J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 16 Ž1999.

55–81

R & D–Production integration in the early phases of

new product development projects
Jukka Nihtila¨ )

Theseus Institute, Rue Albert Einstein, B.P 169, 06903 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France

Abstract

The paper explores the process of cross-functional integration in the early phases of new
product development ŽNPD.. Using case-study methodology five completed NPD-projects from
three different companies were investigated from the viewpoint of R & D–production integration.
The following four intertwined mechanisms were identified as key integrators: Ž1. Standards,
procedures and plans, Ž2. milestone and design review practice, Ž3. individual integrator and Ž4.
cross-functional team. R & D–production integration in the case-projects was characterized by the
use of a portfolio of the four mechanisms. The case-studies suggest a number of management
challenges related to the use of the above integration mechanisms. First, the organization of a
cross-functional project planning process was found to be elementary. Second, in order to
effectively support the planning process, the level of detail and timeliness of the NPD-process
descriptions should be carefully managed. Third, concerning the individual integrator and cross-
functional team, the case-studies highlight the importance of ensuring early production resources
by focusing the product development effort, by distinguishing between operational activities and
NPD, and by carefully balancing the recruiting between R & D and production. q 1999 Elsevier
Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Cross-functional integration; Coordination; New product development; Early project phases

1. Introduction

In new product development, speed and flexibility of the development process has
been manifested as an important factor contributing to the success of the new product
ŽNonaka and Takeuchi, 1986.. Several companies have shortened the time needed to
introduce new products by increasing the parallelism between traditionally sequential

)
Tel.: q33-492-9451-18; Fax: q33-493-6538-37; e-mail: nihtila@thesesus.fr

0923-4748r99r$ - see front matter q 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 2 3 - 4 7 4 8 Ž 9 8 . 0 0 0 2 8 - 9
56 ¨ J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 16 (1999) 55–81
J. Nihtilar

project phases, such as product and production process design. However, many compa-
nies are struggling in mastering the cross-functional interdependencies, which become
pivotal as tasks from different functions are executed in parallel and the development
cycle time is compressed ŽMass and Berkson, 1995.. An integrated product development
process which allows the consideration of the downstream and external constraints in the
upstream decision making has become an important competitive weapon ŽClark and
Fujimoto, 1990.. Especially, the early integration of the different functional disciplines
has been found of significant importance ŽGerwin and Susman, 1996.. The purpose of
this article is to explore the cross-functional integration in these early product develop-
ment phases.
This paper is organized as follows. First, the focus of the study is defined. This is
followed by a discussion on the integration mechanisms found in prior research and an
identification of the research problem. Then the research setting and the five case-pro-
jects are described. Finally, based on the cross-case analysis and a comparison to prior
research the results of the study and suggestions for future research are drawn.

2. Focus of the study

The focus of this study is on the integration between R & D and production. This
interface was selected for the following two reasons. First, the documented differences
in the thought worlds Žsee for example Abita, 1985 and Ginn and Rubinstein, 1986.
suggest that an in-depth study on the interface would reveal a rich set of integration
mechanisms. Second, prior studies indicate that the R & DrProduction integration is of
significant importance to successful new product introduction ŽEttlie and Stoll, 1990..
This study is also limited in its investigation to the first phases of new product
development ŽFig. 1.. Prior research indicates that little is known about cross-functional
integration in the early phases of product development ŽGerwin and Susman, 1996..
The early project phases Žshaded phases and milestones in Fig. 1. cover the
development and evaluation of the product concept and the basic design work resulting

Fig. 1. Focus on early NPD-project phases Žadapted from Wheelwright and Clark, 1992, p. 7..
 ¨ J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 16 (1999) 55–81
J. Nihtilar 57

in the first engineering prototypes of the end-product. The deliverables of these phases
are the product concept, basic product design, and an engineering prototype of the final
product.

3. Prior research
Coordination has been defined as an activity to ensure concerted action in a situation
of interdependency ŽThompson, 1967 p. 55.. Earlier research ŽTable 1. has identified a
variety of means, hereafter referred as integration mechanisms, 1 to achieve coordina-
tion.
According to Thompson Ž1967. p. 56. integration may be achieved through standard-
ization, by plans or by mutual adjustment, that is by transmitting new information during
the process of action. The burden of the mechanism on decisions, communication and
resources increases from standardization through plans to mutual adjustment. Van De
Ven et al. Ž1976. divided the coordination modes within a service organization into two
general ways of coordination, that is by programming and by feedback. The prior
contains mechanisms such as, pre-established plans, schedules, forecasts, formalized
rules, policies and procedures. The coordination by programming is further divided into
a personal Žindividual integrator. and a group mode Žscheduled or unscheduled meet-
ings.. Research results by Van De Ven et al. Ž1976. indicate that task uncertainty,
interdependency and work unit size affect the kind of influence the integration mecha-
nisms have. As uncertainty increases the role of impersonal co-ordination decreases. The
increase in task interdependency increases the use of all mechanisms, whereas the
increase of unit size makes the use of impersonal means of co-ordination more accepted.
More recent research has studied the cross-functional in product development. Dean
and Susman Ž1989. identified four organizational approaches to integrate the design and
manufacturing functions in new product development. The first one, manufacturing
sign-off, prohibits unproducible designs from reaching the manufacturing stage. Integra-
tors can be used to act as liaisons toward the manufacturing function working together
with designers on producibility issues. Third, a cross-functional team consisting of
representatives from different functional disciplines is effective but more resource
consuming approach to integrate the two functions. The fourth, one-department, ap-
proach makes producibility an integral part of new product development. The results of
the study suggest that the benefits of the integration mechanisms are dependent on the
companies ability to master change. The higher the change absorbing capacity the more
benefits the companies will obtain of the high impact approaches, such as team and
one-department approach.
In a study on 39 US manufacturers, Ettlie and Stoll Ž1990. discovered the following
five key mechanisms used to promote design-manufacturing coordination: Training on
formal Design-for-Manufacture ŽDFM. methods, manufacturing sign-off, novel organi-
zational structures Žcross-functional teams and a joint R & D–production department.,
job rotation in engineering functions and permanently moving personnel between design

1
Adler Ž1995. uses the term coordination mechanism.
58 ¨ J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 16 (1999) 55–81
J. Nihtilar

Table 1
Related prior research
Study Industry No. of cases Approach
Thompson Ž1967. NrA NrA NrA
Van De Ven et al., 1976 Service 197 Survey
Dean and Susman, 1989 NrA NrA NrA
Ettlie and Stoll, 1990 Manufacturing 39 Multiple case-study
Gupta and Wilemon, 1990 Multiple 12 Multiple case-study
Trygg, 1991 Automobile 5 companies Multiple case-study
Adler, 1995 Electronics, aircraft 13 companies Multiple case-study
Kraut and Streeler, 1995 Software 65 projectsr1 company Survey

and manufacturing. Likewise, based on a study with 12 companies, Gupta and Wilemon
Ž1990. identified six mechanisms to enhance the early involvement of functional groups.
Job rotation can be used to develop cross-functional skills, regular joint reviews to
ensure early problem identification, seminars and joint customer visits to change the
mind-set of the personnel and social interactions as well as physical collocation to
enhance informal communication between the different functional groups.
Trygg Ž1991. investigated integration in the automobile industry. By studying three
product development projects during continuing product development and at the time of
implementation of new advanced manufacturing technologies he identified the following
mechanisms: Informal contacts, formal meetings, liaison personnel, independent integra-
tors, interdepartmental committees and information technology. According to the study
the usage of integration mechanisms is largely dependent on the size of the organization.
The larger the organization the greater the use of integration mechanisms is. The results
provide some indication, that the broad use of integration mechanisms does not
necessarily guarantee efficient designrproduction collaboration. Instead, the small size
of the organization which facilitates informal contacts seemed to be a major contributor
to cross-functional integration.
Adler Ž1995. proposes a typology of integration mechanisms which consists of
standards Že.g., design rules., schedules and plans, mutual adjustment Že.g., design
reviews and engineering changes. and teams. The results from a study on 13 aircraft and
electronics companies indicate that companies use a portfolio of mechanisms to integrate
product development work across functional boundaries and that the focus of the
mechanisms applied should shift closer to the team end of the spectrum as the novelty of
the productrprocess fit problem increases.
Kraut and Streeler Ž1995. studied the use of different coordination techniques in 65
software projects. The mechanisms studied were grouped under the following categories:
Formal impersonal Že.g., memos and milestones., formal interpersonal Že.g., review
meetings and code inspections., informal interpersonal Že.g., group meetings and
collocation., electronic communication and interpersonal network. The study underlines
the importance of both informal and formal interpersonal mechanisms. Extensive
personal networks were found particularly advantageous in projects which operated
under uncertain circumstances and large projects seemed to require formal communica-
 ¨ J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 16 (1999) 55–81
J. Nihtilar 59

Fig. 2. Integration mechanisms in prior research.

tion, such as written specification documents and status review meetings. Significant
amount of research has been devoted to cross-functional integration. Fig. 2 summarizes
the spectrum of integration mechanisms identified by prior research. The spectrum
ranges from low-impact and resource effective standards to high-impact but resource
consuming teams and single department approach.
The prior studies however, provide very little insight into the mechanisms’ applicabil-
ity in the early phases of an NPD-project. This study begins to fill this gap by focusing
on the different integration mechanisms and their use in five recent NPD-projects. More
specifically, the aim is to answer the following research question.

What mechanisms are needed to successfully integrate the upstream R & D and
downstream production function in the early phases of NPD-projects?

4. Research design and methodology

The study is inductive. This approach was chosen because detailed knowledge about
the use of integration mechanisms in early phases of NPD-projects was found limited
ŽEisenhardt, 1989.. For the same reason, a detailed definition of hypotheses to be tested
was not possible at the outset of the study. However, the traditional view of science is
60 ¨ J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 16 (1999) 55–81
J. Nihtilar

not completely discarded. It is not possible to prevent the work on integration mecha-
nisms presented in Section 3 from influencing the research Žfor a discussion on
objectivity see Popper, 1983 p. 48.. Hence, the research approach aims at combining the
benefits of the intensive personal involvement and improvisational style of the purely
inductive research ŽAgar, 1986 2 and Eisenhardt, 1989. with the discipline of the more
traditional school ŽPopper, 1983 p. 50.. In sum, instead of testing pre-defined hypothe-
ses, the study uses fieldwork examples to identify management challenges and to
generate and refine hypotheses for future research.

4.1. Case-studies

The case-projects were selected from companies where cross-functional integration

was considered strategically important. This guided the case-study selection to compa-
nies and industries where new product development was known to be a key business
process. The role of cross-functional integration in the target companies was further
assessed in the preliminary discussions with the target company management. The
decision to focus on companies and projects which put emphasis on the integration was
considered vital in order to secure a rich research base. Similarly, a decision was made
to study projects which the target company management considered successful. This was
perceived to result in an abundant set of experiences Žboth positive and negative. of how
to integrate NPD. It was also considered to facilitate the access to target companies and
projects.
The purpose of the study was to explore integration mechanisms in use and the
related managerial challenges. Therefore, the data collection focused not only on the
mechanisms as such but also on the problems and areas of improvement in cross-func-
tional integration. The case-studies describe cross-functional integration in a real-life
setting. It would not have been realistic to expect to find a problem-free functioning of
the integration mechanisms; even though the projects were considered as successes by
the target company management. Moreover, it is probably part of human nature that
people notice problems and discontinuities. Things that run smoothly often go unno-
ticed. Nevertheless, the respondents were also able to give valuable insights into how the
integration mechanisms could function more smoothly.
The field work consisted of five case-studies in three different companies, henceforth
Company a , Company ß and Company x ŽTable 2.. A brief description of the
companies and the case-projects structured according to the characteristics outlined in
Table 2 is presented below.

4.1.1. Company a : Projects A, B and C

The company in question is one of the main business groups of a publicly traded
corporation Žhenceforth Corporation a .. It operates on a global basis in the consumer
goods business. Company a is known for its modern and innovative product develop-
ment. It has on average 5 to 10 major new product development projects started

2
Cited in Silverman Ž1993. p. 153.
 ¨ J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 16 (1999) 55–81
J. Nihtilar 61

Table 2
Case-projects
Company Characteristic Description
Company a Projects A, B, C Business Consumer goods
Frequency of new product High: 5 to 10 major new product develop-
introduction ment projects started annually
Type of product Complex electromechanical products: Me-
chanics, electronics and software develop-
ment included High volume product: Esti-
mated annual volume more 50 000 products
Project team Large Ž50–70 engineers. Cross-functional
core team Ž5 people.
Company ß Project D Business Scientific and industrial goods business
Frequency of new product High: 5 to 10 major new product develop-
introduction ment projects started annually
Type of product Electromechanical product: Mechanics and
electronics development included Medium-
volume product: Estimated annual volume
4000 to 5000 products
Project team Small Ž7–8 engineers. Cross-functional
product team Ž4 people.
Company x Project E Business Industrial goods
Frequency of new product Low: 1 to 2 major new product develop-
introduction ment projects started annually
Type of product Software product Low-volume product:
Estimated annual volume 30 to 40 products
Project team Small Ž11 engineers.

annually. Company a has a defined NPD-process based on concurrent engineering in

place. Projects A, B and C were the second generation of platform projects carried out
with the process.
The product development projects studied at Company a Žhenceforth Project A, B
and C. all aimed at developing similar high-technology, high-volume consumer goods.
All products Žhenceforth Product A, B and C. consist of electronics, mechanics and
software modules. Projects A, B and C consisted of a team of R & D engineers Ž50–70,
depending on the phase of the project. and representatives from sales and marketing
Ž3–10., production Ž5–15., sourcing Ž1–5. and after-sales Ž1–5.. The cross-functional
core team ŽProject manager, product development project leader, production project
leader, sourcing project leader, sales and marketing project leader and after-sales project
leader. was collocated in the same open office space together with the R & D team. The
core team and a majority of the R & D design engineers were dedicated full-time to the
projects. Others worked in their functional line organizations and were supplied to the
project upon request.

