Description
A facilitator is someone who helps a group of people understand their common objectives and assists them to plan to achieve them without taking a particular position in the discussion. Some facilitator tools will try to assist the group in achieving a consensus on any disagreements that preexist or emerge in the meeting so that it has a strong basis for future action.
A Case Studies on Designing and Facilitating Collaboration in R&D
ABSTRACT
This case study aims to highlight the strategic decisions and managerial practices in the formation and operation of a co-located research unit within a national laboratory. The empirical evidence is based on interviews with members of the research unit as well as responses from a research environment survey. The findings of the case study suggest specific strategies that are conducive not only for the co-location of research units but also for research management in general. Principal among these are the need to balance increases in diversity and complexity with mechanisms of integration and the use of specific management practices and leadership qualities that support these activities.
The motivation to co-locate is typically driven by the assumption that cross-functional communication and teams lead to increased or accelerated innovation. In the organizational literature, the role of a complex division of labor, like that found in cross-functional teams, has been identified as a critical factor in facilitating organizational innovation. As Hage (1999) demonstrated in a comprehensive review of the organizational innovation literature, a complex division of labor is a key determinant for facilitating innovation, as it encompasses the organizational learning, problem- solving, and creativity capacities of an organization. But the practice of co-location highlights a central issue in the management of R&D of how to strike a balance between increasing the complexity of labor to increase innovation, while at the same time ensuring adequate integration (Nooteboom, 1999, 2000). As Leenders et al. (2003) discuss, integrated and active interactions among researchers plays a key role in promoting the cross-fertilization of ideas and creativity necessary for innovation. While the need for integration is recognized as critical in the management of R&D (Allen, 1977; Leenders et al., 2003; West, 2004), the successful attainment of integration represents a challenge for managers (Nihtila, 1999; Sicotte and Langley, 2000; Holland et al., 2000). And while the use of co-location is becoming more common, the limited evidence of the results of these attempts at cross -functional integration is often mixed (Kahn and McDonough, 1997). Further, it should go without saying that a co-location effort, or any research effort, cannot be successful without strong leadership, particularly in the initial management decisions. As Von Zedwitz (2003) discusses, the formation of new research units entails a series of decisions that impact the development of these units over time, including t he selection of an appropriate manager. And leadership practices and styles, in general, have been demonstrated to have a significant impact on R&D performance (Oh et al., 1991; McDonough and Barczak, 1991; Green, 1995; Sicotte and Langley, 2000; Stoker et al., 2001; Cordero et al., 2004). Yet, we would argue that there are few studies that provide practical insights on successful leadership styles or practices in the R&D literature. The objective of this paper is to discuss the issues of balancing diversity and integration and leadership in R&D through an examination of a case study of the formation and co-location of a dedicated basic research unit within a manufacturing department (S&T MD) in a large national laboratory (hereafter NATLAB) in the United States. The research unit was formed to focus on the manufacturing department's single product, a component which requires extreme precision, exotic materials and highly advanced processes in its manufacture. It was anticipated that the integration of basic research in the production facility would result in fewer technical surprises on the production line and quicker resolution of problems that do arise. Our case study encompasses not only the current activities of the S&T MD, but also the initial decisions and actions that led to the formation of the unit. In this manner, the case study provides a relatively more comprehensive investigation of a novel application of the use of co-location. But the case study should also have special interest to R&D managers for several reasons beyond the issues raised above. First, the case study focuses on a co-location effort at the level of basic research, while most studies on colocation focus on efforts in product development. Second, the case study involves the co-location of a basic research unit within a manufacturing unit, which, to our knowledge, is relatively rare. Finally, the need for scientific and technological research units for manufacturing is becoming greater because frequently radical innovations utilize advanced process technologies and the challenge of these manufacturing units involves addressing technical complexities in the product and the manufacturing process.
In the next section of the paper, we discuss the applied theory of radical innovation that underlies some of the assumptions in the analysis of the case study. After a brief discussion of the methodology, we discuss the efforts of the unit in developing complexity or diversity and how integration is perceived by the five scientists in this unit, using both the interviews and the results of a research environment survey. To provide some basis of comparison, the survey results of the unit's scientists are compared to another experiment in co-location within the NATLAB, which we will
refer to as COLO, as well as the overall researcher perceptions for NATLAB. In the subsequent section, we discuss the management practices and leadership style of the unit's manager that facilitated the co-location effort, including a longterm scientific vision, cognitive mentoring and providing emotional support to
258
J. Hage et al. /
researchers. The study concludes with a discussion of the results and implications for further research on R&D management.
2. An applied theory of radical innovation One of the central issues in the management of R&D is ensuring a balance between increasing the complex division of labor needed to pursue radical innovation and maintaining integration among the research team (Hage, 1999). A complex division of labor is important because, as Nooteboom (1999, 2000) hypothesized, radical innovation is more likely the greater the cognitive (or knowledge) distance there is within the team. Paradoxically, however, communication also tends to decline with cognitive distance. Hence, the challenge is to strike a balance between complexity and integration relative to the goal of radical innovation. Perhaps even more critical is the need to maintain integration as the diversity or complexity grows, rather than assuming the two remain static over time. Although there is a considerable amount of research on the relationship between complexity and innovation in the industrial innovation literature, there has been a surprising absence of research about the problems of integration (Hage, 1999). Further, Nooteboom's concept of ''optimal cognitive distance,'' which posits a successful balance between diversity and integration, has undergone only cursory empirical examination to date (Wuyts et al., 2005). In recent qualitative studies of biomedicine, however, Hollingsworth et al. (in press) found integration does pose a serious challenge, particularly with regard to the recruitment of new competencies, which creates internal differentiation that prevents integration across these diverse perspectives. Internal differentiation and the challenge of balance are compounded when the need arises for additional expertise during the course of a research project, a common occurrence as new research issues emerge. For instance, in a study of some 20 research projects in the same NATLAB, we found that most of them added new skills during the course of their 3 years and in the larger projects or programs of research sometimes had as many as eight different specialties (Jordan et al., 2005). One might think that the problem of maintaining integration is easily solved if the new skills are recruited into the same unit but this increases the size of the unit, reduces its ?exibility, and, most critically, leads to internal differentiation as the specialists create occupational or disciplinary groups within the research project or program. It is this tendency for like-minded individuals to gravitate together that starts to inhibit communication within cross functional teams. To prevent the growth in size and the internal differentiation, another solution is to temporarily hire people to join the project. This has the advantage of preventing the growth in size and allowing for ?exibility but then there other issues of whether the temporary people are truly becoming integrated into the project and their degree of commitment. After a brief discussion of the data and methodology, we turn to an investigation of the formation of the S&T MD to explore these issues.
3. The methodology This study uses a single-case study design to explore a unique example of co-location, one that we would argue can make a contribution to the existing knowledge and theory of R&D management. The primary data used in this case study comes from interviews and survey responses of the staff members of the S&T MD, which is located at a large national laboratory. The laboratory currently employs several thousand researchers in over two -dozen disciplinary centers and has a multi-billion dollar budget. Such large laboratories are interesting settings to explore questions about R&D, but have been largely overlooked in the literature. The S&T MD is a relatively small unit in the laboratory, consisting of one manager, five scientists, five technologists, one contractor, and one support staff. The documentation of the history of the formation of the S&T MD, as well as its experience with complexity and integration, were obtained using the following three sources of data: (1) One face-to-face interview and two short qualitative interviews by phone with the unit manager about management rationale and strategies for the formation of the unit.
J. Hage et al. /
259
(2) One-half hour interviews with all the scientists (in person and by phone) and with several of the technologists in the department about managerial practices relative to three themes. (3) A survey designed specifically to elicit information about specific aspects of a research environment was administered to all scientists and technologists in the department. The first set of data provided insight into the decisions made in the formation of a new department and the implications for evolution across time. The second set of data provided the scientists' perspective on management decisions, as well helped to identify specific managerial practices that connect to particular scores on the third source of data, the research environment survey. Discussion of survey results in the s provided in this paper utilizes only the responses of the scientific staff of the department. The one-half hour limit on the qualitative interviews of course means that only a few issues about managerial practices could be explored. For this paper, we focused on the issues of complexity and integration, internal growth and external recruitment, and research unit size and ?exibility. The survey utilized in this analysis has been administered and tested in a number of R&D settings (Jordan, 2005; Jordan et al., 2003; Jordan and Streit, 2003b), including other national laboratories. The table survey covers key attributes of organizational structure and management practices within the research environment which were identified and defined through an extensive literature review and input from 15 focus groups that included bench scientists, engineers, and technologists, as well as their managers, across various R&D tasks (Jordan et al., 2003). In total, 36 attributes in four areas were identified as most important to creating an environment that fosters excellent research, and the survey attempts to determine the health of a laboratory's research environment by way of the researchers' perceptions. For the purposes of this case study, the survey offered a useful way of measuring the perceptions of scientists in the S&T MD on various issues related to complexity or diversity and integration. In addition, because the survey had recently been administered at the NATLAB, it provides comparative data to better understand the experience of the S&T MD. 4. Initial decisions: managerial practices involving recruitment In this case study, the origin of the need for a separate department to conduct basic or fundamental science for improving the manufacturing processes resulted from the founding manager's role in the analysis group that oversaw the transfer of the manufacturing task to NATLAB. Gradually, he had perceived that the basic science for manufacturing was underemphasized. In particular, much of the work concentrated on handling short-term solutions to problems in manufacturing rather than addressing the fundamental underlying or long-term issues, similar to that discussed by Cesaroni et al. (2004). Over time, the manager began to believe that not only a separate unit, but also a co located unit within the manufacturing unit, would maintain a better balance between long-term and shortterm problem solving. As one interviewee put it: ''In the preceding analysis group there was not enough physics or chemistry. Furthermore, there were not enough technologists. [The manager] Started building new techniques and procedures that went beyond standard quality control techniques.'' Other individuals who had been at the NATLAB for some time commented that the analysis group was under-resourced. It is in this regard that S&T MD represents an interesting co-location effort. In general, the rationale behind co-location is to place different types of research activities in proximity to one another, to interact on a more regular and sustained basis, and to leverage expertise and competencies (Kahn and McDonough, 1997). While most of the co-location efforts that have been discussed in the R&D literature have involved integrating design or marketing units within manufacturing units, the S&T MD is different in that it involves the co-location of a basic science unit within a design/manufacturing department of the NATLAB. 1 However, the rationale and perceived benefits of the S&T MD were consistent with those identified previously.
