Robert W. Ruekert’s research while affiliated with University of Minnesota, Duluth and other places

While some degree of freedom and flexibility is an essential ingredient to productive cross‐functional NPD teams, upper‐managers are faced with the challenge of instituting effective control mechanisms which head projects in the right strategic direction, monitor progress toward organizational and project goals, and allow for adjustments in the project if necessary. But too much or the wrong type of control may constrain the team's creativity, impede their progress, and injure their ultimate performance. Therefore, this study examines formal and interactive control mechanisms available to upper‐managers in controlling new product development (NPD) projects, and the relationship between these mechanisms and NPD project performance. Formal output and process controls are examined which consist of the setting and monitoring of outcomes, such as goals, schedule and budgets, and of processes and procedures, respectively. This study also looks at how the effectiveness of these control mechanisms may be contingent upon the degree of innovativeness in the project and the degree to which the project is part of a broad product program. In addition, the use of formal rewards for achieving team performance as opposed to rewards for individual achievement is investigated. Lastly, interactive controls are examined which consist of upper‐managers interacting directly with project members in the development of strategy and operational goals and procedures prior to the start of the project, and upper‐managers intervening in project decision‐making. Questionnaire data are collected on 95 projects across a variety of industries. The findings suggest that while NPD projects teams need some level of strategic direction concerning the objectives to be accomplished and the procedures to be followed, upper‐level managers can exert too much control. In particular, the findings showed a negative association between the use of upper manager‐imposed process controls and project performance. The findings also indicated that the degree to which upper‐managers intervened in project‐level decisions during the project was negatively related to project performance. However, the results showed support for the notion that early and interactive decision‐making on control mechanisms is important for effective projects. In particular, early team member and upper‐management involvement in the setting of operational controls, such as goals and procedures for monitoring and evaluating the project, was positively associated with project performance. This study provides additional insight into our understanding of upper‐management support in new product development. The study suggests that upper‐managers can over control with the wrong type of controls, and suggests effective ways of implementing participative and interactive control mechanisms.

Successful new product development is fundamentally a multidisciplinary process. While this view has helped lead management to the wide‐spread adoption of cross‐functional new product development teams, in this study we question whether simply increasing the level of functional integration is truly a guarantee for enhancing the performance of new products. To assess this we examined patterns of cooperation between marketing, R&D, and operations at both early and late stages of the new product development process for 34 recently developed products whose level of innovativeness ranged from high to low. A unique feature of this study is that data were collected from four sources for each project. This included personal interviews with a project leader and written surveys from marketing, operations, and R&D personnel on each project. Findings from this study reveal that: (1) functional cooperation typically increases as the process moves from early to late stages; (2) cooperation between marketing and R&D is highest during early stages of the process, but for marketing and operations, and for R&D and operations, cooperation typically increases as the process moves from early to late stages; (3) higher project performance — irrespective of the level of project innovation — is demonstrated when cooperation between marketing and R&D, and cooperation between operations and R&D is high during early stages; (4) late stage cooperation between marketing and operations, and R&D and operations is a key determinant in project performance for innovative products but not for noninnovative products, and; (5) that early stage cooperation between marketing and operations is associated with superior performance for low innovation projects but is also associated with poor performance for innovative projects. Findings from this study demonstrate that the importance of cooperation between specific functional dyads (i.e., marketing — R&D; R&D — operations; operations ‐ marketing) indeed varies by time (i.e., early vs. late stages), and by the level of innovativeness (i.e., new‐to‐the‐world vs. modifications) associated with the new product being developed.

In this article, the authors examine the circumstances in which brand names convey information about unobservable quality. They argue that a brand name can convey unobservable quality credibly when false claims will result in intolerable economic losses, These losses can occur for two reasons: (1) losses of reputation or sunk investments and (2) losses of future profits that occur whether or not the brand has a reputation. The authors test this assertion in the context of the emerging practice of brand alliances. Results from several studies are supportive of the premise and suggest that, when evaluating a product that has an important unobservable attribute, consumers' quality perceptions are enhanced when a brand is allied with a second brand that is perceived to be vulnerable to consumer sanctions. The authors discuss the theoretical and substantive implications for the area of brand management.

