept generation process, understanding of market needs, and screening decision criteria are different for low‐ versus high‐FMF projects and there are differences based on the level of innovation. In addition, we found that radical innovation projects rated low in FMF are markedly different than the radical innovation projects described in prior studies.     

Global Outsourcing Relationships and Innovation: A Conceptual Framework and Research Propositions

Increasing globalization and the rapid growth of information technologies, including the Internet, have resulted in drastic changes in international activities of companies. Once limited to manufactured goods, currently, global outsourcing encompasses a wide variety of knowledge‐based services, such as accounting, financial services, taxation, customer service, information technology, engineering drawings, human resources, research and development (R&D), data processing, and sales. The domain of outsourcing knowledge‐based services is the focus of this paper. Moving beyond the inevitability of global outsourcing, this research takes the perspective of the outsourcer and focuses on managing its transition to providers in the context of innovation. In addition to delivering projected cost benefits to outsourcers, effective transition management can facilitate the generation of innovations. This research attempts to extend the current academic research on global outsourcing in three ways: (1) It offers a framework for understanding the transition process in outsourcing and its relationship to innovation; (2) it takes a broader perspective of outsourcing, including globalization, knowledge‐based services, and core activities of the firm; and (3) using a parsimonious set of theoretical concepts based on control theory, it develops several research propositions to clarify the linkages between variables. Based on our theorizing, outsourcing top management should ask two questions when planning outsourcing of knowledge‐based services to generate innovations in a globalized world. These two questions are: (1) How close is the task to our core competence? And (2) how much tacit knowledge is involved in doing the outsourced task? Next, managers must identify global providers and then spend considerable thought in operational execution of the transition of the task for that is the only time that both complete teams will work together. For tasks that are close to core competence, rigid‐explicit behavioral controls should be put in place; however, for tasks that have high tacit knowledge content, high norms‐based relational control would be more effective. These different types of controls would lead to different innovation outcomes. Rigid‐explicit behavioral controls would produce incremental innovation while relational norms‐based controls would encourage radical innovation.     

Cross-functional integration as a knowledge transformation mechanism: Implications for new product development

The importance of cross-functional integration (CFI) teams involving workers with multiple forms of functional expertise to work on new product development cannot be overemphasized. CFI is an organic structure and it allows the team members' tacit knowledge embedded in individuals to be realized in the new product development team's collective knowledge - a holistic appreciation and understanding about how to achieve new product development goals. Specifically, despite the pivotal role of CFI and knowledge appreciation in new product development teams, scholars appear to have overlooked the integration of individual level factors, team level factors, individual tacit knowledge, and group collective knowledge within the context of achieving the new product development objectives. Adopting knowledge, CFI, and socialization theories, we propose a conceptual framework that stipulates that the factors at the team level (goal congruence, task cohesion, interpersonal cohesion, and transformational leadership) and the qualification of team members (common knowledge, functional expertise, and their positions in the network) influence the effectiveness of tacit-to-collective knowledge transformation.     

Communication Flows in International Product Innovation Teams

Recently, we have witnessed a strong growth in the internationalization of many firms' product development activities. However, the lack of attention devoted by scientific research to the management of international innovation contrasts sharply with the importance attached to it as a cornerstone of international business success. Although several empirical studies and normative theories have specified the communication requirements in innovation teams, an empirically based insight is definitely needed on the communication requirements and requirements that prevail in the complex context of international innovation teams, in which the participants are located in different company units, countries, and cultures. This article addresses the following research question: viewing international innovation as an interfunctional activity, what are the communication requirements an international innovation team is facing, and what are the communication capabilities (interface mechanisms) that may be adopted to initiate, develop, and launch the new product effectively and efficiently? An extensive case study research project was designed to develop a comprehensive theoretical framework. Over a two year time period, the research team has investigated selected innovation projects in four European multinational corporations. The analysis of the case study data suggests five requirements that determine the effectiveness and efficiency of communication in international product development teams: network transparency, knowledge codification, knowledge credibility, communication cost, secrecy. To cope with these communication requirements, organizations may create firm level capabilities (parallel structures, cross‐functional and inter‐unit climate, communication infrastructure, goal congruence) and team level capabilities (core team, team leadership, formalization, procedural justice). The evidence from the in‐depth case study research indicates that these mechanisms provide a parsimonious and powerful approach to address the communication requirements in international product innovation teams. After the information processing framework proposed by Tushman and Nadler [124], the adoption of these mechanisms is expected to improve innovation effectiveness. This holds important consequences for the management of international product innovation projects. First, the innovating firm must balance centralization and decentralization, employ formal as well as informal strategies, and integrate ad‐hoc and permanent strategies. Second, it highlights the critical role of the project leader. Given the fact that companies often select the most available person, rather than the best person for the job, the allocation of light weight project leaders may create heavyweight problems in international teams. Third, following the argument in favor of procedural justice, the absence of involvement may severely hinder cross‐functional commitment to international innovation projects. Fourth, the innovating firm must also actively manage the communication flows with external parties. Failure to do so may result in flawed specifications, and a limited understanding about product design and market strategies.     

Enhancing the Creative Performance of New Product Teams: An Organizational Configurational Approach

Innovation is crucial to managing ever‐increasing environmental complexity. Creativity is the first stage of the innovation process and is particularly relevant in modern new product development (NPD) projects. In response to a call for further empirical research on collective creative performance combining individual and team levels in a comprehensive framework, this paper offers useful evidence for the design of NPD teams to foster creative performance. The results suggest that different sets of individual traits and collective processes combine and interact, enabling a similar level of creative performance from different configurations of individual and team “ingredients.” There are no consistently good‐quality or poor‐quality NPD teams or processes. However, equifinal configurations—based on team composition, and interpersonal, coordination, control, and diversity management processes—can be effective in producing creative products. Through a large‐scale study of 119 teams of students involved in an NPD activity, this paper contributes by expanding creativity and NPD team design literature, providing the basis for a “first right” approach to real‐world, in‐company research. It first proposes and tests the adoption of the configurational equifinality approach in the NPD team design domain, introducing the concept of complementarities among different types of “team ingredients,” both at the individual and team level. Second, it introduces different multidimensional measures of team creative performance, relevant to generalizing and comparing the research results. Third, it offers several guidelines for designing real‐world NPD teams through the combination of diversity and interpersonal management, as well as coordination and control processes, which have not been studied to any great extent but are at times controversial in creativity literature.     

Communities of Practice versus Organizational Climate: Which One Matters More to Dispersed Collaboration in the Front End of Innovation?*

Dispersed collaboration provides many benefits such as members' closeness to local cultures and markets and reachability of talent worldwide. Hence, it is no surprise that dispersed collaboration is frequently being used by product development teams. A necessary but not sufficient condition for innovation performance is the sharing of tacit, non‐codified and explicit, codified knowledge by the team. Situated learning theory, however, predicts that tacit knowledge sharing will be largely prevented by “decontextualization.” Therefore, increasing usage of dispersed collaboration will decrease levels of tacit knowledge—crucial to innovation and organizational performance—in the business unit. This research investigates the moderating role of mechanisms believed to enable tacit knowledge transfer in the front end of innovation. Using data from 116 business units, the moderating role of communities of practice and organizational climate on the relationship between the proficiency of dispersed collaboration and front end of innovation performance is investigated. Encouragement of communities of practice is found to moderate the relationship between proficiency of dispersed collaboration and front end of innovation performance on the business unit level. More specifically, proficiency of dispersed collaboration is not related at all to front end of innovation performance in business units with low support for communities of practice; but a positive relationship exists in business units with high support for communities of practice. This study does not provide support for the moderating effect of organizational climate on the relationship between proficiency in dispersed collaboration and front end of innovation performance. However, supportiveness of climate has a significant direct effect on front end of innovation performance. The findings of this study suggest that managers should simultaneously invest in increasing proficiency in dispersed collaboration and supporting communities of practice. Either one by itself is insufficient. Because of its significant direct effect, managers should also nurture an open climate favoring risk taking, trust, and open interaction.     

