INPUT CONTROL

Management has many opportunities to control the inputs into front end work, especially by defining the front end task and allocating resources for the development intervention. Importance of task definition is widely discussed and recommended in the NPD context398 but seldom empirically tested in terms of its influence on performance. Management may set up or approve a written task definition399, contract400 or mission statement401 that defines the expected product, business and performance objectives, target markets, and stakeholders402, and possible limitations403 for concepts and rough time, resource and cost targets. The task definition brings more focus to the development work and increases commitment

398

Wheelwright and Clark 1992, Smith and Reinertsen 1998, Schilling and Hill 1998, Ulrich and Eppinger 2003

399

Wheelwright and Clark 1992, Smith and Reinertsen 1998 400

Schilling and Hill 1998, Davila 2000 401

Ulrich and Eppinger 2003 402

Ulrich and Eppinger 2003, Schilling and Hill 1998 403

especially if the team is involved in negotiating the task, thus increasing the likelihood of success. The defined contract book also provides a basic tool for monitoring and evaluating the work of the development team during the front end. Davila illustrated in his case studies that the main purpose of this kind of written contract was, instead of increasing the commitment or the focus of the task, to also bring a consensus of expected divergent objectives regarding the development task404.

The essence of input control is assuring that the “right things” are pursued as an intermediary deliverable for the development project phase. Specification of strategic performance goals gives purpose and direction for the team’s conceptualization work405, promotes cross-functional co-operation406, gives focus by setting constraints407, and helps to increase the consensus by removing competing interpretations of expected outcomes408. McDonough has investigated factors contributing to the success of cross-functional teams in a product innovation context and concludes that establishing clear and stable goals contributes the most to success409. The direction should be vague enough to provide room for discretion, creative problem solving and local autonomy. Furthermore, strategic goals may encourage R&D employees to pursue and achieve even very challenging results410. That is, development group members are willing to stretch their capabilities in order to attain targets. The well-established goal-setting theory argues on behalf of setting specific and challenging goals, particularly in routine types of work activities, that are further associated with higher performance411. In complex and non-routine tasks goal- setting is more challenging due to difficulties in measuring performance objectively and accurately412.

404

Davila 2000 405

Cooper 1998, Imai et al. 1985, Wheelwright and Clark 1992, McDonough 2000, Bonner et al. 2002, Zhang and Doll 2001

406

Pinto et al. 1993 407

McDonough 2000 408 _{Zhang And Doll 2001} 409

McDonough 2000 410

Sundbo 1996, Imai et al. 1985 411

Locke 1968, Locke and Latham 1990, Campbell and Furrer 1995 412

Allocating particular human resources to the front end task greatly affects innovation outcomes. Both the choice of the team leader413 and team members414 are important to the product’s success and the development of new business. High expectations are directed at the team leaders who should lobby for resources, share the team’s vision, make operative decisions, lead the team, and also have the authority to influence the surrounding organization415. Team leaders translate top managers’ expectations into operational decisions and minimize disruptions caused by external disturbances and contradictory demands416. Clark and Fujimoto emphasize that such highly skilled “heavyweight” managers that have direct access to the required resources and full responsibility of task execution are needed especially when the project deals with uncertain, diverse and latent market needs417. Smith and Reinertsen emphasize three important factors contributing to success in team leader allocation: asking for a volunteer team leader (from potential candidates), using a leader in a management role (not a technical role), and giving the leader adequate power418.

The front end team needs to have a sufficient knowledge base, suitable personal characteristics, and capabilities to do the job successfully419. Besides sufficient knowledge, the team composition should be considered in terms of cross-functional expertise, attitudes and motivation to achieve success420. Functional diversity inside the team increases the amount and variety of available information which further makes the development process quicker and improves performance421. Diversity of opinions and viewpoints has been considered particularly relevant when radical new concepts are sought422. of staffing quality in terms of too small groups or inexperienced team members423 or wrong sets of competencies424 can form obstacles to high project performance. Quantity, beside quality, in terms of adequate resources

413

Stevens and Burley 2003, McGrath 1996, Nonaka 1988, Smith and Reinertsen 1998, Brown and Eisenhardt 1995

414

E.g. Brown and Eisenhardt 1995, Kim and Wilemon 2002, McDonough 2000 415

Brown and Eisenhardt 1995, Wheelwright and Clark 1992 416

Nonaka 1988 417

Clark and Fujimoto 1991 418

Smith and Reinertsen 1998 419

Snell 1992, Merchant 1985, Anthony 1988 420

Brown and Eisenhardt 1995, Clark and Fujimoto 1991, Nonaka 1988, Imai et al. 1985, Dougherty 1992, McDonough 2000

421

Brown and Eisenhardt 1995, McDonough 2000 422

Cagan and Vogel 2002, McDermott and O’Connor 2002 423

Gupta and Wilemon 1990 424

loaded in the front end to find and solve design problems early in the process has been linked to superior development performance425. As task definition, goal specification and resource allocation, i.e. input control mechanisms, have all been identified as central components of innovation success in earlier studies, the first hypotheses are stated as follows:

H1a: Input control is positively associated with product concept superiority. H1b: Input control is positively associated with strategic renewal.