Organizing for Product Development Across Technological Environments: Performance Trade-offs and Priorities

References

• Abernathy W. J.The Productivity Dilemma: Roadblock to Innovation in the Automobile Industry (1978) (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore) Google Scholar
• Abernathy W. J., Utterback J. M. Patterns of industrial innovation. Tech. Rev. (1978) 80(7):41–47Google Scholar
• Agarwal R., Helfat C. E. Strategic renewal of organizations. Organ. Sci. (2009) 20(2):281–293Link, Google Scholar
• Ahuja G., Lampert C. M., Tandon V. Moving beyond Schumpeter: Managerial research on the determinants of technological innovation. Acad. Management Ann. (2008) 2:1–98Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andriopoulos C., Lewis M. W. Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organ. Sci. (2009) 20(4):696–717Link, Google Scholar
• Archibugi D. Pavitt's taxonomy sixteen years on: A review article. Econom. Innovation New Tech. (2001) 10(5):415–425Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bhuiyan N., Gerwin D., Thomson V. Simulation of new product development process for performance improvement. Management Sci. (2004) 50(12):1690–1703Link, Google Scholar
• Brown S. L., Eisenhardt K. M. Product development: Past research, present findings, and future directions. Acad. Management Rev. (1995) 20(2):343–378Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brown S. L., Eisenhardt K. M. The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1997) 42(1):1–34Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brunsoni S., Prencipe A. Unpacking the black box of modularity: Technologies, products and organizations. Indust. Corporate Change (2001) 10(1):179–205Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bryman A.Social Research Methods (2001) (Oxford University Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Burton R. M. Computational laboratories for organization science: Questions, validity and docking. Comput. Math. Organ. Theory (2003) 9(2):91–108Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burton R. M., Obel B. The validity of computational models in organization science: From model realism to purpose of the model. Comput. Math. Organ. Theory (1995) 1(1):57–71Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burton R. M., Obel B.Strategic Organizational Diagnosis and Design: The Dynamics of Fit (2004) (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cardinal L. B. Technological innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: The use of organizational control in managing research and development. Organ. Sci. (2001) 12(1):19–36Link, Google Scholar
• Cardinal L. B., Lei D., Beyerlein M. M., Johnson D. A., Beyerlein S. T. Structuring research and development teams in the technological conversion process. Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams (2000) 5(JAI Press, Greenwich, CT) 31–62Google Scholar
• Cardinal L. B., Fern M. J., Burton R. M. The achievement of fit in new product development. Acad. Management Best Paper Proc. (2004) New Orleans(Academy of Management, Briarcliff Manor, NY) I1–I6Google Scholar
• Cardinal L. B., Sitkin S. B., Long C. P. Balancing and rebalancing in the creation and evolution of organizational control. Organ. Sci. (2004) 15(4):411–431Link, Google Scholar
• Carley K. M. Computational and mathematical organization theory: Perspective and directions. Comput. Math. Organ. Theory (1995) 1(1):39–56Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carley K. M., Prietula M. J.Computational Organization Theory (1994) (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ) Google Scholar
• Carroll T., Burton R. M. Organizations and complexity: Searching for the edge of chaos. Comput. Math. Organ. Theory (2000) 6(4):319–337Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carroll T. N., Gormley T. J., Bilardo V. J., Burton R. M., Woodman K. L. Designing a new organization at NASA: An organization design process using simulation. Organ. Sci. (2006) 17(2):202–214Link, Google Scholar
• Chandler A. D.Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism (1990) (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clark K. B., Chew W. B., Fujimoto T. Product development in the world auto industry. Brookings Papers Econom. Activity (1987) 1987(3):729–781Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen W. M., Stoneman P. Empirical studies of innovative activity. Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological Change (1995) (Blackwell, Oxford, UK) 182–264Google Scholar
• Cyert R. M., March J. G.A Behavioral Theory of the Firm (1963) (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ) Google Scholar
• Daft R. L., Lengel R. H. Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Sci. (1986) 32(5):554–571Link, Google Scholar
• Danneels E. The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management J. (2002) 23(12):1095–1121Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dasgupta P., David P. A. Toward a new economics of science. Res. Policy (1994) 23(5):487–521Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis J. P., Eisenhardt K. M., Bingham C. B. Developing theory with simulation methods. Acad. Management Rev. (2007) 32(2):580–599Crossref, Google Scholar
• de Jong J. P. J., Marsili O. The fruit flies of innovations: A taxonomy of innovative small firms. Res. Policy (2006) 35(2):213–229Crossref, Google Scholar
• Donaldson L., Clegg S., Hardy C. The normal science of structural contingency theory. Studying Organization: Theory and Method (1999) (Sage, London) 51–70Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dosi G. Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation. J. Econom. Literature (1988) 26(3):1120–1171Google Scholar
• Dougherty D. Interpretative barriers to successful product innovation. Organ. Sci. (1992) 3(2):179–202Link, Google Scholar
• Duncan R. B. Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental uncertainty. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1972) 17(3):313–327Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt K. M. Building theories from case study research. Acad. Management Rev. (1989) 14(4):532–550Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt K. M., Graebner M. E. Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Acad. Management J. (2007) 50(1):25–32Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt K. M., Tabrizi B. N. Accelerating adaptive processes: Product innovation in the global computer industry. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1995) 40(1):84–110Crossref, Google Scholar
• ePM SimVision simulation theory and implementation: Technical summary. (2002) (White paper, Austin, TX) Google Scholar
• ePM SimVision user guide. (2005) . version 11Google Scholar
• Fontana A., Frey J. H., Denzin N. K., Lincoln Y. S. Interviewing: The art of science. Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials (1998) (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA) 47–78Google Scholar
• Galbraith J. R.Designing Complex Organizations (1973) (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA) Google Scholar
• Galbraith J. R.Organization Design (1977) (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA) Google Scholar
• Gerwin D., Barrowman N. J. An evaluation of research on integrated product development. Management Sci. (2002) 48(7):938–953Link, Google Scholar
• Glaser B. G., Strauss A. L.The Discovery of Grounded Theory (1967) (Aldine de Gruyter, New York) Google Scholar
• Glick W. H., Huber G. P., Miller C. C., Doty D. H., Sutcliffe K. M. Studying changes in organizational design and effectiveness: Retrospective event histories and periodic assessments. Organ. Sci. (1990) 1(3):293–312Link, Google Scholar
• Grant R. M. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management J. (1996) 17(Winter special issue):109–122Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hargadon A. B. Brokering knowledge: Linking learning and innovation. Res. Organ. Behav. (2002) 24:41–85Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hargadon A., Sutton R. I. Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1997) 42(4):716–749Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison J. R., Lin J., Carroll G., Carley K. Simulation modeling in organizational and management research. Acad. Management Rev. (2007) 32(4):1229–1245Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hounshell D. A., Smith J. K.Science and Corporate Strategy: Du Pont R&D, 1902–1980 (1988) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) Google Scholar
• Huber G. P., Miller C. C., Glick W. H. Developing more encompassing theories about organizations: The centralization-effectiveness relationship as an example. Organ. Sci. (1990) 1(1):11–40Link, Google Scholar
• Jarzabkowski P. Shaping strategy as a structuration process. Acad. Management J. (2008) 51(4):621–650Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jin Y., Levitt R. The virtual design team: A computational model of project organizations. Comput. Math. Organ. Theory (1996) 2(3):171–195Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keller R. T. Technology information-processing fit and the performance of R&D project groups: A test of contingency theory. Acad. Management J. (1994) 37(1):167–179Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kimberly J. R., Bouchikhi H. The dynamics of organizational development and change: How the past shapes the present and constrains the future. Organ. Sci. (1995) 6(1):9–18Link, Google Scholar
• Krishnan V., Ulrich K. T. Product development decisions: A review of the literature. Management Sci. (2001) 47(1):1–21Link, Google Scholar
• Kunz J. C., Christiansen T. R., Cohen G. P., Jin Y., Levitt R. E. The virtual design team: A computational simulation model of project organizations. Comm. Assoc. Comput. Machinery (1998) 41(11):84–91Crossref, Google Scholar
• Langley A. Strategies for theorizing from process data. Acad. Management Rev. (1999) 24(4):691–710Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee T. W.Using Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research (1999) (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA) Google Scholar
• Lee T. W., Mitchell T. R., Sablynski C. J. Qualitative research in organizational and vocational psychology, 1979–1999. J. Vocational Behav. (1999) 55(2):161–187Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lehrer M. Science-driven vs. market-pioneering high tech: Comparative German technology sectors in the late nineteenth and late twentieth centuries. Indust. Corporate Change (2005) 14(2):251–278Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leiponen A., Drejer I. What exactly are technological regimes? Res. Policy (2007) 36(8):1221–1238Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levitt R. E., Cohen G. P., Kunz J. C., Nass C. I., Christiansen T., Jin Y., Carley K. M., Prietula M. J. The “virtual design team”: Simulating how organization structure and information processing tools affect team performance. Comput. Organization Theory (1994) (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ) 1–18Google Scholar
• Levitt R. E., Thomsen J., Christiansen T. R., Kunz J. C., Jin Y., Nass C. Simulating project work processes and organizations: Toward a micro-contingency theory of organizational design. Management Sci. (1999) 45(11):1479–1495Link, Google Scholar
• Lin Z., Zhao X., Ismail K. M., Carley K. M. Organizational design and restructuring in response to crises: Lessons from computational modeling and real-world cases. Organ. Sci. (2006) 17(5):598–618Link, Google Scholar
• Malerba F., Fagerberg J., Mowery D. C., Nelson R. R. Sectoral systems: How and why innovation differs across sectors. The Oxford Handbook of Innovation (2005) (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK) 380–406Google Scholar
• March J. G., Simon H. A.Organizations (1958) (John Wiley & Sons, New York) Google Scholar
• McGrath J. E., McGrath J. E., Martin J., Kulka R. A. Dilemmatics: The study of research choices and dilemmas. Judgment Calls in Research (1982) (Sage, Beverly Hills, CA) 69–102Google Scholar
• Miles M. B., Huberman A. M.Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (1994) (Sage, London) Google Scholar
• Miller C. C., Cardinal L. B., Glick W. H. Retrospective reports in organizational research: A reexamination of recent evidence. Acad. Management J. (1997) 40(1):189–204Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nightingale P. Economies of scale in experimentation: Knowledge and technology in pharmaceutical R&D. Indust. Corporate Change (2000) 9(2):315–359Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nonaka I., Takeuchi H.The Knowledge-Creating Company (1995) (Oxford University Press, New York) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pavitt K. Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Res. Policy (1984) 13(6):343–373Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pavitt K. Technologies, products and organization in the innovating firm: What Adam Smith tells us and Joseph Schumpeter doesn't. Indust. Corporate Change (1998) 7(3):433–452Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pavitt K.Technology, Management and Systems of Innovation (1999) (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK) Google Scholar
• Pavitt K. Innovating routines in the business firm: What corporate tasks should they be accomplishing? Indust. Corporate Change (2002) 11(1):117–133Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pavitt K., Robson M., Townsend J. Technological accumulation, diversification and organisation in UK companies, 1945–1983. Management Sci. (1989) 35(1):81–99Link, Google Scholar
• Pentland B. T. Building process theory with narrative: From description to explanation. Acad. Management Rev. (1999) 24(4):711–724Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pisano G. P. Knowledge, integration, and the locus of learning: An empirical analysis of process development. Strategic Management J. (1994) 15(S1):85–100Crossref, Google Scholar
