Effective virtual new product development teams: An integrated framework

Abstract

Purpose
Research on virtual teams is still in its nascent stages. The purpose of this paper is to develop a theoretically grounded integrative framework of key factors influencing the effectiveness of virtual new product development teams.

Design/methodology/approach
The framework is developed by integrating perspectives from several research streams, including relationship marketing, new product development, knowledge management, the resource‐based view, virtual teams, innovation, and communication.

Findings
Factors impacting effective virtual interactions (i.e. improved decision quality and decision speed) and new product development (i.e. increased levels of creativity, innovativeness, and product development speed) are proposed.

Research limitations/implications
Guidance is provided for managing virtual new product development teams. The paper offers testable propositions that can serve as a foundation for further research in this promising area.

Originality/value
By synthesizing relevant perspectives from diverse literature streams, the paper offers a new framework for understanding and improving the functioning of virtual new product development teams.

Full text

Effective virtual new product development
teams: an integrated framework
Vishag Badrinarayanan
McCoy College of Business Administration, Texas State University – San Marcos, San Marcos, Texas, USA, and
Dennis B. Arnett
Rawls College of Business, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, USA
Abstract
Purpose – Research on virtual teams is still in its nascent stages. The purpose of this paper is to develop a theoretically grounded integrative
framework of key factors influencing the effectiveness of virtual new product development teams.
Design/methodology/approach – The framework is developed by integrating perspectives from several research streams, including relationship
marketing, new product development, knowledge management, the resource-based view, virtual teams, innovation, and communication.
Findings – Factors impacting effective virtual interactions (i.e. improved decision quality and decision speed) and new product development (i.e.
increased levels of creativity, innovativeness, and product development speed) are proposed.
Research limitations/implications – Guidance is provided for managing virtual new product development teams. The paper offers testable
propositions that can serve as a foundation for further research in this promising area.
Originality/value – By synthesizing relevant perspectives from diverse literature streams, the paper offers a new framework for understanding and
improving the functioning of virtual new product development teams.
Keywords Virtual work, Team working, Product development
Paper type Conceptual paper
An executive summary for managers and executive
readers can be found at the end of this issue.
Introduction
It is widely acknowledged that new product development is a
critical activity in firms. The processes involved in the
continuous development of new products are considered the
“lifeblood” of firms and “engines” for growth, profitability,
and survival (Atuahene-Gima, 2003; Biemans, 2003). As
Gordon et al. (1997, p. 33) maintain, “New product
development may hold the key to solving organizations’
biggest problems – those associated with gaining and
maintaining competitive advantage”. Therefore, new
product development teams (hereafter, NPD teams) are
crucial components of a firm’s overall marketing strategy
(Sarin and McDermott, 2003).
Radical transformations in the way teams are structured are
occurring within firms. First, firms are developing flatter,
more decentralized, and more adaptive organizational
structures. These new structures encourage managers to
develop more flexible job designs, which result in an
increasing number of employees performing their duties off-
site. Second, to compete more effectively, firms are
collaborating more actively with global partners and drawing
on resources that are often geographically dispersed.
Consequently, team-building efforts are transcending
organizational and national boundaries. Third, advances in
technology are enabling firms to interact and communicate
with business partners in new cost-effective ways (e.g.
extranets and mobile technologies). These changes are
fuelling the emergence of virtual teams (i.e. teams that use
technology to work across locational, temporal, and relational
boundaries to accomplish interdependent tasks) (Aubert and
Kelsey, 2003; Bell and Kozlowski, 2002; Hertel et al., 2004;
Lipnack and Stamps, 1999; Townsend et al., 1998).
Given the complexities involved in organizing face-to-face
interactions among team members and the advancements in
electronic communication technologies, firms are turning
toward employing virtual NPD teams (Jacobs et al., 2005;
Schmidt et al., 2001). However, insights on such teams are
scarce in the marketing literature. Systematic research on
virtual NPD teams is necessary because:
.the success rate of even traditional, co-located teams is
low, with just 5 percent of such teams meeting desired
performance goals (Bensor-Armer and Hsieh, 1997);
.failure rates in NPD teams remain high because of
misapplication and mismanagement (Sarin and
McDermott, 2003); and
.given the unique challenges that virtual interactions entail,
managing virtual teams is more complex than managing
co-located teams (Kayworth and Leidner, 2001/2002).
While authors have expounded on the many potential benefits
of virtual teams, less research has focused on understanding
the factors that influence virtual NPD team effectiveness. As
Montoya-Weiss et al. (2001, p. 1251) maintain:
In particular, new technologies are providing the means for work that is
dispersed (carried out in different places) and asynchronous (carried out at
different times). Establishing links and connections is no longer a question of
technical feasibility. The key question is, How can organizations create
virtual teams that work effectively?