4.1.2. Company ß: Project D

The company in question Žhenceforth Company ß. is a publicly traded company
specializing in high-technology scientific and industrial goods. Company ß, initiates
62 ¨ J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 16 (1999) 55–81
J. Nihtilar

annually on average 5 to 10 major new product development projects. It just recently

implemented a NPD-process based on the principles of concurrent engineering. Project
D was the first project where the new process was applied. The product development
project studied at Company ß Žhenceforth Project D. aimed at developing a high-tech-
nology, medium-volume product Žhenceforth Product D. for the public sector. The
product consists of mechanics and electronics modules. No software development was
included in the project. The project team consisted of the project manager from R & D
and 3–4 R & D engineers depending on project phase, product manager from marketing,
production planner from production and component engineer from sourcing. The
cross-functional project management team was partially collocated. Product manager
together with the project manager was placed among the R & D team. Both the
component engineer and production planner were located in the production hall close to
the final assembly cell.

4.1.3. Company x : Project E

Company x is a business group of a publicly traded corporation. The company
operates on a global basis in the capital goods business. The customer base of Company
x consists mainly of large manufacturing enterprises. The company launches annually
on average one or two major new product development projects. Company x has not a
defined new product development process, but is actively applying modern work
practices in its NPD-projects. The Quality Function Deployment ŽQFD. method was
chosen to structure the conceptual design phase in all recent platform projects.
The goal of the product development project studied at Company x Žhenceforth
Project E. was to develop a software application Ža set of generic software modules. and
a set of engineering tools for building customer specific process control systems. The
product contained mainly software, the role of hardware development was minor. The
dedicated project team consisted of the project manager and 10 R & D engineers. In
addition to this team, 2 persons from two remote subsidiaries participated on a part time
basis. There was no formal functional representation in the project team.

4.2. Data gathering

The interviews with project team members and line organization representatives
formed the primary source for information ŽTable 3.. I made a special effort at the outset
of each case-study to guarantee the access to key project participants taking into account
that the burden of the study on the individuals had to remain minimal.
In order to have a solid base for the case-studies I used quantitative measures,
whenever possible, to describe the progress of each case-project Žsee Appendix A for an
example of the quantitative data.. In Projects A, B and C, I obtained time distribution of
engineering change requests and man-hours from Company a records. In Project D, I
was able to gather only qualitative data from the project documentation. In the case of
Project E, the project documentation provided me with quantitative data Ža list of
product modifications or bugs . which I could use to describe the progress of the project.
The data gathering followed a similar process in all cases. First, I gathered the
quantitative data Žif available. from internal company records and presented it in a
 ¨ J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 16 (1999) 55–81
J. Nihtilar 63

Table 3
Personal interviews ŽCompany a .
Company Project No. of interviews Duration
a A 7 14 h
B 7 14 h 30 min
C 6 14 h
ß D 12 17 h 30 min
x E 6 10 h 30 min
Total 38 70 h 30 min

graphical format. I then interviewed key project team members. The interviews followed
a predefined questionnaire, which was sent to the participants in advance. The question-
naire contained both open-ended and closed-ended questions. The purpose of the
questionnaire was to serve as a discussion outline ŽAppendix A.. The list of questions
was influenced both by prior innovation and new product development studies as well as
my research experience. The questions were tested with three research colleagues prior
to the field research. Instead of just simply asking the respondents to list the integration
mechanisms used and assess their effectiveness, I made an attempt to probe the issue of
R & D–production integration from the viewpoint of project life cycle and the respon-
dent’s own work. I considered that this way the respondents would be able to reveal the
most on how cross-functional integration in the project took place. I also used the
quantitative data from each project Žavailable in Projects A, B, C and E. as a catalyst for
discussion on the key issues.
Immediately after each interview, I prepared notes of the discussion 3 and sent them
to the respondent for comments. I then recontacted the respondent by telephone, telefax
or electronic mail to discuss the comments and open issues of the interview notes. The
discussions around the notes provided additional and more in-depth data to those
gathered in the face-to-face interview. In fact, in some cases these post-interview
discussions were even more fruitful than the original interview; regardless of the
communication media used. Based on the updated interview notes and the quantitative
data, I created a project history 4 for each project. I then submitted these narratives for
comments to the key informants of each project. 5 This was done in order to check the
validity of the data ŽSilverman, 1993 p. 159.. The project histories also contained a
within-case analysis of the observed integration mechanisms and the related manage-
ment challenges. This way the creation of the project histories aimed at reducing the
single researcher bias as well as guided me to first analyze each project as an individual
entity before leaping into cross-project conclusions.

3
The interviews notes were an edited version of the notes taken during the interview. The content of the
interview was grouped under 5–10 headings and information was presented in the form of a bulleted list. The
statements were grouped. The length of an interview note ranged from 5–10 pages depending on the length of
the interview.
4
For the use of project history see Bourgeois and Eisenhardt Ž1988..
5
Typically, each project history went through 1–2 iterations.
64 ¨ J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 16 (1999) 55–81
J. Nihtilar

Each site visit was used as an occasion to study the project documentation and to use
the techniques of participant observation to gather additional data. At Companies a and
ß, I was also granted the possibility to participate in internal workshops, which gave me
additional insight to the situation in the company.
For each company I created a case-study database which contained the quantitative
data and graphical representations as well as the interview notes ŽCompany a—110
pages, Company ß—25 pages, Company x—15 pages..

4.3. Data analysis

Following the principles of inductive research, the analysis of the data was conducted
by first constructing individual case-studies ŽEisenhardt, 1989.. The first analysis of the
interview notes condensed the case-study database into an item list for the particular
case-project under analysis. This data was then further grouped under four generic
integration mechanisms using the mechanisms in Fig. 1 as a starting point. Simultane-
ously, I created a narrative of the project. Once the narrative and the within-case
analysis were complete I compiled the complete project history and discussed it with the
key informants from each project.
The structure of the within-case analysis then formed the basis for the cross-case
analysis. I concurrently read the project histories and interview notes, and analyzed the
quantitative data, checking for emerging patterns. The process was guided by taking
pairs of projects Žand companies.. The issues important in one case were compared to
those in the other cases. In deciding which issues were important I relied on the number
of respondents citing the issue. Additionally, I went back to the respondents who did not
discuss the issue in the personal interviews to elaborate the matter in the subsequent
telephone and email discussions.
I used direct quotes from the interviews in the cross-case analysis to illustrate
people’s perceptions of the situation. I also used tabular displays to group the observed
mechanisms and a fishbone diagram to illustrate the management challenges related to
each integration mechanism. I first grouped the integration mechanisms in Table 4 to
create the first level of the diagram. I then went on to analyze the management
challenges for each mechanism. Again in many cases, this meant going back to the
interview notes and in some cases even back to the respondent to obtain further
information on the issue.

5. Observed integration mechanisms

The case-projects used a portfolio of integration mechanisms. Based on the mecha-

nisms in Fig. 2 the following four categories of integration mechanisms could be
identified ŽTable 4 and Fig. 3..
The first category of mechanisms detected in the case-studies focused on the
impersonal means integration. Examples of the mechanisms were project plans, mile-
stone reports and NPD-process descriptions. In Projects A, B and C ŽCompany a .,
project planning was included in the document produced for the product concept review.
 ¨ J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 16 (1999) 55–81
J. Nihtilar 65

Table 4
Integration mechanisms identified in the case-studies
Projectrintegration A, B and C D E
mechanism
Standards, procedures and Product concept review Targets, system and QFD-study reports
plans document, NPD-process plan-documents, NPD-
process
Milestones and design re- Product concept review Project planning review Product concept re-
view practice Engineering prototype re- Engineering prototype re- view ŽQFD-study ap-
view view proval.
Individual integrator Production project leader Production planner NrA
Cross-functional team Core team Product team NrA

The document contained also an assessment of the product concept’s manufacturability.

The assessment was completed by the production project leaders jointly with the
personnel from the production engineering organization. At Company ß, an assessment
of the manufacturability requirements were incorporated in the first target-document. In
Project E, the QFD-study structured the definition of both the customer and organiza-

Fig. 3. Observed integration mechanisms in the case-studies.

66 ¨ J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 16 (1999) 55–81
J. Nihtilar

tional requirements for the future product concept. Two of the case-study companies
ŽCompanies a and ß. employed NPD-process descriptions to structure the process
knowledge and act as an overall framework for project planning.
Second, milestones and design reviews were used in all case-projects. The projects at
Company a demonstrated the most rigorous milestone and design review practice. The
design reviews in Projects A, B and C consisted of a series of cross-functional meetings
organized in a hierarchical manner. The first milestone was held once the project
proposal was completed Žproject proposal review. and a second one at the end of
conceptual design Žproduct concept review.. The end of detailed design phase, once an
engineering prototype was completed was also marked by a milestone Ždetailed design
review.. For each of the milestones criteria to be met and checklists were defined as a
part of the NPD-process. At Company ß, formal design reviews were held at the end of
the planning phase Žproject planning review. and once an operational prototype is
completed Ždetailed design review.. In Project E, the main milestone was the manage-
ment review boards approval of the product concept after the QFD-study.
The third type of mechanism was the use of individual integrators. Formally assigned
individuals as integrators were used in Projects A, B, C and D. Especially at Company
a , the guiding principle of ‘‘haÕing good people in key positions [as production project
leaders x’’ was emphasized. At Company ß, the production planner acted as a liaison
between R & D and production. The tasks of the individual integrators in the early
development phases were first mainly to communicate the strategic objectives of the
production function to the R & D team and then gradually start the production line design
and preparations for the prototype production runs.
Formal cross-functional project management teams consisting of the functional
representatives were used in Projects A, B, C and D. The Core Team ŽProjects A, B and
C. consisted of a representative from R & D, production, sourcing, sales and marketing
and after-sales. The team was collocated and the majority of the team members were
dedicated full-time to the projects. The Product Team ŽProject D. comprised of the
project manager from R & D, product manager from marketing, production planner from
production and component engineer from sourcing. The team was partially collocated.

6. Management challenges

For each observed integration mechanism a number of management challenges were

identified. Next these challenges will be discussed in more detail.

6.1. Standards, procedures and plans

The outcome of the early planning documents was not only a structured representa-
tion of product requirements and project planning, but even more important the
teamwork which was organized around the development of these documents. In the case
of Projects A, B and C, the planning process was cross-functional. In order to be able
accommodate the different functional viewpoints the document for the product concept
 ¨ J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 16 (1999) 55–81
J. Nihtilar 67

review was produced by a cross-functional team which included representatives from

R & D, marketing, production and sourcing. This process also formed the team by
providing the first joint outcome for R & D and production. It was also noted at
Company a , that because the early planning documents require the identification of
future resources at the level of individual engineer their impact on forming the project
team is elementary.
In Project E, the production organization was not directly involved in the creation of
the QFD-document. Instead the R & D team tried to incorporate their view through
interviews and by circulating the completed report among the line organization represen-
tatives for comments and finally for sign-off. However, the feedback remained minor.
This was considered to have been, at least partly, due to the limited participation of the
production personnel in the specification preparation; the specification was considered
as an R & D document. The struggle for comments highlights the problem of obtaining
the necessary cross-functional commitment without a joint planning process. At Com-
pany ß, it was acknowledged that at least in one of the more recent projects all the
feasibility study documents, including the sections concerning R & D and production,
were filled in by the product manager due to time pressure.
In all cases, it was considered necessary that in order to be effective the planning
phase should be short and intense. This forced the project teams to define the scope of
the project and set a limit to the requirements to be met. As a Project E team member
and a representative from Company ß production function described:

It was important to have a deadline for the report which ended the specification
phase . . . People wanted to add this and this in the spec . . . Fortunately we were
able to say that the report will be out by November 25th . . .

In all cases it was acknowledged that the project planning relied on the project
manager’s and team’s prior experience. It was also noted that having data from prior
projects to complement that experience would have improved planning. Unfortunately,
cross-functional data was available only to a very limited extent. Only Company a was
tracking cross-functional data of the NPD-process ŽR & D and production man-hours per
project.. However even at Company a , the respondents admitted the difficulty in
motivating the shop floor workers to document their time usage by project. Hence, in
most cases the planning and learning process, without the basic data, had to rely on gut
feelings.
Companies a and ß used NPD-process descriptions to generate an overall framework
for the planning process. In comparison to Company ß, Company a had a longer
experience of the use of the NPD-process descriptions. The case-projects were the
second generation of projects using the process descriptions. At Company ß Project D
was the first project using the descriptions. The process at Company a was described in
a process manual with a series of flow charts outlining the phases, tasks and their
interdependencies as well as the milestones of an NPD-project. The process seemed to
be well established. Nobody of the interviewees questioned the process management
approach to new product development. At a general level, the project phases and
milestones had clearly created a common vocabulary to describe the steps of an
68 ¨ J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 16 (1999) 55–81
J. Nihtilar

NPD-project. This was demonstrated by the respondents description of the project

phases. In the majority of the interviews the progress of the project in question followed
the phases dictated by the milestones in the process documentation.
Even though the respondents regarded the process descriptions as a useful means to
develop a common framework for the development they also noted the challenges
related to linking them to detailed project planning. This was verified in a session
conducted by an external consultant one of the current new product development
projects at Company a listed the tasks Žand their interdependencies. required to develop
a subsystem of the product. 6 Only a few of the tasks corresponded to those in the
NPD-process description. Furthermore, one internal study found that the current versions
of the NPD-process descriptions were last updated some three years ago. The above
evidence lead Company a management to conclude that the resources for the mainte-
nance of the NPD-process descriptions were inadequate and that the descriptions were
too detailed 7 and complicated to maintain and use in detailed project planning.
Recently, a company-wide cross-functional improvement team led by the NPD-process
owner was established to further develop the process and to define procedures for its
periodical assessment and revision.
At Company ß, the newly implemented NPD-process defines the tasks related to the
development of a new with the four main project phases and milestones. The process
descriptions also outline the three central planning documents. According to a respon-
dent who participated in the NPD-process definition, this relatively high level of detail
was considered imperative due to the wider variance in the developed products. The
descriptions are embodied in a hypertext-application which contains templates for the
project documentation related to each phase. The descriptions are easily accessible
through the company network. This has changed the role of the NPD-process descrip-
tions to tools instead of just being a passiÕe, descriptive, illustration of the process.
Unfortunately, the NPD-process is too recent to permit a thorough assessment. It may
well be that the company is still experiencing an early enthusiasm related to the
implementation of the system.

6.2. Milestones and design reÕiew practice

The early milestones were used as checkpoints to obtain a snapshot of the projects’
state of the affairs and as short-term intermediate goals bringing about the necessary
cross-functional interaction in the preparation of the milestone. Most of the respondents
considered the principle of having milestones and design reviews necessary to achieve
cross-functional integration. Again the respondents at Company a which had the most
experience of the three target companies with the practice, were able to identify a
number of management challenges related to the milestones and design reviews. First,
several respondents acknowledged that the early milestones lacked data. It was not until

6
The researcher participated in the session as an observer.
7
At the time the NPD-process descriptions at Company a contained 154 separate task items.
 ¨ J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 16 (1999) 55–81
J. Nihtilar 69

the prototype production phase when manufacturability data of the product was ob-
tained. As the R & D project leader from Project A illustrated:
In detailed design review a lot of things were still based on documents . . . In
engineering design review we started to have some data . . . Input from the field,
production yields, etc. . . . Transfer to production wafter production ramp-upx was
then based on facts . . . You cannot prove by documents that some things should be
working . . .
Second, as noted by the project manager of Project A, the early milestones did on the
other hand benefit from a more generous perception of the time schedule. In the early
project phases there was less pressure from the final deadlines and so the milestone
reviews were perceived more structured. He also indicated that in the later stages of the
project customer delivery dates put the reviews under increased pressure. However, the
perception that the project was under less pressure in its early stages may also have
resulted in inefficiencies and overly detailed reviews.
Third, another factor affecting the effectiveness of the early milestones was the
experience of the project team. Especially in the case of Projects A and C, where many
of the project team members were recent recruits the lack of experience combined with
inadequate guidelines on how the reviews should be conducted resulted in poorly
planned review meetings. Too many people were involved resulting in marathon
discussions; sometimes as long as seven hours. Today at Company a , the targeted
length of the design review meetings is restricted to 1.5 h.
The importance of experience and guidelines became also apparent in the case when
the reviews extended across functional boundaries. At Company a , the R & D function
had always been used to review product development projects in their concept and
product planning phases. The production function was put to this new role together with
the implementation of the cross-functional NPD-process and naturally lacked the
tradition and experience which had been accumulated in R & D.
The effectiveness of the milestones as an integration mechanism was considered to be
significantly dependent on their ability to drive cross-functional interaction in the
preparation for the milestone. It was noted that the real production feedback should
emerge in the preparation for the milestone. Project B effectively used this approach.
The month before each milestone was characterized with almost daily cross-functional
meetings. On the other hand in Project A, the pre-milestone cross-functional interaction
was less intense. The preparation for the milestones was carried out functionally and the
milestones were used to solve open issues.
Several respondents highlighted the inadequate production organization resources as a
cause for making short-cuts in the preparatory work for the milestones. In the early
phases of the projects many of the production representatives worked only part-time for
the projects. Hence, they ended up having reviews from several projects simultaneously.

6.3. IndiÕidual integrator

A lot of the early integration seemed to depend on the availability, credibility and
experience of the individual integrators. This was exemplified by Projects B and C.
70 ¨ J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 16 (1999) 55–81
J. Nihtilar

They seemed to benefit from integrators with considerable technical and organizational
experience. Moreover, both production project leaders had their established ‘connec-
tions’ to the factory personnel together from prior projects. As put by the Project C
R & D project leader:

The role of the production project leader is critical... It was easy to see what
difference experience makes... In our case the person had worked on several
projects before Project C...

In the case of Project A, the person had an equal technical experience but he was new
to the company. This was perceived as a significant handicap. The production project
leaders and the production planner also worked as a part of the cross-functional project
management team. The issues related to resourcing, degree of dedication Žnumber of
projects per person. and integrator location will be discussed in more detail below.

6.4. Cross-functional team

An explicit project kick-off was considered essential to the commencement of the

cross-functional teamwork. The issue was illustrated by Company ß. In the case of
Project D, the start of the project was acknowledged to have been lengthy and fuzzy.
Based on these experiences Žand similar experience from other prior projects. the new
NPD-process at Company ß was designed with a strong emphasis on the disciplined start
of the projects. The process explicitly outlines the documents to be produced and issues
to be dealt in a cross-functional kick-off meeting. The issues include the project goals,
key assumptions as well as the identification of the individuals whose contribution is
required in the different phases of the project.
The cross-functional tasks around which teamwork could be naturally organized were
perceived elementary for successful teamwork. In Projects A, B and C, the up-front
planning which resulted in the product concept review document represented a such
tasks. The outcome of the studies, the planning documents, were collective work-prod-
ucts common to the different functional disciplines. The QFD-study in Project E did
serve an instructive purpose for the R & D team. However, due to limited involvement
from the line organization the impact of cross-functional teamwork was perceived
minor. Similarly, the creation of the feasibility study documents, an integral part of the
Company ß new NPD-process, seemed to lack commitment from the production
function as illustrated above.
The dedication of the functional representatives was perceived of utmost importance.
The production project leaders at Company a considered that already being simultane-
ously in two projects resulted in extensive context switching. The view was shared by
the respondents from Company a management as well. The comments from the Project
B production project leader illustrate the issue.

People who are not 100% in the project are difficult to use and control... For
example, if the person is supposed to work 75% for the project, probably less than
50% of this will actually be available...
 ¨ J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 16 (1999) 55–81
J. Nihtilar 71

Table 5
Resource balance between R&D and productiona ŽProjects A, B and C.
Project R&D:Prod.
Project A 54:1
Project B 40:1
Project C 32:1
a
Contains production engineering resources only. Data obtained from Company a internal records.

In the Company a projects, the teams were supposed to have been formed in the
outset of the project and the functional representatives were to be fully dedicated to the
projects. However, due to inadequate functional resources and to the burden of prior
projects the teams were formed much later and some representatives participated only on
a part-time basis.
One additional reason for the difficulty in finding the dedicated functional resources
seemed to be the recruitment practice in general. As a representative from Company a
production lamented:
The increase of resources in production and other line functions is lagging behind
the increase of R & D resources . . . People in the line organization end-up putting
out fires . . . Even today we have difficulties finding testing resources to participate
in Project X . . .
Project E was able to obtain a fully dedicated project team with no strings attached
due to a recent restructuring of Company x. On the other hand the Project E team had a
very limited experience to guide the project. Project B seemed to have managed to
combine both experienced and fully dedicated resources. At least partly, this was
attributed to the perceived business significance of the future product. However, the
Project B management did wait patiently until the release of two experienced design
teams, instead of quickly staffing the project by recruiting new people.
Finally, the team collocation was considered as an important moderating factor. In
Projects A and B, the core cross-functional project management team ŽR & D engineers,
project manager, project leaders. was collocated in the same office space, whereas in
Project C the team was more widely distributed. 8 This distribution was perceived as a
hindrance to the early cross-functional teamwork.
At Company a , due to the dominance of R & D engineers in the projects ŽTable 5., it
was considered natural that the core teams were located in R & D.
This seemed to disconnect the project from the production function. It seems that, as
the production line design progresses the effective R & D–production integration also
requires visible presence in the production function. For example, in Project B the
production project leader spent a significant amount of his time in production to ensure
that the line was built. However as pointed out by many respondents, the functional
representatives, if located in the functional organization, are unable to fully commit

8
In Project C both the production and marketing project leaders were located in their functions remote Ž800
km. from the rest of the program.
72 ¨ J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 16 (1999) 55–81
J. Nihtilar

themselves to the project. Therefore at Company a , it was proposed that in the cases
where the project is distributed the core team should remain collocated in R & D and the
R & D–production linkages should be strengthened by establishing lower level cross-
functional teams. For example by locating part of R & D team Žfor example mechanics.
in the production function.

7. Discussion and propositions for future research

7.1. Propositions

The integration mechanisms in the conceptual and product planning phases seemed to
center on setting the stage for future cooperation between R & D and production ŽFig. 2..
The importance of the early planning documents lies in the cross-functional planning
process itself. The case-studies suggest that the effectiveness of the planning process is
heavily dependent on the up-front allocation of production resources. A clearly defined
time limit and the use of modern tools and methods Žsuch as QFD. to structure the
planning process appeared to improve the effectiveness of the planning process. The
lack of data was found to impede the planning process ŽFig. 4..
P1: The effectiveness of project planning as an early cross-functional integration
mechanism is positively related to Ž1. the degree of production representation Žin

Fig. 4. Observed integration mechanisms and the related management challenges.

 ¨ J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 16 (1999) 55–81
J. Nihtilar 73

terms of resources., Ž2. definition of the planning phase duration and Ž3. availabil-
ity of historical NPD-process data.
The coordination through standardization was achieved through NPD-process descrip-
tions which provided an overall framework for project planning. The effectiveness of the
descriptions seemed to be dependent on the timeliness, level of detail and accessibility
of the descriptions. Also, it appeared that by making the descriptions tools instead of
plain descriptions their use can be increased.
The data from the case-studies suggest, that even though the early milestones and
design reviews were fluid, they did provide the interest groups with a snapshot of the
project’s state of the affairs. However, the early milestones were hampered by lack of
producibility data for objective decision making. The lack of experience and guidelines
on design review execution also impeded the early reviews. Especially it seems, that the
practice puts the production organization into a new, proactive and more demanding role
requiring enhanced analytical capabilities. Finally, the effectiveness of the early mile-
stones was found to be strongly dependent on the ability of the milestones to induce a
sense of urgency and cross-functional interaction prior to the design review meetings.
P2: The effectiveness of the early mission as a cross functional integration
mechanism is positively related to Ž1. available producibility data, Ž2. experience
of project team members, Ž3. documented guidelines for execution of the reviews,
and Ž4. analytical capabilities of the project team members and line organization
representatives.
The effectiveness of the individual integrator seemed to be largely determined by his
or her personal attributes. The combination of the following three intertwined factors
were found important for the success of the individual integrator: Experience Žorganiza-
tional and technical., credibility and connections, that is the personal network in the
production organization. Moreover, both the individual integrator and the cross-func-
tional project management team seemed to be strongly dependent on the degree of
dedication of the individuals and on their ability to disengage from the previous projects
and daily operational activities. The reasons behind the inadequate production resources
in the case-projects were manifold; ill-managed across-project transitions, unclear
distinction between new product development and operational activities, imbalance in
recruiting between R & D and production as well as lack focus in NPD in general. Also,
especially in cases where the NPD activity was of global nature the collocation of the
core cross-functional team was perceived essential. Due to the dominant nature of the
R & D function in the case-projects the collocated teams were located in R & D. This was
considered suitable, especially in the early project phases, even though it was acknowl-
edged that it did disconnect the project from the production function. Additionally, an
explicit project kick-off was considered fundamental, yet difficult to organize especially
in large projects.
P3: The effectiveness of the individual integrator and the cross-functional team as
an early integration mechanism is positively related to Ž1. a clear distinction
between NPD and operational activities, Ž2. the integrators ability to disengage
from prior projects, Ž3. planned across-project transitions, and Ž4. balance in
recruiting between R & D and production.
74 ¨ J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 16 (1999) 55–81
J. Nihtilar

The results of this study support the prior research according to which a portfolio of
mechanisms is needed to successfully integrate new product development in the early
project phases ŽAdler, 1995.. It is noteworthy, that in all cases multiple mechanisms
were applied. The reliance on a single mechanism seems to be inadequate to ensure the
required cross-functional integration. Moreover, the observed mechanisms were inter-
twined. The plans created early cross-functional tasks around which teamwork could be
organized. The milestones provided the structure and a sense of urgency needed to drive
the teamwork. The individual integrators played a key role in the milestone preparation
and as members of the cross-functional team.
In all projects formal integration mechanisms were used and needed. Even in the
small-size Project D, the multi-project environment made it necessary to apply formal
mechanisms to ensure sufficient integration Žpencil.. The high intensity of the NPD
activity in terms of number of projects increased the interdependency between projects,
the degree of shared resources as well as the competition for resources. This necessitated
formal mechanisms.
P4: Formal, predefined integration mechanisms are needed to ensure early cross-
functional integration.
The management challenges related to early integration in the case-projects focused
on organizing the cross-functional planning process and on ensuring adequate functional
resources. All case-projects documented future project tasks into planning documents of
some kind. However the case-studies indicate that, the documents themselves are of
minor importance. Instead, the planning process is pivotal. This is consistent with the
concept of planning as learning and using plans as transitional objects ŽDe Geus, 1988..
Companies a and ß used the NPD-process descriptions to represent process knowledge
and to provide a basis for the planning process. Company x, with a smaller frequency of
new product introduction, found the use of NPD-process descriptions impracticable.
Instead, the approach of the company puts more focus on project specific planning, as
indicated by the QFD-study. The case-studies suggest that in order to effectively support
the planning process, the level of detail and timeliness of the descriptions should be
carefully managed. Likewise, if the descriptions are complemented with process data the
planning process can be further enhanced.
The study supports prior research by highlighting the importance of ensuring early
resources ŽGobeli and Brown, 1993.. In particular, the case-studies indicate that the lack
of line Žproduction. organization resources in the early project phases is an especially
severe hindrance to effective cross-functional integration.
P5: Lack of functional, line organization, resources Že.g., production. is a more
significant hindrance to early cross-functional integration than lack of R & D
resources.
This can be explained by the fact that future is often seen not just uncertain but also
lucrative and exciting as well. Hence, there tends to be a natural temptation to start too
many projects and focus the resourcing on projects instead of line organization. The
study suggests that focus in NPD reducing the number of simultaneous projects and a
clear distinction between operational activities and NPD are needed to secure the
 ¨ J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 16 (1999) 55–81
J. Nihtilar 75

necessary resources from the production function. Additionally, the balance in recruiting
between R & D and production in general, seemed to lag behind the resource require-
ments posed on the production function by the new concurrent NPD-processes. It seems,
that the new more proactive role of the production function in the NPD-process is not
fully reflected in the companies’ human resource practices. Finally, the case-studies
suggest that organizational continuity and a managed personnel transition across projects
should be carefully considered when staffing new projects to obtain the most appropriate
resources.
A number of mechanisms identified by prior research ŽFig. 2. were not observed in
this study. First, the fact that the case-study companies were not using a formalized
manufacturing sign-off was most likely due to the focus of this study on the conceptual
and product planning design phases. Manufacturing did have an important role to play in
the early design reviews. The role was to participate in the concept and detail design,
plan the future manufacturing phases Žpilot production and ramp-up. and to verify that
the design meets the company’s overall manufacturing strategy. However, a formal
sign-off at the early reviews would have simply been too restrictive. Second, personnel
moves and job rotation were not formally practiced in the target companies. This
provides some indication, that companies prefer developing cross-functional skills
through more informal and less radical actions Žfor example through teamwork. than
formal job rotation programs. Several respondents noted that the role of social interac-
tions and informal communications was elementary. However, none of the companies
had implemented programs to enhance such interactions. It may be that companies find
it difficult to tackle the issue of cross-functional integration through improved social
interactions. Instead the focus is on formalizing processes to provide the necessary
structure. The absence of the single department in the target companies can at least
partly be attributed to the organizational inertia and to the degree of change involved in
the implementation of such approach.
The cross-functional IT-applications to support the NPD-process in the target compa-
nies were scarce. This may partly be due to the retrospective nature of this study.
However, in all companies state-of-the-art information technology was heavily em-
ployed to enhance the work within the functions, especially in R & D. Hence, there
seemed to be a gap between the cross-functional IT-applications and state-of-the-art
technology within the companies. The data does therefore suggest that, the lack of
cross-functional IT-applications is more due to organizational reasons rather than the
inadequate technological knowledge base within the company.
P6: The lack of cross-functional information systems is more due to organizational
and behavioral issues than an inadequate technological knowledge base within the
company.

7.2. Study limitations

The fact that a network of intertwined mechanisms was observed in all cases may be
driven by the sample selection. Future research is needed to verify if projects of smaller
size, shorter duration and in organizations with a smaller number of parallel NPD-pro-
76 ¨ J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 16 (1999) 55–81
J. Nihtilar

jects can be successfully managed with fewer and less formal means of integration; for
example with a dedicated and collocated cross-functional team. The findings on the
importance of knowledge transfer and on the role of the NPD-process may likewise be
biased by the case selection. As noted above, the case-projects were incremental
innovations. The role of knowledge transfer and the documented development process
may be different in the case of radical, breakthrough product development projects. One
would expect less reliance on past knowledge in the case of radical, breakthrough
innovations. On the other hand in the case of minor product enhancements or customer-
specific product configurations, a greater reliance on past knowledge would be expected.
Moreover in the latter case, the early integration could probably rely to larger extent on
the impersonal means of knowledge transfer Žstandards, procedures and plans.. To fully
assess the findings, a study on recent project start-ups and on NPD-projects with a
greater variance in the degree of innovation is needed.
Also, the strong reliance on formal mechanisms, especially at Company a , may be
due to the high growth rates and frequent organizational changes. Finally, the emphasis
on formal integration mechanisms may be biased by the research design. A study of
more participatory nature is necessary to fully uncover the role of the informal
cross-functional integration through for example social interactions.
An ideal research design for studying cross-functional integration in new product
development would include representative cases and the possibility of comparing the
findings in one case set to those in another, controlled group. This would facilitate the
discrimination between the hypotheses and their alternatives. Moreover ideally, an
unlimited access to representative cases would be possible. This would enable a true
choice between the target companies and projects. Finally in an ideal world, reliable
quantitative data would be available to fully describe the NPD-process and to comple-
ment the qualitative data gathered by interviews and observations.
The study was designed to explore the different means to integrate the R & D and
production functions in the early product development phases. A number of actions were
taken to ensure the reliability and validity of the study ŽTable 6..
First, the reliability of the results was enhanced by following the same protocol in all
projects. Also, a case-study database, which could be revisited in later stages of the
study was developed. By having key informants to review and comment both on the

Table 6
Actions taken to ensure reliability and validity
Dimension Description
Reliability Case-study protocol
Case-study database
Validity
Construct Respondent validation
Multiple sources of evidence
Internal Pattern matching
External Case selection
Multiple case-study
 ¨ J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 16 (1999) 55–81
J. Nihtilar 77

interview notes Žall respondents. and project histories the construct validity of the results
was strengthened. The construct validity was equally ensured by using multiple sources
of evidence, such as interview data, quantitative data from company records and
observational data. Third, the in-depth temporal investigation Žtime-line., which fol-
lowed a common framework for all cases and the pattern matching across cases were
used to improve the internal validity of the findings. Finally, even though the target
companies had to be selected from a restricted set, the cases were representative. The
projects investigated were chosen from companies where cross-functional integration
was considered of significance and where mechanisms were in place to support the
integration process.
However, the study is far from being ideal. Perhaps the most serious limitation is the
lack of a rigorous control group. The projects under study were all considered success-
ful. This makes the discrimination between the hypotheses and their alternatives difficult
reducing the external validity of the study. However, the decision to study successful
projects only was made both to ensure a rich set of experiences Žboth positive and
negative. of how to integrate NPD as well as to facilitate the access to target companies
and projects. Moreover, even though the projects under study were successes the
description of the projects was aimed to be as realistic as possible openly discussing also
the management challenges in the use of the different mechanisms. It should also be
reminded that the purpose of this study was not to discriminate between hypotheses,
rather it aimed at generating new more refined ones to be tested by further research.
Second, the study was carried out by a single researcher. This made it possible to
develop a profound understanding of the cases, but also introduced a risk of bias.
However, an attempt was made by the researcher to maintain a careful balance between
focus and open-mindedness throughout the data gathering and analysis process.
A further limitation of the study comes from the retrospective research design and
from the fact that the case-studies describe history. The limitation was addressed in the
interviews by continuously trying to obtain a picture of the current situation also and
comparing that to the past. However, in order to fully tackle the issue a participatory
research approach would have been required. At the outset of the study, this was
considered inapplicable due to the delicate nature of the subject and to the difficulty in
obtaining access to data of even past projects.

8. Conclusion

The purpose of the study was to investigate the use of cross-functional integration
mechanisms in the early phases of NPD. The integration mechanisms in five projects
from three different companies were studied. The study has attempted to yield insight
into the complex process of cross-functional integration in new product development. By
doing this, it is hoped to contribute to the new product development literature and to
increase the knowledge and understanding on how cross-functional integration is
realized. The propositions and hypotheses generated in the cross-case analysis and in the
comparison with prior research provide a solid basis for future research.
78 ¨ J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 16 (1999) 55–81
J. Nihtilar

Some questions for future research were already outlined in the above discussion.
From a broader viewpoint a number of research directions emerge. First, the study has
largely neglected the integration between R & D and other business functions than
production. More knowledge is needed on how and when marketing Žand eventually the
end-customer. and sourcing Žand eventually the entire supply chain. are integrated to
NPD. Second, with the increased role of embedded software in new products the
integration of the software engineering effort to the project as a whole is an important
area for further research. Third, new organizational structures, such as the virtual
organization, are emerging with the aid of networked information technology. Cross-
functional integration in a computerized NPD-process merits an in-depth investigation.
The increasing computerization of the NPD-process also provides a wealth of data for a
quantitative study and therefore opens up new and attractive research opportunities.

Appendix A. Interview questionnaire

I General information
1. What was the strategic driver for the project?
2. What were the main phases of the project?
3. Which were the most critical activities in the different phases?
4. Was there an event in the project which marked a clear transition for your Žor your
functions. work?
II Organization
1. How many people were involved in the project from your function in each phase?
2. What was on average their time devoted to the project in each phase?
1 s Less than 5%
2 s 5–25%
3 s 25–50%
4 s 50–75%
5 s 75–100%
3. How was the team located Žgeographical distance between team members.?
4. How many of the project team members have worked together in previous
projects?
Within your function
1 s None
2 s 25%
3 s 50%
4 s 75%
5 s All
Across functions
1 s None
2 s 25%
3 s 50%
4 s 75%
5 s All
 ¨ J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 16 (1999) 55–81
J. Nihtilar 79

5. What is the background and expertise of your functions personnel?

III Integration mechanisms
1. How and when did the business functions participate in the project?
2. In the project to whom and how did you give feedback?
3. In the project from whom and how did you obtain feedback?
4. What were the three most important documents in the project for your function?
5. How were the design reviews conducted?
6. How were the decisions at the milestones made?
7. What kind of interfunctional team building activities were used?
8. How would you rate the technical or functional expertise of the business functions?
Ø R&D
Ø Manufacturing
Ø Marketing
Ø Sourcing
IV Project success
1. How would you rate the success of the project at the market Žexternal success.?
2. How would you rate the effectiveness of the project Žinternal success.?
V Engineering changes ŽGeneral patterns.
1. In the engineering change graphs are there patterns which deviate from expected
distributions?
2. If yes, what could have lead to such an occurrences?
3. Could the number of changes be reduced and the peaks be shifted towards early
phases of the project?
Note: Questions V.1.–3. are based on the data presented on Graph 1.

Graph 1. ECR distribution Žmonthly, by issuing date..

80 ¨ J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 16 (1999) 55–81
J. Nihtilar

Graph 2. R & D manhour distribution Žmonthly..

Graph 3. Production manhour distribution Žmonthly..

References

Abita, J.L., 1985. Technology; development to production. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 32
Ž3., 129–131.
Adler, P.S., 1995. Interdepartmental coordination modes: the case of the designrmanufacturing interface.
Organization Science 6 Ž2., 147–165.
Agar, M., Speaking of ethnography, Qualitative research method series No. 2. London, UK, Sage, 1986.
 ¨ J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 16 (1999) 55–81
J. Nihtilar 81

Bourgeois, J., Eisenhardt, K., 1988. Strategic decision making in high velocity environments: Four cases in the
microcomputer industry. Management Science 34 Ž7., 816–835.
Clark, K.B., Fujimoto, T., The power of product integrity. Harvard Business Review, November–December,
1990, pp. 107–118.
De Geus, A.P., Planning as Learning. Harvard Business Review, March–April 1988, pp. 70–74.
Dean Jr., J.W., Susman, G.I., Organizing for manufacturable design. Harvard Business Review, January–
February, 1989, pp. 28–36.
Eisenhardt, K., 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review 14 Ž4.,
532–550.
Ettlie, J.E., Stoll, H.W., Managing the design-manufacturing process. McGraw-Hill, 1990, New York, US.
Gerwin, D., Susman, G., 1996. Special issue on concurrent engineering. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management 43 Ž2., 118–123.
Ginn, M.E., Rubinstein, A.H., 1986. The R&DrProduction interface: a case study of new product commercial-
ization. Journal of Product Innovation Management 3, 158–170.
Gobeli, D.H., Brown, D.J., 1993. Improving the process of product innovation. Research Technology
Management 36 Ž2., 38–44.
Gupta, A.K., Wilemon, D.L., 1990. Accelerating the development of technology-based new products.
California Management Review 32 Ž2., 22–32.
Kraut, R.E., Streeler, L.A., 1995. Coordination in software development. Communications of the ACM 38 Ž3.,
69–81.
Mass, N.J., Berkson, B., Going slow to go fast. McKinsey Quarterly, Number 4, 1995, pp. 18–29.
Nonaka I., Takeuchi H., The new product development game. Harvard Business Review, January–February
1986, pp. 137–146.
Popper, K.R., Realism and the aim of science: from the postscript to the logic of scientific discovery. Biddles,
Guildford and King’s Lynn, UK, 1983.
Silverman, D., Interpreting qualitative data: methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction. SAGE Publica-
tions, London, UK, 1993.
Thompson, J.D., Organizations in action. McGraw-Hill, New York, US, 1968.
Trygg, L.D., The use of integration mechanisms in the design to production transition. In: Eloranta, E. ŽEd..,
Advances in production management systems. Elsevier Science Publishers ŽNorth-Holland., Amsterdam,
Netherlands Ž1991., pp. 151–158.
Van De Ven, A.H., Delbecq, A.L., Koenig, R. Jr., 1976. Determinants of coordination modes within
organizations. American Sociological Review 41, 322–338.
Wheelwright, S.C., Clark, K.B., Revolutionazing Product Development–Quantum Leaps in Speed, Efficiency,
and Quality. The Free Press 1992, New York, US.