The Phase-Specific Effects of Organizational Antecedents
E-Book, Englisch, 185 Seiten, eBook
ISBN: 978-3-8349-9642-8
Verlag: Betriebswirtschaftlicher Verlag Gabler
Format: PDF
Kopierschutz: Wasserzeichen (»Systemvoraussetzungen)
Dr. Tobias Huth promovierte bei Prof. Dr. Joachim Büschken am Lehrstuhl für Marketing und Absatzwirtschaft an der Katholischen Universität Eichstätt-Ingolstadt. Er ist als Manager Business Evaluation bei der BASF AG in Ludwigshafen tätig.
Zielgruppe
Research
Weitere Infos & Material
1;Foreword;6
2;Preface;8
3;Table of contents;10
4;List of Tables;14
5;List of Figures;16
6;Abbreviations;18
7;1 Introduction;19
7.1;1.1 Phase-Specific Organizational Infrastructures for Cross-Functional New Product Development Projects;19
7.2;1.2 Research Goal;20
7.3;1.3 Outline of the Investigation;23
8;2 Cross-Functional Teams in New Product Development;25
8.1;2.1 Emergence of the Concept and Related Challenges;25
8.1.1;2.1.1 Theoretical Background for the Need to Integrate Functions;25
8.1.2;2.1.2 From Functional Lines to Cross-functional Teams;26
8.1.3;2.1.3 Cross-Functional Teams and New Product Success – Empirical Evidence;30
8.1.4;2.1.4 Challenges Concerning the Use of Cross-Functional Teams;31
8.2;2.2 Literature Review on the Success Factors of Cross-Functional Teams;36
8.2.1;2.2.1 Modelling Group Effectiveness;38
8.2.2;2.2.2 Framework of the Content Analysis;41
8.2.3;2.2.3 Organizational Context;42
8.2.4;2.2.4 Behavioral Processes and Psychosocial Traits;57
8.2.5;2.2.5 Additional Success Factors;61
8.2.6;2.2.6 Summary of the Literature Review and Research Gaps;62
8.3;2.3 Scope of this Study and Addressed Research Gaps;64
9;3 Theoretical Framework for the Phase-specific Effects of Organizational Antecedents in Cross- Functional New Product Development;67
9.1;3.1 Theory of Mechanistic and Organic Organizations;67
9.2;3.2 The Innovation Process – The Characteristics of the Early and the Late Stage;69
9.3;3.3 Differing Information Requirements and Levels of Uncertainty During the Early and Late Stages of the Innovation Process;70
9.4;3.4 Phase-specific Organization Structures for Innovation Projects;71
9.5;3.5 Boundary Management As a Continuous Requirement for Successful Innovation Projects;73
9.6;3.6 Interim Conclusion: Research Questions and Further Proceeding.;74
9.7;3.7 Conceptual Models and Hypothesis;76
9.7.1;3.7.1 The Phase-specific Effects of Creativity and Efficiency (Model I);76
9.7.2;3.7.2 The Effects of Organizational Antecedents in the Early Project Stage (Model II);81
9.7.3;3.7.3 The Effects of Organizational Antecedents in the Late Project Stage (Model III);89
10;4 Research Methodology and Results;96
10.1;4.1 Survey Development and Data Collection;96
10.2;4.2 Sample Description;99
10.3;4.3 Measures;102
10.3.1;4.3.1 Performance Measures;102
10.3.2;4.3.2 Organizational Antecedents;103
10.3.3;4.3.3 Control Variables;104
10.4;4.4 Choice of PLS as Research Method;109
10.5;4.5 General Steps in the Assessment of PLS-models;112
10.5.1;4.5.1 Assessment of Validity and Reliability of the Measurement Model;112
10.5.2;4.5.2 Evaluation of the Structural Relationships;114
10.6;4.6 The Phase-specific Effects of Creativity and Efficiency (Model I);116
10.6.1;4.6.1 Assessments of Validity and Reliability of the Measurement Variables;116
10.6.2;4.6.2 Analysis and Results;118
10.7;4.7 The Effects of Organizational Antecedents in the Early Project Stage (Model II);121
10.7.1;4.7.1 Measurement and Validation of Constructs;121
10.7.2;4.7.2 Analysis and Results;125
10.8;4.8 The Effects of Organizational Antecedents in the Late Project Stage (Model III);129
10.8.1;4.8.1 Measurement and Validation of Constructs;129
10.8.2;4.8.2 Analysis and Results;133
10.9;4.9 Summary of the Results;136
10.9.1;4.9.1 Model I - The Phase-specific Effects of Creativity and Efficiency.;138
10.9.2;4.9.2 Model II/ III – The Phase-specific Effects of Organizational Antecedents;141
11;5 Discussion;147
11.1;5.1 Theoretical Implications;147
11.2;5.2 Managerial Implications;150
11.3;5.3 Future Research;152
11.4;5.4 Limitations;153
11.5;5.5 Conclusion;154
12;6 Appendix;155