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0885-8624.htm
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
23/4 (2008) 242– 248
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0885-8624]
[DOI 10.1108/08858620810865816]
242

Ocker (2005, p. 22) echoes, “Since virtual teams constitute an
important and pervasive organizational structure, research
with the aim of improving the effectiveness of these teams is
vital”.
Urging further research on virtual teams, Martins et al.
(2004, p. 823) emphasize that “researchers need to draw on
the theoretical foundations that have been used in prior
research on teams, as well as on new theoretical bases that are
uniquely relevant to virtual interaction, to develop a more
theoretically grounded understanding on the functioning of
virtual teams”. Accordingly, this article develops a conceptual
framework that integrates views from diverse literature
streams to outline key factors influencing virtual NPD team
effectiveness (see Figure 1). In the following section, readers
are given a general background on both virtual and NPD
teams. Subsequently, an integrated conceptual framework is
developed and a series of testable research propositions are
presented. Finally, the implications of the integrated
conceptual framework are discussed and guidelines for
future research are provided.
An integrated conceptual framework and
research propositions
Background
Martins et al. (2004, p. 808) define virtual teams as those in
which “members use technology to varying degrees in
working across locational, temporal, and relational
boundaries to accomplish an interdependent task”. Virtual
teams take advantage of the positive aspects of conventional
co-located teams, while leveraging advantages of new
communication technologies. They are becoming
increasingly commonplace in organizations such as Hewlett-
Packard, Kodak, Sun Microsystems, and Xerox (Bell and
Kozlowski, 2002; Gibson and Cohen, 2003; Jacobs et al.,
2005; Martins et al., 2004). Industry estimates suggest that
more than half of companies with more than 5,000 employees
use virtual interfaces and approximately 60 percent of all
professional employees work in some form of virtual team (de
Lisser, 1999; Kanawattanachai and Yoo, 2002). Ahuja and
Galvin (2003) maintain the number of virtual team members
to be more than eight million.
Because of their dynamic and fluid nature, virtual teams
“provide an effective structural mechanism for handling the
increased travel, time, coordination, and costs associated with
bringing together geographically, temporally, and functionally
dispersed employees to work on a common task” (Martins
et al., 2004, p. 806). Their advantages include greater
independence from time and space constraints, reduced
opportunity costs, greater flexibility in meeting market
demands, and better integration of knowledge from
members in remote locations (Hertel et al., 2004). As a
result, virtual NPD teams provide firms with opportunities to
access their best new product development resources
regardless of where they are located.
Virtual NPD team effectiveness
Schmidt et al. (2001) find that virtual NPD teams generally
make more effective NPD decisions compared to traditional,
co-located NPD teams. But, what makes virtual NPD teams
more effective? The literature on NPD teams specifies that
creativity, innovativeness, and speed are important indicators
of effective NPD teams. As Sarin and McDermott (2003,
p. 707) suggest, “Innovative new products and development
speed are often regarded as keys to survival and success in
today’s highly competitive market environment”. Creativity is
defined as the number of new ideas, methods, approaches,
inventions, or applications generated by team members
(Kratzer et al., 2005). Innovativeness refers to the degree of
product newness, and development speed refers to the time
taken by a NPD team to develop a product (Sarin and
McDermott, 2003).
In their lifecycle model of virtual team management, Hertel
et al. (2005) stress that an important antecedent to effective
teams is the development of a constructive team climate. That
is, one that allows teams to more easily perform their assigned
tasks. Research examining both virtual teams and traditional
NPD teams suggests that two factors – decision quality and
decision speed – are impor tant indicators of a desirable team
climate (Atuahene-Gima, 2003; Paul et al., 2004/2005). Paul
et al. (2004/2005, p. 194) define decision quality as “group
members’ confidence in the decision outcome and their
perceptions of the usefulness of the decision outcome”.
Decision speed refers to the extent of time a team spends
finding and implementing solutions (Atuahene-Gima, 2003).
How do virtual NPD teams foster constructive team
climates? The resource-based theory provides some insights
(Barney, 1991; Hunt, 2000; Hunt and Arnett, 2003). It
maintains that success in collaborative endeavors, such as
virtual NPD teams, results from both the resources that the
team members bring to the team and the resources that are
developed within the team over the course of time (Hunt et al.,
2002; Jap, 1999). The resources that team members provide
to the team that allow it to complete or fill-out its resource set
are called complementary resources (Jap, 1999). The totality
of complementary resources provided by the team members
allow the team to produce outcomes unattainable to a team
Figure 1 An integrated framework of virtual NPD team interface effectiveness
Effective virtual new product development teams
Vishag Badrinarayanan and Dennis B. Ar nett
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 23 · Number 4 · 2008 · 242 – 248
243

member working in isolation. Complementary resources are
combined to create resource bundles that provide unique and
difficult to imitate value (Harrison et al., 2001). The pooling
of resources within the team allows it to develop new
resources called idiosyncratic resources. These resources have
little or no value outside the context of the team. Idiosyncratic
resources consist of both tangible features (e.g. the
development of new computer software) and intangible
features (e.g. efficient processes for functioning as a
cohesive team) (Anderson and Weitz, 1992; Hunt et al.,
2002; Jap, 1999).
With virtual NPD teams, firms can efficiently gain access to
and combine geographically dispersed resources (e.g. the
knowledge and skills of team members). By identifying and
integrating the complementary resources of team members,
teams facilitate the development of idiosyncratic resources,
which can, in turn, lead to sustainable competitive advantages
(Arnett et al., 2005). Partnerships that result in the
development of idiosyncratic resources are characterized by
increased cohesion, joint satisfaction, superior performance,
and long-term survival (Astley and Van de Ven, 1983). Two
idiosyncratic resources developed in the context of virtual
NPD teams are decision quality and decision speed. They, in
turn, promote:
.faster learning and competence development;
.the incorporation of more advanced product ideas;
.faster decisions due to better problem solving; and
.high quality solutions that lead to superior product quality
(Atuahene-Gima, 2003).
Better knowledge integration and application, in turn, lead to
more innovative and creative new products (Sarin and
McDermott, 2003). Therefore, it is proposed that:
P1. In virtual NPD teams, decision quality and decision
speed are related positively to creativity,
innovativeness, and NPD speed.
Factors affecting team climate
A fundamental advantage of virtual NPD teams is that team
members can participate in projects regardless of their
physical location. However, virtual NPD teams often face
more unique challenges compared to traditional co-located
teams (see Table I). Geographical dispersion, temporal
separation, cultural differences, and technological difficulties
among team members can affect profoundly their activities
(Bell and Kozlowski, 2002; Griffith et al., 2003). For instance,
geographical dispersion and temporal separation require
substantial accommodations by team members (e.g. shifting
work hours to overlap with team members in other time
zones). In addition, the lack of physical proximity often results
in little direct contact, or connectedness. Furthermore, as
Hertel et al. (2004, p. 3) find, “it is often more difficult to
implement and maintain common goals when persons are
spatially and temporally distributed”. Indeed, research
suggests that coordination, communication, cohesiveness,
and project control are often adversely affected by the
geographic dispersion of team members and asynchronous
activities (Carmel, 1998; Jacobs et al., 2005).
Geographic dispersion can introduce additional factors
that, if not handled properly, can adversely affect team
outcomes. For example, when team members are from
different countries or regions, they may have different value
systems. Cultural differences in virtual interfaces, in turn, may
affect adversely communication and cohesiveness among
team members (Carmel, 1998). In addition, virtual teams rely
heavily on advanced information technology, which can
change rapidly, to synchronize communication and
collaboration. As a result, virtual team members, more so
than traditional team members, must master current
technologies and develop an ability to integrate newer
technologies as they are developed. How can virtual teams
overcome the difficulties associated with geographical
dispersion, temporal separation, cultural differences, and
technological difficulties? Useful insights are drawn from
research on relationships marketing, knowledge management,
interpersonal factors, and interpersonal communications.
The relationship marketing view
The relationship marketing view maintains that two intra-
team factors are especially relevant in relationship settings,
such as virtual NPD teams:
1 relationship commitment; and
2 within-team trust.
Relationship commitment, the “an enduring desire to
maintain a valued relationship” (Moorman et al., 1992,
p. 316), is a critical factor influencing relationship success
(Anderson and Narus, 1998; Hunt et al., 2002). Relationship
commitment is at the core of all successful working
relationships and is an essential ingredient in successful
long-term relationships (Anderson and Narus, 1998).
Relationship commitment among virtual NPD team
members provides a solid base from which additional
characteristics important to the development of relationships
can be built upon (e.g. social norms). Moreover, a team
member committed to the relationship will cooperate with
other team members because of a desire to make the
relationship work (Morgan and Hunt, 1994).
Trust exists “when one party has confidence in an exchange
partner’s reliability and integrity” (Morgan and Hunt, 1994,
p. 23). Within-team trust is an important factor in successful
relationships as it encourages team members to cooperate
with each other (Anderson and Narus, 1990) and provides a
basis for future collaborations (Dwyer et al., 1987).
Furthermore, as Anderson and Narus (1990, p. 45)
emphasize, once trust is established, participants learn that
Table I Unique challenges facing virtual teams
Challenge Description
Technology Heavy reliance on technology for interaction and
communication requires proficiency across a
wider range of technologies
Culture Diversity in nationality, ethnicity, and culture can
distort communication and interpretation
Temporal separation Differences in time zones create scheduling
challenges and create communication time lags
Distance Geographical separation reduces frequency of
face-to-face meetings, which affects creation of
social bonds. Lack of face-to-face interaction can
lead to misunderstandings and conflict
Note: Exemplar sources include Bell and Kozlowski (2002), Kayworth and
Leidner (2001/2002), Kerber and Buono (2004), Montoya-Weiss
et al.
(2001), Townsend
et al.
(1998), Walther and Burgoon (1992)
Effective virtual new product development teams
Vishag Badrinarayanan and Dennis B. Ar nett
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 23 · Number 4 · 2008 · 242 – 248
244

continued coordinated efforts will lead to outcomes that could
not be achieved prior to the relationship.
Aubert and Kelsey (2003) maintain that within-team trust
enables virtual teams to complete assigned work. They
suggest that it is crucial that team members trust that other
team members will deliver their share of work with acceptable
quality. This is consistent with Mayer et al. (1995, p. 712),
who describe trust as “the willingness of a party to be
vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the
expectation that the other will perform a particular action
important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor
or control that other party”. Within-team trust is especially
important in virtual teams as other mechanisms used to
observe, monitor, and control partners are absent (Aubert
and Kelsey, 2003; Jarvenpaa et al., 1998). As Lipnack and
Stamps (1999, p. 17) stress:
As important as positive relationships and high trust are in all teams, they are
even more important in virtual ones. The lack of daily face to face time,
offering opportunities to quickly clear things up, can heighten
misunderstandings. For many distributed teams, trust has to substitute for
hierarchical and bureaucratic controls.
Based on their study of relationships in computer-mediated
virtual interactions, Walther and Burgoon (1992) state that
forging better relationships leads to enhanced motivation,
morale, and better decisions. Indeed, cooperative intra-team
relationships allow resources to be combined in such a way as
to facilitate the achievement of competitive advantages
(Harrison et al., 2001; Jap, 1999). Higher levels of
relationship commitment and within-team trust in virtual
NPD teams are expected to foster greater degrees of decision
quality and decision speed. Therefore, it is proposed that:
P2. In virtual NPD teams, higher levels of within-team
trust and relationship commitment among team
members are related positively to (a) decision quality
and (b) decision speed.
The knowledge management view
The knowledge management view emphasizes acquiring
knowledge through learning processes (Madhavan and
Grover, 1998; Sarin and McDermott, 2003). New product
development is often described as continuous process of
learning (Madhavan and Grover, 1998; Sarin and
McDermott, 2003). Learning is a competence that improves
team effectiveness by allowing teams to make better use of
available information and experiences (Day, 1994;
Edmondson, 1999). Research suggests that learning is
essential to NPD teams (Madhavan and Grover, 1998;
Sarin and McDermott, 2003). In virtual teams, as Hakkinen
(2004, p. 204) suggests, “Collaborating participants learn,
when they generate and maintain certain collaborative
activities (e.g., argumentation, explanation, mutual
regulation), which triggers learning mechanisms such as
knowledge elicitation and reduced cognitive load”.
NPD teams are composed of members from diverse
functional areas. It is essential for team effectiveness that
the knowledge that is embedded in the minds of each team
member be integrated (Madhavan and Grover, 1998; Sarin
and McDermott, 2003). As Jackson (1999, p. 330)
emphasizes, “given the fluid, project-specific, and non-
permanent nature of many virtual NPD teams, the key
purpose of such teams is knowledge creation”.
Virtual teams tend to rely mainly on electronic modes of
communication. As a result, they are more attuned to the
transfer of explicit knowledge rather than tacit knowledge
(Griffith et al., 2003). However, when implicit knowledge
(e.g. new knowledge learned from the performance of a task)
is transformed to explicit knowledge (e.g. by listing key factors
that aided the performance of the task), it cannot only be
easily transmitted but also be stored as a permanent record
(Coff et al., 2006; Griffith et al., 2003). As Griffith et al.
(2003) note, physical demonstration of tacit knowledge
during face-to-face interaction may or may not be recorded.
However, in virtual interactions, there is a greater emphasis
on verbalization (over demonstration), which facilitates the
capturing, storing, and transmitting of implicit knowledge.
Hertel et al. (2005) emphasize the importance of
encouraging team members to actively share information so
that team members are aware of who on their team knows
what (transactive memory). Further, the asynchronous nature
of virtual interaction lowers group pressure (psychological
safety) and encourages greater attention to shared information
(Griffith et al., 2003; Hertel et al., 2005) These, coupled with
the benefits of technology, “enhance equal information
distribution, systematic processing of unshared information,
and a thorough documentation of existing knowledge
structures” (Hertel et al., 2005, p. 87). As NPD team
members learn from experience, they:
.perform future activities more efficiently;
.become more competent in acquiring, disseminating, and
processing information;
.apply their acquired knowledge into newer situations; and
.make quicker decisions and fewer mistakes.
Therefore, their decision-making processes are accelerated
and their decisions are better (Sarin and McDermott, 2003):
P3. In virtual NPD teams, knowledge acquisition and
knowledge integration are related positively to (a)
decision quality and (b) decision speed.
Interpersonal factors view
Research suggests that interpersonal factors influence team
member performance (Atuahene-Gima, 2003; Martins et al.
2004). Given that interactions among virtual NPD team
members are often characterized by an absence of non-verbal
cues, an inability to use visual stimuli, and the non-
observation of body language, communication in vir tual
teams may be more difficult than in traditional, co-located
teams do (McDonough et al., 2001). Researchers recognize
that two factors have the ability to allow virtual NPD teams to
overcome these problems:
1 connectedness; and
2 social integration.
Connectedness refers to the degree of interaction or contact
among virtual NPD team members (Sheremata, 2000). When
team members are more connected, they are more likely to
engage in close and personal interactions, conduct frequent
consultations, and invest effort into coordinating activities
with other team members (Atuahene-Gima, 2003; Menon
et al., 1997). Some empirical research suggests that virtual
teams can produce better communication flows and more
casual communication than more traditional teams (Martins
et al., 2004). When virtual NPD teams are able to develop
“thicker” (i.e. meaningful and timely) communication (i.e.
Effective virtual new product development teams
Vishag Badrinarayanan and Dennis B. Ar nett
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 23 · Number 4 · 2008 · 242 – 248
245

increase connectedness), they tend to experience greater team
cohesiveness (Kozlowski and Bell, 2003). Cohesiveness in
virtual teams, in turn, has been found to be related positively
to effective decision making (Chidambaram, 1996).
Researchers recommend that team members occasionally
converge for face-to-face interactions, at least during the team
building stages, to promote social integration (Martins et al.,
2004). Such socialization processes are conducive for “sharing
experiences and thereby creating tacit knowledge such as
shared mental models and technical skills” (Nonaka and
Takeuchi, 1995, p. 62). In addition, such meetings allow team
members to acquire a variety of information and behaviours
that allow them to be more effective (Klein and Weaver,
2000). However, socialization can occur through the use of
electronic media. Ahuja and Galvin (2003, p. 178) find that
virtual groups using electronic media for socialization can,
over time, develop routines and processes (for example, a
coordinator/liaison roles) that allow newcomers to more easily
gain access to important information. As Ocker (2005) states,
stimulating colleagues, social influences, and a collaborative
team climate are significant enhancers of creativity in virtual
teams. Therefore:
P4. In virtual NPD teams, connectedness and social
integration are related positively to (b) decision
quality and (b) decision speed.
Communication perspective
Anderson and Narus (1990, p. 44) describe communication
as “formal as well as informal sharing of meaningful and
timely information”. Empirical evidence suggests that
communication increases the level of trust between partners
(Anderson and Narus, 1990; Anderson and Weitz, 1992;
Moorman et al., 1992; Morgan and Hunt, 1994). In general,
communication helps build trust by providing partners with a
mechanism that can be used to resolve disputes. In addition,
it improves partners’ ability to align their expectations and
perceptions (Etgar, 1979). Based on their study of global
virtual teams, Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1999, p. 811) maintain:
Communication that rallies around the project and tasks appears to be
necessary to maintain trust. Social comm unication that complements rather
than substitutes for task communication may strengthen trust.
Additionally, they report that “In the teams with high trust,
there were explicit statements about commitment, support,
and excitement” (p. 811). Therefore, the use of
communication channels in virtual teams is critical for
relationship building.
Electronic communication removes barriers between
experienced members and newcomers, establishes equality,
and reduces status differences (Martins et al., 2004). Also,
because of the use of virtual interfaces, there are lower
psychological pressures, less biasness in information sharing,
and more focused and objective decision-making in
asynchronous environments (Schmidt et al., 2001).
Furthermore, electronic communication records are retained
and archives can be accessed to monitor team activities,
review team performance, and evaluate member contribution
(Martins et al., 2004). These advantages facilitate better
knowledge acquisition and integration.
Coff et al. (2006, p. 457) examine the influence that
electronic communication potentially has on knowledge
transfer. They find that “technology makes explicit
knowledge more available and may shift emphasis away
from relatively tacit components that require face-to-face
communication. This, in turn, lessens the focus on developing
tacit knowledge that has greater strategic significance”.
Although tacit knowledge can be codified, it is beneficial to
encourage and facilitate some direct interactions between
virtual team members (Martins et al., 2004). Face-to-face
communication enables team members to observe nonverbal
cues and provide synchronous feedback. Indeed, Ganesan
et al. (2005) find that the richer modality of face-to-face
communication encourages the acquisition of tacit knowledge
more than electronic communication.
Finally, research suggests that frequent and predictable
communication among virtual team members improves
coordination (Jarvenpaa et al., 1998; Jarvenpaa and Leidner,
1999). Many virtual teams are only moderately, and not
completely, virtual as they might intersperse direct face-to-
face interactions with technology-aided communication to
either initiate and complete tasks or for socialization purposes
(Furst et al., 2004; Kerber and Buono, 2004). Personal
contact and socialization, especially during team formation
stages, could potentially aid in the formation of closer
personal connections (Furst et al., 2004). Therefore:
P5. In virtual NPD teams, the nature and frequency of
communication are related positively to levels of (a)
within-team trust and relationship commitment, (b)
knowledge acquisition and integration, and (c) social
integration and connectedness.
Conclusion and directions for future research
The use of virtual teams is becoming more prevalent in
organizations. One area in which the uses of virtual teams
show promise is new product development. Systematic
research in this area is just emerging. Therefore, much
remains to be known about effectively managing virtual
teams. This article presents an integrated framework that
identifies key factors that influence virtual NPD team
effectiveness. The framework combines the literatures on
virtual teams, NPD teams, resource-based theory,
relationship marketing, knowledge management,
interpersonal interaction, and communication. According to
the framework, the nature and frequency of communication
in virtual NPD teams fosters the formation of relationships
among team members, promotes knowledge acquisition and
integration, and facilitates interpersonal networking among
the team members. These, in turn, have a direct bearing on
the virtual team climate. That is, they affect the quality and
speed of product development decisions. Ultimately, team
climate enhances NPD effectiveness, which is characterized
by creativity, innovativeness, and NPD speed. Note that this
framework is an initial step in identifying key factors that
influence virtual NPD team effectiveness. The framework still
requires empirical validation.
Because of the relative newness of virtual teams, many areas
of research have not been examined. First, research has not
looked into the effectiveness of virtual NPD teams in
developing various types of new products (e.g. incremental,
continuous, radical, etc.). Second, because NPD involves
increasingly the involvement of other organizations (e.g. major
customers, key suppliers, manufacturers of complementary
products, and competitors) researchers should compare the
effectiveness of intra- versus inter-organizational virtual NPD
Effective virtual new product development teams
Vishag Badrinarayanan and Dennis B. Ar nett
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 23 · Number 4 · 2008 · 242 – 248
246

teams. Third, researchers need to examine the usefulness of
virtual teams in other contexts, such as customer relationship
management (CRM). Fourth, specific team characteristics
need to be identified that improve the development and
maintenance virtual interfaces.
Fifth, because team leaders often play a critical role in NPD
teams (Sarin and McDermott, 2003), their role should be
explored in a virtual NPD context. As Kayworth and Leidner
(2001/2002, p. 30) state, “Virtual team leaders rated as
effective by their members, demonstrate first and foremost a
mentoring quality characterized by concern for the members,
understanding, and empathy”. Finally, the concept of task
complexity needs to be investigated because it may have
critical implications for virtual teams as it “sets constraints on
the design characteristics of virtual teams and therefore
influences the leadership functions that will be critical to the
team’s effectiveness” (Bell and Kozlowski, 2002, p. 19).
References
Ahuja, M. and Galvin, J. (2003), “Socialization in virtual
groups”, Journal of Management, Vol. 29, pp. 161-85.
Anderson, E. and Weitz, B.A. (1992), “The use of pledges to
build and sustain commitment in distribution channels”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 18-34.
Anderson, J.C. and Narus, J.A. (1990), “A model of
distributor firm and manufacturer firm working
partnerships”, Journal of Marketing,Vol.54No.1,
pp. 42-58.
Anderson, J.C. and Narus, J.A. (1998), “Business marketing:
understand what customers value”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 76 No. 6, pp. 53-65.
Arnett, D.B., Macy, B.A. and Wilcox, J.B. (2005), “The role
of core selling teams in supplier-buyer relationships”,
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 25
No. 1, pp. 27-42.
Astley, W.G. and Van de Ven, A.H. (1983), “Central
perspectives and debates in organizational theory”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 245-73.
Atuahene-Gima, K. (2003), “The effects of centrifugal and
centripetal forces on product development speed and
quality: how does problem solving matter?”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 359-73.
Aubert, B.A. and Kelsey, B.L. (2003), “Further
understanding of trust and performance in virtual teams”,
Small Group Research, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 575-618.
Barney, J.B. (1991), “Firm resources and sustainable
competitive advantage”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17
No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Bell, B.S. and Kozlowski, S.W.J. (2002), “A typology of
virtual teams”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 27
No. 1, pp. 14-49.
Bensor-Armer, R. and Hsieh, T. (1997), “Teamwork across
time and space”, The McKinsey Quarterly, Vol. 4, pp. 18-27.
Biemans, W.G. (2003), “A picture paints a thousand
numbers: a critical look at B2B product development
research”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 18
Nos 6/7, pp. 514-28.
Carmel, E. (1998), Global Software Teams: Collaborating across
Borders and Time Zones, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ.
Chidambaram, L. (1996), “Relational development in
computer-supported groups”, MIS Quarterly,Vol.20
No. 2, pp. 143-65.
Coff, R.W., Coff, D.C. and Eastvold, R. (2006), “The
knowledge-leveraging paradox: how to achieve scale
without making knowledge imitable”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 452-65.
Day, G.S. (1994), “The capabilities of market-driven
organizations”, Journal of Marketing,Vol.58No.4,
pp. 37-52.
de Lisser, E. (1999), “Update on small business: firms with
virtual environments appeal to workers”, Wall Street Journal,
5 October, p. B2.
Dwyer, F.R., Schurr, P.H. and Oh, S. (1987), “Developing
buyer-seller relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51
No. 2, pp. 11-27.
Edmondson, A. (1999), “Psychological safety and learning
behavior in work teams”, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 350-83.
Etgar, M. (1979), “Sources and types of intrachannel
conflict”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 61-78.
Furst, S.A., Reeves, M., Rosen, B. and Blackburn, R.S.
(2004), “Managing the life cycle of virtual teams”, Academy
of Management Executive, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 6-20.
Ganesan, S., Malter, A.J. and Rindfleisch, A. (2005), “Does
distance still matter? Geographic proximity and new
product development”, Journal of Marketing ,Vol.69
No. 4, pp. 44-60.
Gibson, C.B. and Cohen, S.G. (2003), Virtual Teams that
Work: Creating Conditions for Virtual Team Effectiveness,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Gordon, G.L., Schoenbachler, D.L., Kaminsky, P.F. and
Brouchous, K.A. (1997), “New product development:
using the salesforce to identify opportunity”, Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 33-50.
Griffith, T.L., Sawyer, J.E. and Neale, M.A. (2003),
“Virtualness and knowledge in teams: managing the love
triangle of organizations, individuals, and information
technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 265-87.
Hakkinen, P. (2004), “What makes learning and
understanding in virtual teams so difficult?”, Cyber
Psychology and Behavior, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 201-6.
Harrison, J.S., Hitt, M.A., Hoskisson, R.E. and Ireland, R.D.
(2001), “Resource complementarity in business
combinations: extending the logic to organizational
alliances”, Journal of Management,Vol.27No.6,
pp. 679-90.
Hertel, G., Geister, S. and Konradt, U. (2005), “Managing
virtual teams: a review of current empirical research”,
Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 15, pp. 69-95.
Hertel, G., Konradt, U. and Orlikowski, B. (2004),
“Managing distance by interdependence: goal setting, task
interdependence, and team-based rewards in virtual
teams”, European Jour nal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-28.
Hunt, S.D. (2000), A General Theory of Competition, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hunt, S.D. and Arnett, D.B. (2003), “Resource-advantage
theory and embeddedness: explaining R-A theory’s
explanatory success”, Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Hunt, S.D., Lambe, C.J. and Wittmann, C.M. (2002), “A
theory and model of business alliance success”, Journal of
Relationship Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 17-35.
Jackson, P.J. (1999), “Organizational change and virtual
teams: strategic and operational integration”, Information
Systems Journal, Vol. 9, pp. 313-32.
Effective virtual new product development teams
Vishag Badrinarayanan and Dennis B. Ar nett
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 23 · Number 4 · 2008 · 242 – 248
247

Jacobs, J., van Moll, J., Krause, P., Kusters, R., Trienekens, J.
and Brombacher, A. (2005), “Exploring defect causes in
products developed by virtual teams”, Information and
Software Technology, Vol. 47, pp. 399-410.
Jap, S.D. (1999), “Pie-expansion efforts: collaboration
processes in buyer-supplier relationships”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 461-75.
Jarvenpaa, S.L. and Leidner, D.E. (1999), “Communication
and trust in global virtual teams”, Organization Science,
Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 791-815.
Jarvenpaa, S.L., Knoll, K. and Leidner, D.E. (1998), “Is
anybody out there? The antecedents of trust in global
virtual teams”, Journal of Management Information Systems,
Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 29-64.
Kanawattanachai, P. and Yoo, Y. (2002), “Dynamic nature of
trust in virtual teams”, Journal of Strategic Information
Systems, Vol. 11, pp. 187-213.
Kayworth, T.R. and Leidner, D.E. (2001/2002), “Leadership
effectiveness in global virtual teams”, Journal of
Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 7-40.
Kerber, K.W. and Buono, A.F. (2004), “Leadership
challenges in global virtual teams: lessons from the field”,
SAM Advanced Management Journal, Autumn, pp. 4-11.
Klein, H.J. and Weaver, N.A. (2000), “The effectiveness of an
organization-level training program in the socialization of
new hires”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 47-66.
Kozlowski, S.W.J. and Bell, B.S. (2003), “Work groups and
teams in organizations”, in Borman, W.C., Ilgen, D.R. and
Klimoski, R.J. (Eds), Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 12, Wiley, New York, NY,
pp. 333-75.
Kratzer, J., Leenders, R.T.A.J. and van Engelen, J.M.L.
(2005), “Keeping virtual R&D teams creative”, Research
Technology Management, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 13-16.
Lipnack, J. and Stamps, J. (1999), “Virtual teams: the new
way to work”, Strategy and Leadership, Vol. 27, pp. 14-18.
McDonough, E.F. III, Kahn, K.B. and Barczak, G. (2001),
“An investigation of the use of global, virtual, and colocated
new product development teams”, Jour nal of Product
Innovation Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 110-20.
Madhavan, R. and Grover, R. (1998), “From embedded
knowledge to embodied knowledge: new product
development as knowledge management”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 1-12.
Martins, L.L., Gilson, L.L. and Maynard, M.T. (2004),
“Virtual teams: what do we know and where do we go from
here?”, Journal of Management, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 806-35.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995), “An
integrative model of organizational trust”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 709-34.
Menon, A., Jaworski, B.J. and Kohli, A.K. (1997), “Product
quality: impact of interdepartmental interactions”, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25, pp. 187-200.
Montoya-Weiss, M., Massey, A.P. and Song, M. (2001),
“Getting it together: temporal coordination and conflict
management in global virtual teams”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 44, pp. 1251-62.
Moorman, C., Zaltman, G. and Deshpande
´, R. (1992),
“Relationships between suppliers and users of marketing
research: the dynamics of trust within and between
organizations”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29
No. 3, pp. 314-29.
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment-
trust theory of relationship marketing”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating
Company, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Ocker, R.J. (2005), “Influences on creativity in asynchronous
virtual teams: a qualitative analysis of experimental teams”,
IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, Vol. 48
No. 1, pp. 22-39.
Paul, S., Samarah, I.M., Seetharaman, P. and Mykytyn, P.P.
Jr (2004/2005), “An empirical investigation of collaborative
conflict management style in group support system-based
global virtual teams”, Journal of Management Information
Systems, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 185-222.
Sarin, S. and McDermott, C. (2003), “The effect of team
leader characteristics on learning, knowledge application,
and performance of cross functional new product
development teams”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 34 No. 4,
pp. 707-39.
Schmidt, J.B., Montoya-Weiss, M. and Massey, A.P. (2001),
“New product development decision-making effectiveness:
comparing individuals, face-to-face teams, and virtual
teams”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 575-600.
Sheremata, W.A. (2000), “Centrifugal and centripetal forces
in radical new product development under time pressure”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, pp. 389-408.
Townsend, A., DeMarie, S. and Hendrickson, A. (1998),
“Virtual teams: technology and the workplace of the
future”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 12 No. 3,
pp. 17-29.
Walther, J.B. and Burgoon, J.K. (1992), “Relational
communication in computer-mediated interaction”,
Human Communication Research, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 50-88.
About the authors
Vishag Badrinarayanan is an Assistant Professor in the
Department of Marketing at Texas State University – San
Marcos, Texas, USA. His work has appeared in the Journal of
Advertising,theJournal of Personal Selling and Sales
Management, and in the proceedings of academic
conferences. Vishag Badrinarayanan is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: vb16@txstate.edu
Dennis B. Arnett is an Associate Professor of Marketing at
Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas USA. His work has
appeared in the Journal of Marketing,Journal of Public Policy &
Marketing,Journal of Retailing,Journal of Marketing Theory
and Practice,Business Ethics Quarterly,Journal of Business
Research,Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, and
Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management.
Effective virtual new product development teams
Vishag Badrinarayanan and Dennis B. Ar nett
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 23 · Number 4 · 2008 · 242 – 248
248
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints