Teaching New Product Development To Employed Adults

The purpose of this article is to report the lessons derived from broad practical experience in teaching new product development (NPD) to employed adults. My observations are importantly augmented by diverse comments from nine other service providers who also conduct and participate in similar NPD education. Our combined lessons summarize what works and what to be forewarned about. (“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”– George Santayana.) We believe that what we have learned from our very different and extensive involvement can help several audiences: (1) others who offer or plan to offer and deliver NPD education – educators, service providers, or practitioners; (2) organizations that may wish to sponsor NPD training in any form; and (3) those who expect to participate as students in NPD seminars or courses. The article has four main sections, all of which are intended to provide pointers and helpful suggestions based on our collective experience. First is a discussion of issues concerning program set‐up and acceptance. Both sponsors and participants have important responsibilities for this, which are explained. Second is a discussion of practical issues specific to NPD education. The varieties of subject matter and support materials, format options, techniques to sustain interest, instructor characteristics, and client confidentiality are covered. Third is a discussion of practical logistic issues that apply to all adult education but with an emphasis on NPD. Advance warning of what can be and has been encountered may help you circumvent many avoidable problems. Fourth is a brief discussion about the future for NPD education. In this we speculate that the emergence of broadband Internet may provide a new modality, the effectiveness of which is still uncertain. An important insight for you to note is that we do not always do the same thing or approach teaching situations in the same way. What has worked for one of us may not have been effective for another or in another situation. In summary, the experiences we record should help you improve the delivery of NPD education or more efficiently benefit from participation in such training. © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.     

Autonomous Teams and New Product Development

An autonomous team is an emerging tool for new product development (NPD). With its high degree of autonomy, independence, leadership, dedication, and collocation, the team has more freedom and stronger capabilities to be innovative and entrepreneurial. Several anecdotal cases suggest that autonomous teams are best when applied to highly uncertain, complex, and innovative projects. However, there is no empirical study to test such a notion. Moreover, autonomous teams are not a panacea, and implementing them can be costly and disruptive to their parent organization. When should this powerful, yet costly tool, be pulled out of the new product professional's toolbox? This paper attempts to answer this question. The objective of this study is to explore under which circumstances an autonomous team is the best choice for NPD. Based on contingency and information‐processing theories, autonomous teams are hypothesized to be more effective to address projects with: (1) high technology novelty and (2) radical innovation. To test these hypotheses, the relative effectiveness of four types of team structures: autonomous, functional, lightweight, and heavyweight are compared. The effectiveness measures include development cost, development speed, and overall product success. Vision clarity, resource availability, and team experience are the controlled variables. The empirical results based on the data from 555 NPD projects generally support the research hypotheses. Relative to other team structures, autonomous teams are more effective in addressing projects with high technology novelty or radical innovation. The results also suggest that heavyweight teams perform better than other teams in developing incremental innovation. These results provide some evidence to support contingency and information‐processing theories at the project level. Given the importance of the development of novel technology and radical innovation in establishing new businesses and other strategic initiatives, the findings of this study may not only have some important implications for NPD practices but may also shed some light on other important topics such as disruptive innovation, strategic innovation, new venture, corporate entrepreneurship, and ambidextrous organization.     

Leadership Differences in New Product Development Teams

Innovativeness is unlikely without skilled leaders to guide the teams which develop new products and technologies. Although the importance of leadership to innovation success is often discussed, the specific practices of effective team leaders are not. In this study, Gloria Barczak and David Wilemon focus on the roles, functions and methods employed by leaders of operating and innovating types of new product development teams. Operating teams are part of the daily activities of the firm, are involved with current markets and develop products similar to current product offerings. Innovating teams do not routinely engage in day-to-day activities. They pursue new markets and develop products quite different from existing ones. The results suggest that successful leaders of both types of teams perform similar roles and functions. However, the methods they use to achieve them vary by the type of new product development team.     

