Organizing innovation: Complementarities between cross-functional teams

Cross-functional teams play a potentially important part in the innovation process enabling knowledge sharing, the development of trust and overcoming spatial and organizational barriers. Using a supermodularity approach, we focus on potential complementarities which may arise when cross-functional teams are used in different elements of the innovation process in UK and German manufacturing plants. Using optimal combinations of cross-functional teams in the innovation process increases innovation success in the UK by 29.5 per cent compared to 9.5 per cent in Germany. Patterns of complementarity are complex, however, but are more uniform in the UK than in Germany. The most uniform complementarities are between product design and development and production engineering, with little synergy evident between the more technical phases of the innovation process and the development of marketing strategy. In strategic terms, our results suggest the value of using cross-functional teams for the more technical elements of the innovation process but that the development of marketing strategy should remain the domain of specialists.

[1]  Christian Zeller,et al.  Project Teams as Means of Restructuring Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry , 2002 .

[2]  Eric M. Olson,et al.  Patterns of cooperation during new product development among marketing, operations and R&D: Implications for project performance , 2001 .

[3]  R. Cooper,et al.  Benchmarking the Firm's Critical Success Factors in New Product Development , 1995 .

[4]  Rune Stenbacka,et al.  Microeconomic Policies in the New Economy , 2001 .

[5]  Paul Milgrom,et al.  Complementarities and fit strategy, structure, and organizational change in manufacturing , 1995 .

[6]  D. Finegold,et al.  The Failure of Training in Britain: Analysis and Prescription , 1988 .

[7]  M. Hoegl,et al.  Teamwork Quality and the Success of Innovative Projects , 2001 .

[8]  Todd R. Zenger.  Crafting Internal Hybrids: Complementarities, Common Change Initiatives, and the Team-Based Organization , 2002 .

[9]  M. Tushman,et al.  Organizational Evolution: A Metamorphosis Model of Convergence and Reorientation , 1985 .

[10]  Stephen Roper,et al.  Location and network effects on innovation success: evidence for UK, German and Irish manufacturing plants , 2001 .

[11]  M. West.  Sparkling Fountains or Stagnant Ponds: An Integrative Model of Creativity and Innovation Implementation in Work Groups , 2002 .

[12]  S. Athey,et al.  An Empirical Framework for Testing Theories About Complimentarity in Organizational Design , 1998 .

[13]  C. Rammer,et al.  Innovation success of non-R&D-performers: substituting technology by management in SMEs , 2009 .

[14]  Bettina Von Stamm,et al.  Managing Innovation, Design and Creativity , 2003 .

[15]  D. Soskice.  German technology policy, innovation, and national institutional frameworks , 1997 .

[16]  Gernot Grabher,et al.  Locating Economic Action: Projects, Networks, Localities, Institutions , 2001 .

[17]  Wenjie Chen,et al.  Cross-functionality and charged behavior of the new product development teams in Taiwan's information technology industries , 2007 .

[18]  R. Allen,et al.  Collective Invention , 1982 .

[19]  R. Langlois,et al.  Innovation, Networks, and Vertical Integration , 1995 .

[20]  Franz C. Palm,et al.  Wald Criteria for Jointly Testing Equality and Inequality , 1986 .

[21]  Gary Herrigel,et al.  Crisis in German Decentralized Production , 1996 .

[22]  Wolfgang Streeck,et al.  Social Institutions and Economic Performance: Studies of Industrial Relations in Advanced Capitalist Economies , 1992 .

[23]  A. Parasuraman,et al.  Marketing/R&D Interaction in New Product Development: Implications for New Product Success Rates , 1990 .

[24]  Karin Wagner,et al.  The Search for Flexibility: Skills and Workplace Innovation in the German Pump Industry , 1998 .

[25]  Keld Laursen,et al.  New human resource management practices, complementarities and the impact on innovation performance , 2003 .

[26]  David Wilemon,et al.  Changing patterns in industrial R&D management , 1996 .

[27]  R. Nelson.  National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis , 1993 .

[28]  Matti Pohjola,et al.  Information technology, productivity, and economic growth : international evidence and implications for economic development , 2001 .

[29]  Wolfgang Streeck,et al.  Skills and the Limits of Neo-Liberalism: The Enterprise of the Future as a Place of Learning , 1989 .

[30]  D. Gregori,et al.  Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics , 1984 .

[31]  Didier C. L. Bonnet,et al.  Nature of the R&D/Marketing co-operation in the design of technologically advanced new industrial products , 1986 .

[32]  William E. Souder,et al.  INTEGRATING MARKETING AND R&D PROJECT PERSONNEL WITHIN INNOVATION PROJECTS: AN INFORMATION UNCERTAINTY MODEL* , 1992 .

[33]  Aija Leiponen,et al.  Skills and innovation , 2005 .

[34]  Diego Legros,et al.  Testing for Complementarities between Team, Incentives, Training and Knowledge Management: Evidence from France , 2004 .

[35]  G. Battisti,et al.  The intra-firm diffusion of complementary innovations: Evidence from the adoption of management practices by British establishments , 2009 .

[36]  C. Gersick.  REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE THEORIES: A MULTILEVEL EXPLORATION OF THE PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM PARADIGM , 1991 .

[37]  Paul R. Milgrom,et al.  The Economics of Modern Manufacturing: Technology, Strategy, and Organization , 1990 .

[38]  E. V. Seregelyi,et al.  Managing the R&D-marketing interface , 1991, Technology Management : the New International Language.

[39]  M. Aoki.  Horizontal vs. Vertical Information Structure of the Firm , 2013 .

[40]  Stephane Lhuillery.  The organizational practices of innovation and the performances of firms : an empirical investigation , 2000 .

[41]  S. Roper,et al.  Modelling the innovation value chain , 2008 .

[42]  D. M. Topkis.  Supermodularity and Complementarity , 1998 .

[43]  J Wagner,et al.  A Note on the Firm Size – Export Relationship , 2001 .

[44]  W. Streeck.  German Capitalism: Does It Exist? Can It Survive? , 1997 .

[45]  NagataAkiya,et al.  Organizational Capabilities in Product Development of Japanese Firms , 1998 .

[46]  Danny Quah,et al.  The Weightless Economy in Economic Development , 1999 .

[47]  Stephen Roper,et al.  Internal Versus External R&D: A Study of R&D Choice with Sample Selection , 2002 .

[48]  Zvi Griliches,et al.  Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and Development to Productivity Growth , 1979 .

[49]  Jeffrey B. Schmidt,et al.  Antecedents and consequences of cross-functional cooperation: A comparison of R&D, manufacturing, and marketing perspectives , 1997 .

[50]  Stephen Roper,et al.  The Determinants of Innovation: R & D, Technology Transfer and Networking Effects , 1999 .

[51]  Jonathan Michie,et al.  Labour market deregulation, 'flexibility' and innovation , 2003 .

[52]  R. E. Miles,et al.  Trust in organizations: A conceptual framework linking organizational forms, managerial philosophies, and the opportunity costs of controls. , 1996 .

[53]  Stephen Roper,et al.  The organisation of innovation: collaboration, cooperation and multifunctional groups in UK and German manufacturing , 2004 .

[54]  J. Stoker,et al.  Leadership and innovation: relations between leadership, individual characteristics and the functioning of R&D teams , 2001 .

[55]  Pepper D. Culpepper.  The Future of the High-Skill Equilibrium in Germany , 1999 .

[56]  Keld Laursen,et al.  The Importance of Sectoral Differences in the Application of Complementary HRM Practices for Innovation Performance , 2002 .

[57]  Reinhilde Veugelers,et al.  Complementarity in the Innovation Strategy: Internal R&D, External Technology Acquisition, and Cooperation in R&D , 2002 .

[58]  Leslie E. Papke,et al.  Econometric Methods for Fractional Response Variables with an Application to 401(K) Plan Participation Rates , 1993 .

[59]  R. Dore,et al.  Varieties of capitalism in the twentieth century , 1999 .

[60]  J. Labeaga,et al.  Persistence and ability in the innovation decisions , 2003 .

[61]  R. Veugelers,et al.  COMPLEMENTARITY BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY MAKE AND BUY IN INNOVATION STRATEGIES : EVIDENCE FROM BELGIAN MANUFACTURING FIRMS , 1998 .

[62]  R. Kramer,et al.  Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research , 1995 .

[63]  C. Voss,et al.  Made in Europe: A four nations best practice study , 1994 .

[64]  Pierre Mohnen,et al.  Complementarities in Innovation Policy , 2001 .

[65]  Reinhilde Veugelers,et al.  Complementarity in the innovation strategy: Internal R&D, cooperation in R&D and external technology acquisition , 2002 .

[66]  I. Nonaka,et al.  Organizational Capabilities in Product Development of Japanese Firms: a Conceptual Framework and Empirical Findings , 1998 .

[67]  M. Aoki.  Toward an Economic Model of the Japanese Firm , 2013 .

[68]  K. Hussinger,et al.  Costs and Benefits of Inter-Departmental Innovation Collaboration , 2011 .

[69]  Stephen Roper,et al.  Product Innovation and Small Business Growth: A Comparison of the Strategies of German, U.K. and Irish Companies , 1997 .

[70]  M. Porter.  What is strategy , 2000 .

[71]  Donald M. Topkis,et al.  Minimizing a Submodular Function on a Lattice , 1978, Oper. Res..