Boosting the confidence of new product development teams: The role of team boundary spanning, team size and functional diversity
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In today's highly interconnected, uncertain and dynamic business environment, team boundary spanning has become an important determinant of the performance of new product development (NPD) projects. Despite the positive evidence supporting the use of boundary spanning activities by NPD teams, little is still known about how boundary spanning teams become high‐performance teams. The current study advances research on this subject by examining the mediating effect of team potency on the relationship between team boundary spanning and new product performance, as well as the moderating effects of team size and functional diversity on the relationship between team boundary spanning and team potency. Data from a time‐lagged survey study of 140 NPD projects found that team boundary spanning can promote team potency that, in turn, results in greater new product quality and new product creativity. The positive effect of team boundary spanning on team potency was found to be more pronounced for NPD teams of medium size and high levels of functional diversity.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it