Project Management Journal

project (e.g., task performance strategies, goals, project requirements, the organizational context, etc.)” (p. 125); ( 2) “The team adjusted its task performance strategies in response to changes in the context and progress of the project” (p. 125); and ( 3) “The strategies and work approaches selected were later checked for their appropriateness by the team” (p. 125).

Existing Knowledge: Existing knowledge was measured by three items (a 5 0.943) that assessed the degree of current knowledge in relation to the focal NPD project (Brockman & Morgan, 2006; Moorman & Miner, 1997): ( 1) “A great deal of knowledge about this product category” (p. 305); ( 2) “A great deal of information about this product category” (p. 305); and ( 3) “A strong understanding of this product category” (p. 305).

Task Familiarity: Task familiarity was measured by three items (a 5 0.899) that examined the extent of knowledge about a task domain that a team member possesses (Brockman & Morgan, 2006; Moorman & Miner, 1997): ( 1) “A great deal of knowledge about this product category” (p. 102); ( 2) “A great deal of information about this product category” (p. 102); and ( 3) “A strong understanding of this product category” (p. 102).

Procedural Justice: Procedural justice was measured by three items (a 5 0.937) to assess the level of fairness that team members perceived (Li et al., 2007): ( 1) “Our R&D manager adopts decision-making procedures that are fair over time” (p. 213); ( 2) “Our R&D manager provides a full explanation for final decisions made” (p. 213); and ( 3) “Our R&D manager respects the project members’ individual autonomy” (p. 213).

Team Conflict: Team conflict was operationalized by task conflict and relationship conflict (Jehn & Mannix, 2001). Relationship conflict was measured by the following items: ( 1) “Within our NPD team, there are many personal issues which may cause some fights” (p. 243); and ( 2) “We disagree about non-work issues (e.g., related to

Items Loadings Existing Knowledge (Brockman & Morgan, 2006; Moorman & Miner, 1997); CR 5 0.963, AVE 5 0.899

1 EK1 0.941

2 EK2 0.953

3 EK3 0.948

Task Familiarity (Brockman & Morgan, 2006; Moorman & Miner, 1997); CR 5 0.937, AVE 5 0.832

1 TF1 0.925

2 TF2 0.932

3 TF3 0.879

Procedural Justice (Li et al., 2007); CR 5 0.959, AVE 5 0.888

1 PJ1 0.938

2 PJ2 0.944

3 PJ3 0.946

Team Reflexivity (Hoegl & Parboteeah, 2006); CR 5 0.897, AVE 5 0.744

1 TR1 0.893

2 TR2 0.898

3 TR3 0.794

Team Conflict (Jehn et al., 2008; Shah & Jehn, 1993)

Task Conflict (CR 5 0.979, AVE 5 0.959)

1 TC1 0.981

2 TC2 0.978

Relationship Conflict (CR 5 0.947, AVE 5 0.900)

3 TC3 0.944

4 TC4 0.954

NPD Success (Akgün et al., 2006; Cooper & Kleinschmidt, 1987); CR 5 0.958, AVE 5 0.884

1 NPD1 0.929

2 NPD2 0.951

3 NPD3 0.941

Note: N 5 254 team members; AVE, average variance extracted; CR, composite reliability

Table 1: Items and scales sources.

social issues or personalities)” (p. 243) (a 5 0.889). On the other hand, task conflict was measured by: ( 1) “We fight about work matters”; and ( 2) “Our NPD team experiments with a high level of conflict of ideas” (p. 243) (a 5 0.957).

New Product Success: New product
success was measured by three items
considering the product performance
(a 5 0.934) (Akgün, Lynn, & Yilmaz,
2006): ( 1) “Overall, the NPD perfor-
mance exceeds sales expectations”
(p. 222); ( 2) “The NPD performances
meets or exceeds sales expectations in
dollar terms” (p. 222); and ( 3) “The NPD
performance exceeds the schedule with
regard to being produced and com-
mercialized” (p. 222). These items are
summarized in Table 1, along with their
factor loadings.