Abstract
A cross sectional survey design using a fully standardized questionnaire was applied to test the hypothesis. The data was collected from key informants. Project managers were chosen as respondents, since they are most knowledgeable about management practices, team performance, and product performance (Sethi et al. 2001, p. 79). The criteria for participation were three. First, at least two internal functions had to be involved in the project. Second, the product was intended for the open, competitive market. Third, the product had been introduced to the market, or the project had been aborted, both within the past twelve months. These conditions were needed to ensure cross-functionality, meaningful indicators and to reduce problems associated with recall.46
See Appendix II for the questionnaire and the instructions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Moreover, Schermelleh-Engel et al. (2003), pp. 27, 49–50, underline that the required minimum sample size for covariance-based structural modeling cannot be generalized, because it is always model specific, depending on parameters such as the estimation method, degrees of freedom and distributional characteristics of the data. See also Boomsma/Hoogland (2001).
A measure is reliable to the extent that independent but comparable attempts to capture the same attribute or construct agree. A measure is valid on the condition that the indicators or the construct accurately measures what they are supposed to measure (Berghman 2006, p. 205).
Formative indicator weights are standardized regression weights with the latent variable as independent variable. They can be interpreted as the relative importance of the indicators in the formation of the construct (Berghman 2006, p. 226).
Within this context, Souder & Moenaert (1992, p. 505) state: “Successful product innovation task groups will have made a much more profound analysis of the development activities before the development activities have been started.”
With respect to the covariates, intrinsic motivation is found to be positively related to team creativity. Being excited by the work itself, and being attracted by the challenge of a problem has been highlighted as a key motivational factor for the development of new solutions (Amabile 1988). Besides, firm size is positively associated with team creativity. Firm size is sometimes used as an indicator of a firm’s resource strength (Jansen et al. 2006, p. 14). It may enable teams in larger companies to experiment to a greater extent than in smaller firms. Moreover, large companies may be able to attract more creative individuals from the outset since they may offer more opportunities to pursue innovative efforts. Team size is negatively related to creativity. Given the increase of potential links between team members as the team size is growing, larger team sizes make it more difficult for the team members to interact with each other (Jansen et al. 2006, p. 14) and hence, to jointly develop and agree on a new concept. Crossfunctionality is not found to be significantly related to efficiency, creativity, and overall team performance. However it is negatively related to the degree of innovation, supporting the notion that the potentially beneficial effects of cross-functional diversity might be offset by task disagreements, reduced communication, and value conflicts (Ancona & Caldwell 1992b, Gebert et al. 2006, Lovelace et al. 2001).
With respect to the covariates, only intrinsic motivation displays a negative association with late team efficiency. A high level of intrinsic motivation may be detrimental when the concept is being translated into a product. It may result difficult for highly intrinsically motivated individuals to restrict their innovative thinking and ultimately lead to conflicts and a reduced commitment to the implementation after the “concept freeze”. Contrary to Duncan’s (1976) assumption, the level of crossfunctional diversity is not negatively related to late team efficiency and late overall performance. The results suggest that organizational antecedents play a greater role in fostering or impeding late team performance than cross-functionality.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Betriebswirtschaftlicher Verlag Dr. Th. Gabler | GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
(2008). Research Methodology and Results. In: Organizing Cross-Functional New Product Development Projects. Gabler. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8349-9642-8_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8349-9642-8_4
Publisher Name: Gabler
Print ISBN: 978-3-8350-0926-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-8349-9642-8
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)