12.1;I Boundary Management Activities, Organic and Mechanistic Structures within the Context of this Study;156
12.2;II Questionnaire and Instructions;158
12.3;III Testing for Common Method Bias - Harman’s Single-Factor Test;164
12.3.1;III.1 Model I;164
12.3.2;III.2 Model II;165
12.3.3;III.3 Model III;166
12.4;IV Testing for Non-Response-Bias - T-Tests; Early vs. Late Respondents;167
12.4.1;IV.1 Group Statistics;167
12.4.2;IV.2 Independent Samples Test;169
12.5;V Testing for Sample Selection Bias - T-Tests; BITKOM/CEBIT vs. OpenBC;174
12.5.1;V.1 Group Statistics;174
12.5.2;V.2 Independent Samples Test;176
12.6;VI Tests of Normality;181
12.7;VII Simple Regression - Financial Performance (Model I);182
12.8;VIII Early vs. Late Use of Antecedents, T-Tests;183
13;7 References;185
Cross-Functional Teams in New Product Development.- Theoretical Framework for the Phase-specific Effects of Organizational Antecedents in Cross-Functional New Product Development.- Research Methodology and Results.- Discussion.- References.
2 Cross-Functional Teams in New Product Development (p. 7)
2.1 Emergence of the Concept and Related Challenges
2.1.1 Theoretical Background for the Need to Integrate Functions
The scientific analysis of the cooperation between organizational subsystems is rooted in Lawrence &, Lorsch’s (1967, p. 3), theory of integration and differentiation. According to this theory, organizations are effective when they build specialized functional units and integrate them. By establishing specialized functions, the organization adapts to the uncertainties of specific sub-environments, e.g. the R&,D department adapts to the scientific/ technological environment. It focuses on resolving problems related to newly emerging and competitive technologies.
The marketing department adapts to the market environment and deals with uncertainties concerning market demand, preferences and competition (Lawrence &, Lorsch 1967, pp. 8-9, Olson et al. 2001, p. 260, Souder &, Moenaert 1992, p. 490). Such specialization enables the firm to segment uncertainty. This process is called "differentiation". At the same time, differentiation bears the danger of isolation and it ignores the interdependencies between functions in terms of resources, information and tasks (McCann &, Galbraith 1981, p. 63). Accordingly, there is need to integrate these differentiated subsystems. Lawrence &, Lorsch (1967, p. 4) define integration as "The process of achieving unity of effort among the various subsystems in the accomplishment of the organization’s task".
The need for integration across functions can also be theoretically established from a resource dependency perspective (Pfeffer 1982, Pfeffer &, Salancik 1978). This view has been widely recognized to explain interactions between functional units and organizations (Gupta et al. 1986, Ruekert &, Walker 1987, Stock 2006). It assumes that when employees have less relevant experience to draw on when developing innovative new products, they depend more on other functional competencies, information and resources in order to arrive at a creative, feasible, and successful solution.
Thus, the lack of self-sufficiency creates potential functional dependencies on the parties from which critical inputs are obtained (Stock 2006). Hence, resourcedependency theory provides an additional theoretical explanation as to why cross-functional diversity may increase new product development performance.
2.1.2 From Functional Lines to Cross-functional Teams
Cross-functional project teams have not always been the organizational approach of choice when developing new products (Larson &, Gobeli 1988), and not all companies use crossfunctional teams for new product development (Huizenga 2004, p. 134). A survey by McDonough (2000, p. 229) reveals that 97% of the companies in the USA have used CFTs, and that 33% use them 100% of the time. Griffin (1997, p. 431) demonstrates that over 84% of the more innovative projects are using CFTs, and 40-50% of the surveyed companies use CFTs for less-innovative projects. However, the identified best practice companies report a more extensive use of CFTs for less-innovative projects (50-60%).