1 The manufacturing unit is one of several at the NATLAB, which focus on products that are one of a kind or produced in small batches, where there is either little incentive or too much complexity for private firms.
260
J. Hage et al. /
An unexplored issue in the study of the formation of new research units is the implicit charter, that is, the basic objectives of the new unit. The charter of the S&T MD was summarized in the following manner by one of the interviewees. To perform basic research that contributes to the manufacturing process the following: , Improve the lifetime of the product; , Improve the quality control of the process; , Prevent any technical surprises.
Given these objectives, a series of initial decisions about recruitment of staff are necessary. Without being readily apparent, implied in the recruitment of staff are a series of decisions about the complexity or diversity of skills of the department and its connections to other departments within large organizations such as NATLAB. 2 The interviews with the manager allowed us to ask about the initial decisions that were made when the department was formed. One of the more fascinating one involves the question of the complexity of the research unit as measured by the number of different disciplines and kinds of technologists and beyond this the diversity of the research portfolio. The manager made an unusual but conscious decision not to have all the complexity and diversity within the new department but instead to achieve this by funding projects outside the department and by carefully having the new staff develop joint projects with members in other departments. He felt that having individuals outside the department involved would result in more complexity than simply hiring double or triple the number of individuals. This also had the effect of reducing costs. But given this decision, an important challenge involved how to ensure commitment to the joint projects. In this regard, he arranged to have 30-40% of their salary paid over a 3-year period to guarantee participation by people outside the department in the joint projects. This stability of funding is rare within the cultural context of this particular NATLAB and thus was a major kind of incentive. Why is this a critical decision, one that should be emulated when other new research units are formed? A large literature in organizational sociology and a much smaller series of studies of research organizations indicates that as size increases, there is a tendency for internal differentiation to occur, that is, to create sub-groups that gradually create barriers to integration and grow into departments. In this instance, if more physicists or chemists or engineers had been hired within the unit, there would be tendency for those of the same discipline to form sub-units, hurting integration across these disciplines. Furthermore, the human capital of all the researchers is increased more by having joint projects across unit boundaries rather than the same number of individuals and projects within the unit because it provides more access to the diversity of projects - and thus the pool of knowledge, skills, and equipment - in the other units that are now attached to this unit (Mote, 2005). In other words, both internal and external scientific communication is maximized at the same time that costs are reduced. Another initial decision in the formation of the department is the character of the people that are recruited. First and foremost, the type of leader plays an important role (Von Zedwitz, 2003). In this regard, the founding manager was internal and had a comprehensive understanding of the organizational culture and significant technical credibility. Further, the manager had previously been part of an advanced analysis group, which gave him a considerable amount of tacit knowledge about the kinds of problems and also the pros and cons of specific individuals within the analysis group. Interesting enough, he again strived for balance by recruiting some from this group and mixing them with individuals who had just been hired into this national laboratory. Obviously, given the multi-disciplinary needs of the department, specifically physics and chemistry as well as technologists who were skilled in building new kinds of test equipment, it was important to hire individuals with the correct skill sets. But the manager specifically decided to hire a diversity of individuals classified according to their social styles (e.g. analytical vs. entrepreneurial).
One of the intellectual errors in the management literature is to treat all organizations, whether very large or very small, as the same. Large organizations have divisions which are further disaggregated into departments. The problems of inter - departmental relationships, especially for research, are somewhat akin to joint research ventures between separate organizations.
2
J. Hage et al. /
261
But besides the diversity, he also searched for individuals that exhibited a certain amount of ?exibility. In other words, he also sought to provide the basis for the integration of this diverse set of social styles. This kind of thinking about the selection of individuals is quite unusual and indicates the manager's keen awareness of the need to have both diversity and integration within his department although he may not have thought of these concepts as such. He was keenly aware that the competitiveness of individuals would hinder integration; hence, he identified those who would be more willing to collaborate. Again, the decision to increase complexity by developing collaborative research projects across department boundaries also became a selection criterion for the individuals in the department. Those who liked this were more likely to want to be in the department. In addition, some of the interviewees also stressed that the manager was continuously looking for smart people. Another important dimension of diversity is a diverse research portfolio. To better determine the diversity of the research portfolio, we analyzed the responses on the research environment survey to the question about a researcher's portfolio. In the survey results, the scientists had a mean value of 4.5 (of 5.0) on the attribute of an integrated and relevant research portfolio, which was considerably higher than their counterparts in either COLO that we studied or all of NATLAB, with corresponding means which are 3.9 and 3.7, respectively. How did the manager achieve this perception? First, it was the mission of the new department to integrate fundamental understanding and applications to manufacturing. Also, while he encouraged each person to develop several projects in consultation with people internal and external to the department, he guided them in the process, ensuring that there would be more integration across projects and, furthermore, that the long-term vision would be facilitated. These survey results suggest that indeed he was successful in cultivating an integrated portfolio of projects. If diversity of research is an important goal, the survey and interviews support that the manager's guidance fostered a respectable distribution in the researchers' portfolios of research projects, even in the face of having only a small number of scientists in the department. As discussed earlier, this diversity in the research portfolio is desirable if the aims of the research are radical advances. The S&T MD is responsible for both short-term problem solving and searching for a long-term solution to a basic problem with the exotic material, which would be a revolutionary breakthrough if achieved. As we have already suggested these are different ways of thinking and require different skill sets as well as disparate kinds of research projects. 5. Managerial practices relative to complexity and integration Now we turn to two recurring themes in the literature on innovation, the importance of complexity and integration. Integrating a diverse set of individuals with quite different projects is more difficult than it may seem. And as one might expect, in this d epartment there were some con?icts that were still being resolved. Besides con?icts over expectations, a major source of difficulty was communication between people trained in quite disparate disciplines and sub-disciplines. This was especially true for tacit communication, that is, the unspoken assumptions involved in our models of thinking. 5.1. Individual dimensions of complexity: creativity and risk taking One respondent stated that when she started working in the department, the manager gave her time to think and explore various potential projects with a variety of people across the organization before selecting her projects. She found that the manager was realistic about the amount of time it took to develop ideas. At the same time, this did not mean that individuals were not pushed. One respondent mentioned that the manager did this behind the scenes. Another respondent stated that the manager pushed people to think on their own. One managerial practice that the manager himself mentioned was his encouragement that each individual applied for highly competitive internal funds for research. He was proud of the initial success that his people had in this difficult competition. Creativity and risk taking were encouraged because the individuals were asked to work on both basic and applied science, that is splitting their time between these two kinds of research activities creating dual goals in their work comparable to the ideas stressed in Pasteur's Quadrant (Stokes, 1997). One respondent said that the manager ''allowed us to do creative thinking almost all the time.''
262 Table 1 Measures of creativity and risk-taking. Attribute
J. Hage et al. /
S&T MD Mean True time (%) 86 78 66 62 62
COLO Mean 3.9 3.3 4.3 3.1 3.9 True time (%) 68 57 76 52 68
NATLAB Mean 4.0 3.2 4.0 2.7 4.0 True time (%) 70 54 70 43 70
Authority to make decisions Resources/freedom to pursue new ideas Sense of challenge & enthusiasm Time to think & explore Commitment to critical thinking
4.8 4.4 3.8 3.6 3.6
Comparisons made using only responses from scientists (MTS): S&T MD (n = 5), COLO 2004 (n = 25), and NATLAB 2003 (n = 522).
In the research environment survey, there are two groups of indicators that re?ect various aspects of creating an environment in which creativity and risk-taking, and thus innovation, can ?ourish. The first set of items focuses on power and economic resources (Table 1) that is whether or not power and money are provided to pursue new ideas. Specifically on item 21 (the authority to make decisions), the scientists report a mean of 4.8, and on item 3 (resources and freedom to pursue ideas) a mean of 4.4, both of which are higher than the NATLAB overall and in COLO, the other co-location experiment. One important area where the scientists took initiative is the starting of conferences for developing a knowledge community relative to the set of problems that concern this department. Two scientists, one in the S&T MD and one in the Design Department, initiated a now biannual conference. These conferences allo wed for collective learning and also helped to foster a community of practice where researchers could share knowledge as questions arose. But in the second group of indicators, which deal more with the process of innovation, items 1 (a sense of challenge and enthusiasm), 2 (time to think and explore), and 4 (commitment to critical thinking), the means were 3.8, 3.6, and 3.6, respectively; two of the means (1 and 4) are lower than in COLO and NATLAB (see Table 1). The explanation of senior mangers for a lower score on item 1, sense of challenge, was that the department had purposefully limited the scope of research in the department in order to impact the manufacturing process within 3 years and several in the department would have preferred focus on other areas and approaches to the problem. However, two of these items, 2 and 4, also asked respondents to indicate their preference for how much time they would like to have allocated to these attributes. In both instances, they reported that they wanted more time, on average 12% more time for thinking and exploring and 20% more time for critical thinking. It is interesting that the S&T MD wanted much more of this even though in the qualitative interviews they reported that they had been given a great deal. This might re?ect the problem of developing a whole new program of research in basic science and technology relative to manufacturing, as well as the department having only 13 months of existence at the time the survey was completed. 5.2. Integration within the department and between departments One of the key managerial practices for building integration between departments is the invitation to those involved in research projects that are located outside the department to make presentations to the entire staff of the department. Most of the department staff found that these meetings were intellectually exciting. The meetings became a critical managerial practice for fostering integration between the various projects within the S&T MD , as the common knowledge pool of everyone was raised during the presentations and the questions and answers that were produced by them. One respondent who had worked in NATLAB stated that there was much more cross -fertilization in this new department than in the previous two departments that he had worked in. Another managerial practice is that the manager encouraged each individual who had some con?ict with either another staff member within the department or one outside the department, to come and talk to him about it, including what might be potential solutions. In other words, rather than the manager providing the solution, he tried to guide them to recognize what they themselves could do. In addition to the integration with other departments achieved through joint research projects, the manager worked to develop close relationships with the design department as well. According to one respondent, he did this by avoiding competition and broke down the barriers between the S&T MD and
J. Hage et al. / Table 2 Measures of integration. Attribute S&T MD Mean Cross-fertilization of ideas Teamwork & collaboration Good internal project communication 3.6 3.4 3.4 True time (%) 62 58 58 COLO Mean 3.9 3.9 3.4 True time (%) 68 68 59 NATLAB Mean 3.2 3.9 3.5
263
True time (%) 55 69 60
Comparisons made using only responses from scientists (MTS): S&T MD (n = 5), COLO 2004 (n = 25), and NATLAB 2003 (n = 522).
the Design Department by asking the right questions and talking to them about their work. Because of this effort, the S&T MD had some say in the selection of a basic researcher who was hired into the Design Department. In turn, this lead to the development of the co-location of some research equipment that benefited both the S&T MD and the Design Department. As another technique for building integration with the design group, the manager ''pulled strings so that a member of the group would share an office with a member of the [S&T MD]''. This has created a considerable amount of consulting about the next generation of design. Despite these managerial practices, the three items that relate the most directly to integration in the research environment survey do not indicate that the S&T MD has high integration. In Table 2, these items are 6 (crossfertilization of ideas), 5 (teamwork and collaboration), and 8 (good internal project communication); the means are 3.6, 3.4, and 3.4, respectively. Two of these means are lower in the S&T MD than in COLO. Again, on two of these items, 6 and 8, when asked how much more would be preferred, the respondents indicated that they would like to have a great deal more. Specifically, 16% indicated a desire for more time for cross-fertilization of new ideas and a sizable 28% more time for internal project communication. While both COLO and NATLAB also desired more time for both of these activities, the preferred amount was not as much as in the S&T MD. One respondent explained these scores by saying that it is a diverse group that ''varies between A and Z'' and that the problems of competition and different social styles still remain. Put another way, the effort to integrate a diverse portfolio places an additional strain on both the cross-fertilization of ideas and internal project communication. Again, the newness of the department might also provide further explanation on the larger preferred amount of time for these items. The relatively lower scores are consistent with the reports that we received in the informal interviews about various con?icts that still had not been resolved. But they may also re?ect the fact that teamwork and good internal communication cannot be developed immediately in a new department. Indeed, we might characterize the lower scores as the ''growing pains'' of having 13 people learning a new way to work with each other and with external projects and a manufacturing design department. At the same time, more than one respondent indicated that the manager frequently gives advice on how to handle differences with other staff. Furthermore, these problems have to be placed in an historical context. One respondent who knew the situation both before and aft er the formation of the S&T MD stated that disagreements in the analysis group and con?ict with the design and production groups were present prior to the formation of the new department. 6. Multi-dimensions of leadership While research on leadership styles in R&D remain rare, a handful of studies provide useful guides for identifying key aspects of effective leadership (Hollingsworth, 2004; Hollingsworth et al., in press). These studies have identified that effective leaders often have three essential qualities beyond the usual managerial skills, such as those involved in securing appropriate funding and the maintenance of schedules: (1) long-term scientific vision; (2) cognitive mentoring of researchers; (3) emotional support of researchers. These qualities were explored in our interviews and we address them in turn below.
264
J. Hage et al. /
6.1. Vision During the informal interviews, each of the individuals commented on the long-term vision that the S&T MD manager had for the research department. One commented that the S&T MD manager saw down the road and tried to get partnerships so that the department and its vision could extend into the future. The research environment survey measures the amount of research vision in several different ways. For item 33 (clear research vision), the mean is 4.4, and on item 36 (invests in future opportunities), the mean is also 4.4. On item 32 (good identification of new opportunities), the mean is 4.2, and on item 27 (senior management champions foundational research), the mean is 4.0. On all of these items, the mean values are considerably higher than they are in COLO and NATLAB in general (see Table 3). The means respectively for COLO are 3.9, 3.8, 3.6, and 3.4 and for NATLAB, in the same order, they are 3.9, 3.4, 3.2, and 2.9. However, despite these quite high scores, when asked if they wanted even more time spent on clear research vision and strategies, the S&T MD indicated that they did, although not as large as t he increases preferred for COLO and in NATLAB. 6.2. Cognitive mentoring We consider cognitive mentoring akin to the concept of ''perceived organization support'', that is, the general perception by employees of being valued and cared about by an organization (Eisenberger et al., 1986). In general, it has been demonstrated that higher perceptions of organizational support are positively associated with high individual performance, organizational commitment, and innovation (Eisengerger et al., 1990). However, we would suggest that our notion of cognitive mentoring is qualitatively different from the formal, vertically downward types of communication that has often been emphasized (Oh et al., 1991). Rather, more informal, expressive or supportive types of communication can also be a key to leadership effectiveness, and this seems true of the S&T MD. As one respondent commented: ''[the S&T MD manager] talks to us and he is not nay saying. In fact, he is an intellectual promoter. He picks up on what you say and then provides input.'' This perception was pervasive through the S&T MD, as many respondents indicated that the department was an exciting place to be because of the manager's emphasis on openness and learning. In this vein, one respondent stated that the S&T MD manager approaches discussions as a learning tool. Another respondent indicated that he was finally beginning to understand the whole scope of the problem that needed to be solved because he was now involved and interacting with researchers focused on other aspects of the research problem, and this was actively encouraged by the manager. This comment is consistent with previous findings that employees who perceive a higher level of organizational support are more likely to contribute acquired new knowledge and skills and to their projects (Wayne et al., 1997). More practically, these two aspects, mentoring and support, are demonstrated in the S& T MD manager's encouragement of individuals to take courses and even work for additional degrees.
Table 3 Measures of vision. Attribute S&T MD Mean Clear research vision & strategies Invests in future capabilities Good identification of new opportunities Mgmt champions foundational research 4.4 4.4 4.2 4.0 True time (%) 78 78 74 70 COLO Mean 3.9 3.8 3.6 3.4 True time (%) 68 66 62 58 NATLAB Mean 3.9 3.4 3.2 2.9 True time (%) 69 59 53 48
Comparisons made using only responses from scientists (MTS): S&T MD (n = 5), COLO 2004 (n = 25), and NATLAB 2003 (n = 522).
J. Hage et al. / Table 4 Measures of perceived support. Attribute S&T MD Mean Management adds value to work Good professional development 5.0 4.6 True time (%) 90 82 COLO Mean 3.9 4.1 True time (%) 68 73 NATLAB Mean 3.7 3.6
265
True time (%) 65 61
Comparisons made using only scientists' responses (MTS): S&T MD (n = 5), COLO (n = 25), and NATLAB (n = 522). Rank indicates relative ordering among 36 attributes based on percentage time true within each category.
Indeed, it was noted that the S&T MD manager did not have a problem with individuals missing work to attend classes. Allowing people to increase their knowledge is not only a way of providing support, but it is also a method for demonstrating that they are valued. It is interesting to note that this is an important corporate strategy of IBM and other firms to foster loyalty to the firm (Michlitsch, 2000). Again, there are several attributes on the research environment survey that tap into the amount of perceived support. On item 20 (management adds value to work), the mean was 5.0 (a perfect score), which was considerably higher than in COLO and in NATLAB as a whole. Also scoring relatively high is item 15 (good professional development), which had a mean of 4.6. The corresponding means for COLO are 3.9 and 4.1 and for NATLAB as a whole they are 3.7 and 3.6 (see Table 4). When asked if there should be more time devoted to improved professional development none of the respondents in the three entities felt that much more time should be allocated. Thus, despite the differences in means, there is not a felt need. 6.3. Emotional support Although typically overlooked in management studies and training, emotional support can play an important role in management. Emotional support refers to information that assures individuals beliefs that they are cared for and connected to others (Cobb, 1976; Ganster et al., 1986), and has been found to positively in?uence organizational outcomes such as organizational commitment and turnover (Abraham, 1999) and job satisfaction (Schaubroeck et al., 1989). On this topic, a few comments from the interviews are particularly interesting to relate. For instance, one respondent felt it was important to note that the S&T MD manager showed emotion in his understanding of people and their personalities. And in the same vein, one respondent suggested that the S&T MD manager was ''good at figuring out where people are coming from'' or what might be called an empathic quality. Another observed that when there was success, the S&T MD manager showed the progress to everyone so that there was public recognition of the entire department's accomplishments. Although these are only anecdotal observations, we would argue that they underscore an important area for additional studies in R&D leadership. 6.4. Other managerial practices In addition to the three dimensions mentioned above, two other dimensions that are traditionally considered as more ''managerial'' are also important: (1) the ability to garner resources and (2) being able to work well with others. As one respondent who had considerable experience in the NATLAB indicated, the S&T MD manager knew a lot of people and, perhaps more fundamentally, how to engage them in research planning. On the research environment survey, the mean of the scientists' responses for stable funding (item 11) is 4.6, considerably higher than in either COLO or NATLAB as a whole for 2003. This is likely in?uenced by the guarantee of multi -year funding. On the item relating to good internal allocation of research funds (item 26) the mean is 4.0. For COLO, the means are 3.3 and 3.5, respectively, and the corresponding means for NATLAB are 3.1 and 3.0 (see Table 5). This could be because many of the NG S&T staff was new to the process of competing for internal project funding and this process is mostly ou tside the in?uence of their own manager.
