Next Article in Journal
Exploring Determinants Shaping Recycling Behavior Using an Extended Theory of Planned Behavior Model: An Empirical Study of Households in Sabah, Malaysia
Next Article in Special Issue
A Systematic Literature Review of Sustainable Packaging in Supply Chain Management
Previous Article in Journal
Constructing the Transitions and Co-Existence of Rural Development Models
Previous Article in Special Issue
Formulation and Prioritization of Sustainable New Product Design in Smart Glasses Development
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 8
10.3390/su14084626
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Hypothesis

An Empirical Study: The Impact of Collaborative Communications on New Product Creativity That Contributes to New Product Performance

by
Henry M. H. Chan
* and
Vincent W. S. Cho
Department of Management and Marketing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(8), 4626; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084626
Submission received: 23 February 2022 / Revised: 6 April 2022 / Accepted: 11 April 2022 / Published: 13 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainability, Innovation and Competition: Emerging Actors and Challenges in Supply Chain Management)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Creativity is vital and a key determinant for the success of many organizations in today’s competitive environment. Research in marketing has suggested that collaborative communication is important to sustain a competitive advantage. Leveraging a resource-based view, this research provides a comprehensive view examining the different facets of collaborative communication—reciprocal feedback, rationality, formal communication, and informal communication, on the meaningfulness and novelty of new product creativity, and their impacts on new product performance. Based on 181 sets of responses, our findings indicate that rationality posits a significant positive effect on the meaningfulness of new product creativity, which in turn contributes to new product performance. As for the novelty of new product creativity, it is influenced by informal communication whilst the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) further strengthens the positive association between informal communications and the novelty of new product creativity. This study provides theoretical contributions to the new product development literature as well as practical insights for organizations on the importance of collaborative communication to new product creativity and improvements in new product performance.

1. Introduction

All innovation begins with creativity, as there is no innovation without creativity [1]. In today’s business environment, creativity is vital and a key determinant for the success of many organizations [2,3]. Creativity generates new and unique ideas without boundaries that can go beyond the restrictions of rules and written or unwritten norms. Regarding organizations, many of their successes depend on new product creativity and their ability and capability to materialize creativity into new products.
Without a doubt, Apple’s iPhone and iPad can be claimed as the most successful new products in terms of creativity over the past decades. Tesla is another successful product example of an electric car in its field. Their successes were not just about naive product design and marketing noises, but their applications that met consumers’ needs and wants. Aligned with the findings from new product development (NPD) literature, many past studies have demonstrated that greater creativity contributes to better performance outcomes, and many scholars have proved the importance of new product creativity and its positive impact on new product performance [4,5].
Nevertheless, creative products cannot assure success and are not a bulletproof solution to a company’s success, regardless of how reputable and how large a company is. Research on new product creativity that failed to enhance new product performance is also seen. According to Tu [6], if new product creativity offers no benefits to product quality, new product performance cannot be achieved. Yang and Liu [7] also revealed that new product creativity can have a negative impact on new product performance financially. For instance, Coca-Cola created a “New Coke” in the early 1980s that tasted similar to Pepsi Cola, hoping the new formula could win back market share. After conducting a nationwide taste test, the results were so bad that Coca-Cola decided to keep its original formula and renamed it “Coca-Cola Classic” and has used this name ever since. Another example of a new product flop was Google Glass. This product was designed as a wearable computer in the form of regular eyeglasses in which users could browse the Internet and access the camera and other apps by voice commands. However, this product did not sell well because Google realized consumers did not have a practical need or use for it. Consumers preferred watching a football match or playing a video game on large TV screens instead of the Google Glass.
Given the contradictory results, it is intriguing whether organizations should pursue new product creativity; increasing attention has been drawn to researchers to further investigate what drives new product creativity and if new product creativity can assure new product performance.

1.1. Research Objectives

In today’s globally competitive environment, challenges for organizations to foster product creativity and ensure product success are immense. Although organizations often emphasize product creativity and its importance, in practice, only a few succeed among hundreds of newly launched products. There is no surety that creativity prompts product success, as numerous obstacles could arise during the NPD process. The entire NPD process is complicated, as it involves many external and internal stakeholders such as customers, suppliers, competitors, senior management, and product teams within the organization. In particular, if the NPD team members are based in different geographic locations and time zones, effective collaborative communication among the team members is crucial. To an extent, members’ effectiveness in interaction and communication from information sharing to joint actions at all stages of NPD is indispensable [8].
Referencing the NPD literature, functional integration has been described in various terms: integration, coordination, collaboration, cooperation, teamwork, unity of effort, and cross-functional team [9]. Functional integration encourages information sharing and good communication among team members, departments, and business units. Effective collaborative communication not only facilitates the collection and utilization of internal knowledge exchange and sharing but also market intelligence among the NPD team members. With the combined internal and external knowledge and information, new and creative ideas can be generated to entice product creativity. Specifically, recent research has indicated companies that focus on creating new products and services while maintaining core competencies grow faster than their peers.
Based on an extensive review of the literature, many scholars have already examined the effects of the mechanisms of functional integration and creativity on new product performance, respectively, but the correlation between creativity and the mechanism of collaborative communication and how their relationships affect new product performance was non-existent. In addition, although many past studies have proved that product creativity contributes to new product performance, few offered the opposite results as stated earlier. Because of the inconsistent findings, we intend to explore how the four underlying factors of collaborative communication, namely reciprocal feedback, rationality, formal communication, and informal communication, affect new product creativity and validate the relationship between new product creativity and new product performance.

1.2. Research Gaps

Regardless of what industry or what market segment a company is in, it is constantly challenged by severe competition, fast-changing market conditions, rapid technology development, and shorter product life cycles [10]. In particular, the advancement of new information and communication technologies (ICT) and the use of ICT have changed how people work these days. Chulvi and his team [11] stated that creativity can be developed through the product development process in either a face-to-face or virtual collaborative environment. As with any company, developing creative products is important to drive business growth and sustain market leadership. Thanks to ICT, scheduling meetings through virtual face-to-face interaction is possible, especially when the cross-functional teams are located at different locations and time zones.
In reviewing the creativity literature, many past studies focused on analyzing and comparing the effect of creative methods and some examined the tools that encourage creativity, such as using a reward system to motivate employees’ creativity [12,13,14,15]. Along that line, Lopez-Mesa and his colleagues [15] validated that both graphical and sentential expressions in the design process help enhance creativity while Burroughs and his team 14 demonstrated that combining incentive programs and creativity training programs could effectively heighten product creativity. As for Leenders and his team [16], their study explored three different communication patterns in terms of proximity, communication modality, and task structure on team creativity.
Although research contributions acknowledge the relevance of collaborative creativity, the lack of a theoretical basis is noticeable [17]. To the best of our knowledge, a consolidated view with the inclusion of collaborative communication, the use of ICT, new product creativity, new product performance, and their associations, is missing. As affirmed by Pagell [18], more research on collaboration pertaining to new product creativity and performance is necessary. As such, we are making the attempt to conduct this research study aiming to fill this missing gap.

2. Conceptual Framework Development

All innovations begin with creativity. In response to the rapidly changing marketplace, developing creative new products is key to the success and survival of organizations. To determine whether a new product is successful or not, performance such as contribution to profits, return on investment, market share, and sales revenues compared with competitors are often assessed by organizations [19]. To ensure a new product generates good sales performance, a company’s ability and capability to develop creative products is crucial. According to Crawford and Di Benedetto [20], a creative new product can do more good than anything else for a company.

Resource-Based View

The resource-based view (RBV) refers to a company’s internal structure as a bundle of resources to be exploited to gain a sustainable competitive advantage [21]. Barney [22] argued that the most important resources and capabilities are those which cannot be imitated and substituted by anyone but by the company itself. Companies with non-substitutable, valuable, and scarce resources can sharpen their competitive advantage over firms that lack these qualities [23]. Wernerfelt [24] also indicated that a company capitalizes on its assets and exploits its valuable and rare resources to achieve competitive advantages. According to Makadok [25] and Gulati, a company can strengthen its internal resources and capabilities by relying on the utilization of external resources as competitive weapons to fight against rivals. Using the shared and learned information, know-how, and knowledge obtained from external resources, collective work and collaborative communication within the NPD team can be enhanced in NPD. Hamel and Prahalad [26] and Barney [22] both regarded the RBV as an essential theoretical lens to view a company’s resources and capabilities that enhance and sustain its competitive advantage.
Resources, in addition to internal and external, can be tangible and intangible. Resources are the assets owned or manipulated by a company [27]. A company’s tangible assets can be financial capital, equipment, and real estate. For intangible assets, human resources, management expertise, knowledge base, culture, procedures, methodologies, information systems, and technologies are a few examples. A company’s ability to generate and accumulate creative ideas is treated as an intangible asset. In essence, different types of assets can empower a company to differentiate itself from its rivals and support strategy execution so an improvement in performance is achieved [22]. As aforementioned, many scholars recognize that creativity plays an important role in NPD as it can influence new product performance substantially. New product performance defines the extent to which a company has marketed the new products successfully and contributes to the company’s profits, return on investment (ROI), market share, and sales revenues in comparison with its competition [28]. Scholars have emphasized that new product performance is related to the outcome of strategic decisions in new product development [29,30]. To explain new product performance, the success of a new product can be evaluated by different individuals according to their positions within the company. For instance, top management may concentrate on profitability and market share, while product engineers focus on technical success; sales managers look at sales turnover and marketing managers emphasize the speediness of time-to-market compared with competitors. Market share represents an important indicator of performance, as it is usually described as a product’s or a company’s performance relative to competitors. Clark [31] stated that this dimension is of utmost importance to top executives as changes in market share represent improving or declining performance and inherently reflect the attainment or loss of competitive advantage for a company.
Referencing the marketing literature, new product creativity is also viewed as an important element in NPD studies [32]. New product creativity refers to any novel product that departs significantly from previous products [33,34,35]. Some scholars defined product creativity as a product offering new features based on users’ needs. A few others explained product creativity, in general, as customer-focused and market-driven. New products can be goods or services that are different in their characteristics or intended uses from the products that were previously produced by a company. The concept of newness in a product may vary, as it can be a minor or major enhancement of a company’s existing product. An enhanced product, such as a “me2” product, is usually new-to-firm but not necessarily new-to-market. A new-to-market product typically is an invention that is not only unrelated to the firm’s existing product, but also unknown to its competitors, and where a whole new market is created. Examples of new-to-market products are Apple’s iPod and iPad which were launched back in 2001 and 2010. New product creativity can create value-added characteristics or cost-effectiveness to the new product and enhances product differentiation and customer satisfaction [36,37]. To stay competitive, companies must differentiate their existing products into novel products that are more appealing and creative to customers. To an extent, new product creativity aims at offering a competitive edge where overall business objectives in terms of sales growth, market share, and profitability can be achieved. While past studies have examined new product creativity as a unidimensional construct [38,39,40], some scholars have conceptualized new product creativity as two separate dimensions, namely, meaningfulness and novelty [3,41,42].
In this study, the four dimensions of collaborative communication are examined as underlying factors that may impact the meaningfulness and novelty of new product creativity. In addition, the use of ICT as a moderator is also applied to investigate its impact on the relationship between collaborative communication and new product creativity on meaningfulness and novelty, which in turn affect new product performance. Leveraging the RVB, the conceptual framework is established and shown in Figure 1 below.

