Search results

This paper takes an exploratory approach towards understanding the applicability of established theoretical frameworks for cross-functional integration in different global environments. In particular, the role of culture is considered as its impact on organizations may affect the ability to create a global generic model for cross-functional integration in product development. In order to achieve this aim, the paper will explore two cases from different cultural environments, namely that of Slovenia and the UK.

The authors compare two different companies, based on their case profile and cultural background. Both are heavy engineering companies involved in product development, one originating in the developing economy of Slovenia, the other from the developed UK economy. The authors have employed a mix methodology, including literature and documentation analysis, questionnaire surveys and interviews.

Combining organizational climate and consequently informal cooperation with formal organizational schemes, when allowing moderate levels of authority, can be beneficial for NPD success and R&D-marketing integration. These findings confirm the theoretical principles of Gupta et al., but are to some extent actually directly connected to NPD success, rather than to the R&D-marketing interface. The framework might be valid when exploring a large sample of companies at national levels, but needs further specifications and expansion when employed in a single case company. Furthermore, the two studied cases show that special care needs to be placed on taking account of cultural differences, when employing NPD in different locations/international business units.

The paper presents a case comparison of cross-functional integration in two different cultural contexts. From this exploratory research, the main contribution highlights the key role of cultural context in developing effective cross-functional interfaces in product development.

Following the resource-based view, this paper aims to investigate the business performance impact of R&D–marketing integration and marketing and technical capabilities at the organization level in a non-Western context. Specifically, this work explores the mediating role of the two capabilities, while accounting for potential moderating effects and under the contingency of technological turbulence.

Survey data were collected from the paired marketing and R&D executives of 207 Japanese manufacturing companies. Data were analyzed using structural equation modeling.

The results show that marketing capability – by itself and also coupled with technical capability – mediates the relationship between R&D–marketing integration and business performance, while technical capability alone does not.

This study’s subjective performance measures and cross-sectional design have inherent limitations. The exploration of antecedents and other contingency variables would provide ample scope for future research.

The findings suggest that managers need to build these two capabilities, especially marketing capability, because R&D–marketing integration by itself will not be sufficient to improve business performance.

This study provides empirical evidence for a new theoretical link through which R&D–marketing integration impacts business performance at the program level. The findings may also partially explain the mixed and conflicting results often found in past studies.

Examines organizational adoption of R&D/marketing integration from a diffusion‐of‐innovations perspective, summarizing findings and concepts gleaned from research. Applies these findings to improve understanding of the problem of integrating R&D and marketing in the new product development environment. Offers managerial recommendations for increased cooperation and communications between the marketing and R&D functions. Presents an agenda for further research.

In new product development (NPD), the early phase is considered to be one of the greatest opportunities for improving the overall process, where intensive collaboration between marketing and R&D is essential. Nevertheless, previous studies indicate the difficulties of creating a thorough concept during the early phase. This paper aims to contribute to understanding why concept creation is difficult during the early phase of NPD.

This case study involves a single company, and is based on a combination of participant observations and interviews. The participant observations are based on an ethnographic method and the interviews on a hermeneutic approach.

The findings suggest that the difficulties in creating a strong concept during the early phase are related to the negative conflicts arising between marketing and R&D. The underlying cause of such conflicts can further be related to the strong interdependencies existing between the functions. Achieving a better understanding of the interdependencies and the different functional views may reduce the negative conflicts which otherwise tend to become barriers to the far‐reaching integration needed to develop a thorough concept.

As this study is based on a single case, further research is needed in this field in other industries.

Cooperation between functions, as advised in the literature, is not enough and needs to be expanded to cover perspective making and perspective taking in order to move away from the many non‐productive conflicts arising during the early phase as well as create thorough concepts.

This paper bridges different bodies of theories related to concept creation and identifies a gap in the existing theories concerning NPD and the early phase.

Prior studies on product standardization–adaptation in multinational corporations (MNCs) have revealed environmental factors that can influence the choices of MNCs. However, these studies have not shown how these choices are made behind the scenes in new product development (NPD). In many industries, MNCs face the dual pressures for product standardization and adaptation from the environment. This study aims to explore how MNCs facing dual pressures can make choices of product standardization–adaptation in NPD.

A qualitative case study of four high-performing MNCs was conducted. The four MNCs were selected using the theoretical sampling approach. Data were collected, mainly through 74 semi-structured interviews. Coding was conducted and four aggregate dimensions were generated.

This study reveals that choices of product standardization–adaptation are made through a process in MNCs’ NPD, including four steps – organizing for NPD, organizational diversity, cross-unit integration and combination of design practices. In addition, MNCs adopt different process variants to address different environmental pressures.

This research focuses on high-performing MNCs in manufacturing industries. Future research can explore different types of firms.

Managers in MNCs should focus more on the process of choices for product standardization–adaptation, than on the level of product standardization–adaptation. They should also keep monitoring the environmental pressure and employ experienced engineers.

By focusing on NPD, the authors shift the attention from product standardization–adaptation to product feature standardization–adaptation in MNCs, which is a fresh and refined perspective. The authors show a process in NPD composed of activities and mechanisms that managers might use for handling product standardization–adaptation challenges in MNCs. The authors contribute to the area of cross-unit integration in MNCs’ NPD by revealing mental mechanisms for mitigating tensions in cross-unit interactions.

The present study aims to explore the relationship between manufacturing–research and development (R&D) integration and organizational culture in enhancing quality and product development performance (PDP).

Based on data collected from 931 manufacturing firms around world, the authors examine the proposed hypothesis by using regression analyses. In addition, PROCESS (SPSS macro) is used to test both the mediation and moderated mediation models in this study.

The findings reveal that quality management practices (QMPs) partially mediate the relationship between R&D-manufacturing integration and PDP. Further, it is found that the direct and indirect effects of R&D-manufacturing integration on PDP are stronger when the organization is characterized as participative rather than hierarchical.

This study, by investigating the combined effect of R&D-manufacturing integration and organizational culture on QMPs and PDP, provides practical insights into the ways that manufacturing firms effectively utilize the integration between R&D and manufacturing functions to improve QMPs and enhance PDP.

Reports exploratory research focusing on this neglected area based on semi‐structured interviews with R&D and marketing managers of major international pharmaceutical companies. Major findings include the fact that few of the responding companies integrate marketing and R&D in the formulation of product development strategy which is a considerable source of resentment between the marketing and R&D functions. Also, whilst the move from functional specialisation to cross‐functional therapeutic teams is effective in focusing NPD activity and delivering projects on time, they ignore innovative opportunities that are not directly related to the project. External specialist companies are an increasingly important source of innovation and the ability to manage them effectively is essential for maintaining competitive advantage in the pharmaceutical industry.

This paper presents a comparative study of the views of British and German engineers on the relationship between engineers and marketers and the conflict between them. Data have been collected from 151 British and 84 German engineers in 25 companies. Engineers who work in a variety of functions and at a number of different levels within an organisation are included. It has been found that the relationship is seen as being reasonable, with teamwork and increased knowledge of marketing by engineers both needed to make it function effectively. The engineers in both countries do not seek to dominate marketing, but they do feel that they need to obtain an understanding of management and of marketing. Conflict is not seen as being high in either country but German engineers perceive there to be lower levels of conflict between them and their marketing colleagues. German engineers see education and training differences as being the main reasons for conflict, whereas British engineers cite a lack of understanding between the two functions as the main reason. Engineers in both countries agree that better communications, more teamwork and more training are needed to improve the interface between the two functions. From this study, modifications to current theoretical frameworks can be seen and these are discussed.

The primary objective of this research is to test a model examining interpersonal trust between marketing managers and R&D managers during new product development projects.

In this study interpersonal trust as a bi‐dimensional construct with cognitive and affective components is conceptualised. The authors' integrative structural model specifies Weber's structural/bureaucratic dimensions – formalisation and centralisation to predict three communication dimensions, communication frequency, quality, and bi‐directionality. In turn these communication dimensions are used to predict cognition‐based trust, and affect‐based trust. In addition, the paper models the direct effects of the three communication dimensions on a dependent variable – perceived relationship effectiveness. The hypothesised model consists of 16 hypotheses, seven of which relate to the two focal interpersonal trust constructs. The measures were tested and a structural model estimated by using PLS. Data were provided by 184 R&D managers in Australia, reporting on their working relationship with a counterpart marketing manager during a recent product development project.

The hypothesized model has high explanatory power and it was found that both trust dimensions strongly influenced the effectiveness of marketing/R&D relationships during new product development, with cognition‐based trust having the strongest impact. The results also reveal which forms of communication help to build interpersonal trust. The most powerful effect was from communication quality to cognition‐based trust. The next strongest effects were from bi‐directional communication, which was a strong predictor of affect‐based trust, and a somewhat weaker predictor of cognition‐based trust. Interestingly, the direct effects of our three communication behaviours on relationship effectiveness were modest, suggesting that their relationship building effects are largely indirect. Last, it is revealed that bureaucratic means of control on product development projects have mixed effects. As expected, centralisation reduces cross‐functional communication. In contrast, formalisation has a positive effect during product development, as it stimulates both the frequency and bi‐directionality of communication between marketing managers and R&D managers on these projects.

This is the first study to treat interpersonal trust as the focal construct in marketing/R&D relationships during new product development. Moreover, it is the only study of marketing/R&D relationships to conceptualise, measure, and model two underlying dimensions of interpersonal trust (cognition‐based trust, and affect‐based trust). Our study also integrates aspects of Weber's theory of bureaucracy, with interaction theory, and demonstrates the strong links between these theoretical frameworks.

In this paper, we postulate that a balanced input from R&D and marketing improves the entry strategy selection process. While doing so, we focus our attention on two dimensions: magnitude of investment and timing of entry. On the basis of the literature and empirical studies, we have developed a conceptual framework and defined measures for the desired level of the R&D/marketing interface. This framework contributes to the literature on the R&D/marketing interface by spelling out the interaction between the R&D/marketing interface and entry strategy decision on new product performance. It also adds to the literature on new product introduction by focusing on the determinants of entry strategy and their impact on new product performance.