IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v37y2008i3p473-491.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How much do specialists have to learn from each other when they jointly develop radical product innovations?

Author

Listed:
  • Schmickl, Christina
  • Kieser, Alfred

Abstract

Specialists of different domains have to collaborate whenever technically demanding product innovations are developed. Their respective knowledge contributions need to be integrated into a functioning whole. Two approaches provide insight into how this is achieved: the dominating cross-learning approach assumes that the specialists of different knowledge domains have to intensively learn from each other in order to be able to jointly develop the new product. This cross-learning implies that groups of specialists transfer their specific knowledge, which encompasses different concepts (theories), methods and world views, among each other. However, some researchers argue that intensive cross-learning between specialists is a considerable expense in time and effort and, therefore, inefficient. They insist that integration of specialists' knowledge is achieved through structural mechanisms that significantly reduce the need for cross-learning. This article is based on one of the latter approaches. We argue that the mechanisms of transactive memory, modularization and prototyping in combination can considerably reduce knowledge transfers. This assumption has found empirical support for incremental innovations. On the basis of a comparison between incremental and radical innovation projects in an electrotechnical company, we analyze whether the assumption that, on the basis of structural mechanisms, specialists can integrate their knowledge without having to intensively learn from each other, also holds for radical innovations.

Suggested Citation

  • Schmickl, Christina & Kieser, Alfred, 2008. "How much do specialists have to learn from each other when they jointly develop radical product innovations?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 473-491, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:37:y:2008:i:3:p:473-491
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048-7333(07)00242-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sendil K. Ethiraj & Daniel Levinthal, 2004. "Modularity and Innovation in Complex Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(2), pages 159-173, February.
    2. Christoph H. Loch & Christian Terwiesch & Stefan Thomke, 2001. "Parallel and Sequential Testing of Design Alternatives," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(5), pages 663-678, May.
    3. Patel, Pari & Pavitt, Keith, 1997. "The technological competencies of the world's largest firms: Complex and path-dependent, but not much variety," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 141-156, May.
    4. Carliss Y. Baldwin & Kim B. Clark, 2000. "Design Rules, Volume 1: The Power of Modularity," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262024667.
    5. Gianmario Verona & Davide Ravasi, 2003. "Unbundling dynamic capabilities: an exploratory study of continuous product innovation," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(3), pages 577-606, June.
    6. Stefan H. Thomke, 1998. "Managing Experimentation in the Design of New Products," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(6), pages 743-762, June.
    7. Brusoni, Stefano & Prencipe, Andrea, 2001. "Unpacking the Black Box of Modularity: Technologies, Products and Organizations," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 179-205, March.
    8. Ulrich, Karl, 1995. "The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 419-440, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Keeran Kowlaser & Helena Barnard, 2016. "Tie Breadth, Tie Strength And The Location Of Ties: The Value Of Ties Inside An Emerging Mnc To Team Innovation," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(01), pages 1-31, January.
    2. Cristina Páez-Avilés & Frank J. Rijnsoever & Esteve Juanola-Feliu & Josep Samitier, 2018. "Multi-disciplinarity breeds diversity: the influence of innovation project characteristics on diversity creation in nanotechnology," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 458-481, April.
    3. van Rijnsoever, Frank J. & Hessels, Laurens K., 2011. "Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 463-472, April.
    4. Denicolai, Stefano & Ramirez, Matias & Tidd, Joe, 2016. "Overcoming the false dichotomy between internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition: Absorptive capacity dynamics over time," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 57-65.
    5. Ann Majchrzak & Philip H. B. More & Samer Faraj, 2012. "Transcending Knowledge Differences in Cross-Functional Teams," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 951-970, August.
    6. Hajdeja Iglič & Patrick Doreian & Luka Kronegger & Anuška Ferligoj, 2017. "With whom do researchers collaborate and why?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 153-174, July.
    7. Huang, Chin-wei & Ho, Foo Nin & Chiu, Yung-ho, 2014. "Measurement of tourist hotels׳ productive efficiency, occupancy, and catering service effectiveness using a modified two-stage DEA model in Taiwan," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 49-59.
    8. Yakob, Ramsin, 2018. "Augmenting Local Managerial Capacity Through Knowledge Collectivities: The Case of Volvo Car China," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 386-403.
    9. Fu-Sheng Tsai & Gayle Baugh & Shih-Chieh Fang & Julia Lin, 2014. "Contingent contingency: Knowledge heterogeneity and new product development performance revisited," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 149-169, March.
    10. Lin Zhang & Beibei Sun & Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez & Lixin Chen & Ying Huang, 2018. "Interdisciplinarity and collaboration: on the relationship between disciplinary diversity in departmental affiliations and reference lists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 271-291, October.
    11. Ozer, Muammer, 2009. "The roles of product lead-users and product experts in new product evaluation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 1340-1349, October.
    12. Melero, Eduardo & Palomeras, Neus, 2015. "The Renaissance Man is not dead! The role of generalists in teams of inventors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 154-167.
    13. Parjanen, Satu & Hyypiä, Mirva, 2019. "Innotin game supporting collective creativity in innovation activities," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 26-34.
    14. Waldemar Kremser & Georg Schreyögg, 2016. "The Dynamics of Interrelated Routines: Introducing the Cluster Level," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 698-721, June.
    15. Andreas Reinstaller, 2011. "The Modularity of Technology and Organisations. Implications for the Theory of the Firm," WIFO Working Papers 398, WIFO.
    16. Boh, Wai Fong & Evaristo, Roberto & Ouderkirk, Andrew, 2014. "Balancing breadth and depth of expertise for innovation: A 3M story," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 349-366.
    17. Caroline Sargis-Roussel & François Deltour, 2012. "Beyond cross-functional teams: knowledge integration during organizational projects and the role of social capital," Post-Print hal-00787480, HAL.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:37:y:2008:i:3:p:473-491. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.