3. Hypothesis Development

To succeed in today’s competitive marketplace, companies must continue developing and offering new products. When studying new product creativity, both meaningfulness and novelty are considered [3,41,42]. Meaningfulness is about the appropriateness and usefulness of a new product relative to competitors [3]. Meaningful products have comprehensive product advantages that provide a satisfactory and reliable value for customers. Further, a meaningful product can also enhance product differentiation by including superior designs and advanced features in response to customers’ needs [43]. New product creativity with meaningfulness can enhance existing products and services through quality control and improvement to “solve a problem, fit the needs of a given situation and accomplish some recognizable goals” for customers [44]. A product with a high level of meaningfulness specifies what the market or customer wants in terms of the new product’s functionality. When customers’ needs are satisfied, their willingness to buy increases [45].
Hypothesis 1a (H1a):
Meaningfulness of new product creativity is positively related to new product performance.
As for the novelty of new product creativity, this is about the relative uniqueness with respect to a competitor. Novelty is defined as the degree to which products/services are perceived as new and different from competitors. A novel product/service can be an innovation or an existing one with radical enhancement. It is often described as an out-of-the-ordinary and stimulating product compared with its competitors. Novel products are attractive to customers due to their newness. In addition, the novelty offers a new experience to the buyer and induces purchase intention [46].
Hypothesis 1b (H1b):
Novelty of new product creativity is positively related to new product performance.
The first dimension of collaborative communication, reciprocal feedback, is defined as the bidirectional communication among individuals to share and exchange [47]. Cantner and his colleagues [48] also refer to reciprocal feedback as to when a person transfers information and knowledge to another person who reciprocates the information and knowledge. As the basis of collaboration, individuals open up and allow access to each other’s knowledge stock [48]. Collaboration would not occur if there was no exchange of knowledge and information. In reality, ongoing reciprocal communication allows for timely feedback and aligned expectation among individuals [47]. New ideas and thoughts among team members are exchanged and collaborated through reciprocal feedback. Reciprocal feedback is especially critical to NPD as team members can learn from the exchanged information and knowledge to come up with new information, ideas, and suggestions that can further enhance the new product design, quality, packaging, etc. Because of reciprocal feedback, both meaningful and novel products can be induced.
Hypothesis 2a (H2a):
Reciprocal feedback positively affects the new product creativity in terms of meaningfulness.
Hypothesis 2b (H2b):
Reciprocal feedback positively affects the new product creativity in terms of novelty.
The second dimension, rationality, is defined as the presentation of the content of communication with the reason (rationale) supported by evidence, facts, and logic to achieve alignment amongst stakeholders [49]. Another interpretation of rationality is that the content of communication displays rational and clear evidence that can effectively influence others to agree and accept the suggestions [47]. Rationality usually fosters a cooperative working environment where individuals are open-minded enough to listen to each other’s opinions and the evidence that supports those expressed opinions [50]. In addition, rationality helps team members to learn and understand diverse opinions so they can adapt with explanations and reasons when disagreements exist. More reasonable discussions are encouraged and the constant alignment among NPD team members on the basis of rationality could result in superior product development.
Hypothesis 3 (H3):
Rationality positively affects the meaningfulness of new product creativity.
Formal communication, the third dimension, refers to the degree to which communication is planned and structured as opposed to impromptu and ad hoc [51,52]. Formality emphasizes the importance of obeying rules and procedures [53] and expresses the degree to which partners rely on rules to manage their relationships [54,55]. Formal communication influences the flow of information and knowledge to ensure it is systematically shared and exchanged. Effective communication among team members is a critical success factor in new product development because NPD is an ongoing activity that involves team members from different functions such as engineering, operations, finance, sales, and marketing [56]. Cooperative teamwork is essential. In reality, formal communication relies on processes and procedures such as scheduled meetings that are set at a particular day and time of the week where discussions take place and are recorded in meeting minutes. Because of the collaborative and interactive activities, brainstorming on new product ideas and suggestions for new product features, specifications, and packaging design is feasible and attainable. In such a formal setting, the generated ideas, information, opinions, and suggestions for a new product tend to be logical and solid as supporting data and evidence are usually prepared.
Hypothesis 4 (H4):
Formal communication positively affects the meaningfulness of new product creativity.
According to Scott and colleagues [57], informal communication, the last dimension of collaborative communication, is described as a kind of communicative interaction not restricted by strict forms and rules. Informal communication is also interpreted as the casual and unofficial means of communication where information is exchanged spontaneously among individuals outside the boundaries of official rules, processes, systems, formalities, and chain of commands. Spontaneity is an element of informal communication that allows individuals to convey messages and thoughts whenever it is convenient [58]. Due to the characteristics of informal communication, information sharing and exchange between NPD team members outside scheduled meetings can be done casually via an open medium such as an ad hoc gathering or quick chat in the hallway or pantry. Because of the casual setting, novel new product ideas can come across casually even though a few minutes of corridor chat with the absence of data and evidence support.
Hypothesis 5 (H5):
Informal communication positively affects the novelty of new product creativity.
While collaborative communication is indispensable to new product creativity, Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and its use is viewed as another effective and important mechanism. As an extension of information technology (IT), the use of ICT emphasizes unified communications through the integration of telecommunications, computers, necessary enterprise software, middleware, storage, and audiovisual systems that enable users to access, store, transmit, and manipulate information. The use of ICT is also regarded as the utilization of email, video conferencing, databases, internet, cloud-based software applications, Computer-Aided Design (CAD), or even WhatsApp, Wechat, Kakao, or Line. Silva and his team [59] interpreted the use of ICT as using digital technology, communications tools, and networks to access, manage, integrate, evaluate, and create information.
ICT helps create a communication platform for information exchange and sharing. In particular, using ICT improves and speeds up information and knowledge exchange and circulation among individuals, regardless of different time zones and locations, especially when the NPD team is comprised of many globalized staffs. Along the process of NPD, creative ideas from product concepts, to designs, feature sets, specifications, packaging, and launch plans among team members are exchanged and shared through different kinds of ICT platforms. Through the use of ICT, team members are empowered to express themselves whether the discussed subjects are meaningful and/or novel given that the communication is formal and/or informal. As such, we argue that the utilization of ICT improves and enhances the relationship between collaborative communication and meaningfulness and novelty of new product creativity as related to the proposed hypotheses stated above.
Hypothesis 6a (H6a):
Use of ICT positively moderates the positive relationship between reciprocal feedback and meaningfulness of new product creativity.
Hypothesis 6b (H6b):
Use of ICT positively moderates the positive relationship between reciprocal feedback and novelty of new product creativity.
Hypothesis 7 (H7):
Use of ICT positively moderates the positive relationship between rationality and the meaningfulness of new product creativity.
Hypothesis 8 (H8):
Use of ICT positively moderates the positive relationship between formal communication and the meaningfulness of new product creativity.
Hypothesis 9 (H9):
Use of ICT positively moderates the positive relationship between informal communication and novelty of new product creativity.

4. Methodology

This study intends to examine the impact of various collaborative communication dimensions on the meaningfulness and novelty of new product creativity, which in turn, contributes to new product performance. To measure all the constructs in the model, we conducted both face-to-face interviews and mass surveys for questionnaire verification and mass data collection.

4.1. Face-to-Face Interviews

Several one-on-one face-to-face interviews were hosted among a group of managers from the R&D, Marketing, and Sales departments of a company on site. During the interviews, the managers were asked to fill out a close-end questionnaire for feedback. Their feedback was used to modify and perfect the content of the questionnaire for a mass survey so as to ensure the data collected from the mass survey was applicable and accurate.

4.2. Mass Survey

To ensure the collected data were representative, three hundred senior management and managers in the R&D, Marketing, and Sales departments of the same company were invited to participate in the mass survey. This company is a large multinational company that is involved in designing, developing, manufacturing, and distributing products globally. All the participants were required to fill out a close-end questionnaire. The questionnaire was divided into six parts. Part 1 was to request the respondents to recall and identify a launched product for addressing all questions in the questionnaire. Part 2 was to evaluate new product performance based on respondents’ experience in the NPD project. Part 3 was to record how the respondents evaluated the new product creativity in terms of meaningfulness and novelty in NPD when compared with competitors’ products. For part 4, respondents evaluated their experiences with different communication methods, namely reciprocal feedback, rationality, formal communication, informal communication, and the use of ICT among the cross-functional team members. In part 5, respondents’ views on cross-functional cooperation and other inputs related to the NPD project were requested. To end the questionnaire, demographic information was collected in part 6.
Among the three hundred questionnaires given to selected senior management and managers, two hundred and thirty filled questionnaires were returned. However, forty-nine (49) sets were found incomplete after screening and only one hundred and eighty-one (181) sets were considered valid for data analysis. Hence, an approximately sixty percent (60.3%) response rate was achieved.

4.3. Measurements

4.3.1. Dependent Variable—New Product Performance

New product performance in this study emphasized market share and financial aspects. The respondents were asked to evaluate the success of the chosen new product in terms of new sales, market share profitability, and return on investment. compared with competing products in market.

4.3.2. Mediator—New Product Creativity of Meaningfulness and Novelty

For new product creativity of meaningfulness, respondents were asked to evaluate the meaningfulness of the chosen new product and compare that with competitors’ products; for new product creativity novelty, respondents were asked to what extent they agreed that the novelty of the chosen new product was out of the ordinary, revolutionary, and stimulating when compared with competitors’ products.

4.4. Control Variables

4.4.1. Cross-Functional Integration

Collaboration among cross-functional team members, known as cross-functional integration, has been the core of NPD. Cross-functional integration enables information exchange and experience sharing among team members and is widely accepted as a key determinant to the success of NPD in literature [4,8,60,61,62]. In this part, input from cross-functional integration based on R&D–sales cooperation, R&D–marketing cooperation, and sales–marketing cooperation were collected, as these functional units are interrelated and interdependent with each other within the company; their strategic integration enables the sharing of different information and knowledge which could impact the firm’s creativity [63], and ultimately improves new product performance [64,65,66,67].

4.4.2. Green Product

Green product is part of green management that products must comply with environmental regulations and protection such as enabling recycling and reducing pollution. Additionally, Machova et al. [68] found that customers are willing to pay more for a green product. In this study, we consider green products leveraging technological innovation in energy-saving, pollution-prevention, waste recycling, green product designs, and corporate environmental management. To design a green product, creativity is essential as the product may require new material that can be reused many times and decompose easily after being discarded. Typically, companies tend to gain a good corporate image, reputation, and brand building by making and selling green products. Hence, a green product can be set at a premium price [69,70] and better new product performance is achieved.

4.4.3. Convenience

Convenience is about making the product effective and easy such as easy access, easy to carry, applicability, and portability [71]. Creative product design is essential to ensure the product is easy to use and easy to set up. If consumers think the product is convenient, their will to buy and pay for a premium is high [72].

4.4.4. Product Safety

Product safety is about the product’s ability to be safe for its intended use which is assessed by a certain set of rules such as design policies and directives. Product safety is the minimum basic requirement as it is supposed to protect people from the danger or risk that is associated with the products they buy and use every day. When a product is misused or unsafe, people could get hurt or injured [73]. Product safety is a basic yet significant threshold for companies in NPD, especially at the initial product design and specifications stages.

4.4.5. Data Analysis

To test all twelve hypotheses, structural equation modeling (SEM) was adopted where the analysis of moment structures (Amos) was used. The advantage of using Amos is that it can rapidly view, modify, and specify the model through various simple drawing tools. Furthermore, it helps modify and fine-tune the model when necessary. To assess all validity and reliability of essential constructs, reciprocal feedback (R_F), rationality (RNT), formal communication (F_C), informal communication (I_C), meaningfulness (MNF), novelty (NVT), new product performance (NPP), Information and Communication Technology (USE OF ICT), cross-functional integration (CFI), green product (GRN), convenience (CON), and product safety (SAF), exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted. The four control variables were also included in the SEM to determine whether they had any significant influences on the meaningfulness and novelty of new product creativity and new product performance.

4.5. Descriptive Statistical Analysis

Reciprocal feedback (R_F), rationality (RNT), formal communication (F_C), and informal communication (I_C) have mean values of 5.85, 5.88, 5.70, and 4.36, respectively, based on a 7-point scale, indicating that the respondents believed strongly in rationality, followed by reciprocal feedback and formal communication, and the least in informal communication. For new product creativity, meaningfulness (MNF) has a mean of 5.85, which signifies the respondents strongly believed that meaningfulness was more important in new product creativity than novelty (NVT), with a mean value of 5.32. Regarding new product performance (NPP), its mean value is 5.71, reflecting that the respondents in general had good confidence in achieving new product performance. The mean value for information and communication technology (USE OF ICT) is 5.34, which suggests that the respondents in general used email, video-conferencing, and other web-based media tools.

Hypotheses Testing

To test the hypotheses, seven models were created based on the model framework. Model 1 to Model 7 in Table 1 presents the main effect among all the independent variables, mediators, control variables, and the dependent variable.
According to the path analysis regression results, the beta value of the relationship between MNF and NPP is 0.452 while the beta value of that between NVT and NPP is −0.080. This means that the meaningfulness (MNF) of product creativity is significantly associated with new product performance, but not with the novelty of new product creativity. As such, H1a is supported but H1b is rejected. For reciprocal feedback (R_F), its direct impact on both the meaningfulness (MNF) and novelty (NVT) of new product creativity is insignificant with their beta values of 0.065 and 0.077, hence, both H2a and H2b are rejected. Rationality (RNT), on the other hand, exhibits a significant association with the meaningfulness (MNF) of new product creativity with a beta value of 0.126. Therefore, H3 is supported. H4 is rejected as formal communication (F_C) is found insignificant to the meaningfulness (MNF) of new product creativity with its beta value of 0.037. For H5, informal communication (I_C) exhibits a significant association with the novelty (NVT) of new product creativity with a beta value of 0.264, hence, this hypothesis is supported. Out of the five moderation hypotheses, only H9 is supported. That is, the use of ICT is found to be significant in the relationship between information communication (I_C) and the novelty (NVT) of new product creativity with a beta value of 0.274.
In sum, only four out of the total twelve hypotheses, H1a, H3, H5, and H9, are supported. Rationality and meaningfulness of new product creativity are positively related which also demonstrates its positive association with new product performance. As for the novelty of new product creativity, informal communication posits a significant association with it and the moderator impact of the use of ICT also presents a significant association. To sum up the findings, both Figure 2 and Figure 3 display the path analysis results and overall hypotheses test results based on the model framework.

5. Discussion

Leveraging a Resource-based view (RBV), this study examines the relationship among the various dimensions of collaborative communication and meaningfulness and novelty of new product creativity, which in turn, contribute to new product performance. The use of ICT as a moderator is also included to further explore its impact on whether and how it affects the relationship between collaborative communication and new product creativity. Although only a few hypotheses are supported, certain interesting findings and insights are revealed.
First, it is confirmed that only the meaningfulness of new product creativity contributes to new product performance and rationality demonstrates its positive influence on the meaningfulness of new product creativity. This chain of results makes sense as consumers would not purchase the product if it did not meet their expectations [74] or serve the purpose that is related to the product’s functions, quality, design, price point, and/or brand name. Second, another chain of supported hypotheses is also found. Informal communication has a positive impact on the novelty of new product creativity and the use of ICT strengthens this relationship. This result is also reasonable as many creative and novel ideas can pop out from anywhere at any time. Many novel ideas and concepts can be generated through informal settings such as during a lunch break, corridor chat, or even in an elevator while having a casual conversation. Nevertheless, a novel product does not convert to actual sales if it is unpractical. This has aligned with past studies that new product creativity in terms of novelty does not always prove its influence on new product performance.
Interestingly, all four control variables reveal associations with both meaningfulness and novelty of new product creativity as well as new product performance in this study. Specifically, cross-functional integration exhibits a positive relationship to both the meaningfulness and novelty of new product creativity as well as new product performance, which confirmed the same finding from many past studies. In addition, both green products and product safety indicate an influence on the novelty of new product creativity. In reality, this makes sense as developing green or safe products often requires out-of-box thinking to come up with novel ideas to accomplish the safety standards as well as protect the environment. Convenience also demonstrates a significant relationship with the meaningfulness of new product creativity and is a genuine claim. Granted, consumers usually only buy the products/services that meet their needs when they are easy to use and easy to set up.

5.1. Theoretical Implications

For companies of any size, collaborative communication is considered a critical resource. In practice, having good, seamless, and clear communications inside-out and outside-in, top-down, and vice versa is important. Faster and effective communication can drive better results because it can reduce new product development lead-time, minimize misunderstanding, eliminate mistakes, etc. Although not all facets of collaborative communication enhance new product creativity and only meaningfulness of new product creativity supports new product performance, the results have enhanced the resource-based view theory from a different perspective that both human and organizational capital resources are equally important to a company’s success. Based on these findings, the meaningfulness of new product creativity and cross-functional integration contribute their significance to new product performance while rationality and informal communication, as part of the collaborative communication mechanisms, are critical to the novelty of new product creativity and the use of ICT justifies its moderating impact. In sum, the applicability of the resource-based view used in this empirical study is confirmed. Different facets of collaborative communication including the deployment of ICT empower people to communicate openly and freely has been shown to generate new ideas and insights. Without the seamless integration of cross-functional teams, information and knowledge exchange and sharing are unlikely, which could disrupt the success of new product development and, hence, overall performance.

5.2. Practical Implications

In today’s business setting, global-based cross-functional teams are common for many organizations. This study has demonstrated the importance of cross-functional integration and a few collaborative communication tools that embrace new product creativity and new product performance. NPD team members should emphasize rationality, informal communication, and convenience when designing new products. Recognition and award systems could be considered to reward those who come up with creative product ideas and designs that contribute to the best-selling products/services. Further, for any company, talent is their best asset and good human resource management (HRM) is important as high turnover can be time-consuming and costly. To retain good employees and nurture good teamwork and spirit, it could be helpful to establish various on-the-job training programs and job rotation with relocation programs. It could be a win-win strategy as employees would feel a sense of belonging and recognize the company is willing to invest in them and build a career path for them. Turnover is then likely to be reduced so the HR team can put resources in other areas to continue to help build a strong team and company.

6. Limitations and Future Research Suggestions

There are several limitations that need to be addressed in this research study. First, there is the generalizability issue as this research is based on only one company and one industry. Although the company chosen is a multinational corporation with various worldwide offices that are heavily involved in NPD, further research should invite more multinational companies across different industries to participate. Furthermore, as the majority of the respondents in this study are based in China, results could be biased so that respondents from different locations should be spread evenly for future studies.
Second, some new products require two to three years to develop, and the respondents may forget those conversations and collaborations with other team members. Ideally, future research should collect data at various periods during the new product development to measure the new product’s performance.
Third, since few collaborative communication dimensions confirm their associations with new product creativity and only the meaningfulness of new product creativity contributes to new product performance; cross-functional integration as the control variable demonstrates its significant impact upon the meaningfulness and novelty of new product creativity, as well as the new product performance. We believe future studies should consider including cross-functional integration as an independent variable to combine with the collaborative communication dimension so as to verify their interactive impacts on new product creativity and new product performance as a whole.
Fourth, it is really important to consider emotional intelligence in knowledge sharing. The study by Mura et al. [75] states: “Employees of the company do not share their knowledge to remain irreplaceable and would not like to benefit other employees”. “Managers need to figure out how to persuade their employees to share their knowledge”. According to their results, the level of emotional intelligence influences the willingness to share knowledge. It would have been interesting to explore this aspect as well.
Finally, the problem of common method bias may exist as the data were self-reported [76] and collected at one time with one method through email [77]. Although common method bias is not significant in our research, to address such a potential bias issue, future research should consider using multiple methods (focus groups, direct observation, or log files) and longitudinal research designs in a future study to avoid causality relationships among the constructs, as longitudinal data allows researchers to examine the causality of the hypothesized relationship.

7. Conclusions

All innovation begins with creative ideas, as there is no innovation without creativity. In response to today’s rapidly changing marketplace and growing competition, developing new products has become a key factor in the success and survival of organizations. Regarding organizations, much of their success depends on new product creativity and the company’s ability to materialize creativity into successful new products. In this study, we adopted a resource-based view to investigate how different collaborative communication tools could impact new product creativity and if the use of ICT may also influence such association, in turn, leading to new product performance. The results indicate that rationality and informal communication enhance the meaningfulness and novelty of new product creativity, respectively, and only meaningful products contribute to new product performance. Along this line, our study also uncovers that cross-functional integration made a significant impact on new product creativity and new product performance. This finding confirms human capital is a crucial asset to any company and the importance of seamless collaboration and cooperation among cross-functional teams is golden. As Helen Keller once quoted “Alone, we can do so little, together, we can do so much!”.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization H.M.H.C. and V.W.S.C.; methodology H.M.H.C. and V.W.S.C.; validation H.M.H.C. and V.W.S.C.; formal analysis H.M.H.C. and V.W.S.C.; investigation H.M.H.C. and V.W.S.C.; resources H.M.H.C. and V.W.S.C.; data curation H.M.H.C.; writing—original draft preparation H.M.H.C.; writing—review and editing H.M.H.C. and V.W.S.C.; supervision, V.W.S.C. project administration, H.M.H.C.; funding acquisition H.M.H.C. and V.W.S.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (Doctor of Business Administration, November 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Amabile, T.M.; Conti, R.; Coon, H.; Lazenby, J.; Herron, M. Assessing the work environment for creativity. Acad Manag. J. 1996, 39, 1154–1184. [Google Scholar]
  2. Katz, D. The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behav. Sci. 1964, 9, 131–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Amabile, T.M. The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1983, 45, 357–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Griffin, A.; Hauser, J.R. Integrating R&D and marketing: A review and analysis of the literature. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 1996, 13, 191–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Hultink, E.J.; Griffin, A.; Robben, H.S.; Hart, S. In search of generic launch strategies for new products. Int. J. Res. Mark. 1998, 15, 269–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Tu, C. Balancing exploration and exploitation capabilities in high technology firms: A multi-source multi-context examination. Ind. Mark Manag. 2010, 39, 672–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Yang, Y.H.; Liu, C.C.; Chen, H.H. Music emotion classification: A fuzzy approach. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, MM ’06, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, 23–27 October 2006; pp. 81–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Song, X.M.; Parry, M.E. A Cross-National Comparative Study of New Product Development Processes: Japan and the United States. J. Mark. 1997, 61, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chen, C.; Huang, J. Strategic human resource practices and innovation performance—The mediating role of knowledge management capacity. J. Bus Res. 2009, 62, 104–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Griffin, A. PDMA research on new product development practices: Updating trends and benchmarking best practices. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 1997, 14, 429–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chulvi, V.; Mulet, E.; Felip, F.; García-García, C. The effect of information and communication technologies on creativity in collaborative design. Res. Eng. Des. 2017, 28, 7–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Thompson, G.; Lordan, M. A review of creativity principles applied to engineering design. Proc. Inst. Mech Eng. Part. E J. Process. Mech Eng. 1999, 213, 17–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Van der Lugt, R. Functions of sketching in design idea generation meetings. In Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Creativity & Cognition, C&C ’02, Loughborough, UK, 13–16 October 2002; pp. 72–79. [Google Scholar]
  14. Burroughs, J.E.; Dahl, D.W.; Moreau, C.P.; Chattopadhyay, A.; Gorn, G.J. Facilitating and Rewarding Creativity During New Product Development. J. Mark. 2011, 75, 53–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Lopez-Mesa, B.; Mulet, E.; Vidal, R.; Thompson, G. Effects of additional stimuli on idea-finding in design teams. J. Eng. Des. 2011, 22, 31–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Leenders, R.; Van Engelen, J.M.; Kratzer, J. Virtuality, communication, and new product team creativity: A social network perspective. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 2003, 20, 69–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sonnenburg, S. Creativity in Communication: A Theoretical Framework for Collaborative Product Creation. Creat Innov. Manag. 2004, 13, 254–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Pagell, M. Understanding the factors that enable and inhibit the integration of operations, purchasing and logistics. J. Oper. Manag. 2004, 22, 459–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Page, A. Assessing New Product Development Practices And Performance—Establishing Crucial Norms. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 1993, 10, 273–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Crawford, C.M.; Di Benedetto, C.A. New Products Management; Tata McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  21. Priem, R.L.; Butler, J.E. Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic management research? Acad. Manag. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2001, 26, 22–40. [Google Scholar]
  22. Barney, J. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 99–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Wong, D.; Ngai, E. Critical review of supply chain innovation research (1999–2016). Ind. Mark. Manag. 2019, 82, 158–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wernerfelt, B. A resource—Based view of the firm. Strateg. Manag. J. 1984, 5, 171–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Makadok, R. Interfirm differences in scale economies and the evolution of market shares. Strateg. Manag. J. 1999, 20, 935–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Prahalad, C.; Hamel, G. Control change, and flexibility: The dilemma of transnational collaboration. In International Business; Bartlett Al Manag Glob. Firm Op Cit.; Routledge: London, UK, 1990; pp. 117–143. [Google Scholar]
  27. Khanchanapong, T.; Prajogo, D.; Sohal, A.S.; Cooper, B.K.; Yeung, A.C.; Cheng, T.C.E. The unique and complementary effects of manufacturing technologies and lean practices on manufacturing operational performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2014, 153, 191–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Griffin, A.; Page, A.L. An interim report on measuring product development success and failure. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 1993, 10, 291–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Chiu, C.M.; Hsu, M.H.; Wang, E.T. Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decis. Support. Syst. 2006, 42, 1872–1888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Millson, M.R.; Wilemon, D. Driving new product success in the electrical equipment manufacturing industry. Technovation 2006, 26, 1268–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Clark, B.H. Managerial perceptions of marketing performance: Efficiency, adaptability, effectiveness and satisfaction. J. Strateg. Mark. 2000, 8, 3–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sethi, R.; Smith, D.C.; Park, C.W. Cross-functional product development teams, creativity, and the innovativeness of new consumer products. J. Mark. Res. 2001, 38, 73–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Calantone, R.; Evanschitzky, H.; Eisend, M.; Jiang, Y. Success Factors of Product Innovation: An Updated Meta-Analysis. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2012, 29, 21. [Google Scholar]
  34. Mckinley, W.; Latham, S.; Braun, M. Organizational Decline and Innovation: Turnarounds and Downward Spirals. Acad Manage. Rev. 2014, 39, 88–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Calantone, R.J.; Di Benedetto, A.; Rubera, G. Launch activities and timing in new product development. J. Glob. Sch. Mark. Sci. 2018, 28, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kim, N.; Im, S.; Slater, S.F. Impact of knowledge type and strategic orientation on new product creativity and advantage in high-technology firms. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2013, 30, 136–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Chang, N.J.; Fong, C.M. Green product quality, green corporate image, green customer satisfaction, and green customer loyalty. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 2010, 4, 2836–2844. [Google Scholar]
  38. Pullen, A.; De Weerd-Nederhof, P.C.; Groen, A.J.; Fisscher, O.A.M. SME Network Characteristics vs. Product Innovativeness: How to Achieve High Innovation Performance. Creat Innov. Manag. 2012, 21, 130–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Salge, T.O.; Farchi, T.; Barrett, M.I.; Dopson, S. When does search openness really matter? A contingency study of health-care innovation projects. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2013, 30, 659–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gao, G.Y.; Xie, E.; Zhou, K.Z. How does technological diversity in supplier network drive buyer innovation? Relational process and contingencies. J. Oper. Manag. 2015, 36, 165–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Im, S.; Workman, J.P., Jr. Market Orientation, Creativity, and New Product Performance in High-Technology Firms. J. Mark. 2004, 68, 114–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Rubera, G.; Ordanini, A.; Griffith, D.A. Incorporating cultural values for understanding the influence of perceived product creativity on intention to buy: An examination in Italy and the US. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2011, 42, 459–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hargadon, A.; Sutton, R.I. Technology Brokering and Innovation in a Product Development Firm. Adm. Sci. Q. 1997, 42, 716–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Eisingerich, A.B.; Rubera, G. Drivers of brand commitment: A cross-national investigation. J. Int. Mark. 2010, 18, 64–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Li, G.; Zhang, R.; Wang, C. The Role of Product Originality, Usefulness and Motivated Consumer Innovativeness in New Product Adoption Intentions. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2015, 32, 214–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Gatignon, H.; Xuereb, J.M. Strategic orientation of the firm new product performance. JMR J. Mark. Res. 1997, 34, 77–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Joshi, A. Continuous Supplier Performance Improvement: Effects of Collaborative Communication and Control. J. Mark. 2009, 73, 133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Cantner, U.; Meder, A.; Wolf, T. Success and failure of firms’ innovation co-operations: The role of intermediaries and reciprocity (Report). Pap. Reg. Sci. 2011, 90, 313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Payan, J.; Mcfarland, R. Decomposing influence strategies: Argument structure and dependence as determinants of the effectiveness of influence strategies in gaining channel member compliance. J. Mark. 2005, 69, 66–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Hoegl, M.; Wagner, S.M. Buyer-Supplier Collaboration in Product Development Projects. J. Manag. 2005, 31, 530–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Chen, Y.C.; Li, P.C.; Arnold, T.J. Effects of collaborative communication on the development of market-relating capabilities and relational performance metrics in industrial markets. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2013, 42, 1181–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Mohr, J.; Fisher, R.; Nevin, J.R. Collaborative Communication in Interfirm Relationships: Moderating Effects of Integration and Control. J. Mark. 1996, 60, 103–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Brockman, B.K.; Rawlston, M.E.; Jones, M.A.; Halstead, D. An Exploratory Model of Interpersonal Cohesiveness in New Product Development Teams. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2010, 27, 201–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Sivadas, E.; Dwyer, F. An examination of organizational factors influencing new product success in internal and alliance-based processes. J. Mark. 2000, 64, 31–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Noordhoff, C.S.; Kyriakopoulos, K.; Moorman, C.; Pauwels, P.; Dellaert, B. The bright-side and dark-side effects of embedded ties in business-to-business innovation. J. Mark. 2011, 75, 34–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Felekoglu, B.; Maier, A.M.; Moultrie, J. Interactions in new product development: How the nature of the NPD process influences interaction between teams and management. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 2013, 30, 384–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Scott, C.R.; Lewis, L.K.; Barker, J.R.; Keyton, J.; Kuhn, T.; Turner, P.K. The International Encyclopedia of Organizational Communication; John Wiley & Sons: Malden, MA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  58. Kraut, R.E.; Fish, R.S.; Root, R.W.; Chalfonte, B.L. Informal communication in organizations: Form, function, and technology. In Reading in Groupware and Computer-Supported Cooperative Work; Baecker, R.M., Ed.; Morgan Kaufmann: Burlington, MA, USA, 1993; pp. 287–314. [Google Scholar]
  59. Silva, C.; Mathrani, S.; Jayamaha, N. The role of ICT in collaborative product development: A conceptual model based on information processing theory. Int. J. Innov. Manag. Technol. 2014, 5, 43–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Brown, S.L.; Eisenhardt, K.M. Product development: Past research, present findings, and future directions. Acad Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 343–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Troy, L.C.; Hirunyawipada, T.; Paswan, A.K. Cross-functional integration and new product success: An empirical investigation of the findings. J. Mark. 2008, 72, 132–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Henard, D.; Szymanski, D. Why some new products are more successful than others. J. Mark. Res. 2001, 38, 362–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Leenders, M.; Gemser, G. Managing Cross-Functional Cooperation for New Product Development Success. Long Range Plann. 2011, 44, 26–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Karmarkar, U.S. Integrative research in marketing and operations management. J. Mark. Res. 1996, 33, 125–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Swink, M.; Song, M. Effects of marketing-manufacturing integration on new product development time and competitive advantage. J. Oper. Manag. 2007, 25, 203–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Tsai, K.H.; Hsu, T.T. Cross-Functional collaboration, competitive intensity, knowledge integration mechanisms, and new product performance: A mediated moderation model. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2014, 43, 293–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Yu, W.; Ramanathan, R.; Nath, P. The impacts of marketing and operations capabilities on financial performance in the UK retail sector: A resource-based perspective. Spec. Issue Integr. Mark. Oper Bus. Sustain. 2014, 43, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Machová, R.; Ambrus, R.; Zsigmond, T.; Bakó, F. The Impact of Green Marketing on Consumer Behavior in the Market of Palm Oil Products. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Peattie, K.; Ratnayaka, M. Responding to the green movement. Ind. Mark. Manag. 1992, 21, 103–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Hart, S.L. A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Acad Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 986–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Yale, L.; Venkatesh, A. Toward the construct of convenience in consumer research. ACR N. Am. Adv. 1986, 13, 403–408. [Google Scholar]
  72. Jones, P.; Comfort, D.; Hillier, D. Retailing fair trade food products in the UK. Br. Food J. 2003, 105, 800–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Nottage, L.R. Suppliers’ Duties to Report Product-Related Accidents under the New’Australian Consumer Law’: A Comparative Critique. Commer Law Q. 2011, 25, 3–14. [Google Scholar]
  74. Nakata, C.; Rubera, G.; Im, S.; Pae, J.H.; Lee, H.J.; Onzo, N.; Park, H. New Product Creativity Antecedents and Consequences: Evidence from South Korea, Japan, and China. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2018, 35, 939–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Mura, L.; Zsigmond, T.; Machová, R. The effects of emotional intelligence and ethics of SME employees on knowledge sharing in Central-European countries. Oeconomia Copernic. 2021, 12, 907–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Podsakoff, N.P. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012, 63, 539–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Straub, D.; Limayem, M.; Karahanna-Evaristo, E. Measuring system usage: Implications for IS theory testing. Manag. Sci. 1995, 41, 1328–1342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 04626 g001 550
Figure 1. The conceptual framework.
Figure 1. The conceptual framework.
Sustainability 14 04626 g001
Sustainability 14 04626 g002 550
Figure 2. Path analysis results. # p < 0.10 Low evidence against the null hypothesis in favour of the alternative; *** p < 0.001 Very Strong evidence against the null hypothesis in favour of the alternative.
Figure 2. Path analysis results. # p < 0.10 Low evidence against the null hypothesis in favour of the alternative; *** p < 0.001 Very Strong evidence against the null hypothesis in favour of the alternative.
Sustainability 14 04626 g002
Sustainability 14 04626 g003 550
Figure 3. Diagram of the results based on the model framework.
Figure 3. Diagram of the results based on the model framework.
Sustainability 14 04626 g003
Table
Table 1. Regression analyses.
Table 1. Regression analyses.
Model 1Model 2Model 3
(Testing H6a)		Model 4
(Testing H6b)		Model 5
(Testing H7)		Model 6
(Testing H8)		Model 7
(Testing H9)
Main EffectBase LineR_F × MNFR_F × ICT > NVTRNT × ICT > MNFF_C × ICT > MNFI_C × ICT > NVT
Stand
EST.		pStand EST.pStand EST.pStand EST.pStand EST.pStand EST.pStand EST.p
Direct EffectMNF > NPP0.455***0.452***0.702***0.451***0.719***0.626***0.451***
NVT > NPP–0.0780.279–0.0800.263–0.0720.232–0.0880.208–0.0690.237–0.0740.247–0.0870.209
R_F > MNF0.0600.3630.0650.3240.140***0.0680.3060.0520.1070.079*0.0670.313
R_F > NVT0.0640.3990.0770.2990.0850.2410.113#0.0830.2560.0840.2520.0790.234
RNT > MNF0.119#0.126#0.059#0.129#0.120***0.0560.1680.130#
F_C > MNF0.0320.6390.0370.5890.0250.4910.0390.5670.0060.8550.083*0.0400.560
I_C > NVT0.244**0.264***0.269***0.244***0.269***0.268***0.223**
ICT > MNF –0.0620.423–0.742***–0.0850.270–0.755***–0.679***–0.0850.265
ICT > NVT –0.155#–0.208**–0.439***–0.203**–0.191*–0.456***
Control VariableGRN > MNF–0.0130.844–0.0030.970–0.0280.4370.0000.999–0.0250.442–0.0460.2590.0000.996
GRN > NVT0.142#0.166*0.169*0.142*0.168*0.167*0.135*
GRN > NPP–0.0520.433–0.0520.440–0.0410.453–0.0520.437–0.0400.452–0.0450.448–0.0520.434
CON > MNF0.608***0.596***0.275***0.590***0.268***0.352***0.590***
CON > NVT0.0950.2650.0640.4380.0180.8200.0280.7060.0160.8440.0230.7760.0330.654
CON > NPP0.0740.4770.0780.4460.0520.3970.0800.4310.0580.3260.0760.2700.0800.432
CFI > MNF0.252***0.264***0.151***0.269***0.148***0.170***0.270***
CFI > NVT0.0970.2030.123#0.133#0.121#0.133#0.130#0.113#
CFI > NPP0.287***0.288***0.232***0.287***0.226***0.253***0.287***
SAF > MNF–0.0880.201–0.0870.211–0.0410.255–0.0860.216–0.0360.287–0.0670.109–0.0870.210
SAF > NVT0.261***0.261***0.277***0.241***0.278***0.275***0.224***
SAF > NPP0.0740.2900.0740.2930.0650.2570.0730.2960.0610.2760.0640.3060.0730.296
Moderation EffectR_F × ICT - > MNF 0.584***
R_F × ICT - > NVT 0.235***
RNT × ICT - > MNF 0.599***
F_C × ICT - > MNF 0.551***
I_C × ICT - > NVT 0.274***
# p < 0.10 Low evidence against the null hypothesis in favour of the alternative; * p < 0.05 Moderate evidence against the null hypothesis in favour of the alternative; ** p < 0.01 Strong evidence against the null hypothesis in favour of the alternative; *** p < 0.001 Very Strong evidence against the null hypothesis in favour of the alternative
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chan, H.M.H.; Cho, V.W.S. An Empirical Study: The Impact of Collaborative Communications on New Product Creativity That Contributes to New Product Performance. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4626. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084626

AMA Style

Chan HMH, Cho VWS. An Empirical Study: The Impact of Collaborative Communications on New Product Creativity That Contributes to New Product Performance. Sustainability. 2022; 14(8):4626. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084626

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chan, Henry M. H., and Vincent W. S. Cho. 2022. "An Empirical Study: The Impact of Collaborative Communications on New Product Creativity That Contributes to New Product Performance" Sustainability 14, no. 8: 4626. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084626

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop