Christoph STAITA

Performance Improvement by Functional – Respectively Competence – Diversity in New Product Development

This paper demonstrates the latest research results of the relationship between cross functional product development teams and project respectively team performance. The aim of this paper is to support the basic hypothesis of the author, which is “The higher the technical draughters’ integration intensity in a 3D CAD (Computer Aided Design) product development project, the higher the economic and socio-psychological efficiency within that project”, with the findings of recent research. Besides studying standard references, a systematic inquiry, using 2 scientific databases, Emerald and EBSCO was performed to study cross-functionality in New Product Development (NewPD). The increase of functional diversity in development teams which is supposed to promote performance is an inadequate variable. Essential to make a cross-functional team successful are competence diversity and familiarity. The intention is to apply competence diversity not only for companywide teams but also in single working units as in mechanical development departments of medium-sized companies.
JEL ClassificationM54

References

  1. Ancona, D. G., and Caldwell D., 1992. Demography and design: predictions of new product team performance. Organization Science 3, pp. 321-341.
  2. BMBF 2004. Bundesbericht Forschung. http://www.bmbf.de/pub/bufo2004.pdf (accessed 12 11, 2005).
  3. BMBF 2011. Bundesregierung setzt konsequent auf Bildung und Forschung – 06.07.2011 [Pressemitteilung 095/2011]. http://www.bmbf.de/press/3121.php (accessed 12 08, 2013).
  4. Dahlin, K. B., Weingart, L. R., and Hinds, P. J. 2005. Team diversity and information use. Academy of Management Journal 48, no. 6, pp. 1107–1123.
  5. Eberl, M. 2004. Formative und reflektive Indikatoren im Forschungsprozess: Entscheidungsregeln und die Dominanz des reflektiven Modells. 19. München: EFOplan.
  6. Ehrenspiel, K. 2007. Integrierte Produktentwicklung: Denkabläufe, Methodeneinsatz, Zusammenarbeit. München/Wien: Hanser.
  7. Ehrenspiel, K. 1995. Integrierte Produktentwicklung. Methoden für Prozessorganization, Produkterstellung und Konstruktion. München Wien: Carl Hauser Verlag.
  8. Führberg-Baumann, J. and Müller R., 1991. Neugestaltung der Auftragsabwicklung. VDI-Z133, pp. 52-57.
  9. Gutenberg, E. 1966. Grundlagen der Betriebswirtschaftslehre. Erster Band: Die Produktion. Berlin etc.: Springer.
  10. Haon, C., Gotteland D. and Fornerino M., 2009. Familiarity and competence diversity in new product development teams: Effects on new product performance. Market Lett 20, pp. 75-89.
  11. Heinen, E. Industriebetriebslehre. 3. Wiesbaden: Gabler, 1974.
  12. Henard, David H, and David M. Szymansk. “Why some new products are more successful than others.” Journal of Marketing Research 38, no. 3 (2001): 362-375.
  13. Hinds, P.J., Carley K.M. and Krackhardt D. 2000. Choosing Work Group Members: Balancing Similarity, Competence and Familiarity. Organization Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 81, no. 2, pp. 226-251.
  14. Hirzel, M. 1992. Mit Geschwindigkeit im dynamischen Markt reüssieren. (Eds.), Speed-Management: Geschwindigkeit zum Wettbewerbsvorteil machen, by Hirzel/Leder/Partner, 19-26. Wiesbaden: Gabler.
  15. Ho-Chye-Kok. 2007. Cultivating Knowledge Sharing: An Exploration of Tacit Organizational Knowledge in Singapore. Journal of Asian Business 22/23 Issue, no. Issue 2/3/1, pp. 169-187.
  16. IAB 2011. Berufe im Spiegel der Statisitk. Edited by Institut für Arbeitsmarkt und Berufsforschung / Forschungseinrichtung der Budesagentur für Arbeit. http://bisds.infosys.iab.de/bisds/result?region=19&beruf=BG60&qualifikation=2 (accessed 11 29, 2013).
  17. Janssen, J., Erkens G., Kirschner P. A. and Kanselaar G. 2009. Influence of group member familiarity on online collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behaviour 25.
  18. Javidan, M. 1998. Core competence: what does it mean in practice. Long Range Planning 31, pp. 60-71.
  19. Kliesch-Eberl, M. and Eberl P. 2009. An extended perspective on innovation: Bridging organizational creativity to dynamic capabilities. EGOS Colloquium, Barcelona 2009. Barcelona: EGOS Colloquium, pp. 1-6.
  20. Kotelnikov, V., n.d. Cross-functional Management (CFM) – Building a Better Synergistic System for Quality, Cost, and Delivery, and Innovation (Toyota). http://www.1000ventures.com/busines _guide/mgmt_cross-functional.html (accessed 12 10, 2013).
  21. Larson, E. W. and Gobeli D. H. 1988. Organizing for product development projects. Product Innovation Management 5, no. 3, pp. 180-190.
  22. McDonough, E. F. 2000. Investigation of factors contributing to the success of cross-functional teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management 17, no. 3, pp. 221-235.
  23. Scheer, A-W. 2003. Real-Time Enterprise: mit beschleunigten Managementprozessen Zeit und Kosten sparen. Berlin: Springer.
  24. Weiber, R. and Mühlhaus D. 2010. Strukturgleichungsmodellierung. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
  25. Wittenstein, A-M. 2007. Bedarfssynchrone Leistungsverfügbarkeit in der kundenspezifischen Produktentwicklung. IPA-IAO Forschung und Praxis. Heimsheim: Jost Jetter Verlag.
  26. 12manage. 2013. http://www.12manage.com/images/picture_ cross_functional (accessed 12 15, 2013).

Author(s)

Christoph STAITA
University of Latvia, Latvia

Correspondence

Christoph Staita, University of Latvia

Article History

Received: October 20, 2014
Accepted: November 3, 2014
Available Online: November 11, 2014

Cite Reference

Staita, C., 2014. Performance Improvement by Functional-Respectively Competence-Diversity in New Product Development. Expert Journal of Business and Management, 2(2), pp. 62-71

Save to Mendeley

Article Rights and License

© 2014 The Author. Published by Sprint Investify. ISSN 2344-6781

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Creative Commons License