From Closed to Open Innovation: The Evolving Nature of Teams and the Use of Information Technology - Information Technology and Product Development - page 128

level, and in order to address this, organizational structures are becoming more flex-
ible. These flexible organizational structures are being reflected in the nature of the
team. Recent research has indicated a growth in the use of global teams, in addition
to the expectation that this growth will continue (McDonough, 2000). Often whether
a team is collocated or distributed, and or working in a face-to-face or virtual envi-
ronment have been portrayed as dichotomous choices. The decision to use global
and/or virtual teams is not a strategy that firms choose, but an operational reality
mandated by necessity (Gassmann & Zedtwitz, 2003).
7.2.2 Team Function
As noted previously, teams in a closed organization may operate in a variety of
formats ranging from purely functional organization to project based. While some
still function under a strict hierarchy, many have flattened, as virtual and global
teams increase in both popularity and necessity. Although many organizations have
adopted the networked concept, a limit to the flow of communication and knowledge
in these organizations continues to exist.
Chesbrough (2003) likens this type of structure to “a series of fortified castles
located in an otherwise impoverished landscape.” While each one of these “cas-
tles” is “relatively self-sufficient, receiving occasional visits from outsiders, and its
inhabitants ventured out occasionally into the surrounding landscape to visit univer-
sities or scientific expositions,” he notes that “most of the action occurred within
the castle walls, and those outside the castle could only marvel at the wonders pro-
duced from within.” This is the origin of departmental silos and the “not invented
here” philosophy. These organizations continue to rely on internal development and
believe external knowledge opportunities are both limited and not worthy of pursuit
(see Table 7.2).
The traditional NPD team often operates in some form of hierarchy, yet portrays
a network-like structure. These teams are cross-functional, manage decisions in a
decentralized manner, and share information between levels of the organization.
The use of cross-functional teams is one of the cornerstones of a closed innovation
process. In many instances, the structure emphasizes integration between marketing
and R&D and is touted as the mostly frequently used configuration for developing
and commercializing an innovation.
Research has shown that innovation outcomes are highly dependent upon the
interface between cross-functional team members (Maltz & Kohli, 2000; Sethi,
2000; Maltz, Souder, & Kumar, 2001), as communication, cooperation, and coor-
dination are critical to innovation success. The literature is rich with research
espousing the importance of R&D/marketing integration (Griffin & Hauser, 1995;
Rein, 2004), manufacturing/marketing relationship (Kahn & McDonough, 1997),
design influence (Nussbaum, 2003; Veryzer, 2005), and engineering prominence in
innovation (Michalek, Finberg, & Papalambros, 2005). Top management support,
along with vision and resources, stimulate the team to achieve project success.