In this article, the authors examine the circumstances in which brand names convey information about unobservable quality. They argue that a brand name can convey unobservable quality credibly when false claims will result in intolerable economic losses. These losses can occur for two reasons: (1) losses of reputation or sunk investments and (2) losses of future profits that occur whether or not the brand has a reputation. The authors test this assertion in the context of the emerging practice of brand alliances. Results from several studies are supportive of the premise and suggest that, when evaluating a product that has an important unobservable attribute, consumers’ quality perceptions are enhanced when a brand is allied with a second brand that is perceived to be vulnerable to consumer sanctions. The authors discuss the theoretical and substantive implications for the area of brand management.

The growing importance of international marketing operations for the survival and success of an increasing number of businesses underscores the need to understand their involvement in these activities. To this end, this article proposes an eclectic and multidimensional definition as well as a new measure of international marketing involvement where equity, administrative, and operational components represent the three distinct behavioral means that can be utilized by a business to perform foreign marketing activities. Based upon a field study conducted in the United States of 45 firms and 78 product market units, evidence is supportive of the internal consistency and construct validity of the proposed measure of international marketing involvement (IMI).

Marketing and sales personnel are frequently called on to work with-and sometimes to lead-specialists from other functional areas in the development of new products and services. Such cross-functional interactions can be structured and coordinated in a variety of ways, from bureaucratic approaches to more decentralized participatory mechanisms. Recently, cross-functional team structures have received a great deal of positive press. However, this paper questions whether teams are a universal panacea for shortening development times and improving success rates across all types of projects. It presents a contingency model based on resource dependency theory, which suggests that more participative structures are likely to improve the effectiveness and timeliness of the development process when the product being developed is truly new and innovative. However, the model also predicts that more bureaucratic structures may produce better outcomes on less innovative projects, such as those involving line extensions or product improvements. An empirical test involving 45 projects from 12 firms in widely varying industries substantially supports the model's predictions. The findings indicate that the better the fit between the newness of the product concept and the participativeness of the coordination mechanism used the better the outcomes of the development process in terms of (1) objective measures of product and team performance, (2) the attitudes of team members toward the process, and (3) the efficiency and timeliness of the new product development process.

Marketing and sales personnel are frequently called on to work with—and sometimes to lead—specialists from other functional areas in the development of new products and services. Such cross-functional interactions can be structured and coordinated in a variety of ways, from bureaucratic approaches to more decentralized participatory mechanisms. Recently, cross-functional team structures have received a great deal of positive press. However, this paper questions whether teams are a universal panacea for shortening development times and improving success rates across all types of projects. It presents a contingency model based on resource dependency theory, which suggests that more participative structures are likely to improve the effectiveness and timeliness of the development process when the product being developed is truly new and innovative. However, the model also predicts that more bureaucratic structures may produce better outcomes on less innovative projects, such as those involving line extensions or product improvements. An empirical test involving 45 projects from 12 firms in widely varying industries substantially supports the model's predictions. The findings indicate that the better the fit between the newness of the product concept and the participativeness of the coordination mechanism used the better the outcomes of the development process in terms of (1) objective measures of product and team performance, (2) the attitudes of team members toward the process, and (3) the efficiency and timeliness of the new product development process.

This paper examines the relationships between the degree of market orientation from an organizational strategy perspective and organizational processes, individual attitudes and long run financial performance at the business unit level of analysis. Arguments are made that the degree of market orientation: (1) varies across business units within large scale organizations; (2) is positively related to broader organizational processes including recruiting, training, and compensation; (3) is positively associated with individual attitudes toward their jobs; and (4) is positively related to business unit long run performance. The results of a study of managers from a large, high technology firm indicate support for these hypotheses. These findings have implications for managers attempting to develop and maintain a market orientation within the firm.