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

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

Patented innovations developed in networks: The role of cultural looseness

The ongoing globalization tears down geographical barriers to knowledge sourcing, leaving cultural ones intact. Past research on developing innovations has largely neglected national culture or solely relied on cultural values. A recent body of research has emerged around cultural looseness – the strength of social norms and the degree of sanctioning within societies – and provided initial evidence on its importance for mastering creativity, an antecedent of innovations. However, the impact of cultural looseness on developing innovations in networks with diverse actors has not yet been tested. To this end, we develop a Multiple Indicator Multiple Causes (MIMIC) structural equation model and test it against empirical evidence from >1.25 million patented innovations. We find that in innovation networks, innovators based in culturally loose countries source knowledge of higher breadth and depth for developing innovations compared to innovators from culturally tight countries. We discuss our findings and – based on some study limitations – suggest seven streams for future research. We conclude with summarizing our contribution to theory on the impact of culture on innovation and our contribution to practice on helping managers to decide how to best source knowledge and thereby foster innovation.     

Where Do Breakthroughs Come From? Characteristics of High‐Potential Inventions

Breakthrough technological inventions create the foundation for many innovative opportunities. Through novel scientific fundamentals and unique combinations of knowledge, they form a new basis for technology development and innovation, shifting their industry's mindset about what is feasible and valuable. Prior research has, to date, characteristically taken an organizational‐level perspective on technology breakthroughs, seeking to explain the occurrence of breakthroughs as a function of firm‐level characteristics and processes. This tells us less, however, about the underlying knowledge structures of the technologies themselves. This research is based on the assumption that an examination of the knowledge foundations of high‐potential inventions can enrich our understanding about the underlying features of innovations that transform industries and advance societies. In this manner, we can clarify how certain technologies are advanced and extended, providing the basis for future discoveries. Our analysis focuses on high‐potential patents: those having the highest number of forward citations in a given class. We conduct this analysis on a sample of 298 breakthrough patents and two comparison nonbreakthrough groups in drug and semiconductor classes. Our results show that breakthrough technologies, compared with nonbreakthroughs, are more likely to build on: (1) the past technological developments of others, by backward citing and embodying knowledge from prior discoveries (earlier patents), but not one's own previous developments; (2) the latest technologies, by backward citing recent patents; (3) geographic proximity, evidenced by the fact that the focal patents backward cite patents from one's own country; and (4) greater technological breadth, evidenced by the fact that knowledge captured in the patents encompasses a larger number of technical fields. Based on these results, we frame the occurrence of breakthroughs as involving a process where these significant developments happen early in the progress of a technology, but after some relevant knowledge has accumulated. This reinforces the concept that a learning effect needs to occur before breakthroughs can happen. In addition, our findings suggest that the knowledge underlying breakthroughs is likely to come from other organizations or individuals, rather than the developing entity. They also incorporate broader insights from technological diversity but do not exhibit geographic diversity. Instead, they are associated with geographic proximity, which may better enable knowledge sharing and integration given the reliance on other entities and diverse knowledge.     

Innovation Performance in New Product Development Teams in China's Technology Ventures: The Role of Behavioral Integration Dimensions and Collective Efficacy

In emerging markets, technology ventures increasingly rely on new product development (NPD) teams to generate creative ideas and to mold these innovative ideas into streams of new products or services. However, little is known about how behavioral integration (a behavioral team process) and collective efficacy (a motivational team process) jointly facilitate or inhibit team innovation performance in emerging markets—especially in China, the world's largest emerging‐market setting with collectivist and high power distance cultures. Drawing on social cognitive theory and behavioral integration research, this article elucidates the relationships between behavioral integration dimensions (i.e., collaborative behavior, information exchange, and joint decision‐making) and innovation performance and also examines how collective efficacy moderates these relationships in China's NPD teams. Results from a sample of 96 NPD teams in China's technology ventures reveal that information exchange is positively associated with innovation performance. Collaborative behavior positively but marginally influences innovation performance, whereas joint decision‐making does not relate to innovation performance. Moreover, collective efficacy demonstrates an important moderating role. Specifically, both collaborative behavior and joint decision‐making are more positively associated with innovation performance when collective efficacy is higher. In contrast, information exchange is less positively associated with innovation performance when collective efficacy is higher. This study makes important theoretical contributions to the literature on team innovation and behavioral integration in emerging markets by offering a better understanding of how behavioral and motivational team processes jointly shape innovation performance in China's NPD teams. This study also extends social cognitive theory by identifying collective efficacy as a boundary condition for the overall effectiveness of behavioral integration dimensions. In particular, this study highlights the condition under which behavioral integration dimensions facilitate or inhibit NPD team innovation performance in China.     

Boards of Directors,Innovation, and Performance: An Exploration at Multiple Levels

This work reports on an investigation of the dynamics of governance over breakthrough innovation within Fortune 1000 firms. The primary research question investigates the boundary of agency theory within the firm. Using agency and stakeholder theoretic perspectives, the study tests the hypothesis that innovation will thrive in firms that combine a board of directors operating in accordance with a high agency theoretic focus in addition to an innovation governance board operating deeper within the firm that employs a strong stakeholder theoretic orientation in its behavior. The model is tested with data from 98 large firms. Results suggest that the relationship between board of directors' behavior and the firm's overall innovativeness is mediated by innovation decision‐making boards that (1) promote projects that are breakthrough in scope, (2) incorporate input of diverse constituencies within the firm, (3) exhibit patience with financial results, and (4) engage in frequent, informal interactions with project teams. Firms exhibiting high board of director agency orientation in combination with loyalty to mandate, patient financial capital disposition, inclusiveness, and project team interaction as described above for innovation governance board decision‐making prove to be the most innovative as measured by external indicators. For firm innovativeness, consolidated managerial power and behavior is frequently present at the upper levels of the firm, but must be broken down at deeper levels of the firm. This research offers implications to innovation decision‐makers as to how to proceed if the intent is to offer commercializably successful breakthrough innovations.     

Scope versus speed: Team diversity,leader experience,and patenting outcomes for firms

Research Summary: How does the organization of patenting activity affect a firm's patenting outcomes? We investigate how the composition of patenting teams relates to both the scope of their patent applications and the speed with which their patents are approved, by examining the main effects of team members’ intra‐organizational diversity (based on affiliations with formal organizational units and informal organizational communities) and the moderating effects of team leader experience. We test our moderated mediation model in a sample of 121 teams that filed patents in a Fortune 50 company's India R&D center between 2005 and 2015, using proprietary employee data combined with newly released micro‐data from the U.S Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Our findings illuminate the micro‐foundations of innovation in firms by highlighting a trade‐off between organizing patenting activity to maximize scope versus speed. Managerial Summary: Patenting is an important strategic tool that firms can use to protect and create value from their innovations. A firm can benefit from filing a patent application that gives it a wider possible set of claims related to an innovation. It can also benefit from faster approval of a patent application by the Patent Office. However, our study shows that there is a trade‐off between patent application scope and patent approval speed, which creates tensions for the organization of patenting activities inside firms. In particular, we find that the diversity of a patenting team is positively related to patent scope but negatively related to patenting speed, and that these relationships vary with the experience of the team leader.     

