IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v38y1992i3p360-373.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patterns of Communication Among Marketing, Engineering and Manufacturing---A Comparison Between Two New Product Teams

Author

Listed:
  • Abbie Griffin

    (Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637)

  • John R. Hauser

    (Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139)

Abstract

Models and scientific evidence suggest that firms are more successful at new-product development if there is greater communication among marketing, engineering, and manufacturing. This paper examines communication patterns for two matched product-development teams where the key difference between the groups is that one used a phase-review development process and the other used Quality Function Deployment (QFD), a product-development process adopted recently at over 100 United States and Japanese firms. To our knowledge, this is the first head-to-head comparison of traditional U.S. product development processes with QFD. Our data suggest that QFD enhances communication levels within the core team (marketing, engineering, manufacturing). QFD changes communication patterns from "up-over-down" flows through management to more horizontal routes where core team members communicate directly with one another. On the other hand, the QFD team communicates less on planning information and less with members of the firm external to the team. If this paucity of external communication means that the team has the information it needs for product development, and the QFD process has provided an effective means for moving the information through the team, it is a positive impact of QFD. If the result means that QFD induces team insularity, even when the team needs to reach out to external information sources, it is a cause for concern.

Suggested Citation

  • Abbie Griffin & John R. Hauser, 1992. "Patterns of Communication Among Marketing, Engineering and Manufacturing---A Comparison Between Two New Product Teams," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(3), pages 360-373, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:38:y:1992:i:3:p:360-373
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.38.3.360
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.38.3.360
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.38.3.360?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:38:y:1992:i:3:p:360-373. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.