The R&amp;D‐Marketing Interface in High‐Technology Firms

Gupta, Ashok; Raj, S. P.; Wilemon, David

doi:10.1111/1540-5885.210012

Cited by 115 publications

(141 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

118

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Kahn (1996) and Bernasco et al (1999) concentrate on interdepartmental integration, and not on integration at the level of the NPD project. Other contributions to the study of the relationship between functional integration and performance tend to focus on one of its dimensions only; for example, Gupta and colleagues (Gupta et al 1985(Gupta et al , 1986 and Song and colleagues (Song and Parry, 1992;Song et al, 1998) have mainly examined the interaction side of integration, which is defined as joint involvement between functional departments in a number of activities intimately related to NPD. Conversely, most of the works by Souder, Moenaert, and associates (Souder, 1988;Moenaert et al, 1994), Pinto and Pinto (1990), Dougherty (1992) and Pinto et al (1993), have extensively looked at the collaboration part of the concept, but have not considered interaction of activities.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The current paper follows the quantitative tradition of Gupta et al (1985Gupta et al ( , 1986, Song and Parry (1992) and Kahn (1996).…”

Section: (Various European Countries)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Numerous studies have shown that functional integration is a critical aspect of today's new product development (NPD) activities (Gupta et al 1985(Gupta et al , 1986Souder and Moenaert, 1992;Song et al, 1997). As far back as 1970, Allen observes that the frequency, the structure of communication networks, and the nature of communicational mechanisms differ sharply between low and high performers in R&D organisations (Allen, 1970).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Is more always better? An exploration of the differential effects of functional integration on performance in new product development

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this paper is to explore the relationship between performance in new product development (hereinafter NPD) and functional integration under different conditions of project uncertainty. Functional integration is conceived as a two-dimensional concept, encompassing a behavioural -collaboration -and a structural -interaction -dimension.This study is based on 92 questionnaires looking at NPD activities in more than 40 British and Dutch companies from various industrial sectors. The results suggest that the nature of the relationship between integration and performance is contingent upon the project stage and the degree of novelty in the new product. Integration in the initial stages of the project assumes a prominent role in the quality of the end product, whereas in later stages it is more associated with time to market than with costs and end product quality. Results further show that the dimension collaboration of integration may be more relevant under circumstances of high new product innovativeness than when minor variations are introduced in a new product. The paper ends with a discussion of the use of universal approaches to NPD management. 

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The current paper follows the quantitative tradition of Gupta et al (1985Gupta et al ( , 1986, Song and Parry (1992) and Kahn (1996).…”

Section: (Various European Countries)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is more always better? An exploration of the differential effects of functional integration on performance in new product development

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dougherty 1987. ) barriers preventing functional interaction in product development, Gupta, et. al (1985) find that lack of communication is the number one barrier.…”

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

“…Similarly, researchers in the product development literature often argued that close ties and extensive interactions between different functional units result in innovative capabilities and innovative performance (Griffin and Hauser, 1996;Gupta et al, 1985;Gupta and Wilemon, 1990b). The findings, however, are largely in agreement with Hansen (1999).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Knowledge transfer between globally dispersed units at BMW

Schleimer

Riege

2009

J of Knowledge Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose -Building on the social network view and new product development perspective, the purpose of this paper is to examine how knowledge is transferred between identical, yet geographically distant units within a multinational corporation.Design/methodology/approach -An embedded case study of Bayerische Motoren Werke (BMW) examining core drivers that impact on inter-unit knowledge transfers between six events and exhibitions (E&E) units located in Europe, Asia, and Australasia.Findings -The data highlight that effective knowledge transfer between E&E units depends on a combination of key drivers, such as social network ties, absorptive capacity, learning adaptiveness, and communication channels. The findings suggest that the search for and transfer of knowledge depends foremost on the applicability of context-specific knowledge rather than its complexity.Research limitations/implications -The focus is on one specific manufacturing sector and specific drivers to knowledge transfer in this sector, limiting the generalisation of the findings. Also, the findings were drawn from a limited sample of in-depth practitioner interviews and did not integrate any outcome measures to successful knowledge transfer in their approach.Practical implications -The paper offers guidelines for firms and specifically E&E managers to observe the specificity of knowledge and how this affects its limited applicability for other identical units.Originality/value -Managers foremost need is to examine the unique context under which knowledge is acquired; only then are they in a position to decide how much knowledge transfer via different network and communication channels is needed between geographically dispersed E&E units.

show abstract

The R&D‐Marketing Interface in High‐Technology Firms

Cited by 115 publications

References 5 publications

Is more always better? An exploration of the differential effects of functional integration on performance in new product development

Is more always better? An exploration of the differential effects of functional integration on performance in new product development

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

Knowledge transfer between globally dispersed units at BMW

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About