New Product Development Decision Making

Processes and Dynamics

A Cross Cultural Study between
Singapore and New Zealand

Report to the Asia 2000 Foundation of New Zealand

August 1999

Tony C Garrett
Department of Marketing
University of Otago
PO Box 56
Dunedin
New Zealand

Professor David H. Buisson

Division of Commerce
University of Otago
PO Box 56
Dunedin
New Zealand

Dr YAP Chee Meng

Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering
National University of Singapore
Kent Ridge Terrace
Singapore
This Research is undertaken with the assistance of the Asia 2000 Foundation of New Zealand, National
University of Singapore (Grant Number), and the Otago Research Grants Committee of the University
of Otago.

ii
Contact Details

Professor David H. BUISSON

Assistant Vice Chancellor
Division of Commerce
University of Otago
PO Box 56
Dunedin
New Zealand

Ph: +64 (3) 479 8149

Fax: +64 (3) 479 8171
Email: dbuisson@commerce.otago.ac.nz

Tony C. GARRETT
Lecturer
Department of Marketing
University of Otago
PO Box 56
Dunedin
New Zealand

Ph: +64 (3) 479 8195

Fax: +64 (3) 479 8172
Email: tgarrett@commerce.otago.ac.nz

Dr YAP Chee Meng

Senior Lecturer
Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering
National University of Singapore
Kent Ridge Terrace
Singapore

Ph: +65 874 3070

Fax: +65 777 1434
Email: iseyapcm@nus.edu.sg

iii
 Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction..........................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Overview..............................................................................................................................1
1.2 The Research Question....................................................................................................................2
1.2.1 Objectives..................................................................................................................................2
Structure of the Report...........................................................................................................................3
1.4 Economic Context of the Study.......................................................................................................3
1.4.1 New Zealand - The Changing Climate for NPD.......................................................................3
1.4.2 Singapore - A Changing Nation Encouraging Innovation........................................................4
1.4.3 Conclusion................................................................................................................................6
2.0 Conceptual Development.....................................................................................................................7
2.1 New Product Development..............................................................................................................7
2.1.1 Roles in NPD............................................................................................................................8
2.1.2 Integration...............................................................................................................................11
2.1.3 Conclusion..............................................................................................................................14
2.2 National Culture.............................................................................................................................16
2.2.1 Hofstede’s Dimensions of National Culture...........................................................................18
2.3 Link Between National Culture and NPD Decision Processes and Dynamics..............................19
2.3.1 Individualism..........................................................................................................................19
2.3.2 Power Distance.......................................................................................................................21
2.3.3 Masculinity..............................................................................................................................23
2.3.4 Uncertainty Avoidance ..........................................................................................................25
2.3.5 Confucian Dynamic (Longterm Orientation)..........................................................................27
2.3.6 The Link between National Culture and NPD Conclusion.....................................................28
2.4 New Zealand and Singapore According to the Hofstede Dimensions...........................................29
2.4.1 Implications and Research Propositions.................................................................................30
3.0 Methodology......................................................................................................................................33
3.1 Research Approach........................................................................................................................33
3.2 Research Design.............................................................................................................................33
Sample..................................................................................................................................................34
3.3.1 Selection of the Cases and Sample.........................................................................................34
3.4 Case Study Procedure....................................................................................................................34
3.5 Analysis..........................................................................................................................................35
3.6 Limitations.....................................................................................................................................36
3.7 Ethical Considerations...................................................................................................................36
4.0 Results................................................................................................................................................37
4.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................37
Sample Characteristics.....................................................................................................................37
4.2 Context of NPD within the organisation........................................................................................38
4.2.1 Perception of the Importance of NPD.....................................................................................38
4.2.2 General Organisation of NPD within the firm........................................................................39
4.2.3 General Perception of the Organisation and Proficiency of their NPD Activities..................41
4.3 NPD Roles.....................................................................................................................................42
4.3.1 Functional Involvement and Number of Roles.......................................................................42
4.3.2 Role of Senior management....................................................................................................44
4.3.3 The Project Leader..................................................................................................................47
4.3.4 Marketing................................................................................................................................49
4.3.5 Technical Role........................................................................................................................50
4.3.6 Conclusion of Marketing and Technical Roles.......................................................................50
4.4 Motivation......................................................................................................................................51
4.4.1 Expectations of the NPD task.................................................................................................51
4.4.2 Positive Motivating Aspects of NPD......................................................................................51
4.4.3 Negative de-motivating aspects of NPD.................................................................................52
4.4.4 Helpful Task Dynamics..........................................................................................................53
4.4.5 Unhelpful Task Dynamics .....................................................................................................54
4.4.6 Reward System.......................................................................................................................55
4.5 Interaction......................................................................................................................................57
4.5.1 Communication.......................................................................................................................57

iv
 4.5.2 Information..............................................................................................................................60
4.5.3 Conflict....................................................................................................................................63
4.6 Accountability................................................................................................................................65
4.6.1 Charter.....................................................................................................................................65
4.6.2 Decision Making Parameters..................................................................................................66
4.6.3 Reporting.................................................................................................................................66
4.6.4 Conclusion..............................................................................................................................67
4.7 Summary of the Results.................................................................................................................67
5.0 Discussion..........................................................................................................................................70
5.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................70
5.2 Proposition Discussion...................................................................................................................70
5.2.1 Individualism and Collectivism Proposition Discussion........................................................70
5.2.2 Power Distance and NPD........................................................................................................72
5.2.3 Uncertainty Avoidance and NPD............................................................................................75
5.2.4 The Other Dimensions of Hofstede and NPD.........................................................................76
5.2.5 Conclusion..............................................................................................................................78
6.0 Conclusions........................................................................................................................................82
6.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................82
6.2 Discussion of the Objectives .........................................................................................................82
6.2.1 What are the roles of each of the functions within the NPD task?.........................................82
What are the key motivations of the NPD workgroup for proficient NPD?....................................83
6.2.3 What are the expected and actual rewards given for NPD proficiency?................................84
6.2.4 What are the key components that characterise functional integration in NPD?....................84
6.2.5 What are the accountability aspects of proficient NPD workgroup decision and process
dynamics?.........................................................................................................................................85
6.3 Overall Conclusion........................................................................................................................85
6.4 Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................86
7.0 Bibliography.......................................................................................................................................87
Appendix 1: The Recommendations of the 1996 Asia 2000 Research....................................................92
Appendix 2: Company Contact Letters and Confidentiality Agreement.................................................96
Appendix 3: Interview Protocol...............................................................................................................96

v
 List of Tables
Table 1: Interfunctional Involvement in the New Product Development Process*..................................9
Table 2: NPD Literature Conclusion.......................................................................................................14
Table 3: Individualism and Collectivism Characteristics........................................................................20
Table 4: Power Distance Characteristics.................................................................................................21
Table 5: Femininity and Masculinity Characteristics..............................................................................24
Table 6: Uncertainty Avoidance Characteristics.....................................................................................25
Table 7: Singapore and New Zealand 1980, 1991 Hofstede Scores........................................................29
Table 8: Recalculated Hofstede Dimensions for Singapore and New Zealand.......................................29
Table 9: Differences in Hofstede Scores between New Zealand and Singapore.....................................34
Table 10: Criticisms of a Case Study Methodology................................................................................36
Table 11: Sample Company Characteristics............................................................................................37
Table 12: Summary of the Major Results................................................................................................67
Table 13: Conclusions of the Proposition Discussion.............................................................................79

List of Figures
Figure 1: Cultural Differences: National occupational and organisational levels ..................................16
Figure 2: Manifestations of Culture: From Shallow to Deep (Hofstede et al. 1990)..............................17
Figure 3: National Culture and its relationship to NPD...........................................................................18
Figure 4: Guiding Model .........................................................................................................................28

vi
 New Product Development Decision Making
Processes and Dynamics
A Cross Cultural Study between
Singapore and New Zealand
Report to the Asia 2000 Foundation of New Zealand

1.0 Introduction
1.1 Project Overview
There is no doubt that new product development (NPD) is an important element in today's business
environment (Madique and Zirger, 1985; Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1987; Gupta and Wilemon, 1990).
The importance of NPD is increasing, as the business environment is becoming more complex, with
intensive competition (both within an organisation's home markets and international markets). Greater
technological advancement is resulting in shorter product lifecycles, and NPD cycle times, changes in
consumer expectations and sophistication, and the internationalisation of international business. An
organisation, therefore, is seeking to find their competitive advantage, through, amongst other things,
NPD.

Although there is now a large body of research on key factors to successfully maintain and increase the
efficiency of NPD available to the organisation, NPD success rates, internationally, have remained
relatively static (Stagg et al. 1996, Cooper 1990, Calantone and Cooper 1981, Hopkins 1980).
Although there is no conclusive evidence in New Zealand and Singapore to confirm this, it is certainly
a concern of New Zealand and Singapore managers that action should be taken to make their NPD
development more effective and efficient.

Maintaining efficiency and success of NPD is made more difficult when organisations are undertaking
NPD for and within a foreign environment. The changing environments in which the organisation is
competing, are becoming more cross-cultural in nature due to the advent of globalising competition,
global products, cross cultural management of NPD, and world product mandates (Angelmar, 1990)
have made meeting this challenge of utmost importance. The need to undertake work for specific
international markets, often in market, has lead to major challenges for marketing, research and
development (R&D) and new product managers. The competency therefore, to develop and manage
new products within a single culture is no longer sufficient if a firm is to succeed globally (Comara,
1994, Hegarty and Hoffman, 1993, Hofstede, 1991, Kleinschmidt, 1994, and Utterback et al., 1976).
Few studies comprehensively explore the link between successful NPD management practice and the
values and cultural norms of NPD project team members, in different national environments. Certainly
cross-cultural studies have been undertaken but links to national cultural values have been indirect
(Rothwell 1976, Cooper and Kleinschmidt 1987, Hegarty and Hoffman, 1990; Kleinschmidt 1994).
The failure of some Japanese management techniques in the United States such as Quality Functional
Deployment (QFD), for example, have been noted by Griffin (1992) to have failed, possibly due to the
lack of fit with the North American culture (Nakata and Sivakumar 1996).

Furthermore there is evidence that major factors explaining success and successful NPD practices can
be identified in different national cultural environments (Kleinschmidt, 1994). A vital research
question is whether NPD practices are industry bound universal or if there are industry and culture
specific differences in NPD practices and outcomes.

The globalisation trend has important ramifications for New Zealand business with a number of New
Zealand organisations now establishing applied NPD centres in important international markets. These
organisations now face a situation where they are operating NPD activities in nations that have

1
different national cultural values and effective management practices may be quite different. The
understanding of the impact of these cultural values have been the subject of both industry and pan-
industry bodies (e.g. Asia 2000 and FBEC).

This research has shown the ability to succeed in the increasingly dynamic international environment is
important. The complexity of NPD is highlighted by its special place within the organisation. The
process is by nature multifunctional, involving organisational members from management, operations,
marketing, and R&D. Roberts (1988) reiterates that the “management of technological innovation is
complex, involving the effective integration of people, organisational processes and plans”. There are
therefore, often many people involved in the process, each having a different agenda creating an
exceedingly complex and difficult process (Crawford 1991). The management of these people,
particularly the reduction of friction in the interaction between the functional units, will have impacts
on NPD success (Souder, 1987). Therefore it is required that management has understanding, empathy
and interaction with people involved in NPD activities, so they understand their requirements. This
becomes very important when NPD activities cross national cultures (Usunier, 1993). The context of
this report therefore is on understanding the decision processes and dynamics within the NPD context
in Singapore and New Zealand organisations.

This study, an extension of the 1996 study, funded by the Asia 2000 Foundation of New Zealand, and
undertaken by the same research team is based on the research recommendations (see appendix 1) from
the 1996 study. It focuses on the possible national cultural difference on the dynamics at the NPD
project level and the process dimensions, within a sample of New Zealand and Singapore firms. The
1996 research identified a number of national cultural decision and NPD level characteristics of the
NPD project level within New Zealand and Singapore organisations. This study has been developed to
examine these national culture differences in more detail, using a different sample of New Zealand and
Singapore organisations.

1.2 The Research Question

This research study will look at and contrast the processes and dynamics of NPD decision making used
by NPD players1 involved in NPD projects, in two different national cultural situations, New Zealand
and Singapore. The core question being addressed is to determine if there are national cultural
variations in the way that NPD project groups operate and the managerial implications. The
importance of these issues are being increasingly recognised by business practitioners as the
internationalisation of business means that different tools need to be found that are useful in managing
in this new context.

1.2.1 Objectives

The objectives of this study are as follows:

The overall objective of the study is to understand the nature of national culture in Singapore and New
Zealand and its impact on NPD group decision and process dynamics. The specific objectives that this
study will assess are:

1. What are the roles of each of the functions within the NPD task?
i. What is the role of managerial involvement in the NPD workgroup processes?
ii. What is the role of marketing involvement in NPD workgroup processes?
iii. What is the role of the technical function in NPD workgroup processes?

2. What are the key motivations of the NPD workgroup for proficient NPD?

3. What are the expected and actual rewards given for NPD proficiency?

4. What are key components that characterise functional integration in NPD?

i. What are the key mechanisms used to interplay technical and marketing information
within the project?

1
Players in this context refers to those individuals who are intimately involved in a NPD project

2
 ii. How does the NPD workgroup acquire, share and use technical and marketing
information?
iii. What are the sources conflict within the NPD workgroup?
iv. How is conflict resolved within the NPD workgroup

5. What are the accountability aspects of proficient NPD workgroup decision and process dynamics?

Structure of the Report

This report is structured as follows. The remainder of chapter one will discuss the economic context of
the study, outlining the innovation context within each of New Zealand and Singapore, and why these
countries have been selected for study.

Chapter two will outline the theoretical and conceptual underpinnings of the study, specifically
focusing on the key NPD concepts, national cultural concepts, bringing them together for the
development of the conceptual model and propositions that will be discussed.

Chapter three will outline the methodology of the study, explaining the use of the multiple case study
approach of this research design.

Chapter four will present the results, with Chapter five discussing the results of the study. Chapter six
will conclude addressing each of the objectives outlined, the overall conclusions, the managerial
implications and finally future research opportunities.

1.4 Economic Context of the Study

1.4.1 New Zealand - The Changing Climate for NPD

The economic reforms over the last decade in New Zealand have resulted in businesses, especially in
manufacturing, improving productivity and profitability. A critical component of this gain has been in
the development of new products and improved processes, with a greater emphasis of the roles of
technology and marketing in the business as a strategy for development. These changes were
accelerated in 1988, through the abrupt removal of price supports, import protection, loans to private
sector firms, elimination of subsidies, the sale of Government owned enterprises to the private sector
and major industrial relations reform removing restrictive practices through the Employment Contracts
Act. The firms formed after the privatisation decision and change in the economic policy, as they have
developed, increasingly exhibit the characteristic Miles and Snow (1978) type of prospector
philosophy. Even in the times of economic recession that impacted New Zealand in 1998, these
prospector organisations have demonstrated their durability through their flexibility and ability to be
responsive leading New Zealand out of the recession. They have achieved this through identifying and
targeting growth markets (e.g. Europe and North America), and making the required changes within
their organisational structures. The question is what has lead to success in New Zealand and what can
be done to increase this success? Given the continued success of Singapore (the only national
economy that has been truly resilient in the South East Asian economic crisis), New Zealand may have
lessons to learn from them to continue New Zealand’s growth, particularly in NPD in high technology
products.

New Zealand has a very small base of business with the critical mass to undertake formal R&D. The
Government, as the major investor in R&D through the Public Good Science Fund, has taken a
strategic approach to R&D through a range of programmes which ensure that science and technology
contribute to New Zealand’s welfare and prosperity and represent “value for money” for the taxpayer
(MORST, 1994). The Government’s strategy recognises that small and medium size manufacturing
enterprises (SME’s) have special technology needs to enable business to tackle NPD and process
improvements. The goal is to increase public investment in R&D, from a current level of 0.6% of GDP
to 0.8% of GDP by the year 2010. It has recently been suggested (New Zealand Trade Development
Board, 1995) that a new paradigm of thinking is required to get leverage from the investment in science
and technology, by applying investment in areas appropriate to the manufacturing and science sectors.

3
The private sector’s contribution to the R&D overall spend needs to increase for greater measurable
benefit also. This report may assist in identifying these areas.

Tradenz, the NZ Trade Development Board, has influenced development (New Zealand Trade
Development Board, 1995) in particular through identifying the lack of professional assistance on how
to maximise the contribution technology can make to business. Considerable work in identifying
appropriate technologies for particular business sectors has been undertaken in Joint Action Groups
(JAG’s) of businesses in related areas, for example the Telecommunication Industry JAG. To further
address this issue, Tradenz developed the Business Technology Link programme. This programme
identifies and provides training to business technology consultants to work with SME’s to assess the
contribution of technology in the context of the total business, develop systems to improve NPD, assist
with developing a technology strategy, and manage specific technology related projects. This report
will assist in identifying other areas for development based on the Singapore development experience.

A report (Frater et al., 1995) has stated that New Zealand finds itself in an exciting position. A spirit of
entrepreneurship has been quickly established outside of the traditional farming and processing areas.
There is a sharp acceleration in the export growth rate of elaborately transformed manufacturers (in
1994 growth rate exceeded 20%), and that 80% firms in New Zealand are in a “can do” or proactive
mode. Manufacturers are setting their own goals and objectives and are well advanced in undertaking
the necessary reorganisation, internal development and expansion of capacity to realise growth
potential that they, as a collective body, have identified, focusing on building international business.

Since the 1995 Frater report there have been some massive changes in the economic environment
within which the New Zealand organisation operates. In 1997 the Asian Economic Crisis impacted a
number of New Zealand’s major export markets, with a subsequent flow on effect upon the domestic
market. Within this operating environment the observation made by Frater et al. (1995) came
increasingly into effect. Organisations are again no longer in an environment in that there was
guaranteed success, rather a careful consideration of all aspects of their business is required to succeed.

All these changes have important implications for the operating philosophies of firms, their
management and how NPD and innovation is undertaken in New Zealand. Are there cultural elements
from NPD practices in Singapore that can be encouraged to be developed in New Zealand?

1.4.2 Singapore - A Changing Nation Encouraging Innovation

1.4.2.1 Introduction

Singapore is a nation with a population of 3 million in an area of about 620 square kilometres. It has
undergone five phases of economic development spanning the period from 1959 (self-government)
until now.2 Policies implemented in the first two phases in the earlier years were geared toward the
provision of jobs for the unemployed masses while the latter phases emphasise upgrading of the
economy. The second phase of development, lasting from 1966 to 1973, was put into effect and a
labour-intensive export-oriented manufacturing strategy was implemented. Attractive incentives that
included tax relief, stable labour situation, and availability of skilled workers prompted a surge in
investments by foreign multinationals.

By 1973, the level of foreign investments had grown to such a level that a labour surplus situation was
replaced by a labour shortage situation. Workers had to be imported from neighbouring countries.
This brought about the third phase of development (1973-78) that shifted the economic strategy from
one of attracting labour intensive industry to one that sought high technology industries. A portfolio of
incentives covering wage rates, manpower development, tax regimes, and ease of entry of qualified
foreign professionals succeeded in attracting further investments. By 1979, foreign firms were playing
a major role in the economy of Singapore. The slowdown in industrialised economies around this time
alerted the government to the need to diversify the economy.

2
The discussion on the five phases of economic development is drawn from Teck-Wong Soon and C.
Suan Tan, “The Lessons of East Asia: Singapore - Public Policy and Economic Development”, The
World Bank, Washington D.C., 1993

4
The fourth phase of development (1979-84) was an economic restructuring, whereby both the
economic activities and markets were diversified and expanded. Wages were also adjusted upwards to
discourage the inflow of labour-intensive, low technology investments that posed obstacles to
upgrading and restructuring. Promotions to attract firms in eleven selected industries with high
technology components were undertaken. These included: automotive components, machine tools and
machinery, medical and surgical apparatus and instruments, speciality chemicals and pharmaceuticals,
computer, computer peripherals equipment and software development, electronic instrumentation,
optical instruments and equipment, advanced electronic components, precision engineering products,
and hydraulic and pneumatic control systems. Large inflow of foreign direct investments into the
desired industries resulted.

Phase 5 of development started with the country’s first severe recession in 1985. Wage rates and other
costs of doing business were reduced and the country recovered from the recession the next year. At
the same time, the government continued its unrelenting efforts to promote high value-added
technology-based manufacturing industries. Incentives are given to firms to conduct their research and
development (R&D) activities in Singapore.

1.4.2.2 Innovation in Singapore

The most visible support for innovation comes from the government commitment to allocate a
substantial budget for engaging in the development of science and technology. The amount committed
was S$2 billion for the 1991-95 period and S$4 billion for the 1996-2000 period. 3 From experience,
the government knows that it can parlay this S$4 billion into a cumulative expenditure of S$12 billion
by the year 2000 when private sector R&D commitments are taken into accounted. The public funds
earmarked for R&D-related activities are administered by the National Science and Technology Board
(NSTB), a statutory body tasked to stimulate R&D and build up capabilities in certain fields of science
and technology. The nine technology fields targeted are: Information Technology; Microelectronics;
Electronic Systems; Manufacturing Technology; Materials Technology; Energy, Water, Environment
and Resources; Food and Agrotechnology; Biotechnology; Medical Sciences.

It is envisaged that public spending in R&D will be employed to meet the four main challenges that
must be overcome in order to spur the undertaking of economically relevant R&D in Singapore. These
challenges are: meeting the demand for manpower; making it conducive for industry to undertake
R&D; strengthening the country’s technological capability; and fostering technological innovation and
commercialisation.

A number of schemes are currently in place to deal with the above challenges. In the area of meeting
manpower needs, NSTB offers scholarships for bright undergraduates to pursue postgraduate research
study. Furthermore, the government has maintained an open door policy of admitting foreign technical
professionals with the relevant expertise to boost the manpower base.

A series of support activities and incentives are in place to create a conducive environment for industry
to undertake R&D. Financial support in the form of grants are available for co-funding R&D activities.
Physical infrastructure include the development of a Technology Corridor, which is a fifteen kilometre
region containing a synergistic mix of higher education establishments, research institutes and private
sector laboratories. The proximity of these institutions, especially the “Science Park”, provides a
vibrant environment for researchers who can interact on a frequent basis.

The task of strengthening the technological capability of the country falls on the research institutes and
universities. Research institutes are set up to develop generic technologies for strategic industry
clusters. These institutes will collaborate with industry partners to develop pre-competitive
technologies. In the process, manpower training and technology transfer are effected. The universities
are not only expected to fulfil their role in training researchers but are also expected to provide
leadership in research on areas of strategic importance.

Mechanisms to help foster technological innovation and commercialisation are manifold. Information
on technologies are made available through the National Technology Databank and National Patent

3
“National Science and Technology Plan...towards 2000 and beyond”, National Science and
Technology Board, 1996.

5
Information Centre. Innovators wishing to protect their invention can apply for financial assistance
through the Patent Application Fund. Financial assistance for technical entrepreneurs are available in
the form of the Technology Development Fund, a fund that helps a start-up through its initial years
when it is difficult to secure funding from the traditional sources. Finally, incubators help ease small
companies into their new business.

The above discussion indicates that there is no lack of funding or initiative on the part of the
government to upgrade the technical skills and competencies of the country. The bulk of the proposed
budget will be allocated to manpower training and development. This is identified as one factor that
will attract foreign multinationals to base part of their research operations in Singapore. These foreign
multinationals play an important role in the economy and are expected to be the primary drivers of
R&D activities in Singapore.

Despite the major impetus and large funding given to R&D by the government, the private sector
spending in R&D outstrips the government spending. The private sector accounted for 63% of the
country’s Gross Expenditure on R&D (GERD) during 1994. The manufacturing sector and the service
sector account for 99.7% of the private sector spending on R&D. Foreign MNCs account for 71% and
81% of the R&D spending in the manufacturing and services sector respectively. The electronic
industry is the most important industry within the manufacturing sector, accounting for 49% of the
private sector investments in R&D. Out of this amount, foreign MNCs accounted for 77% of the
commitments in the electronic industry.4

The private sector funds most of their R&D activities internally. Only 2.3% of the funds used come
from the Government. This figure is consistent with the government policy of allocating their R&D
budget to ensuring the availability of trained manpower that the private sector, and especially foreign
multinationals, require for their R&D activities. Thus, the government may perceive its role as that of
providing the environment and opportunities for R&D rather than that of funding the incremental costs
of specific R&D activities. This strategy seems to be working when evaluated in light of the
commitments and R&D activities taking place in the private sector.

It is noted from the discussion above that substantial amount of R&D work will be carried out in a
cross-cultural setting where the innovating firms are non-Singaporean (and even non-Asian) while the
researchers will be predominantly Asian. This sets up a situation where an understanding of the values
and culture of the local staff becomes essential for a firm to maximise the research productivity of such
workers. This current study will provide initial insights into the salient issues that must be dealt with
before a beneficial cross-cultural working relationship can be developed.

1.4.3 Conclusion

Each country has undergone significant change over the last fifteen years with both countries being
increasingly reliant on innovation and NPD in niche/high value segments for economic growth in an
increasingly worldwide global economy.

4
All figures are computed from the statistics found in “National Survey of R&D in Singapore 1994”,
National Science and Technology Board.

6
2.0 Conceptual Development
2.1 New Product Development
The setting for this study is NPD, defined as a series of managed activities taking new product ideas
from generation to commercialisation. NPD has been well established as an important means for
financial growth of organisations. (Booz Allen and Hamilton 1982; Wind, Mahajan, and Bayless, 1990)
Also NPD is a critical function in the modern organisation to maintain its competitive advantage in this
era of dynamic environmental and economic change (Nayak et al., 1993). Although there have been
numerous studies exploring the determinants of NPD success and failure and of optimising the process’
cost and time, NPD remains an expensive and risky task with failure being all too common, resulting in
enormous resource expense and marketplace disadvantage (Stagg et al. 1996, Cooper 1990, Calantone
and Cooper 1981, Hopkins 1980). Organisations and academics alike are therefore, constantly looking
for methods and environments to enhance and optimise the management of the NPD process to
minimise the risks of failure

Successful NPD and marketing activities are essential to meet an organisation’s internal and external
strategic objectives. Trends, such as accelerating technological development, intensified international
and domestic competition, shorter product lifecycles and variable economic growth, highlight the need
for organisations to develop better new products, to do it faster, be more flexible (Takeuchi and
Nonaka 1986, Gupta and Wilemon, 1990), have market and international orientations (Cooper 1993,
Atuahene-Gima 1995) and to learn from the best cultural practices identified from different national
approaches to innovation by successful Singapore and New Zealand firms.

The right organisational structure is identified as being critical for the future success of the
organisation’s NPD activities (Cooper 1993). The structure of the NPD process will depend on the
people involved in the process, and more importantly, the form the process takes. The roles that upper
management and teams play in the NPD process and the ability of the organisation to foster flexibility
into the process, are all critical components (Souder 1987, Montoya-Weiss and Calantone 1994).

The right organisational structure is essential to ensure that decision and process dynamics of an
organisation are optimised and Kleinschmidt (1994) and Cooper and Kleinschmidt (1995) summarise
the success and failure determinants into six blocks of variables affecting the success and failure of
NPD activities. These, based on previous empirical research, are as follows:

1. the NPD process and activities within this process.

2. the organisation of the NPD programme
3. the firm’s culture and climate
4. senior management involvement and commitment
5. relationship of the NPD strategy to the overall strategy of the firm
6. national/cultural environment.

As the process and activities within the process will differ between industry sectors and firms, the main
emphasis of this study outlined in this report are on points 2-6. There are other NPD success factors,
such as the quality and cost advantages of the new product, but these are beyond the scope of this
report (see Montoya-Weiss and Calantone 1994, for a summary).

Keys to effective NPD decision making processes and dynamics have further been summarised as
(Calantone et al. 1995):

1. Innovative ideas have a greater chance of NPD success when there are few participants
involved in the process
2. Innovative ideas have a greater chance of NPD success when there are few opposing factions
within the organisation.
3. Innovative ideas have a greater chance of NPD success when the key decisions are centralised.
4. A key facilitating factor in NPD is the ability to monitor the environment (internal and
external).
5. A key factor that facilitates NPD is the flexibility of the organisation.

7
6. A factor that facilitates NPD is the centralisation of power within the organisation
7. Once a strategic choice has been made, it should not be altered and made to work.
8. A product champion has been found to facilitate NPD, if they are able to offer protection from
the financial and managerial restraints that exist within the firm.
9. The success of NPD will be facilitated if there is support from the key power holders within
the organisation.

2.1.1 Roles in NPD.

2.1.1.1 Senior Management

Upper management plays a critical role in the facilitation and effective completion of NPD projects.
Upper management needs to play two major roles for effective NPD: their involvement and to
demonstrate their corporate commitment. Upper management therefore needs to send clear messages
to the entire organisation about the role and importance of NPD in the form of broad parameters and
strategic mission for NPD (Kleinschmidt 1994). Further not only are they required to send clear
directions, they should also have commitment to the risk taking that is inherently involved in all aspects
of NPD and innovation activities. It is found also that NPD success is enhanced if there is access to
upper management in times of difficulties, or there are major decisions to be made. Some form of
technical literacy amongst the upper management therefore will enable this interaction and empathy to
succeed. Importantly also as a critical success factor, upper management should make sufficient
resources and funds available for effective completion of a NPD project.

As part of the corporate commitment to NPD activities upper management involvement is vital to aid
the overall corporate culture that NPD needs to succeed. This culture should allow an environment that
supports teamwork, aids the emergence of intrapreneurs, of product champions, is supportive in
rewards, risk, autonomy and treatment of failure, and provides the resources and time for NPD
activities. All of these approaches have been found to be positive organisational culture influences on
NPD.

2.1.1.2 Functional Involvement

There is no question that the two functions of R&D and marketing play important roles in the
management of a NPD project. The only other function of equal importance is the role of operations,
and overriding all the others the role of senior management, as mentioned earlier, as facilitators. When
firms were less complex and or if the firm had only one or two products developed by a strong
entrepreneur, all the functional roles of the organisation resided within the guiding manager of the
operation – a baker for example could develop his/her product and had all the skills to assess the
technical and customer/consumer demands for their product, thus could develop the bundle of benefits
for both the seller and buyer and facilitate a successful exchange, the basis of the marketing concept
(Griffin and Hauser, 1996).

Firms have evolved since this time and there is added complexity to the roles of marketing and R&D
within the firm. Literature suggests that only the most unique of individuals could have the requisite
knowledge of both the functions and to a degree that all technical and marketing considerations are
taken into account to successfully develop and market the product. The consequence is that the skills
have functionalised, grown apart, and are increasingly becoming their own empires, with the danger
that the gap will become too great and therefore insurmountable (Griffin and Hauser, 1996).

To understand why this has happened the role of each of the functions needs to be assessed, and
overlaid on the product development process.

Numerous studies have identified the roles of upper management, marketing and R&D and their
relationship to the success of a NPD project. For approximately 30 years there have also been
numerous studies that have set out to and have established, with the contingency of the type of project
or organisation, that projects generally have to establish integration (namely communication and co-
operation) between the functional areas, particularly marketing and R&D to succeed. However, as
some authors have concluded, there is still a gap, particularly in western cultures, between the optimal
level of interaction and the actual level of interaction observed between the functions (see Griffin and
Hauser, 1996).

8
The types and levels of functional involvement and integration are highlighted in table 1 (adapted from
Wind, 1981). It is clear in this table that each of the functions play important roles at different stages,
with each function having primary responsibility, with some required to have mutual joint
responsibility, highlighting the importance of functional integration.

Table 1: Interfunctional Involvement in the New Product Development Process*

Organisational Function
Other (legal,
Stages in Top
procuremen
NPD Prices Managemen Marketing Finance R&D Operations
t, personnel
t
etc)
Setting of
objectives
or selection Primary
of internal responsibilit Inputs Inputs Inputs
vs external y
developmen
t
Primary Primary
Idea
responsibilit Inputs responsibilit Inputs Inputs
generation
y y
Primary Primary Primary
Idea/concep
Approval responsibilit responsibilit responsibilit Inputs Inputs
t screening
y y y
Concept/pro
Primary
duct
responsibilit Inputs Inputs
developmen
y
t
Concept/pro Primary Primary Primary Primary
duct Approval responsibilit responsibilit responsibilit responsibilit Inputs
evaluation y y y y
Final
Product
evaluation
Primary Primary
&
Approval responsibilit responsibilit Inputs Inputs Inputs
developmen
y y
t of
marketing
strategy
Continuous
evaluation
Primary
of product Approval Inputs Inputs Inputs Inputs
responsibly
performanc
e
Primary Primary
Product
responsibilit responsibilit
introduction
y y
*Adapted from: Wind (1981) p. 231

The roles of team members within an NPD team are largely determined by the functions to which they
belong. The roles played by the different functions and those of senior management and project leaders
will be examined in the following sections.

Marketing

Should the firm have adopted the marketing concept then the marketing function should be one of the
pivotal areas of the organisation, communicating information from the customer to the required parts of
the organisation. In this role, marketing should be facilitating the identification of product
opportunities, defining the market segments, and identification of consumer wants, needs and desires.
Not only is the marketing function involved in the communication from the customer to the required
parts of the organisation, they are also involved in the communication of the company products and
concepts to the customer. The marketing function therefore should be intimately involved in the design
of the marketing mix programme (communication, pricing and distribution strategies) for the product
development as well as overseeing the launch process and strategy. As can be seen in Table 1
marketing also has a responsibility in the continuous monitoring, screening and evaluation of the NPD.

9
The role of marketing is, therefore, especially important in acting as an interface between customers
and the NPD team. Primary marketing tasks are to obtain customer requirements from the market to
the development team, providing regular feedback from customers regarding product performance,
gathering information on competitors’ moves and strategies and also setting new product goals and
priorities (Gupta et al., 1985). Their market understanding also brings them critically involved in
generating new product ideas and idea screening at the front end of NPD. Subsequently, marketing
plays an important role in market testing the new product and the product launch. In fact, marketing
should play a leadership role in NPD according to studies by Cooper (1984a, 1984b), whose research
showed that for NPD performance, a balanced strategy combining technological prowess and market
orientation is needed, with the group dominated by marketing.

R&D
The R&D function leads to the definition of the basic form of the product. This is in translation of the
customer needs into the technical considerations of the NPD. The role of R&D is important throughout
all aspects of the development of the product, not only in terms of the physical development, but in all
other evaluation, screening and control of the product's life. R&D may have dominant responsibility
for establishing long-term research directions, keeping abreast of competitive technology, and
identifying and fixing design flaws for future product releases.

R&D plays an indispensable role in the actual development of a new product. R&D is responsible for
translating customer requirements into technical product specifications, applying suitable technologies
for satisfying those customer requirements. Their technical expertise is required in evaluating and
screening for technically viable new ideas. They carry out the physical testing of a new product. Also,
the long time-horizon of R&D makes them useful for setting long-term research directions (Griffin and
Hauser, 1996).

R&D involvement in NPD by providing technological sophistication, innovativeness and

aggressiveness coupled with heavy R&D spending is found to be essential in a balanced strategy
employed by top NPD performers (Cooper, 1984a; 1984b).

2.1.1.3 Cross-Functional Teams

In an overwhelming majority of modern firms, the structure adopted is one that is defined along
functions. This is possibly attributable to the complexity of the environment that businesses today
operate in, and the specialisation required to handle it. In NPD, however, throughout a project’s life
cycle, a combination of skills, knowledge and expertise from different functions is needed. It therefore
became apparent that a cross-functional team is the most effective organisational structure to approach
the multi-disciplinary demands of developing new products.

Cross-functional teams contribute to improved NPD performance in terms of success in the market,
profitability and development speed (Rusinko, 1997; Griffin and Hauser, 1996; McDonough and
Barczak, 1992; Swink et al., 1996). Cross-functional project teams encourage communication and
cooperation, provide some extent of formalisation and help resolve conflicts. However, team members
risk losing their functional specialisation in the long run by interacting less with specialists of the same
field.

The integration of the different functions in a cross-functional NPD team is the subject of much
research. Extensive amount of research has been dedicated especially to the integration of two very
important functions involved in NPD, namely, R&D and marketing (Song and Dyer, 1995; Griffin and
Hauser, 1996; Gupta et al., 1984; Sounder, 1988). The early inclusion of manufacturing into NPD by
firms implementing concurrent engineering has also received substantial amount of attention (Rusinko,
1997; Griffin and Hauser, 1992; Mabert et al., 1992; Swink, et al., 1996).

2.1.1.4 Conclusion

Dependent on the size of the organisation, each of these functional areas will have individuals with
different skills. Rarely is a NPD undertaken and completed by one individual, or one functional area

10
within the organisation. Marketing and R&D responsibilities are neither independent nor static of each
other. The roles that each of them play will evolve over time as new technological and market
opportunities arise, the competitive and regulatory environments change. Whatever the case, the long-
term competitiveness and profitability requires the organisation to have a large investment in NPD in
order to have constant product or service offering renewal. There is, therefore, a constant flow of
information, technical expertise, money and materials that are transferred across the functional areas.

2.1.2 Integration

2.1.2.1 Integration of R&D and Marketing

A major theme in the literature in recent years has been in the recognition that the NPD process can not
exist without more than one function’s involvement.

R&D and marketing integration, although an important dimension has three major defining basis
within the literature (Kahn and McDonough III 1997). The first is the association between integration
and interaction, where communication and regular meetings between the two functions are emphasised
(Carlsson 1991; Griffin and Hauser 1992; Moenaert et al. 1994; Urban and Hauser 1993). The second
is integration associated with collective goals, mutual respect and teamwork (Griffin and Hauser, 1996;
Kahn and McDonough III, 1997). Finally integration is associated with components of the two above
definitions, where involvement and information exchange and sharing have equal roles (Gupta et al.
1985; Lorsch 1965; Song and Parry 1992; 1993). For the purposes of this study the third aspect of the
literature pertaining to R&D and market integration will be used, where effective integration is
achieved when there is sufficient communication and co-operation between the marketing and R&D
functions (Griffin and Hauser 1996; Kahn and McDonough III 1997). This definition considers
integration as a multidimensional construct. “Integration” will be used instead of communication and
co-operation for the remainder of this paper.

Integration of R&D and marketing has been identified as a significant factor to success in many of the
major NPD success and failure studies over the past three decades (e.g. Cooper and Kleinschmidt 1987;
Hise et al. 1990; Rothwell 1976; Souder 1988). The importance of the integration between the two
functions has increased as the business environment becomes more dynamic with firms facing
intensifying pressure to find competitive edge through faster development cycles, lead times, NPD
efficiency and effectiveness (Griffin and Hauser 1996; Kahn and McDonough III 1997; Song et al.
1997; Montoya-Weiss and Calantone 1994). Integration importance for effective NPD across all
environments, both organisational and country, has been established by many empirical studies
(Dougherty 1990; Moenaert et al. 1994b; Song and Parry 1992, 1993; Souder 1988; Souder and
Chakrabarti 1978; Takeuchi and Nonaka 1986). Mechanisms fostering integration in these different
environmental settings need to be addressed somewhat more however (Griffin and Hauser 1996).

There is a propensity for disharmony between the R&D and marketing functions (Souder 1977, 1981)
with some researchers going as far as saying that it is the norm rather than the exception (Moenaert and
Souder 1990). The Griffin and Hauser (1996) review summarised the barriers to integration as the
R&D and marketing differences in R&D and marketing: personalities; cultural thought worlds;
language; organisational responsibilities (including reward systems); and environmental factors such as
physical barriers. When these barriers exist in NPD they are significantly linked to limiting NPD
performance (see Griffin and Hauser 1996).

Calantone et al. (1995) summarises the major principles from the literature in relation to R&D and
marketing integration as:

1. Marketing and technical personnel do not communicate effectively with one another
2. Marketing and technical personnel generally do not trust each other.
3. Harmonious interaction between marketing and R&D departments is associated with
improved NPD success rates.

11
4. Early involvement of both the marketing and R&D departments in the NPD process fosters
between the departments.
5. Support of top management fosters better interaction between the marketing and R&D
departments.
6. A protocol or formal agreement between marketing and R&D on product performance
specifications minimises conflicts and misunderstandings between marketing and technical
personnel.

It is noted that Calantone et al (1995) mentions the integration predominately between the marketing
and R&D function, with the upper management function playing a moderating effect. There are
however several other functions that are important to the stakeholders in the NPD process and thereon
NPD success. Notably the financial and operation functions. Not only are these functions necessary
for the effective and efficient completion of the NPD activity, but the inter-functional relationships here
can also be prone to conflict and problems (references).

A myriad of different integration mechanisms has been proposed by the literature (Griffin and Hauser
1996; Gupta and Wilemon 1988; Moenaert and Souder 1990; Moenaert et al. 1994b). Griffin and
Hauser (1996, p. 202) listed six general approaches, collated from the extant literature, that
organisations use to integrate functional activities. These include the co-location (Kahn and
McDonough III 1997) or physical design of R&D and marketing, the movement of personnel across
functions (or role flexibility (Moenaert and Souder 1990; Moenaert et al. 1994b)), informal social
systems, organisational structures, incentive and reward systems and formal integrative mechanisms.
These are component titles for many specific tools, which have all been positively linked to NPD
performance and enhancing NPD integration (Griffin and Hauser 1996). Apart from physical location
and design of the facilities, the mechanisms identified in Griffin and Hauser's (1996) can be linked to
four general types of organisational mechanisms that breakdown barriers to integration. These are
formalisation, centralisation, role flexibility, and inter-functional climate (Moenaert and Souder 1990;
Moenaert et al. 1994b).
Formalisation: Project formalisation relies on a set of rules and procedures for performing the
NPD function. Formal Integrative mechanisms include phase review, stage-gate process, PACE, and
QFD (see Griffin and Hauser 1996). Whatever system is used to formalise the project, the objective is
to improve the quality of the functional integration. They could also be an important mechanism for
fostering informal communication between the functions.
Centralisation: The amount of communication, decision making and power held within a
project by a few people (normally at management level), will have a significantly negative impact on
the integration of the functions. Issues will not be able to be resolved quickly at the project level,
rather will need to go through a hierarchical process (Gupta and Wilemon 1988). This is indicative of
the traditional functionally type organisation (Griffin and Hauser 1996).
Interfunctional Climate: This relates to the subjective aspects of the functional relationship. It
relates to the degrees of trust, awareness, support and interest between the functions. (Moenaert et al.
1994b). Upper management has to provide a climate for this type of culture, through their proactive
support (Souder 1987). This climate will provide for the organisational value of the task (Gupta and
Wilemon 1988).
Role Flexibility: This relates to the movement of personnel beyond their assigned functional
tasks throughout the project. This has been noted in a number of organisational settings, where R&D
staff take an active interest and involvement in marketing functions, or vice versa which aids the
integration process. (see Griffin and Hauser 1996; Souder 1994).

Management has a responsibility in the development of an organisational climate that is conducive to

integration and overall NPD. They should provide the corporate commitment, in terms of sending clear
messages to the organisation about the role and importance of NPD and thereon the importance of
functional integration. (Gupta et al. 1990; Hegarty and Hoffman 1990; Johne and Snelson 1988;
Kleinschmidt 1994; Song and Parry 1992, 1993).

2.1.2.3 Role of Project Leader

As the leader of the cross-functional team that develops a new product, the responsibilities of the
project leader is extremely crucial and their implementation is directly related to the success or failure
of the project. A project leader is responsible for defining team member roles, establishing
communication channels and cross-functional integration, projecting and obtaining resource

12
requirements, coordinating technical and design issues, scheduling project stages and setting project
priorities (Khurana, and Rosenthal, 1997). To carry out these tasks, a project leader needs to be
knowledgeable and experienced (Mabert et al., 1992; Swink et al., 1996).

However, the effectiveness of a project leader is moderated by many other factors. In generating new
ideas and producing solutions, project leaders should not dominate discussions but instead, should play
the integrative role of facilitating thinking among group members, providing critical evaluation,
channelling original ideas from outside the group and consolidating ideas into a final solution (Farris,
1972). Communication patterns of project leaders studied, indicate that successful project leaders
dealing with familiar technology discussed technical issues and scheduling more with engineering,
vendors, management and purchasing than less successful project leaders. Successful project leaders of
highly innovative teams discussed customer needs with team members and customers more (Barczak
and Wilemon, 1991). On the other hand, faster development is associated with younger project leaders
(McDonough III, 1993).

2.1.2.4 Communication

Communication is the theme that runs through every aspect in every stage of NPD. It is almost
impossible to speak of communication independent of the environment in which it takes place. There
is strong evidence that in order for an NPD project to succeed, a high level of information flow is
required among the team members, team leaders and parties outside the group (Griffin and Hauser,
1996). As discussed under the difficulties to integrate R&D and marketing, smooth and effective
communication risks are being restricted by a number of barriers (Griffin and Hauser, 1996).

However, merely having large amount of information flow does not in itself guarantee NPD success.
Communication between whom, what was communicated, contingent upon the strategy of the firm and
the orientation of the team leader and members differentiate the top performers from the failures
(Murphy and Kumar, 1997; Song and Dyer, 1995; Griffin and Hauser, 1992; Farris, 1972; Swink et al.
1996). Communication is also the key to cross-functional integration (Song and Dyer, 1995; Griffin
and Hauser, 1992; 1996) and conflict resolution (Griffin and Hauser, 1996; Gupta et al., 1984; Souder,
1988).

To enhance communication, it is possible to eliminate any physical barriers or move personnel across
departments, encourage informal interaction and implement teams to carry out tasks (Griffin and
Hauser, 1996). From a managerial perspective, a greater degree of formalisation, for example using
QFD, enhances communication significantly (Griffin and Hauser, 1996; Mabert et al., 1992).

2.1.2.5 Information

Part of creating an effective dialogue between the functional units is the sharing of information
between the functional units. Supported by previous research many of the critical issues that arise at
different stages of the NPD process requires good information exchange (e.g. Gupta et al. 1985).
However, ineffective communication of information between the marketing and R&D functions
develops because R&D personnel would like to have clear, unambiguous and precise answers to what
characteristics that customers desire in the NPD and the price that they are willing to pay for these
characteristics. Marketing, however, often would like R&D to stall the NPD, at the earliest possible
juncture, whilst market research, and testing is initiated so that effective business planning can be
undertaken (Burgelman and Sayles 1986). In essence, both the marketing and R&D functions would
like to have certainty in the information that they receive, whilst maintaining the right to be uncertain
themselves.

2.1.2.6 Conflict

In a NPD team with members from different functions engaging in activities, the result of and the
approach to, which are inherently uncertain, conflicts are almost inevitable.

The level of disharmony within the NPD team influences success of an NPD project. Most projects
with severe disharmony between R&D and marketing failed (Souder, 1988). It is therefore important
that attention is paid to the management of conflict within NPD teams.

13
Souder (1988) in a ten-year study of 289 NPD innovation projects identified 5 states of disharmony.
Lack of appreciation and distrust were classified as severe disharmony while lack of communication,
lack of interaction and even being too-good friends were grouped as mild disharmony.

Conflicts arise for a number of reasons. Personality differences even when it is a perceptual stereotype
hinders cooperation and communication. Different functions have different thought worlds. For
example, marketing has a short time horizon with focus on the market, and they are able to tolerate a
high degree of ambiguity and bureaucracy and feel loyal to the firm while R&D is loyal to their
scientific profession, focusing on scientific development, have a long time horizon in technologically
complex projects, and do not accept ambiguity and bureaucracy. Different organisational
responsibilities, performance measures and task priorities for each different function can also be the
causes that lead to conflicts. A top management that does not reward integration is potentially harmful
to inter-functional cooperation (Griffin and Hauser, 1996). Uneven praise to different parties may
cause rivalries to develop, as one party may perceive that their due credit has been stolen (Souder,
1988).

Conflicts risk being institutionalised in firms and may become so deeply entrenched that they are
difficult to eventually be removed.

2.1.2.7 Accountability (Group Autonomy)

Those involved in highly innovative research work have always been stereotypically associated with
the image of the idiosyncratic mad scientist unbounded by mundane rules and procedures. In addition,
because of the uncertainties involved in the creative process, intuition suggests that innovators be left
unhindered in their work. Formalisation is the emphasis placed within an organisation on following
specific rules and procedures in performing one’s job and centralisation refers to the organisational
level at which decision making occurs and to the extent that employee’s participate in decision making.
Therefore, it appears that innovative processes should use a low level of formalisation and
centralisation.

In a survey of 274 R&D managers and 264 marketing managers in 315 Japanese high technology firms,
it was found that more innovative firms that react fast by using new products, new technologies to take
advantage of opportunities in marketplace (Prospector firms) employ higher level of formalisation and
centralisation than less innovative firms that find and defend an established market in a proven product
(defender firms) (Song and Dyer, 1995). This indicates that complexity of entering many new markets,
the need to resolve conflicts and increase communication as well as to complete non-routine tasks
faced by prospector firms may outweigh the need the need for autonomy in innovative NPD.

However, in a team hierarchy, managers do not necessarily completely predetermine a team’s level of
autonomy. A team’s extent of autonomy is dynamic, evolving along the project lifecycle. Within the
NPD team itself, Gerwin and Moffat (1997) proposed that a team seeks to expand its authority when
the task problems faced by the team are serious, combined with the team’s strong ability to exert
influence and when the team leader has a counterdependent internal model of authority.

2.1.3 Conclusion

Table 2 brings together the important points of the above discussion together, highlighting the roles,
processes and environment that exists for effective NPD in the extant literature. These will be the
focus of this research

Table 2: NPD Literature Conclusion

Roles in NPD Processes Environment
Senior Management Integration Conflict
Functional Communication Autonomy
(Marketing) Project Leader Role
(R&D) Information

14
No one role is more important than another in NPD, with each having an important contribution at
different stages of the NPD project. If there is not involvement of each of the functions, then it has
been found that NPD is somewhat more prone to failure. Integration, communication and information
flow and the role of the Project Leader are significant process determinants that brings about effective
NPD activities. However mitigating NPD activities are internal environmental factors such as the level
of conflict that exists between the different functions and the level of autonomy granted to the NPD
group.

15
2.2 National Culture
NPD is not undertaken in a vacuum. It has been determined that country differences do exist in NPD
behaviour. Country level contextual differences that effect NPD activities have been classified into
two sets of variables, socio-economic and cultural (Moenaert et al., 1994).

Socio-economic based variables have bearings on technological progress and development within a
country. While these can be somewhat ambiguous in orientation, they have been narrowed to the
country’s technological heritage, the structure of the market, the administrative heritage, and
entrepreneurial environment (Moenaert et al. 1994). The socio-economic context the firm operates
within, influences the types of activities displayed by the firm and the processes followed. They
provide the historical context and macro environment of the firm. However, socio-economic
differences do not explain innovation behaviour fully. This cultural analysis lead the belief that ethnic
culture dimensions such as individualism, determinism, distance perception and complexity provide an
explanation of why NPD projects are managed differently in Europe than the US. This Moenaert study
is seen as a non-exhaustive discussion on potential relations between the socio-economic and cultural
contexts and the management of outcome of innovation projects. It suggests that innovation
performance does not solely depend on finding a fit between ethnic culture and organisational culture,
but some national cultures are inherently better suited to deal with the challenging task of NPD. This
report addresses elements of the national and organisational cultural elements that foster an
environment, not only for innovation, but commercialisation of the innovation.

Culture is defined largely on its intended use as a determining criterion. From a functionalist
perspective, culture is something that the organisation “has” whereas from an anthropological
perspective culture is something that the organisation “is”. Functionalists tend to measure the
corporate culture whereas anthropologists measure the national or ethnic culture.

The distinction between organisational and national culture is important. Hofstede et al. (1990)
determined that national and organisational cultures are composed of different elements.
Organisational culture is the shared perceptions of daily practices, therefore is mostly measured on the
shared practices amongst the members of the organisation. National culture is the shared values of
people within a certain national environment. This is mostly measured on the work values and less on
practices of the individual. The link showing where cultural levels are acquired is shown in Figure 1.
The individual’s acquisition of these elements of culture come from different sources. Values come
from the socialisation of the individual in society, family and school, whilst organisational culture
comes from socialisation in the workplace. An occupational culture level has been placed halfway
between national and organisation suggesting both values and practices impact on the performance of
the individual at the project level. It is therefore, valid to assume that some elements of organisational
culture will transcend national boundaries, hence the need to consider the national impacts on
organisational culture as a subcomponent within this study.

Level Place of
Socialisation

Nation Family
Values

Occupation School

Practices
Organisation Workplace

Figure 1: Cultural Differences: National occupational and organisational levels

16
Manifestations of culture have been classified into four categories: symbols, heroes, rituals and values
as shown in Figure 2.

Symbols

Heroes

Rituals

Values Practices

Figure 2: Manifestations of Culture: From Shallow to Deep (Hofstede et al. 1990).

The cultural core values, which are defined as broad tendencies to prefer a certain state of affairs over
others, endure over time. These are the fundamental feelings of the individual, which will determine
the alternative forms of behaviour the individual shows. These are not so observable and ascertain the
long-term ambitions of the respondent and the feelings they have to NPD practices, and gauge the
fundamental feelings the respondent has to their environment. The practices, defined as the state of
how something is undertaken by an individual, consist of symbols, heroes and rituals, and are directly
observable. Symbols, which are gestures, words, pictures or objects that carry a particular meaning
within the culture, are measured by variables such as words, language, and jargon as used and
understood by people within the organisation, along with dress, hairstyles, status symbols etc. and are
indicative of the dynamics of people within a NPD team. Heroes, are people (real or imaginary) that
persons look to as their ideal, and are measured by questions such as “what characteristics would the
ideal NPD team member possess?” Rituals, are collective activities that are socially imperative for the
culture and are measured by questions such as “how often do R&D and Marketing personnel meet
outside of the NPD function?”, identified as an important component for NPD success (Dwyer 1990,
Gupta and Wilemon 1990, Walsh, 1990), and past experience and innate knowledge of NPD
developers within the organisation.

Whilst this study is principally concerned with the national culture impacts, it is important to
understand where other determinants are placed. The link of national culture with organisational
culture is demonstrated in the following model Figure 3 (Garrett et al. 1995) which identifies groups of
cultural factors from the literature and the preliminary study showing the relationship between the sets
of variables.

17
 National/Cultural Environment

Senior Management

Organisational

NPD Project Level

Organisational
NPD Process NPD
NPDProject
Project
New Outcome
Outcome
NewProduct
Product Setting for NPD
Strategy
Strategy
Climate and culture
Climate and culture

Involvement and commitment

Figure 3: National Culture and its relationship to NPD

National culture for the purposes of this study will use Hofstede’s (1980) definition of culture defined
as “the collective programming of mind which distinguishes one national group or
category of people from another.(thus)..the interactive aggregate of common
characteristics that influence a human group’s response to its environment.”
“Culture” is not directly observable, but is inferable from observed behaviours,
demeanours and statements. National culture implies that shared values impact
the behavioural patterns of one group from another. National culture therefore
will impact organisational culture but organisational culture practices will not
impact national culture.

The use of Hofstede as a basis for measuring national culture has been the
subject of much debate since his original publication in 1980. The use of
alternative paradigms, from Kluckholn and Strodtbeck (1961), Hall and Hall
(review - 1990) to many others attempting to measure national culture. The
Hofstede dimensions have been validated by many different studies (see
Sondergaard 1994). Whilst remaining controversial the Hofstede approach
provides a good point for commencement in understanding cultural differences
(Gannon, 1994).

2.2.1 Hofstede’s Dimensions of National Culture

According to Hofstede, cultural differences between nations can be described using bipolar
dimensions. The position of a country on these dimensions allows predictions about how each society
and its management processes operate. The dimensions are (Hofstede 1980, 1991; Hofstede and Bond,
1988; Nakata and Sivakumar, 1996):

1. Power Distance is the degree of inequality amongst people running from relatively equal to
extremely unequal. The degree of Power Distance within the society will impact the structure
that is in place for the organisation. For example in more Power Distance societies a very
hierarchical system would be more acceptable than in low Power Distance societies while its
inverse is the expectation of relative equality in organisations and institutions.

2. Individualism - Collectivism is the degree to which people act as individuals or as group

members. Individualism is the condition in which personal interests (and their immediate
family) are accorded greater importance than are the needs of groups (Wagner and Moch
1986). Rewards for achievement of goals differ in accordance to the degree of Individualism

18
 and Collectivism of the nation. Individualistic societies for example would reward more the
individual rather than the group (Bond, Leung and Wan 1982). A collectivist unit integrates
people into cohesive groups.

3. Masculinity - Femininity, is the degree to which Masculine values like assertiveness,

performance, success and competition prevail over Feminine values like the quality of life,
service, modesty and solidarity.

4. Uncertainty Avoidance, is the degree to which people in a country prefer structured over
unstructured situations and taps the feeling of discomfort in unstructured or unusual
circumstances while the inverse shows tolerance of new or ambiguous circumstances. It
relates to risk taking and entrepreneurship. Should the individual be more adverse to
ambiguous situations rather than structured and known the nature of the people to accepting
new ideas will be impacted. Societies that are found to have high Uncertainty Avoidance will
require greater degrees of forward planning and control in order to gain greater degree of
certainty.

5. Longterm - Short Term Orientation (The Confucian Dynamic) (Hofstede and Bond 1988)
considers Longterm values orientated toward the future, like thrift, savings and persistence
while Short Term values are oriented toward the past and present like respect for tradition and
fulfilling social obligations. A longer term perspective will orient members to fulfilling longer
term goals. NPD team members who take this view will more likely seek longterm innovation
success thus identify a projects contribution to the core competence of the firm (Prahalad and
Hamel, 1990) therefore the longer term sustainable competitive advantage of the firm.

2.3 Link Between National Culture and NPD Decision Processes and Dynamics
The focus of this research is the examination of the link between national culture and NPD decision
processes and dynamics in a sample of Singapore and New Zealand organisations. Culture can be used
as an aid to the definition and exploration of ways for organising processes such as NPD. Although
organisational culture is composed of different elements to national culture, it is fair to assume that
organisational conduct will be impacted by the common values displayed by the individuals in that
national environment, particularly in terms of “individual behaviour, the tenor of interpersonal
relationships, expectations about the legitimate use and manifestation of authority, and in general the
relationship of the individual, his rights and obligations to the collectivity” (Child 1981).

Each of the Hofstede dimensions influence on NPD will be discussed based on previous literature as
follows:

2.3.1 Individualism

Individualism refers to the “relationship between the individual and the collectivity which prevails in a
given society” (Hofstede 1980, p. 213).

Research on product champions suggests that high degrees of Individualism may be associated with
successful NPD. Product champions are people who champion products, nurturing them beyond the
requirements of their jobs (Schon 1963). Research shows that product champions are often associated
with successful new products (Chakrabarti, 1974, Chakrabarti and Rubenstein 1976, Rubenstein et al.
1976; Tornatzky et al. 1980). Perhaps their non-conformity, self confidence, and perseverance fuels
the innovation process by generating possibilities and overcoming obstacles.

Similarly, current understanding about technical and business innovators raises the possibility of higher
levels of Individualism being tied to successful NPD. Technical innovators rely on their scientific
ingenuity and personal vision to originate and execute new concepts (Johne and Snelson 1988). They
typically operate with autonomy, yet exert considerable influence on others in organisational
innovation endeavours. Their presence is understood as a key discriminator between successful and
failed innovations. Business innovators are similar to their technical counterparts in zeal and
Individualistic vision but they do not necessarily generate the idea or apply knowledge needed to make
the new product, instead their influences stems from senior management positions that enable them to

19
identify opportunities and direct resources toward exploiting them (Johne and Snelson 1988). It is
argued that more successful NPD may also occur in tandem with higher degrees of Individualism.
Thus it appears that the higher the culture’s Individualism, the better the new product’s outcomes;
however the antipode of Individualism, or Collectivism, seems to be a positive force as well. Japanese
NPD approaches serve to illustrate this point. Collectivism characterises many of the approaches to
NPD (e.g. QFD and Quality Circle programmes). A common element in many of these approaches are
teams - a manifestation of Collectivism. Empirical research has shown that Japanese managers are
generally collectivist in their methods and perspectives, whereas their North American counterparts are
Individualistic (Howard, Shudo, and Umeshima 1983).

More broadly supporting the notion of group orientation facilitating NPD are findings on team and
matrix structures and the interface between the Marketing and R&D functions. Supporting the notion
of group orientation, facilitating NPD are that matrices and project team structures perform
significantly better than functional organisations (Larson and Gobeli 1988). When communications,
co-operation and harmony between Marketing and R&D functions signalling a willingness to work in
concert and a common vision or purpose, the likelihood of NPD success is greater (Gupta, Raj, and
Wilemon 1985, Gupta and Wilemon 1988, Johne 1984; Souder 1988).

Thus collectivist approaches seem to work better than segregated autonomous ones.

The paradox of Individualism and Collectivism on promotion of NPD can be rationalised through
considering the stages of NPD initiation and implementation. Initiation places an emphasis on
maximisation of ideas and methods must not be too restrictive so that a climate of trust, participation,
acceptance and espirit de corps is engendered. Also people who believe in the merit of an idea must
champion it. Individualism may be an asset at this stage. Having established a concept, radical
changes cannot be accommodated as they mean greater costs and timing delays hence NPD participants
must work co-operatively and closely with one another.

Some of the key differences between individualistic and collectivist societies have been highlighted by
Hofstede (1991 p 67) summarised in table 3 as:

Table 3: Individualism and Collectivism Characteristics

Collectivist
People are born into extended families
or other in-groups which continue to
protect them in exchange for loyalty
Identity is based in the social network
to which one belongs
Children learn to think in terms of ‘WE’
Harmony should always be maintained
and direct confrontations avoided
High context communication
Trespassing leads to shame and loss of
face for self and group
Purpose of education is learning how to
do
Diplomas provide entry to higher status
groups
Relationship employer – employee is
perceived in moral terms, like a family
member
Hiring and promotion decisions take
employees’ in-group into account
Management is management of groups
Relationship prevails over task
Individualist
Everyone grows up to look after
themselves and their immediate
(nuclear) family only
Identity is based upon the individual
Children learn to think in terms of ‘I’
Speaking one’s mind is a characteristic
of an honest person
Low-context communication
Trespassing leads to guilt and loss of
respect
Purpose of education is learning how to
learn
Diplomas increase economic worth
and/or self respect
Relationship employer – employee is a
contract supposed to be based on
mutual advantage
Hiring and promotion decisions are
supposed to be based on skills and
rules only
Management is management of
individuals
Task prevails over relationship
Hofstede 1991, p. 67

20
The impact of individualism and collectivism on NPD can be concluded from the literature as:

Individualistic cultures will:

i. empower a project leader to champion an idea throughout the development process;

ii. empower technical innovators at all levels of the organisation;
iii. more explicit messages reflecting low context communication will be prevalent amongst the
members
iv. seek variety and the challenge of innovation over conformity and orderliness
v. manage in terms of individual skills and potential mutual economic advantage than in-group
cohesiveness and synergy – all aspects from hiring to management employee relationships
vi. have a task rather than a relationship orientation.

2.3.2 Power Distance

The literature lends possible insights into describing the effects of decentralisation versus centralisation
on NPD activities.

Decentralisation is possibly associated with low Power Distance because it signals trust and belief in
the inherent capabilities of others. By encouraging active participation by many, decentralisation helps
to equalise people by giving everyone a voice in the NPD process, as well as responsibility for
outcomes. In contrast, centralisation can be associated with high Power Distance because it retains
power, authority and input among a chosen few.

Decentralisation (low Power Distance) facilitates NPD with organistic firms, characterised by low
dependence on hierarchy, providing higher yields of NPD output compared to mechanistic (centralised
and formal organisations) (Azumi and Hull 1990). Centralised structures are efficient for managing
current business activities, but are not as conducive as decentralised structures for promoting the
changed dynamics for NPD imperatives (Johne and Snelson 1988). Practitioner experience with NPD
teams such as QFD groups suggest that a flat, decentralised structure enables direct access to people for
speedier decisions and lessening internal competition (Griffin 1992, Murphy 1992). The roots of
decentralisation may lie in the self organisation of responsible groups (Takeuchi and Nonaka 1986) an
atmosphere of free exchange, with minimal financial or social risk, and a more direct attack on
problems as they arise (Olson et al. 1995).

Centralised authority, indicated by high Power Distance, supports NPD through the critical role played
by senior management in successful NPD (Madique and Zirger 1984). Centralised authority
contributes to NPD by institutionalising innovation and means of communication and co-ordination;
overcoming the resistance to new concepts to realisation; creating an ethos of risk taking in the
organisation; and enabling rapid decision making (Calantone et al., 1995). Prospectors or firms with an
aggressive innovation strategy will use more formalisation and centralisation than Defenders, reflecting
the need of Prospectors firms for multiple mechanisms to deal with such issues as conflict resolution,
increased communication needs, and nonroutinised tasks (Song and Dyer, 1995).

Again both ends of the Power Distance dimension support NPD. Low Power Distance is based on a
more egalitarian view of people, thus it may encourage idea generation by acknowledging anyone’s
value of their contribution. It may also result in a lower concern for formal procedures and
communication leading to faster and flexible decision making. Thus low Power Distance may
facilitate the initiation stage of NPD. However at the implementation stage high Power Distance is
perhaps a more positive force. Hence the level of Power Distance will affect the efficiency of
undertaking a particular stage of NPD.

The key difference between small and large power distance societies are shown in table 4 (Hofstede,
1991):

Table 4: Power Distance Characteristics

Small power distance Large power distance
Inequalities among people should be Inequalities amongst people are both
minimised expected and desired

21
There should be, and there is to some
extent, interdependence between less
and more powerful people
Parents treat their children as equals
Children treat their parents as equals
Less powerful people should be
dependent on the more powerful; in
practice, less powerful people are
polarised between dependence and
counter-dependence
Parents teach their children obedience
Children treat parents with respect
22
Table 4: (cont) Power Distance
Characteristics
Small power distance
Teachers expect initiatives from
students in class
Teachers are experts who transfer
impersonal truths
Students treat teachers as equals
More educated persons hold less
authoritarian values than less educated
persons
Hierarchy in organisations means an
inequality in roles, established for
convenience
Decentralisation is popular
Narrow salary range between the top
and the bottom of the organisation
Subordinates expect to be consulted
The ideal boss is a resourceful
democrat
Privileges and status symbols are
frowned upon
Large power distance
Teachers are expected to take all the
initiatives in class
Teachers are gurus who transfer
personal wisdom
Students treat their teachers with
respect
Both more and less educated persons
show almost equal authoritarian values
Hierarchy in organisations reflects the
existential inequality between higher-
ups and lower-downs
Centralisation is popular
Wide salary range between top and
bottom of organisation
Subordinates expect to be told what to
do
The ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat
or good father
Privileges and status symbols for
managers are both expected and
popular
Hofstede, 1991 p. 37

The impact of power distance on NPD can be concluded from the literature as:

In small power distance societies:

i. decentralisation of task responsibility will ensue, with more empowerment to lower level
personnel;
ii. management expect initiatives from their NPD staff; and NPD staff are willing to take them;
iii. minimisation of organisational hierarchy will be sought;
iv. management is expected to be consultative rather than directional;
v. management seeks democratic decision making rather than being autocratic;
vi. management staff relationships tend to be equal rather than purely based on respect;
vii. management will have no extra privileges, rewards and status symbols for their position.

2.3.3 Masculinity

The literature suggests that NPD is promoted by greater levels of Masculinity, and, in particular by two
dimensions representing it, namely, purposefulness and formalisation. It is generally understood that
purposefulness is critical to the development of successful new products.

Clear project objectives (high Masculinity) correlate highly with superior team performance (Thambain
1990) along with goal setting and clarification (Barczak and Wilemon 1991). Establishment and use of
goals and more broadly purposefulness, facilitates NPD through ensuring that the myriad of project
activities contribute to a common end or through extending the capabilities of team personnel.

Formalisation of the participant’s tasks and roles appears important to successful NPD e.g. in Japanese
NPD, formalised roles are critical to reduce the effects of group conflict, confusion and overlapping
authority (Parry and Song 1993), as well as facilitating information transfer positively affecting NPD
success (Calantone et al., 1995, Song and Dyer, 1995).

There is evidence that low Masculinity, as expressed by managerial attention to people and their
interrelations (i.e. “soft” issues) is conducive to NPD. People and people related aspects such as trust,

23
good communications, team spirit, and low conflict, are associated with superior performance
(Thwaites 1992). Amongst leaders of NPD teams a combination of human relations and technical
skills more positively affects outcomes than do technical skills alone (Barczak and Wilemon 1991). A
supportive climate may also foster NPD. Burns and Stalker (1961) profile “organic” internal
environments as helping NPD participants to cope with the uncertainty of work. Such environments
are characterised by high degrees of socioemotional support among their work members so that risk
taking occurs.

Masculinity has a dualism with high and low levels supporting NPD endeavours. Low Masculinity,
with its focus on people, and establishing a warm, nurturing environment, may be optimal for initiation.
Creating a climate of give and take, divergent perspectives, trust and supportiveness, low Masculinity
supports the idea generation, critiquing and relational building tasks occurring during initiation. High
levels of Masculinity, as expressed by goal orientation and formalisation, positively contribute to
implementation when the priority is placed on bringing together the finer details of designing,
assembling, and introducing the new products within more fixed constraints.

The key difference between small and large power distance societies are shown in table 5 (Hofstede,
1991):

Table 5: Femininity and Masculinity Characteristics

Feminine
Dominant values in society are caring
for others and preservation
People and warm relationships are
important
Everybody is supposed to be modest
Both men and women are allowed to be
tender and to be concerned with
relationships
In the family, both fathers and mothers
deal with facts and feelings
Both boys and girls are allowed to cry
but neither should fight
Sympathy for the weak
Average student is the norm
Failing at school is a minor accident
Friendliness in teachers appreciated
Boys and girls study same subjects
Work in order to live
Managers use intuition and strive for
consensus
Stress on equality, solidarity, and
quality of work life
Resolution of conflicts by compromise
and negotiation
Masculine
Dominant values in society are material
success and progress
Money and things are important
Men are supposed to be assertive,
ambitious and tough
Women are supposed to be tender and
to take care of relationships
In the family, fathers deal with facts
and mothers with feelings
Girls cry, boys don’t; boys should fight
back when attacked, girls shouldn’t
fight
Sympathy for the strong
Best student is the norm
Failing in school is a disaster
Brilliance in teachers appreciated
Boys and girls study different subjects
Live in order to work
Managers expected to be decisive and
assertive
Stress on equity, competition among
colleagues, and performance
Resolution of conflicts by fighting them
out
Hofstede, 1991 p. 96

The impact of masculinity and femininity on NPD can be concluded from the literature as:

In feminine societies:

i. there is less formalisation in NPD activities, processes and dynamics, including

purposefulness;
ii. there is more emphasis on relationship building within the NPD environment than purely on
objective or financial measures;
iii. treatment of failure or non-meeting of objectives will be treated as human nature rather than a
personal disaster;

24
iv. a consensus managerial approach is expected;
v. conflicts amongst groups will be resolved through compromise and negotiation.

2.3.4 Uncertainty Avoidance

The literature suggests that the relationship may be understood in terms of two dimensions of
Uncertainty Avoidance - planning and risk aversion.

High Uncertainty Avoidance, as expressed by the penchant for planning, appears initially to facilitate
NPD. Much of the NPD management and marketing literature points to the benefits of having a
“roadmap” prior to embarking on the product development journey, and also an environmental
monitoring system to facilitate NPD success (Calantone et al., 1995).

An association between successful outcomes and a clear delineation of steps in the development
process, along with the discipline for follow through encourages successful NPD outcome (Booz,
Allen, and Hamilton, 1982).

Utilising stringent, highly detailed plans (high Uncertainty Avoidance) to govern NPD can be more
detrimental than helpful in the initiation stage, dampening ideas and fluidity to maximise
responsiveness to new ideas. Empirical evidence suggests a degree of looseness during the early stage
is beneficial (Johne 1984), leading to fuller use of creative problem solving and feedback. In contrast,
at the implementation stage, high Uncertainty Avoidance can be helpful for implementation. High
Uncertainty Avoidance’s emphasis on controls helps ensure that the many intertwined details of
bringing a product to market are addressed. Formal control mechanisms during the implementation
stage have been found to ensure efficient development (Johne 1984) along with speedier introduction
to market.

Risk taking affects NPD. High Uncertainty Avoidance is probably associated with risk aversion
whereas low Uncertainty Avoidance may manifest itself with risk taking. Much of the literature points
to the benefits of embracing rather than avoiding risk (e.g. O’Reilly 1989, Chakrabarti and Rubenstein
1976). Risk taking, however, may also be a positive or negative force depending on the stage of NPD.
At the initiation stage, risk taking (low Uncertainty Avoidance) is required for generating ideas, and
supporting a few to proceed. Risk aversion would rule out all but guaranteed winners, which may
never clearly present themselves. Risk aversion, however, may facilitate implementation by
encouraging close scrutiny of decisions and execution of those that minimally affect schedules and
budgets. If a strong risk-taking orientation predominates, expensive mistakes such as introduction of a
product before major design flaws have been fixed, may be made, thus jeopardising the firm and the
product.

The main differences between weak and strong Uncertainty Avoidance societies are outlined in table 6
(Hofstede 1991):

Table 6: Uncertainty Avoidance Characteristics

Weak Uncertainty Avoidance
Uncertainty is a normal feature of life
and each day is accepted as it comes
Low stress; subjective feeling of well
being
Aggression and emotions should not be
shown
Comfortable in ambiguous situations
and with unfamiliar tasks
Lenient rules for children on what is
dirty and taboo
What is different, is curious
Students comfortable with open-ended
Strong Uncertainty Avoidance
The uncertainty inherent in life is felt as
a continuous threat which must be
fought
High stress; subjective feeling of
anxiety
Aggression and emotions may be at
proper times and places be ventilated
Acceptance of familiar risks; fear of
ambiguous situations and of unfamiliar
risks
Tight rules on children on what is dirty
and taboo
What is different, is dangerous
Students comfortable in structured

25
learning situations and concerned with
good discussions
Teachers may say “I don’t know”
There should not be more rules than is
strictly necessary
Time is a framework for orientation
Comfortable feeling when lazy, hard-
working only when needed
Precision and punctuality have to be
learned
Tolerance of deviant and innovative
ideas and behaviour
Motivation by achievement and esteem
or belongingness
learning situations and concerned with
the right answers
Teachers supposed to have all the
answers
Emotional need for rules, even if these
never work
Time is money
Emotional need to be busy; inner urge
to work hard
Precision and punctuality come
naturally
Suppression of deviant ideas and
behaviour; resistance to innovation
Motivation by security and esteem or
belongingness
Hofstede, 1991, p. 125
26
The impact of uncertainty avoidance on NPD can be concluded from the literature as:

In weak uncertainty avoidance societies:

i. there is less propensity to plan and monitor the environment as members are comfortable in
ambiguous situations;
ii. managers are not expected to know all of the answers;
iii. planning and rules are minimised in order not to stifle creativity;
iv. innovators are tolerated and encouraged, as “different is good”.
v. NPD motivation is based on achievement rather than security.

2.3.5 Confucian Dynamic (Longterm Orientation)

Two dimensions of the Confucian dynamic that are particularly relevant to NPD are work ethic and
face saving. The first represents the positive pole whereas the second is anchored firmly on the
negative pole. The Japanese have experienced significant success in developing new products for
certain sectors and introducing them into world markets. One cultural trait that helps explain this
success is a strong work ethic. Strong work ethic helps to explain this trait through promoting
perseverance and taking much time to complete a product. The negative pole represents several values
including saving and giving face. When a person feels disgraced as a result of criticisms, insults, rude
behaviour and questions of ability from others, face is threatened. Saving face involves preserving a
person’s dignity and social status, whereas giving face means allowing others to retain theirs. From the
management literature it seems that “facework” or being preoccupied with the effects of certain actions
of events on a person’s own or another’s reputation may work against successful NPD.

Short-term orientation Long-term orientation

Respect for traditions
Respect for social and status
obligations regardless of cost
Social pressure to ‘keep up with the
Joneses’ even if it means overspending
Small savings quote, little money for
investment
Quick results expected
Concern with ‘face’
Concern with possessing the Truth
Adaptation of traditions to a modern
context
Respect for social and status
obligations within limits
Thrift, being sparing with resources
Large savings quote, funds available for
investment
Perseverance towards slow results
Willingness to subordinate oneself for a
purpose
Concern with respecting the demands
of Virtue
Hofstede, 1991, p. 173

The relationship between the Confucian dynamic and NPD appears to be segmented by the positive and
negative poles of the dimensions. The positive pole, represented by the strong work ethic and
emphasis on proactiveness and the future, facilitates NPD. Its antipode, as represented by face saving
and giving, works against NPD through a focus of preserving structures, relationships, and positions of
the past and present (Calantone et al., 1995). Unlike the other four cultural factors, the role of
Confucian dynamic on NPD does not depend on the stage of the process.

The impact of Confucian Dynamic (long- and short-term orientation) on NPD can be concluded from
the literature as:

A Short-term orientated society will:

i. respect previous managerial and organisational practices with little adaptation to the changing
environment;
ii. the status and social position of the managers should not be questioned with respect for these
overriding;

27
iii. a me-too approach, or competitor orientation will override NPD strategy rather than having a
true marketing orientation – an emphasis on technical wizardry could ensue;
iv. NPD members and management are constantly aware of the demands for short-term results,
e.g. short-term sales; rather than a longer term investment approach;
v. A fine balance needs to be maintained that each of the NPD personnel’s face and personal
feelings are taken into account when managing;

2.3.6 The Link between National Culture and NPD Conclusion

The above discussion has identified that each of the Hofstede Dimensions have some proposed impacts
on the NPD decision dynamics and processes. In order to better understand the process of this study
the following model (figure 4) has been developed.

Organisational Culture

Roles
Culture Senior
Leadership
Condition Managem Top
ing ent Managemen
t Support
Individualis Project Motivation
m Leader Group Decision
Reward Dynami Outcom
Uncertainty
Avoidance cs e
Technical Interaction
Power Personnel Communica
Distance tion
Information
Masculinity Conflict
Marketing
Long-term Personnel Accountabi
lity
Embedded Unit Unit of Analysis

Figure 4: Guiding Model

Integrating both the NPD and national culture literature, the proposed relationships are:

1. The different players in NPD will be shaped by their national cultural conditioning, in terms
of the five dimensions of Hofstede.
2. The embedded unit therefore will consist of each of the functions of interest in studying in this
report and the major decision and process dynamic determinants as identified by the literature.
3. The unit of analysis is the group dynamic situations as indicated by the circle in the above
figure 4.
4. Identified in the model as important factors, although beyond the scope of this report are the
organisational cultural determinants and decision outcomes. There are two reasons for this.
First, organisational cultural determinants are a function of management practices, as
discussed in the earlier part of this section, and therefore to fully understand these
determinants different measures would be utilised. A different methodology, therefore, would
need to be employed to fully uncover the level of organisational level culture, and would
likely consist of a single in-depth organisational case-study methodology. Second, in order to
fully ascertain a relationship between successful and unsuccessful NPD dynamics and
processes, a study consisting of a longer timeframe, and a full identification of NPD projects
with differing levels of performance would need to have been identified within each firm.
This, again, was beyond the scope and resources of this project. In order to control this,
however, best practice firms were identified from trade publications and industry reputation
for being innovative and successful in their NPD activities. Respondents were also asked to
identify situations in which decision dynamics and processes were not successful.

28
Although the organisational cultural and NPD output factors were not measured, and therefore could be
considered a weakness, the principal focus of this study is to determine the impact of national cultural
variables on NPD process and decision dynamics. Understanding that national culture explains
between 30-50% of the variation in an individual’s behaviour (Gannon, 1996), leads us to the
conclusion that there will be other factors that will have an impact.

2.4 New Zealand and Singapore According to the Hofstede Dimensions

Hofstede (1980, 1991) assigned index scores for New Zealand and Singapore to the original
dimensions identified from data collected in the late 1960’s, early 1970’s and the 1980’s (long-term
orientation) as shown in Table 7.

Table 7: Singapore and New Zealand 1980, 1991 Hofstede Scores

Hofstede Dimension Singapore New Score Key
(1980,1991) Zealand

Power Distance 74 22 100 = High Power Distance

Individualism/Collectivism 20 79 100 = High Individualism
Uncertainty Avoidance 8 49 100 = High Uncertainty
Avoidance
Masculinity/Femininity 48 58 100 = High Level of
Masculinity
Longterm Orientation 48 30 100 = High Level Long-term
Orientation

The above Hofstede scores represent the original Hofstede data. Although it is argued that the values of
people should not change over time, it is clear in both Singapore and New Zealand that there have been
a number of social and economic changes that could have influenced the relative positions of each of
the two communities during that time. Anecdotal evidence suggests that New Zealand and Singapore
had quite different social environments during the 70’s than now. Certainly both New Zealand and
Singapore have had radical economic changes during the 30 year period, and have been subjected to
greater influence from other western and Asian nations both economically and socially.

The second rationale for suggesting changes in the Hofstede scores is that the original Hofstede
instruments were administered to more than just NPD personnel, covering all operational and
managerial areas of the organisation. This research project’s sample is predominantly trained and
employed in technical areas and all are intimately involved in NPD. It could be suggested then, that
these personnel could have quite different values and orientations than other employment groups.

It is proposed therefore that there will be differences in the relative positions of New Zealand and
Singapore on the Hofstede index scores, and that there will be some form of convergence in the results.
With this in mind, the original Asia 2000 Foundation study undertaken in 1996 (Buisson et al. 1996)
measured the Hofstede dimensions in order to see if the above was correct using a NPD sample.

Table 8 shows new indexes for Singapore and New Zealand calculated using the Hofstede formula
(Hofstede 1980, 1994).

Table 8: Recalculated Hofstede Dimensions for Singapore and New Zealand

Dimension Singapore New Zealand

Power Distance 28 18
Individualism 15.3 -12.4

29
Uncertainty Avoidance 74 53
Masculinity 129 171
Longterm Orientation 41 35

Table 8: (cont.)Recalculated Hofstede Dimensions for Singapore and New Zealand

The formulas used to calculate these dimensions can be found in (Buisson et al., 1996):

Power Distance: 135 - 25(mean score employee’s perception of being afraid to express
disagreement with their manager)
+ (% of respondents who perceived their manager to be 1 or 2 (autocratic)).
- (% of respondents who preferred their manager to be consultative in their decision making
style).

Uncertainty Avoidance 300- (mean score that “Employees should not break company rules
even if they think that it is in the companies best interest)
- (% of respondents who are considering staying with their organisation less than five years)
- 40(mean of “How often do you feel nervous or tense at work”)

Masculinity 60(mean of “Working with people who co-operate well with each other
- 20(mean of “Work that gives me an opportunity to attain higher earnings”) + 20(mean of
“Most people can be trusted”) - 70( mean of “When people have failed
in life it is often their own fault) +130

Individualism -50(mean of “Sufficient time left for my personal and family life”) +
30(mean of “Having good physical working conditions”) + 20(mean of
“Having security of employment”)
- 25(mean of “Having an element of variety and adventure in my job”) +100

Longterm Orientation + 45 (mean of “Steadiness and stability in my life”) - 30(mean of

“Thrift”) -35(mean of “Persistence”) + 15(mean of “Respect for
tradition”) + 67

It should be noted that the index scores represented are country relative only. There are some negative
values, which are not significant in themselves, as they represent the theoretical range of the index
(Hofstede 1980, 1994).

2.4.1 Implications and Research Propositions.

There are some notable changes in the new calculated Hofstede values shown in Table 8. Power
Distance remains relatively the same but there is a reversal in Uncertainty Avoidance with Singapore
now having a markedly higher Uncertainty Avoidance than New Zealand as compared to the original
scores. Masculinity remains substantially the same as does Longterm Orientation.

New Zealand is now relatively more Collectivistic than Singapore (a reversal of the original data), and
Singapore has a relatively higher Uncertainty Avoidance than New Zealand. It should be pointed out
that the sample used for these recalculations is relatively small (n = 120) and has a high proportion of
technical people. Evidence from the original interviews suggest that these changes can be attributed in
New Zealand to factors such as a flatter management structure which build collectivities, more team
working environments, and due to greater insecurity in the workplace. In Singapore published and
interview evidence suggests that the quote from the New Yorker in 1992 “Government tells
Singaporeans what books and magazines they can read, what movies they can see, and what television
programs they can watch, and the result is a cultural desert in a nation so wealthy that it could so easily

30
be a showcase for the arts. Residents of Singapore pursue but one activity with passion - a passion so
great that it sometimes seems to constitute recreation as well as vocation. This is the making of
money.” A paternalistic government could promote a more risk averse, hence higher Uncertainty
Avoidance culture (Buisson et al. 1996).

Using the recalculated Hofstede Dimensions the following propositions have been developed for
testing in this research.

Singapore’s high individualism score leads to the development of the following propositions:

In the Singapore sample it is proposed that:

i. there will be greater empowerment of project leader’s to champion ideas through the NPD
process;
ii. technical innovators will be empowered at all levels of the organisation;
iii. communication and information shared amongst NPD members will be explicit;
iv. NPD members will be motivated by the variety and the challenge of NPD over conformity and
orderliness;
v. management will be undertaken reflecting individual skills and potential mutual economic
advantage than in-group cohesiveness and synergy – in all aspects from hiring to management
employee relationships;
vi. they will have a task rather than a relationship orientation.

Singapore’s high Power Distance Score leads to the following propositions:

It is proposed that the Singapore sample will:

vii. have greater centralisation of key NPD decisions;

viii. demonstrate initiatives from upper management rather than being empowered to lower level
staff;
ix. have an expected and accepted organisational NPD hierarchy;
x. have management who are directional rather than consultative;
xi. have management who demonstrate a paternalistic autocratic decision making style;
xii. have management staff relationships that are based on respect, rather than being equal;
xiii. will have rewards, status symbols, and prestige based on organisational hierarchy.

Singapore exhibits a strong uncertainty avoidance therefore it is proposed that Singapore will have:

xiv. a greater propensity to plan and monitor the environment as members are uncomfortable in
ambiguous situations;
xv. will have plans and rules in all aspects of NPD;
xvi. managers who are expected to know the answers for subordinate’s questions;
xvii. individuals who conform without being too different;
xviii. a NPD motivation based first on financial and job security followed by achievement.

There is no significant difference between New Zealand and Singapore in relation to the
Masculinity/Femininity dimension, therefore it is proposed that there will be no differences between
the samples in terms of:

xix. the purposefulness of NPD within the organisation;

xx. the emphasis on relationship building within the NPD environment or objective or financial
measures;
xxi. the treatment of failure or non-meeting of objectives;
xxii. the managerial approach expected;
xxiii. conflicts amongst groups being resolved through compromise and negotiation.

Both Singapore and New Zealand have similar levels of long and short-term orientation. They will
therefore be proposed to be similar in terms of levels of:

xxiv. adaptation of NPD managerial and organisational practices to the changing environment;

31
xxv. questioning of status and social position of the managers;
xxvi. NPD member and management NPD result time orientations;
xxvii. management of NPD personnel’s face and personal feelings.

Each of the above propositions reflects the dimensions of NPD. Some of the propositions also
counteract and conflict with each other, therefore understanding the degree to which each of the
dimensions has on NPD behaviour is important. The 1996 Asia 2000 report, which was the precursor
to this study (Buisson et al. 1996), identified that the main national cultural effects on the NPD
behaviour between the two samples was based on the dimensions of individualism, power distance and
uncertainty avoidance. There was little apparent effect of the two remaining dimensions.

It is therefore proposed that the dimensions explaining the differences between the two country’s NPD
decision dynamics and processes will be Individualism and Collectivism, Power Distance and
Uncertainty Avoidance.

32
3.0 Methodology
3.1 Research Approach
An inductive interpretative research approach was utilised in this study which represents a ‘realist’
phenomenological paradigm (Guba and Lincoln, 1994). This approach was chosen as deductive, as
positivist approaches may cause difficulties for the respondent to reflect and analyse existing and
potential situations in the NPD context (Guba and Lincoln, 1994; Perry and Coote, 1994). The
inductive approach allows the researcher to participate in the understanding of real world processes and
enable the expression of emergent properties and features (Denzin, 1983). This research approach
therefore is not designed to understand causal explanations, as would be the case in many positivist
deductive research approaches, but to understand the nature of the research problem through reflecting
and interpreting meanings and structures from respondent experiences.

