A Study of Structural Antecedents of Product Development Teams’ Flexibility on Small and Large Teams

  • K. Srikanth
  • K. B. Akhilesh
Conference paper


In a changing and dynamic environment, product development (PD) activity has increasingly become team driven to achieve higher performance. Structural practices followed by PD teams are an important source for achieving flexibility. Understanding the role of antecedents that govern these structural practices would be helpful in increasing team flexibility. This chapter explores the nature of two such antecedents – participation and control (PAC) and time-bound formalization (TBF), which were derived as a part of larger study involving 108 PD teams, both small and large. Interestingly, PAC and TBF did not show any significant difference across small and large teams.


Product Development Product Development Process Participative Decision Make Large Team Delay Decision Make 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Adner R, Levinthal DA (2004) What is not a real option: considering boundaries for the application of real options to business strategy. Acad Manage Rev 29(1):74–85Google Scholar
  2. Aggarwal S (1995) Flexibility management: the ultimate strategy. Ind Manag 37(6):20Google Scholar
  3. Beach R, Muhlemann A, Price D, Paterson A, Sharp J (2000) A review of manufacturing flexibility. Eur J Oper Res 122(1):41–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhattacharya S, Krishnan V, Mahajan V (1998) Managing new product definition in highly dynamic environments. Manag Sci 44(11):50–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biazzo S (2009) Flexibility, structuration, and simultaneity in new product development. J Prod Innov Manag 26(3):336–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bordia P, Hobman EV, Jones E, Gallois C, Callan VJ (2004) Uncertainty during organizational change: types, consequences, and management strategies. J Bus Psychol 18(4):507–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen SG, Bailey DE (1997) What makes teams work: group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. J Manag 23(3):239–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daft RL (2007) Organization theory and design, 9th edn. South Western College Publishing, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  9. Das TK, Elango B (1995) Managing strategic flexibility: key to effective performance. J Gen Manag 20(3):60–76Google Scholar
  10. Evans JS (1991) Strategic flexibility for high technology maneuvers: a conceptual framework. J Manag Stud 28(1):69–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frishammar J, Ylinenpaa H (2007) Managing information in new product development: a conceptual review, research propositions and tentative model. Int J Innov Manag 11(4):441–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Golden W, Powell P (2000) Towards a definition of flexibility: in search of the Holy Grail? Omega 28(4):373–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hackman JR (1980) Work redesign and motivation. Prof Psychol Res Pract 11:445–455Google Scholar
  14. Lam SS, Chen XP, Schaubroeck J (2002) Participative decision making and employee performance in different cultures: the moderating effects of allocentrism/idiocentrism and efficacy. Acad Manag J 45(5):905–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Langfred CW, Moye NA (2004) Effects of task autonomy on performance: an extended model considering motivational, informational, and structural mechanisms. J Appl Psychol 89(6):934–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lee G, Xia W (2005) The ability of information systems development project teams to respond to business and technology changes: a study of flexibility. Eur J Inf Sys 14:75–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Li Y, Kuo-Chung K, Chen GH, Jiang JJ (2010) Software development team flexibility antecedents. J Syst Softw 83(10):1726–1734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lowin A (1968) Participative decision making: a model, literature critique, and prescriptions for research. Organ Behav Hum Perform 3(1):68–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mccomb SA, Green SG, Dale CW (2007) Team flexibility’s relationship to staffing and performance in complex projects: an empirical analysis. J Eng Technol Manag 24(4):293–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nunnally JC (1967) Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill, p 640Google Scholar
  21. Olsson NO (2006) Management of flexibility in projects. Int J Proj Manag 24(1):66–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Olsson NO, Magnussen OM (2007) Flexibility at different stages in the life cycle of projects: an empirical illustration of the freedom to maneuver. Proj Manage J 38(4):25–32Google Scholar
  23. Sethi R, Iqbal Z (2008) Stage-gate controls, learning failure, and adverse effect on novel new products. J Mark 72(1):118–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sethi AK, Sethi SP (1990) Flexibility in manufacturing: a survey. Int J Flex Manuf Sys 2(4):289–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Smith PG (2007) Flexible product development: building agility for changing markets. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  26. Tatikonda MV, Rosenthal SR (2000) Technology novelty, project complexity, and product development project execution success: a deeper look at task uncertainty in product innovation. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 47(1):74–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thomke SH (1997) The role of flexibility in the development of new products: an empirical study. Res Policy 26(1):105–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thomke SH, Reinertsen DG (1998) Agile product development: managing development flexibility in uncertain environments. Calif Manage Rev 41(1):8–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ulrich KT, Eppinger SD (2004) Product design and development, 3rd edn. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Verganti R (1999) Planned flexibility: linking anticipation and reaction in product development projects. J Prod Innov Manage 16(4):363–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management StudiesIndian Institute of ScienceBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations