200

J PROD INNOV MANAG

1990;~~I2
Project Team Communication and Cross-Functional Coop
in New Program Development
Mary Beth Pinto and Jeffrey K. Pinto
The importance of communication for the suc-
cessful development of new projects, particularly
within the R&D laboratory setting, has been well
documented. Yet researchers have seldom exam-
ined the relationship between patterns of com-
munication and cross-functional cooperation in
the development and management of new pro-
grams. In this article Mary Beth and J eflrey
Pinto report on the results of a research study
that assessed the relationship of TWO aspects of
project team communication (formal versus in-
formal modes and reason for communication)
with the level of cross-functional cooperation ac-
tually achieved within a hospital project team
charged with developing a new program. A total
of 262 team members were surveyed from 72 hos-
pital project teams. The results demonstrated
that high cooperation teams diflered from low
cooperation teams both in terms of their in-
creased use of informal methods for communica-
tion as well as their reasons for communicating.
Finally, cross-functional cooperation was found
to be a strong predictor of certain project out-
comes.
Address correspondence to Mary Beth Pinto, College of Busi-
ness Administration, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469.
0 1990 Elsevier Sciexe Publishing Co., Inc.
655 Avenue of the Americas. New Yak. NV l nnl n
Introduction
In recent years the need for the rapid develop-
ment and implementation of new products and
program innovations has become a major driving
force in many organizations. Technological
change coupled with increased competition have
required companies to become more market-
driven, attempting to gain competitive advantage
by reaching the marketplace first with a superior
product. Consequently, organizations are turning
to project management and relying to a greater
degree on project teams for the development and
implementation of new products and programs.
An important key to successfully developing
new programs is the degree of cross-functional
cooperation achieved within a project team. The
development and introduction of new programs
and products usually require the combined exper-
tise of a variety of organizational personnel. As a
result, it is of paramount importance fof project
success that a helping, cooperative atmosphere
be developed and maintained on the project team
1421. Indeed, recent research has demonstrated
that teams exhibiting higher levels of cross-func-
tional cooperation have a significantly higher inci-
dence of project success than do teams with low
cross-functional cooperation [27].
In an effort to develop a better understanding
of the importance of cross-functional cooperation
in new program implementation as well as a proj-
ect managers role in that process, two major
streams of research have predominated the litera-
ture. The first stream of research focuses on one
functions (e.g., marketing) speci
0737-6782/90/$3.50
COMMUNICATION AND CROSS-PUNClIONAL COOPERATION
J PRODlNNOVMANAG
II
t%xkf:20D-12
BloGmPHIcAL s-
Mary Beth Pinto isAssistant Professor of Marketing in the College of
Busiuess Admiuistmtion at the University of Maine. Her research
focuses on project maoagement, cross-hractional cooperation and
health care marketing. Her publications have appeared or will aptnzar
in Advances in Consumer Research, J ournal of Direct biarkettig.
Project Management J ournal aod Hospital Topics.
Jeffmy K. Piuto isAssistant Professor of N in the College
of Business Administration at the University of Maine, aud Research
Associate with the Gtaduate Center for the Management of Advanced
Technology aud Iaaovation at the Uoiversity of Ciiciuuati. Hismajor
research ioterests are in the areas of project managemeat. pmdllct
development. the high-techuology R&D finu aad the implementation
of innovatious in orgaoktious. Hisresearch has been published io a
variety of jouruak including J ownu~ofMana~emenf, Sloan Manage-
ment Review, Bredaces. Project &ianagementJ ouma~and J ounud of
Managemenr Studies.
with other functional areas, examining both the
dynamics of these relationships as well as that
Cmctions specific responsibilities regarding new
product implementation [16,42]. This body of re-
search has tended to be characterized by a dyadic
research approach. It would, for example, assess
marketings role in the implementation process
by explicating the interactions of marketing man-
agers with one other fUnctional manager at a time
rather than marketings relationship simulta-
neously with a larger group of diverse functional
managers. To illustrate, many researchers have
examined the interactions between marketing and
R&D 113,321, marketing and production 191, mar-
keting and engineering [403 and marketing and
finance [4]. While this research has resulted in a
greater understanding of the functional interde-
pendencies within an organization and revealed
much about the interfunctional nature of many
organizational disciplines, it fails to examine
these activities within their natural setting, that
is, within the context of a larger cross-functional
team. In such a setting, different functional repre-
sentatives on the project team assume an interdis-
ciplinary role and must simultaneously interact
with a variety of other functional managers [161.
The second stream of research addresses be-
havioral or organizational issues that have practi-
cal implications for managers involved in cross-
functional interactions and ultimately, the
implementation process itself (cf. [7,23]). For ex-
ample, the recent study by Lucas and Bush [231
into the patterns of personality differences be-
tween members of marketing and R&D depart-
ments represents an important new perspective
on better understanding some of the causes of
friction between these two fknctional areas. AII-
other research effort, by Reukert and W*
[281, has ex8mined the impact of a variety ofor-
gankational constructs, in&ding formalization
coordination patterns and resource d-1
on the quality of marketings interaction with
other functional units. As demonstrated by these
examples, this research, relatively recent and ex-
ploratory in nature, has remained either &ely
theoretical [I21 or has employed methodologies
that utilize correlational analysis to demonstrate
patterns of relationships among variables Wher
than to predict the effect of these behavioral vari-
ables on implementation success [28].
This article reports on the results of a recent
study that attempted to bridge these two research
streams, addressing some of the potential limita-
tions inherent in both approaches. Specifically,
this research examined a behavioral variable-
project team communication-and its relation-
ship to cross-functional cooperation. It was ex-
pected that teams characterized by high levels of
cross-functional cooperation would exhibit differ-
ent patterns of intragroup communication from
those teams with low levels of cooperation. Fur-
ther, this study investigated the relationship be-
tween cross-functional cooperation and ultimate
project success. To address some of the potential
shortcomings of previous research, this study ex-
amined the interdisciplinary role of a variety of
fimcticns involved in new program implementa-
tion within the context of the larger cross-func-
tional team.
