|
...an integrated approach to new product development (NPD) despite testimony that this objective should be of paramount importance to upper management (Ettlie 1997) and supply chain managers (Anderson and Lee 2001; Rogers, Lambert and Knemeyer 2004). Recent research by Tracey (2004) demonstrates that many manufacturers do not take a genuinely integrative approach to NPD despite the topic's intuitive appeal and the attention it has received in the business literature since the 1980s.
The advantage of nurturing integration across functional areas and firms has been promoted in the business literature for some time (Porter and Millar 1985; Goldhar, Jelinek and Schlie 1991; Hayes and Pisano 1994; Hammer 2001). Integration in the context of SCM is defined as "interaction and collaboration between departments and organizations to achieve shared supply chain goals" (Cooper and Tracey 2005, p. 240). The main goal of providing products and services of value to customers is facilitated through integration of the supply chain (Mentzer 2004; Ross 2006; Walters 2006). Unfortunately, acknowledging and acting on this philosophy of general collaboration with a focus on the customer is difficult for many managers who are traditionally rewarded financially and otherwise by maximizing localized efficiencies (Doll and Vonderembse 1991).
Moving the firm toward genuine SCM requires top management leadership and changes in strategic direction and planning (Hammer 2001; Power 2005). This is the case in attaining an integrated NPD process, which is an important element of successful SCM (Mejza and Wisner 2001; Rogers et. al. 2004). Even an initial step such as integrating suppliers into the process represents a major adjustment to internal attitudes and procedures that must be accepted throughout the organization in advance (Twigg 1998; Handfield, Ragatz, Petersen and Monczka 1999). This research examines the impact of nurturing an organizational setting of internal collaboration and teamwork on integrated NPD, and consequently customer satisfaction. The intention is to supply stimulus for change by demonstrating some of the real advantages to be gained from developing a collaborative NPD environment.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Wynstra, Van Weele and Weggemann (2001) suggest that the extent to which an organization is willing and able to move toward integrated NPD depends on how far it has evolved in terms of overall cross-functional and process thinking. Thus, a major first step for many managers is to effectively coordinate their organizations internally (Bowersox, Closs and Stank 2003; Moberg and Speh 2003; Poirier and Quinn 2004).
Figure 1 provides the explanatory/theoretical model on which this investigation is based. The box on the left (Collaborative NPD Environment) depicts two dimensions that constitute a cooperative workplace within the context of NPD. "Interdepartmental connectedness" is a term referred to by Sethi and Nicholson (2001) to capture the extent to which a firm's culture facilitates communication and contact across functional areas. It is a type of organizational setting characterized by open information sharing, relationships that bridge area boundaries and behavior that conveys other parties are valued members of the enterprise. Such a setting helps generate an overall internal attitude of trust (Fawcett, Magnan and Williams 2004). Interfunctional biases and stereotypes are reduced and organizational members are more receptive to cross-functional arrangements such as a "team approach to NPD," the second dimension. The Collaborative NPD Environment construct may be considered an independent variable that is expected to ultimately explain a portion of the variance in the dependent variable (Customer Satisfaction).
The middle box in Figure 1 (Integrated NPD) depicts three variables expected to capture the extent to which parties that traditionally have not had extensive early participation (i.e., manufacturing, suppliers and customers) are included in the firm's NPD process (Swink 1999; Tracey 2004). If Wynstra et al. (2001) are correct, as an organization generates a more collaborative environment it should realize increased involvement from its manufacturing personnel as well as from its suppliers and customers in NPD. These variables in the middle box may be regarded as intervening because they are anticipated to emerge as functions of the independent variables (i.e., the dimensions of Collaborative NPD Environment). In this way they should help in conceptualizing the relationships between the independent variable and Customer Satisfaction as indicated by six established measurement items.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Hypothesis Development
Figure 2 displays the path model eventually tested via structural equation modeling (SEM) employing LISREL[R] (manufactured by Scientific Software International, Inc., Lincolnwood, Illinois). The "interdepartmental connectedness" and "team approach to NPD" dimensions from Figure 1 are loaded together as one factor, discussed in "Methodology." Accordingly, the first variable at the far left of the proposed path model is labeled Collaborative NPD Environment. LISREL[R] provides total (direct+indirect) effect t-values and coefficients that assist the researcher in appraising the comprehensive impact of one variable on another. The hypotheses that follow are expressed in terms of the anticipated total effect of one variable on another within the context of this model.
The Collaborative NPD Environment variable incorporates two elements: (1) the existence of an open organizational setting that reduces conflict while improving communication and connections across organizational boundaries that (2) encourages the development of cross-functional NPD teams (Sethi and Nicholson 2001). It captures the contextual aspect of an organizational setting conducive to successful NPD--one where any party that can make a contribution is encouraged to participate. It also captures the process aspect of such an environment. That is, the manner in which this expanded NPD group conducts itself: as a team where members cooperate and share information.
Swink (1999) asserts that manufacturing personnel have a critical role in NPD, mainly due to their ability to help in ensuring a balance between what may be marketable and what is technically feasible. Tracey (2004) demonstrates empirically that although their participation is beneficial, there is room for much improvement at many firms. It is anticipated that as firms evolve toward a collaborative NPD environment, they will overcome innate resistance to increasing the involvement of a functional area potentially valuable to the process such as manufacturing (Wynstra et al. 2001).
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
H1: The extent to which a firm develops a collaborative NPD environment will have a significant total effect on the level of involvement of manufacturing in NPD.
A collaborative NPD environment is also expected to have a positive comprehensive impact on supplier involvement. First, if H1 proves true, then the Collaborative NPD Environment variable is anticipated to have a positive indirect effect on the Supplier Involvement variable via the Manufacturing Involvement variable. Mariotti (1999) asserts that if potential external supply chain partners such as customers and suppliers sense trust, information sharing and genuine cooperation among a firm's internal units, they are more willing to join collaborative arrangements such as NPD teams. Tracey (2004) in fact found that the main beneficial influence of including internal parties such as manufacturing personnel in NPD is their ability to facilitate the increased involvement of suppliers and customers and thus enhance the firm's capacity to produce an advantageous range of new products and product features.
Second, Collaborative NPD Environment is also anticipated to have a direct positive effect on Supplier Involvement. Contemporary concurrent engineering doctrine promotes building competitive advantage through the inclusion of members from every functional area--as well as from suppliers and customers--on the NPD team (Atuahene-Gima and Evangelista 2000). Suppliers in particular are often capable of not only contributing sound product ideas but also supplying creative suggestions on the technical means to realize them (McGinnis and Vallopra 1999; Harmsen, Grunert and Bove 2000). It is expected as firms develop open organizational settings and team approaches to NPI) that include manufacturing, the organizations and their NPD teams will increasingly recognize the wide-ranging advantages of collaborating with suppliers and accept them as legitimate members of the team.
H2: The extent to which a firm develops a collaborative NPD environment will have a significant total effect on the level of involvement of suppliers in NPD.
A...
NOTE: All illustrations and photos
have been removed from this article.
More articles from Journal of Supply Chain Management
A conceptual framework for computing U.S. non-manufacturing PMI indexe..., June 01, 2007
Environmental uncertainty and strategic supply management: a resource ..., June 01, 2007
Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.
Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication
name or publication date.
About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company
analysis or best practices in managing your organization,
Goliath can help you meet your business needs.
Our extensive business information databases empower business
professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible,
authoritative information they need to support their business
goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting,
company research or defining management best practices -
Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.
|
