Master thesis
Technology Management By: R.P.Schoenmaker
Incorporating Cross-Border Knowledge for New
Product Development at Vaillant
Author : Roel P. Schoenmaker
Study : Technology Management
Email : rpschoenmaker@gmail.com
Student number : 1346563
Faculty : Faculty of Economics and Business Supervisor : Prof. dr. ir. G.J.C. Gaalman
Co-assessor : Dr. Stuart Xiang Zhu Organisation : Vaillant Netherlands
Supervisor : R. Tummers
Manager : P. de Bruin
Date : August 28, 2012
Place : Amsterdam
Incorporating Cross-Border Knowledge
for
New
Product
Development
at
Vaillant
List of abbreviations
• NPD -New Product Development
• QFD -Quality Function Deployment
• MPC -Multinational Production Companies
• CA -Customer Attributes
• EC -Engineering Characteristics
• PLR -Post-Launch Review
• Vaillant NL -Subsidiary Vaillant Netherlands
Definition
Abstract
The Vaillant Group is a Multinational Production Company that wants to analyse its New Product Development process. The goal is to find out whether an improvement of the cross-national collaboration between Dutch marketers and German engineers could improve the product market acceptance for the Dutch market. Therefore, the marketing knowledge embodiment is analysed throughout the New Product Development process at Vaillant.
The resulting main research question is:
‘How can Vaillant more effectively embody Dutch marketing knowledge throughout its NPD?’
In this thesis, interactions on the embodiment of marketing knowledge are pinpointed. Subsequently, these pinpointed process points are surveyed. Marketers and engineers were interviewed at Vaillant. Also, corporate documentation is researched. The complete survey procedure consists of the following steps: literature research, preliminary interviews, survey with primary stakeholders, calculating interview scores and mounting interviewee responses, comparing theory to practice and suggesting improvements based on literature.
Preface
This master thesis forms the final step in the master’s degree graduation procedure for the study Technology Management at the University of Groningen. This report provides the results of a research that investigated product development processes at Vaillant. The research was conducted for two reasons. First of all, international development process forms an interesting area for academic exercise that can add relevance to the academic field of Technology Management. Furthermore, Vaillant can benefit from improvement propositions that I, the involved researcher, can deliver via this advisory report. Both reasons fit the skill requirements of a Technology Management graduation candidate.
It was a great experience to be part of the Vaillant’s Product Marketing team. It was especially interesting to work and research the link between the Dutch market and the German engineering environment. My drive, to be part of an international business, provided a challenge to adopt my academic competences to suit both Vaillant and my research project.
I want to express my gratitude to Remao Tummers for making me a part of the team. Remao provided me with great learning opportunities next to giving useful guidance during my research. I sincerely want to thank Paul de Bruin for offering support during my involvement in the international work between Amsterdam and Remscheid. I would also like to thank Gerard and Sander, my two close colleagues in Amsterdam, for making the internship a meaningful and joyful six months. My University Supervisor Professor Gaalman deserves special notice. I am grateful for the feedback and motivation that Professor Gaalman provided during the graduation process. His on-going support was crucial for me to bring the research report to an end.
Also, I want to thank my dearest friends and family who supported me in every way throughout this project.
Please enjoy reading this report. Amsterdam, August 2012
Table of content
1 Introduction ... 1 2 Literature research ... 3 3 Research framework ... 15 4 Diagnosis ... 21 5 Design ... 31 6 Implementation ... 37 7 Evaluation ... 39 References ... 41Part I: Diagnosis Chapter 1: Introduction
1 Introduction
Multinational production companies (MPCs) aspire harmony in the connection between process standardization and process adaptation during New Product Development (NPD). Standardization requires knowledge from headquarters where the staff is in a central enough position to synthesize needs of different countries. In contrast, adaptation to market knowledge requires involvement of foreign subsidiaries because these are best informed about specific local market requirements. Although useful general insights can be found in literature on different approaches in which MPCs transfer knowledge across countries (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000; Kogut & Zander, 1993), less is known about how foreign marketers incorporate their market requirements into new products in order to be competitive. Therefore, this research explores which practises foreign marketers can deploy to effectively embody, i.e. incorporate and preserve, marketing knowledge throughout the NPD.
Various authors (Subramaniam & Hewett, 2004; McDonough III, Kahn, & Barczak, 2001, Crawford & DiBenedetto, 2006) state that dis-located teams face more challenges than co-located teams when trying to integrate cross-national knowledge into NPD efforts. This study goes into those challenges. Furthermore, Crawford & DiBenedetto (2006) state that the coordination approach of cross-national NPD teams is of significant influence on the ability to determine the appropriate product value for a local market. More specifically, there is a lack of understanding of how differences in Dutch and German cooperative attitude relate to the ability to embody knowledge in the NPD. This study goes into the theoretical gap that is stated above. First, different streams of literature are discussed on the topic of NPD. The apparent paradox between standardization and adaptation of NPD processes is described. Furthermore, the generic NPD process is explored. Subsequently, success factors are discussed that relate to cross-national team collaboration. Finally, a discussion is included on the influence of Dutch and German cultural differences on NPD team work.
Next to theoretical relevance, this study also has a practical relevance because it is used as an advisory report. In this report, a case study research is done for the company Vaillant. Vaillant is a MPC within the NPD industry. It is currently not satisfied with the product market acceptance of its new products. Therefore, it aspires an increase of Dutch market requirements incorporation into its new products. This is believed to increase the product market acceptance. To find how Vaillant embodies marketing knowledge into its NPD, interviews are conducted at the German headquarters and at its Dutch subsidiary. Moreover, the corporate NPD process is analysed using success factors for cross-national team work. If improvement possibilities are identified, then recommendations are suggested to counteract ineffective NPD procedures at this firm. Ultimately, the main research question of this study is:
Part I: Diagnosis Chapter 2: Literature research
2 Literature research
In this chapter, the concept of NPD is described first. After that, both the strategy for standardization and adaptation are discussed. Subsequently, generic stage-gates of a NPD process are explored. Furthermore, factors are discussed that determine the success of cross-national team collaboration. Finally, to gain more insight into the specific knowledge gap that was mentioned in the introduction, cultural differences between German and Dutch developers are explored.
This chapter is concluded in a theoretical model that connects the embodiment of marketing knowledge throughout the NPD process to the level product market acceptance. Thereby, the theoretical concepts of this chapter can be used later on to assess the case study.
2.1 Concept of New Product Development
The following definitions are provided to familiarize with the concept of New Product Development.
‘The ultimate goal of NPD in a for-profit organisation is to develop commercially successful products. The economic success of NPD, depends on the ability to quickly translate market requirements into products that meet those requirements. This is not purely marketing related, not only design related, nor is it only manufacturing related. NPD is the common problem related to all these functions’ (Ulrich & Eppinger, 2008).
Regarding international NPD, various authors (Crawford & DiBenedetto, 2006; Brown & Eisenhardt, 1995; Ulrich & Eppinger, 2008) argue that high value is achieved by the delivery of product quality in conformity to local market demand, at the right time and at the right cost. Thus, the key objective is to offer sufficient added value relative to costs of purchasing and user needs. To create value the following is stated on the NPD Process:
‘Successful NPD can be seen as: ‘the result of a careful development plan of a superior product for an attractive market and the execution of that plan by a competent and well-coordinated cross-functional team that operates with the blessings of senior management’ (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1995).
2.2 NPD Process Strategy
This section discusses the two strategies that MPCs mostly consider for their NPD (Crawford & DiBenetto, 2006). Strategy differs in accordance with a firm´s context. While standardization of processes is traditionally used to manage a global company, this is not necessarily in response to customer needs. It is often better to introduce products in a foreign market with strong local support. Then, the issue is to connect the internally controlled culture of standardized procedures with the externally controlled world of adaptation to market needs. Furthermore, the generic choice for a development strategy has influence on the processes. While ‘selling what you make’ leans towards technology-push, ‘making what you can sell’ connects to market-pull (Crawford & DiBenetto, 2006).
In developing technology-push products, a firm begins with a new technology, then finds the appropriate market. According to Ulrich & Eppinger (2008), many successful technology-push products involve basic, standardized materials or technologies that can be deployed in thousands of applications. Therefore, there is a high likelihood that these match new applications. To implement a technology-push strategy, a firm places great emphasis on R&D of new technologies and on the technology deployment through NPD (Crawford & DiBenetto, 2006).
In a market-pull situation, firms begin with a market opportunity and then use whatever available technologies are appropriate to adapt a product so that it satisfies the market need. To follow an adaptation or market focused strategy, a firm can work closely with customers to assess their changing needs. This strategy may result in a broad product line featuring high product variety that addresses the needs of heterogeneous market segments (Ulrich & Eppinger, 2008). In this strategy, both standardisation and adaptation have the major issue to effective embody marketing knowledge throughout the NPD (Subramaniam & Hewett, 2004).
2.3 New Product Development stage-gate processes
The generic NPD process is a market-pull process (Ulrich & Eppinger, 2008). Therefore, this section explores the consecutive generic stage-gates in which marketing and engineering tasks are distinguished. This distinction is valuable in order to learn about collaboration between functions. This section specifically searches for process points where the embodiment of marketing knowledge takes place. The embodiment means: the initial incorporation of marketing knowledge and the preservation of this knowledge in between process points during later stages of the development, i.e. whether the product is still fulfilling the original requirements. According to various authors (Griffin & Hauser, 1992; Crawford & DiBenedetto, 2006; Ulrich & Eppinger, 2008) the NPD consists of seven phases. As is visualized next:
Part I: Diagnosis Chapter 2: Literature research
Phase 7, Review, is added for reasons that are explained in 2.3.6. While, the NPD process, that is explained next, is largely explained according to the books on NPD by Crawford & DiBenedetto (2006) and Ulrich & Eppinger (2008), multiple additional insights from literature are added when these seem relevant.
2.3.1 Phase 1 - Planning
The first phase is the planning phase. When an opportunity is identified, it can become an actual project when a mission statement is formulated by marketers which specifies the product’s target market, business goals, and key customer insights. Then, a team strategy is formed to integrate the development and commercial efforts into the development process at the next phase (Crawford & DiBenedetto, 2006).
Figure 2-2 The planning process (Ulrich & Eppinger, 2008)
This phase results in a pool of validated new product opportunities (Crawford & DiBenedetto, 2006).
2.3.2 Phase 2 - Concept Development
In the second phase, the marketers and engineers can form a team. This phase entails the identification of target market needs, lead user problems (i.e. consumers or businesses) and generation of one or more feasible product concepts for further development (Ulrich & Eppinger, 2008).
The goal of the Concept Development phase is to transform project opportunities into one of more product concepts. During this phase marketers and engineers interact on several sub steps, as shown in figure 2 – 3, i.e. 1. Establish Target Specifications, 2. Select Product Concept(s) and 3. Test Product Concept(s).
Figure 2-3 Overall Concept Development phase (Ulrich & Eppinger, 2008)
Phase 2 sub step 1 – Establish Target Specifications/Quality Function Deployment
According to Ulrich & Eppinger (2008) the QFD is a team method. The goal is to translate the marketing knowledge (i.e. customer wishes and market requirements) into Target Specifications. It is a delicate and often iterative process, which, according to (Yoji & Mizuno, 1960) is done in four activities:
The first QFD activity is the House of Quality (HoQ) (see figure 2-4 for a sketch example). The HoQ consists of nine steps, described next:
1. Customer Attributes (CAs): are introduced from available marketing knowledge on a product opportunity. 2. Weight: The CAs are
weighted on their relative importance (this is usually a topic of discussion). 3. Customer Perception: the judgement or user perception (gained by customer research).
4. Strategy: based on corporate target group strategy, i.e. estimated efforts versus the goals, priorities assigned to the customer perceptions.
5. Specifications: the available data is translated into design specifications . 6. Relation between wishes and specification: the matrix helps to judge
whether the relations aid in the realization of customer wishes.
7. Correlation: specifications are compared on mutual contradictive or reinforcing aspects.
8. Relevance: weighs specifications and/or design requirements.
9. Engineering Characteristics (ECs): the data is translated into Engineering Characteristics.
After these nine steps, the 2nd QFD activity, converses ECs into parts characteristics. The 3rd activity processes these into process operations. In the 4th QFD activity specifies product requirements (Ulrich & Eppinger, 2008). The effectiveness of the QFD depends on the ability to ensure customer orientation. For an effective QFD, three aspects are important: ‘1.) target group definition, 2.) transfer of marketing knowledge and 3.) collaboration on the translation of this knowledge into the HoQ’ (Ulrich & Eppinger, 2008). ‘Due to the complex nature of engineering, marketers are not always allowed to ‘interfere’ during all of the QFD activities’ (Chesbrough, 2004). However, at the end of the QFD both the marketers and engineers should be satisfied with their understanding of each of the concepts QFD. Collaboration on the comprehensibility increases the likelihood of appropriate
Part I: Diagnosis Chapter 2: Literature research
marketing knowledge incorporation (Subramaniam & Hewett, 2004). According to the above, this process point (T1 in figure 2-3 and 2-5) is the interaction where marketing knowledge can be incorporated into the NPD.
Phase 2 sub step 2 - Concept Selection
During the second step of phase 2, marketers and engineers interact on the selection of product concepts. Concept Selection is a process of narrowing the set of concepts. All teams use some method to choose a concept. These vary in effectiveness. Not all of these methods result in a decision that is embraced by the whole team. According to Ulrich & Eppinger (2008), three methods involve all members:
1. Decision Matrices: the team rates each concept against criteria. 2. Multivoting: the most voted concept by the team members wins.
3. Pros and Cons: the team lists concepts’ strengths and weaknesses and makes a group choice.
Other methods are:
4. External decision making: external entities (e.g. customers) select concepts.
5. Prototype and test: the organisation builds and tests prototypes and chooses based on test results.
6. Intuition: a concept is chosen by ‘how it feels’. No trade-offs are used. 7. Product champion: an influential team member chooses a concept.
Structured selection methods, like methods 1-5, encourage objective decision-making and minimize the likelihood that arbitrary factors influence the choices (Ulrich & Eppinger, 2008). If concepts are explicitly evaluated against customer-oriented criteria, then the selected concept(s) should embody the relevant marketing knowledge that was incorporated during the QFD (T1). To make sure of this the next stage in Concept Development phase 2 is: Concept Testing.
Phase 2 sub step 3 - Concept Testing
Concept Selection and Testing together form T2, where marketer-engineer interactions or team work takes place to test or assess whether the marketing knowledge is properly embodied in the NPD. Ulrich and Eppinger (2008) recommend a seven-step method for testing product concepts:
1. Define the purpose of the concept test 2. Choose a survey population
3. Choose a survey format 4. Communicate the concept 5. Measure the customer response 6. Interpret the results
7. Reflect on the results and the process.
finished. This is a popular term for phase 1 and 2 which are known as the very uncertain first steps in an innovation process (Reid & de Brentani, 2004).
2.3.3 Phase 3 - System Level Design
The engineering department designs prototypes. For the best prototype, a production process is designed (Crawford & DiBenedetto, 2006). The final assembly scheme for the production system is usually defined during this phase. Concurrently, the marketers prepare launch details. Finally, a business analysis is made to request approval (Ulrich & Eppinger, 2008).
2.3.4 Phase 4 – Detail Design
This phase goes into the specification of product geometry, materials, and tolerances of all the parts in the product(s) that need to be purchased from suppliers. This phase produces the product documentation; the drawings and construction process plans. This is planned for every part of the final product (Ulrich & Eppinger, 2008). Production cost and estimated performance are addressed. If management approves, then it is time to begin the testing and refinement (Crawford & DiBenedetto, 2006).
2.3.5 Phase 5 - Testing and Refinement
The detailed development of the product presents the actual form, technology and benefit of a product for a certain price. According to Gotteland & Haon (2010), prototypes are tested or assessed to ensure that technology meets customer needs, while being commercially profitable at the same time. This is done by field testing, which should continue until the new product does indeed solve the problem of fill the need that was expressed in the product protocol at the QFD (Crawford & DiBenedetto, 2006). If the market tests reveal misfits between the original market requirements and the actual product features, then launch can be delayed. This process point makes up the third market-engineer interaction (T3) that relates to testing the embodiment and preservation of marketing knowledge. Thus, team members can come together to reflect the ‘‘work in progress’’ on the original QFD concept proposals.
After final approval of the NPD leader, the production of the best prototypes is slowly scaled up and final performance tests are executed. A promotion campaign for which the marketing planners are now deep into the hundreds of tactical details that are required for launch (Ulrich & Eppinger, 2008).
2.3.6 Phase 6 – Product Launch / Production Ramp-up
Part I: Diagnosis Chapter 2: Literature research
2.3.7 Phase 7 – Review
According to Jurgens-Kowal (2010), the Post-Launch Review (PLR) phase is one of the most overlooked, but most valuable activities in NPD. After the launch, it is the best time to assess the project performance, i.e. before any institutional knowledge is lost during transition. The PLR can assess or review the NPM process and the product itself. Valuable NPM process lessons go into the project cost, timing compared to plans, proper team selections and collaboration at tough gate decisions. For successful reviewing it is important to relate this to the product acceptance in the marketplace. Thus, this is the fourth process point (T4) where the NPD team members can come together to check whether the marketing knowledge was effectively embodied.
2.3.8 Result: Process Points for Marketing Knowledge embodiment
This section recapitulates on the NPD phases from section 2.3. Figure 2–3 displays T1, i.e. the QFD, as the critical process point where marketing knowledge should be incorporated into a product concept. Also displayed in figure 2–3 are the three process points, T2-T4, where the stakeholders can test or asses if the product is still on track of embodying the marketing knowledge and fulfilling the original market requirements from T1.
Figure 2-5 Process Points for Marketing Knowledge embodiment and auditing
The goal of the section 2.3 is met. It is now know that marketers and engineers can work together on T1 to T4, which relates to the ability to embody marketing knowledge during the NPD. A distinction is made between the following:
• The incorporation of NPD marketing knowledge at T1. • The preservation of NPD marketing knowledge at T2 – T4.
2.4 Success factors for NPD project team collaboration
Now that the generic NPD is explored, this section goes into the organisation of NPD teams. Effective incorporation of marketing knowledge into an NPD process requires more than interaction, it requires collaboration within project teams (Subramaniam, 2006). There are different ways to organize NPD teams. Two factors determine the feasibility of team collaboration (Crawford & DiBenedetto, 2006). These are the degree of team projectisation and tools to support collaboration.
2.4.1 Degree of team projectisation
Communication is a prerequisite for ‘working together’. According to kleinsmann (2006) internal communication is classified as formal and information. Formal communication is structured by procedures and rules, while Informal communication can be ad hoc, not structured by rules or procedures. Usually informal communication compensates for what is missing in formal procedures. As long as both do not contradict, informal communication stimulates collaboration (Olsthoorn & van der Velden, 1996).
Integration is the highest form of ‘working together’ and it is a sum of interaction and collaboration (Kahn, 1996). According to him there is a difference between interaction and collaboration. Interaction is only a formal way for transactional communcation between individuals on data transfer. Collaboration is more a mutual sharing process and about working together on design content. Therefore, interaction can become collaboration if shared understanding is created about both the design as well as the process that is followed. Whether interaction becomes collaboration is largely determined by the choices for the project’s organisational structure (Kahn, 1996). Thus, the degree of projectisation is determining factor for collaboration.
When different functions collaborate on the same project, organisational links between individuals may be aligned with functions, projects or both. A function is an area of responsibility. Regardless of functions, individuals apply their expertise to projects. There is no one-right team organisation, because it must adapt to its environment. There are three common organisational structures for projects. These structures, together with strengths and major issues, are described below:
Functional Organisation
Part I: Diagnosis Chapter 2: Literature research
interactions among teams. The strict separation can even cause conflicts and struggles resulting in ineffective results (Slotegraaf & Atuahene-Gima, 2011).
Project Organisation
Project organisations link those who work on the same project. Project organisations require a high level of team integration, because the project is a fulltime venture where different disciplines develop products jointly without interference from departments. They have the potential to be highly creative (Ulrich & Eppinger, 2008). According to Slotegraaf & Atuahene-Gima (2011), ineffective collaboration occurs beyond a certain level of integration because they may fail to realistically appraise alternative courses of action, due to fully integrated perspectives. Teams can be co-located to stimulate the performance when teams are reliable on each other. However, co-location is not a necessity, digital communication tools can be used to have more or less continuous interaction (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1995), e.g. between the headquarters and the subsidiary.
Matrix Project Organisation
The hybrid matrix organisations link individuals to functions and projects by sharing resources and information (Lakemond, Berggren and van Weele, 2006). Team members maintain focus on their expertise, they understand different functional disciplines. This increases mutual comprehensiveness. More than in functionally disconnected teams, this stimulates functions to collaborate, to express views and to challenge and disagree among each other (Slotegraaf & Atuahene-Gima, 2011).
Two variants are called; lightweight and heavyweight project matrix (Ulrich & Eppinger, 2008). A lightweight project organisation maintains expertise, but coordination is done via team work coordinated by one manager. A lightweight project is a specific team with people from different departments. It requires more focus that routine product improvement. Still, team members think like specialists, but the departments call the shots as they are accountable for the performance (Crawford & DiBenedetto, 2006). A
heavyweight project organisation maintains project links and is involved in
performance evaluation of team members. This requires more managers than a non-matrix project needs (Crawford & DiBenedetto, 2006). For both, a moderate to high level of team integration results in a higher level of collaboration. This reduces the potential of falling victim to cognitive biases (Petersen, Handfield and Ragatz, 2003).
2.4.2 Team collaboration support tools
This section goes into the support tools to manage cross-national NPD. The need for communication support is highly dependent on the degree of projectisation.
Subramaniam’s (2006) study highlights that MPCs effectively integrate cross-border knowledge for transnational NPD by transferring knowledge through cross-national collaboration and then by collectively determining the degree of adaptation. Cross-national team should collaborate on a common goal, which they decided on together. If these cross-national team successfully organise the embodiment of marketing knowledge throughout the NPD, then the product has the highest level of market acceptance (Subramaniam, 2006).
Just as co-located project teams, the success of cross-national teams is dependent on collaboration (Slotegraaf & Atuahene-Gima, 2011). However, dis-located teams face relatively bigger challenges with regard to team collaboration (McDonough III, Kahn, & Barczak, 2001). To face these challenges, the best performing MPCs of Adams’ (2004) study, use the following tools for their cross-national teams.
Technology tools stimulate formal and informal communication by making it easier to share information. The less effort it takes to share information, the more will be used to collaborate (Marin & Poulter, 2004). According to Adams (2004), the three most used formal technical tools for planning, interaction, making appointments and computing are:
1. Document Management Systems (DMS) 2. Video and teleconferencing
3. Email systems
Team support tools define the way that team processes are managed. Tools
that facilitate integration and collaboration with regard to product design are: 4. Face-to-face meetings
5. Team co-location
These tools can bring the people together, not only to share knowledge but also to accomplish engineering work together, i.e. the definition of collaboration according to (Olsthoorn & van der Velden, 1996). Leenders & Wieringa (2002) found that co-location and the use cross-functional reviews are most effective to foster collaboration. This is because face-to-face contact allows quick and flexible exchange of information which facilitates direct correction of when misunderstandings or ambiguities. Together, these collaboration aspects largely determine product market acceptance (Subramaniam, 2006).
Another aspect that significantly influences the cooperative attitude between product developers is the cultural background of the involved workers. Next section goes into this aspect.
Part I: Diagnosis Chapter 2: Literature research
this is partially due to language barriers, there are also specific differences in cooperative behaviour between Germans and Dutch developers (Ulijn et al, 2004). ‘Germans developers perceive Innovation Management (IM), i.e. (inter)actions during the fuzzy front end (phase 1 and 2), as very uncertain and they do not easily build empathy in this IM context. This decreases their cooperative attitude. In this highly innovative setting, where it is necessary to cope with the tension between cooperation and fighting, masculinity may induce German developers to exhibit avoidance, instead of seeking more information or alternatives’ (Ulijn et al, 2004). ‘Native German management concentrates on formal agreements, responsibilities and systems. In Germany heterogeneity in working together, while having different backgrounds, is highly irregular’ (Hofstede, 1993).
‘Dutch developers perceive the IM context as ideal for cooperative behaviour’ (Ulijn
et al, 2004). While in the Netherlands, a common management principle is that there
is a need for consensus among cooperating parties that is not predetermined by contracts or formal structures, nor by class distinction. IM negotiations show the limits of German developers more than those of Dutch developers, who in this case are more successful in building a cooperative spirit than their German colleagues (Ulijn et al, 2004). German and Dutch developers might neglect the fact that their overlapping interests bind them, as both parties are interdependent (Hofstede, 1993). These findings are useful to take into account while applying all earlier theoretical concepts to that case-study.
2.6 Theoretical model
The researched literature in this chapter, specifically in sections 2.1, 2.3.2 and 2.4, indicates a relationship between team collaboration, during the embodiment of cross-national marketing knowledge, and the ultimate product market acceptance. This is visualized in the framework below.
The theoretical framework depicts that the (Dutch) marketing knowledge can be incorporated into the Quality Function Deployment, i.e. T1. Furthermore, it identified process points that can assess whether the product indeed embodies marketing knowledge and that it still fulfils market needs. The process points T2-T4, emphasize that effectiveness of incorporation depends on the appropriate use of two factors for marketer-technician collaboration.
• the degree of team projectisation • the use of collaboration support tools
Part I: Diagnosis Chapter 3: Research framework
3 Research framework
This chapter is a research framework for this case study. It introduces the problem situation at Vaillant with a company description. Then, a problem statement is described. Furthermore, research limitations are discussed. This is followed by the research process design. Finally this chapter presents a research methodology.
3.1 Company description
The Vaillant Group is a multinational production company that develops heating systems for domestic accommodations and buildings. Founded in 1874 in Remscheid, Germany, the Vaillant Group is a family-owned company. The Vaillant Groups’ headquarters remain in Remscheid. During Vaillant’s 138 years of existence, many new technologies have been developed and successfully introduced. Among these are central heating boilers, geysers, and heat pumps. This shows that Vaillant has been successful at product development in an international competitive field.
Figure 3 - 1 shows that foreign Dutch marketers from Vaillant Netherlands (NL) are connected to the German engineers. With regard to NPD content, it was established that, more and more, Vaillant NL is forced to introduce products by the Vaillant Group that do not match Dutch customer needs. Therefore, product launches have been decreasingly successful over the last decade. Due to alarming business results, Vaillant NL wants a bigger influence in Vaillant´s NPD to ensure embodiment of Dutch marketing knowledge.
The Vaillant Group expects the Dutch subsidiary to maximize the sales from new product launches. In order to do so, Vaillant NL expects the Vaillant Group to let its NPD team incorporate Dutch marketing knowledge into the NPD so that new products are accepted by the market and they suit the local market needs.
Currently, the next step for an improvement approach is highly unclear on both ends. This problem situation presents a relevant motivation for further research.
3.2 Problem statement
To define a problem statement, a design-focused case study research is done. De Leeuw (2002) states that an organisational problem, by definition, is only then a
central problem, when it is both ‘real’ and ‘functional’. A ‘real’ problem means that all
stakeholders see the problem as the ‘actual’ problem. A ‘functional’ problem is one that can be approached by finding and adjusting organisational characteristics. In other words, it is perceived to be 'solvable'. When these criteria are met, a problem is indeed a central problem.
The next exercise is done to identify whether the current situation represents a
central problem. First, indicators across different organisational levels are gathered
to find whether the problem is ‘real’, according to the above definition:
The Vaillant Group urged its Dutch subsidiary to investigate its unsuccessful NPD. Upon this request, Vaillant´s marketers discussed recent market studies (appendix 1). These confirmed their notion; ‘Dutch installers have a large and definitive say in the end user’s final purchasing decision. These installers increasingly require products that are smaller sized and easier to handle and install. Vaillant NL sees installers as its main target group, as it does not sell directly to end-users. While, the German engineers develop for end-users, the Dutch marketers need a higher level of incorporation and preservation of installer requirement in Vaillant´s NPD.’
Vaillant NL´s management, i.e. the principal research instructor, supports the research initiative on ‘where and how Dutch marketers can better embody knowledge with the aim to make products that meet installer’s needs’. The Vaillant Group was asked, and the head of the engineering department agreed that the first step towards improvement is to allow this research initiative. He stated that the Vaillant Group is interested in improvement suggestions. Second, signals at various organisational levels indicate a ‘functional’ problem:
The head of Dutch marketing department, stated: “the work of the Dutch marketers and German engineers may not be mutually supportive at the moment. It could be that the Vaillant Group has different working methods to embody knowledge in the NPD and/or that they may have different ideas on how the embodiment is assessed. Nevertheless, the NPD should exist as an agreement between two parties. Therefore, alignment of individuals or departments could improve our chances to achieve the corporate goals.” According to the above, this research is relevant. The fact that the problem has to do with the output, calls for an instrumental problem solving approach. This makes the problem both functional and real. Vaillant’s problem is stated next:
Part I: Diagnosis Chapter 3: Research framework
The assumption, found in literature in section 2.1, 2.3.2 and 2.4, is that a more effective embodiment of marketing knowledge throughout the NPD results in a higher market acceptance of newly launched products. Therefore, it is interesting to research how Vaillant embodies, i.e. incorporates and preserves, market knowledge throughout its NPD. Subsequently, the main research question is:
To answer the main research question, the following sub questions are formulated that structure a case study research:
1. How is Dutch marketing knowledge currently incorporated in the NPD at Vaillant?
2. How do marketers and engineers ensure that Dutch marketing knowledge stays embodied throughout Vaillant’s NPD?
3. What practises can be deployed to increase the incorporation and preservation of marketing knowledge at Vaillant’s NPD?
3.3 Conditions
The conditions form limitations under which this practical design-focused research are process limitations and results limitations (de Leeuw, 2002).
In this case, a research process limitation is the timeframe of the research. This is six months. The limited amount of time inhibits the researcher to carry out implementations and evaluations of improvement design(s) that are suggested. A research limitation regarding results is the fact that the only interactions between the Vaillant Group and its subsidiary Vaillant NL are analysed. Other countries’ subsidiaries and other sources are not included. Moreover, it is not possible for the researcher to assess the input of marketing knowledge on correctness due to time constraint.
3.4 Research process design:
This research is based on a design-focused methodology (van Aken et al, 2004). This methodology is suited for developing scientific knowledge that is used to design problem interventions for practitioners in the research field. The design-focus makes it possible to change a current problem situation in order to realize a desired situation. In this research the desired situation is an improved NPD performance by better use of marketing knowledge.
on research findings. It uses both literature as well as case specific qualitative data to describe the diagnosis and design. The change or implementation phase will not be performed, but suggestions are done nonetheless.
The goal of the diagnosis phase is to develop the problem statement and to perform an analysis that puts the problem situation into context. The problem statement in this chapter is based on the introduction chapter, on the literature framework and on the company’s problem situation. The diagnosis phase finishes with chapter four that answers research sub questions one and two.
The design phase prescribes possibilities that solve the stakeholder problems that are found in chapter four. The goal is to answer research sub question three. The design recommendations are presented in chapter five.
The implementation phase describes a way to intervene in the current situation and to realize the desired situation using the suggested improvement designs. The implementation phase is presented in chapter five. Due to the time constraint it is not possible to implement the suggestion for improvement at Vaillant.
Finally, at the last phase of the regulative cycle, i.e. the evaluation. This is the conclusion of the study, presented in chapter six. Here the central research question is answered and the research results and discussed.
3.5 Data collection methodology
This research performs a singular case study and it uses different sources and techniques while following the principle of triangulation.
Singular case study
A case study research was used to explore the situation at Vaillant. Yin (2003) states: ‘A case study is an inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real context’. Qualitative research is a flexible method for a case study and it can be conducted by one researcher (Mertens, 2006). The results of a case study are generally better accepted by companies than other prescriptive studies, because the researcher works in the field. A disadvantage is that the outcomes have low external validity since only one case is assessed.
In this case study, data triangulation (Yin, 2003) was administered to avoid biased results. Data and (inter)views are attained from different level sources, at different times, in different places. The sources correspond to those classified by Yin (2003) as; ‘literature, corporate archive, interviews and direct observations’. De Leeuw (2002) states ‘it is necessary to specify the data source and the way that data is collected’. Thus, the next section describes the multiple data sources that are used.
Sources
Part I: Diagnosis Chapter 3: Research framework
are all directly or indirectly involved with the NPD. At the Vaillant Group in Germany, the head of Program Management and the chief engineer of the zeoTHERM heat pumps were interviewed along with two product engineers. The stakeholders on the zeoTHERM project were interviewed and made an example of for this research. This is because of the fact the zeoTHERM is truly a newly developed product. And the researcher conducted a feasibility study on this product. Next to the involved stakeholders, wholesalers and retailers from the Dutch market were interviewed during field trips.
Mertens' (2006) methods for semi-structured interview sessions allow for unexpected information to be obtained. Prior to the interviews, the purpose was explained. The interviews were held in face-to-face setting, where interviewees could speak freely. All interviews were recorded, so that the focus could be on the actual conversation. The recordings were transcribed and then sent back for approval. The transcriptions were made anonymous. Only function names are mentioned in reports of the seventeen interviews. A potential disadvantage of this method is the possibility that individuals do not give their own opinion but that they for example try to answer politically correct or that they answer untruthfully out of self-interest.
The interviews were conducted to get more insight in the NPD at Vaillant and at the relation between Vaillant NL and the Vaillant Group. Market studies were conducted by professional protocolled market analysts to get more insight in the market. The results are presented in appendix one. These were used for the problem conceptualization and for the research analysis.
Part I: Diagnosis Chapter 4: Diagnosis
4
Diagnosis
The goal of this chapter is to describe the NPD procedure as it takes place at Vaillant. Therefore, this chapter describes the marketer-engineer interaction on the embodiment of marketing knowledge on the four NPD process points that were found in section 2.3, see figure 4-1.
Figure 4-1 Process Points for Marketing Knowledge embodiment
During the exploration of T1-T4, the marketers and engineers are surveyed on their interactions and working experiences with team members. Subsequently, in this chapter research questions one and two are answered with the next analysis:
First in section 4.1, interaction T1 explores the incorporation of marketing knowledge, this is done to answer ‘How is Dutch marketing knowledge currently incorporated in the NPD at Vaillant?’.
Second in section 4.2, sub steps T2–T4 explore the preservation of marketing knowledge, this is done to answer ‘How do marketers and engineers ensure that Dutch marketing knowledge stays embodied throughout Vaillant’s NPD?’.
In section 4.3, an overview of the diagnosis results is presented of the current NPD process organization at Vaillant.
4.1 How is Dutch marketing knowledge currently incorporated in
the NPD at Vaillant?
The goal of this section is to find an answer to sub research question one. Therefore, this section describes Dutch and German interactions and experiences on the marketing knowledge incorporation process.
T1: Quality Function Deployment (QFD)
Example of Target Specifications for a Vaillant Heat Pump Category Customer Requirement Technical Feature Unit / Tolerance Technic
market segment 1 - 2 family house performance indicator
quality long life time enamelled steel tank
system combination
storage for c ombi of heat pump with solar
(see hydraulic sc hemes)
system
performance high grade of heat transfer
c oaxial coil heat exchanger m² / L
flexibility of siting right dimensions for storage connections
primary & return flow c onnec tions
DN 32
max. Use of solar ma. collec tor surfac e up to 3 Vaillant
VFK m²
efficiency all available energies & temp. Levels c an be storedmax. temperature ° C
environ- mental friendliness low stand-by heat losses kWh/24h Optic PRICE installer price HANDLING ease of handling Mounting of insulation / jacket easy to understand & to realize
insulation fits easily onto the tank
easy bringing in smallest possible dimensions tank diameter with insulation mm / ±10
easy to carry &
lift smallest possible weight
weight empty storage kg / ±10
accessories storage thermometer art. no.
easy
maintenance cleaning hatc h c leaning hatc h mm packaging protection of the product until installation type of packaging pallet 800 1200 mm manuals installation & user manual in local languages (see defined markets)
Ø810 Ø65
There is no procedure that formally describes the involvement of (Dutch) marketers during the QFD. The marketer-engineer interactions take place according to a strict procedure of the Target Specification, see appendix 3 phase 2 step 5. There, German engineers receive Dutch marketing requirements first. These are the Dutch Customer Attributes (CAs). Second, engineers consider whether a HoQ is needed to translate the CAs into ECs. Strikingly, the engineers do not always consider this step necessary.
Next to the CAs, the engineers receive product benchmark information; these sources are used to generate a product proposal. The product proposal is combination of technical features and schematics that makes up the New Product’s Draft Target Specifications. An example of the Draft Target Specifications is shown in figure 4–2.
The engineers need the marketers to judge the drafts. If the marketers disagree, then it is back to the drawing boards for the engineers. New product proposals have to be made, also based on marketing requirements. If the marketers agree, then the Dutch managers need to sign the Draft Target Specifications form.
Thereby Vaillant NL states: ‘We confirm that product, e.g.: "heat pump x" corresponds to our market needs.
T1: Survey
According to literature in section 2.3.2, the QFD is the main activity to incorporate marketing knowledge in the NPD. This QFD effectiveness depends on three aspects:
• Adequate target group definition • Effectiveness of knowledge transfer • Effectiveness of knowledge embodiment
The following survey goes into these aspects and scores them. Scores were given from 1 (low value) to 5 (high value); see appendix 2 for elaboration on T1’s score.
Part I: Diagnosis Chapter 4: Diagnosis
Defining the target group
Dutch experiences score ‘1’: Three Dutch marketers stated that the main target
group of Vaillant NL is installers. Current formal procedure does not allow deviation from standard focus on end users. As special focus on Dutch installer’s is not possible because there is no informal communication. This does not change without management interference.
German experiences score ‘4’: the subsidiary marketers determine the target group
via the formal marketing research reports. Vaillant’s spectrum of target groups runs from: single home or family home owners and building associations. The technical requirements define the specific target group and the handling aspects always incorporate installer needs. The engineers are unaware of Dutch marketer wishes to fully focus on installer requirements.
Effectiveness of knowledge transfer
Dutch marketers score this sub step ‘4’. The frequency of face-to-face meetings is
too limited and there is no team feel based on an established relationship. Still, the Document Management System (DMS) is a good tool to transfer marketing knowledge to Germany. The additional questions are usually answered via telephone, teleconference and via email.
German engineers score this sub step ‘4’. The standard procedures are satisfactory.
Moreover, the digital research forms and the DMS make it easy to share data. When data is unclear, it is relatively easy to communicate with Dutch marketers via email or teleconference.
Scoring effectiveness of knowledge embodiment
Dutch marketers score this sub step ‘2’. The knowledge embodiment scores very low
in the eyes of the Dutch marketers. They are unsatisfied by the inability to emphasize on installer requirements. In the current procedures, see figure 4-2, it is not possible to put more weight on the installer needs than on the end-user needs. To stress their specific marketing knowledge, the marketers want more involvement in the actual translation of CAs into ECs. Currently, the procedures do not define involvement of marketers in the QFD, except for transferring data to Germany. An example of the current ineffectiveness is provided by the Dutch marketing manager: ‘Vaillant NL wants to emphasize the Dutch installer’s meaning of a ꞌꞌpremium productꞌꞌ. By ꞌꞌpremiumꞌꞌ Installers mean excellent handling specifics (ease of handling, easy to bring in, carry & to lift) in relation to price. Therefore, marketers send a report that suggests for example: a two part heater that is easy to carry, that can be transported/lifted separately, but later on it is mounted to one system. Such a report is send to Germany. Then, Germans have interpreted this as: ‘…new product needs smallest possible weight.’1 This example illustrates the possibilities for biased designing. Moreover, marketers have no ability to collaborate CAs to ECs translation during the QFD because Dutch marketers are not formally invited to join a meeting.. As a result, Draft Target Specifications are often not clear. If Vaillant NL decides to
sign the form, then the result is that it is not sure what characteristics the final product is going to get. This is undesirable.’
German engineers score this sub step ‘4’. The engineers give high scores to the
embodiment of marketing knowledge. According to the lead engineer: ‘Continuous involvement in this step makes the iterations (due to disagreement) more and more unnecessary. They state that in some cases, it is unnecessary to use a House of Quality for this.
Results of section 4.1
The next results answer research question one.
Table 4-1 Results of T1
Table 4-1 shows a problem between procedures that force marketers to deliver standardized input, while they need the procedure to be adaptable to their change market requirements. Furthermore, formal the QFD procedure does not allow the appropriate marketing involvement to establish correct ECs. The Dutch marketers claim that ineffective processes result in low product market acceptance. Literature endorses this presumption. Both stakeholders are currently not allowed to meet face-to-face to solve their problems. However, no cultural wedge was found that inhibits collaboration. Thus, stakeholders are willing to work together. Stakeholders state that a current form of team organization hinders their possibilities to improve. Therefore, current team management needs to adjust.
Now that the knowledge incorporation process is analysed, it is interesting to explore the possibilities that marketers and engineers have to preserve the marketing knowledge throughout the NPD, up to and including the product launch. The next section goes into this.
T1: Results on marketing
knowledge incorporation Vaillant NL Vaillant Germany
Target Group Installers Depending on Dutch market research
Dutch marketers want a possibility to set the NPD Target Group specifically on installers. German engineers are willing to adapt to the subsidiary’s market needs, however, the formal procedure does not facilitate this specific focus.
Knowledge transfer Effective Effective
Technology support tools facilitate the transfer of marketing knowledge. The cross-national interaction of data goes according to standard Vaillant procedures and it is satisfactory to both stakeholders.
Knowledge embodiment Ineffective Unaware of ineffectiveness In the eyes of the marketers, the engineers fail to specifically and correctly translate the Dutch CAs into matching ECs. This results in ambiguous Target Specifications which is a problem for the marketers as they feel that this ultimately results is a low product market acceptance. Both stakeholders are open for improvement
Part I: Diagnosis Chapter 4: Diagnosis
4.2 How do marketers and engineers ensure that Dutch marketing
knowledge stays incorporated throughout Vaillant’s NPD?
The goal of section 4.2 is to answer sub research question two. In this section, three marketer-engineer interactions, T2-T4, are discussed. Per interaction the activities are described according to corporate documentation and to interviewee responses. Subsequently, these are discussed by both stakeholders.
T2: Concept Selection and Testing
In this sub section, the Concept Selection and Concept Testing activities are discussed.
The sequential procedures of Concept Selection and Concept Testing are visualized in figure 4-3.
Figure 4-3 Concept Development phase – including Product Selection and Testing
T2.1 Concept Customer Review
Dutch marketers are expected to execute a customer workshop based on 16-20 product sketches that were generated on the Target Specifications from QFD (T1). Subsequently, the customers are presented with sketches and prototypes. After evaluation, preferred concept(s) are selected. A feedback report is made, including the selected concept(s) from the customers. This is send back to the engineers.
T2.2 Concept Testing
The common goal of this Concept Testing stage is to deliver input for a failure modes and effects analysis. Old products and appliances are presented in a customer workshop with end-users and/or installers. Potential product failures, their severity and their likelihood are discussed. This helps marketers to identify potential failure based on past experience. If failures are found, then concept failures are send back to Finalize Product Concept in order to solve the failures. Customer responses are measured and interpreted by marketers. German engineers evaluate the results.
T2: Survey
The T2 survey discusses the experiences of the interviewees. Scores can be given from 1 (low value) to 5 (high value). Appendix 2 presents the T2 scores.