There is a widespread debate regarding the use of quantitative and qualitative data, with special regard
to their strengths and weaknesses. It is beyond the scope of this report to go into these, suffice to say
that strengths of undertaking a qualitative inductive and interpretative approach include:

i. Cases or events can be examined in detail to understand the research context holistically
(Patton, 1996).
ii. Qualitative research may be able to get closer to the phenomena and may lead to a more
informed basis for theory development (Patton, 1990; Yin, 1989).
iii. Research into contemporary phenomena or where existing theory is weak in explaining
underlying events associated with a particular phenomena (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 1989;
Bonoma, 1985).

With the above in mind a case study approach was undertaken. As there is limited previous theory, and
the phenomena are not fully known, and therefore existing theory is not being tested, a case study
approach is deemed appropriate (Tsoukas, 1989; Bonoma, 1985; Lincoln and Guba, 1985).
Furthermore this approach provides a mechanism in which to understand specific phenomena and
enables interpretation of respondents beliefs in their own terms, as the researcher is getting both
physically and psychologically close to the phenomena under examination.

This research leads well into the use of the case study method. The reasons:

i. there is little research into NPD in New Zealand and Singapore;

ii. the theory into the possible interactions between national culture and NPD decision dynamics
and processes has not been fully developed to explore quantitatively;
iii. the NPD decisions and processes calls for understanding only within its own organisational
and contextual framework;
iv. present academic knowledge provides little scope for identifying and developing testable
hypotheses.

The use of a multiple holistic case design was deemed appropriate for the research questions that are
under examination in this study. Yin (1989) highlighted the use of multiple case design as being more
compelling and robust than the use of the traditional single case study approach.

An holistic design was used in this study. A holistic design is argued to be appropriate when the
relevant theory underlying the case is holistic in nature (Yin 1989). As this study was not interested in
examining the nature of the organisational culture, an holistic type design was deemed as being more
appropriate than the use of an embedded design. There is the danger, however of using this type of
design in that the ability examining the any specific operational detail, examining the case only at the
abstract level. Taking this into account, an embedded approach was also undertaken, with respondents
asked to relate to specific group activities.

3.2 Research Design

This research was designed to measure national and workplace cultural variables (values and practices)
of NPD personnel in Singapore and NZ and to ascertain NPD integration mechanisms. A qualitative

33
research approach was taken. This large qualitative component was designed to add additional
information about the NPD practices within the organisation, but more importantly for this study to
identify mechanisms within the organisation used to integrate R&D and marketing.

In-depth interviews were then undertaken with the NPD personnel of the sample organisations in
Singapore and NZ. These interviews were required for the collection of the decision and process
dynamics used in organisations, NPD personnel assessments of these were used, to create a qualitative
description of the culture and NPD integration in each of the sample companies. Up to four members
from each organisation were interviewed using structured interview protocols and established case
study techniques (Hofstede et al. 1988; Perry and Coote 1994; Yin 1993). Interviews were taped,
transcribed and then given to the respective country partners to code. This ensured that no national
cultural bias in terms of the coding was observed. A high level of reliability amongst the coders was
observed. To validate the interview data, additional documentation and information were collected,
ensuring the level of triangulation required in case study research was maintained (Yin, 1993). Nu*Dist
was used to assist the analysis of the qualitative data, by observing common patterns and descriptions
in each of the organisations and national cultures.

Sample
Singapore and NZ were selected for use in this study. Singapore makes an interesting country
comparison as it has had dramatic economic success, it is similar in size to NZ, has attracted high
levels of foreign investment, and a movement from low value assembly operations to value added
operations with large R&D input. Significantly also a number of organisations from NZ (and others)
have set up NPD centres in Singapore in order to tap into the dynamic South East Asian Economies.

The two country samples additionally varied in terms of their scores on the original Hofstede
dimensions. These are shown in Table 9.

Table 9: Differences in Hofstede Scores between New Zealand and Singapore

Dimension New Zealand* Singapore
Power Distance 22** 74
Individualism/Collectivism 79 20
Masculinity/Femininity 58 48
Uncertainty Avoidance 49 8
Long-Term Orientation 30*** 48
*Scores from 0-100 100 = Highest to **Hofstede Scores 1980
the relative pole *** Hofstede 1991
Table 1: Hofstede 1980 Scores for NZ Singapore.

3.3.1 Selection of the Cases and Sample

The emphasis of this study is the examination of the influence of national culture on the decision and
process dynamics of NPD group level behaviour.

A total of eleven companies were selected for study, five in New Zealand and six in Singapore. The
companies were matched as closely as possible in terms of company size and the (industry) markets
within which they operate. There was one additional company in which the pre-test of the interview
protocol and other aspects of the NPD data collection instruments and the usefulness of the results was
ascertained.

3.4 Case Study Procedure

Yin (1989) identifies 5 levels from which data in case studies can be collected. These include:
archival records, direct observation, documents, targeted mail survey, and in-depth interviews. The
two major sources of data for this study were obtained through observation, documents, and in-depth
interviews. Although the other sources of data would have added to the overall richness and supported

34
the data collected, the “law of diminishing value” was applied, in that the benefit of obtaining the
additional data was not worth the cost (Yin 1989).

The procedure undertaken was as follows (documents used are attached in appendix 2):

1. Covering letters sent to the head of NPD in each of the identified potential firms.
2. Telephone follow up to the identified contact within each of the firms, to secure participation.
3. Visits to each the organisations who agreed to participate were made, specifically to outline the
benefits of the study, assess the potential organisations suitability for inclusion within the study,
and to determine the dates for undertaking the in-depth interviews with the NPD personnel. At
this stage relevant documentation was gathered and observation of the organisational practices
noted and written up.
4. In-depth interviews undertaken in-house with the relevant NPD personnel (at all levels) within the
organisation.

Interviews were the primary data collection mechanism. A semi-structured interview protocol was
developed and used that encompassed the core research issues that were under investigation (see
appendix 3). This research protocol covered general research themes, rather than specific questions.
The Singaporean partner to the research gathered the information together with the key researcher in
New Zealand, likewise in Singapore with the New Zealand interviewer, in order that consistency in
approach was undertaken in both of the countries.

Face-to-face interviews were undertaken, in order that rapport was developed with the informant. The
informant had an outline of the research protocol, and permission was sought from each to tape the
interviews. This ensured that the informants focused on the relevant information that was being
sought, and that no interviewer bias was entered on the note-taking undertaken, and the flow within the
interview was maintained. In all cases, in New Zealand there were two people undertaking the
interviews.

Interviews allowed the researchers to gain rich information that would not otherwise been able to be
observed. The intention was to find out what was on the informants mind, such as feelings and
thoughts in relation to the phenomena being investigated. Probing of behaviours can be undertaken as
well as the thoughts to the world (Patton 1990). With this in mind the semi-structured nature of the
protocol allowed the flexibility for both the interviewer and informant to focus on the issues that are of
most importance to the interviewee.

The use of other forms of data collection allowed the researcher not to be too reliant only on the few
interviews and thus be able to corroborate insights and degree of convergence or support for emerging
patterns (Patton, 1990; Yin 1989; Lincoln and Guba 1985). This allowed the underlying structures and
mechanisms to be searched rather than purely the aggregation of patterns.

The interviews lasted between one hour and three hours. The tape recordings and field notes were
transcribed by the researchers and checked for their accuracy.

3.5 Analysis
A grounded approach was undertaken in relation to the data collected (Strauss and Corbin, 1990;
Eisenhardt, 1989; and Wollin, 1995). This form of exploratory approach is undertaken with the notion
of making sense of the field data by observing the order, structure and meaning of the collected data
(Lincoln and Guba 1989).

The analysis of the data was undertaken in the following manner:

1. Open coding and content analysis of the interviews; noting the passages that concerned the
NPD decisions and processes., and cultural issues thus identifying the key categories.
2. Connections were made between the groups and categories
3. Selective coding was employed to develop the descriptive narratives around the central
phenomena under investigation.

35
These analytical steps have been well validated and documented in previous case research (Strauss and
Corbin, 1990; Eisenhardt, 1989; Wollin, 1995).

3.6 Limitations
There are a number of limitations and criticisms to case study research designs. The criticisms and the
methods suggested for use for resolving these are summarised in Table 10:
Table 10: Criticisms of a Case Study Methodology
Criticisms Strategies for resolution
Results in overly complex theories Develop prior theories and specific research
questions
External Validity Use theoretical replication
Difficult to conduct and construct Use case study protocol
No single approach is sufficient for sound theory View research as part of the total journey towards
development theory development
Researcher bias Discussions with other knowledgeable
researchers on data and analysis
(Reid, 1998; Eisenhardt, 1989; Parkhe, 1993).

Each of these criticisms were addressed in the design of this methodology. The first criticism was
resolved through the extensive search of literature and knowledge of the core theories underpinning the
phenomena under investigation. As far as possible existing theory was used for replication and
guidance of the analysis for control of the second criticism. There is, however, an inherent
understanding of the researchers of the case situations, due to the long years of being involved in these
industries to overcome some of this criticism. The use of the case study protocol was designed to
overcome the third criticism. This was in line with procedure identified in Yin, 1989.

The fourth criticism can be levelled at any research study undertaken over a short period of time. The
stated intention of this study is towards the building of knowledge toward the national cultural effects
on NPD behaviour, specifically the nature of NPD group decisions and process dynamics. With this in
mind careful consideration was given to previous research undertaken by the researchers in this area,
using this to build validity and reliability into the research undertaken. Adequate theory will therefore
be built over time.

The fifth criticism is in relation to the impact of researcher bias. Case study research is by nature
subjective in nature. Multiple cases and data sources were used to limit this, with the use in most
instances multiple interviewers. However, the creative aspects of this methodology are strong point
leading to the use of this research method, which accepts that researchers will incorporate biases and
subjectivity as a natural order. The use of case study protocol and multiple coders were used as a
method to eliminate some researcher bias.

As far as possible the criticisms were minimised as far as possible through the above strategies. The
researchers were accepting of the potential criticisms and weaknesses of the use of the methodological
design.

3.7 Ethical Considerations

The following ethical considerations were taken into account when undertaking this research.

1. Every effort was undertaken not to harm or cause the respondents and informants to suffer any
adverse consequences through their participation in this research. This is a requirement of all
case study research (Emory and Cooper, 1991; Patton, 1990).
2. Measures undertaken for conducting this research included issues addressing the non
deception, privacy, confidentiality and anonymity of the respondents. This was done through
obtaining the permission of the respondents, furnishing the outline of the research objectives,
interview protocols, and the confidentiality statement (appendix 2). Appropriately no
individual respondent or organisation will be specifically identified in this report.

36
4.0 Results

4.1 Introduction
Sample Characteristics

Two samples were selected for this study, Singapore and New Zealand. In total six firms in
each country were selected, of which five were finally included in the New Zealand sample
and six in the Singapore. The sixth company selected in New Zealand was used for pretesting
the interview protocol, and firming up the methodology. This company was not included in
the analysis.

Table 11 Summarises the companies used in this study.

Note – need to make these companies anonymous

Table 11: Sample Company Characteristics
Compa Size and Sector Component Markets Predomina
ny Home Base s or Final Serviced nt Market
Singapore
1 Small /Local Processed Final
International Consumer
Food and
Domestic
2 Large MNC Business Components International Business
technology and final and
Domestic
3 Medium/ Semiconduct Components International Consumer
Local MNC ors to final and
SBU Domestic
4 Large MNC Chemicals Components International Business
SBU and final
5 Medium/Loc Biotechnolog Components International Business
al y and Final
6 Small/ Local Information Contract International Consumer
technology manufacture and
r Domestic
New Zealand
1 Medium/ Plastics
Components International Business
Local and Final and
Domestic
2 Large/ Processed Final International Consumer
Australasian Food and
Domestic
3 Small/ Information Components International Business
Medium and and Final and
Local Processing Domestic
Technology
4 Large/ MNC Processed Components International Business
SBU Food and and Final and and
Ingredients Domestic Consumer
5 Medium/ Ingredients Components International Business
Local and and Final and and
Biotechnolog Domestic Consumer
y

37
 In both samples there was care to ensure that the companies were representative of the
industries in the country and that comparable companies were selected in terms of company
size, and industry sectors in which they are operating.

In total 22 respondents, therefore an average of 4.4 personnel per organisation. In fact the
numbers interviewed per company ranged from two through to six. In each organisation care
was taken to identify personnel who were involved in NPD at the task level, along with
interviewing the senior manager in each case in charged with NPD activity in each firm. An
equal number of personnel involved in the marketing and technical task functions were
interviewed.

In Singapore a smaller number of personnel were interviewed. A total of 12 personnel were

interviewed, averaging two personnel from each organisation. The smaller number in the
Singapore sample is explained by the reluctance of the organisations approached to access task
personnel. In each organisation, however, the manager charged with the NPD process within
the firm was interviewed (in all but one case representing the technical function) along with
one task member with equal representation of the marketing and technical functions.

Although there is a bias in the Singapore sample towards upper management, the interviews
represented only one aspect of the case study approach, with observation by the researchers,
and the attainment of supporting documentation also playing an important role in the analysis.
A balance of the functions of the task personnel indicates that not one function dominated the
sample.

4.2 Context of NPD within the organisation.

4.2.1 Perception of the Importance of NPD

4.2.1.1 Singapore

There exist a general consensus that amongst the respondents that NPD is important within
their organisations. The top management of these companies exhibits an awareness of the
importance of NPD to the continued growth of their companies, and they emphasise this
awareness to their subordinates by showing a keen interest in the projects. Lower level staff,
in turn, perceive this importance that top management places on NPD, and similarly adopt a
serious attitude towards NPD as a part of their job.

 Quotes:
Respondent: “…he is the chairman and also the executive director, or one executive director,
they are in charge of this product.”
Interviewer: “ So they feel new product is very important, so that’s why they take a personal
interest?”
Respondent: “Actually can say it’s three, the other director in charge of the export sales is also
(involved)…”

“ First of all, I think it’s very important because R&D is actually launching out a new product,
so with this new product, the marketing people can sell, and so with this new product, they
can, they can be the first one in the market to sell the product, so it’s very important, it’s a
strategic move.”

4.2.1.2 New Zealand

All respondents agreed that NPD is an important strategy in the context of their organisation.
One organisation, where this was not the case, has been rapidly implementing a culture within
which to remain successful NPD must be undertaken in today’s competitive markets. NPD is
supported by upper management in each of the organisations.

38
 There was a consensus by the organisations that their customers and ultimate consumers
required them to be innovative and introduce new products into the marketplace, otherwise
they would move to a competitor’s offering.

For the four exporting organisations it was it was agreed that in order to remain competitive
against much larger international competitors they needed to be perceived as setting the
standard in terms of their innovative products and service, thus NPD was critical for their
international, and thereon domestic survival.

4.2.1.3 Conclusion

All the respondents in the Singapore and New Zealand samples agreed that NPD was critical
and was strongly supported by their senior management, both by representation and control.
This is perceived in both those companies that were locally owned and operated, and those
that are strategic business units of larger multinational organisations.

The respondents in the New Zealand sample expressed the importance of NPD in a different
manner than the Singapore sample. New Zealand respondents expressed the importance in
strategic terms, the importance of being first into the market, the relative size of their
organisations relative to their international competitors hence being the most innovative to be
successful. The Singapore sample also observe the importance of NPD because of the
strategic needs of the respective companies, the need to be first to market and the need to stay
ahead of competition. But all these are perceived through the emphasis that the top
management places on NPD activities. Lower level staff follows the lead of top management
in recognising NPD importance. It is important to note that the Singapore respondents were
predominately technical (R&D) therefore their task was NPD.

4.2.2 General Organisation of NPD within the firm

4.1.2.1 Singapore

 NPD is normally carried out solely by marketing, or the people operating within the
target market. It would appear the more technical the NPD, the less feeling for the
importance of the role of marketing in the actual process - that is in consumer driven
products, marketing is intimately involved, whereas the inputs are passed through the
management level in the more complex technical products. This of course would
make sense - that is technical are far more involved in more technically advance
products.

 The flexibility in the process is in the top management within the companies under
study. There is little empowerment to lower level staff to deviate from the process
that has been given to them from upper management. The lower level staff would
rarely lobby upper management to change the process. Keep in mind that upper
management keep close control on the NPD, therefore they would know if there has
to be change. Whatever the case clear milestones and responsibilities have to be met.

 In most cases, the NPD teams are very small, involving different functions. In two of
the companies, the NPD is done by practically a one-person team, concentrating
mainly on the technical development based on requirements given to them by the
marketing people or the upper management, but having access to other functions for
information. The reason for this is maybe that the technologies involved in these
cases are not very complex. Furthermore, respondents generally agree that they
could use more staff in NPD. Most of those involved in NPD are on a few projects
simultaneously.

 Leadership roles are provided predominantly by individuals from R&D or have a

technical background. These individuals are experienced members of the companies
and their technical abilities are tempered by a keen business sense about the need to
satisfy customer needs and stay within budget.

39
  NPD team members are given much autonomy in the technical development of new
products. However, they are not fully empowered to make decisions regarding their
budget. These matters have to be referred to the team leader if not higher up the
company hierarchy.

 Quotes:
“…marketing they will normally give us the idea, export or local ones, maybe they
contact certain customer or maybe they work around the market and they will see
some product which is very interesting or has great potential, then they will give the
feedback to our department, or the feedback to the management” – an R&D manager

Interviewer: “…is it always the product manager that whose decision is always the
final decision?”
Respondent: “Usually it’s the product manager.”

4.2.2.2 New Zealand

 All functions are intimately involved in NPD, with the marketing function playing the
key-driving role. In all the organisations a group is responsible for a NPD, with the
all of the key functions represented. The levels within the organisation and the
number of projects that NPD staff are involved differ in relation to the size of the
organisation.

 In the three large organisations included in the sample, lower level staff are
empowered with the task for a NPD. They are assigned as per their skills and
abilities, and will normally include all of the functions that are required for the NPD
to be implemented. This group will guide the NPD from initiation to launch with
little direct direction from upper management. In all cases the project leader for the
NPD, whether it be a principally technical NPD or marketing NPD will be assigned
from the marketing function within the organisation. None of the staff are assigned
to purely one NPD project, but often will be involved intimately with up to ten (as
was the case in one organisation).

 The two smaller organisations one member is assigned of a function (generally R&D)
to all aspects of the NPD task. They will have a member of the marketing function
playing the leadership role, and often that member will be part of the senior
management role. The individual is, however in control in all aspects of the NPD
project, generally seeking guidance or clarification from the marketing function.
There is a group involvement however, with the senior manager being a key member,
although in all instances the senior management were in the process of or currently
playing a reduced and more consultative role in NPD, empowering lower level NPD
staff in the NPD task.

 In either organisational forms, those with responsible for NPD were empowered and
have a great deal of flexibility to their approach to NPD. Upper management,
although maintaining control on the overall aspects in NPD and key milestones in any
one project, tend to play a consultative and in some cases participative roles in those
with NPD task responsibility. It is observed that there is a tacit responsibility at the
lower levels as to the understanding of the task that they are responsible to perform,
and meeting deadlines.

4.2.2.3 Conclusion

The organisation of NPD in the two samples is quite different, especially in relation to the
roles that lower level staff play and the role of upper management. In Singapore
responsibility for the NPD task is at the upper level of the organisation, whereas in New
Zealand this responsibility is empowered to the lower level staff level, whether it be a large or
small organisation. The manifestations of the organisation are therefore different. In

40
 Singapore upper management directs the NPD group as to their responsibility, and operating
members check regularly with upper management that they are doing alright or to seek
permission to go ahead with certain decisions that they feel are beyond their jurisdiction. This
is not the case observed in the New Zealand sample, where the NPD group is responsible for
the task.

Although it plays an important role in both samples, the marketing function is observed to
play a more important leadership role in the New Zealand sample. The reasons (not stated in
the above but after further analysis) are:
• if there is not market demand for the new development then it is not worth
committing scarce resources to it;
• if market demand is not identified in the early stages of the development then
marketing is responsible for assessing potential demand;
• marketing initiates the idea, therefore are responsible for championing the idea
through NPD; and finally
• the marketing function will continue to be responsible for the performance of the
product long after NPD.

4.2.3 General Perception of the Organisation and Proficiency of their NPD Activities

4.2.3.1 Singapore

• General Perception of the Organisation

 The companies in general perceive themselves to be innovative and are optimistic of
their potential growth as a contribution from their NPD programs.
 Quotes:
“We did some evolutionary development in the VCD area, which was quite
successful or is very successful today.”

Respondent: “I think it varies...in South East Asia we would be (the market share
leader)...because we in South East Asia we are the only company that does this sort
of what we are doing (NPD)...the others there are but they are small, they are not the
big organisation like this...
Interviewer: “So in South East Asia you’re number one.”
Respondent: “They could be an enterprise, there could be an owner, you know, a
little thing and then they mix but not on a wide scale like this.”

• Proficiency of activities
 Whilst most companies recognised some areas where they face limitations, for
example, resources to do more, and more innovative R&D, slow development speed
etc., and that there is room for more improvement, they are satisfied with their current
NPD proficiency.
 Quotes:
“I am quite satisfied with the current job that I have done, as I mentioned to you,
every year we launch a lot of new product in the market”

4.2.3.2 New Zealand

• The General Perception of the Organisation

 The general perception of the organisations is that they are successful in NPD and are
relatively innovative in the markets in which they operate. In all but one of the
organisations, a belief is held amongst the respondents that the real reason for their
success has been the drive and commitment of the CEO or the divisional manager for
this success. In two of the large organisations, successful NPD has come only
recently. In one it was due to ownership change, and the other due to a merger and
change in overall management. The commitment of the respective managers has
increased the innovativeness and NPD success.

41
  It is observed that there is no complacency in any of the organisations in terms of
their NPD success and current levels of innovativeness. There is a commitment at all
levels to maintain and increase the organisation’s level of success to either meet the
vision of the organisation to be the leader in their industry, or remain competitive in
an environment with a number of potential threats.

• Proficiency of activities

 In all organisations observed, there is a feeling they could be more proficient in terms
of NPD activity. This observation came predominately from the R&D and
production personnel interviewed. Marketing personnel, in the most part, believed
that they were relatively proficient. The major area of concern is the planning and
control of NPD activities. Whilst they believed that they undertook individual NPD
activities proficiently, there is room for improvement in the co-ordination and
meeting deadlines and targets. Although the respondents believed that they met
targets, there was often a last minute rush.

 There was a great impetus by the organisations observed to continually look at their
NPD activities, constantly looking and implementing areas for improvement.

4.2.3.3 Conclusion

The two samples are similar in the way that they perceived the success and the innovativeness
of the organisations. Similarly the organisations in the two countries were observed to be
constantly on the look out for areas of improvement and new management practices that will
enhance their overall performance and NPD proficiency.

4.3 NPD Roles

4.3.1 Functional Involvement and Number of Roles

4.3.1.1 Singapore

• Number of roles

 The number of roles that are involved in NPD are as follows:

 Top Management
 Marketing
 Engineering (R&D) - named engineering in Singapore as the majority are
engineering trained
 Manufacturing
 All of these roles were evident in the six companies studied in Singapore.

• Clarity of roles

 The majority of the roles were very clearly defined, particularly the roles that deal
with customers, and those that do not. Technical appeared to have somewhat more of
a defined role, concentrating on the technical development of the product. Although
some of the respondents claim that the technical people have access and do come into
contact with customers, they still rely heavily on marketing for market information.
Only in two companies were the technical personnel also significantly interacting
with customers for market information. The customer interface therefore was through
marketing.

42
  Marketing in all but one of the companies was a separate functional unit. In one
organisation, there was somewhat more of integration between the functional units,
with them all involved at a high level in NPD. Marketing therefore was not
perceived as a separate entity.

 The roles, therefore, were determined along functional lines. Marketing directed
outwards - out of the organisation, and technical inward. There appears to be a
moderating factor in one organisation where the marketing and technical roles are not
so clearly demarcated as there, customers have a high degree of input in the NPD.

 Especially in the smaller companies where the NPD teams are very small, there is a
strong perception that the way roles are defined these are unique to their organisation
and the demands and limitations they face.

 Quotes:
 “…it’s hard, hardcore engineers are typically not good marketer, and good marketers
are again not good hardcore engineers”

“…most of the time today it (idea for new products) comes from the marketing...
between marketing and the customers”

4.3.1.2 New Zealand

• Number of roles

 The number of roles involved in NPD are as follows:

 Top Management
 Marketing
 R&D – involves personnel who are trained as scientists, engineers and other
technical roles. In most organisations they have a cross-functional role with
quality assurance, and production.
 Production.
 Purchasing – this was a function that was intimately involved in one
organisation under investigation

 All of these roles were in evidence within the organisations investigated in New
Zealand, although only in one organisation are purchasing personnel fully integrated
into the NPD process.

• Clarity of the roles

 The roles were clear in the majority of the investigated organisations. Only in two
organisations were they clearly defined in terms of formal NPD role descriptions,
with the majority of the respondents indicating they understood what they were
required to do, if not clearly defined in terms of their job descriptions. Although
there were job descriptions for the personnel and their functions, in most instances
the personnel worked beyond these, even if the organisation tried to keep these job
descriptions as updated as possible.

 In two organisations under study, NPD, and the roles of each of the functions within
it, are guided by a formal NPD process. There is flexibility built into the process,
however, for each of the functions to have the freedom to undertake other activities in
relation to NPD. In practice, therefore, the formal NPD process is not all that formal.

43
  All of the functions worked closely with one another, even if the functions were
separated in different functional units.

4.3.1.3 Conclusion

The roles that are involved in NPD are not substantively different between the two countries
under investigation. In order for a successful NPD to be undertaken and developed, marketing
and R&D are the main players in the process. Where there are differences however amongst
the two samples, it is the use of other players in the NPD process, and the clarity of the
personnel’s roles.

In the New Zealand sample it was observed that different functions from the normal upper
management, marketing and R&D are used more than in Singapore. Namely personnel from
the purchasing and production functions. Intuitively, this makes perfect sense, as these
functions are equally involved in ensuring the NPD is launched successfully in the market.
Although, in the New Zealand sample, personnel from these functions were responsible
initially for their own functions, they could provide valuable insights at an early stage in the
NPD, thus avoiding costly (in terms of all resources) mistakes, later in the process (e.g. at
manufacturing start-up for production). In Singapore, given the functional delineation of
responsibilities and NPD tasks, it was not fully ascertained as to the extent of role of
purchasing, and production – certainly they were not at the top of mind in the interviews.

The second major difference between the functions is the clarity of the roles. In Singapore, all
except one of the organisations had tight and rigid job descriptions within which clear job and
NPD responsibilities for each of the NPD personnel were specified. The job specifications are
ordained by the NPD personnel’s functional unit, as there is clear delineation between the
different functions in all but one of the Singapore companies under investigation. New
Zealand, in contrast, had job descriptions in only two of the organisations, and these did not
fully cover the roles that the NPD personnel actually covered. Where the job description did
not exist there was a tacit understanding of the individuals role and responsibilities in relation
to the NPD project. In all of the companies investigated, the NPD group member would often
go beyond their own functional boundary, acquainting themselves of another functions role
and requirements. This is obviously moderated by a time constraint, but often personnel
themselves would expand their job description, rather than being dictated to by upper
management.

There appears, therefore, clear differences between Singapore and New Zealand. First the
functional delineation of NPD personnel in Singapore, and the tight job descriptions within
which these personnel operate, which have been determined by a higher management level
within the organisation.

4.3.2 Role of Senior management

4.3.2.1 Top Management Support

4.3.2.1.1 Singapore

 As far as direct involvement with NPD activities is concerned, top management

monitors mainly the progress and the meeting of schedule. Top management’s input
to the project team comes in the form of marketing information. Particularly
important at the start of a project, top management also has an important role in
approving funding and deciding to go ahead in a project.

 Except in one case, the top management generally does not have a technical
background. In all cases, top management adopts a very pragmatic market
orientation and keeps the NPD in-line with market needs and cost considerations.

44
  In all companies except, the one where the top management has a technical
background, the technical development of new products is left to the NPD team
members. Top management tries to stay out the way of the NPD team members.

 NPD team members seem to derive a sense of assurance from their perception that
top management views NPD as important. This infuses a strong sense of worth in the
tasks they carry out.

 Quotes:

 “Normally we will have a piece of paper, list a few products, some times just give
them (top management) a very short report, some times they also have a piece of
paper, record what is the product they require us to develop, what is the status, say if
there is quite a lot of projects there, maybe I will type a very short report say what is
the product we have already developed, what is the product still under development,
what is the product facing difficulties, maybe must postpone.”

“Yes, the marketing submits this to product committee which is a committee to

define if we go or no go for a product, for a new product. This is really headed by
the top management.”

4.3.2.1.2New Zealand

 The role of top management in all of the companies is to communicate the strategic
goals and the importance of NPD to all of the members of the organisation. They
therefore are considered to be the main drivers of NPD. Top management is also
expected to communicate further the expectations of the NPD task.

 The input of upper management into specific NPD projects is minimal. Respondents
have noted this as a good thing. Lower level respondents agreed that upper
management support is required, but regard interference beyond this as unhelpful and
a hindrance.

 Upper management keeps control of NPD by monitoring specific NPD projects at

key points in the development and at regular development meetings with key
members of NPD. Upper management do like to keep control of the NPD process.
Further information, such as minutes of key NPD group meetings or the NPD
planning cycle, on the NPD, is often kept in a central database or online in the
company computer network. Should top management need any information, they
will approach the NPD personnel directly or look for further information.

 Top management is intimately involved at the beginning of all NPD projects, by

approving a new NPD project, or should a particular NPD project be given higher
priorities than others that may be undertaken at the time.

 Other aspects of note that were raised by the respondents.

 One organisation thought that upper management should be a little harder

on the personnel than what they currently are. Although, as noted by the
respondents in the organisation, upper management is very supportive,
technically and marketing competent, when a NPD is running out of time or off
track, upper management would leave it to the group working on it to sort out
the problems. There is not therefore sometimes enough direction or hurry up by
the management.

 In another organisation, upper management appears to be very market

orientated. This is to the extent that they will rarely meet with the technical

45
 personnel, or have the technical function represented on the senior management
team. The technical function, as a consequence, feels that they are being
marginalised and not feeling they are important within the organisation. Within
this same organisation, however, the marketing respondents indicated that up
until recently the organisation was production oriented, and now only becoming
consumer and customer orientated. This change has ensured that number of
NPD projects and success rates have increased.

 There is a general perception amongst all of the organisations that upper

management does not now expect to have any NPD favouritism, even if it is a
project that has been initiated by them. The same screening and approval
process is undertaken for all potential projects.

4.3.2.1.3Conclusion

Initially, it appears that upper management’s role and support in the two samples is similar.
Upper management is involved in strategic goal setting, initial project screening, and
providing this information further down the chain. In this, both samples are similar. Upper
management involvement in terms of individual projects is also minimal. In Singapore, there
is a trust and expectation that the NPD personnel will follow the requirements set out by the
NPD product brief, and their job descriptions (see previous section), by upper management.
In New Zealand, there are some instances when upper management should have been more
involved in the projects, either by ensuring that all of the functions are being given a feeling of
worth, and being harder and more helpful when projects are running behind. In the latter
instance, the upper management in this organisation do not communicate a clear critical path
and NPD task expectation at the beginning of the project, allowing projects therefore to
flounder. In New Zealand, therefore, there is a greater tendency to deviate from the project
brief, whereas, in Singapore this is not the case.

4.3.2.2 Leadership

4.3.2.2.1 Singapore

 Degree of consultation and participation: The leadership styles in most of the

companies studied are directive, with one case where it is claimed that when
autonomy is given, the local employees did not take the initiative, waited for
instructions and did not know what to do. Respondents qualified the directive
leadership with the need to develop products fast and the need to always maintain a
pragmatic market orientation.

 Quotes:

“…some of the things are quite directive, because we need to follow according to the
schedule.”

Interviewer: “So how would you characterise like you know the leadership of this
company in terms of running product development?”
Respondent: “Normally it’s quite directive. Because you see industry wise, it’s
always very practical.”

“…they have used in Singapore to be (managed) in a vertical way, so it’s quite

difficult for them because you give them responsibility and autonomy, but they don’t
know what to do. They are expecting orders, they are expecting day-to-day
operational orders. My expectation is, ‘Eh, I give you this responsibility, take the
lead, do it yourself.’”

 Also due to the time pressure that team members face and the constant need to be
practical about their development, ambience of workgroups is very task oriented.

 Quotes:

46
 “…it is the responsibility of the individual engineers to have that sense of belonging
and that sense of urge to complete a project.”

4.3.2.2.2 New Zealand

 The leadership style observed in all of the organisations appears to be consultative,

with only in exceptional circumstances being directive. Resentment can ensue if
upper management undertakes an autocratic leadership style. Respondents indicated
in one organisation that upper management level has been afraid to empower the
NPD level personnel with responsibility of their actions, which caused some
problems.

 Due to the importance and the general interest in NPD, many of the leaders of the
organisation actively participated in NPD projects. On the whole respondents viewed
this favourably, enjoying the experience and the learning experience that
management can provide. There was concern in one organisation, however that
upper management in their leadership needed to pull back more, as other leadership
duties were becoming neglected.

 Leadership is often determined by the personality of manager involved. A proactive

enthusiastic leader is obviously more favoured than one who is not. There are a
number instances identified by the different functional respondents that the latter is
often in evidence. This alters the nature of the NPD in the organisation markedly.

 One respondent summed the ideal leader in the following way, which synthesises the
majority opinions.

 A good leader is one who is:

 Always visible (does not lock themselves away in an office).
 Has an interest in local business and able to communicate this
interest.
 Not afraid to go home and to trust the empowered people to do the
task that they are responsible for.
 Is flexible and open minded to different perspectives.

4.3.2.2.3Conclusion

There are differences in the leadership style between the two samples investigated. Singapore
has a more directive approach, whereas, the New Zealand sample indicates that leaders are
somewhat more consultative, although able to be directive when required. Clearly, the degree
of empowerment in Singapore and New Zealand differs, where there is somewhat more in the
New Zealand context than in Singapore.

4.3.3 The Project Leader

4.3.3.1 Singapore

 Most of the project leaders have a technical background, they usually come from
R&D and have previously been involved in product development. However, as they
move up to leadership positions, they acquire more of the market orientation that the
top management emphasises. They then in turn, impress upon their team members the
constant need to fulfil market needs.

 The main operational role of the project leader is as a source of information,

disseminating information from outside and helping clarify team members’
uncertainties. The project leader is also responsible for planning project scheduling.

47
 The other role is project co-ordination and resource allocation. When there are
disputes among members, the team leader will override and decide.

 Decision making mechanisms are based on consensus when possible. However,

when there is no convergence of ideas, the opinion of the project leader carries more
weight.

 Quotes:

“…you go to the project leader and ask, “Can you find out this information, it’s not
clear.”

“…when there is some problem there is a solution, we like to let the project leader
know, actually, so the project leader will disseminate all the information to the
people.”

“So he (project leader) will delegate, he will schedule the job accordingly. He will
work out the man-power, number of people, the workload and also the deadline, the
constraint, the difficulty.”

“…and also he (project manager) likes to find out what’s the constraint. And if we
are not able to meet the deadline, he need to adjust the schedule accordingly.”

“Two things, one is overall project co-ordination, wrapping up pieces that need to be
done, looking at the various milestones that people have to meet and also allocation
of resources.”

“…some of the major decisions for example. So it’s better to let the project leader
decide.”

4.3.3.2 New Zealand

 In all but one of the organisations the leadership of the NPD project resides in the
marketing function. Generally the marketing functions act as the facilitators of the
goals if the NPD, with projected launch date of the project being the major moderator
here. The critical path of the NPD drives is therefore.

 The project leader must understand the goals of the team, and communicate these to
the rest of the members of the group who are undertaking the NPD.

 Decisions are generally made in consensus of the group, with all getting involved.
The role of leader here is to ensure that all members (who normally represent each of
the functions involved), are able to communicate and share information with the rest.

 The project leader, in summary, therefore stimulates the information flow.

 There were two organisations where the project leader is not in charge of a group.
These normally are technical personnel, who are given the responsibility of the
project, selected on the technical skills that they may possess. These individuals will
“champion” the project driving the project within the organisation, and will work co-
operatively with the different functions whose inputs are required. Normally
marketing has identified and drives the NPD idea, even in these instances.

 Although marketing is now taking much of the project leadership role within the
organisation, technical is driving the critical path and looking after the detail. In one
organisation this was noted as important. Leadership therefore does not necessarily
reside solely in one function for a project.

48
4.3.3.3 Conclusion

Although the manifestations of the project leader differ between Singapore and New Zealand,
the role of the project leader is similar, facilitate information flow, and provide direction of the
project. The differences in the manifestations however are very important.

The first major difference between the Singapore and New Zealand samples is in regard the
functional location of the project leader. In the majority of the organisations in New Zealand
the function who provides the project leader is marketing, whereas in Singapore it is the
technical functions. It is also important to note that leader in New Zealand will often be
“sharing” the leadership role with a member of the technical function. How they do this, is
that one has more control on the actual on the specifications and key decisions in relation to
the NPD (marketing), whereas technical will have more control in terms of the managing the
critical path and making sure that the NPD decisions actually get implemented.

The second major difference is the empowerment of the project leaders in making decisions
over the rest of the group. In Singapore, it was observed that the project leader has more
decision-making authority than his subordinates, and exercises this prerogative when he/she
has to. On the contrary, in New Zealand, although the project leader is empowered to make
decisions, they will not without the consensus of the members of the NPD group. The group
itself, therefore is empowered to make decisions.

The final major difference observed between the two samples, is the actual information
dissemination. In Singapore, the project leader is responsible for gathering and disseminating
information between the functions. This is clearly different from the project leader in New
Zealand, who acts as the facilitator of information exchange between the functions, rather than
undertaking gathering and disseminating information wholly alone.

4.3.4 Marketing

4.3.4.1 Singapore

 Marketing plays the key role in providing new product ideas and gathering of market
information in all the organisations. Marketing together with upper management,
decide on the strategic decisions of entering new markets and geographical locations.
Financial analyses before the adoption of an NPD project are also handled by the
marketing department. Marketing also conducts market tests and seeks feedback
from customers.

 Although not clearly in the leadership position relative to the R&D function in NPD,
marketing considerations like customer needs, and cost considerations are from heavy
emphasis by project leaders who are largely technically trained and upper
management. In one case where the product is highly technical, the marketing is
made up of mainly engineering trained people.

4.3.4.2 New Zealand

 In all organisations, the role of marketing as the driver of NPD was considered to be
important. The marketing function is charged with coming with ideas for the market
segments or the product categories that they are involved in. Although many ideas do
come from other areas of the organisation, a marketing orientation must be taken in
terms of the potential sales and benefits to the organisation. Marketing therefore has
the principal role in the NPD in the organisation researched.

 As mentioned in the earlier section, marketing is normally regarded as the leader of

the project – or the project champion. Only in organisations where the marketing
department is very small (2) or the NPD tends to be for or two major customer groups
(2), marketing will have a technical training as well. They will involve themselves

49
 closely with the R&D section to ensure that the customer requirements are well
understood.

 Generally marketing personnel have been with the organisation for a lesser time than
R&D personnel have in the studied organisations. Marketing personnel are expected
to “hit the ground running” in order to perform from the word go. Marketing
personnel will also generally, at the lower levels within the organisation stay with the
organisation for a shorter duration.

4.3.5 Technical Role

4.3.5.1 Singapore

 The most important role of the technical people in the NPD team is to do the
technical development of the new product. Technically trained personnel take
leadership positions in the Singapore sample, from project leaders up to, in one case,
the highest management level.

 The R&D department will rely heavily on marketing to provide them with market
information and new ideas for NPD, although from the respondents, it was gathered
that technical do have access to customers, which they seldom utilise fully.

 Technical will be responsible for translating customer requirements into technical

specifications and finally a well-defined product ready for production. R&D will also
be responsible for testing the product and make modifications based on laboratory
test results and market test results.

4.3.5.2 New Zealand

 The technical role is not purely reliant on marketing information in order to perform
good NPD. In three of the organisations studied. They will interact with the customer
in order to better understand the requirements of the customer, thus to ensure that the
technical specifications match customer requirements.

 The technical function will often control the detail required in the NPD. They will
generally have the leadership role to drive the critical path of the NPD. In one
organisation they are responsible for putting together the NPD group, convening and
minuting the meetings, even where it is the formal function of marketing,.

 Technical are responsible for seeking and evaluating the technological advances in
the market, transforming these into product opportunities. There is a belief by some
of the technical personnel that they are actually leading the market in terms of the
products that they come up with as opposed to imitation which they often believe are
the ideas that come from the marketing function.

4.3.6 Conclusion of Marketing and Technical Roles

The core roles of each of the functions in New Zealand and Singapore are the same.
Marketing is responsible for the two-way transference of information between the
organisation and the customer. The technical function meanwhile has the primary
responsibility of the physical development of the product and keeping ahead of technical
advances in their industry and market.

There are differences however.

First is that balance of power between the functions has changed in regard NPD. In the
majority of the New Zealand sample, the devolved organisational power for NPD resides in

50
 the marketing function. This is in contrast to Singapore, where technical function still has a
large amount of power in NPD, and as a consequence is seen to have more value in the eyes of
the organisation. This in part may be due to the functional delineation in the Singapore
context.

The second major difference is the interaction between the two functions. In New Zealand it
was observed that there is a larger degree of blurred tasks between the different functions,
particularly marketing and R&D, which in Singapore clearly belong to one of the individual
functions and there is careful delineation of these tasks. Examples include the amount of
customer interaction that the technical functions have in Singapore (all but one had limited
access to the customer).

4.4 Motivation
4.4.1 Expectations of the NPD task

4.4.1.1 Singapore

 Except for one case, most respondents did not mention their expectation of their NPD
task. An important distinction is made by the respondents with regards to
organisational expectations and personal expectations. While they appreciate the
strategic importance of NPD and the expectations of task that hence follow, they try
to dissociate their own expectatio0ns from those of the organisation to the extent that
personal expectations of NPD are unclear and those of the organisation are
considered more important.

 Quotes:

“When there is a new product, we hope to learn, apply some of the know how all this
on the new product, not much of an expectation.”

4.4.1.2 New Zealand

 In all instances the expectations as to why NPD is important is clearly stated. They
will be either to lead the market, get the company into the number one position or to
ensure they maintain and extend their company leadership position. There is no
doubt in the respondents’ mind that they have an important task to play in the
competitive advantage of their organisation.

4.4.1.3 Conclusions

It can be seen that the expectations of NPD are related to the overall objectives of the NPD. Although
the two samples did not articulate the expectations that they would get out of NPD, they did articulate it
in terms of the overall organisational goals of NPD, especially in Singapore.

4.4.2 Positive Motivating Aspects of NPD

4.4.2.1 Singapore

 In most companies, a successful product is considered motivating. This relates to the

eventual achievement of the companies’ strategic goals. Knowing exactly how to
approach a task is considered motivating at a personal level as it makes the NPD task
easier, and as uncertainty is reduced, the likeliness of success also increases. Also
considered motivating are autonomy and the trust given by the management.
 Quotes:
 “…but ultimately what counts is your customer who must accept the product and
products … and it is the sales and turnover that’s important.”

51
 “Normally we prefer to have a very clear picture.”

Interviewer: “You know in one where there is some uncertainty, you may not know
what the solution is but it’s novel, and in the other case it maybe...it’s not novel but
you know exactly you do step one, step two, step three, step four but you know if you
do all this step, it’ll be done, so it’s an achievement and so it maybe motivating too,
so you see? So what’s the nature of the task that would be motivating to you in
the....”
Respondent: “I think the later one would be...”

“The changes we made for the Australian market were fairly minor, could go through
quickly with certainty of success, this is good research, this is what we like.”

“I think to trust employees is to give employees the motivation to do better.”

4.4.2.2 New Zealand

 The respondents agreed as to what the motivating aspects of the NPD task are as
defined by the following:
 To get the company into a leadership position
 To have a successful product
 The need to be involved in something good
 Working with dedicated and enthusiastic personnel
 To feel part of the vision of the organisation
 It is fun and enjoyable
 The challenge of getting something developed

4.4.2.3 Conclusion

In terms of the positive NPD motivation demonstrated by the different respondents, that being part of
creating a successful product is shared across the two national samples. The New Zealand respondents
articulated this further by regarding the overall organisational position e.g. working towards the
company vision. They also backed this up with the motivation that NPD was genuinely enjoyable and
challenging, with the ability to work with like-minded, dedicated individuals.

It is important to note that the Singapore respondents indicated that given trust and empowerment by
management is motivating because it gives personal satisfaction in the sense that the NPD team
members enjoy having it. It is, however, unclear if empowerment is positively correlated to success
and proficiency of NPD. It was observed (related in other sections) that there is more empowerment
given to NPD personnel in New Zealand, than in Singapore, indicating that the levels of empowerment
are important in both samples but for different reasons. In the Singapore sample as a sign that they
have formal delegated authority, and from a New Zealand perspective as a means of every member of
the group having roles and responsibilities for a job to do.

4.4.3 Negative de-motivating aspects of NPD

4.4.3.1 Singapore

 Product failure and uncertainty are considered de-motivating. Inability to fulfil

organisational goals is the biggest de-motivating aspect of NPD task.
 Quotes:
 “But sometimes if they just give you a general description, sometimes it’s also
difficult because you do not know actually what is the direction.”
 There were some interesting responses to this question. There was a general feeling
that NPD was just part of their job, so in fact there are no real motivating or de-
motivating aspects to undertaking NPD.
 Quotes:

52
 Interviewer: “Does any of these activities particularly excite you or did any aspects of
those activities particularly excite you?”
Respondent: “I don’t think...I think I look at it as a whole not at just one particular
(activity)...because one has connection to the others and I think it’s difficult to just
take one out on it’s own...so it’s all connected into one and at the end of it when it’s
finally used by the customers and there are repeat orders and you get good feedback,
I think that would be what we look for, not so much as individual glory.”

4.4.3.2 New Zealand

 the stress and pressure of NPD

 being involved in too many projects
 the amount of detail and documentation required to undertake NPD
 repeating the task of personnel who have not got it right first time
 not being recognised by the organisation as to the importance of the function
(particularly applies to technical and production personnel).
 The lack of understanding of other functions as to what is required of each of the
functions (particularly marketing’s lack of understanding as to what is required of
technical personnel to get a product properly trialed and tested).
 An organisation that is going through change or is fragmented – no common
understanding as to the importance of NPD.

4.4.3.3 Conclusion

Singapore related the negative de-motivating aspects to product failure, or less than positive outcomes
of the NPD. This as expected is the direct opposite of the positive motivating aspects of NPD. New
Zealand respondents, however, first related the de-motivating aspects to convincing and getting a
common vision of the NPD task across to all members of the NPD task. That is ensuring that all
members of the NPD group believe in the expectations and requirements of the task, as well as
believing what they are doing is important in the overall organisational context. The second is the
amount of NPD activity that some of the respondents are actually undertaking at the one time – the
involvement in different NPD activity. This may be a contributor to the lack of common goal, as each
individual may have a different set of priorities and importance allocated to the different NPD projects
that they are undertaking. Should there not be a common understanding as to each project’s
importance and priority, and a sense that not all of the individuals are involved in the project, then
motivation to complete the NPD task fully and proficiently can be hindered.

Other aspects that were identified as being de-motivating are related to the NPD task itself. Different
tasks required different time horizons, and a lack of understanding about these from another function,
especially when they are in the power position will make the task more difficult to achieve. The other
de-motivating aspect identified relates to the actual process requirements themselves, particularly in
relation to documentation. Although not common in all of the respondents, documentation is regarded
as a necessary evil that takes away the fun of doing the NPD.

4.4.4 Helpful Task Dynamics

4.4.4.1 Singapore

 Most of the dynamics that assist NPD occur when the managers and personnel are
technically competent and have the ability to attract people of this competence to
work within the organisation. Clear operating procedures that translate into clear
concepts and direction are also aspects that are helpful.
 Quotes:

“…they need to acquire expertise and when we start the team in Singapore…”

53
 “You need some team player, you need characters, you need stabilising influences, you
need practical people as well as theoretical people.”

“Normally we prefer to have a very clear picture.”

4.4.4.2 New Zealand

 everyone within the team shares a common goal as to the NPD task
 good resources supplied to effectively undertake NPD
 everyone is aware of each others roles within the NPD group and allow cross-
functional learning
 have an induction and training into the NPD management process and the
expectations of the team
 everyone completes their aspects of the NPD in a timely manner
 good upper management support and management enthusiasm

4.4.4.3 Conclusion

Individual competence and joint knowledge of what to do are regarded as the common dynamics
helpful to undertake and be successful in the NPD task. How these manifest themselves in the two
samples are different. In Singapore, these relate to management’s ability to recruit and set up operating
guidelines in which to achieve the NPD task. In New Zealand, although management support and
enthusiasm is regarded as important with adequate training, funding and goal articulation, much of the
dynamics occurs at the group level. The group does this through a commitment to understanding each
function’s role and undertaking NPD responsibilities in a timely and competent fashion. As will be
raised later, it is noted that the selection for NPD personnel is being devolved to a lower level within
the organisation. Senior management plays a lesser role in the dynamics, although important, in the
New Zealand sample.

4.4.5 Unhelpful Task Dynamics

4.4.5.1 Singapore

 Lack of communication between functions and inefficient communication among

team members are most often cited as unhelpful dynamics to the task of NPD, in one
case, face-to-face communication with overseas customers was thought to be lacking.
 Quotes:
 “Communication between members and the other problem is design changes, how are
we able to rapidly communicate to say the manufacturing to...”

 “I think one of the major set backs for our kind of business is not to have an overseas
office. Even though we have e-mails, FTP sites, but nothing beats a face-to-face
communication with a customer, asking them what are the feedback and getting it
right away, straight away.”

 “…one of the main concern because we are talking cross borders would be we must
have good communication with our people, because we don’t see them face to face
and we don’t see them everyday…”

 “…number one, is make sure that they try to read the document because if the
document is not clear, I will try to make it clearer. But if the document does not help,
I am willing to sit with him, but not for three four days. Because you see, if I try to
help everyone, okay, then I cannot finish all my work.”

4.4.5.2 New Zealand

 Functional conflict and non-common goals and aspirations (most problems appear to
arise out of the technical/production interface).

54
  The lack of urgency demonstrated by different personnel within the task
 Not feeling as if they are important in the overall organisation perspective – applies
either to the function’s role of the NPD task that they are involved in.
 The NPD task is not clearly defined or specified at the beginning

4.4.5.3 Conclusion

Lack of communication appears to be the common dynamic observed to be unhelpful in both the New
Zealand and Singapore samples. This unhelpfulness is both lack of communication between the
functions and with the customers. Although there are different communication styles in the two
samples, as highlighted in a following section, they both fail occasionally.

4.4.6 Reward System

Financial Rewards

4.4.6.1.1Singapore

 An end of year bonus or stock option is given for the entire firm’s, not the individual
team member’s nor the NPD team’s, performance –that is common for all of the
firms under study.
 There is a strong feeling among the respondents, both from the top management and
at the lower level, that good NPD performance is part of their job and special reward
for NPD proficiency is not needed nor expected.
 Quotes:
 “We don’t have special bonus at the end of a particular year, it is part of the annual
( bonus)...”

 Interviewer: “…do you all get rewarded for doing NPD very well? Like special
bonus and all that or its just part of the job?”
Respondent: “For me it’s a kind of challenge so it should be a part of the job, every
body is judged on the result.”

4.4.6.1.2New Zealand

 In no organisation was there a specific financial reward for proficient and effective
completion of the NPD. Rather the rewards came to pass in terms of the annual
performance review or as part of the company bonus at the end of the year (either
calendar or financial). Bonuses, however were not equally shared. One organisation
gave bonuses only to marketing personnel, and another only to the senior
management or senior middle management personnel within the firm. In one
organisation it was determined that technical personnel had not had a performance
review or promotion in four years (obviously this individual felt as if they had been
passed over by the hierarchy of the organisation.
 The fact of not having financial rewards for proficient NPD activities was viewed
with some concern in all of the organisations except one, where the respondent (in a
senior management position) responded that “people are not rewarded for what they
are supposed to do, as it is part of their job. I do not believe in incentives.”

4.4.6.2 Non-Financial Rewards

4.4.6.2.1Singapore

 There was no mention by the interviewees about any form of non-monetary rewards
for NPD proficiency.

55
4.4.6.2.2New Zealand

 There were mixtures of non-financial rewards from different organisations, which can
be summarised as recognition from upper management that the individual(s) have
done a good job in NPD and other aspects of their tasks. These rewards include:

 Mention in the company newspaper

 An occasional bottle of wine for a good job
 If they have worked long hours a day off during the week.
 A note or visit from upper management thanking the individual for a good
job.

There was evidence that there was no or only selective recognition given to some
individuals involved in NPD in two of the organisations. In these organisations NPD
personnel regarded that given the stress and overall strain that NPD has on
individuals some recognition would be nice, not anything big, but perhaps a lunch or
something else small that demonstrates the organisation’s importance on the role that
NPD plays.

 There were two organisations where training and conferences were regarded as
rewards. On the whole the respondents within these organisations regarded these as
being excellent opportunities, but there was a general consensus that these should
also be regarded as being part of the job as the rewards were directly beneficial in
upgrading the skills of personnel within the department and therefore there is a
correlation between undertaking the job better and ensuring that the skills are kept up
to date.

 Other rewards were more internal, such as having an enjoyable job, the NPD
challenge, observing that the product is succeeding in the marketplace, getting
positive recognition from customers regarding the product and overall assisting the
organisation to succeed, and meeting its vision are important rewards for NPD.

4.4.6.3 Conclusion

There were no financial rewards given for undertaking proficient NPD activities evidenced in the two
samples under investigation. Financial rewards were given only for firm level performance, or as part
of the NPD member’s performance review in terms of a salary increase or as part of their duties in
NPD. It is worthy to note that there appears to be less equitable sharing of bonuses and end of year
rewards (whether that be part of the annual performance review or other aspects) observed between the
two samples. A couple of the New Zealand organisations either limited the distribution of the rewards
(particularly bonuses) to one function or hierarchical level. There was some negativity expressed in
relation to this. It is of further of note that two respondents (at the management level of two
organisations) indicated that there should be no reward at all for undertaking your job proficiently
(NPD or other), as this was your job. Performance reviews appeared to be the minimum in terms of
rewards that the NPD expect and anticipate in both Singapore and New Zealand – when this is missed
out, or NPD activity not included, staff motivation can be negated.

In terms of the non-financial rewards there are clear differences between Singapore and New Zealand
sample organisations. In relation to this New Zealand respondents clearly indicated that this is not
reward but aspects of the job that in terms of recognition. The rewards were small in terms of time and
money e.g. mention in the company newsletter, the senior manager stopping by to thank the individuals
for a job well done, but mean a great deal to the recipients. These respondents appeared, therefore, are
willing to put in time beyond the call of their position to help the organisation out in terms of the NPD.
It is important to note that functional units or divisions in organisations are not uniform in their
approach to this recognition, as it tended to come down to the senior manager or functional manager as
to whether they were willing or able to give recognition. In one such organisation, for example, the
manager of one division made a point in terms of recognising the individuals involved in NPD activity,
whereas in another division, they did not appear to be even to be recognised.

56
4.5 Interaction
4.5.1 Communication

4.5.1.1 Content

Singapore

 The communication content within NPD tends to be somewhat more informational

(regarding work progress, schedules and marketing information) in format rather than
decision orientated.
 Quotes:
 “…he will through this meeting, he will give us his requirements, in terms of costs, in
terms of delivery dates, in terms of resources, functionality, everything.”

New Zealand

 On the whole the content of the communication between the different functional units
is informational sharing. Information is presented in most cases to the individuals
who are involved in the NPD and discussions ensue in order for consensual decisions
to be made.
 In all organisations that upper management is accessible, either by the NPD group
individuals or through their immediate managers, for key decisions that may need to
be made, or for guidance.

4.5.1.2 Mode of discussion

Singapore

 Most teams perceive their mode of communication as largely informal with the
exception of scheduled meetings and certain procedures e.g. market survey, project
proposal etc. Modes of communication are a combination of formal meetings, face to
face oral communication or via e-mail.
 Quotes:
“It’s always a team or coming together, whenever you’ve got an idea, approach the
guy, talk about it.”

“It’s very informal thing, we go into the conference room, there is a whiteboard, tell
me where you are, when can you complete, what are the obstacles that you face? It’s
very informal about it.”

Interviewer: “And the information is fed back, it’s formal, it’s a formal review and a
form and all that?
Respondent: “It’s going to be formal, what needs to be changed, what the customers
like, what don’t like, okay, is it easy to manufacture, hard to manufacture, you know,
consumer like the price point, don’t like the price point.”

“Yeah, it’s a face to face meeting once every two months accompanied by a written
report.”

“We have a monthly management meeting, that one is called 3M meeting, but that
one is very formal, in the case you can raise the issue or you can say very directly talk
to the…”

 “…of course now with the e-mail makes our life a lot easier, you know, a lot easier
then it keeps us in touch , it’s so much better than what it used to be.”

57
4.5.1.2.2 New Zealand

 In all organisations oral communication was seen to be the predominate mode of

communication. In all cases personnel involved in NPD are based in a central
location with each of their functional areas. There is some joint NPD undertaken
with other organisations and divisions with the organisation, internationally or in
another location within New Zealand, so this mode of communication is not
undertaken.

 Most of the organisations regard their mode of communication as being informal

although there are formal modes that are undertaken in the form of minuted meetings
and through e-mail.

 Oral communication is mostly made through “corridor” meetings and these have been
found to be an important way in which to disseminate information.

4.5.1.3 Pattern of Communication

4.5.1.3.1Singapore

 The team leader (or higher level of management) plays an important role in fulfilling
the team members’ informational needs as a channel of communication with sources
outside the team. There is also direct communication among team members.
 Quotes:
 “So when the team leader, the team leader gets all these feedback, he will gather his
engineers, he will gather his engineers, they will address the problem, market
feedback…”

“…we actually prefer to have this way (pattern of communication), okay, when there
is some problem there is a solution, we like to let the project leader know, actually, so
the project leader will disseminate all the information to the people.”

Respondent: “So free flow of ideas, so the committee or the people will decide…”
Interviewer: “: So the committee is top management?”
Respondent: “Nope, comprising of engineers as well.”

“…the other thing is that most of our computers are networked, so when one guy
does a thing, the other guy can actually look at it, this is how you’re gonna follow...”