Structural and contextual correlates of charged behavior in product development teams

Firms increasingly use cross‐functional teams to develop new products, yet we know little about the processes that make teams excel. Although studies have focused on within‐team processes like cooperation between and integration of individuals from various functional areas, some emerging literature suggests that the processes that make teams excel are richer and more complex than cooperation and integration. In order to capture the processes that lead to excellent market performance of new products, we introduce the concept of charged team behavior, the extent to which cross‐functional product development teams are enthusiastically and jointly driven to develop superior new products. Charged team behavior captures not only the drive, commitment, and joy of team members, but also their collaborative behaviors to achieve an exceptional outcome. We propose and test a series of hypotheses concerning how charged behavior affects new product market performance and how charged behavior is, in turn, influenced by both team structural characteristics (physical proximity, team longevity, and outcome interdependence) and contextual factors (senior management encouragement to take risk, quality orientation, exposure to customer input, extent of competition, and interdepartmental connectedness). It is particularly important to examine the antecedents of charged behavior because there are concerns that some of the team‐related factors generally considered to be useful for teams may not necessarily lead to charged teams. Data from new consumer product development teams is analyzed though structural equation modeling for hypothesis testing. We find evidence that highly charged teams are more likely to develop successful new products. Results also indicate that outcome interdependence, exposure to customer input, extent of competition, and interdepartmental connectedness are positively related to charged behavior. Physical proximity, team longevity, encouragement to take risk, and quality orientation do not improve teams' charged behavior. Data suggests that charged team behavior: 1) fully mediates the effects of outcome interdependence and interdepartmental connectedness on performance, 2) partially mediates the influence of exposure to customer input and the extent of competition on performance, and 3) does not mediate the effects of quality orientation and physical proximity on performance. Our study highlights the importance of creating highly charged product development teams in order to achieve exceptional performance. Further, our results indicate that some of the factors suggested by traditional social psychology research for enhancing team effectiveness (e.g., physical proximity and team longevity) may not necessarily create charged teams. Instead, charged teams need a special arrangement, in which members are accountable to the team and where their evaluations and rewards are also linked to the performance of the team. In addition, although a strong emphasis on quality is considered to be beneficial for new products, as our results indicate, such emphasis cannot create a charged atmosphere. Moreover, our research suggests that if the organization structure does not permit frequent contact between individuals across functional boundaries, the creation of a strongly charged team and development of a successful new product will be hindered.     

Who Knows What in NPD Teams: Communication Context,Mode, and Task Contingencies

The use of cross‐functional teams in new product development (NPD) benefits firms in many ways. One benefit is the diverse knowledge team members bring to the project, but that benefit can only be appreciated if team members fully utilize and integrate the differentiated expertise of members. As reliance on cross‐functional NPD teams grows, however, firms struggle to exploit the full potential of functionally diverse groups, the biggest obstacle being integrating team members' varied knowledge, expertise, and abilities. Therefore, understanding how information is integrated and used is a primary concern for both practitioners and researchers. Databases and other forms of hard data are methods team members can use to effectively share and integrate knowledge; another method based on social cognition is transactive memory systems (TMS). TMS indicates who will learn what and from whom. The notion is that knowledge is distributed among people in the group, and to make effective use of it, individuals need to know who knows what and who knows who knows what. Grounded in the knowledge‐based theory of the firm, this study investigates the influence of different communication contexts and modes on TMS under different NPD task environments (i.e., exploitation and exploration) in cross‐functional NPD teams. A theoretical model is developed and empirically tested using data collected from 272 ongoing NPD teams of 128 Chinese high‐tech companies. Findings suggest that when teams face tasks defined by exploration, informal communication and face‐to‐face communication are positively associated with TMS, whereas for tasks defined by exploitation, formal communication and computer‐mediated communication are positively related with TMS. Additionally, this study found that TMS is positively related to NPD performance both in terms of project performance and in terms of market performance. Based on these findings, theoretical and managerial implications are drawn regarding resource deployment that encourages the development of effective TMS leading to successful NPD projects.