The Effects of Process Orientations on Collaboration Technology Use and Outcomes in Product Development

Abstract Notwithstanding interest in implementing information technologies (ITs) that facilitate collaboration among employees, there has been limited research that examines how such technologies influence collaboration in strategic business processes, such as new product development (NPD), and how this influence is contingent on the nature of the process. We develop and test a model that posits that employees’ collaboration technology use in NPD will influence collaboration outcomes, such as IT-enabled collaboration capability and collaboration satisfaction. The model postulates that NPD involves multiple process orientations—exploration, exploitation, and ambidexterity—and that these orientations have a moderating effect on the relationship between collaboration technology use and outcomes. We conducted two studies in a major pharmaceutical company (N = 1,749 and 1,454, respectively) and found support for our model. We found that the effects of collaboration technology use on outcomes were stronger for employees involved in the NPD process phase that had an ambidexterity orientation. Our findings contribute to theory and practice related to the use of collaboration technology in the NPD process by offering insights on how process orientations influence the dynamics of the relationship between employees’ use of collaboration technologies and associated outcomes.

[1]  Jacob Cohen Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[2]  Howard E. Aldrich,et al.  Boundary Spanning Roles and Organization Structure , 1977 .

[3]  C. Fornell,et al.  Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. , 1981 .

[4]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design , 1986 .

[5]  J. Walther,et al.  Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction , 1990 .

[6]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Product development performance : strategy, organization, and management in the world auto industry / Kim B. Clark, Tahahiro Fujimoto , 1991 .

[7]  J. McGrath Time, Interaction, and Performance (TIP) , 1991 .

[8]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  The myopia of learning , 1993 .

[9]  Alain Pinsonneault,et al.  Survey Research Methodology in Management Information Systems: An Assessment , 1993, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[10]  W. L. Simonse Boekbespreking: Clark, K.A., Fujimo, T. (1992). Product development performance: strategy, organization and management in the auto industry , 1993 .

[11]  I. Nonaka A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation , 1994 .

[12]  Kevin Crowston,et al.  The interdisciplinary study of coordination , 1994, CSUR.

[13]  J. Valacich,et al.  Group, Sub-Group, and Nominal Group Idea Generation: New Rules for a New Media? , 1994 .

[14]  Paul S. Adler,et al.  Interdepartmental Interdependence and Coordination: The Case of the Design/Manufacturing Interface , 1995 .

[15]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT: PAST RESEARCH, PRESENT FINDINGS, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS , 1995 .

[16]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  Communication across Boundaries: Work, Structure, and Use of Communication Technologies in a Large Organization , 1995 .

[17]  M. Brewer,et al.  Who is this "We"? Levels of collective identity and self representations. , 1996 .

[18]  Verlin B. Hinsz,et al.  The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. , 1997, Psychological bulletin.

[19]  Kevin Crowston,et al.  A Coordination Theory Approach to Organizational Process Design , 1997 .

[20]  Melissa A. Schilling,et al.  Managing the new product development process: Strategic imperatives , 1998 .

[21]  R. Grover,et al.  From Embedded Knowledge to Embodied Knowledge: New Product Development as Knowledge Management , 1998 .

[22]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  Planning, Shared Mental Models, and Coordinated Performance: An Empirical Link Is Established , 1999, Hum. Factors.

[23]  S. Fournier,et al.  Rediscovering Satisfaction , 1999 .

[24]  Peter R. Monge,et al.  Introduction to the Special Issue: Communication Processes for Virtual Organizations , 1999 .

[25]  Terri L. Griffith Technology Features as Triggers for Sensemaking , 1999 .

[26]  Daniel Robey,et al.  Situated learning in cross-functional virtual teams , 2000 .

[27]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Why Don't Men Ever Stop to Ask for Directions? Gender, Social Influence, and Their Role in Technology Acceptance and Usage Behavior , 2000, MIS Q..

[28]  Bernard C. Y. Tan,et al.  A Cross-Cultural Study on Escalation of Commitment Behavior in Software Projects , 2000, MIS Q..

[29]  Jeffrey Davidson,et al.  Providing Clarity and A Common Language to the “Fuzzy Front End” , 2001 .

[30]  Karl T. Ulrich,et al.  Special Issue on Design and Development: Product Development Decisions: A Review of the Literature , 2001, Manag. Sci..

[31]  Eswaran Subrahmanian,et al.  Creating Shared Information Spaces to Support Collaborative Design Work , 2001, Inf. Syst. Frontiers.

[32]  John E. Mathieu,et al.  A Temporally Based Framework and Taxonomy of Team Processes , 2001 .

[33]  Anne P. Massey,et al.  Performance-Centered Design of Knowledge-Intensive Processes , 2002, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[34]  Anne P. Massey,et al.  Knowledge Mangement in Pursuit of Performance: Insights from Nortel Networks , 2002, MIS Q..

[35]  Robin Teigland,et al.  Integrating Knowledge through Information Trading: Examining the Relationship between Boundary Spanning Communication and Individual Performance , 2003, Decis. Sci..

[36]  Anne P. Massey,et al.  Because Time Matters: Temporal Coordination in Global Virtual Project Teams , 2003, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[37]  Wynne W. Chin,et al.  A Partial Least Squares Latent Variable Modeling Approach for Measuring Interaction Effects: Results from a Monte Carlo Simulation Study and an Electronic - Mail Emotion/Adoption Study , 2003, Inf. Syst. Res..

[38]  Satish Nambisan,et al.  Information Systems as a Reference Discipline for New Product Development , 2003, MIS Q..

[39]  Robert F. Easley,et al.  Relating Collaborative Technology Use to Teamwork Quality and Performance: An Empirical Analysis , 2003, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[40]  Linda Argote,et al.  Managing Knowledge in Organizations: An Integrative Framework and Review of Emerging Themes , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[41]  Ephraim R. McLean,et al.  The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update , 2003, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[42]  David Wilemon,et al.  Sources and assessment of complexity in NPD projects , 2003 .

[43]  Zi-Lin He,et al.  Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis , 2004, Organ. Sci..

[44]  Kevin Crowston,et al.  Coordination Theory: A Ten-Year Retrospective , 2004, Computer Supported Acitivity Coordination.

[45]  David L. Deeds,et al.  Exploration and Exploitation Alliances in Biotechnology: A System of New Product Development , 2004 .

[46]  Robert W. Zmud,et al.  A Comprehensive Conceptualization of Post-Adoptive Behaviors Associated with Information Technology Enabled Work Systems , 2005, MIS Q..

[47]  Kevin C. Stagl,et al.  Understanding team adaptation: a conceptual analysis and model. , 2006, The Journal of applied psychology.

[48]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Media, Tasks, and Communication Processes: A Theory of Media Synchronicity , 2008, MIS Q..

[49]  T. C. Edwin Cheng,et al.  Extending the Understanding of End User Information Systems Satisfaction Formation: An Equitable Needs Fulfillment Model Approach , 2008, MIS Q..

[50]  Peter R. Monge,et al.  Communication Processes for Virtual Organizations , 2006 .

[51]  Kirsimarja Blomqvist,et al.  Collaboration capability a focal concept in knowledge creation and collaborative innovation in networks , 2006 .

[52]  Ken G. Smith,et al.  The interplay between exploration and exploitation. , 2006 .

[53]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Reconceptualizing System Usage: An Approach and Empirical Test , 2006, Inf. Syst. Res..

[54]  Roger J. Calantone,et al.  Is more information technology better for new product development , 2006 .

[55]  Anne P. Massey,et al.  Unraveling the Temporal Fabric of Knowledge Conversion: A Model of Media Selection and Use , 2006, MIS Q..

[56]  Michael Song,et al.  Factors for Improving the Level of Knowledge Generation in New Product Development , 2006 .

[57]  Paul A. Pavlou,et al.  From IT Leveraging Competence to Competitive Advantage in Turbulent Environments: The Case of New Product Development , 2006, Inf. Syst. Res..

[58]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Predicting Different Conceptualizations of System Use: The Competing Roles of Behavioral Intention, Facilitating Conditions, and Behavioral Expectation , 2008, MIS Q..

[59]  Rajiv D. Banker,et al.  Understanding the Impact of Collaboration Software on Product Design and Development , 2006, Inf. Syst. Res..

[60]  Henk W. Volberda,et al.  Exploratory Innovation, Exploitative Innovation and Peformance: Effects of Organizational Antecedents and Environmental Moderators , 2006, Manag. Sci..

[61]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning , 2007 .

[62]  Jonathan Nook,et al.  ["A Model for New Product Development: An Empirical Test"] , 2007 .

[63]  Nikol Rummel,et al.  A rating scheme for assessing the quality of computer-supported collaboration processes , 2007, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[64]  Kevin Daniels,et al.  Job control and occupational health: The moderating role of national R&D activity , 2007 .

[65]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Specifying Formative Constructs in Information Systems Research , 2007, MIS Q..

[66]  Gerald C. Kane,et al.  Information Technology and Organizational Learning: An Investigation of Exploration and Exploitation Processes , 2007, Organ. Sci..

[67]  James D. Herbsleb,et al.  Team Knowledge and Coordination in Geographically Distributed Software Development , 2007, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[68]  C. Gibson,et al.  Team Implicit Coordination Processes: A Team Knowledge–Based Approach , 2008 .

[69]  M. Tushman,et al.  Ambidexterity as a Dynamic Capability: Resolving the Innovator's Dilemma , 2007 .

[70]  Emma O'Brien,et al.  IT-Based Knowledge Management Systems to Support the Design of Product Development Processes , 2009, Information Technology and Product Development.

[71]  M. Hoegl,et al.  The role of team behavioral integration and cohesion in shaping individual improvisation , 2009 .

[72]  Julian Birkinshaw,et al.  Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance , 2009, Organ. Sci..

[73]  Ann Majchrzak,et al.  Communication Context-Dependent Technology Use in Virtual Teams , 2009, ICIS.

[74]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Does Fit Matter? The Impact of Task-Technology Fit and Appropriation on Team Performance in Repeated Tasks , 2009, Inf. Syst. Res..

[75]  Morten T. Hansen When Internal Collaboration Is Bad for Your Company , 2009 .

[76]  Ronald T. Cenfetelli,et al.  Interpretation of Formative Measurement in Information Systems Research , 2009, MIS Q..

[77]  Henk W. Volberda,et al.  Understanding Variation in Managers' Ambidexterity: Investigating Direct and Interaction Effects of Formal Structural and Personal Coordination Mechanisms , 2009, Organ. Sci..

[78]  J. A. Marrone Team Boundary Spanning: A Multilevel Review of Past Research and Proposals for the Future , 2010 .

[79]  M. Tushman,et al.  Exploration and Exploitation Within and Across Organizations , 2010 .

[80]  R. Calantone,et al.  Inconclusive Innovation “Returns”: A Meta‐Analysis of Research on Innovation in New Product Development* , 2010 .

[81]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Predicting Collaboration Technology Use: Integrating Technology Adoption and Collaboration Research , 2010, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[82]  Anandhi Bharadwaj,et al.  Complementary Drivers of NPD Performance: Cross-Functional Coordination, Information System Capability, and Intelligence Quality , 2011 .

[83]  Xiaojun Zhang,et al.  Designing Collaborative Systems to Enhance Team Performance , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[84]  Anne P. Massey,et al.  Collaborative Virtual Environments : Exploring the Link between Collaborative Behaviors and Team Performance , 2011 .

[85]  Ko de Ruyter,et al.  Generating Sales While Providing Service: A Study of Customer Service Representatives' Ambidextrous Behavior , 2012 .

[86]  Sundar G. Bharadwaj,et al.  Complementary Drivers of New Product Development Performance: Cross‐Functional Coordination, Information System Capability, and Intelligence Quality , 2012 .

[87]  Heshan Sun,et al.  Understanding User Revisions When Using Information Systems Features: Adaptive System Use and Triggers , 2012, MIS Q..

[88]  Ann Majchrzak,et al.  How virtual teams use their virtual workspace to coordinate knowledge , 2012, TMIS.

[89]  M. Sturman,et al.  The effect of culture on the curvilinear relationship between performance and turnover. , 2012, The Journal of applied psychology.

[90]  Anandasivam Gopal,et al.  The Asymmetric Benefits of Relational Flexibility: Evidence from Software Development Outsourcing , 2012, MIS Q..

[91]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Changes in Employees' Job Characteristics During an Enterprise System Implementation: A Latent Growth Modeling Perspective , 2013, MIS Q..

[92]  Satish Nambisan,et al.  Information Technology and Product/Service Innovation: A Brief Assessment and Some Suggestions for Future Research , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[93]  Ann Majchrzak,et al.  The Impact of Shaping on Knowledge Reuse for Organizational Improvement with Wikis , 2013, MIS Q..

[94]  The fuzzy front end of innovation , 2015 .

[95]  L. Gilson,et al.  Virtual Teams Research , 2015 .

[96]  Kevin Crowston,et al.  A Taxonomy of Organizational Dependencies and Coordination Mechanisms , 2015 .

[97]  Susan A. Brown,et al.  Handle mergers and acquisitions with care: the fragility of trust between the IT-service provider and end-users , 2016, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..