Interviewer: “…would you say the communication is mainly a chain kind of situation
rather than a star, a chain meaning that this guy could talk to this guy, could talk to
this guy, it doesn’t matter, whereas a star is where you have one controller and
somebody always like...”
Respondent: “It’s a combination.”

4.5.1.3.2New Zealand

 There are a number of meetings between the members of the NPD team personnel,
along the use of networked e-mail messages. This has been found to be an important
way in which to disseminate information. Meetings are to ensure that the NPD is on
the critical path.

 There has been a large level of empowerment on the team members in which to
gather and disseminate information.

4.5.1.4 Frequency of Communication

58
4.5.1.4.1 Singapore

 The communication frequency does differ between the organisations. However it

tends to be characterised by the fact that there is a time base of these meetings - that
is there is a meeting every month/week, when and where NPD is discussed. There is
only one organisation where there are meetings at different phases or milestones of
the project. This could be attributed to the fact of the size of the organisation and the
number of NPD projects that are underway at the time.
 Quotes:
“Yeah, it’s a face to face meeting once every two months accompanied by a written
report.”

“We normally have a weekly brain-storming session.”

4.5.1.4.2 New Zealand

 There are two levels of meetings and reporting. First formal NPD meetings amongst
the personnel appear to be held every week, whilst information feedback to upper
management occurs at regular review meetings – normally monthly or quarterly.
Likewise there is information that is feedback at critical control points within the
NPD process.

 Other information and communication happen on a somewhat irregular and informal

basis, given again and the critical point within the critical path of the NPD and
between personnel who are working on a part of the NPD.

4.5.1.5 Conclusion

The communication as an input into the interaction between the functional units appears to be the same
in the two samples. Communication is informational, rather than decision oriented, with decisions
being made by the functional unit in Singapore, on a consensual decision making basis in New
Zealand. It is only in relation to the decision-making aspect that the two samples differ.

The mode of discussion in the two samples is again somewhat similar. As in Singapore, New Zealand
personnel tend to use e-mail and oral communications (more so in New Zealand), with scheduled
formal meetings (minuted) taking place somewhat more infrequently. Informal communication
between the functions is important. The results here are somewhat confusing, so more in-depth
analysis was undertaken to understand the mode of communication in Singapore and New Zealand.
This is in relation to the fact that there is more functional segregation in the Singapore organisations
under investigation than the New Zealand. The oral communication and informal interaction that was
observed therefore was intra-functional rather than inter-functional. This is observed a little more when
observing the pattern of information sourcing and communication.

The empowerment of the members of the team was observed to be different in the two country
samples. In the New Zealand sample, the NPD groups constituted (in all but one of the companies
observed) members from the different functional units, whereas in Singapore the teams were observed
to be predominately from the R&D function. The pattern of the information therefore that was sourced
was different. The use of upper management, or the team leader, to source the outside information
from other functions was one of the major observations of the Singapore sample that differed from the
New Zealand sample. The use of interfunctional NPD groups in New Zealand therefore precluded the
requirement of formal hierarchical channels of informational flow and communication of necessary
NPD information.

The two samples were similar in the degree and frequency and formality, although there appeared to be
somewhat more of process of information flow in the New Zealand sample. This could be attributed to
the fact that the organisations follow a formal NPD process, when formal information flow is required

59
for key NPD decision making. Information in both samples however followed a relatively informal
process.

4.5.2 Information

4.5.2.1 Amount of Information

4.5.2.1.1Singapore

 Generally there are few complaints about the amount of information that is available
from the different functions. Given that this is mainly a technical sample the amount
of market information is the focus. Any complaints would tend to stem from the lack
of detail of some of the information from the marketing function when used
formulating product specifications.
 Quotes:
Interviewer: “…so there is no problem with the amount of information that is
available?”
Respondent: “Of course you get people who are late, don’t provide information on
time, or people who don’t complete, who don’t give the complete information, you
know, you do...it’s not a hundred percent.”

New Zealand

 Most of the respondents agreed that there is an adequate amount of information

coming from the different functions. When asked to assess it further there was an
indication that the technical departments actually provide very good pertinent
amounts of information, whereas marketing is somewhat more average amounts for
the technical function to act upon.

 Respondents determined that time was the main moderator in terms of the amount of
information that could be generated by each of the functions for the team.

4.5.2.2 Procedure for Procurement and Dissemination of Information

4.5.2.2.1Singapore

 Interestingly only one organisation used a formal procedure for the procurement and
dissemination of market information. This is the large multi-national, rather than the
somewhat more informal approach that smaller organisations actually use. Usually it
is the marketing personnel who interact with customers or observe competitors’
products to obtain market information. Technical staff has a lesser role in procuring
market information from customers than marketing, but they still do.
 Quotes:
“Sometimes they (marketing) can directly first go to the boss or whatever, because
sometimes they have an overseas trip or whatever and come back and say okay report
the case and maybe also mention some product can we do or not.”

Interviewer: “Are you the guys who talk to the manufacturers or somebody else?”
Respondent: “We talk to the manufacturers.”
Interviewer: “It’s not your engineers or your marketing guys?”
Respondent: “Yes our engineering go down and talk personally, our marketing guy
talk personally.”

4.5.2.2.2 New Zealand

 Only one of the organisations had a formal procedure for procuring information
(market or technical), with most of it being undertaken in an ad hoc manner. At key
control points during the NPD process a certain amount of information is required to

60
 be generated in order for key fundamental decisions to be made e.g. the approval for
launch, or go /no go decisions. Interestingly, in some instances some of the key go /
no go decisions have been made in the past without full procurement of all pertinent
information required.

 Although each of the functions have specific information gathering responsibilities

they are jointly responsible for gathering all of the information for the product brief
in all of the organisations studied.

 Regular formal market research was not undertaken in any of the organisations.
Market information was gathered through some of the key customers, and the sales
force. Both the marketing and technical functions worked with the market and
gathered the market information. Market information therefore was not the exclusive
domain of the marketing function. In three of the organisations studied, the key
marketing manager had a technical background, either as a scientist or engineer.
These individuals therefore could also spot and gather relevant pertinent technical
information and feedback to the organisation. They also felt that it is important for
the marketing personnel to have a good understanding of the technical departments
(R&D and production), even if the lower level marketing staff had no formal
technical training. The major justification for this was that the marketing department
was as responsible for internal marketing (getting the technical departments behind
them) as external.

4.5.2.3 Evaluation of Information

Singapore

 R&D evaluate technical information in terms of technical feasibility, while marketing

provides potential sales volume and returns. All of the information is carefully
considered and evaluated and there is no one function’s information that is
considered less important than the other.
 Quotes:
“…there is a technical justification which has to be translated into a business
justification, I can make the decision technically on what needs to be done, how
much it is going to cost, what our chances of success are, I will have an idea of the
size of the business and maybe the value, that I will give to him (his boss, non-
technical person)…” –R&D manager

New Zealand

 Information is evaluated carefully and fully. Each function is principally involved in

the evaluation of their own information. There is a perception from some of the
technical departments that the marketing department has too high expectations on the
technical information that has been evaluated, with little of their own information. In
reality, however, the attention to the evaluation is equal whether marketing or
technical.

4.5.2.4 Dissemination of Information

4.5.2.4.1Singapore

 Upper management appears to be the major disseminator of the marketing

information to the NPD. In one organisation, however, a multifunctional team
situation is in place and the information is therefore fed up through the teams and
inputs occur here. Technical appear to be those who are principally involved in the
development aspects of NPD, with marketing having somewhat of a lesser role within
it.
 Quotes:

61
 “…the product manager will inform us regarding the product we will have to
develop, regarding the venture to be discussed on the resources point of view, we
discuss on the planning, and he will inform us regarding the delivery date, marketing
delivery date he is expecting.”

Interviewer: “And so the marketing guys will come back and do they kind of come
back and tell the nine engineers (in the NPD team) or the information just gets to the
team leader and the team leader…”
Respondent: “It’s the team leader, the team leader, myself (the COO).”

“Usually it’s the product manager, because he will be the frontline, he need to
interface with the customer, because he will understand better than us, what kind of
customer are using what kind of protocol…”

New Zealand

 The main mode of the dissemination of the information is to all members of the NPD
group at the regular meetings that are held. In one organisation this process is very
formal, whereas in other organisations, the information is shared on a need to know
basis, and used for discussion in order to make consensual decisions.

 Most of the informational transfer in organisations is done in an informal manner

between functions and levels of the organisation, with all members in the
organisation responsible for disseminating the information that they have procured.
This, notwithstanding, at key points in the NPD, there is formal transfer. A formal
process ensues when personnel in the NPD project are not based in the one location.

 Four organisations had a central database where the information was stored, for all
interested members to access, in order to make the decision making easier.

4.5.2.5 Quality of Information

4.5.2.5.1 Singapore

 There is no information about this but it is suspected that everyone is happy about the
quality of information as did not appear that anyone has any complaint when talking
about the information aspects of their projects.

4.5.2.5.2 New Zealand

 Most of the organisations remark that the information that they have received is of
the right quality, defined as of the right amount and gathered in a timely manner. In
order, to increase and maintain the quality of the information, one organisation
undertakes a large amount of training in information procedures, and processes
within the organisation. Another organisation noted that in order to improve the
quality of information within their organisation, the organisation must empower and
skill personnel to effectively procure and evaluate information gathered.

4.5.2.6 Conclusion

There are few problems in both samples as to the amount of information that is provided with
mention of the detail of some of the marketing information. A perennial issue raised in the
literature and other studies (including the previous Asia 2000 study, Buisson et al. 1996), market
information leaves the technical department sometimes guessing as to what the customer really
requires from them. It is difficult to ascertain the amount of technical information provided by the
Singapore technical function as the sample tends to be predominately technical, but the other

62
 functions in the New Zealand sample tended to agree that the technical information provided by
the R&D department tends to be pertinent and an adequate amount from which to make NPD
decisions.

In each sample only one organisation was observed to use a formal approach to procure
information, the others use ad hoc methods. This observation suggests that there are occasions
when full information search has not been undertaken at the time of key NPD decisions. A tacit
cost-benefit analysis may therefore have been undertaken to determine the relevance of
undertaking full information search for information procurement. The key difference between the
samples is in relation to the levels of customer information gathering done by each of the R&D
and marketing functions. In the New Zealand sample, information from the customer was
gathered jointly or individually by each of the functions. There is no clear demarcation between
the functions in terms of responsibility here.

The Singapore demarcation of responsibilities continues in the evaluation of technical and market
information. Again this was not observed in the New Zealand sample to a large extent, indicating,
that although the expertise of each function is important in the determination of the accuracy and
relevance of the information, each function had inputs. The only way in which this can be done
effectively is for each function to have an understanding (as opposed to a full specialisation) into
the requirements of each of the function’s task. Although it was observed that each of the
functions appear to have an understanding of other functions responsibilities, this was particularly
true for the technical function having an understanding of the marketing function as opposed to
vice versa.

The disseminator of information differs in the companies under investigation. The upper
management plays a key role in Singapore sample, as opposed to this group in the New Zealand
sample. The use of a gatekeeper such as the upper manager to disseminate information ensures
that only the pertinent information is shared. Certainly there was no indication that quality of the
information needed to implement their NPD tasks was in any question in either of the two samples.
The use of lower level staff in the New Zealand sample requires management and the organisation
to have a culture and philosophy for empowerment. An environment like this, either automatically
arises with the trust that upper management places on their personnel or through training.

4.5.3 Conflict

4.5.3.1 Origin

4.5.3.1.1 Singapore
 The origins of conflict cited include unclear specification, conflict of technical
excellence and cost, as well as over which customers’ needs should be prioritised.
Most of the respondents were observed to be uncomfortable to disclose that conflicts
exist and tend to downplay the severity of its occurrence in their company.
 Quotes:
“…there is a lot of disagreement, okay, because sometimes the specification is not so
clearly designed.”

“…we cannot afford to have the team member to take the lead in terms of
specifications because all engineers okay like to excel in their personal way at all
cost.”

4.5.3.1.2 New Zealand

 Most of the conflict within NPD arises from problems with communication between
personnel, whether they are from the same function, a different functional unit or
hierarchical level. Communication problems essentially arise if there is a problem
with a NPD task that the person is involved with, or making unilateral decisions
without communicating it to other NPD group members or to the key decision-
makers within the organisation.

63
  In two of the organisations studied there appeared to be a large amount of conflict
between the production function and the marketing and R&D functions. The origin of
this conflict is from both sides of the NPD equation.

Production Perceptions:
 Production often feel that they are not given any opportunity for input into
the NPD process, and many of the subsequent production problems, which often
ensue, could be eliminated earlier.
 Marketing and R&D are perceived by production as often being bullies,
acting in a high handed manner towards the production personnel.
 Marketing and R&D are perceived as not having a full understanding of the
scheduling requirements of the production facility, and the technical capabilities
of the production equipment.

Marketing and R&D Perceptions of Production

 Production does not make an effort to come to NPD meetings even if they
are invited.
 Production is perceived not to share the same vision for the organisation.
 Production is perceived not to try anything new, and thus respond to NPD
changes negatively and say that a NPD cannot be done.
 Production’s discussions and answers are perceived to be always negative in
the first instance, qualified by a lot of technical jargon, which no one, but
production, can understand.

 Other conflicts are normally associated with personality issues. These are common in
most organisations, with normally only one or two people within NPD actually
causing the problem.

 There does appear to be internal conflict in relation to the priorities that each
individual has. In one organisation, NPD staff were responsible for between 5 and 10
projects. If they are not the champions (leaders) of the project, then conflict of
priorities could arise.

4.5.3.2 Conflict Resolution

Singapore

 In the first instance the issues are raised, openly discussed, with conflict and
disagreements tried to be worked through to a compromise situation. This will assist
in the maintenance of the collegiality and ambience of the functions involved. If
conflict is not resolved in this manner, however, then third parties at a higher level of
the organisation are brought in, and their decisions are final. Often those at a higher
level must consider the impact of any non-consensual decision on the final customer,
so for example, marketing may be the lead in the resolution.
 Quotes:
“Actually it’s by consensus, everyone feels that this is the way, after all he feel that
he is a team member. So we go by elimination.”

“I don’t think you would have a problem, you would reach a consensus, and you
would follow that road.”

“…there is a lot of disagreement, okay, because sometimes the specification is not so

clearly designed, how we do is that we usually look for the product manager, or the
design engineer for more kind of…for more information.”

4.5.3.2.2 New Zealand

64
  Most of the conflict that ensues within the organisations is solved early in meetings
that are held within the teams rather than taking it higher up in the organisation. The
resolution normally is undertaken in terms of discussion with most conflicts resolved
in this manner.

 Some of the serious functional disputes are taken up higher within the organisation
for the upper management to resolve. This is normally only the last resort.

 Personality disputes are a little different. Again discussion and lower level solutions
are found in the first instance. Only after these aspects of resolution have been
exhausted, will upper management and other forms of personnel resolution be sought.
Often before upper management resolution has been sought the group has isolated the
individual and their involvement not sought in relation to NPD task decisions. The
individual will often look for another position within or outside the organisation that
best suits their personality requirements. Although individual personality difference
are tolerated by the organisation and fellow NPD personnel, and this individuality
encouraged, should the personality be against group and organisational cohesion and
not a good fit with the organisational culture will problems arise. Recruitment
policies in all of the organisations reflect this.

 Conflict of priorities is normally resolved through the individual discussing the

priorities with the upper manager and the other members of the NPD task. Normally
this form of conflict can be resolved relatively early as there is normally quite clear
direction given by the upper manager as to what is of high priority and what is not.

4.5.3.3 Conclusion

The sources of conflict in the two samples differ enormously. Singapore conflict in sourced in terms of
the harder aspects of the NPD task and the competencies that are involved here. In the New Zealand
sample, however the serious conflicts tend to arise over lack of communication which may be brought
about through levels of interactions the NPD functions have with one another, different from
Singapore. The New Zealand sample, for example, generally relies on direct communication from the
other function rather than having a manager moderate or source the information. The levels of
interaction can also be a problem between the different functional units, particularly between the
marketing and R&D functions with production. Likewise with the empowerment of the staff to a lower
level in the New Zealand sample than the Singapore results in conflict of priorities.

Resolution appeared to be the same in the two samples under observation, with both seeking to solve
any conflictual issues before bringing someone in from higher up or another third party. This, in the
majority of the situations, brings about satisfactory resolution, although should it not there was no
reluctance to bring in higher levels functions should the conflict persevere.

4.6 Accountability
4.6.1 Charter

Singapore

 Most of the NPD teams examined have a narrow charter usually confined to the
evaluation of the viability of a project and when viable, carry out the technical
development of that new product.
 Quotes:
“Because the product manager will be the front line, who do the interface to find out
what’s the market needs, he will formulate this kind of specification and he will pass
it to the design manager. Okay, this design manager who is in-charge of the R&D
team. So he will delegate, he will schedule the job accordingly. He will work out the

65
 man-power, number of people, the workload and also the deadline, the constraint, the
difficulty.”

“…he needs to be verified by the two parties, because our products were based on the
technical functional spec, we are based on it, so we need to verify, let them approve
it.”

4.6.1.2 New Zealand

 Most of the NPD groups know from the onset of a NPD project what the goals and
timing of the NPD project. The charter is quite clear and broad as to what they are to
undertake in relation to the NPD, once the decision to proceed with a NPD project
has been given. The organisations, tend to have a philosophy of letting the NPD
group to get on with things, rather than imposing barriers and “thou shalt not”
directive on them.

 The work team is very task oriented, with a large amount of responsibility (both
budgetary and other) empowered upon them by the organisation.

4.6.2 Decision Making Parameters

4.6.2.1 Singapore

 Due to their narrow charter, budget and time constraints, the NPD teams have a small
boundary within which they can make decisions, which are usually the technical
ones. And when these conflict with cost concerns, marketing usually prevails.
 Quotes:
“I can only pay for x dollars for this chip because it only does this function, okay and
the software running on it I only want to do this, so occasionally you have to pull the
team member back into perspective.”

Interviewer: “What about the budget authority, like if this guy needs money to
procure samples and all that, does he have quite a lot of authority to just go ahead and
buy the sample without consulting?”
Respondent: “Normally they will check with me.”

4.6.2.2 New Zealand

 The parameters of the team are such that there is a large amount of responsibility
empowered upon them.

 The NPD task is allocated a budget, and it is the NPD personnel's responsibility to
stay within these parameters. Any other expenditure, beyond operational costs (for
example capital expenditure), needs to have upper management approval. Each NPD
personnel member was observed to understand the financial and time considerations
of the each of the NPD projects that they were involved.

4.6.3 Reporting

4.6.3.1 Singapore

 Time: Team members or team leaders of the companies do not have the same
schedule of upward reporting. One company has a monthly milestone meeting while
another has them bimonthly. Others have no fixed reporting schedule but reporting is
done at the beginning and end of project, or at other points depending on the progress
and duration of project
 Quotes:
“We have a monthly management meeting, that one is called 3M meeting…”

66
 “We have milestone meetings definitely, on a monthly basis.”

Interviewer: “And the top management would be involved in the review points or are
they just...?”
Respondent: “No, no, they will only be...we just update them in their particular
report.”

 Content: Upward reporting mainly concerns the status and progress of the project.
 Quotes:
“…we go into the conference room, there is a whiteboard, tell me where you are,
when can you complete, what are the obstacles that you face?”

4.6.3.2 New Zealand

 In all instances there are clear formal points in which upward reporting needs to be
undertaken, in the critical path of the NPD. These are not perceived to be onerous,
and occur normally at three points during the life of a NPD, and at formal review
points for the entire NPD programme. The managers of the each of the functions
may informally feedback to upper management in their regularly scheduled
management meetings. There is much informal feedback upwards, and management
can normally access information as to the stage in the life the NPD is, either through
the NPD project leader, or a networked information system.

4.6.4 Conclusion

There are clear differences in the charter and the parameters within which the two samples undertake
their NPD tasks. The Singapore sample has a tight well-defined charter and parameters within which
they make their NPD decisions. The charter is determined at the beginning of the project, after which
the NPD team makes decisions only in relation to technical detail. In the New Zealand sample, there
are major differences. First in relation to having a broader charter within which to operate. The NPD
team will normally have input into the design of the NPD objectives and the critical path for the
development. Within this they have a broad parameters to make decisions in which to work. The NPD
team will normally have large financial control, although they are aware of the parameters within
which they work.

In relation to upward reporting, management in the two samples keep control, although do not require
formal upward reporting except at predetermined points or milestones in the life of the NPD. The type
of project appears to the moderating aspect of the levels of upward reporting in the two samples.

4.7 Summary of the Results

The results have been summarised in Table 12, highlighting the major differences and similarities
between the two samples. These results will be used as the basis for the discussion of the major
research propositions in the next chapter.

Table 12: Summary of the Major Results

Singapore New Zealand

NPD Context
General Organisation of NPD within the
Firm
Level of responsibility of NPD task Upper Management Upper management
(direction), NPD task
group

67
 Singapore New Zealand
Roles
Functional Involvement in NPD
Main Functional involvement in NPD Functionalised Multifunctional
Clarity of roles Very clear through Flexible
rigid job descriptions
Delineation of functional Delineated Fuzzy
responsibilities

Senior Management
Problems with senior management None identified Some lack of clear
direction
Leadership Style Predominant Directive Consultative
Empowers and
delegates

Project Leader
Function Responsible Technical or top Marketing (some
management sharing)
Type of empowerment Individual (the project Group empowerment
leader)
Project Leader’s role in between Main gatherer and Acts as a facilitator
function information flow disseminator for information
exchange

Functional Roles
Originator of ideas Marketing Marketing
Driver of implementation Technical Marketing/technical

Technical Function’s Customer Low Medium/High

Contact

Job Motivation
Motivation
Positive (perceived by the Clear approach to Challenge of the NPD
respondents) task; Trust and task
empowerment Empowerment
Negative Negative Lack of common
performance vision, individual
outcomes of NPD overload in NPD
projects activity, different
functional priorities

NPD Dynamics
Helpful NPD Dynamics Clear operating Understanding each
guidelines NPD group member’s
Competent personnel role and function
Unhelpful NPD Dynamics Lack of Lack of
communication communication

Rewards
Financial Firm level Firm Level
performance bonus performance bonus
Non-financial None stated Recognition of good
NPD task

68
Table 12: Summary of the Major Results cont.
Singapore New Zealand
Interaction
Communication
Content Informational Informational
Mode Formal (Inter Informal and formal
functional); informal inter and intra
and formal functional
(intrafunctional)
Pattern Through upper At the group level
management or
project leader
(normally at a senior
level of the
organisation)
Frequency Stage points as Stage points as
required required

Information
Amount Adequate Adequate
Procurement Procedure Informal Informal; customer
information gathered
jointly by technical
and marketing
Evaluation Demarcated by Jointly undertaken by
function NPD group
Dissemination Upper management Empowered lower
key role level staff key
Quality Sometimes Sometimes
inconsistent inconsistent
marketing marketing
information information

Conflict
Origin Hard Objective NPD Communication,
details conflict in functional
priorities
Resolution Compromise at Compromise at
beginning; upper beginning; upper
management if management if
persists persists

Accountability
Charter Tight Broad
Parameters for Decision Making Narrow Wide
Reporting At predetermined At predetermined
points as required points as required
Ambience Task Task/Relationship

69
5.0 Discussion
5.1 Introduction
This section introduces the discussion on the results that have been outlined in chapter 4 in relation to
the propositions and objectives that were stated in chapters 1 and 2.

The overall objective of the study is to understand the nature of national culture in Singapore and New
Zealand its impact on NPD group decision and process dynamics. The specific objectives that this
study assessed are:

1. What are the roles of each of the functions within the NPD task:?
i. What is the role of managerial involvement in the NPD workgroup processes?
ii. What is the role of marketing involvement in NPD workgroup processes?
iii. What is the role of the technical function in NPD workgroup processes?

2. What are the key motivations of the NPD workgroup for proficient NPD?

3. What are the expected and actual rewards given for NPD proficiency?

4. What are key components that characterise functional integration in NPD?

i. What are the key mechanisms used to interplay technical and marketing information
within the project?
ii. How does the NPD workgroup acquire, share and use technical and marketing
information?
iii. What are the sources of conflict within the NPD workgroup?
iv. How is conflict resolved within the NPD workgroup

5. What are the accountability aspects of proficient NPD workgroup decision and process dynamics?

5.2 Proposition Discussion

A number of propositions were developed and each of these will now be discussed in turn. The
objectives will be addressed in the conclusions.

The proposed interactions between the players in NPD decision and process dynamics were developed
in relation to each of the Hofstede Dimensions. Following the model outlined in figure 4 qualitative
data were collected on each of the major functional roles and key factors that needed to be taken into
consideration. Cultural data from the 1996 Asia 2000 report (Buisson et al. 1996) were used as the
basis for measuring each of the country’s relative positions on each of the dimensions. From these
results there were clear differences in the two country scores on the Individualism/Collectivism, Power
Distance and Uncertainty Avoidance Dimensions. It was further found in the 1996 Asia 2000
Foundation study that these three dimensions were the most useful for explaining the differences in
NPD behaviour of the two samples leading to the proposition that these dimensions would be the main
explanatory national cultural dimensions in this study. This study adds to the previous study through
the in-depth analysis of NPD decision and process dynamics of NPD personnel in New Zealand and
Singapore.

In the following sections the three main dimensions of Individualism/Collectivism; Power Distance and
Uncertainty Avoidance will be discussed in relation to the investigated propositions, followed by
Masculinity and Femininity and Long-term /short-term dimensions.

5.2.1 Individualism and Collectivism Proposition Discussion

Singapore’s high individualism score lead to the development of the following propositions:

In the Singapore sample it is proposed that:

70
i. there will be greater empowerment of project leaders to champion ideas through the NPD
process;

The results indicate that both samples employ project leaders to champion products through
the NPD process. The level within the organisation of these project leaders however appears
to be different. In Singapore, the project leader, normally holds a senior position, whereas in
New Zealand, the project leader can be from all levels of the organisation. Each of the project
leaders, are empowered with the responsibility for ensuring that the NPD project is undertaken
in a timely and efficient manner, and are concerned in the eventual success of the project.
They, therefore, are all involved in championing the project.

This proposition is therefore not supported. The Singaporean sample is more likely to have
greater empowerment for project leaders than the New Zealand sample whose project leaders
come from all levels of the organisation.

ii. In Singapore technical innovators will be empowered at all levels of the organisation;

The key functional involvement in NPD in Singapore, was observed to be the technical
function this being more than the New Zealand sample. There are two parts to this
proposition. First technical innovators are empowered, and second at all levels. NPD
implementation is under the direction of the technical function in Singapore, whereas it is
under joint functional (marketing, R&D, etc) control in New Zealand. Ideas for the NPD, in
both countries tend to come from the marketing function, on either direction from head office,
monitoring the home and international market environment, competitors or their customers.

Innovations tend to come from inspired individuals (often being those in senior management)
for the more revolutionary NPD in Singapore while the more “routine” NPD is derived from
market analysis and opportunity identification by either function. In New Zealand there is
similarly no functional alignment for true innovations with innovators supported and
empowered at all levels. In Singapore, because of the organisational hierarchy where
empowerment is resident this proposition is therefore not supported.

iii. In Singapore communication and information shared amongst NPD members will be explicit;

Reflecting the low-context communication structures of individualistic cultures (Hofstede,

1991), explicit messages that are not open to interpretation appear to be the dominant
characteristic of Singapore NPD communication and information. This is different from the
New Zealand sample, where although explicit communication is required, there is a
dominance of high-context communication between members and the types of information
that are exchanged. This proposition is supported.

The type of communication context reflects the style of information management within the
firm. Singaporean upper management plays an important role in soliciting, evaluating and
disseminating information to members of the NPD team. There is evidence, therefore that
only information that is needed actually reaches the NPD group member, which is explicit.

Further evidence of low-context communication in the work environment within the

Singapore NPD situation is the style of the 'Job Descriptions'. Although there was no
observed difference in either country sample in terms of the levels of job descriptions, it was
observed that Singapore job descriptions had more explicit and encompassing descriptions of
their tasks than in the New Zealand sample. The Singapore sample therefore tended to keep
within their job description as it fully reflected their task. It was observed that the there is a
considerable amount of effort of updating and maintaining accurate, explicit and
encompassing job descriptions by the respective management in New Zealand for their
employees. New Zealand respondents, however, were observed as being expected, to
undertake more than what is explicitly stated in their job descriptions, as different
organisational and environmental circumstances warranted.

71
iv. In Singapore NPD members will be motivated by the variety and the challenge of NPD over
conformity and orderliness;

This proposition is not supported. Both national environments’ NPD personnel are
characterised by being motivated by the variety and challenge of the NPD task. The levels of
conformity and orderliness however were observed to be different between the two samples.
Singapore NPD personnel measured are motivated by the variety and challenge of their task
and they are demotivated by lack of orderliness and conformity. This is not the case in the
New Zealand sample. Although having conformity and orderliness is important, for
maintaining control and direction of the NPD task and having the right colleagues to work
with, too much can actually be demotivating, taking away from the innovation, challenge and
variety of the NPD task.

v. management will be undertaken reflecting individual skills and potential mutual economic
advantage than in-group cohesiveness and synergy – in all aspects from hiring to management
employee relationships.

This proposition is supported. The personnel skills and potential mutual economic advantage
appears to be important in New Zealand with organisation and group fit being equally
important in all aspects of the of the management of the organisation. It was observed in the
interviews that managers in the New Zealand business environment, understand that hiring the
right personnel with good skills was very important, but not at the expense of the group that
was within the organisation currently. On more than one occasion, when an individual was
not maintaining the group within the organisation, they were either forced out of the
organisation, by other employees, or alternatively moved within the organisation. The hireage
process in many of the organisations observed in this study reflected the importance of this,
with current employees being increasingly brought into assist in making the recruitment
decision.

vi. will have a task rather than a relationship orientation.

This proposition is supported. In Singapore tasks are clearly demarcated fitting to the mutual
economic advantage of the employee and the organisation. Tasks are undertaken and
relationships built on the competency of the other NPD task members within the NPD context.
Although, the case in the New Zealand NPD context as well, there is a focus on ensuring that
relationships are maintained, so hence a larger emphasis on relationship building rather than
purely on the task aspects. There is an indication that this is changing within the New Zealand
environment, which is of concern to some of the task group level employees and managers
observed for this study.

5.2.2 Power Distance and NPD

It is proposed that the Singapore sample will

vii. have greater centralisation of key NPD decisions

Decision making is observed to be more centralised in the Singapore environment than what it
is in the New Zealand in which the there is more devolvement of decision making to the NPD
group level. New Zealand and Singapore samples are consistent that key go/no go decisions
are made at a central level. They differed, however, in terms of the levels of empowerment for
decision making, and in some instances financial control at the project level of the
organisation, which was reflected primarily in the levels of accountability, charter and
parameters for each of the NPD groups. This is not observed as negative in either of the two
samples, and almost certainly in the majority of the cases it was not perceived as a problem,
and 'the way that things are'. In New Zealand it should be noted that the level of devolvement
given should be constantly looked at from management. Empowerment is not considered as
loss of responsibility but to ensure that the direction is clear and timelines maintained for the
NPD staff member.

72
viii. demonstrate initiatives from upper management rather than being empowered to lower level
staff;

This proposition is supported. In all but one of the Singapore firms initiatives were stated to
come from the upper level of the organisation. This is not surprising given that project leaders
are sourced from the upper management level of the organisation. This has been mentioned
often in this discussion and is where the real decision making power of the organisation rests.
This notwithstanding, project leadership and upper management are seeking ways in which to
increase the initiatives and innovation that is undertaken at lower levels of the firm. In some
cases upper management were observed to be offering the NPD task level members incentives
to undertake and support initiatives. Members from the NPD task level of the organisation,
however, were rarely willing to take the risk, and therefore initiatives. It may be observed that
they are getting too much power from their manager, and or (as will be discussed later) they
are setting themselves up for failure, which may have a detrimental effect on their standing
within the organisation and their future career.

In New Zealand, initiatives come from all levels of the organisation. It was observed that there
is an expectation by management that NPD task members be proactive and take initiatives.
Management will reward in most cases those individuals who are proactive, and certainly this
is seen in a positive light by the individual. Management is also expected to take initiatives,
which in the NPD task, in most of the organisations observed, they did readily.

ix. have an expected and accepted organisational NPD hierarchy;

This proposition is supported. The organisational NPD hierarchy observed in the Singapore
sample is expected and accepted. Whilst the same is partly true in the New Zealand context,
their appears to be much effort in breaking down some of the traditional hierarchy that exists,
empowering task level personnel with the effect of decentralising decision making within the
organisation. The level to which this has occurred in the Singapore was not observed to be as
high as in New Zealand. Evidence of this occurs in the strong level of management within
Singapore, the functional organisational and NPD structure, the role management plays in
communication and information flow, the personnel’s place within the organisation the job
description outlines, and the level of accountability and charter that the NPD group has. In all
of these aspects there are differences between New Zealand and Singapore. Importantly there
is no real evidence to suggest that Singapore personnel question the manager and manager’s
role within the organisation. Although, there is no evidence to suggest that this makes the
manager’s role any more secure than in New Zealand, the New Zealand manager appears to
be accountable both to their superiors and their subordinates, making the relationship between
each less based on position, but based on competence and facilitation. As one New Zealand
respondent indicated “we are leaders, not managers.”

x. have management who are directional rather than consultative;

This proposition is supported. Although consultation occurs, upper management in Singapore

was observed to be more directional than their counterparts in New Zealand, who tend to be
more consensual and consultative, reflecting their respective communication and project
management styles. Communication may be a result of the communication context, as
discussed earlier, with the low context communication style observed in Singapore, making
more direct and explicit instructions important. The task focus is likewise more important in
Singapore rather than relationship, which is maintained and enhanced when there is
consultation, reflecting one of the aspects of their project management styles. Likewise when
there is more empowered decision making responsibility given to group level NPD members,
such as in New Zealand, consultation is likewise more important. Finally, the acceptance and
recognition of the organisation hierarchy, makes the NPD member accepting of the upper
manager’s direction, than when there is not such an organisational hierarchy. New Zealand
upper management are considered, and often are, part of the NPD team by NPD group
members. They are directional when it matters and will take key decisions and direct them to
other team members but generally they are maintained as providing the direction and consult
in their expertise. This is regarded as being positive in the New Zealand context.

73
 There are some unusual aspects, however, with this proposition when helpful and unhelpful
NPD dynamics were investigated. Singapore respondents when asked to indicate the dynamics
that were motivating in the NPD context stated that consultation by upper management was.
This was also mentioned in the New Zealand context.

xi. have management who demonstrate paternal autocratic decision making style;

The management of NPD in the New Zealand sample do not demonstrate much of a paternal
attitude, rather they could be regarded as elder siblings, available for advice, direction and
defence (against other members of the organisation, management or otherwise). It was
observed that there is more of a paternal approach demonstrated by Singapore management
than New Zealand management. As mentioned in the previous propositions Singapore
management is observed to be more directional, accepted and recognised as part of the
hierarchy, therefore they understand what is required and will direct their staff as needed. As
part of that responsibility they do take much more of a paternal approach to their staff,
recognising that they are part of the team, giving support when needed. Although, more
autocratic than the New Zealand manager, they are not fully autocratic, as this term is perhaps
too strong for the decision making style they demonstrate. They will consult on occasion, and
are examining how to get their staff more involved.

xii. have management staff relationships that are based on respect, rather than being equal;

This proposition is only partially supported. There was demonstrated respect from almost all
of the respondents in both samples toward their manager and the management function. This
respect was not only from the position that they have attained and have within the
organisation, but also on the competency and expertise that management lent to the NPD task.
This may either be through direct involvement in the NPD task, or through the support on a
strategic level to the importance that the NPD task has within the organisation. The only time
that respect was not high, and only by two respondents in one company in the New Zealand
sample, was if the managerial and functional competency and their ability to recognise NPD
personnel was questioned.

Equality was another issue. There is no anticipation and feeling that management were equal
to themselves amongst the NPD level staff in Singapore. The use of denoted titles for their
managers and other symbols, and overall attitude towards their managers tacitly recognised
this lack of equality. Furthermore managers in the Singapore sample, did not expect to be
treated as equals. In New Zealand, however, although the level to which this is stated differs
between managers, they generally do not take a hierarchical position within the organisation.
They generally receive and get respect for their position within the organisation, but when
they are working together on an NPD project they act as colleagues rather than in a superior
subordinate role. On this aspect, this proposition is supported.

xiii. will have rewards, status symbols, and prestige based on organisational hierarchy.

This proposition is partially supported. The evidence of hierarchy rewards, status symbols
and prestige is in far greater evidence in the Singapore sample, than in the New Zealand
sample. There is, however, an expectation that managers higher in the hierarchy will get more
rewards and symbols for their position in New Zealand, but a balance needs to be made. In
one situation, the bonus system generally left out NPD task level employees, unless they are
part of the management team, causing resentment amongst employees that they were not
recognised as contributing to organisational success. Of note, the employees in this
organisation received little recognition for undertaking good NPD, thus there was evidence
that reward systems within this environment was important.

The adage that marketing people received higher rewards within the organisation was also
raised amongst some of the New Zealand respondents. It was perceived, by the technical
personnel, that marketing personnel were rewarded significantly higher in two cases, than the

74
 technical function. This view was shared by the marketing personnel. This perception
problem is a perennial issue in the literature, and should be carefully considered by New
Zealand management, to ensure that based on the function that there is not an issue of one
being more important than the other.

5.2.3 Uncertainty Avoidance and NPD

Singapore exhibits strong uncertainty avoidance therefore it is proposed that Singapore will have:

xiv. a greater propensity to plan as members are uncomfortable in ambiguous situations;

This proposition is supported. The Singapore sample was observed to have a need to be in
well defined situations in which there are high levels of clarity of task expectations and
functions. Although, NPD by nature has large levels of ambiguity within it, there is a
propensity within the Singapore sample to plan and reduce the ambiguity as much as possible.
The degree of NPD planning and processes that are in place are as a function of the
requirements of either the owner organisation or the marketplace, whether for quality, legal or
other environmental factors, however, much of the planning is in place to reduce the risk and
ambiguity of the NPD task. Respondents were observed to take this as normal, and as a
positive dynamic. Formal processes and plans fitted their comfort zone to work in
unambiguous situations, where it was clearly stated as to what the expectations and
requirements of the NPD task were clear. Evidence of this is in the formal inter-functional
communication, where the manager (project or otherwise) acted as a buffer, interpreted and
passed the required information to the NPD task level. Clear objectives, and tasks are written
into manuals, formal descriptions that encompass all the personnel’s task, and the tight
charters within which the NPD level personnel work are clearly and explicitly stated, reducing
any level of ambiguity.

The New Zealand sample likewise is required to plan and put in formal processes as a
function of the environment within which they operate. Reduction of the risk of NPD is
equally important and management has spent much time to increase the effectiveness and
productivity of the NPD function. The ambiguity of the NPD task, however, is something that
many respondents relish. Not knowing what the answer to a problem is, the challenge and the
overall anxiety that NPD has are factors that are considered to be positive dynamics. Over
planning is not. A balance between planning and the implementation of formal processes, and
not de-motivating NPD personnel is clearly an issue. NPD personnel appear to be very
responsive to working in ambiguous situations, however, they also like to know the
expectations of the task, and thus planning is important. In one or two situations when the
respondents were given “carte blanche” to operate, when there was little guidance and
planning, meant that the NPD tasks, was neither effective (that is generally ran over time) nor
found to be enjoyable by the members involved. This demonstrates, whilst the New Zealand
respondents enjoy ambiguous situations, planning and processes should still be employed so
the NPD project framework is clear.

Further evidence of the New Zealand samples liking to work with some level of ambiguity,
was the degree of informal communication between functions, the level of empowerment to
the NPD personnel, the types of job descriptions and the wider charter and parameters of the
NPD group. This informal cross-functional communication results was observed for the
willingness of the functions, particularly in the technical functions, to learn more about the
other function. This will generally lead personnel into functional areas that are outside their
traditional functional comfort zones. This was not observed to be the case to the same extent
in the Singapore sample.

xv. planning and rules in all aspects of NPD;

This proposition is supported. It was observed that there was more planning and rules in the
Singapore situation than in the New Zealand in all aspects of NPD. As the previous
proposition has stated, Singapore personnel have more rules and explicit processes from
which to undertake their NPD task, whereas the New Zealand sample has a broader charter to
work within.

75
xvi. managers who are expected to know the answers for subordinate’s questions;

This proposition is supported. In the Singapore situation it was observed that the managers
are expected to know the requirements and answers to their subordinates’ questions more
frequently than in the New Zealand sample. This may be a function of the fact that the
managers are more directive, act as chief conduits of information flow within the NPD task,
and do not empower their subordinates as much to take decisions. With the tightness of the
parameters and their managerial style toward their employees make consultations somewhat
less likely and therefore more of an onus on managers having answers to any questions
(within obvious boundaries) that their subordinates may have.

xvii. individuals who conform and without being too different;

This proposition is not supported, although conformity happens in two different and distinct
ways in both samples. Given the tight parameters and operational guidelines that Singapore
personnel are given, personnel are expected to operate and not branch out beyond these.
Manager’s and subordinates alike expect to conform within the organisational setting the
decisions that are made. Non-conformists in this respect, the New Zealand sample indicated
that they liked shining lights and individuals that are not willing to go with the status quo
through initiation and creativity. On this aspect, Singapore and New Zealand personnel differ.
Conformity occurs however, in relation to personnel working well together. There is a feeling
that if an individual is expected to show initiative and not kow-tow to every decision – “not
become a “yes” man” they should be able to operate within the organisational culture and
work well with the other members of the NPD and greater organisational group. Should they
not be able to do this they will sometimes be made to feel uncomfortable, and on occasions to
be forced out of the group and in some cases out of the entire organisation. The New Zealand
notion of conformity is more in relation to the Individualism-Collectivism dimension, rather
than conforming to stay out of ambiguous situations.

Conflict origin and conflict resolution also reflects this in both country samples. There is
much conflict that arises out of personality differences or people not willing to play the NPD
team game. Conflict, therefore will arise when there is non-conformity. Resolution, often
centred around this, with negotiation and compromise being the main aspects of ensuring
good group harmony.

xviii. NPD motivation is based on financial and job security first followed by achievement.

There is no evidence that this proposition is supported. In all cases the NPD/innovation
projects that the samples were working on appear to be achievable. The challenge and
excitement of the NPD task is mutual motivation for NPD, with financial and job security not
being tacitly or overtly observed in either sample. There is an expectation in both samples
that they will be financially rewarded with good performance, which in its own way will assist
in maintaining their job security. Management also looks at their performance in relation to
job turnover and there was no evidence that this is too high.

5.2.4 The Other Dimensions of Hofstede and NPD

There is no significant difference between New Zealand and Singapore in relation to the
Masculinity/Femininity dimension, therefore it is proposed that there will be no differences between
the samples in terms of:

xix. the purposefulness of NPD within the organisation;

The proposition is supported in the companies that were under investigation in this study.
This may be a factor of the selection of organisations for participation and therefore reflects
the sample. Only those organisations that were actively involved in NPD, and were seen as
being in best practice were selected in Singapore and New Zealand. The results therefore
cannot be generalised to the greater population, and may not reflect or the organisations in the
two countries. This aside, in both Singapore and New Zealand there has been a strong

76
 emphasis by many industry wide and governmental organisations on the management and
importance of NPD for the future growth of the economies of these two respective countries.

Upper management and the staff observed in this study, agreed that there should be continual
evaluation of NPD, and strong support given to the NPD task within their organisations.
There were no indications given that NPD was not given this support and purposefulness.

xx. the emphasis on relationship building within the NPD environment or objective or financial
measures;

This proposition is not supported. In New Zealand it was observed that there is more
emphasis on the relationship building aspects of NPD, but in all organisations understudy
have a strong requirement that all NPD activities, along with all other functions that the
organisation undertakes, meet stringent objective and financial measures.

xxi. the treatment of failure or non-meeting of objectives;

There were no results to support or refute this proposition. The qualitative methodology that
we have been using, resulted in this proposition not falling out as expected. Keeping this in
mind, there is an indication that there is more conformity and mutual advantage in the
Singapore sample at the NPD level of the organisation, therefore there is much peer pressure
on the NPD task personnel to ensure that they do not fail. The NPD rules and processes in
place also assist in eliminating failure.

xxii. a similar managerial approach is expected;

This proposition is not supported. In Singapore it was observed that managers have a more
directive approach to the management of their personnel, as opposed to the New Zealand
managerial style being more consensual and consultative. This proposition is at odds with the
earlier propositions for power distance and individualism and collectivism, which have been
found in earlier studies to be more explanatory of NPD behaviour, and particularly managerial
behaviour so it is expected that this proposition would not be supported.

xxiii. conflict among groups will be resolved through compromise and negotiation.

This proposition is supported. In both samples it was observed that any conflict that may arise
within or between groups will first be resolved through compromise and negotiation, and only
once this method for resolution has been exhausted will upper management and other means
be sought. There are not differences between the approaches adopted in the Singapore or the
New Zealand samples.

Both Singapore and New Zealand have similar levels of long and short-term orientation. They will
therefore be proposed to be similar in terms of levels of:

xiv. adaptation of NPD managerial and organisational practices to the changing environment;

Although there has been no specific data collected to support or refute this proposition, as
discussed under proposition (XIX above). Both samples’ organisations were observed to take
a longer perspective, continually evaluating their NPD organisation, and managerial styles.
The organisations work in fiercely competitive international and domestic environments
indicating that if they do not keep ahead of change, or be highly responsive they will be
unable to maintain their competitive position.

There is, therefore, no indication that any one of the organisations are entrenched in their own
position, and not willing to make changes to account the changes in the environment (both
internal and external). On further analysis of the results, to see if size or ownership issues
(e.g. a large multinational), are determinants, there is again indication that this proposition is
supported.

77
xxv. questioning of status and social position of the managers;

This proposition is not supported. Although Singapore and New Zealand demonstrate similar
levels of long-term orientation, there is a clear reluctance on the Singapore part of whether
they are able or willing to question the position of their managers. Although the literature
suggests that this proposition is grouped with the long and short-term orientation Hofstede
dimension, the discussion under the Power Distance dimension is more relevant.

xxvi. NPD member and management NPD result time orientations;

There is no evidence contrary to this proposition, therefore this proposition is supported. The
time orientations that the organisations worked to differed between the organisations, the
industry sectors within which they operate, and the geographic scope of their markets. These
differences existed within each of the Singapore and New Zealand environments, and
therefore may not be readily attributed to national cultural differences.

xxvii. management of NPD personnel’s face and personal feelings;

In all cases management would look after their staff and take into account their personnel’s
face and personal feelings. When this deviated, it was due to a specific manager and
organisational situation rather than the national environment within which the personnel
operate. Although it appeared that the manager within the Singapore situation was more
directional than their New Zealand counterparts, there was no evidence that they were less
personal and harder on their personnel. This proposition is supported.

5.2.5 Conclusion

In conclusion the above propositions, in the main, were supported with the exception of a notable few.
As with the Buisson et al. 1996 study, the dimensions of individualism/collectivism, power distance
and uncertainty avoidance were the noted as the dimensions of national culture that were observed to
have the greatest influence on NPD decision and process dynamics.

Table 14 summarises the proposition discussion. It is clearly noted that there are some propositions
that have either not been supported or only partially supported. This would be expected. As with the
discussion on the proposed model, (which is further discussed in the conclusion section), national
culture is only one of the many environmental factors that can be used to explain behaviour. Other
variables such as firm factors, the country’s socio-economic context and organisational culture factors
having an effect. We keep the notion therefore, that national culture will explains between 30-50% of
the NPD behaviour (Gannon, 1996). This does not take away from the importance of examining
national culture effects. Table 14 demonstrates that the Hofstede dimensions of national culture cane be
used to explain many aspects of the decision and process dynamics of Singapore and New Zealand
firms.

This study confirms and adds to the Buisson et al. 1996 study in which it was found that the
dimensions of Individualism and Collectivism, Power Distance and Uncertainty Avoidance are the
National Cultural dimensions which can be used to best explain managerial styles and group NPD
behaviours. Of these national culture dimensions, individualism is the least supported of the
propositions. It was expected, given the higher levels of individualism observed in the Singapore
sample, that Singapore would have more individual type behaviours that impact decision and process
dynamics. Results indicate in fact that in some propositions the position of the countries are reversed.
Clearly this dimension is not as clear cut as expected. Individualism as a dimension has been normally
associated with western countries (Hofstede, 1991) with many of the east Asian countries being
associated with collectivism, grounded on the Confucian ideals from which the dimension has been
theorised. High levels of individualism has further been related to higher levels of national economic
development (Hofstede, 1991). Singapore with high levels of economic development along with their
traditional Chinese Confucianism aspects explains the mixed results, which have come from this
dimension. The level of empowerment that is given to the group and task individuals by management
indicates this mix of individualism and collectivism in the Singapore national context.

78
In relation to managerial behaviour, therefore, Power Distance, appears to be the determining
dimension, individualism in relation to task orientation and management of individuals, and uncertainty
avoidance in relation to planning and rules that govern the NPD process.
Table 13: Conclusions of the Proposition Discussion
Proposition
Individualism
i. Singapore will have greater
empowerment of project leaders to
champion ideas through the NPD
process
ii. Singapore will empower technical
innovators at all levels of the
organisation
iii. In Singapore communication and
information shared will be explicit
iv. In Singapore NPD members will be
motivated by variety and
challenge of NPD over conformity
and orderliness.
v. Management will be undertaken
reflecting individual skills and
potential mutual economic
advantage than in-group
cohesiveness and synergy.
vi. Singapore will have a task rather
than a relationship orientation.
Power Distance
vii. Singapore will have more
centralisation of key NPD decisions
viii Singapore will demonstrate more
. initiatives from upper
management rather than being
empowered to lower level staff
ix. Singapore will have an expected
and accepted organisational
hierarchy.
x. Singapore will have management
who are directional rather than
consultative
xi. Singapore will have management
who demonstrate a paternal
autocratic decision making style
Suppo Comment
rt
No Upper management tend to be
the project leaders – no
empowerment
No NPD implementation at the
technical level; joint control in
NZ; upper management
innovators – Singapore; all
levels – NZ.
Yes More high-context information
exchange in NZ; Affects
information at all levels.
No Both samples want variety and
challenge; Singapore more
prone to conformity and
orderliness.
Yes Both samples reflect individual
skills and economic advantage;
NZ more in-group cohesion and
synergy
Yes Singapore: Tasks clearly
demarcated relationships built
on task; NZ task important –
equally so the relationship
orientation.
Yes Singapore – resides in upper
management more than in NZ
where it is devolved.
Yes Singapore – initiatives tend to
come from upper management
although want to come from
lower level. NZ expect
initiatives from all levels and
will reward accordingly.
Yes Singapore: Organised hierarchy
evident with clear
functionalised organisation; NZ
breaking down hierarchy.
Management in the two
samples react in different
ways.
Yes Singapore – more directional
than NZ; related to
communication context; task
orientation of Singapore.
Yes Singapore Management more
paternal, and autocratic;
Management more collegial
79

xii. Singapore will have management
staff relationships that are based
on respect rather than equal.
xiii Singapore will have rewards,
. status symbols and prestige based
on organisational hierarchy
and consultative in NZ.
Partial Both samples have a respect
based management
relationship. NZ has a more
equal relationship.
Partial In NZ some rewards etc are
expected but others are
earned; NZ management must
ensure that there is equity in
some reward allocation.
80
Table 13: Conclusions of the Proposition Discussion continued:
Uncertainty Avoidance
xiv Singapore will have a greater Yes Singapore like to have higher
. propensity to plan as members are clarity of task expectations and
uncomfortable in ambiguous functions than the NZ sample.
situations Planning occurs in both
samples, but for different
reasons.
xv. Singapore will have greater plans Yes As above, NZ has wider and
and rules in all aspects of NPD more flexible charters to work
within.
xvi In Singapore managers are Yes Singapore – expected to know
. expected to know the answers for answers – communication
their subordinates questions context and close parameters
of their NPD task member
boundaries assist this.
xvi In Singapore individuals are No This occurs in different ways in
i. expected to conform and not be the two samples – conformity
too different expected with managerial
decisions in Singapore,
conformity with team
environment in NZ
xvi In Singapore NPD motivation is No Both samples have similar
ii based on financial and job security motivations for NPD
first followed by achievement
Masculinity/ Femininity
xix No difference in the Yes NPD is prime strategic
. purposefulness of NPD within the importance in all organisations
organisation between the two in both countries
countries
xx. Both countries will emphasise No More emphasis on relationship
relationship building within the building in NZ than Singapore,
NPD environment or objective or similar in terms of other
financial measures measures
xxi Both countries will treat failure and No Both countries have a great
. the non-meeting of objectives in a test amount of peer pressure
similar manner
xxi Both countries will have a similar No Singapore – more directive; NZ
i. managerial approach. more consensual
xxi Both countries will resolve conflict Yes Similar approaches to conflict
ii. through compromise and resolution
negotiation
Long term/ Short term
xiv Both countries will have similar Yes May be a contingent on the
. adaptation of managerial and small sample size in terms that
organisational practices to the all are proactive
changing environment
xv. Both countries will question the No Singapore more reluctant than
status and social position of their NZ
managers
xvi Both countries will have similar Yes Result horizons are a function
. result horizons of organisation and market
characteristics
xvi Both countries have management Yes Humanistic elements are
i. over personnel’s face and personal evident in the management in
feelings both countries.

81
6.0 Conclusions
6.1 Introduction
Each of the following objectives of the study will be addressed in turn, culminating in the overall
objective. Following this, managerial implications and future research objectives will be addressed.

6.2 Discussion of the Objectives

The overall objective of the study is to understand the nature of national culture in Singapore and New
Zealand its impact on NPD group decision and process dynamics. The specific objectives that this
study assessed are:

1. What are the roles of each of the functions within the NPD task?
i. What is the role of managerial involvement in the NPD workgroup processes?
ii. What is the role of marketing involvement in NPD workgroup processes?
iii. What is the role of the technical function in NPD workgroup processes?

2. What are the key motivations of the NPD workgroup for proficient NPD?

3. What are the expected and actual rewards given for NPD proficiency?

4. What are key components that characterise functional integration in NPD?

i. What are the key mechanisms used to interplay technical and marketing information
within the project?
ii. How does the NPD workgroup acquire, share and use technical and marketing
information?
iii. What are the sources of conflict within the NPD workgroup?
iv. How is conflict resolved within the NPD workgroup

5. What are the accountability aspects of proficient NPD workgroup decision and process dynamics?

6.2.1 What are the roles of each of the functions within the NPD task?

6.2.1.1 What is the role of management in NPD workgroup processes?

• Role of management in New Zealand is to maintain both economic and group cohesion whereas
there is more emphasis on economic principles in Singapore.

• NPD management is based on the employment of product champions as project leaders in both
samples

• Decision-making is centralised at management level in Singapore – devolved to lower levels in

New Zealand.

• Initiatives are expected from upper management in Singapore (as lower level members are more
risk averse) whereas new initiatives from and proactive stance are expected at all hierarchical
levels in New Zealand.

• Senior management tends to be part of the NPD team in New Zealand, but maintains a distance in
Singapore.

• Singapore management demonstrates power and authority to the NPD team whereas in New
Zealand management tend to be more collegial in approach.

• Personnel are controlled through more explicit job descriptions in Singapore whereas in New
Zealand job descriptions are more open and fluid.

82
• Functional roles are job and task fixed in Singapore whereas in New Zealand there is more job
flexibility with greater crossover of the roles.

• Management plays the role of the main information conduit and centre of decision making in
Singapore whereas in New Zealand this is a shared role between management and lower level
NPD personnel.

6.2.1.2 What is the role of marketing in NPD workgroup processes?

• Ideas come from marketing in both countries as organisations in both countries wish for their NPD
to customer/consumer led.

• Marketing has greater organisational power for NPD in New Zealand than observed in Singapore.

• The marketing function tends to be the principal shared leader in the NPD teams in New Zealand
whereas the technical function has greater leadership in Singapore.

• Marketing is principally responsible for the transfer of customer information samples from
customer to the NPD in both countries.

• There is stronger delineation between the marketing and technical roles in Singapore than in the
New Zealand sample.

6.2.1.3 What is the role of the technical function in NPD workgroup processes?

• Primary responsibility of the technical function in both samples is the physical development of the
product and keeping ahead of technical advances.

• Technical has a greater leadership role in Singapore. This is a shared role with marketing in New
Zealand.

• The technical and marketing functions work together as a NPD group in New Zealand, allowing a
freer flow of information across the functions than in Singapore.

• The technical function has more organisational power in Singapore than in New Zealand
organisations.

• Technical has greater interaction with the customer and other functions in New Zealand than in
Singapore.

• There is perception (amongst technical personnel) that the technical function is valued less than
other functions (particularly marketing) by management in New Zealand than their equivalents in
Singapore.

What are the key motivations of the NPD workgroup for proficient NPD?

• The variety and the challenge of the NPD tasks are the key motivation factors in both Singapore
and New Zealand NPD personnel.

• Conformity and orderliness are motivation factors in Singapore whereas if there is too much
conformity and orderliness can lead to de-motivation in New Zealand.

• Group fit and focus is a motivation in New Zealand but there is a greater emphasis on individual
skills/competence/training in Singapore.

• Lack of consultation and empowerment by senior management is de-motivating in both samples.

83
• Managerial and other function’s respect and recognition is motivational in both samples.

• Titles and other symbols for managers are important aspiration motivations in Singapore.

• New Zealand personnel are responsive to a certain amount of task ambiguity whereas Singapore is
oriented to minimising task ambiguity as far as possible.

6.2.3 What are the expected and actual rewards given for NPD proficiency?

• In both samples it is expected and given that NPD proficiency is noted and rewarded at the time of
the annual performance review. There is no expectation that there will be further financial rewards
for NPD proficiency beyond this in either sample.

• In Singapore the manager is rewarded on the competence of group leadership whereas the New
Zealand manager is rewarded on their competence of NPD facilitation.

• Hierarchy rewards, status symbols and prestige are important in Singapore.

• New Zealand rewards initiative through managerial recognition (normally non-financial) whereas
in Singapore space for initiatives is limited.

• Bonuses in Singapore are expected rewards. Bonuses, if given, in New Zealand should be
allocated accordingly at all levels and functions within the organisation.

• R&D and marketing rewards should be perceived as equal in New Zealand.

• Non-financial rewards are articulated more and expected in New Zealand underlying the
importance of recognition for proficient NPD.

6.2.4 What are the key components that characterise functional integration in NPD?

6.2.4.1 What are the key mechanisms used to interplay technical and marketing
information within the project?

• Greater role flexibility is observed in New Zealand whereas roles are job and task fixed in
Singapore.

• Functional integration is characterised by centralisation in Singapore, whereas more

decentralisation in New Zealand.

• There is greater use made of NPD team structures in the New Zealand NPD context than in
Singapore.

• NPD members consider upper management to be part of the team in New Zealand, a distance
between the organisational hierarchical levels is maintained in Singapore.

• Singapore management interaction is directional but in New Zealand it tends to be more

consensual and consultative.

6.2.4.2 How does the NPD workgroup acquire, share and use technical and
marketing information?

• Information shared between the NPD personnel is informational rather than decision orientated in
both samples.

84
• The manager acts as a buffer by interpreting and passing on information in Singapore (interaction
is dictated by plans) whereas more flexible in New Zealand with a balance of planning and
implementation. There are no complaints on the quality of the information in either sample.

• Upper management plays a greater role in gathering, interpreting and disseminating information in
the Singapore context.

• There are no clear differences in the mode of information dissemination in both samples with both
using an equal number of meetings and reporting – although it tends to be intra-functional in
Singapore and inter-functional in New Zealand.

• Information in the Singapore sample should be explicit and clear to reduce any element of
ambiguity.

6.2.4.3 What are the sources of conflict within the NPD workgroup?

• Conflict in Singapore is related to unclear specifications, competence issues, and individuals (and
functions) taking too much of the lead.

• Conflict in New Zealand is related to lack of communication, levels of interaction and the
prioritisation of tasks.

6.2.4.4 How is conflict resolved within the NPD workgroup

• Both samples will resolve conflict through compromise and negotiation.

6.2.5 What are the accountability aspects of proficient NPD workgroup decision and process
dynamics?

• There is greater empowerment of project members in New Zealand.

• Clear demarcation of tasks exists in Singapore whereas relationships and sharing of tasks are
important in New Zealand.

• Decision-making is centralised in Singapore, devolved in New Zealand.

• The Singapore manager is accountable for the failure of subordinates whereas accountability is
shared in New Zealand.

• Managerial accountability is based on competence and facilitation in New Zealand whereas in

Singapore personnel do not question the hierarchy.

• In Singapore well defined and clear roles with unambiguous tight planning. In New Zealand
planning is more flexible for changing the procedures.

• Conformity is required in Singapore whereas non-conformists are well accepted in New Zealand.

6.3 Overall Conclusion

This study has had the objective of linking the national cultural dimensions of Hofstede and the NPD
group processes and decision dynamics observed in samples of Singapore and New Zealand
organisations. The model (figure 5), on which the study is based, makes the assumptions that the
environment within which NPD is undertaken will influence: the types of managerial behaviour, roles
that the functions operate, the interaction between functional units, reward structures, and the
accountability of the NPD group. The environment has been further defined as the cultural

85
conditioning of the players within NPD (national culture and the socio-economic context of the nation).
Organisational culture has also been indicated as being an important component influencing NPD. This
report has limited itself to examining the nature of the NPD decision and process dynamics and the
impacts of national culture on these.

The results show that the principal Hofstede dimensions of national culture that have an impact on
NPD decision and process dynamics are Individualism/Collectivism, Power Distance and Uncertainty
Avoidance. Although the other Hofstede dimensions have not been identified as determinants, this
may be accounted for by the two country research design. Should samples from different national
cultures be used for a comparison, then these other dimensions may also be identified as determinants.
Understanding the nature of national culture, therefore is important when deciding on the NPD
managerial practices that best fit the national cultural environment within which they are to be
employed. Should this not be done then the chances of optimising the NPD process will be limited,
when the decisions and processes within it are complex and subject to high degrees of risk.

Finally this research has extended the 1996 Buisson et al. Study, confirming the proposed relationships
with a new sample of companies and taking the study to a new level of analysis.

6.4 Acknowledgements
The authors of this report wish to acknowledge the following people and organisations, without whom
this research would not have been possible.

Funding Organisations
The Asia 2000 Foundation of New Zealand.
National University of Singapore Research Office.
Otago Research Grants, University of Otago.

Assistants
Mrs Sue Johns, Department of Marketing, University of Otago.
Mr Wai Ko-Terh, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, National University of
Singapore.

86
7.0 Bibliography
Angelmar, R.,(1990). “Product Innovation: A Tool for Competitive Advantage.” European Journal of
Operational Research, 47, 182-189.
Atuahene-Gima, K. (1995). “The Influence of New Product Factors on Export Propensity and
Performance: An Empirical Analysis. Journal of International Marketing 3(2):11-28.
Azumi, K. and F. Hull (1990), “Inventive Payoff from R&D in Japanese Industry: Convergence with
the West?” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 37(1): 3-9.
Barczak, G. and D. Wilemon, (1991). “Communications Patterns of New Product Development Team
Leaders” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 38(2), 101-109
Bond, M. H., K. Leung,, and K.C Wan. (1982). “How does Cultural Collectivism Operate? The Impact
of Task and Maintenance Contribution on Reward Distribution”. Journal of Cross Cultural
Psychology. 13, 186-200.
Bonoma, T., (1985) case study research in marketing opportunities, problems, and a process. Journal
of Marketing Research. 12, 199-208.
Booz- Allen, & Hamilton. (1982),."Management Of New Products", New York, Booz-Allen &
Hamilton, Inc.,
Buisson D., Garrett, T. and Souder, W. (1996) “New Product Success And Failure: A Comparative
Study Of New Zealand Versus US-Small And US-Large Companies,” in Budapest EMAC
Conference Proceedings, (May), 1996.
Burgelman, R. A and Sayles, L. R. (1986) Inside corporate innovation : strategy, structure, and
managerial skills. Collier-Macmillan, New York : London : Free Press
Burns, T. and G. M. Stalker (1961). "The Management of Innovation", London, Tavistock
Publications.
Calantone, R. and R. Cooper (1981). “New Product Scenarios: Prospects For Success,” Journal Of
Product Innovation, 45 (Spring), 48-60.
Carlsson, M. (1991). Aspects of the integration of technical functions for efficient product
development. R&D Management 21(1):55-66
Chakrabarti A.K. (1974), “The Role of Champion in Product Innovation,” California Management
Review. 17(2), 58-62.
Chakrabarti A.K. and A.H. Rubenstein (1976) “Interorganisational Transfer of Technology: A Study
of Adoption of NASA Innovations,” IEEE Transactions in Engineering Management, EM-23
(February), 20 - 34.
Child, J. (1981). “Culture, Contingency, and Capitalism in the Cross-national study of Organisations”,
in Research in Organisational Behaviour edited by Cummings, L. and Staw , B., Greenwich CT,
JAI Press, 303-356.
Comara, K. (1994). “Japanese style management: Changing Directions.” Japan Technical Affairs 14-
23
Cooper, R. G. (1993). “Winning at New Products: Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch”, 2nd
Ed, Reading Ma, Addison-Wesley.
Cooper, R. (1990) “New Products: What Distinguishes The Winners,” Research and Technology
Management, 33, (6), 27-31.
Cooper, R. (1984 a)“The Strategy-Performance Link In Product Innovation,” R&D Management,
4 (4), 47-259.
Cooper, R. (1984 b) “New Product Strategies: What Distinguishes The Top Performers,” Journal Of
Product Innovation Management, 1, (3),. 151-164.
Cooper, R. (1985) “New Products Strategies: What Distinguishes The Top Performers?,” Journal Of
Product Innovation Management,. 2, (3). 51-164.
Cooper, R. G. and E. J Kleinschmidt,.(1995). “Benchmarking Critical Success Factors.” Journal of
Product Innovation Management 12, 374-391.
Cooper, R. G. and E.J. Kleinschmidt (1987), “New Products: What Separates Losers from Winners,”
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 4 (3), 169-184.
Crawford, C. M. (1991). ”New Products Management”, 3rd ed, Homewood, IL, Irwin.
Dougherty, D. (1990), “Understanding New Markets for New Products,” Strategic Management
Journal, 11, 59-78.
Dwyer, L.M., (1990). “Factors Affecting the Proficient Management of Product Innovation.”
International Journal of Technical Management 5, 721-730.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management
Review, 14 (4) 532-550.

87
Farris, G.F. (1972) “The Effect of Individual Roles on Performance in Innovating Groups” R&D
Management 3, 23-28.
Frater, P.,G. Stuart, D. Rose, and G. Andrews, (1995). "The New Zealand Innovation Environment."
Wellington: The BERL Foundation
Gannon, M. J. (1994), "Understanding Global Cultures: Metaphorical Journeys through 17 Countries."
Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage.
Garrett, T.C., D.H. Buisson, and W.E. Souder (1995) “The Impacts of Culture on Innovation Work
Practices”; INFORMS Conference, Singapore, June 1995.
Gerwin, D., and L. Moffat, (1997) “Authorizing Processes Changing Team Autonomy During New
Product Development” Journal of Engineering & Technology Management. 14(3), 291-313.
Griffin, Abbie, (1992). “Evaluating QFD’s Use in US Firms as a Process of Developing Products.”
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 9(9), 171-187.
Griffin, A. and A.L Page,. (1993). “An Interim Report on Measuring Product Development Success
and Failure”.. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10, 291-308.
Griffin, A. and J.R. Hauser (1992), “Patterns of Communication among Marketing, Engineering, and
Manufacturing - A Comparison between Two Product Teams,” Management Science, 38 (3), 360-
373.
Griffin, A and J.R. Hauser (1996), “Integrating R&D and Marketing: A Review and Analysis of the
Literature,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13 (3), 191-215.
Gupta, A. and D. Wilemon, (1991). “Improving R And D/Marketing Relations In Technology Based
Companies: Marketing’s Perspective,” Journal Of Marketing Management, 7, (1), 25-46.
Gupta, A.K. and D. Wilemon, (1990). “Improving R&D/marketing relations: R&D perspective.”
R&D Management 20, 377-290.
Gupta, A. K. Raj, S.P. and Wilemon, D. L (1985). “The R&D-Marketing Interface in High
Technology Firms.” Journal of Product innovation Management 2:3, 12-34.
Gupta, A.K. and D. Wilemon (1988), “The Credibility-Cooperation Connection at the R&D-Marketing
Interface,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 5 (1), 20-35.
Gupta, A.K., K. Brockhoff, and U. Weisenfeld (1990), “Making Trade-Offs in the New Product
Development Process: A German/US Comparison,” Journal of Product Innovation Management,
7, 186-199.
Hall, E., and Hall, M. (1990). “Understanding Cultural Differences.” Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural
Press.
Hegarty, W. H.. and Hoffman, R.C. (1993). “Top Management Influence On Innovations: Effects of
Executive Characteristics and Social Culture." Journal of Management. 19, 549-574
Hegarty, W. H. and. Hoffman R..C (1990), “Product/market Innovations: A Study of Top Management
Involvement among Four Cultures,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 7, 186-199.
Hise, R.T., L. O’Neal, A. Parasuraman, and J.U. McNeal (1990), “Marketing/R&D Interaction in
New Product Development: Implications for New Product Success Rates,” Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 7 (2), 142-155.
Hofstede, G. (1980), "Cultures Consequences." Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G.. (1991), "Cultures and Organisations, Software of the Mind"x. London: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. and M.H. Bond (1988), “The Confucius Connection: From Cultural Roots to Economic
Growth,” Organisational Dynamics, 16 (4), 4-21.
Hofstede, G., B. Neuijen, D.D. Ohayv, and G. Sanders (1990), “Measuring Organisational Cultures: A
Qualitative and Quantitative Study across Twenty Cases,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 35,
286-316.
Hopkins, D. (1980) “New Product Winners And Losers,” Conference Board Report, 773,
Howard, A., K. Shudo,, and M. Umeshima, (1983). “Motivation and Values Among Japanese and
American Managers.” Personnel Psychology, 36(Winter), 883-898.
Johne, F.A. (1984). “How Experienced Product Innovators Organise.” Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 4 (12), 210-223.
Johne, A. and P. Snelson (1988), “Auditing Product Innovation Activities in Manufacturing Firms,”
R&D Management, 18 (3), 227-233.
Kahn, K.B. and E. McDonough III (1997), “An Empirical Study of the Relationships among Co-
Location, Integration, Performance and Satisfaction,” Journal of Product Innovation Management,
14, 161-178.
Khurana, A. and S. R. Rosenthal, (1997). “Integrating the Fuzzy Front End of New Product
Development” Sloan Management Review. 38(2), 103-120.
Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1994), “A Comparative Analysis of New Product Programmes: European versus
North American Companies,” European Journal of Marketing, 28 (7), 5-29.

88
Kluckholn, F. and Strodtbeck, F. (1961), “Variations in Value Orientations.” Evaston Il: Row, Peterson
Larson, E. and D.Gobeli, (1988) “Organizing for New Product Development Projects,” Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 5(3), 180-90.
Lincoln Y.S.and Guba, E.G.,(1985) Naturalistic Enquiry. Sage Publications
Lorsch, J.W. (1965),"Product Innovation and Organisation." New York: The MacMillan Company.
Mabert, V. A., J. F. Muth, and R.W. Schmenner, (1992). “Collapsing New Product Development
Times: Six Case Studies” Journal of Product Innovation Management 9(3), 200-212.
McDonough, E.F. III, (1993). “Faster New Product Development: Investigating the Effects of
Technology and Characteristics of the Project Leader and Team.” Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 10 (3), 241-250.
McDonough, E.F. III, and G. Barczak, (1992). “The Effects of Cognitive Problem-Solving Orientation
and Technological Familiarity on Faster New Product Development” Journal of Product
Innovation Management 9(1), 44-52.
Madique, M. A. and B.J. Zirger, (1984). “A Study of Success and Failure in Product Innovation: the
Case of the US Electronics Industry.” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 31(4), .
192-203.
Maidique, M. and B. Zirger, (1985). “The New Product Learning Cycle,” research report series,
Innovation & Entrepreneurship Institute, School Of Business Administration, University Of
Miami, Coral Gables, FL.
Miles, R.E. and C.C Snow,. (1978). Organisational Strategy, Structure and Process. New York:
McGraw-Hill NY.
Moenaert, R.K. and W.E. Souder (1990), “An Information Transfer Model for Integrating Marketing
R&D Personnel in New Product Development Projects,” Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 7, 91-107.
Moenaert, R.K, A. De Meyer, and B.J. Clarysse (1994a), “Cultural Differences in New Technology
Management,” in Managing New Product Development, W.E. Souder and J.D. Sherman, eds.
New York:McGraw-Hill, 287-314.
Moenaert, R.K, W.E. Souder, A. De Meyer, and D. Deschoolmeester (1994b), “R&D-Marketing
Integration Mechanisms, Communication Flows, and Innovativeness,” Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 7 (2), 91-107.
Montoya-Weiss, M. and R. Calatone (1994), “Determinants of New Product Performance. A Review
and Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11 (5), 397-417.
Murphy, K. (1992) “Venture Teams help Companies Create New Products,” Personnel Journal, 71(2)
60-67.
Murphy, S.A., and V. Kumar, (1997). “The Front End of New Product Development: A Canadian
Survey” R&D Management, 27(1), 5-15.
Nakata, C. and K. Sivakumar (1996), “National Culture and New Product Development: An Integrative
Review,” Journal of Marketing, 60 (1), 61-72.
Nayak, P.R., Brekus, R.T., Rosenberg, and Gill, G.K. (1993). “Product Innovation Around the
World.”, Chemtech. 23 (April), 12-18.
New Zealand Food and Beverage Exporters’ Council Inc (1994), “The Food and Beverage Industry
Vision to 2002”, Wellington, New Zealand.
Olson, E.; O.C.Walker, and R.W. Ruekert (1995). “Organising for Effective New Product
Development: The Moderating Role of Product Innovativeness. Journal of Marketing 59
(January), 48-62.
O’Reilly, C. (1989). “Corporations, Culture and Commitment: Motivation and Social Control in
Organisations.” California Management Review, 31 (Summer), 9-25.
Parry, M.E. and X.M. Song (1993). “Determinants of R&D-Marketing Integration in High-Tech
Japanese Firms.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 10(1), 4-22.
Patton, M.Q.; (1990) Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 2nd Ed, Sage Publications
Perry, C. and L. Coote (1994), “Process of a Case Study Research Methodology: Tool for Management
Development,” ANZAM ‘94 Conference, Wellington.
Prahalad, G. K. and G. Hamel (1990). “The Core Competence of the Organisation”, Harvard Business
Review, 68(3), 79-91.
Redding S G. “International Cultural Differences” in International Cultural Differences edited by S.G.
Redding, Aldershot, England, Dartmouth, pp xiii - xix.
Roberts E. B (1988). ”Managing Intervention and Innovation.” Research and Technology
Management 31:1, 11-29.
Rothwell, R. (1976), “The ‘Hungarian Sappho’ - Some Comments and Comparison,” Research Policy,
3, 30-38.

89
Rubenstein, A.H., A.K. Chrakrabarti, R.D. O’Keefe, W.E.Souder, and H.C.Young. (1976), “Factors
Influencing Success at the Project Level.” Research Management. 16 (May), 15 - 20.
Rusinko, C. (1997). “Design-Manufacturing Integration to Improve New Product Development: The
Effects of some Organization- and Group-Level Practices” Project Management Journal. 28(2),
37-46.
Schon, D.A. (1963). “Champions for Radical Inventions.” Harvard Business Review, 41
(March/April), 77 - 86.
Sondergaard, M. (1994), “Research Note: Hofstede's Consequences: A Study Of Reviews, Citations
and Replications,” Organizational Studies, 15 (3), 447-456.
Song, X.M.; Montoya-Wise, M.M. and Schmidt, J.B. (1997 Antecedents and consequences of cross-
functional cooperation: A comparison of R&D, manufacturing and marketing perspectives.
Journal of Product Innovation Management 14:35-47).
Song, X.M. and M.E. Parry (1992), “The R&D-Marketing Interface in Japanese High-Technology
Firms,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 9 (2), 91-112.
Song, X.M. and M.E. Parry (1993), “R&D-Marketing Integration in Japanese High-Technology Firms:
Hypotheses and Empirical Evidence,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21 (2), 125-
133.
Song, X.M., and B. Dyer, (1995). “Innovation Strategy and the R&D-Marketing Interface in Japanese
Firms: A Contingency Perspective” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 42(4), 360-
371.
Souder, W.E. (1977), “Effectiveness of Nominal and Interacting Group Decision Processes for
Integrating R&D and Marketing,” Management Science, 23 (6), 595-605.
Souder, W.E. (1981), “Disharmony between R&D and Marketing,” Industrial Marketing Management,
10, 67-73.
Souder, W.E. (1987), Managing New Product Innovations. Lexington: Lexington Books.
Souder, W.E. (1988), “Managing Relations Between R&D and Marketing in New Product
Development Products,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 5, 6-19.
Souder, W.E. (1994), “Third World Niche Players: Way-Chee for US New Product Developers,”
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11, 344-353.
Souder, W.E. and A.K. Chakrabarti (1978), “The R&D-Marketing Interface: Results from an
Empirical Study of Innovation Projects,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, EM-25
(4), 88-93.
Souder, W.E., D.H. Buisson, and T.C. Garrett (1997), “Success through Customer-Driven New
Product Development: A Comparison of U.S. and New Zealand Small Entrepreneurial High
Technology Firms,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14 (6), 459-473.
Stagg, C., J. Saunders and V. Wong. (1996 July). “A Study Of Success And Failure Literature In New
Product Development,” Loughborough University,
Swink, M.L., J. C Sandvig., and V.A Mabert,. (1996). “Customizing Concurrent Engineering
Processes: Five Case Studies” Journal of Product Innovation Management 13(3), 229-244.
Takeuchi, H, and I. Nonaka (1986), “The New New Product Development Game,” Harvard Business
Review, 66 (1), 137-146.
Thambain, H.J. (1990), “Managing Technologically Innovative Team Efforts Toward New Product
Success.” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 7(1), 5-18.
Thwaites, D. (1992). “Organisational Influences on the New Product Development Process in
Financial Services.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 9(6), 303-313.
Tornatzky, L.G., E.O.Fergus E. J.W. Avellar, and G.W. Fairweather, (1980). Innovation and Social
Process, Elmsford, NY, Pergammon Press.
Tsoukas, H. (1989) The validity of ideagraphic research explanations. Academy of Management
Review 14 (4) 551-561.
Usunier, J.C (1993). “International Marketing - A Cultural Approach”, Prentice Hall, London.
Utterback, J.M., T.J.Allen, ,J.H. Hollomon, and M.A.Sirbu, (1976). "The Process Of Innovation in
Five Industries in Europe and Japan." IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management EM-23,
3-9
Walsh, W.J., (1990) “Get the Whole Organisation Behind New Product Development.” Research
Technology Management 32-36.
Wagner, J. A., and M. K. Moch, .(1986). “Individualism-Collectivism: Concept and Measure.” Group
and Organisational Studies 11(3) 280-304.
Wind, J.M., Mahajan, V. and Bayless, J.L. (1990). The Role of New Product Models in Supporting
and Improving the New Product Development Process: Some Preliminary Results. Cambridge,
MA: The Marketing Science Institute.

90
Wind, Y.; Mahajan, V.; Cardozo R. N. (1981). New-product forecasting : models and applications.
Lexington, Mass. : Lexington Books
Yin, R.K (1989), Case study research: Design and methods, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Yin, R.K (1993), Applications of Case Study Research. Applied Social Research Methods Series, vol.
34, Newbury Park: Sage.
Zaltman, G, R. Duncan, , and J. Holbek, (1973). "Innovations and Organisations." New York: John
Wiley and Sons.

91
Appendix 1: The Recommendations of the 1996 Asia
2000 Research
The research report covered in 1996, by the same research team, developed the following set of
conclusions and recommendations. There was required to be further research undertaken from these
and these for the research basis of this report:

1.1 Managerial Implications for New Zealand NPD and Innovation

1.1.1 Personal Work Goals of Employees

Addressing the following work goals of employees will enhance employee satisfaction, extend
employees and potentially lead to greater productivity and success in NPD.

• Having learning opportunities on the job. These need to be relatively simple and not formal
training programmes, although these should be considered. Variety on the job (potentially job
rotation) is important.

• Interpersonal and people oriented goals are more important than physical or skills oriented
goals. An environment of participation, sharing of responsibility and a caring environment is
needed. Role clarity and Job context is required.

• Time for personal life that is separate from professional life is desired. Socialisation within
the workplace is not seen as being important and could be inferred from the results as not
being wanted, rather the individual will make their own social arrangements which may or
may not include their work colleagues.

• NPD personnel like to be rewarded. These need not be monetary rewards but recognition for
doing a good job on the NPD process. It is interesting that the reward is not the outcome of
the project but how it was done and the contribution to the development of the company.

• NPD personnel have a commitment to the company but security of employment appears to be
of concern. New Zealand staff face the realism of perhaps having to move. It could be said
that it is a negative at the present to be seen as staying in one company too long.

• Social status as part of the job is not required and NPD employees do not like a rigid
hierarchy, including matrix management, or have a respect for tradition.

• Employees like to have rules in the company but these should have a flexibility to allow
employees to push them to the limit. ISO 9001 was seen as a constraining factor through rigid
procedures and impeding creativity.

• NPD staff need to have the goals of the company and of the project clearly known to them as it
appears that assists motivation of the employee and NPD success while also allowing freedom
to get on with the job of undertaking the project.

• New work practices need to be easily able to be introduced both for learning processes of
employees and to allow flexibility in a project to be undertaken.

• The size of an organisation does not appear to concern NPD personnel, it is the environment,
management practices, learning experiences, and recognition that matters.

• NPD personnel want senior management involved in a participative role not an autocratic
management role. Employees want to be able to express disagreement freely.

• Long-term projects should be broken down into manageable short term components. This
assists in increasing employee recognition of doing a good job.

92
1.1.2 R&D and Marketing Interaction

• Interaction between the two areas is important, role swapping is desired as each see the other
function as a learning experience.

• Rewarding of Marketing and R&D staff can be different but each wish to be rewarded in their
own way and understand that rewards are given.

1.1.3 Implications from Cultural Dimensions that Assist NPD - New Zealand

• Teamwork is a strong cultural element (collectivism). Leadership of a team (product

champion) is desirable but an overall egalitarian team approach is required. (Initiation and
Implementation of NPD).

• Low levels of rules and procedures are needed but only sufficient to provide guidelines with
flexibility in the employee approach allowed. (Uncertainty Avoidance).

• High context communication, a willingness to work together, and common vision and goals
assist in obtaining NPD success.

• Risk taking is relatively high in NPD personnel, assisting in initiation of NPD, but it is a
measured risk, taking into account the goals and implication to the company.

• NPD in New Zealand succeeds with a team approach that enhances implementation
(commercialisation) but retaining a strong ability for idea generation with a careful measured
risk taken in concept selection at the initiation stage.

• Learning is a recognition and reward in the NPD context utilising the relatively neutral
Masculine/Feminine traits.

• NPD personnel respond better in a low hierarchical situation (Low Power Distance).

• Role clarity in the NPD team is assisted where there is a participative manager, a personal and
supportive “warm” climate and socio-emotional support. Role clarity is of less importance to
NPD personnel.

• NPD staff gain job enrichment and satisfaction when there is trust, participation and
acceptance (assists the initiation stage) and a fluidity and openness that maximises response of
new ideas. Self actualisation promotes risk taking and assessment.

• Rewards create an organisation ethos that promotes risk taking and stretches the capabilities of
NPD personnel. Learning is seen as a reward. This promotes successful NPD.

• Low hierarchy is important as it promotes initiation of NPD through decentralisation and

equalisation of people. This is of low importance.

• Responsibility gained through self-confidence development aids the initiation process by

generating possibilities and overcoming obstacles. It is assisted by decentralisation,
empowerment, purposefulness, formalisation to a certain extent, and goal orientation.

• Social and security needs for NPD personnel are gained through trust and good
communication with team spirit providing this by both promoting risk taking, but within
boundaries, to assist implementation.

• Upper management has a critical role in NPD in clearly communicating the role, mission and
importance of NPD; to be accessible at difficult times; to provide resources; to commit to risk
taking; and ideally to have technical literacy.

93
 • An organisation climate that is supportive for teamwork; allows the emergence of
intrapreneurs or product champions; is supportive in terms of rewards, risk, autonomy and
treatment of failures; allows time for individual projects or development of individual ideas;
and has venture capital for internal projects available all enhance NPD through providing
support for the cultural strengths of NPD personnel.

1.1.4 Implications From the Cultural Dimensions that Assist NPD - Singapore: Lessons for New
Zealand?

• A shift from a short-term toward a long-term orientation is highly desirable from the point of
view of economic growth.

• The strong work ethic in Singapore promotes perseverance and NPD success particularly in
the implementation stage of NPD. This must be carefully watched so projects that may not
succeed are terminated at the appropriate point.

• The penchant for planning in Singapore assists NPD success. New Zealand appears to be very
good at initiation but more detailed planning would assist the implementation stage that New
Zealand tends to have problems with.

• The job is career development, social status and gaining respect. Often the job is not seen in
terms of career development in New Zealand.

• Singapore promotes the stretching of capabilities of people and provision of a strong learning
environment that provides incentives to strive to high levels. New Zealand does not give
learning the importance in the organisation it should have. These elements promote the
implementation stage of NPD.

1.2 Lessons for Managing a NPD Operation in Singapore

1.2.1 General:

• The structure of an off-shore operation should follow that national culture. The management
should be able to cross cultures and timely recruitment of future managerial talent from
different nationalities, cultural awareness training for business experts to operate in different
countries, and planned career moves and training of existing personnel are critical.

• In determining suitable personnel for off-shore operations, organisations need to identify

“awareness” (the recognition a person has the mental software to operate in a different
environment), “knowledge” (has the person the capability to learn and interact in other
cultures learning about their symbols, heroes, and rituals grasping where values differ?), and
“skills” (awareness, knowledge, plus practice). Such intercultural communication can be
taught to the right people and specific cultural knowledge learning and language are the two
most important components.

1.2.2 Specific Cultural Attributes of Singapore NPD personnel that need to be considered are:

• Singaporeans rank job recognition, thrift, and interaction of their social and work life very
highly.

• Traditional Asian values of respect, thrift, perseverance and modesty appear to be diminishing
as social status and personal achievements in a career become more important. This is
particularly so in younger personnel.

• A clear and structured job is required which is functionally inclined toward R&D or Marketing
as there is only a limited amount of interaction between the two functions and this interaction
tends to be formal. Self actualisation and satisfaction come from the job.

94
• Training is considered part of the job in Singapore and the TBL syndrome (Training, Bonus -
compulsory based on Singapore’s growth rate, Leave (depart)) is part of life in Singapore and
it appears at the early stages of a person’s career to happen in some cases on a yearly basis.
The individualistic traits of Singapore brings with it management mobility.

• There is a preference for larger organisations because of hierarchical decision making, social
status, defined job situation, access to resources and planned career development.

• There is a perception that reward is based on seniority.

• NPD personnel do not seem to know, or indeed care, what personnel in other function are
involved in or how they are rewarded. Singapore personnel exhibit very individualistic, single
minded “me” purpose traits.

• The typical NPD person may be good at implementation of NPD but tends to be less creative
at initiation of NPD. Planning and rule guidelines are common. This could perhaps be
attributable to off-shore control of many NPD operations in Singapore.

• The Long-term orientation of Singapore brings with it a strong desire for the adaptation of
traditions to a modern context.

• Risk and decision making responsibility is carried by senior management (reducing personnel
anxiety) not by NPD personnel who tend to accept little risk taking. Empowerment of NPD
personnel to make decisions is low.

• Trust, socialisation, flexibility, support, and a clear role definition will increase the likelihood
of NPD staff to remain co-operating in the NPD process.

95
Appendix 2: Company Contact Letters and
Confidentiality Agreement

96
Appendix 3: Interview Protocol

96