CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 55Innovation and Knowledge ManagementBusiness Strategy and InnovationProduct Development and Customization

Testing goodwill: conflict and cooperation in new product development networks

Open access
Coles, Anne Marie, Harris, Lisa, Dickson, Keith·2003·International Journal of Technology Management
DOI 10.1504/ijtm.2003.003089
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Networks are often seen as models of organisational flexibility, promoting the building of trust and exchange of information between different business functions while offering both cost savings and reductions in the uncertainties usually associated with innovation. Both internal and external networks have been identified as key elements in the collaborative development of new products. The actual process of network building and ongoing network management is not well researched, although the existing literature highlights difficulties for organisations attempting to maintain active product development networks. This article examines the development and management of such a network in the defence industry and focuses on network building processes in terms of the interactions between the individuals involved. This network has endured and evolved over many years despite a series of conflicts. One of the key findings is that the effective functioning of the overall network is closely allied to established processes within the two participating firms.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1504/ijtm.2003.003089

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A study of the UK/US defence industry has highlighted that dependency in relationships occur because of the breadth of links between partners, and such dependency and breadth often leads to the emergence of more complex networks.

    “A study of the UK/US defence industry, for example, has highlighted that dependency in relationships occur because of the breadth of links between partners, such dependency and breadth often leads to the emergence of more complex networks (Grandori and Soda, 1995;Coles, Harris and Dickson, 2003).”

    From Networking and innovation: a systematic review of the evidence (2004) · cites this paper as Coles, Harris and Dickson, 2003

    The Case Study (page unavailable) describes a collaboration between UK and US defence firms, and the Discussion: The Role of Network Building Processes (page unavailable) identifies technical dependency and describes their network as complex. Neither passage says that the breadth of links causes dependency or that dependency and breadth lead to the emergence of more complex networks. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Networks can endure and evolve over many years and go through periods of conflict between partners, which can lead to the failure of the network.

    “Networks can endure and evolve over many years and as a consequence they go through periods of conflict between partners, which can and do lead to the failure of the network (Coles, Harris and Dickson, 2003).”

    From Networking and innovation: a systematic review of the evidence (2004) · cites this paper as Coles, Harris and Dickson, 2003

    The Conclusion describes the network’s long, turbulent history, and the Discussion reports persistent conflict and a breakdown in formal relations. But the Discussion says informal ties continued and the formal relationship was repaired; it does not establish that conflict caused the network itself to fail. The copy provides no page numbers for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • How networks are governed plays an important role in their effectiveness and their capacity to assist the innovation process.

    “Consequently, how networks are governed plays an important role in their effectiveness and their capacity to assist the innovation process (Coles, Harris and Dickson, 2003).”

    From Networking and innovation: a systematic review of the evidence (2004) · cites this paper as Coles, Harris and Dickson, 2003

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. See for example: Ebers, M (Ed) (1999), The Formation of Inter-organisational Networks, Oxford University Press, 1999;
  2. Hislop, D. Newell, S. Scarborough, H. and Swan, J. (1997) 'Innovation and Networks', paper presented at British Academy of Management Annual Conference, London.
  3. Rothwell R (1989), Inter-firm Relationships and Technological Change, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 1(3):275-291;
  4. For example Pisano G (1990), The R&D Boundaries of the Firm, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35:153-176;
  5. Tidd J (1995), Development of Novel Products Through Intra-organisational and Inter- organisational Networks: the Case of Home Automation, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 12(4):307-322 ;
  6. Ring P & Van de Ven A (1994), Developmental Processes oFCo-operative, Inter-organisational Relationships, Academy of Management Review, 19(1):90-118
  7. For a more in-depth discussion of these points see Conway S (1995), Informal Boundary Spanning Communications and the Innovation Process: An Empirical Review, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 7(3):327-342 ;
  8. Harris L (1999), Building Inter-firm Networks: A Case Study of Emc (SW) Ltd, International Journal of New Product Development and Innovation Management, 1(3);
  9. Pfeffer (1992), Managing with Power: Politics and Influence in Organisations, Boston, Mass., Harvard Business Press.
  10. Morgan, G. (1997) Images of Organisations, 2nd Edition, London, Sage.
  11. Buchanan, D. and Body, D. (1992), Expertise of the Change Agent, Prentice Hall, London.
  12. For example Freeman C (1991), >Networks of Innovators: A Synthesis of Research Issues= Research Policy, 20(5): 499-514;

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Coles, A. M., Harris, L., & Dickson, K.
Affiliations
Brunel University of London (GB)
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Technology Management
Publisher
Inderscience Publishers
Published
2003
Volume
25
Issue
1/2
Pages
51
ISSN
  • 0267-5730 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-5276
DOI
10.1504/ijtm.2003.003089
OpenAlex
W2037096431
Cited by
55
References
38
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 6
FWCI
16.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Technology Management (publishedVersion)
  • Brunel University Research Archive (BURA) (Brunel University London) (submittedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Business Strategy and Innovation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Product Development and Customization
Keywords
new product development, network construction, network management, inter-organisational collaboration, conflict and cooperation, defense industry, organizational flexibility, trust, information sharing, inter-firm relationships

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review