Search results

Literature is unanimous about the effects of functional diversity in new product development teams. This paper uses simulation modeling to investigate the contradictory and dynamic effects of functional team diversity on innovation revealed by empirical literature. This paper aims to start a discussion on this dynamic perspective of team diversity.

This paper presents a systemic approach toward investigating the contradictory and dynamic effects of functional team diversity on innovation by creating a simplified System Dynamics model of functional diversity in new product development teams.

Although the simulation model is highly simplified, it can integrate the contradictory results of empirical data and the dynamic component of teamwork. Therefore, it offers a new approach to investigating the effects of functional diversity on team innovation.

The model is highly simplified and exemplary. No actual data are included, thus limiting the results as fully theoretical.

Empirical studies often analyze the effects of functional diversity on innovation in new product development teams. However, empirical data are unclear regarding the nature of the effects of functional diversity on innovation. Therefore, functional diversity is chosen for the simulation model as being the most controversially discussed diversity attribute. By applying a simulation model to the problem and adding a dynamic component to teamwork, we are contributing to the explanation for the contradictory findings in literature.

Describes how the National Health Service management has responded to pressure for change as a “critical case site” for investigation of the importance of innovativeness. What factors help or hinder innovation? What distinguishes highly innovative teams? How does the process of innovation develop over time? What practical recommendations can be made to facilitate innovation? Identifies four significant factors: vision, participative safety, a climate for excellence, and support for innovation. Describes a programme of recommended practical interventions.

This study aims to investigate how configurations of boundary objects (BOs) support innovation teams in developing innovative product concepts. Specifically, it explores the effectiveness of different artefact configurations in facilitating collaboration and bridging knowledge boundaries during the concept development process.

The research is based on data from ten undergraduate innovation teams working with an industry partner in a creative industry. Six categories of BOs are identified, which serve as tools for collaboration. The study applies fsQCA (fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis) to analyse the configurations employed by the teams to bridge knowledge boundaries and support the development of innovative product concepts.

The findings of the study reveal two distinct groups of configurations: product envisioning and product design. The configurations within the “product envisioning” group support the activities of visioning and pivoting, enabling teams to innovate the product concept by altering the product vision. On the other hand, the configurations within the “product design” group facilitate experimenting, modelling and prototyping, allowing teams to design the attributes of the innovative product concept while maintaining the product vision.

This research contributes to the field of innovation by providing insights into the role of BOs and their configurations in supporting innovation teams during concept development. The results suggest that configurations of “product envisioning” support bridging semantic knowledge boundaries, while configurations within “product design” bridge pragmatic knowledge boundaries. This understanding contributes to the broader field of knowledge integration and innovation in design contexts.

The purpose of this paper is to test how team regulatory focus may relate to individual creativity and team innovation; and address the fit/misfit issue of team regulatory focus and team bureaucracy.

The authors collected data from 377 members and their leaders within 56 R&D teams in two Taiwanese companies.

A team promotion focus was positively related, whereas a team prevention focus was negatively related, to both team innovation and member creativity through team perspective taking and employee information elaboration, respectively. Furthermore, team bureaucracy played a moderating role that suppressed the indirect relationship between team regulatory focus and creativity.

This is one of first studies to explore an underlying mechanism linking team regulatory focus and both team innovation and member creativity. The authors provide a more complete view of the creative and innovation implications of team-level self-regulation.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of team psychological capital (PsyCap) on team innovation. The study also examines the mediating role of team learning, including exploratory and exploitative learning, in team innovation.

A sample of 272 team leaders of firms in Vietnam was surveyed to validate the measures via confirmatory factor analysis and to test the model and hypotheses using structural equation modeling.

The results demonstrate that team PsyCap has a positive effect on team innovation. Further, team exploratory learning mediates the relationship between team PsyCap and team innovation; however, team exploitative learning does not. Although team exploitative learning is explained by team PsyCap, it does not enhance team innovation.

The study findings suggest that, to enjoy a high level of team exploratory and exploitative learning and innovation, firms should develop team PsyCap. This could be undertaken by implementing leader–subordinate mentoring programs, together with creating a social context that helps in interacting and communicating among team members.

This study is among the first to examine the role of team PsyCap in team exploratory and exploitative learning and innovation, adding further insight to the literature on innovation at the team level.

The purpose of this paper is to hypothesize a curvilinear relation between transactive memory systems (TMS) and team innovation by integrating diverging conceptual and research findings in TMS research. While increasingly argued to enhance team innovation, TMS also have negative effects on team processes and outcomes.

The authors tested the hypothesis through hierarchical linear regression analyses using data obtained from 124 technical research teams.

Logistic regressions support the hypothesis, showing an inverse U-shaped relationship between TMS and team innovation, measured by patents received.

The average within team response rate was relatively low, and the findings are driven by a limited number of teams with patents.

The findings suggest that research teams with moderate levels of TMS are the most effective in terms of patents received.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first empirical study to link TMS to team innovation and to test the potential counterproductive effects of TMS on team innovation.

This conceptual paper aims to explain the unidirectional cross-level impact of five “organizational-level” factors on “team-level” innovation capability through two “team-level” mediating factors. This multivariate model consists of five organizational-level factors (higher-level) factors – leadership, culture, structure, networks and knowledge – and team-level (lower-level) factors – “innovation capability”, “team-level focus” and “team-level intensity” towards innovation. Understanding the top-down influence of higher-level factors on lower-level ones gives this study a cross-level and unidirectional nature.

A keyword-based approach was used to select “relevant” articles from major journals to collect evidences and develop a conceptual model. All factors in the conceptual model were chosen from the organizational- and the team-level literature. Theoretical background for each of the chosen “factors” has been presented under relevant headings.

First is the conceptualization of team-level mediators – intensity and focus – towards innovation. Second is the conceptualization of innovation capability as a team-level factor, characterized by two sub-dimensions: customer orientation and manifestation.

This conceptual paper does not contain any empirical data analysis. The authors have not considered individual-level factors like individual excellence, personalities, etc., which may impact team-level innovation. They are specifically looking at the top-down “unidirectional” cross-level impact of “higher-level” (organizational-level) factors on “lower-level” (team-level) factor, not the other way around.

Innovation-driven organizations can use this model to build long-term “innovation capabilities” by developing the right kind of “intensity” and “focus” of their R&D teams towards innovation. R&D teams can be encouraged to work closely with their “target” customers and manifest their innovation capabilities (to them) to ensure market success.

Top management can design organizational-level policies to improve their leadership, culture, structure, networks and knowledge to encourage better innovation. Future researchers who wish to study the “cross-level” influence of organizational-level factors on team-level innovation capability may find this paper useful.

This study’s original contributions include: first, the conceptualization of a multivariate “cross-level” model to understand team-level innovation capability. Second is proposing the mediating role of “team-level” factors like focus and intensity while building innovation capability. Third is conceptualizing innovation capability as a team-level construct, with sub-dimensions: customer orientation and manifestation.

The aim of this paper is to address both the socio-moral climate and how teams process debate and decision comprehensiveness as pre-conditions for team innovation.

A total of 67 teams comprising 413 participants were surveyed. Data were analyzed with a multiple-step multiple-mediation procedure.

The socio-moral climate was positively related to innovation. The positive relation between the socio-moral climate and innovation was mediated stepwise through debate and decision comprehensiveness.

To overcome the limitations of a cross-sectional design, future research opportunities exist in the longitudinal evaluation of participatory socio-moral climates and comparisons between organizations. Debate and decision comprehensiveness can be further studied using behavior-based methodological designs, such as observation.

From this study, practitioners can learn of the needs and opportunities for participative approaches when managing innovation in teams. Promoting a socio-moral climate of cooperation, communication, openness, appreciation, trust and respect and leaving open the possibility that debating can help integrative decision comprehensiveness and thus innovation.

This paper expands the literature on organizational climate, debate, decision comprehensiveness, and innovation. On the one hand, the results empirically linked the socio-moral climate, a theoretically well-founded climate construct, to process variables. On the other hand, the literature on debate and decision comprehensiveness was expanded by adding the socio-moral climate as a pre-condition of debate and decision comprehensiveness. Furthermore, both were linked to a crucial outcome variable, innovation.

The purpose of this paper is to integrate three streams of literature – organizational capabilities based in resource‐based view (RBV) and the team‐ and organization‐level innovation – to provide a theoretical framework of how firms invest in developing innovative capabilities for entrepreneurship and change management.

This is a conceptual paper based on the RBV and the team‐ and organization‐level innovation literatures.

Linking the three bodies of literature, two main models for developing innovative capabilities are proposed: organization and project team models. The “organization model” requires firms to invest at the organization level to generate the supporting organization‐level processes, i.e. communication routines, independent of when they organize for innovation, and the “project team model” calls for just‐in‐time investment as needed in the process of innovation. The paper discusses other potential models and provides directions for future research on this important and timely topic.

The paper expands the RBV of the firm by providing a theoretical framework of how firms develop the capabilities to mobilize and create knowledge for innovation as an entrepreneurial activity and for managing the changes in organizations.

Team‐based innovation requires a balance of creative and pragmatic processes both within teams and between teams and their organizational stakeholders. However, prior research has focused primarily on the internal team dynamics that facilitate innovation, paying comparatively little attention to team‐stakeholder dynamics. The purpose of this study is to address this limitation by studying the impact of team‐stakeholder networks and shared cognition on the effectiveness of innovation teams.

This study investigates the knowledge and trust linkages between 51 new product development (NPD) teams and their organizational stakeholders using a mixed methods design that combines network analysis, surveys, and qualitative interviews. Multiple indicators of team effectiveness were collected at various stages of the innovation process.

The results show that effective NPD teams establish knowledge ties with many non‐redundant organizational stakeholders and foster a high level of agreement among stakeholders about team innovation factors. Conversely, effective NPD teams also establish highly centralized trust networks that are focused on only a few key stakeholders in the organization.

This study focuses on NPD teams in chemical and pharmaceutical manufacturing. Future studies should seek to replicate the findings using larger samples of teams involving diverse innovation tasks.

These results have implications for the most effective way to build and manage innovation teams, considering both pre‐existing stakeholder linkages and networking strategies for the future.

The results suggest that the optimal characteristics of team‐stakeholder knowledge and trust networks differ and highlight the unique importance of shared understanding about risk‐taking and creativity beyond higher overall levels.