How managers' cognitive frames affect the use of process improvement approaches in new product development

Abstract

PurposeDespite the numerous implementations of process improvement approaches (PIAs) in new product development (NPD), the espoused benefits of PIAs are rarely realized in practice. This paper explores how managers' cognitive frames provide knowledge structures that affect the use of PIAs in the development of new products.Design/methodology/approachA qualitative multiple case study method was used to elaborate theory in relation to the use of PIAs in NPD. Four large multinational companies were selected. Interviews with informants from different functional specialisms were conducted, and internal and online documents were collected and analyzed.FindingsTwo main findings emerge. First, the authors identify three types of managers' cognitive frames: conflicting, paradoxical, and supporting. Second, these cognitive frames are found to influence managers' decisions over whether to promote, adapt or prevent the implementation of PIAs, sometimes in contrast with the managers' organization’s strategic intent.Practical implicationsThis paper generates insights into the importance of managerial decision-making in determining the scope and depth of implementation of PIAs in NPD.Originality/valueThis study helps explain conflicting findings in the literature regarding the implementation and effects of PIAs in NPD by identifying managers' cognitive frames as a key factor. Moreover, the paper highlights managers' roles in shaping an organization's approach for managing contradictory goals and shows how an organizational frame may conflict and sometimes be displaced by individual managers' cognitive frames.

“Managing the “new normal”: the future of operations and supply chain management in unprecedented times”

“…Al Hassan and Micheli (2022) and Harper (2022) both reflect the nature of mindset in how to respond to external context, echoing Snowden and Boone (2007) as well as prior work on framing as a way to resolve contradiction and paradox (typically to benefit one's position) (Kaplan 2008, Reinecke andAnsari 2015). Chae et al (2022) considers heterogeneity versus homogeneity in supply networks in the context of M&A, highlighting the significance of the wider context in the value that such takeovers or partnerships might generate.…”

“…The perspectives of different stakeholders and how these dynamically change (again, a Domain 3 approach), the resolution or persistence of paradoxes, and how the different contexts of different organisations can be better understood, are all suggested as future research areas. Jia et al (2022) note that their study considers absorptive capacity from an organisational scale only and that future research could build on their findings either at the level of the individual (manager cognition in learning processesas with Al Hasan and Micheli, 2022), or at the wider cross-supply chain levelas with Aaltonen and Turkulainen (2022).…”

“…For Al Hasan and Micheli (2022), their qualitative research into the role of cognitive frames in process improvement is heterogenous, suggesting a need for future research involving more homogenous sets of participants to try to build more robust tests (Domain 2), or to seek the antecedent factors in cognitive framing, or alternatively conduct longitudinal studies into how they change over time – pointing to the need to understand changes in the perception of the organisational environment.…”

“…Jia et al. (2022) note that their study considers absorptive capacity from an organisational scale only and that future research could build on their findings either at the level of the individual (manager cognition in learning processes – as with Al Hasan and Micheli, 2022), or at the wider cross-supply chain level – as with Aaltonen and Turkulainen (2022).…”

“…Al Hasan and Micheli (2022)’s “ How managers’ cognitive frames affect the use of process improvement approaches in new product development ” discusses the nature of failure to implement beneficial practices. Managers are found to have a mindset that is either supporting, conflicting or paradoxical.…”