Dutch marketers score T2 with ‘2’. The interaction scores low because of the inability
to control knowledge preservation due to international disconnection. Dutch marketers strongly disagree with the current procedures at T2.2 and T2.4, because it is sequential and cross-functional cooperation is not possible because of the functional disconnection. Therefore, marketers are not involved nor invited to share Dutch views other than by formal report. Dutch marketers want to provide face-to-face feedback to the engineers. According to the respondents, the current procedure risks a deviation from original marketing requirements by biased designing by engineers.
German engineers score this step ‘4’. The standard operational procedure on
Dutch-German interactions is satisfactory to their opinion.
T3: Organization of Field Tests
In sub step T3, Dutch marketers interact with German engineers on Vaillant’s Field Test. This is discussed next.
At T3, prototypes are validated in the laboratory for close observation. Then, the marketers need to find customers will to participate in a Ffield Test. Functional prototype performance are tested over an extended period of time, i.e. an average of 1–4 months. This is usually done in an end user’s home. The auditors are German engineers that test product performance, for example: measuring electric energy or gas efficiency during normal and peak demand, measuring the usage of solar power, measuring noise level, measuring failure rates, etc.
T3: Survey
Part I: Diagnosis Chapter 4: Diagnosis
Dutch marketers score this step ‘2’. According to the marketers, the Field Test is not
as complete as it could be, because the installer experiences are not analysed during this Field Test. An evaluation of the handling characteristics should include: ease of carrying, clarity of manuals and the ease of handling, mounting and installing. However, Dutch marketers’ responsibility is merely to find appropriate Field Test candidates, marketers are not involved in actual product testing.
German engineers score this step ‘5’. They are satisfied with the level of
performance testing. They do feel that additional Dutch-German interactions could be perform on other aspect of Field Testing, such as user and installer testing. But these are currently not included in the standard operational procedure, therefore these are deemed unnecessary.
T4: Review phase 7
In sub step T4, the Review or evaluation of an NPD process is discussed.
At Vaillant, the Review phase does not describe any interactions between marketers and engineers. Currently, after the product launch, German engineers receive periodic failure and maintenance reports from Dutch call center mechanics. These reports are studied for future product updates or improvements. The Dutch marketers have no formal obligation towards the German engineers in this phase. At Vaillant NL, there are three sorts of evaluations. None of these evaluations currently involve marketer-engineer interaction. The first evaluation is product sales related. This goes into sales volume, profit margins, market share and competitor analysis. The second evaluation relates to the marketing process and the product launch. Here, former tough gate decisions are discussed and team performance and cooperation are evaluated. The third evaluation goes into product performance and the feedback of the call center service engineers. Also, the technical specialists provide feedback on the installer and end-user experiences of handling the product.
T4: Survey
This survey discusses the appreciation and views of the interviewees on T4. See appendix 2 for an elaborate overview of T4 results.
Dutch marketers score this step ‘1’. These evaluations provide valuable insights into
to evaluate whether the marketing knowledge was indeed effectively embodied in the product and throughout the NPD process.
German engineers score this step ‘2’. They state that they are satisfied with the
performance evaluation as is described in the standard operational procedure. However, two of the three engineers add that it is necessary to evaluate market acceptance and team collaboration performance of the NPD process as well.
Results of section 4.2
When the experiences of the Dutch and German stakeholders are gathered for T2-4, it shows that cross-national knowledge is effectively transferred; However, the embodiment is ineffective because the needs are ambiguous to the primary stakeholders.
T2-T4: Results on marketing
knowledge preservation Vaillant NL Vaillant Germany Effectiveness of knowledge
transfer Effective Effective
Technology support tools sufficiently facilitate knowledge transfer. This means that the formal communication between marketers and Engineers is acceptable and it goes according to standard Vaillant procedures.
Effectiveness of knowledge
embodiment Ineffective Unaware of ineffectiveness Through the use of standard Vaillant procedures during T2 – T3, the engineers fail to specifically test the Dutch customer preferences (i.e. installer preferences) in the eyes of the Dutch marketers. Furthermore, at T4, the Dutch marketers aspire some form, formal or informal, of NPD evaluation. They want a process and product evaluation together with the German engineers to learn for future improvements. Table 4-2 Results of T2-T4
The results of this section are remarkably similar to the results of 4.1. Dutch marketers see potential for informal collaboration with the engineers. However, formal procedures do not facilitate such initiatives. Furthermore, there are no grounds to assume that cultural differences inhibit interaction improvements. Therefore, both stakeholders are open for improvement suggestions with regard to team collaboration during sub step T2-T4.
Part I: Diagnosis Chapter 4: Diagnosis
Functional
X
Document Management Systems
√
Video and teleconferencing√
Face-to-face meetingsX
Team co-location
X
Degree of Team Projectisation
Team Collaboration Support Tools
4.3 Diagnosis results
Research sub questions 1 and 2 were answered in this chapter. This section recapitulates the results that were found in section 4.1 and 4.2 during the analysis of procedures T1-T4.
Figure 4-4 Diagnosis results
The input, i.e. incorporation, of marketing knowledge should take place at T1. The checks on the preservation of this marketing knowledge should take place at T2-T4. Thus, all four interaction procedures were analysed:
• At T1, Dutch marketers aspire an active role to more accurately incorporate marketing knowledge during the House of Quality.
• At T2 and T3, the Dutch marketers aspire an active team role to jointly discuss or assess the preservation of marketing knowledge in the product that is being developed together with engineers.
• At T4, both marketers and engineers suggest to evaluate the finished NPD team process and to evaluate product market acceptance.
Overall, the NPD process at Vaillant is organised as functionally disconnected project. The Dutch marketing department and German engineering department are functionally diverse and physically separated abroad. The explored process points are formal procedures with a low level of integration. Therefore, little to no collaboration is currently possible.
Communication is done mainly to transfer and explain data. This is done via the Document Management System, telephone and email. Teams are not co-located and there are only a limited amount of face-to-face meetings that relate to design content. The standardised procedures inhibit adaptation to focus on different marketing knowledge. Marketers and engineers are willing to adapt but this cannot be done because they state that there is no formal procedure for team collaboration.
In the current situation at Vaillant, problems with regard to ineffective marketing knowledge embodiment are not addressed. The potential cultural collaboration restraints that were found in literature were invalidated by the interviewees. However, Germans are inclined to follow strict and formal procedures. If these formal procedures change, then German stakeholders agreed to be willing accept more Dutch marketer involvement and to work together.
