MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982930860 · doi:10.1108/13527590510584302

Organizational contextual determinants of cross‐functional NPD team support

2005· article· en· W1982930860 on OpenAlexaffabout
Todd A. Boyle, Uma Kumar, Vinod Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueTeam Performance Management · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversitySt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFunctional managerNew product developmentSenior managementOriginalityKnowledge managementBusinessProduct (mathematics)Value (mathematics)Process managementQualitative researchMarketingProject managementManagementComputer scienceOPM3Project portfolio management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose – This research aims to identify various organizational‐level factors influencing support for cross‐functional new product development (NPD) teams. Design/methodology/approach – A total of 2,500 questionnaires where mailed in 2003 to managers of product development from Canadian and US manufacturing organizations operating in the machinery, computer, electronic product, electrical equipment, and transportation equipment manufacturing industrial sectors. A total of 269 usable questionnaires were returned for a response rate of 11.1 percent. Findings – Results of performing regression analysis indicate that the quality of communication between the functional disciplines involved in NPD activities, perceived risks and complexity of using cross‐functional NPD teams, and the complexity of the organization's NPD activities all influence organizational support for cross‐functional NPD teams. Based on the qualitative data, additional reasons why cross‐functional NPD teams may not be supported in organizations are identified and discussed. Research limitations/implications – The major limitation of this study is that the respondents are NPD managers. These managers commented on the extent that support for cross‐functional NPD teams exists at the team, departmental, and senior management levels. Future research should focus on gauging organizational support for cross‐functional NPD teams by directly surveying team members, functional managers, and senior managers. Practical implications – This study identifies various organizational‐level factors influencing support for cross‐functional NPD teams. Originality/value – This research is of value to managers using or implementing cross‐functional teams, as it indicates potential organizational‐level factors that may facilitate or hamper the usage of such teams. To researchers, it provides a starting point in studying the determinants of support for cross‐functional NPD teams, and cross‐functional teams in general.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTeam Performance ManagementSame topicInnovation and Knowledge ManagementFrench-language works237,207