266 Table 5 Measures of other managerial practices. Attribute
J. Hage et al. /
S&T MD Mean True time (%) 82 70
COLO Mean 3.3 3.5 True time (%) 56 59
NATLAB Mean 3.1 3.0 True time (%) 52 50
Sufficient, stable project funding Good allocation of internal funds
4.6 4.0
Comparisons made using only scientists' responses (MTS): S&T MD (n = 5), COLO (n = 25), and NATLAB (n = 522). Rank indicates relative ordering among 36 attributes based on percentage time true within each category.
7. Discussion and conclusion This paper was aimed at exploring in greater detail the formation, managerial practices and leadership styles of a unique co-location effort in R&D. The interviews and survey data allowed us to highlight how the S&T MD and its manager had put in place processes and practices designed to provide a balance between diversity and integration. As is clear from the research environment survey, the problems of integration had not yet been solved at least by the measures of our interviews and also the research environment survey. The literature suggests integration is not solved quickly. As Danilovic and Winroth (2005) discuss, managers of cross-functional teams typically need to allow some time to harmonize the organizational structure, work?ow, and social and cognitive -level distances that people from different functions and specialties bring in with them. It should be noted that this unit had been in existence for only 13 months and many of the people recruited into the unit, as well as the participating members outside the department, were still in the process of getting to know each other. What lessons does this case study offer R&D managers? With regard to the objective of maintaining a balance between complexity and integration so as to maximize innovation and the benefits of co - location, we would make the following observations. One especially interesting managerial practice was the selection of people who scored high for ?exibility. In NATLAB, courses were widely given on a typology of social styles and the manager used this as a way of identifying the appropriate individuals. Flexibility was a much needed attribute, as the scientists who were recruited had different social styles, disciplinary backgrounds, and levels of experience, and in their levels of experience both within and outside NATLAB. Hence, the ?exibility of each individual was essenti al in the integration of a diverse group of people. Because some projects were funded outside the department, it was important to quickly integrate and gain the commitment of these individuals to the new unit as well as their own. This was done by providi ng guaranteed funding at about one-third time for 3 years, which, in the context of funding at the NATLAB, presented a stable source of funding. With regard to integration, several practices were adopted: monthly presentations of the joint projects by the members outside the department and in some cases joint sharing of offices. But balancing diversity and integration was not confined within the organizational boundaries of the S&T MD. To increase the amount of skills and resources available for the S&T MD, the manager pursued a strategic effort to recruit additional diversity through joint research projects across department lines and by extension with other organizations. On the positive side, this allows for greater ?exibility as skill needs shift ac ross time but on the negative side, this increases the problems of commitment and integration. But the practices discussed above were useful in ameliorating any potential issues. Finally, the leadership of the S&T manager was critical. Because the manager played a key role in designing and establishing the unit, he had considerable say in how the unit was to operate. Further, his considerable background in the NATLAB gave him invaluable insights on what would work and what would not work within the organizational framework of the laboratory. In addition, the leadership style of the manager was highly effective in crafting a vision for the unit and employees and which also provided the often overlooked cognitive and emotional support needed to gain the loyalty and commitment of employees.
J. Hage et al. /
267
As Kahn and McDonough (1997) point out in their study, while the record of co-location efforts has been mixed, the performance of co-location efforts are typically dependent on the use of collaboration and integration mechanisms. As this study illustrates, the use of such mechanisms is a function of both the initial decisions in the formation of the colocation effort as well as the leadership style of the primary manager. Given the paucity of research on co -location in general, a greater level of empirical research is needed to evaluate the impact of these efforts. In particular, an interesting question for future research is whether research organizations can select or train the type of leaders to successful manage a co-location effort. As this study suggests, the ability of managers to provide cognitive mentoring and emotional support should be an important part of any co -location manager's personality. As innovation becomes increasingly critical to a firm's survival and success, the ability to successfully manage cross-functional efforts and research complexity will be essential. Accordingly, more in -depth knowledge of colocation and similar efforts is vital to understanding the innovation process fully. The findings of the present study take us a step in that direction.
Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science and the Science, Technology and Engineering Foundations Strategic Management Unit at Sandia National Laborat ories. This research has been performed under contract with Sandia National Laboratories, DOE contract DE -AC04-94AL85000. Sandia is operated by Sandia Corporation, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation. References
Abraham, R., 1999. The impact of emotional dissonance on organizational commitment and intention to turnover. Journal of Psychology 133, 441-455. Allen, T.J., 1977. Managing the Flow of Technology. MIT Press, Boston, MA. Cesaroni, F., Di Minin, A., Piccaluga, A., 2004. New strategic goals and organizational solutions in large R&D labs: lessons from Centro Ricerche Fiat and Telcom Italia Lab. R&D Management 34 (1), 45-56. Cobb, S., 1976. Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine 38 (5), 300 -314. Cordero, R., Farris, G.F., DiTomaso, N., 2004. Supervisors in R&D laboratories: using technical, people, and administrative skills effectively. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 51 (1), 19-30. Danilovic, M., Winroth, M., 2005. A tentative framework for analyzing integration in collaborative manufacturing network settings: a case study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 22, 141-158. Eisengerger, R., Fasolo, P., Davis-LaMastro, V., 1990. Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology 75 (1), 51-59. Eisenberger, R., Hutchison, S., Sowa, D., 1986. Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology 71, 500-507. Ganster, D., Fuilier, M., Mayes, B., 1986. Role of social support in the experience of stress at work. Journal of Applied Psychology 71, 102-110. Green, S.G., 1995. Top management support of R&D projects: a strategic leadership perspective. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 42 (3), 223-232. Hage, J.T., 1999. Organizational innovation and organizational change. Annual Review of Sociology 25, 597 -622. Holland, S., Gaston, K., Gomes, J., 2000. Critical success factors for cross-functional teamwork in new product development. International Journal of Management Reviews 2 (3), 231-259. Hollingsworth, J.R., 2004. Institutionalizing Excellence in Biomedical Research: The Case of Rockefeller University Fou nd in Creating a Tradition of Biomedical Research: Contributions to the History of the Rockefeller University. Rockefeller University Press, New York. Hollingsworth, J.R., Hage, J.T., Hollingsworth, E.J., in press. The Search for Excellence: Organizations, Institutions, and Major Discoveries in Biomedical Science. New York: Cambridge University Press. Johansen, K., Comstock, M., Winroth, M., 2005. Coordination in collaborative manufacturing mega-networks: a case study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 22, 226-244. Jordan, G.B., Hage, J.T., Mote, J.E., Hepler, B., 2005. Investigating differences among R&D projects and implications for managers. R&D Management 35 (5), 501-511. Jordan, G.B., 2005. What matters to R&D workers? Research Technology Management 48 (3), 23-32. Jordan, G.B., Streit, L.D., Binkley, J.S., 2003. Assessing and improving the effectiveness of national research laboratories. IEEE Transactions in Engineering Management 50 (2), 228-235. Jordan, G.B., Streit, L.D., 2003b. In: Shapira, P., Kuhlmann, S. (Eds.), Recognizing the Competing Values in Science and Technology Organizations: Implications for Evaluation Learning from Science and Technology Policy Evaluation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, p. 2003. Kahn, K.B., McDonough III, E.F., 1997. An empirical study of the relationships among co-location, integration, performance, and satisfaction. Journal of Product Innovation Management 14 (3), 161-178.
268
J. Hage et al. /
Leenders, R.T.A.J., van Engelen, J.M.L., Kratzer, J., 2003. Virtuality, communication, and new product team creativity: a soc ial network perspective. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 20 (1-2), 69-92. McDonough III, E.F., Barczak, G., 1991. Speeding up new product development: the effects of leadership style and source of technology. Journal of Product Innovation Management 8 (3), 203-211. Michlitsch, J.F., 2000. High-performing, loyal employees: the real way to implement strategy. Strategy & Leadership 28 (6), 28-33. Mote, J.M., 2005. R&D ecology: using 2-mode network analysis to explore complexity in R&D environments. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 22 (1), 93-111. Nihtila, J., 1999. R&D-Production integration in the early phases of new product development projects. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 16 (1), 55-81. Nooteboom, B., 2000. Learning and Innovation in Organizations and Economies. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Nooteboom, B., 1999. The dynamic efficiency of networks in interfirm networks. In: Grandori, A. (Ed.), Organization and Industrial Competitiveness. Routledge, London, pp. 91-119. Oh, K., Kim, Y., Lee, J., 1991. An empirical study of communication patterns, leadership styles, and subordinate satisfaction in R&D project teams in Korea. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 8 (1), 15-35. Schaubroeck, J., Cotton, J.L., Jennings, K.R., 1989. Antecedents and consequents of role stress: a covariate structure analys is. Journal of Organizational Behavior 10, 35-58. Sicotte, H., Langley, A., 2000. Integration mechanisms and R&D project performance. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 17 (1), 1-37. Stoker, J.I., Looise, J.C., Fisscher, O.A.M., De Jong, R.D., 2001. Leadership and innovation: relations between leadership, individual characteristics and the functioning of R&D teams. International Journal of Human Resource Management 12 (7), 1141- 1151. Stokes, D.E., 1997. Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC. Susman, G.I., Majchrzak, A., 2003. Editorial: Research issues in knowledge management and virtual collaboration in new product development: an introductory essay. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 20, 1 -5. von Corswant, F., Tunalv, C., 2002. Coordinating customers and proactive suppliers: a case study of supplier collaboration in ¨ product development. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 19, 249-261. Von Zedwitz, M., 2003. Initial managers of international R&D laboratories. R&D Management 33 (4), 377 -393. West, M.A., 2004. Effective Teamwork: Practical Lessons from Organizational Research, 2nd ed. BPS Blackwell, Malden, MA. Wuyt s, S., Colombo, M.G., Dutta, S., Nooteboom, B., 2005. Empirical tests of optimal cognitive distance. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 58 (2), 277-302. Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M., Liden, R.C., 1997. Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: a social exchange perspective. The Academy of Management Journal 40 (1), 82-111.
doc_916591194.docx
A facilitator is someone who helps a group of people understand their common objectives and assists them to plan to achieve them without taking a particular position in the discussion. Some facilitator tools will try to assist the group in achieving a consensus on any disagreements that preexist or emerge in the meeting so that it has a strong basis for future action.
A Case Studies on Designing and Facilitating Collaboration in R&D
ABSTRACT
This case study aims to highlight the strategic decisions and managerial practices in the formation and operation of a co-located research unit within a national laboratory. The empirical evidence is based on interviews with members of the research unit as well as responses from a research environment survey. The findings of the case study suggest specific strategies that are conducive not only for the co-location of research units but also for research management in general. Principal among these are the need to balance increases in diversity and complexity with mechanisms of integration and the use of specific management practices and leadership qualities that support these activities.
The motivation to co-locate is typically driven by the assumption that cross-functional communication and teams lead to increased or accelerated innovation. In the organizational literature, the role of a complex division of labor, like that found in cross-functional teams, has been identified as a critical factor in facilitating organizational innovation. As Hage (1999) demonstrated in a comprehensive review of the organizational innovation literature, a complex division of labor is a key determinant for facilitating innovation, as it encompasses the organizational learning, problem- solving, and creativity capacities of an organization. But the practice of co-location highlights a central issue in the management of R&D of how to strike a balance between increasing the complexity of labor to increase innovation, while at the same time ensuring adequate integration (Nooteboom, 1999, 2000). As Leenders et al. (2003) discuss, integrated and active interactions among researchers plays a key role in promoting the cross-fertilization of ideas and creativity necessary for innovation. While the need for integration is recognized as critical in the management of R&D (Allen, 1977; Leenders et al., 2003; West, 2004), the successful attainment of integration represents a challenge for managers (Nihtila, 1999; Sicotte and Langley, 2000; Holland et al., 2000). And while the use of co-location is becoming more common, the limited evidence of the results of these attempts at cross -functional integration is often mixed (Kahn and McDonough, 1997). Further, it should go without saying that a co-location effort, or any research effort, cannot be successful without strong leadership, particularly in the initial management decisions. As Von Zedwitz (2003) discusses, the formation of new research units entails a series of decisions that impact the development of these units over time, including t he selection of an appropriate manager. And leadership practices and styles, in general, have been demonstrated to have a significant impact on R&D performance (Oh et al., 1991; McDonough and Barczak, 1991; Green, 1995; Sicotte and Langley, 2000; Stoker et al., 2001; Cordero et al., 2004). Yet, we would argue that there are few studies that provide practical insights on successful leadership styles or practices in the R&D literature. The objective of this paper is to discuss the issues of balancing diversity and integration and leadership in R&D through an examination of a case study of the formation and co-location of a dedicated basic research unit within a manufacturing department (S&T MD) in a large national laboratory (hereafter NATLAB) in the United States. The research unit was formed to focus on the manufacturing department's single product, a component which requires extreme precision, exotic materials and highly advanced processes in its manufacture. It was anticipated that the integration of basic research in the production facility would result in fewer technical surprises on the production line and quicker resolution of problems that do arise. Our case study encompasses not only the current activities of the S&T MD, but also the initial decisions and actions that led to the formation of the unit. In this manner, the case study provides a relatively more comprehensive investigation of a novel application of the use of co-location. But the case study should also have special interest to R&D managers for several reasons beyond the issues raised above. First, the case study focuses on a co-location effort at the level of basic research, while most studies on colocation focus on efforts in product development. Second, the case study involves the co-location of a basic research unit within a manufacturing unit, which, to our knowledge, is relatively rare. Finally, the need for scientific and technological research units for manufacturing is becoming greater because frequently radical innovations utilize advanced process technologies and the challenge of these manufacturing units involves addressing technical complexities in the product and the manufacturing process.
In the next section of the paper, we discuss the applied theory of radical innovation that underlies some of the assumptions in the analysis of the case study. After a brief discussion of the methodology, we discuss the efforts of the unit in developing complexity or diversity and how integration is perceived by the five scientists in this unit, using both the interviews and the results of a research environment survey. To provide some basis of comparison, the survey results of the unit's scientists are compared to another experiment in co-location within the NATLAB, which we will
refer to as COLO, as well as the overall researcher perceptions for NATLAB. In the subsequent section, we discuss the management practices and leadership style of the unit's manager that facilitated the co-location effort, including a longterm scientific vision, cognitive mentoring and providing emotional support to
258
J. Hage et al. /
researchers. The study concludes with a discussion of the results and implications for further research on R&D management.
2. An applied theory of radical innovation One of the central issues in the management of R&D is ensuring a balance between increasing the complex division of labor needed to pursue radical innovation and maintaining integration among the research team (Hage, 1999). A complex division of labor is important because, as Nooteboom (1999, 2000) hypothesized, radical innovation is more likely the greater the cognitive (or knowledge) distance there is within the team. Paradoxically, however, communication also tends to decline with cognitive distance. Hence, the challenge is to strike a balance between complexity and integration relative to the goal of radical innovation. Perhaps even more critical is the need to maintain integration as the diversity or complexity grows, rather than assuming the two remain static over time. Although there is a considerable amount of research on the relationship between complexity and innovation in the industrial innovation literature, there has been a surprising absence of research about the problems of integration (Hage, 1999). Further, Nooteboom's concept of ''optimal cognitive distance,'' which posits a successful balance between diversity and integration, has undergone only cursory empirical examination to date (Wuyts et al., 2005). In recent qualitative studies of biomedicine, however, Hollingsworth et al. (in press) found integration does pose a serious challenge, particularly with regard to the recruitment of new competencies, which creates internal differentiation that prevents integration across these diverse perspectives. Internal differentiation and the challenge of balance are compounded when the need arises for additional expertise during the course of a research project, a common occurrence as new research issues emerge. For instance, in a study of some 20 research projects in the same NATLAB, we found that most of them added new skills during the course of their 3 years and in the larger projects or programs of research sometimes had as many as eight different specialties (Jordan et al., 2005). One might think that the problem of maintaining integration is easily solved if the new skills are recruited into the same unit but this increases the size of the unit, reduces its ?exibility, and, most critically, leads to internal differentiation as the specialists create occupational or disciplinary groups within the research project or program. It is this tendency for like-minded individuals to gravitate together that starts to inhibit communication within cross functional teams. To prevent the growth in size and the internal differentiation, another solution is to temporarily hire people to join the project. This has the advantage of preventing the growth in size and allowing for ?exibility but then there other issues of whether the temporary people are truly becoming integrated into the project and their degree of commitment. After a brief discussion of the data and methodology, we turn to an investigation of the formation of the S&T MD to explore these issues.
3. The methodology This study uses a single-case study design to explore a unique example of co-location, one that we would argue can make a contribution to the existing knowledge and theory of R&D management. The primary data used in this case study comes from interviews and survey responses of the staff members of the S&T MD, which is located at a large national laboratory. The laboratory currently employs several thousand researchers in over two -dozen disciplinary centers and has a multi-billion dollar budget. Such large laboratories are interesting settings to explore questions about R&D, but have been largely overlooked in the literature. The S&T MD is a relatively small unit in the laboratory, consisting of one manager, five scientists, five technologists, one contractor, and one support staff. The documentation of the history of the formation of the S&T MD, as well as its experience with complexity and integration, were obtained using the following three sources of data: (1) One face-to-face interview and two short qualitative interviews by phone with the unit manager about management rationale and strategies for the formation of the unit.
J. Hage et al. /
259
(2) One-half hour interviews with all the scientists (in person and by phone) and with several of the technologists in the department about managerial practices relative to three themes. (3) A survey designed specifically to elicit information about specific aspects of a research environment was administered to all scientists and technologists in the department. The first set of data provided insight into the decisions made in the formation of a new department and the implications for evolution across time. The second set of data provided the scientists' perspective on management decisions, as well helped to identify specific managerial practices that connect to particular scores on the third source of data, the research environment survey. Discussion of survey results in the s provided in this paper utilizes only the responses of the scientific staff of the department. The one-half hour limit on the qualitative interviews of course means that only a few issues about managerial practices could be explored. For this paper, we focused on the issues of complexity and integration, internal growth and external recruitment, and research unit size and ?exibility. The survey utilized in this analysis has been administered and tested in a number of R&D settings (Jordan, 2005; Jordan et al., 2003; Jordan and Streit, 2003b), including other national laboratories. The table survey covers key attributes of organizational structure and management practices within the research environment which were identified and defined through an extensive literature review and input from 15 focus groups that included bench scientists, engineers, and technologists, as well as their managers, across various R&D tasks (Jordan et al., 2003). In total, 36 attributes in four areas were identified as most important to creating an environment that fosters excellent research, and the survey attempts to determine the health of a laboratory's research environment by way of the researchers' perceptions. For the purposes of this case study, the survey offered a useful way of measuring the perceptions of scientists in the S&T MD on various issues related to complexity or diversity and integration. In addition, because the survey had recently been administered at the NATLAB, it provides comparative data to better understand the experience of the S&T MD. 4. Initial decisions: managerial practices involving recruitment In this case study, the origin of the need for a separate department to conduct basic or fundamental science for improving the manufacturing processes resulted from the founding manager's role in the analysis group that oversaw the transfer of the manufacturing task to NATLAB. Gradually, he had perceived that the basic science for manufacturing was underemphasized. In particular, much of the work concentrated on handling short-term solutions to problems in manufacturing rather than addressing the fundamental underlying or long-term issues, similar to that discussed by Cesaroni et al. (2004). Over time, the manager began to believe that not only a separate unit, but also a co located unit within the manufacturing unit, would maintain a better balance between long-term and shortterm problem solving. As one interviewee put it: ''In the preceding analysis group there was not enough physics or chemistry. Furthermore, there were not enough technologists. [The manager] Started building new techniques and procedures that went beyond standard quality control techniques.'' Other individuals who had been at the NATLAB for some time commented that the analysis group was under-resourced. It is in this regard that S&T MD represents an interesting co-location effort. In general, the rationale behind co-location is to place different types of research activities in proximity to one another, to interact on a more regular and sustained basis, and to leverage expertise and competencies (Kahn and McDonough, 1997). While most of the co-location efforts that have been discussed in the R&D literature have involved integrating design or marketing units within manufacturing units, the S&T MD is different in that it involves the co-location of a basic science unit within a design/manufacturing department of the NATLAB. 1 However, the rationale and perceived benefits of the S&T MD were consistent with those identified previously.