• Plowman D. A., Baker L. T., Beck T. E., Kulkarni M., Solansky S. T., Travis D. V. Radical change accidentally: The emergence and amplification of small change. Acad. Management J. (2007) 50(3):515–543Crossref, Google Scholar
• Raisch S., Birkinshaw J., Probst G., Tushman M. L. Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organ. Sci. (2009) 20(4):685–695Link, Google Scholar
• Ren Y., Carley K. M., Argote L. The contingent effects of transactive memory: When is it more beneficial to know what others know? Management Sci. (2006) 52(5):671–682Link, Google Scholar
• Salvato C. Capabilities unveiled: The role of ordinary activities in the evolution or product development processes. Organ. Sci. (2009) 20(2):384–409Link, Google Scholar
• Schilling M. A.Strategic Management of Technological Innovation (2008) (McGraw-Hill Irwin, New York) Google Scholar
• Scott W. R., Davis G. F.Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural and Open Systems Perspectives (2006) (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ) Google Scholar
• Shaver J. M. Accounting for endogeneity when assessing strategy performance: Does entry mode choice affect FDI survival? Management Sci. (1998) 44(4):571–585Link, Google Scholar
• Shenhar A. J. One size does not fit all projects: Exploring classical contingency domains. Management Sci. (2001) 47(3):394–414Link, Google Scholar
• Siggelkow N. Evolution toward fit. Admin. Sci. Quart. (2002) 47(1):125–159Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simon H. A.Administrative Behaviour (1997) 4th ed.(Free Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Song M., Montoya-Weiss M. M. The effect of perceived technological uncertainty on Japanese new product development. Acad. Management J. (2001) 44(1):61–80Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spilker B.Multinational Drug Companies: Issues in Drug Discovery and Development (1989) (Raven Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Staw B. M., McGrath J. E., Martin J., Ku R. A., Martin J. E., Kulka R. A. Some judgments on the judgment calls approach. Judgment Calls in Research (1982) (Sage, Beverly Hills, CA) 119–127Google Scholar
• Stevens G., Burley J. 3,000 raw ideas = 1 commercial success!. Res.-Tech. Management (1997) 40(3):16–27Google Scholar
• Suárez F. F., Utterback J. M. Dominant designs and the survival of firms. Strategic Management J. (1995) 16(6):415–430Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tatikonda M. V., Montoya-Weiss M. M. Integrating operations and marketing perspectives of product innovation: The influence of organizational capabilities on development performance. Management Sci. (2001) 47(1):151–172Link, Google Scholar
• Terwiesch C., Loch C. H. Measuring effectiveness of overlapping development activities. Management Sci. (1999) 45(4):455–465Link, Google Scholar
• Terwiesch C., Loch C. H., Niederkofler M. When product development performance makes a difference: A statistical analysis in the electronics industry. J. Product Innovation Management (1998) 15(1):3–15Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thompson J. D.Organizations in Action (1967) (McGraw-Hill, New York) Google Scholar
• Tushman M. L., Nadler D. A. Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design. Acad. Management Rev. (1978) 3(3):613–624Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tung R. L. Dimensions of organizational environments: An exploratory study of their impact on organization structure. Acad. Management J. (1979) 22(4):672–693Crossref, Google Scholar
• Utterback J. M.Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation (1994) (Harvard Business School Press, Boston) Google Scholar
• Utterback J. M., Suárez F. F. Innovation, competition, and industry structure. Res. Policy (1993) 22(1):1–21Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van de Ven A. H. Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Sci. (1986) 32(5):590–607Link, Google Scholar
• Van de Ven A. H., Delbeq A. L., Koenig R. Determinants of coordination modes within organizations. Amer. Sociol. Rev. (1976) 41(2):322–338Crossref, Google Scholar
• Venkatraman N. The concept of fit in strategy research: Toward verbal and statistical correspondence. Acad. Management Rev. (1989) 14(3):423–444Crossref, Google Scholar
• von Hippel E. Task partitioning: An innovation process variable. Res. Policy (1990) 19(5):407–418Crossref, Google Scholar
• Winter S., Teece D. J. Knowledge and competence as strategic assets. The Competitive Challenge: Strategic for Industrial Innovation and Renewal (1987) (Harper & Row, New York) 159–184Google Scholar
• Yin R. K.Case Study Research: Design and Methods (1994) 2nd ed.(Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA) Google Scholar