It is apparent that more and more organizations are embarking on collaborative ventures to develop products. This is particularly evident in Information and Communication Technology (ICT) sectors, so much so that part of the ‘received wisdom’ of ICT companies is that collaboration is the preferred route for product development. The benefits of collaboration have been well documented and are linked to the complexity and costliness of product development and the need for inputs from wide and varied areas of expertise as well as shorter lead times for product development. But the risks and costs of collsborative product development have been less well defined. In this paper, it is argued that the alleged rewards of collaboration may not be experienced in practice and that collaboration can lengthen the product development process, add to the cost of product development and prove difficult to control. However, management practice can facilitate the effective outcome of collaborative product development and the critical factors affecting the likelihood of successful management practice are presented here.
Product development is inherently risky, particularly when new technology is involved. Although collaborative product development is promoted as a means for reducing or at least sharing risk, such partnerships present their own challenges. Collaboration can also accentuate many of the risks inherent in product development. For example, any product development project requires effective communication among development team members. In a collaborative effort, this challenge is even greater because the development team spans organizational as well as functional boundaries.
Dale Littler, Fiona Leverick, and Margaret Bruce describe the results of a survey that was conducted to identify the risks and benefits of collaborative product development as well as the key success factors for such relationships. The main reasons cited for collaborating on product development projects include satisfying customer requirements, taking advantage of market opportunities for which the firm lacks necessary skills and technical expertise, and responding to changes in technology. Other reasons for collaboration include reducing the cost and risk of product R&D, improving time to market, and gaining access to new markets.
In addition to the risks associated with product development by a single company, the partners in a collaborative effort face several other challenges. For example, one company might gain inside knowledge of its partner's unique skills and expertise. Despite the cost and time involved in managing the collaboration, such a relationship usually results in less direct control over product development. Of particular concern are the difficulties of coordinating the divergent management styles and budgeting processes of the collaborating firms.
Collaboration requires frequent communication among all involved parties. The likelihood of success is greatly enhanced by the presence of a product or collaboration champion. Other success factors include ensuring that partners contribute as expected, creating the perception of equal benefits among partners, and building trust between partners. Firms that are more experienced with collaboration also cite the importance of flexibility in corporate systems and management style, fit with existing businesses, and the choice of a partner.
This paper presents overwhelming evidence that prejudicial and false beliefs held by jurors about rape affect their evaluation of the evidence and their decision making in rape cases. The paper draws together for the first time the available evidence from both quantitative and qualitative studies (most of which are not found in law journals, but rather in scientific outlets, most commonly those focusing on experimental psychology). The quantitative research demonstrates that mock jurors’ scores on so-called ‘rape myth scales’ are significant predictors of their judgments about responsibility, blame and (most importantly) verdict. The qualitative research indicates that jurors frequently express problematic views about how ‘real’ rape victims would behave and what ‘real’ rape looks like during mock jury deliberations and that even those who score relatively low on abstract rape myth scales can express prejudicial beliefs when deliberating in a particular case. The studies vary in terms of their realism, but it is important to note that some of the studies reported here were highly realistic trial reconstructions, involving representative samples of jurors drawn from the community, live trial reconstructions, evidence-in-chief and cross-examination, accurate legal directions and deliberation in groups. The review concludes by examining the evidence on whether juror education—whether in the form of judicial directions or expert evidence—might be effective in addressing problematic attitudes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.