1 The manufacturing unit is one of several at the NATLAB, which focus on products that are one of a kind or produced in small batches, where there is either little incentive or too much complexity for private firms.
260
J. Hage et al. /
An unexplored issue in the study of the formation of new research units is the implicit charter, that is, the basic objectives of the new unit. The charter of the S&T MD was summarized in the following manner by one of the interviewees. To perform basic research that contributes to the manufacturing process the following: , Improve the lifetime of the product; , Improve the quality control of the process; , Prevent any technical surprises.
Given these objectives, a series of initial decisions about recruitment of staff are necessary. Without being readily apparent, implied in the recruitment of staff are a series of decisions about the complexity or diversity of skills of the department and its connections to other departments within large organizations such as NATLAB. 2 The interviews with the manager allowed us to ask about the initial decisions that were made when the department was formed. One of the more fascinating one involves the question of the complexity of the research unit as measured by the number of different disciplines and kinds of technologists and beyond this the diversity of the research portfolio. The manager made an unusual but conscious decision not to have all the complexity and diversity within the new department but instead to achieve this by funding projects outside the department and by carefully having the new staff develop joint projects with members in other departments. He felt that having individuals outside the department involved would result in more complexity than simply hiring double or triple the number of individuals. This also had the effect of reducing costs. But given this decision, an important challenge involved how to ensure commitment to the joint projects. In this regard, he arranged to have 30-40% of their salary paid over a 3-year period to guarantee participation by people outside the department in the joint projects. This stability of funding is rare within the cultural context of this particular NATLAB and thus was a major kind of incentive. Why is this a critical decision, one that should be emulated when other new research units are formed? A large literature in organizational sociology and a much smaller series of studies of research organizations indicates that as size increases, there is a tendency for internal differentiation to occur, that is, to create sub-groups that gradually create barriers to integration and grow into departments. In this instance, if more physicists or chemists or engineers had been hired within the unit, there would be tendency for those of the same discipline to form sub-units, hurting integration across these disciplines. Furthermore, the human capital of all the researchers is increased more by having joint projects across unit boundaries rather than the same number of individuals and projects within the unit because it provides more access to the diversity of projects - and thus the pool of knowledge, skills, and equipment - in the other units that are now attached to this unit (Mote, 2005). In other words, both internal and external scientific communication is maximized at the same time that costs are reduced. Another initial decision in the formation of the department is the character of the people that are recruited. First and foremost, the type of leader plays an important role (Von Zedwitz, 2003). In this regard, the founding manager was internal and had a comprehensive understanding of the organizational culture and significant technical credibility. Further, the manager had previously been part of an advanced analysis group, which gave him a considerable amount of tacit knowledge about the kinds of problems and also the pros and cons of specific individuals within the analysis group. Interesting enough, he again strived for balance by recruiting some from this group and mixing them with individuals who had just been hired into this national laboratory. Obviously, given the multi-disciplinary needs of the department, specifically physics and chemistry as well as technologists who were skilled in building new kinds of test equipment, it was important to hire individuals with the correct skill sets. But the manager specifically decided to hire a diversity of individuals classified according to their social styles (e.g. analytical vs. entrepreneurial).
One of the intellectual errors in the management literature is to treat all organizations, whether very large or very small, as the same. Large organizations have divisions which are further disaggregated into departments. The problems of inter - departmental relationships, especially for research, are somewhat akin to joint research ventures between separate organizations.
2
J. Hage et al. /
261
But besides the diversity, he also searched for individuals that exhibited a certain amount of ?exibility. In other words, he also sought to provide the basis for the integration of this diverse set of social styles. This kind of thinking about the selection of individuals is quite unusual and indicates the manager's keen awareness of the need to have both diversity and integration within his department although he may not have thought of these concepts as such. He was keenly aware that the competitiveness of individuals would hinder integration; hence, he identified those who would be more willing to collaborate. Again, the decision to increase complexity by developing collaborative research projects across department boundaries also became a selection criterion for the individuals in the department. Those who liked this were more likely to want to be in the department. In addition, some of the interviewees also stressed that the manager was continuously looking for smart people. Another important dimension of diversity is a diverse research portfolio. To better determine the diversity of the research portfolio, we analyzed the responses on the research environment survey to the question about a researcher's portfolio. In the survey results, the scientists had a mean value of 4.5 (of 5.0) on the attribute of an integrated and relevant research portfolio, which was considerably higher than their counterparts in either COLO that we studied or all of NATLAB, with corresponding means which are 3.9 and 3.7, respectively. How did the manager achieve this perception? First, it was the mission of the new department to integrate fundamental understanding and applications to manufacturing. Also, while he encouraged each person to develop several projects in consultation with people internal and external to the department, he guided them in the process, ensuring that there would be more integration across projects and, furthermore, that the long-term vision would be facilitated. These survey results suggest that indeed he was successful in cultivating an integrated portfolio of projects. If diversity of research is an important goal, the survey and interviews support that the manager's guidance fostered a respectable distribution in the researchers' portfolios of research projects, even in the face of having only a small number of scientists in the department. As discussed earlier, this diversity in the research portfolio is desirable if the aims of the research are radical advances. The S&T MD is responsible for both short-term problem solving and searching for a long-term solution to a basic problem with the exotic material, which would be a revolutionary breakthrough if achieved. As we have already suggested these are different ways of thinking and require different skill sets as well as disparate kinds of research projects. 5. Managerial practices relative to complexity and integration Now we turn to two recurring themes in the literature on innovation, the importance of complexity and integration. Integrating a diverse set of individuals with quite different projects is more difficult than it may seem. And as one might expect, in this d epartment there were some con?icts that were still being resolved. Besides con?icts over expectations, a major source of difficulty was communication between people trained in quite disparate disciplines and sub-disciplines. This was especially true for tacit communication, that is, the unspoken assumptions involved in our models of thinking. 5.1. Individual dimensions of complexity: creativity and risk taking One respondent stated that when she started working in the department, the manager gave her time to think and explore various potential projects with a variety of people across the organization before selecting her projects. She found that the manager was realistic about the amount of time it took to develop ideas. At the same time, this did not mean that individuals were not pushed. One respondent mentioned that the manager did this behind the scenes. Another respondent stated that the manager pushed people to think on their own. One managerial practice that the manager himself mentioned was his encouragement that each individual applied for highly competitive internal funds for research. He was proud of the initial success that his people had in this difficult competition. Creativity and risk taking were encouraged because the individuals were asked to work on both basic and applied science, that is splitting their time between these two kinds of research activities creating dual goals in their work comparable to the ideas stressed in Pasteur's Quadrant (Stokes, 1997). One respondent said that the manager ''allowed us to do creative thinking almost all the time.''
262 Table 1 Measures of creativity and risk-taking. Attribute
J. Hage et al. /
S&T MD Mean True time (%) 86 78 66 62 62
COLO Mean 3.9 3.3 4.3 3.1 3.9 True time (%) 68 57 76 52 68
NATLAB Mean 4.0 3.2 4.0 2.7 4.0 True time (%) 70 54 70 43 70
Authority to make decisions Resources/freedom to pursue new ideas Sense of challenge & enthusiasm Time to think & explore Commitment to critical thinking
4.8 4.4 3.8 3.6 3.6
Comparisons made using only responses from scientists (MTS): S&T MD (n = 5), COLO 2004 (n = 25), and NATLAB 2003 (n = 522).
In the research environment survey, there are two groups of indicators that re?ect various aspects of creating an environment in which creativity and risk-taking, and thus innovation, can ?ourish. The first set of items focuses on power and economic resources (Table 1) that is whether or not power and money are provided to pursue new ideas. Specifically on item 21 (the authority to make decisions), the scientists report a mean of 4.8, and on item 3 (resources and freedom to pursue ideas) a mean of 4.4, both of which are higher than the NATLAB overall and in COLO, the other co-location experiment. One important area where the scientists took initiative is the starting of conferences for developing a knowledge community relative to the set of problems that concern this department. Two scientists, one in the S&T MD and one in the Design Department, initiated a now biannual conference. These conferences allo wed for collective learning and also helped to foster a community of practice where researchers could share knowledge as questions arose. But in the second group of indicators, which deal more with the process of innovation, items 1 (a sense of challenge and enthusiasm), 2 (time to think and explore), and 4 (commitment to critical thinking), the means were 3.8, 3.6, and 3.6, respectively; two of the means (1 and 4) are lower than in COLO and NATLAB (see Table 1). The explanation of senior mangers for a lower score on item 1, sense of challenge, was that the department had purposefully limited the scope of research in the department in order to impact the manufacturing process within 3 years and several in the department would have preferred focus on other areas and approaches to the problem. However, two of these items, 2 and 4, also asked respondents to indicate their preference for how much time they would like to have allocated to these attributes. In both instances, they reported that they wanted more time, on average 12% more time for thinking and exploring and 20% more time for critical thinking. It is interesting that the S&T MD wanted much more of this even though in the qualitative interviews they reported that they had been given a great deal. This might re?ect the problem of developing a whole new program of research in basic science and technology relative to manufacturing, as well as the department having only 13 months of existence at the time the survey was completed. 5.2. Integration within the department and between departments One of the key managerial practices for building integration between departments is the invitation to those involved in research projects that are located outside the department to make presentations to the entire staff of the department. Most of the department staff found that these meetings were intellectually exciting. The meetings became a critical managerial practice for fostering integration between the various projects within the S&T MD , as the common knowledge pool of everyone was raised during the presentations and the questions and answers that were produced by them. One respondent who had worked in NATLAB stated that there was much more cross -fertilization in this new department than in the previous two departments that he had worked in. Another managerial practice is that the manager encouraged each individual who had some con?ict with either another staff member within the department or one outside the department, to come and talk to him about it, including what might be potential solutions. In other words, rather than the manager providing the solution, he tried to guide them to recognize what they themselves could do. In addition to the integration with other departments achieved through joint research projects, the manager worked to develop close relationships with the design department as well. According to one respondent, he did this by avoiding competition and broke down the barriers between the S&T MD and
J. Hage et al. / Table 2 Measures of integration. Attribute S&T MD Mean Cross-fertilization of ideas Teamwork & collaboration Good internal project communication 3.6 3.4 3.4 True time (%) 62 58 58 COLO Mean 3.9 3.9 3.4 True time (%) 68 68 59 NATLAB Mean 3.2 3.9 3.5
263
True time (%) 55 69 60
Comparisons made using only responses from scientists (MTS): S&T MD (n = 5), COLO 2004 (n = 25), and NATLAB 2003 (n = 522).
