Marketing/R&amp;D Interaction in New Product Development: Implications for New Product Success Rates

Hise, Richard T.; O'Neal, Larry; Parasuraman, A.; McNeal, James U.

doi:10.1111/1540-5885.720142

Cited by 60 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hise (1990) studied 252 manufacturing firms and found inter-departmental collaboration-involving R&D and marketing-to predict the level of product success. Zeller (2002) OIPT-demonstrated cross-functional collaboration to increase innovation performance indirectly through knowledge integration (e.g.…”

Section: Benefits Of Inter-departmental Innovation Collaborationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Costs and benefits of inter-departmental innovation collaboration

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Die Dis cus si on Pape rs die nen einer mög lichst schnel len Ver brei tung von neue ren For schungs arbei ten des ZEW. Die Bei trä ge lie gen in allei ni ger Ver ant wor tung der Auto ren und stel len nicht not wen di ger wei se die Mei nung des ZEW dar.Dis cus si on Papers are inten ded to make results of ZEW research prompt ly avai la ble to other eco no mists in order to encou ra ge dis cus si on and sug gesti ons for revi si ons. The aut hors are sole ly respon si ble for the con tents which do not neces sa ri ly repre sent the opi ni on of the ZEW.Download this ZEW Discussion Paper from our ftp server:ftp://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp11003.pdf Non-technical SummaryResearch on management and organization science has identified inter-departmental innovation collaboration as a mechanism to facilitate corporate innovation performance.Inter-departmental collaboration increases the exchange of information thereby benefiting innovation processes and outcomes. At the same time, inter-departmental innovation collaboration has been identified as a source of increased costs. Costs, such as project delays, can arise because departments set different task priorities and pursue incongruent objectives but also because of differences in educational backgrounds of employees. In the worst case, these differences between departments can cause dysfunctional conflicts that may lead to innovation project terminations. Such costs may absorb the gains generally associated with inter-departmental innovation collaboration.Drawing from organizational information processing theory, this paper builds and tests hypotheses on the costs and benefits of innovation-related collaboration within firms. Based on a sample of 433 German manufacturing firms we show inter-departmental innovation collaboration to increase process innovation performance, but not product innovation. In line with information processing theory, we submit that process innovation, more so than product innovation, depends strongly on company specific knowledge embedded throughout the organization and the exchange thereof. Our empirical results also detect costs produced by inter-departmental innovation collaboration in terms of project delay and termination. These costs, however, do not affect innovation performance at the firm level. We conclude firms to be well able to balance the costs and benefits of inter-departmental collaboration across their innovation project portfolio. Das Wichtigste in KürzeAbteilungsübergreifende Zusammenarbeit an innovativen Projekten fördert den AbstractInter-departmental innovation collaboration facilitates innovation performance. At the same time, it has been identified as source of increased coordination costs. Using organizational information processing theory, this paper builds and tests hypotheses on the costs and benefits of innovation-related collaboration within firms. Based on a sample of 433German manufacturing firms we show inter-departmental innovation collaboration to increase process innovation performance, but also to pro...

show abstract

Section: Benefits Of Inter-departmental Innovation Collaborationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Costs and benefits of inter-departmental innovation collaboration

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The literature also emphasised the need for cross-functional interdisciplinary teams, to ensure that customer needs remain the focus of R&D activity and that new products proposed by marketers can be efficiently and reliably manufactured. (Hise et al, 1990;Cooper, 1990, Clark andFujimoto, 1991).…”

Section: D) Breadth Of Experience Of Personnelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technological trajectories as moderators of firm-level determinants of innovation

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Gupta and Wilemon (1988): R&D directors at 80 high-technology firms. Hise, et., aL (1990): 252 Vice Presidents of Marketing at large manufacturing firms. See also discussion in Moenaenrt and Souder (1990).…”

Section: Percent Of Companymentioning

confidence: 99%

Patterns of Communication Among Marketing, Engineering and Manufacturing—A Comparison Between Two New Product Teams

1992

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientific evidence suggests that firms are more successful at new product development if there is greater communication among marketing, engineering, and manufacturing. This paper examines communication patterns for two matched product development teams (same manufacturer, same product development stage, similar functions and number of parts, reporting to the same divisional upper manager). The key difference between the groups is that one team used a traditional phase review process and the other used Quality Function Deployment (QFD), a product development process adopted widely at over 100 United States and Japanese firms including such large organizations as General Motors, Ford, IBM, and Procter & Gamble. The comparison is of scientific and managerial interest because QFD is often adopted to enhance crossfunctional communication. To our knowledge, this is the first head-to-head comparison of traditional U.S. product development processes with QFD.We report data collected on communication levels within functions, between functions, within the teams, within the OEM group, between the OEM and supplier groups, and between the teams and external information sources. Our data suggests that QFD enhances communication levels within the core team (marketing, engineering, manufacturing). QFD changes communication patterns from "up-over-down" flows through management to more horizontal "across" routes where core team members communicate directly with one another. The QFD team communicates more on product design, customer needs, and market information than does the phase review team. On the other hand, the QFD team communicates less on planning information and less with members of the firm external to the team. If this paucity of external communication means that the team has the information it needs for product development, and the QFD process has provided an effective means for moving the information through the team, it is a positive impact of QFD. If the result means that QFD induces team insularity, even when the team needs to reach out to external information sources, it is a cause for concern.

show abstract

Marketing/R&D Interaction in New Product Development: Implications for New Product Success Rates

Cited by 60 publications

References 12 publications

Costs and benefits of inter-departmental innovation collaboration

Costs and benefits of inter-departmental innovation collaboration

Technological trajectories as moderators of firm-level determinants of innovation

Patterns of Communication Among Marketing, Engineering and Manufacturing—A Comparison Between Two New Product Teams

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About