Using Experts' Experiences Through Stories In Teaching New Product Development

The situations that new product development students typically have to face in the workplace are filled with unstructured problems. A systematic collection and organization of a number of experts' experiences, encoded as cases into a case library, and presented in the form of stories to learners while interacting with a task environment is considered by many scholars as a way to increase unstructured problem-solving skill in these learners. Despite the acknowledged potential of case libraries in other fields, no case libraries have been built to support the teaching of the NPD process. Prior to developing one, we conducted a study to shed some light into the effects of experts' stories and unstructured problem solving. Forty-four undergraduates were subjected to the following: a pretest, random assignment to one of three groups (experimental or case library with stories, comparable or fact sheet with material comparable to the stories but presented as facts, and control or text randomly selected from a textbook unrelated to the material), and post test. The tests attempt to measure whether the experimental group incorporated the lessons to be learned from the stories in the case library. The results indicate that indeed the case library supported unstructured problem-solving skills when compared to fact sheets or random text. General implications for new product development educators are provided. © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.     

Antecedents and Consequences of Unlearning in New Product Development Teams

Unlearning, which first appeared almost 30 years ago as a subprocess of the organizational learning process, has received only limited attention in the literature. Rather than building on empirical research, the existing scholarship is largely anecdotal, aimed at reviewing the literature and generating new insights. Further, unlearning studies tend to analyze the organizational level and neglect smaller units such as work groups and teams. To address this gap in the understanding of unlearning, this article empirically investigates unlearning in work groups in general and new product development (NPD) teams in particular. This study, based on the literature of organizational memory and change, operationalized team unlearning as changes in beliefs and routines during team‐based projects and then discussed the importance of unlearning behavior in NPD teams. Specifically it was argued that unlearning guards beliefs and routines against rigidity to cope with environmental turbulence. This is of particular note when rigid product development procedures and group beliefs inhibit the reception and evaluation of new market and technology information and reduce the value of perceived new information. To test the antecedents and consequences of the team unlearning model, 319 NPD teams were investigated. Using structural equation modeling, it was found that (1) team crisis and anxiety have a direct impact on team unlearning; (2) environmental turbulence also has a direct impact on both team crisis and anxiety and team unlearning; and (3) after team beliefs and project routines have changed, implementing new knowledge or information positively affects new product success. Specifically, the findings revealed that changes in team members' collective beliefs in accordance with environmental changes and the in‐process planning or adjustment of project work activities and procedures as the projects evolve enable teams to develop and launch new products successfully. Also, results indicated that team crisis and anxiety in NPD projects assist team members in revising their previous beliefs and routines when project teams are performing in turbulent environments. This article suggests that managers can enhance team unlearning by (1) creating a sense of urgency by introducing an artificial crisis; and (2) avoiding the groupthink phenomena by bringing in an outsider to challenge existing policies and procedures, and training the team on lateral thinking. In addition, managers can plan project activities in a flexible manner that allows changes as the project evolves to facilitate team unlearning. However, managers should also be cautious when promoting team unlearning. Without careful and considerable evaluation, change in beliefs and routines can cause information/knowledge loss.     

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.     

Managing New Product Development Teams in a Globally Dispersed NPD Program

Globalization is a major market trend today, one characterized by both increased international competition as well as extensive opportunities for firms to expand their operations beyond current boundaries. Effectively dealing with this important change, however, makes the management of global new product development (NPD) a major concern. To ensure success in this complex and competitive endeavor, companies must rely on global NPD teams that make use of the talents and knowledge available in different parts of the global organization. Thus, cohesive and well‐functioning global NPD teams become a critical capability by which firms can effectively leverage this much more diverse set of perspectives, experiences, and cultural sensitivities for the global NPD effort. The present research addresses the global NPD team and its impact on performance from both an antecedent and a contingency perspective. Using the resource‐based view (RBV) as a theoretical framework, the study clarifies how the internal, or behavioral, environment of the firm—specifically, resource commitment and senior management involvement—and the global NPD team are interrelated and contribute to global NPD program performance. In addition, the proposed performance relationships are viewed as being contingent on certain explicit, or strategic, factors. In particular, the degree of global dispersion of the firm's NPD effort is seen as influencing the management approach and thus altering the relationships among company background resources, team, and performance. For the empirical analysis, data are collected through a survey of 467 corporate global new product programs (North America and Europe, business‐to‐business). A structural model testing for the hypothesized effects was substantially supported. The results show that creating and effectively managing global NPD teams offers opportunities for leveraging a diverse but unique combination of talents and knowledge‐based resources, thereby enhancing the firm's ability to achieve a sustained competitive advantage in international markets. To function effectively, the global NPD team must be nested in a corporate environment in which there is a commitment of sufficient resources and where senior management plays an active role in leading, championing, and coordinating the global NPD effort. This need for commitment and global team integration becomes even more important for success as the NPD effort becomes more globally dispersed.     

An Exploratory Model of Interpersonal Cohesiveness in New Product Development Teams

There has been a heavy emphasis in new product development (NPD) research on intrateam issues such as communication, trust, and conflict management. Interpersonal cohesiveness, however, has received scant attention. In addition, there are conflicting findings regarding the effects of close‐knit teams, which seem to have a beneficial effect up to a point, after which the tight bond becomes a detriment. This paper addresses these issues by introducing an exploratory model of interpersonal cohesiveness→NPD performance that includes antecedents, consequences, and moderating factors. Antecedents of interpersonal cohesiveness include clan culture, formalization, integration, and political dominance of one department, while consequences are groupthink, superordinate identity, and, ultimately, external/internal new product (NP) performance. The relationships among interpersonal cohesiveness, groupthink, and superordinate identity appear to be influenced by two moderating factors: team norms and goal support. Additionally, product type is identified as a moderator on the effects of both groupthink and superordinate identity on external NP performance. The model is built from two sources: a synthesis of the literature in small group dynamics and NPD, and qualitative research conducted across 12 NPD teams. Individual team leaders were interviewed first, followed by interviews with two additional members on each team, for a total of 36 interviews. In keeping with the goals of qualitative research, the interviews and analysis were used to identify and define aspects of interpersonal cohesiveness rather than to test a preconceived model. Representation of different industries and product types was sought intentionally, and variance in NP innovativeness as well as in NP market success/profitability became key criteria in sample selection. The exploratory model and propositions developed in this study provide a framework for understanding the role of interpersonal cohesiveness in NPD teams and its direct and indirect effects on NP performance. Although a significant amount of research on cohesiveness has been conducted in previous studies of small groups, the narrow laboratory settings of that research have limited the generalizability of the findings. This study therefore serves as a useful starting point for future theory development involving interpersonal cohesiveness in NPD. It also provides a guide for managers in dealing with team cohesiveness.     

Information Distribution,Utilization, and Decisions by New Product Development Teams

Typically, organizations use new product development processes composed of activities followed by decision points, where projects are continued or abandoned. A decision maker likely possesses some common information also held by other decision makers and some unique information (that only she/he possesses). If a team relies mainly on overlapping, or common, information, decisions may suffer, but if they share and utilize information originally possessed by a subset of individual members, better decisions can be made. In this paper, the authors designed and conducted four studies to examine the effects of information distribution and utilization on new product team decision‐making. In study 1, the findings show that team members tend to use information possessed by everyone (i.e., common information) but neglect critical information possessed only by one of them (i.e., unique information). This common information bias results in suboptimal new product continuation decisions. In study 2, the interplay between the common information bias and team commitment to the NPD project favored by unique information is examined. The results show that although commitment influences new product development team decisions, the common information bias is stronger. Study 3 was conducted to rule out an alternative explanation for the effect of information distribution—the perception of information importance. In study 4, the focal hypotheses were re‐tested using a different sample to add confidence in the findings.     

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.     

Procedural Justice Climate in New Product Development Teams: Antecedents and Consequences

With the increasing interest in the concept of justice in the group behavior literature, the procedural justice (PJ) climate attracts many researchers and practitioners from different fields. Nevertheless, the PJ climate is rarely addressed in the new product development (NPD) project team literature. Specifically, the technology and innovation management (TIM) literature provides little about what the PJ climate is, its nature and benefits, and how it works in NPD project teams. Also, few studies investigate the antecedents and consequences of the PJ climate in NPD teams enhancing the understanding of this concept from a practical perspective. This paper discusses the PJ climate theory in a NPD team context and empirically demonstrates how team members' positive collective perceptions of a PJ climate can be developed and how a PJ climate influences a project's performance in NPD teams. In particular, team culture values including employee orientation, customer orientation, systematic management control, innovativeness, and social responsibility were investigated as antecedents, and team learning, speed to market, and market success of new products were studied as outcomes of PJ climate in this paper. By studying 83 NPD project teams it was found on the basis of using partial least squares (PLS) method that (1) the level of employee, customer and innovativeness orientation as well as systematic management control during the project had a positive impact on developing a PJ climate in an NPD team; (2) a PJ climate positively affects team learning and product development time (i.e., speed to market); and (3) team learning and speed to market mediate the relations between the PJ climate and new product success (NPS). Based on the findings, this paper suggests that managers should enhance the PJ climate and team culture in the project team to enhance team learning and to develop products faster. In particular, managers should (1) open a discussion forum among people and create a dialogue for people who disagree with the other project team members rather than dictating or emposing others ideas to them, (2) facilitate information searching and collecting mechanisms to make decisions effectively and to clarify uncertainties, and (3) allow team members to challange project‐related ideas and decisions and modify them with consensus. Also, to enhance the PJ climate during the project, managers should (1) respect and listen to all team members' ideas and try to understand why they are sometimes in opposition, (2) define team members' task boundaries and clarify project norms and project goals, and (3) set knowledge‐questioning values by facilitating team members to try out new ideas and seek out new ways to do things.     

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.     

Towards Holistic Front Ends In New Product Development

Any firm that hopes to compete on the basis of innovation clearly must be proficient in all phases of the new-product development (NPD) process. However, the real keys to success can be found in the activities that occur before management makes the go/no-go decision for any NPD project. In other words, the most significant benefits can be achieved through improvements in the performance of the front-end activities—product strategy formulation and communication, opportunity identification and assessment, idea generation, product definition, project planning, and executive reviews. Noting the inherent difficulty of managing the front end, Anil Khurana and Stephen R. Rosenthal discuss findings from in-depth case studies of the front-end practices in 18 business units from 12 U.S. and Japanese companies. They offer a process view of the activities that the front end comprises, and they discuss the insights that their case studies provide regarding key success factors for managing the front-end activities. The case studies involved companies in industries ranging from consumer packaged goods to electronics and industrial products. Foremost among the insights provided by the case studies is the notion that the greatest success comes to organizations that take a holistic approach to the front end. A successful approach to the front end effectively links business strategy, product strategy, and product-specific decisions. Forging these links requires a process that integrates such elements as product strategy, development portfolio, concept development, overall business justification, resource planning, core team roles, executive reviews, and decision mechanisms. The case studies suggest that firms employ two general approaches for achieving these links. Some companies rely on a formal process to lend some order and predictability to the front end. Other companies strive to foster a company-wide culture in which the key participants in front-end activities always remain focused on the following considerations: business vision, technical feasibility, customer focus, schedule, resources, and coordination. This cultural approach is more prevalent among the Japanese firms in the study; the U.S. firms tend to rely on formality of the front-end process. The case studies also suggest that the front-end approach must be compatible with the firm's product, market, and organizational contexts. For example, standardized approaches seem to work best for incremental innovations.     

Experiential Education In New Product Design And Business Development

We describe an experiential approach to teaching new product design and business development in a year‐long course that combines intensive project work with classroom education. Our course puts together up to six teams of graduate students from management and engineering who work on projects sponsored by individual companies. Student teams work with faculty from multiple disciplines and personnel from the sponsoring companies. The year‐long format and involvement with company personnel provide opportunities for students to gain hands‐on experience in a real product development project. Time constraints, coupled with students' determination to demonstrate what they can accomplish, stimulate teams to learn how to compress the design and development cycle. To help students generalize from their own projects to a wider universe of product design and business development phenomena, students participate continuously in constructive critiques of others' projects; and in presentations, case discussions and workshops that help them learn about the product and business development process itself. This article describes course objectives, syllabus, projects, sponsors, faculty, students and our course administration. In an effort to move towards a “paperless” course, we have put as much of the course material as possible on the World Wide Web; relevant websites are referred to in the article. At the end of the course each team presents a prototype and a protoplan to the sponsoring company in a final report, which in many cases includes suggestions for the sponsor on how to improve its design and development process. Students' positive evaluations, along with their comments, indicate that they are attaining their educational goals. Course projects have resulted in commercialized products, patents, continuing development projects in sponsoring companies, and placements for students. The course has generated public relations value for the units involved and for the university as a whole. © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.     

Learning in New Technology Development Teams

One factor that may distinguish effective new product development teams from ineffective ones is the ability to learn in purposeful and cumulative ways. History can sometimes teach important lessons, yet history is not always transmitted efficiently within organizations. Patricia Meyers and David Wilemon present a study of new product development teams' learning in technology-based organizations. They note especially the learning modes employed by teams, the conditions blocking team learning which create errors and the learning transfer among teams. Using findings from previous and current research, the authors establish the importance of effective team learning whenever teams are asked to deal with complex new product development challenges. Further, they suggest ways to create a productive learning climate for new product teams and close with a discussion of both managerial implications and suggestions for further research.     

The Effect of Multiknowledge Individuals on Performance in Cross‐Functional New Product Development Teams*

This study examines the effect of multiknowledge individuals (especially those possessing both marketing and technological knowledge) on performance in cross‐functional new product development teams. A survey of 62 cross‐functional teams shows that the proportion of multiknowledge individuals has an indirect positive effect through information sharing on product innovativeness and a direct positive effect on time efficiency of new product development teams.     

Faster New Product Development

Clearly today's business climate mandates the need for faster development of new products. Drawing upon his experience, Milton Rosenau describes several techniques that have not been mentioned explicitly in recent articles: short, focused development phases; management involvement and support; procurement and use of productivity improvements; multifunctional teamwork; distraction reduction; frozen specifications; and microcomputer-based project management software.     

A Contingency‐Based Approach to the Use of Product Platforms and Modules in New Product Development

To face the challenges of increasing demand for variety, more specific customer demands and shortening product life cycles, firms increasingly adopt mass customization techniques. Two important such techniques are product modularization and product platform development, which allow firms to reach high levels of product variety, and at the same time, keep complexity and its related costs at a limited level. Often modularization and product platform development are treated as variants of the same basic idea. However, even if the concepts are closely related, they also have some fundamental differences, which influence their usefulness and applicability in different settings. One potential shortcoming of existing literature on modularization and product platforms is the present lack of research on their limitations and potential negative effects. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to identify and explore contingencies influencing the applicability of modularization and product platforms, respectively, taking their different economic effects as a starting point. Moreover, the paper addresses how different organizing solutions are interrelated with the use of modularization and product platform approaches. The empirical observations originate from studies of three Swedish manufacturing firms. The study reveals that important contingencies affecting the applicability of modularization and product platforms are demand side characteristics and the speed of environmental change. Furthermore, it is seen that firms need to organize themselves differently with respect to how they combine modularization and platforms, for example, in terms of degree of centralization, formalization, and allocation of decision‐making authority, and that this poses challenges to the combined use of the two approaches.     

Crossfunctional Teams in Product Development: Accommodating the Structure to the Process

This article reports the conclusions from a study of crossfunctional product development teams with emphasis on the implications for altering organizational structure to accommodate team process. A comparative study of teams in four U.S.firms, using anthropological and sociolinguistic methods, found that team work is inherently paradoxical. It poses numerous contradictions and paradoxes for individuals, teams, and organizations. At one of the research sites, tacit recognition of this reality and a conviction that teams were critical to product development led to a continuous accommodation of the organization to the requirements of team work and to impressive organizational outcomes. Conceptual and managerial lessons are drawn from this successful case and are offered here to help guide both future research and the actual implementation of team work in firms.