the Design Department by asking the right questions and talking to them about their work. Because of this effort, the S&T MD had some say in the selection of a basic researcher who was hired into the Design Department. In turn, this lead to the development of the co-location of some research equipment that benefited both the S&T MD and the Design Department. As another technique for building integration with the design group, the manager ''pulled strings so that a member of the group would share an office with a member of the [S&T MD]''. This has created a considerable amount of consulting about the next generation of design. Despite these managerial practices, the three items that relate the most directly to integration in the research environment survey do not indicate that the S&T MD has high integration. In Table 2, these items are 6 (crossfertilization of ideas), 5 (teamwork and collaboration), and 8 (good internal project communication); the means are 3.6, 3.4, and 3.4, respectively. Two of these means are lower in the S&T MD than in COLO. Again, on two of these items, 6 and 8, when asked how much more would be preferred, the respondents indicated that they would like to have a great deal more. Specifically, 16% indicated a desire for more time for cross-fertilization of new ideas and a sizable 28% more time for internal project communication. While both COLO and NATLAB also desired more time for both of these activities, the preferred amount was not as much as in the S&T MD. One respondent explained these scores by saying that it is a diverse group that ''varies between A and Z'' and that the problems of competition and different social styles still remain. Put another way, the effort to integrate a diverse portfolio places an additional strain on both the cross-fertilization of ideas and internal project communication. Again, the newness of the department might also provide further explanation on the larger preferred amount of time for these items. The relatively lower scores are consistent with the reports that we received in the informal interviews about various con?icts that still had not been resolved. But they may also re?ect the fact that teamwork and good internal communication cannot be developed immediately in a new department. Indeed, we might characterize the lower scores as the ''growing pains'' of having 13 people learning a new way to work with each other and with external projects and a manufacturing design department. At the same time, more than one respondent indicated that the manager frequently gives advice on how to handle differences with other staff. Furthermore, these problems have to be placed in an historical context. One respondent who knew the situation both before and aft er the formation of the S&T MD stated that disagreements in the analysis group and con?ict with the design and production groups were present prior to the formation of the new department. 6. Multi-dimensions of leadership While research on leadership styles in R&D remain rare, a handful of studies provide useful guides for identifying key aspects of effective leadership (Hollingsworth, 2004; Hollingsworth et al., in press). These studies have identified that effective leaders often have three essential qualities beyond the usual managerial skills, such as those involved in securing appropriate funding and the maintenance of schedules: (1) long-term scientific vision; (2) cognitive mentoring of researchers; (3) emotional support of researchers. These qualities were explored in our interviews and we address them in turn below.
264
J. Hage et al. /
6.1. Vision During the informal interviews, each of the individuals commented on the long-term vision that the S&T MD manager had for the research department. One commented that the S&T MD manager saw down the road and tried to get partnerships so that the department and its vision could extend into the future. The research environment survey measures the amount of research vision in several different ways. For item 33 (clear research vision), the mean is 4.4, and on item 36 (invests in future opportunities), the mean is also 4.4. On item 32 (good identification of new opportunities), the mean is 4.2, and on item 27 (senior management champions foundational research), the mean is 4.0. On all of these items, the mean values are considerably higher than they are in COLO and NATLAB in general (see Table 3). The means respectively for COLO are 3.9, 3.8, 3.6, and 3.4 and for NATLAB, in the same order, they are 3.9, 3.4, 3.2, and 2.9. However, despite these quite high scores, when asked if they wanted even more time spent on clear research vision and strategies, the S&T MD indicated that they did, although not as large as t he increases preferred for COLO and in NATLAB. 6.2. Cognitive mentoring We consider cognitive mentoring akin to the concept of ''perceived organization support'', that is, the general perception by employees of being valued and cared about by an organization (Eisenberger et al., 1986). In general, it has been demonstrated that higher perceptions of organizational support are positively associated with high individual performance, organizational commitment, and innovation (Eisengerger et al., 1990). However, we would suggest that our notion of cognitive mentoring is qualitatively different from the formal, vertically downward types of communication that has often been emphasized (Oh et al., 1991). Rather, more informal, expressive or supportive types of communication can also be a key to leadership effectiveness, and this seems true of the S&T MD. As one respondent commented: ''[the S&T MD manager] talks to us and he is not nay saying. In fact, he is an intellectual promoter. He picks up on what you say and then provides input.'' This perception was pervasive through the S&T MD, as many respondents indicated that the department was an exciting place to be because of the manager's emphasis on openness and learning. In this vein, one respondent stated that the S&T MD manager approaches discussions as a learning tool. Another respondent indicated that he was finally beginning to understand the whole scope of the problem that needed to be solved because he was now involved and interacting with researchers focused on other aspects of the research problem, and this was actively encouraged by the manager. This comment is consistent with previous findings that employees who perceive a higher level of organizational support are more likely to contribute acquired new knowledge and skills and to their projects (Wayne et al., 1997). More practically, these two aspects, mentoring and support, are demonstrated in the S& T MD manager's encouragement of individuals to take courses and even work for additional degrees.
Table 3 Measures of vision. Attribute S&T MD Mean Clear research vision & strategies Invests in future capabilities Good identification of new opportunities Mgmt champions foundational research 4.4 4.4 4.2 4.0 True time (%) 78 78 74 70 COLO Mean 3.9 3.8 3.6 3.4 True time (%) 68 66 62 58 NATLAB Mean 3.9 3.4 3.2 2.9 True time (%) 69 59 53 48
Comparisons made using only responses from scientists (MTS): S&T MD (n = 5), COLO 2004 (n = 25), and NATLAB 2003 (n = 522).
J. Hage et al. / Table 4 Measures of perceived support. Attribute S&T MD Mean Management adds value to work Good professional development 5.0 4.6 True time (%) 90 82 COLO Mean 3.9 4.1 True time (%) 68 73 NATLAB Mean 3.7 3.6
265
True time (%) 65 61
Comparisons made using only scientists' responses (MTS): S&T MD (n = 5), COLO (n = 25), and NATLAB (n = 522). Rank indicates relative ordering among 36 attributes based on percentage time true within each category.
Indeed, it was noted that the S&T MD manager did not have a problem with individuals missing work to attend classes. Allowing people to increase their knowledge is not only a way of providing support, but it is also a method for demonstrating that they are valued. It is interesting to note that this is an important corporate strategy of IBM and other firms to foster loyalty to the firm (Michlitsch, 2000). Again, there are several attributes on the research environment survey that tap into the amount of perceived support. On item 20 (management adds value to work), the mean was 5.0 (a perfect score), which was considerably higher than in COLO and in NATLAB as a whole. Also scoring relatively high is item 15 (good professional development), which had a mean of 4.6. The corresponding means for COLO are 3.9 and 4.1 and for NATLAB as a whole they are 3.7 and 3.6 (see Table 4). When asked if there should be more time devoted to improved professional development none of the respondents in the three entities felt that much more time should be allocated. Thus, despite the differences in means, there is not a felt need. 6.3. Emotional support Although typically overlooked in management studies and training, emotional support can play an important role in management. Emotional support refers to information that assures individuals beliefs that they are cared for and connected to others (Cobb, 1976; Ganster et al., 1986), and has been found to positively in?uence organizational outcomes such as organizational commitment and turnover (Abraham, 1999) and job satisfaction (Schaubroeck et al., 1989). On this topic, a few comments from the interviews are particularly interesting to relate. For instance, one respondent felt it was important to note that the S&T MD manager showed emotion in his understanding of people and their personalities. And in the same vein, one respondent suggested that the S&T MD manager was ''good at figuring out where people are coming from'' or what might be called an empathic quality. Another observed that when there was success, the S&T MD manager showed the progress to everyone so that there was public recognition of the entire department's accomplishments. Although these are only anecdotal observations, we would argue that they underscore an important area for additional studies in R&D leadership. 6.4. Other managerial practices In addition to the three dimensions mentioned above, two other dimensions that are traditionally considered as more ''managerial'' are also important: (1) the ability to garner resources and (2) being able to work well with others. As one respondent who had considerable experience in the NATLAB indicated, the S&T MD manager knew a lot of people and, perhaps more fundamentally, how to engage them in research planning. On the research environment survey, the mean of the scientists' responses for stable funding (item 11) is 4.6, considerably higher than in either COLO or NATLAB as a whole for 2003. This is likely in?uenced by the guarantee of multi -year funding. On the item relating to good internal allocation of research funds (item 26) the mean is 4.0. For COLO, the means are 3.3 and 3.5, respectively, and the corresponding means for NATLAB are 3.1 and 3.0 (see Table 5). This could be because many of the NG S&T staff was new to the process of competing for internal project funding and this process is mostly ou tside the in?uence of their own manager.
266 Table 5 Measures of other managerial practices. Attribute
J. Hage et al. /
S&T MD Mean True time (%) 82 70
COLO Mean 3.3 3.5 True time (%) 56 59
NATLAB Mean 3.1 3.0 True time (%) 52 50
Sufficient, stable project funding Good allocation of internal funds
4.6 4.0
Comparisons made using only scientists' responses (MTS): S&T MD (n = 5), COLO (n = 25), and NATLAB (n = 522). Rank indicates relative ordering among 36 attributes based on percentage time true within each category.
7. Discussion and conclusion This paper was aimed at exploring in greater detail the formation, managerial practices and leadership styles of a unique co-location effort in R&D. The interviews and survey data allowed us to highlight how the S&T MD and its manager had put in place processes and practices designed to provide a balance between diversity and integration. As is clear from the research environment survey, the problems of integration had not yet been solved at least by the measures of our interviews and also the research environment survey. The literature suggests integration is not solved quickly. As Danilovic and Winroth (2005) discuss, managers of cross-functional teams typically need to allow some time to harmonize the organizational structure, work?ow, and social and cognitive -level distances that people from different functions and specialties bring in with them. It should be noted that this unit had been in existence for only 13 months and many of the people recruited into the unit, as well as the participating members outside the department, were still in the process of getting to know each other. What lessons does this case study offer R&D managers? With regard to the objective of maintaining a balance between complexity and integration so as to maximize innovation and the benefits of co - location, we would make the following observations. One especially interesting managerial practice was the selection of people who scored high for ?exibility. In NATLAB, courses were widely given on a typology of social styles and the manager used this as a way of identifying the appropriate individuals. Flexibility was a much needed attribute, as the scientists who were recruited had different social styles, disciplinary backgrounds, and levels of experience, and in their levels of experience both within and outside NATLAB. Hence, the ?exibility of each individual was essenti al in the integration of a diverse group of people. Because some projects were funded outside the department, it was important to quickly integrate and gain the commitment of these individuals to the new unit as well as their own. This was done by providi ng guaranteed funding at about one-third time for 3 years, which, in the context of funding at the NATLAB, presented a stable source of funding. With regard to integration, several practices were adopted: monthly presentations of the joint projects by the members outside the department and in some cases joint sharing of offices. But balancing diversity and integration was not confined within the organizational boundaries of the S&T MD. To increase the amount of skills and resources available for the S&T MD, the manager pursued a strategic effort to recruit additional diversity through joint research projects across department lines and by extension with other organizations. On the positive side, this allows for greater ?exibility as skill needs shift ac ross time but on the negative side, this increases the problems of commitment and integration. But the practices discussed above were useful in ameliorating any potential issues. Finally, the leadership of the S&T manager was critical. Because the manager played a key role in designing and establishing the unit, he had considerable say in how the unit was to operate. Further, his considerable background in the NATLAB gave him invaluable insights on what would work and what would not work within the organizational framework of the laboratory. In addition, the leadership style of the manager was highly effective in crafting a vision for the unit and employees and which also provided the often overlooked cognitive and emotional support needed to gain the loyalty and commitment of employees.
J. Hage et al. /
267
As Kahn and McDonough (1997) point out in their study, while the record of co-location efforts has been mixed, the performance of co-location efforts are typically dependent on the use of collaboration and integration mechanisms. As this study illustrates, the use of such mechanisms is a function of both the initial decisions in the formation of the colocation effort as well as the leadership style of the primary manager. Given the paucity of research on co -location in general, a greater level of empirical research is needed to evaluate the impact of these efforts. In particular, an interesting question for future research is whether research organizations can select or train the type of leaders to successful manage a co-location effort. As this study suggests, the ability of managers to provide cognitive mentoring and emotional support should be an important part of any co -location manager's personality. As innovation becomes increasingly critical to a firm's survival and success, the ability to successfully manage cross-functional efforts and research complexity will be essential. Accordingly, more in -depth knowledge of colocation and similar efforts is vital to understanding the innovation process fully. The findings of the present study take us a step in that direction.
Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science and the Science, Technology and Engineering Foundations Strategic Management Unit at Sandia National Laborat ories. This research has been performed under contract with Sandia National Laboratories, DOE contract DE -AC04-94AL85000. Sandia is operated by Sandia Corporation, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation. References
Abraham, R., 1999. The impact of emotional dissonance on organizational commitment and intention to turnover. Journal of Psychology 133, 441-455. Allen, T.J., 1977. Managing the Flow of Technology. MIT Press, Boston, MA. Cesaroni, F., Di Minin, A., Piccaluga, A., 2004. New strategic goals and organizational solutions in large R&D labs: lessons from Centro Ricerche Fiat and Telcom Italia Lab. R&D Management 34 (1), 45-56. Cobb, S., 1976. Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine 38 (5), 300 -314. Cordero, R., Farris, G.F., DiTomaso, N., 2004. Supervisors in R&D laboratories: using technical, people, and administrative skills effectively. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 51 (1), 19-30. Danilovic, M., Winroth, M., 2005. A tentative framework for analyzing integration in collaborative manufacturing network settings: a case study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 22, 141-158. Eisengerger, R., Fasolo, P., Davis-LaMastro, V., 1990. Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology 75 (1), 51-59. Eisenberger, R., Hutchison, S., Sowa, D., 1986. Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology 71, 500-507. Ganster, D., Fuilier, M., Mayes, B., 1986. Role of social support in the experience of stress at work. Journal of Applied Psychology 71, 102-110. Green, S.G., 1995. Top management support of R&D projects: a strategic leadership perspective. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 42 (3), 223-232. Hage, J.T., 1999. Organizational innovation and organizational change. Annual Review of Sociology 25, 597 -622. Holland, S., Gaston, K., Gomes, J., 2000. Critical success factors for cross-functional teamwork in new product development. International Journal of Management Reviews 2 (3), 231-259. Hollingsworth, J.R., 2004. Institutionalizing Excellence in Biomedical Research: The Case of Rockefeller University Fou nd in Creating a Tradition of Biomedical Research: Contributions to the History of the Rockefeller University. Rockefeller University Press, New York. Hollingsworth, J.R., Hage, J.T., Hollingsworth, E.J., in press. The Search for Excellence: Organizations, Institutions, and Major Discoveries in Biomedical Science. New York: Cambridge University Press. Johansen, K., Comstock, M., Winroth, M., 2005. Coordination in collaborative manufacturing mega-networks: a case study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 22, 226-244. Jordan, G.B., Hage, J.T., Mote, J.E., Hepler, B., 2005. Investigating differences among R&D projects and implications for managers. R&D Management 35 (5), 501-511. Jordan, G.B., 2005. What matters to R&D workers? Research Technology Management 48 (3), 23-32. Jordan, G.B., Streit, L.D., Binkley, J.S., 2003. Assessing and improving the effectiveness of national research laboratories. IEEE Transactions in Engineering Management 50 (2), 228-235. Jordan, G.B., Streit, L.D., 2003b. In: Shapira, P., Kuhlmann, S. (Eds.), Recognizing the Competing Values in Science and Technology Organizations: Implications for Evaluation Learning from Science and Technology Policy Evaluation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, p. 2003. Kahn, K.B., McDonough III, E.F., 1997. An empirical study of the relationships among co-location, integration, performance, and satisfaction. Journal of Product Innovation Management 14 (3), 161-178.
268
J. Hage et al. /
Leenders, R.T.A.J., van Engelen, J.M.L., Kratzer, J., 2003. Virtuality, communication, and new product team creativity: a soc ial network perspective. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 20 (1-2), 69-92. McDonough III, E.F., Barczak, G., 1991. Speeding up new product development: the effects of leadership style and source of technology. Journal of Product Innovation Management 8 (3), 203-211. Michlitsch, J.F., 2000. High-performing, loyal employees: the real way to implement strategy. Strategy & Leadership 28 (6), 28-33. Mote, J.M., 2005. R&D ecology: using 2-mode network analysis to explore complexity in R&D environments. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 22 (1), 93-111. Nihtila, J., 1999. R&D-Production integration in the early phases of new product development projects. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 16 (1), 55-81. Nooteboom, B., 2000. Learning and Innovation in Organizations and Economies. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Nooteboom, B., 1999. The dynamic efficiency of networks in interfirm networks. In: Grandori, A. (Ed.), Organization and Industrial Competitiveness. Routledge, London, pp. 91-119. Oh, K., Kim, Y., Lee, J., 1991. An empirical study of communication patterns, leadership styles, and subordinate satisfaction in R&D project teams in Korea. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 8 (1), 15-35. Schaubroeck, J., Cotton, J.L., Jennings, K.R., 1989. Antecedents and consequents of role stress: a covariate structure analys is. Journal of Organizational Behavior 10, 35-58. Sicotte, H., Langley, A., 2000. Integration mechanisms and R&D project performance. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 17 (1), 1-37. Stoker, J.I., Looise, J.C., Fisscher, O.A.M., De Jong, R.D., 2001. Leadership and innovation: relations between leadership, individual characteristics and the functioning of R&D teams. International Journal of Human Resource Management 12 (7), 1141- 1151. Stokes, D.E., 1997. Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC. Susman, G.I., Majchrzak, A., 2003. Editorial: Research issues in knowledge management and virtual collaboration in new product development: an introductory essay. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 20, 1 -5. von Corswant, F., Tunalv, C., 2002. Coordinating customers and proactive suppliers: a case study of supplier collaboration in ¨ product development. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 19, 249-261. Von Zedwitz, M., 2003. Initial managers of international R&D laboratories. R&D Management 33 (4), 377 -393. West, M.A., 2004. Effective Teamwork: Practical Lessons from Organizational Research, 2nd ed. BPS Blackwell, Malden, MA. Wuyt s, S., Colombo, M.G., Dutta, S., Nooteboom, B., 2005. Empirical tests of optimal cognitive distance. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 58 (2), 277-302. Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M., Liden, R.C., 1997. Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: a social exchange perspective. The Academy of Management Journal 40 (1), 82-111.
doc_916591194.docx