Theoretical Background
Communication
Communication has long been documented as im-
portant for building and maintaining a productive
interface between functional units 18, 10, 22, 28,
38, 401. More recently, the lack of communica-
tion has been specifically linked to problems in
new product development and project failures
[1 1, 3 11. Communication is the vehicle through
which personnel from multiple functional areas
share information that is so critical to the SUC-
cessful implementation of projects. For example,
202 JF&Rt3Dmp MANAG
M.B.PINTOANDJ.K.PINTO
: :
Gupta and Wilemon [13] examined the activities
and interactions between R&D and marketing
during the new product development process.
-ir findings reinforce the need for high quality,
credible information to be communicated be-
tween R&D and marketing.
Qummmication as a process is pervasive to all
activities of managers. In fact, the managerial
skills of interaction, allocating, monitoring and
organizing which are so crucial to new program
implementation [7] become operationalized only
through communicative activity. For example, in
the new product development process members
of the project team interact with an array of indi-
viduals both inside and outside the organization,
including personnel from other functional areas,
advertising representatives, customers, distribu-
tors and so on. When making decisions, these
managers must both acquire and disseminate in-
formation in order to serve a number of distinct
purposes, all related to improving the interactions
among members of the project team and to the
ultimate successful implementation of the pro-
ject.
Among the classifications discussed in the lit-
erature to describe the various types of communi-
cation are (1) internal versus external communi-
cation, that is, patterns of communication either
among team members within the project team or
between the team and both the parent organiza-
tion and prospective clients, (2) formal versus in-
formal communication, that is, the manner in
which information is communicated, either
within perscribed settings or on an ad hoc basis
and (3) written versus oral communication. For
the purposes of this research, we have elected to
study the relationship between internal (inter-
functional) communication and the cross-func-
tional cooperation among members of a project
team charged with the development and introduc-
tion Of a new program. Internal communication
here implies intraproject communication among
team members from a variety of functional areas
within the organization 1143. In this setting, pro-
ject team members from diverse functional back-
grounds are expected to maintain effective work-
ing relationships with many other functional
managers in order to achieve project success.
Thus, this study expands on the dyadic approach
generally employed in the study of cross-func-
tional interactions to include an analysis of the
interactions among many different functional
managers simultaneously.
While past research has studied the effect of
amount of communication, channels of communi-
cation and effective project communication net-
works [18, 193, little research has attempted to
examine the relative importance of various forms
of and purposes for communication and their re-
lationship with cross-functional cooperation.
Specifically, little is known regarding the relative
efficacy of employing formal versus informal
methods of communication in facilitating cross-
functional cooperation. Formal communication
implies written communication, for example,
technical reports, memos, letters and/or com-
munication that occurs during scheduled meet-
ings or appointments [l]. Conversely, iniormal
communication pertains to oral communication
that occurs over the telephone or in unplanned
discussions, for example, in the hall. It is gener-
ally assumed that groups with greater levels of
cooperation encourage higher levels of both in-
formal and formal communication. This research
attempts to test this assumption within the con-
text of the development and marketing of new
programs.
A second, related purpose of this study was to
examine the reasons for intraproject communica-
tion among cross-functional groups and deter-
mine whether sign&ant differences exist. We
wished to investigate whether groups with a high
degree of cross-functional cooperation communi-
cated for different reasons than groups with low
cross-functional cooperation. Among the variety
of reasons why project team members often com-
municate are to brainstorm about idpzs, to re-
solve implementation problems, for example,
scheduling changes, and to review the progress of
the project [19, 391.
This study had an additional goal as well. Nu-
merous research examples have shown the im-
portance of communication in R&D projects. Lit-
tle research, however, has examined the
relationship between patterns of communication
and cross-functional cooperation within the con-
text of the introduction of new
point is of particular imp
research that has sugges
ture of the project can effect the relative impor-
COMMUNICATION AND CROSS-FUNCTIONAL COOPERATION
2433
tance of internal communication [2]. In an effort
to build on past research, this study sought to
assess the relationship of communication with
cross-functional cooperation in successfully im-
plementing new and innovative programs. The
results of these findings can have important impli-
cations for the study of new product implementa-
tion by directly linking types of communication
and reasons for communication to the attainment
of cross-functional cooperation. Based on this
discussion the following hypotheses are sug-
gested.
Hl: Project teams exhibiting high levels of cross-
functional cooperation will have signifkantly
higher levels of formal and infor& communka-
tion than will groups having low levels of cross-
functional cooperation.
I-E: There will be significant differences in the
reasons for communication between project
teams exhibiting high versus low cross-functional
cooperation.
Cross-Functional Cooperation
Many concepts exist that encapsulate the mean-
ing of cross-functional cooperation. Among the
varioustermsusedtodescriiithenotiouofindi-
viduals working together to accompW a specific
task are (1) coordination [5,371, (2) CdlatKuation
1351, (3) cooperation [ 17, 291 and (4) iutegr&m
[12, 211. This variability in termi&ogy r&es a
critical question regard@ what, if anything, the
underlying concepts have in common. While each
of the terms have separate and distinct names,
they refer to a similar and overk&ng idea, as
evidenced by the commonalties in their defmi-
tions (see Table 1).
The lowest common denominator among the
four concepts is joint behavior toward some goal
of common interest. For purposes of this re-
search, cross-functional cooperation is defined as
the quality of task and interpersonal relations
when different functional areas work together to
accomplish organizational tasks.
Table 1. Definitions
Author Term
Common
behavior
Joint
Interest
Argote 15, p. 4231 Coordination Fitting together the
activities of the
Van de Ven et al [37, p. 3221
Trist [35, p. 2721
Coordination
Collaboration
organizations members
Integrating or linking
together different parts of
the organization to . . .
Willingness to align ones
own purposes with those
of diverse others . . .
rather than trying to
coerce and dominate in
order to get own ones
way . . .
Schermerhorn I29, p. 2471
Johnson 117, p. 2411
Interorganizational
cooperation
Cooperation
Deliberate relations
between otherwise
autonomous organizations
for the . . .
The coordination of
behaviors among
individuals . . .
Lawrence and Borsch [21, p. Ill
Integration
The quality or state of
collaboration that exists
among departments that
are to achieve unity of
effort . . .
. . . accomplish a
collective set of tasks
. . . and to negotiate
mutually acceptable
compromises
. . . joint accompl:shment
of individual g&s
. . .
to achieve u:Zual
goals
. . . in the accomplishment
of the organizations
tasks
M. B. PINTO AND J. K. PINTO
The need for cross-functional cooperation
stems from the complex functional interdepen-
dencies within organizations. Organizations con-
sist of several interrelated functional units. In at-
tempting to develop and implement new
programs, one functional area may not have di-
rect authority over other departments. Coopera-
tion is necessary to link interdependent functions
together and assure their contribution to the over-
all goals of the organization, As Thompson [331
suggested, greater interdependence requires a
greater cooperation effort. Problems associated
with cross-functional cooperation result from not
only the interdependence of work process and
technology, but from conflicts over authority and
jurisdiction among different units 131.
Cross-functional cooperation is important in
the implementation of marketing decisions be-
cause cooperation has been shown to promote
productivity by helping individuals perform more
effectively 1201. Laughlin [20] argues that people
in cooperation tend to understand and be influ-
enced by each others interest and ideas, seek
and give information, communicate about tasks,
more readily assist each other and rely on divi-
sion of labor.
Project I mplementation Success
Definitions of implementation success have tradi-
tionally focused on task outcomes related to time,
budget and performance, that is, an assessment
of whether or not the implementation effort
achieved the task(s) that it set out to achieve.
These characteristics are often used because they
are meaningful, tangible and often easy to mea-
sure or quantify [26]. Little attention has been
given to broadening the scope of implementation
success to include the intangible dimensions of
the implementation process itself-those is-
sues that have been labeled psychosocial out-
comes. Specifically, psychosocial outcomes refer
to how individuals involved in an implementation
effort feel about the implementation process.
Reukert and Walker [28] suggest that psychoso-
cial outcomes refer to the degree of conflict and
perceived effectiveness of the relationship be-
tween marketing personnel and people in other
functional areas.
To date, psychosocial outcomes have not been
adequately addressed to determine their impact
on successful project implementation. The psy-
chosocial outcomes generated from a completed
project can have a powerful impact on the atti-
tudes and activities of project team members in
future projects. If the process was enjoyable and
devoid of interpersonal and technical problems, it
is likely that team members will approach future
projects with a more positive frame of mind, as
compared to instances in which they were in-
volved in projects fraught with dimculties.
In this research, successful implementation of
new programs is assessed by two components:
task outcomes and psychosocial outcomes. Task
outcomes refer to factors involved in the actual
implementation of the project (time, schedule and
performance) and its subsequent usage or perfor-
mance. Psychosocial outcomes refer to whether
or not the implementation process was consid-
ered to be worthwhile, satisfying and productive.
This discussion yielded the final hypotheses of
the study.
H3a: The greater the degree of cross-functional
cooperation achieved among project team mem-
bers, the higher the evaluation of task outcomes.
H3b: The greater the degree of cross-functional
cooperation achieved among project team mem-
bers, the higher the evaluation of psychosocial
outcomes.
Methods
Health Care Setting
The health care industry was chosen as the re-
search context for several reasons. Fiist, hospi-
tals are assuming more proactive competitive
marketing strategies and are turning to project
management as an effective decision-making and
operating technique [25]. Second, due to in-
creased competition and rising medical costs,
most hospitals are developing new programs and
services, including ventures such as weight man-
agement programs, Alzheimers centers, home
health care programs, same-day surgery centers
and breast evaluation centers. TQ ensu
cessful development and marketi
jects, hospital teams are formed with personnel
from different specializations. Employees from
COMMUNICATION AND CROSS-FUNCTIONAL COOPERATION
J PROD INIUOV MANN5
205
M5nmw-12
different specializations, such as medical staff,
nursing, administration, marketing, fmance and
ancillary services, as needed, become members
of these project teams. Interviews with members
of these project teams indicated that selection to
a team often is a result of the perceived expertise
of individuals and not based primarily on issues
of departmental seniority. The high level of spe-
cialization in hospitals poses unusual problems
for cross-functional cooperation among members
of hospital project teams [3].
Sample
A random sample of 13 I hospitals from Pennsyl-
vania, Ohio and New York was chosen from the
American Hospital Association Guide (1986 Edi-
tion). The panulation from which this sample was
drawn had to meet four criteria. First, all hospi-
tals were accredited by the Joint Commission on
Accreditation. The second criterion pertained to
the type of hospital. An effort was made to
choose hospitals that were general, medical and/
or surgical hospitals as opposed to specialty hos-
pitals such as ear, nose and throat or obstetric. It
was felt that the former class of hospitals would
represent examples of community-based facilities
and, therefore, be more likely to develop and in-
troduce the programs and services examined in
this study.
Third, only nongovernment, not-Tar-profit hos-
pitals were included in the sample. This criterion
ensured that hospitals that were part of large cor-
porate chains or the Veterans Administration
would not be included. These hospitals were
omitted because they may be responsible for de-
cisions that are made at centralized locations,
that is, at corporate headquarters or Washington,
DC. Consequently, they could potentially have
little need to create and use project teams.
The final criterion dealt with the size of the
hospital, which was assessed in terms of number
of beds. Once again, in an effort to obtain com-
munity hospitals as opposed to either large teach-
ing/research hospitals or small hospitals, bed size
was limited to 200-550. Pretesting suggested that
small hospitals did not routinely have as wide a
range of diverse functional units, nor were they
as likely to make use of project teams in develop-
ing and introducing new programs and services.
As a result of the selection criteria, the final sam-
ple was felt to be characteristic of and generalix-
able to a wide population of US hospitals con-
cemedwiththeneedtobeuercoordinatethe&
departments and develop and implement the&
services.
A variety of projects were included in the sam-
ple (e.g., breast evaluation center, cardiac care
program, adult day care center and back r&&i&
tation program). Each project corresponded to
the development and introduction of a new pro-
gram or service in the hospital. The individual
project team member provided the unit ofanaly-
sis of this study. Project team members from a
variety of functional areas, both clinical and non-
clinical, were included in the sample. The largest
number of respondents, 58 (21.4%) project team
members, were from the marketing area.
Data Collection
Following extensive pretesting aimed at ensuring
both the reliability and validity of the research
constructs and data collection instrument, this
study relied on mail survey as the principal data
collection procedure. Further, this research used
the telephone snowballing* technique [24] to
acquire the names of multiple-subjects from each
of the hospitals. Introductory letters were sent
and telephone calls made to the marketing direc-
tor (or comparable position) in all 131 hospitals.
This individual served as the contact person for
the hospital. Seventy-three contact persons
agreed to participate and provide the names of
appropriate project team members.
Questionnaires were mailed to 299 project
team members from the effective starting sample
of 72 project teams (one project team was elimi-
nated due to the inappropriateness of the pro-
ject). The average project team size was 4.15
members (S.D. = 1.11). A total of 262 usable re-
sponses were received out of the effective start-
ing sample size of 299, indicating an overall re-
sponse rate of 87.6%.
The Measures
TQ test our research hypotheses, measures of
each construct were first developed. Three for-
mal pretests were conducted to assess the valid-
M.B.PlNlOANDJ.K.PINTO
ity of the constructs, obtain preliminary data on
the hypotheses and assess the response rate. In
the first and second pretest, two project teams
(totaling thirty project team members) completed
the questionnaire and were subsequently inter-
viewed. These pretests resulted in minor revi-
sions to the questionnaire. However, some con-
cern arose over the set of items used to measure
the construct, cooperation. It was found,
based on the limited pretest sample size, that the
initial reliability (Cronbach alpha) estimate was
somewhat below acceptable internal consistency
levels. An additional pretest was conducted of
the cooperation measure. A total of 92 M.B.A.
students from a major university responded to the
pretest in terms of their recent experiences on a
group project required in the M.B.A. program.
The reliability of the cooperation scale was highly
satisfactory, yielding an alpha of 94. A list of the
measures used in this study is included in Appen-
dix A. The measures are discussed below.
Communication. This study assessed intrapro-
ject communication, that is, communication
with all of the members of ones immediate pro-
ject team [14, p. 1311. Communication was mea-
sured in terms of (1) type of communication, (2)
amount of communication and (3) reason for
communication. The methods of communication
were classified into two categories: formal and
informal methods. The formal methods included
project team meetings, written letters, memos or
reports and making a formal appointment with
another team member. The informal methods
pertained to telephone calls and unplanned face-
to-face discussions, for example, over coffee or
in the hall. The amount of communication was
measured on a six-point scale used to assess inci-
dence, with the endpoints labeled never and
once per day or more. Relying on the work of
Katz and Tushman [19], Warren 1391 and Ashford
and Cummings 161, the reasons for intraproject
communication were classified into three catego-
ries: problem-solving issues, administrative is-
sues and performance feedback. The importance
of each reason was assessed with a seven-item
Likert scale ranging from not at all to a great
deal.
C~~~~-functio~~a~ cooperation. The conceptual
work of Tjosvold 1341 and others suggested that
there are several facets to cooperation including
the communication, interpersonal relations and
task orientation of a group of individuals. Relying
on these dimensions, a fifteen-item seven-point
Likert scale (alpha = .96) was developed to as-
sess the amount of cross-functional cooperation
achieved.
Implementation success. This study utilizes a
multiple measure of perceived project implemen-
tation success. Project success is broken into two
types of implementation outcomes: perceived
task outcomes and psychosocial outcomes. Per-
ceived task outcomes were measured with a mod-
i8ed version of the Project Implementation Pro-
tile [30] in a six-item Likert scale (alpha = .84).
Relying on the conceptual work of Van De Ven
[36] and Reukert and Walker [28], a seven-item
Likert scale (alpha = .86) was developed to as-
sess psychosocial outcomes.
Rt!SUlt!S
The principal analytic techniques employed in
this study were t-tests and regression analysis. T-
tests were used to assess significant differences in
both type of and reason for communication in
high versus low cooperation project teams. Re-
gression analysis was performed to measure the
predictive effects of cross-functional cooperation
on both task and psychosocial project outcomes.
Project team members were dichotomized into
high and low cooperation groups based on their
aggregated responses to the fifteen-item coopera-
tion scale. Because a seven-point Likert scale
was used, aggregate scores of less than four were
classified as low cooperation and scores of
greater than four were classified into the high
cooperation group. Based on this categorization
scheme, 214 (82%) respondents were placed in
the high cooperation group and 48 (18%) subjects
were classified into the low cooperation group.
While this classification approach resulted in a
preponderance of high cooperation responses,
the alternative, performing a median split of the
data, would have generated potentially mislead-
ing results. The median point of the cooperation
scale was 5.76, suggesting that if a median split
were employed, a substantial number of re-
sponses reporting high cooperation would still
have been classified in the low cooperation
group.
As a final check on the comparability of the
high and low cooperation groups, a test of homo-
COMMUNICATlON AND CRO!CWUNCIIONAL COOPERATION
I PROD INNOV MANA
207
1990;1:m12
Table 2. Diierenses in Iii& and Low Cooperation
Gronps by Type of Commmisation
w&
Low
cooperation: cooperation:
kuean mean
Type
(N = 214) (Ns48) T
Meetings 3.11 3.00 .25
Written letters
and memos 2.83 2.85 -.OS
Appointments 3.09 3.00 .21
Telephone caI.ls 4.26 3.55 2.36*
hf Ol l l l d
discussions 3.98 3.35 l-85*
*PC.05
Scale labels: (1 = never. 2 = once per month or less, 3 = a few
times per month, 4 = once per week, 5 = a few times per week, 6 =
once per day or more)
geneity of variance using both the Co&rans C
and Bartlett F tests was performed. Results of
these two tests indicated no significant differ-
ences between the high and low cooperation
group samples, suggesting the appropriateness of
testing for differences in mean values.
Table 2 shows the results of the t-tests for dif-
ferences in means between high and low coopera-
tion groups based on the type of communication
process employed. Sign&ant differences were
found for both telephone calls (t = 2.36, P C .OS)
and informal discussions (t = 1.85, P < .05), both
of which had been previously described as in-
formal comununication processes. No signifi-
Table 3. Differences in Higk and Low Cooperation
Groups by Reason for Communisation
High Low
cooperation: cooperation:
mean mean
Reason (N = 214) (N=48) T
Resolve problems 5.17 4.75 .91
Brainstorm 4.94 3.15 4J34**
Resolve conflicts 2.13 3.15 -2.22*
Progress review 5.36 4.05 3.02**
Obtain information 5.45 3.95 3.97**
Cain authorization
to perform tasks 4.05 3.50 1.05
Receive feedback 3.03 2.25 2.35+
* P c .os
*+ P < .01
Scale labels: I = not at all; 7 = a great deal
cant differences were found between high and
low cooperation groups in any of the formal
methods of communication (i.e., meetings, tit-
ten letters and memos and appointments).
Table 3 shows the t-tests results fmdiEerences
between high and low cooperation groups based
on the reason for the intraproject commuuicatku.
Several of the reasons for communication were
found to be sign&ant, incfuding: conducting
brainstorming sessions (t = 4.84, P c .Ol), re-
solving contlicts (2 = -2.22, P C .05), reviewing
the progress of the project (t = 3.02, P < .Ol),
receiving feedback (t = 2.35, P < .05) and obtain-
ing information (t = 3.97, P C -01).
The 6nal statistical technique used was a re-
gression analysis to determine the predictive abil-
ity of cross-functional cooperation on both task
and psychosocial outcomes. As Table 4 shows,
the results of the univariate regression analyses
demonstrated that cross-functional cooperation is
a strong predictor of both task outcomes (t =
10.27, P < .Ol) and psychosocial outcomes (t =
14.74, P < .Ol).
Diission
The development and introduction of new pro-
grams involves many participants, that is, spe-
cialists from a variety of functional areas in the
organization. Projecr managers cannot decom-
pose these projects into discrete tasks and then
farm them out to individuals to be worked on in
isolation. Rather, the very nature of these pro-
Table 4. Results of Regression Analysis of
Cross-Fbnstional Cooperation oo Task and
Psvskososial outsomes
Dependent variable = Task outcomes
Unstand.
Independent variable beta
Adj. rz
Cross-functional
cooperation .71 .29
Dependent variable = Psychosocial outcomes
Unstand.
Independent variable beta Adj. r*
Cross-functional
cooperation
.63 .46
N = 262; ** P < .Ol
T value
IO.27**
T value
14.74**
208 ;PI $~_DlN20V MANAG
M. B. PI NTO AND .I . K. PI NTO
; :
jects calls for teamwork [15, p. 221. The da-
tionship between communication and project
team effectiveness has been of keen interest to
researchers for many years. A great deal of re-
search has examined the role of communication
in establishing effective intragroup relationships
and, ultimately, project success. The purpose of
this research study was twofold: (1) to investigate
the relationship between intraproject communi-
cation (in terms of type, amount and reason for
communication) and cross-functional coopera-
tion; and (2) to examine the ultimate effect of
cross-functional cooperation nn the successful
development and introduction of new programs.
Several interesting findings resulted from this
study. As Table 2 demonstrates, partial support
was found for Hypothesis 1. High cooperation
project teams typically exhibited significant dif-
ferences from low cooperation project teams in
the level of informal communication, that is, use
of the telephone or informal discussions. While
there are no significant differences between the
groups in terms of their use of the more formal
methods of communication, it seems clear that a
reliance on informal communication is more in-
dicative of project teams with high levels of
cross-functional cooperation. Certainly it appears
likely that project teams that are operating in a
more relaxed atmosphere would more likely be
characterized by a greater reliance on these infor-
.mal methods of communication.
A second important finding of this research re-
lates to the significant differences found in the
reasons for communication among project teams
with high versus low cross-functional coopera-
tion. Specifically, high cooperation project teams
exhibited significantly greater propensity to en-
gage in communication for brainstorming, obtain-
ing project-related information, reviewing the
progress of the development process and receiv-
ing feedback on their performance. These find-
ings offer strong support for Hypothesis 2. Inter-
estingly, these same project teams (i.e., those
high in cooperation) also spent significantly less
time attempting to resolve personality conflicts
that arose among project team members. It ap-
pears that project teams with strong intrateam
cooperation are able to devote their time and
communication processes to task-related issues
rather than spending an inordinate amount of ef-
fort on resolving interpersonal difficulties among
group members. This finding may be due in part
to higher trust levels existing among cooperating
project teams. Because
high trusters are often
willing to confront issues, they are likely to spend
less time dealing with them, particularly within
the setting of formal project meetings [41].
The final result of this study confirmed the im-
portance of cross-functional cooperation for task
and psychosocial outcomes (Hypotheses 3a and
3b). As was stated previously, it has long been
implicitly acknowledged that project-team effec-
tiveness and project performance are contingent
upon the degree of cooperation achieved between
managers from different functional departments.
This study empirically confirms the linkage be-
tween cooperation and the successful introduc-
tion of new programs and services. Conse-
quently, our findings also suggest that the
connection between communication patterns and
ultimate project success is a strong one, both for
its relationship with high levels of cross-func-
tional cooperation and its impact on new program
development [2, 191.
implications for Project Managers
The results of this study have implications for
managers attempting to develop or enhance the
level of cross-functional cooperation within their
project teams. The findings demonstrated the im-
portance of the relationship between patterns of
communication and high levels of cross-func-
tional cooperation. Specifically, it was found that
there are significant differences in the use of in-
formal methods of communication between high
and low cooperation groups, with strong cross-
functional cooperation related to enhan& infor-
mal communication. Therefore, it behooves pro-
ject managers to encourage unplanned or
informal interactions among personnel working
together on new program development projects.
Promoting accessibility among project team
members has been shown to effect the frequency
and the nature of interactions among project team
members [27]. The term accessibility repre-
sents an individuals perception of his/her liberty
or ability to approach or communicate with an-
other project team member. It is vital for man-
agers to employ the necessary techni
tocols to encourage the continual accessibility
among personnel from different funct,ional areas.
COMMUNICATION AND CROSS-FUNCTIONAL COOPERATION
J PROD I NNOV bi ANAG
209
1990;7:2m-12
To illustrate, Souder [31, 321 suggests that a lack
of accessibility between R&D and amarketing per-
sonnel can lead to insufficient interaction and
communication between the two groups. He con-
tends that functional managers should establish
an open-door policy to encourage informal in-
teractions among project team members.
In a practical vein, there are a variety of prac-
tices in which project managers can engage in
order to promote accessibility and informal com-
munications among team members. One ap-
proach instituted at a number of companies, in-
cluding Hewlett-Packard and Westinghouse, is to
create many small conference rooms throughout
their buildings. Each of these conference rooms
is designated a war room and is assigned to a
project group for its specific purposes. Another
approach instituted at several large corporations
is to reassign all members of a project team to a
single location or section of a building. These
companies have found that increasing physical
proximity is an effective method for enhancing
informal communication and cooperation [27].
Finally, many companies tie project performance
evaluation and rewards directly to the issue of
accessibility. Experience has demonstrated that
if team members are formally evaluated on issues
such as accessibility and project-team coopera-
tiveness, they are much more likely to engage in
these behaviors [32].
An additional activity that managers could
profitably make use of in encouraging cohesivc-
ness and cooperation among project team mem-
bers is team building. Project managers often
make a serious mistake early in a projects life by
devoting insufficient time to building a cohesive
project team. In follow-up interviews, several
project managers suggested that project teams
commonly engdge in a task-oriented approach too
quickly, before team members have a chance to
develop a sufficiently high comfort level that en-
courages trust and cooperation. It is reasonable
to expect that if trust is not developed early in the
project, project teams will be less willing to en-
gage in informal communication (the key to high
cooperation). Project team socialization and team
building need to be addressed early in the pro-
jects development as a method for setting the
stage for future project success.
This study further determined that there are
significant differences in the reasons for commun-
ication between high versus low cooperation pro-
ject teams (see Table 3). Of particular interest
was the finding that teams maintaining a high de-
gree of cross-functional cooperation do not de-
vote as much of their formal meeting time to re-
solving conflicts and other interpersonal
difficulties. Because they have taken efforts to
promote cooperation and trust through tiormal
contact, communication during formal meetings
can be devoted to task-related issues, that is, ef-
forts aimed at the development of new programs.
Finally, our findings reinforce the importance of
cooperation for the successful implementation of
both task and psychosocial project outcomes.
Developing and encouraging the use of both for-
mal and informal communication patterns for the
purposes discussed will better enable managers
to achieve greater levels of cross-functional coop-
eration as well as ultimate project success.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
While this study has helped to shed light on an
important aspect of cross-functional cooperation
and its role in new program implementation,
some potential limitations exist in this research.
First, the results support the notion that different
patterns of communication exist in project teams
characterized by strong cross-functional coopera-
tion as opposed to those with low levels of coop-
eration. Specifically, the key issue appears to be
the degree to which informal forms of communi-
cation are used by team members. Nevertheless,
it is important to note that this study does not
demonstrate a direct causal or predictive link be-
tween these patterns of communication and
cross-functional cooperation. One reason for not
attempting to determine this linear relationship
can be seen through an examination of the coop
eration construct used in the study. As several
earlier researchers have determined (cf. [341), a
vital element in the intragroup cooperation con-
struct is that of communication. Therefore, an
attempt to regress communication on cross-func-
tional cooperation would have led to highly SUS-
pect results due to the strong likelihood of multi-
colinearity between the predictor and criterion
variables.
A potentially fruitful future stream of research
could further refine the construct of cross-func-
tional cooperation to examine the direct effects of
210
M. B. PINTO AND J . K. PI NTO
different forms of communication on the level of
cooperation achieved and, ultimately, their effect
on project success. Perhaps one approach that
could bz taken would be to first break the con-
struct of cooperation down into its component
parts, including communication, interpersonal re-
lations and task orient&ion [34]. Then, each com-
ponent could be individually examined for its lin-
ear relationship with patterns of communication.
A second limiting feature of our study is shown
in the results of the regression analyses of cross-
functional cooperation of both task and psycho-
social outcomes. The results demonstrated ad-
justed r* values of .29 and .46, respectively,
suggesting that while cross-functional coopera-
tion is an important predictor of both types of
project outcomes, it is by no means exclusive.
Future research needs to provide a more compre-
hensive determination of the causes of project
success, both in terms of task and psychosocial
outcomes.
A third potential limitation to the study stems
from the use of a subjective measure of project
task outcomes. Project team members were
asked to assess the task outcomes of the project
in terms of schedule, budget and performance cri-
teria. Consequently, task outcome in this
study is a perceptual measure that contains a po-
tential for bias because subjects responded to
both the independent variables and the dependent
measure. This possibility of bias is ameliorated,
to a degree, by the wide range in response scores
to the task outcomes measure, indicating a will-
ingness on the part of the respondents to honestly
assess their projects as either successes or fail-
ures.
Objective cost measures and issues of client
satisfaction with the project would be two alter-
native methods to examine project performance.
There are, however, concomitant difficulties with
either of these approaches for assessing project
outcomes. Objective information, such as budget
costs, may too narrowly limit the determination
of task outcomes. Further, assessing client or
community satisfaction with a program may have
ody minimal utility. Satisfaction has often been
found to vary widely over time, once the project
has been completed, due to changing hospital or
community needs, new personnel, changing stra-
@ic or marketing concerns or technological in-
novations that can render the new program obso-
lete [26]. Future research needs to continue to
refine the concepts of new product or program
success in light of the variety of issues that can
impact on our perceptions of what constitutes a
successfully implemented product innovation.
As a final issue, this study was constructed to
sample project team members based on their ex-
periences on a project that had been developed
and implemented. As a result, the projects that
were included in this study tended to be late in
the development process, that is, soon to be or
recently completed. A logical follow-up study
would examine a number a projects at different
stages of completion in order to determine how
the importance of formal and informal communi-
cation changes over the life of a project. Such a
study could shed light on the changing nature of
communication patterns throughout a projects
life and their impact on cross-functional coopera-
tion.
In conclusion, the role communication plays in
the attainment of cross-functional cooperation
can have important implications for project man-
agers charged with the successful development
and introduction of new programs. Moreover,
cross-functional cooperation can have a dramatic
effect on the resulting success of a project. Pro-
ject managers, however, are often responsible for
successful program implementation without a
complete understanding of the techniques avail-
able for building a cohesive team from a disparate
group of functional specialists. It is hoped that
this research will make managers more aware of
the importance of communicaGon (and especially
informal communication) in fostering the
cross-functional cooperation that is so vital to
project success.
Portions of this article were presented at the 1990 Winter
AMA Educators Conference, Scottsdale, Arizona, Febru-
ary 1990. This research was supported by a grant from the
Direct Marketing Institute, University of Cincinnati, Cincin-
nati, Ohio. The authors would like to thank David Wilemon
for his helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manu-
script
I. Allen, T. 3. Communic:rdon networks in R&D labs. ri&D Man-
clgcmcnr 1:14-21 (1970).
2. Allen, T. J., Lee, D. M. nud Tushmun, M. L. R&D performance
as a funclion of internal communication. project management,
COMMUNICATION AND CROSS-FUNCTIONAL COOPERATION
J PROD INNOV MANAG
1990;7:200-12
211
5. Argote, L. Input uncertainty and organizational coordination in
hospital emergency units. Administrative Science Quarterly
27~420-434 (1982).
6.
7.
8.
Ashford, S. J. and Cummings, L. L. Feedback as an individual
resource: personal strategies of creating information. Urganizu-
tionl Behavior and Human Performance 32:370-398 (1983).
Bonoma, T. V. Managing Marketing. New York: The Free
Press, 1984.
Carroad, P. A. and Carroad, C. A. Strategic interfacing of R&D
and marketing. Research Management 25:28-33 (January
1982).
9.
10.
Glare. D. A. and Sanford, D. G. Cooperation and conflict be-
tween industrial sales and production. Industrial Marketing
Management 13:163-169 (1984).
Dutton, J. M. and Walton, R. E. Interdepartmental conflict and
cooperation: two contrasting studies. Human Organization
25(3):207-220 (1966).
II. Gillpatrick, T. R. The marketing-R&D/engineering interface and
new product success. In: AMA Educaro?s Proceedings, S. P.
Dourdas. et al. (eds.). Series 53. Chicago: American Marketing
Ass&iaiion, 1987, i. 158. -
12.
13.
14.
15.
16,
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Gupta, A. K., Raj, S. P., and Wilemon, D. A model for studying
R&D-marketing interface in the product innovation process.
J ournal of Marketing 50(2):7-17 (1986).
Gupta, A. K. and Wilemon. D. The credibility-cooperation con-
nection at the R&D-marketing interface. J ournal of Producr
Innovation Management 5:20-31 (1988).
Hauptman, 0. Influence of task type on the relationship be-
tween communication and performance: the case of software
development. R&D Manngemenr 16(2):127-139 (1986).
Heany, D. F. and Vinson, W. D. A fresh look at new product
development. J ournal of Business Strategy 2:22-31 (1984).
Hutt, M. D. and Speh, T. W. The marketing strategy center:
diagnosing the industrial marketers interdisciplinary role. J our-
nal of Marketing 48(4):53-61 (1984).
Johnson, D. W. Cooperativeness and social perspective taking.
J ournal of Personality and Social Psychology 31:241-244
(1975).
Katz, R. The effects of group longevity on project communica-
tion and performance. Adminislrative Science Quarleriy 27:81-
IO4 (1982).
Katz, R. and Tushman, M. Communication patterns. project
performance, and task characteristics: an empirical evaluation
and integration in an R&D setting, Crganizutional Behavior and
Human Performance 23:139-162 (1979).
Laughlin, P. R. Ability and group problem solving. Ptiurnuf of
Research and Developmenr in Educalion it:li4-120 (1978).
Lawrence, P. R. and Lorsch, J. W. Organizalion and Environ-
menr. Homewood, IL.: Irwin, 1967.
and the nature of the work. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management EM-27(1):2-12 (1980).
3. Alpander, G. G. A pragmatic typology of hospitals based on
their internal complexity dimension. Hospital and Health Ser-
vices Adminisrration 12:6-26 (September-October 1982).
4. Anderson, P. F. Marketing investment analysis. In: Research in
Marketing, 4, J. N. Sheth (ed.). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press,
1981, l-37.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Link, A. N. and Zmud, 8. W. Additional evidence on the R&D/
marketing interface. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Man-
agement EM-33(1):43-14 (1986).
Lucas, G. H. Jr. and Bush, A. J. The marketing-R&D interface:
do personality factors have an impact? Journal of Product Irma-
varion Managemenf 5257-268 (1988).
Moriarty, R. T. and Bateson, J. E. Exploring complex de&on
making units: a new approach. J ournaf OfMarketing Research
29:182-191 (1982).
Peters, M. P. Innovation for hospitals: an application of the
product development process. J ournal of HeaI rh Care Market-
ing 6(3):52-59 (1986).
Pinto, J. K. and Slevin, D. P. Project success: de&&ions and
measurement techniques. Project Management J ournal
XI X(1):67-71 (1988).
Pinto, M. B. Predictors of cross-functional cooperation in the
implementation of marketing decisions. AMA Educators Pro-
ceedings, No. 55, P. Bloom, et al. (eds.). 1989, pp. 154-158.
Reukert, R. W. and Walker, 0. C. Marketings interaction with
other functional units: a conceptual framework and empirical
evidence. J ournal of Marketing 51(3): 1-19 (1987).
Schermerhom, J. R. Determinants of interorganizational coop
eration. Academy of Management J ournal 18(4):846-856
(1975).
Slevin, D. P. and Pinto, J. K. The project implementation pro-
file: new tool for project managers. Project Management J our-
nal XVI1(4):57-70 (1986).
31. Souder, W. E. Disharmony between R&D and marketing. fn-
dust&/ Marketing Managemenr l&67-73 (1981).
32. Souder, W. E. Managing relations between R&D and marketing
in new product development projects. J ournal ofProjecr fnno
vation Management 5(1):6-19 (1988).
33. Thompson, J. D. Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw-
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
Hill, 1967.
Tjosvold. D. Cooperation theory and organizations. Human Re-
Inlions 37:743-767 (1984).
Trist. E. Collaboration theory and organizations. J ournal ofAp-
plied Behavioral Science 13:268-278 (1977).
Van de Ven. A. H. On the nature, formation, and maintenance
of relations within organizations. Academy of Management Re-
view I :24-26 (1976).
Van de Ven. A. H., Delbecq, A. L. and Koenig, R. Detenni-
nants of coordination modes within organizations. American
Sociological Review 41:322-338 (1976).
Walton, R. E.. Dutton, J. M. and Ctierty. T. P. Organizational
context and interdepartmental cotict. Adminisrrarive Science
Quarterly 14~522-542 (1%9).
Warren, E. J. The interface between R&D, marketing and mar-
keting research in new-product development. J ournal of Con-
sumer Marketing 1(1):80-90 (1983).
Weinrauch, J. D. and Anderson, R. Con!Iicts between engineer-
ing and marketing units. I ndustrial Marketing Managemen
11:291-301 (1982).
Wilemon, D. Personal communication, (1989).
Wind, Y. Marketing and the other business functions. In: Re-
search in Marketing, Vol. 5.1. N. Sheth (ed.). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press, 1981, pp. 237-264.
Appendix A. Measures Used in Study
Construct
Measure used
Type of communication
I COMMUNICATE WITH ONE OR MORE MEMBERS OF THE PROJECT TEAM
THROUGH . . .
1. Project team meetings
2. Written letters, memos or reports of any kind
3. Making an appointment with another team member
4. Telephone calls
5. Informal or unplanned discussions (e.g., just stopping by, in the hall, over coffee)
(6-point scale: 1 = Never, 2 = once per month or less, 3 = a few times per month,
4 = once per week, 5 = a few times per week, 6 = once per day or more)
Purpose of communication
I COMMUNICATE WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PROJECT TEAM TO . . .
Resolve problems related to the implementation of the project (e.g., scheduling
changes
Brainstorm about ideas
Cross-functional
cooperation
Task outcomes
1.
2
3.
4.
5.
6.
Resolve personality conflicts among project team members
Obtain project-related information
Gain approval or authorization to perform project tasks
Receive feedback about my performance on the project team
(7-point scale ranging from not at all to a great deal)
1.
2.
3.
4.
R 5.
R 6.
R 7.
A friendly attitude exists among project team members
Project team members recognize each others special talents and expertise.
Open communication of relevant information occurs among project team members
If conflicts occur among project team members, they are easily resolved
In geneyal, it is difficult to contact other project team members
Project team members from one department often criticize team members from
other departments
Some individuals on this project intentionally provide misleading information to
other team members
8. When problems arise, project team members perceive them as mutual problems
that need to be solved
9.
10.
II.
This projects team members are more like teammates than competitors
If disagreements arise, project team members are usually able to resolve them
When problems arise, project team members search for solutions that are
agreeable to each team member
12. Project team members openly share their ideas with other team members
13. Project team members help each other to more effectively perform their tasks
R 14. Project team members often fail to communicate information to each other
15. Project team members share resources to complete their tasks
(7-point scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree)
1. To date, the project is on schedule
2. The project team is accomplishing all of the tasks that it set out to do
3. The project is coming in on or near budget
4. The projects goals are being achieved
(7-point scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree)
Psychosocial outcomes R I. I cannot wait for this project to end
2. 1 enjoy working with the members of this project team
R 3. The time I spend on this project is time wasted.
4. I am very proud of this project
5. I enjoy working on this particular type of prqjcct
R = Reverse cocled
(7.point scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree)