From Closed to Open Innovation: The Evolving Nature of Teams and the Use of Information Technology - Information Technology and Product Development - page 135

innovation process as firms react to advances in technology and fluctuating cus-
tomer and marketplace demands (Acha, Gann, & Salter 2005; Gann & Salter, 2000;
Hobday, 2000; Turner & Keegan, 1999). This movement toward the use of the
project-based structure is an important one to be aware of, as team structures impact
a variety of organizational outcomes, including the style of interaction and strategies
used for information processing (Saunders & Ahuja, 2006).
Project-based teams increasingly span more organizational boundaries as innova-
tion transitions to dispersed collaborators who may be located between sites, at other
companies, and even headquartered at competitors (Smulders, Boer, Hansen, Gubi,
& Dorst, 2002). To integrate diverse forms of specialized knowledge from around
the world, firms embrace a network structure (Heckman et al., 2006; Suchan &
Hayzak, 2001) as it opens up the innovation practices.
Networked members have become increasingly dispersed as organizations strive
to capture knowledge potential available at multiple locations (Gassmann &
Zedtwitz, 2003; Hoegl, Ernst, & Proserpio, 2007). The open innovation team in a
network-connected organization often finds members geographically, culturally, and
organizationally dispersed (McDonough, Kahn, & Barczak, 1998). In these decen-
tralized organizations, networked teams are often assembled on a project-by-project
basis. In addition, as team member dispersion continues across multiple locations
and time zones, the innovation process itself is transforming to one that is diverse
and global (Dahan & Hauser, 2002).
In a benchmarking study of 26 firms with 54 successful virtual teams, results
portrayed an enhanced snapshot into team dynamics. Researchers found both global
and regional teams. Half the teams were long-term and half had been set up just for
a single project. Fewer than 4% of the 293 participants reported ever meeting fellow
team members face-to-face, and less than 7% reported ever meeting with any other
member in person. Almost two-thirds of teams included people from at least three
time zones, and slightly more than three-quarters had members from more than one
country. Fifty-seven percent of teams performed different functions and 48% origi-
nated from more than one company (Majchrzak, Malhatra, Stamps, Lipnack, 2004).
Thus, we find individuals are frequently assigned to multiple concurrent teams, have
multiple responsibilities, and experience variability in the amount of time that can
be spent on any one project.
7.3.3 Team Member Roles
Participants in product development projects often are from external organizations
including co-development partners, suppliers, and even customers (Rafii, 1995). As
teams work to manage increased distribution and virtuality, the role of these new
partners must also be addressed. The case examples provided later in this chapter
frequently portray a core-periphery structure.
Typically, in this type of structure there exists a dense, cohesive “core” of inno-
vators and a sparse, unconnected “periphery” (Crowston, Wei, Li, & Howison,
2006; Cummings & Cross, 2003). The core is generally small, consists of tightly