Search

The literature highlights two main approaches to designing an effective complaint management system: the mechanistic and the organic. The mechanistic approach emphasizes the establishment of guidelines for the correct processing, attention and resolution of complaints received. In contrast, the organic approach relies on creating a supportive internal environment for correct customer attention, made possible through training and empowering employees responsible for complaint management and by promoting extra-role behaviour among them. The present research aims to study the antecedents of adopting these two approaches. From a strategic perspective, we analyse the influence of organizational culture variables (the extent to which the firm is customer and innovation oriented) and the nature of the objectives pursued by complaint handling (defensive vs. improvement objectives). The proposed model is tested on a sample of 140 manufacturing firms. Findings indicate these antecedents shape the complaint management system in a diverse and significant manner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

New product development (NPD) collaborations with external partners involve high coordination costs and run substantial risks. Formalization seems to be an effective mechanism to mitigate said costs and risks, although the issue of whether formalization actually proves productive or counterproductive remains an open question. This study empirically analyses the direct impact of formalization and the interaction effect between formalization and trust between partners in order to gauge their influence on NPD collaboration performance. Findings indicate that formalization directly boosts the quality and novelty of the new product developed in collaboration, but that it does not affect adherence to schedule. In addition, trust reinforces the productive effect of formalization on new product quality and novelty, and makes the impact of formalization on adherence to schedule positive. However, without trust, we find a null impact of formalization on new product quality and a counterproductive impact on adherence to schedule. These results suggest that formalization and trust may complement each other, reinforcing each other's positive effect on new product quality and novelty and presenting a positive synergistic effect, while helping to overcome the counterproductive effect of formalization on adherence to schedule. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although team boundary spanning is conducive to achieving new product (NP) competitive advantage, these actions may not always deliver the expected performance. The current study makes an initial attempt to examine factors that undermine team boundary spanning positive effects on NP competitive advantage by proposing and testing a negative moderating effect of team social cohesion on the relationship between team boundary spanning and NP competitive advantage. Furthermore, the current study expects team social cohesion to have a stronger negative moderating effect on the relationship between team boundary spanning and NP competitive advantage when external task interdependence and project newness are high than when they are low. Data for this study come from 140 NPD projects developed and commercialized by Spanish manufacturing firms in high‐ and medium‐high‐technology sectors. The study's results reveal a positive effect of team boundary spanning on NP competitive advantage. Furthermore, high levels of team social cohesion are shown to reduce the positive effect of team boundary spanning on NP competitive advantage. Finally, we found that project newness and external task interdependence accentuate the negative moderating effect of team social cohesion on the relationship between team boundary spanning and NP competitive advantage. The current study makes several contributions to the literature. First, findings from this study give us new insights into the significance of team boundary spanning to the success of NPs by revealing that boundary‐spanning activities are beneficial to achieving NP competitive advantage. Second, the study departs from existing research in that it exposes a dark side of team social cohesion for NPD teams engaged in boundary spanning activities. Last, the study expands extant research by proposing and demonstrating that project newness and external task interdependence bring about situations in which external groups present a threat to the collective identity of socially cohesive groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although NPD collaboration with external partners has become the next generation in NPD practice, the discussion concerning how to organize collaboration so as to obtain better results is far from over. Since communication is the most important element in successful interfirm exchange, this study focuses on the impact of collaborative communication and its facets—frequency, formality, reciprocal feedback, and rationality—on NPD collaboration results. In order to explain how collaborative communication can best be managed to enhance NPD collaboration results, this research combines the relational and resource‐based views, proposing the existence of two routes of influence: the direct resource‐based route and the indirect relational route mediated by trust. Using a sample of 207 NPD collaboration projects of innovative firms, empirical findings indicate that reciprocal feedback–rationality and frequency play an important role in product quality and adherence to budget and schedule, respectively, even without trust. Moreover, the trust between partners substantially reinforces the positive influence of reciprocal feedback–rationality on NPD collaboration results and makes the effect of formality significant. Therefore, the two alternative routes are confirmed as important paths to new product success, which provides relevant managerial implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]