Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore the role of cross‐functional teams in the alignment between system effectiveness and operational effectiveness after the implementation of enterprise information systems (EIS). In addition, it aims to explore the contribution of cross‐functional teams to improvement in operational performance.

The research uses a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, in a two‐stage methodological approach, to investigate the influence of cross‐functional teams on the alignment between system effectiveness and operational effectiveness and the impact of the stated alignment on the improvement in operational performance.

Initial findings suggest that factors stemming from system effectiveness and the performance objectives stemming from operational effectiveness are important and significantly well correlated factors that promote the alignment between the effectiveness of technological implementation and the effectiveness of operations. In addition, confirmatory factor analysis has been used to find the structural relationships and provide explanations for the stated alignment and the contribution of cross‐functional teams to the improvement in operational performance.

The principal limitation of this study is its small sample size.

Cross‐functional teams have been used by many organisations as a way of involving expertise from different functional areas in the implementation of innovative technologies. An appropriate use of the dimensions that emerged from this research, in the context of cross‐functional teams, will assist organisations to properly utilise cross‐functional teams with the aim of improving operational performance.

The paper presents a new approach to measure the effectiveness of EIS implementation by adding new dimensions to measure it.

Purpose – This research aims to identify various organizational‐level factors influencing support for cross‐functional new product development (NPD) teams. Design/methodology/approach – A total of 2,500 questionnaires where mailed in 2003 to managers of product development from Canadian and US manufacturing organizations operating in the machinery, computer, electronic product, electrical equipment, and transportation equipment manufacturing industrial sectors. A total of 269 usable questionnaires were returned for a response rate of 11.1 percent. Findings – Results of performing regression analysis indicate that the quality of communication between the functional disciplines involved in NPD activities, perceived risks and complexity of using cross‐functional NPD teams, and the complexity of the organization's NPD activities all influence organizational support for cross‐functional NPD teams. Based on the qualitative data, additional reasons why cross‐functional NPD teams may not be supported in organizations are identified and discussed. Research limitations/implications – The major limitation of this study is that the respondents are NPD managers. These managers commented on the extent that support for cross‐functional NPD teams exists at the team, departmental, and senior management levels. Future research should focus on gauging organizational support for cross‐functional NPD teams by directly surveying team members, functional managers, and senior managers. Practical implications – This study identifies various organizational‐level factors influencing support for cross‐functional NPD teams. Originality/value – This research is of value to managers using or implementing cross‐functional teams, as it indicates potential organizational‐level factors that may facilitate or hamper the usage of such teams. To researchers, it provides a starting point in studying the determinants of support for cross‐functional NPD teams, and cross‐functional teams in general.

This paper outlines a theoretical framework for studying the integration of ethnically diverse workforces in public service organizations. Individual and work group characteristics are viewed as determinants of social identity and organizational identification. Social Identity theory suggests that individuals develop self‐concept through identification with salient groups, including ethnic groups and organizational roles. The extent to which these identifications are competitive or synergistic may depend upon organizational and work group characteristics and on organizational policies concerning selection, performance appraisal, and rewards. Cross‐functional teamwork may provide an integrative mechanism which can promote intergroup relations and encourage greater organizational commitment among an ethnically diverse workforce. Cross‐functional teams can contribute to reduced intergroup conflict and promote the development of organizational identification. The benefits of cross‐functional teams will be particularly important in situations where the workforce is diverse, but work groups are ethnically homogeneous.

Organizations are increasingly using cross‐ functional teams to address broad‐scale organizational problems, and the potential of such teams is undeniable. Bringing a cross‐functional perspective to organizational problems help build understanding, problem‐solving capabilities, co‐ordination, communication and, ultimately, improved quality and productivity. While the benefits are many, this study highlights the challenges. Over one‐half of the participants viewed their cross‐functional team’s work as unsuccessful, and these same individuals felt less optimistic about cross‐functional teams than they had before participating in one. While it is apparent that organizational leaders, are enthusiastically embracing team efforts, calls for additional analysis to explore the unique challenges of cross‐functional teams so organizations can consistently benefit from their efforts. Examines those factors that contributed to the success of the teams in this study and offers recommendations for working with cross‐functional teams.

Well‐documented corporate demands for crossfunctionally competent employees have instigated a wide variety of efforts by the educational community to integrate business curricula. Many colleges and universities struggle to functionally integrate business programs that historically have been delivered by well‐defined, and often well‐siloed, disciplines. Drawing from the numerous published and unpublished case studies of cross‐functional integration attempts, this study develops a framework of critical issues to consider when developing an integrated program. The framework develops five major categories of issues (strategic, leadership, administrative, faculty, and student) to help universities identify typical program decisions and potential roadblocks that may inhibit the development of a successful program.

The purpose of this paper is to assist library administration in avoiding cross-functional team pitfalls.

This paper reports the results of years of cross-fucntiional teams at an academic Library. Reports results of years of cross-functional teams at an academic Library.

Through shared trial and errors, readers will be able to avoid pitfalls and formulate questions not previously considered for their pursuit of cross-functional teams.

While this is a case study, the lessons learned can be applied at any library where cross-functional teams are considered.

This study provides an account of teams at an academic library spanning a decade. Trials and tribulations are discussed.

This article aims to examine the influence of emotional intelligence on cross-functional teams, the formation of interorganizational networks and the impact of all three dimensions on operational effectiveness.

The analysis was based on 250 valid questionnaires collected from organizations in the Valle del Cauca region in Colombia in the service sector. The variables were analyzed using structural equation modeling to identify their relationships.

The results suggest that emotional intelligence contributes to establishing cross-functional teams but does not impact the development of interorganizational networks, influencing operational effectiveness only indirectly through the cross-functional teams. Contrary to what the literature suggests, interorganizational networks do not influence the operational effectiveness of organizations. Hence, in the pursuit of competitive advantage, companies in the studied region should encourage the creation of cross-functional teams within their organizations to maximize the returns received through the optimization of operational effectiveness.

Organizations are comprised of individuals whose emotional intelligence competencies and abilities enable them to form effective cross-functional teams. Furthermore, cross-functional teams that effectively establish relationships with other organizations are frequently employed in global, interorganizational collaboration environments like joint ventures and alliances. Cross-functional teams that fulfill their aims have the potential to benefit the organization's performance by boosting operational effectiveness and, therefore, its competitiveness.

The value of this article lies in providing a better understanding of the capabilities and strategies of organizations in the construction of interorganizational networks intended to improve their competitiveness. However, before operational effectiveness and a sustainable competitive advantage can be achieved, the role of the individuals comprising the cross-functional teams should be managed through the appropriate application of the concepts of emotional intelligence.

This study aims to present a model that can be used for predicting effective knowledge sharing behaviors in cross‐functional project teams.

Drawn from the extant literature, a coopetitive model of knowledge sharing is postulated. Data from 115 project managers are used to test the proposed model, using partial least squares (PLS).

The findings confirm the applicability and predictive power of the proposed model. Three dimensions of cross‐functional cooperation (cooperative task orientation, cooperative communication, and cooperative interpersonal relationships) were proved to directly drive effective knowledge sharing behaviors. The results show that competition affects effective knowledge sharing behaviors through influencing cooperative behaviors. In addition, this study shows that different dimensions of competition generate mixed impacts. Competition for tangible resources was found to positively affect cooperative communication of individuals, whereas competition for intangible resources (political competition) had negative impacts on cooperative communication and task orientations.

This study contributes to the extant literature by presenting a model that predicts effective knowledge sharing practices in cross‐functional projects. In addition, the results advance the current understanding of the concept and modeling of coopetitive knowledge sharing.

The proposed model of this study can be used by managers in order to facilitate problematic knowledge sharing processes within cross‐functional teams.

This study stands as one of the first attempts in providing a model that explains the forces behind effective knowledge sharing behaviors in cross‐functional teams. The model explores coopetition effect in a systematic way, which has not been previously studied.

This study aims to investigate the impact of cross-functional coordination (cross-functional system, process and team coordination) on customer coordination (customer strategic and operational coordination) and operational performance. Following the lens of information processing theory (IPT), this study examines the diverse mechanisms of cross-functional coordination practices in enhancing firms’ information processing capabilities (IPCs) to cope with the higher information processing demands resulting from customer coordination, finally improving operational performance.

Based on data collected from 410 Chinese manufacturers, the authors use the structural equation modeling method to test the theoretical model.

The authors found that cross-functional system coordination is positively associated with customer operational coordination (COC) but not customer strategic coordination (CSC). Cross-functional process coordination increases both customer strategic and operational coordination. Cross-functional team coordination significantly promotes CSC but not COC. Both customer operational and strategic coordination facilitate operational performance.

This research pioneers in identifying three dimensions of cross-functional coordination based on IPT and examine their distinct impacts on various customer coordination activities. The authors distinguish two customer coordination dimensions and reveal their effects on operational performance. This research contributes to the development of IPT. Additionally, this study provides guidelines for managers to coordinate internal departments and collaborate with external customers to enhance firms’ operational performance.

This paper seeks to empirically investigate how a heavyweight product manager (HW) can impact the cross‐functional team and project performance (PP) through actively influencing the ways and the extent of strategic alignment (SA), shared project mission, and clarity of project targets in the early front‐end stage.

Based on past studies on leadership role theory and goal‐setting theory for teams, this study hypothesizes that the role of the HW for SA of the project, shared project mission, and clarity of the project target are positively related. The study further hypothesizes that these roles of the HW can have a positive impact on PP measures such as product cost, time, and customer satisfaction.

Primary data collected from 191 new product development (NPD) projects from the US automotive industry were analyzed using structural equation modeling techniques. All the hypotheses presented in this study regarding the role of the HW in a cross‐functional team are supported. These roles of the HW also seem to indicate a positive relationship with overall PP.

Rather than blindly subscribing to generic and prescriptive “best practices” for the HW, the causal relationship detailed in this study makes it now possible to rationalize the role of HW in cross‐functional product development teams. Through formal and informal influence of the HW, the project and the team gain SA, shared mission, and clear project targets that can drive better PP.

This is the first study to focus specifically on the role of HW in NPD in a cross‐functional team environment.