Discussion Paper No. 6
Research into Ambidextrous R&D
in Product Development New Product Development
at a Precision Device Maker
Mitsuru Kodama
Tomoatsu Shibata
May 2013

発行年月

Data Science and Service Research
Discussion Paper

Center for Data Science and Service Research
Graduate School of Economic and Management
Tohoku University27-1 Kawauchi, Aobaku
Sendai 980-8576, JAPANResearch into Ambidextrous R&D in Product Development
New Product Development at a Precision Device Maker

Mitsuru Kodama, Ph.D.
Professor of Information and Management,College of Commerce and Graduate School of Business Administration,
Nihon University
andTomoatsu Shibata, Ph.D.
Professor of Innovation Management,
Graduate School of Economics and Management,
Tohoku University
Abstract
Through research into new product development processes at a precision device maker, thispaper discusses the skilful management of knowledge boundaries that lie between variousorganizations, and between specialized human skills and functions that make up a project
organization, and presents the ways in which new organizational capabilities are brought about
for the development of new products, as exploratory activities that dynamically merge andintegrated the various knowledge within a company. This paper describes some of theimplications derived from analysis and observations of the new organizational forms of thecompany’s ambidextrous R&D management which the company uses to engage in both
‘uncertainty management (exploration)’ and ‘existing product management (exploitation),’through the partnering of its existing formal organizations and dynamic structuring of diverse
multifunctional teams formed as projects spanning different specializations and capabilities.

11. Introduction
In knowledge firms, the diverse knowledge that human beings have is a resource that can giverise to valuable, new and competitive products, services and business models (e.g., Kodama,2011). The research question of this paper is “What kind of management is executed incompanies that not only maintain competitiveness with their core products, but are able tocontinually develop new and superior products?”
This question arrives back at classic research questions (March, 1991) as to how‘exploration’ and ‘exploitation’ should be combined. R&D companies in particular must achieve
innovative new products through the acquisition of new knowledge and capabilities to ensure
growth over the long-term, while at the same time, these companies must also ensureprofitability in the short term by raising the level of efficiency and reliability of existingproducts and so on.
The dilemma posed by these different corporate activities of exploration and exploitation
remains as an important research theme in present-day innovation and technology management.
The message from existing research is in its implications for improving corporate performanceby maintaining an appropriate balance between exploratory and exploitative activities (e.g.,
McCarthy and Gordon, 2011: Ahn, et al., 2006: Kodama, 2009: Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004)
and in the promoting of synergies between exploratory and exploitative activities (He and Wong,
2004). From the viewpoint of organizational theory however, ‘ambidextrous organizations’(organizations that operate along 2 fronts) (Tushman and O’Reilly, 1996) have been reported tobe the best organizational systems for combining exploration and exploitation and succeed in
exploratory activities to develop new businesses.
Of course, exploratory activities aimed at new product development present challenges for acompany in maintaining its competitiveness. Many high-tech corporations in high-risk
industries are directly faced with the challenges of executing imaginative and efficientmanagement to develop new products and services where markets, technologies and thecompetitive landscape are rapidly changing (uncertainty of success, development costs etc).
One solution that many high-tech companies have used to promote their exploratory activities is
to flatten company hierarchies and form cross-functional teams (CFTs) and project-basedorganizations with a high degree of organizational integration, into which these companies
invest resources for new product development. Although market conditions and the state oftechnology is contingent to successful new product development with project-basedorganizations or CFTs, it has been reported that a high level of organizational integration is aneffective method of product development when attempting to develop new products in suchrisky or uncertain circumstances (e.g. Gemser and Leenders, 2011).
Multinational corporations (MNCs) (e.g., Forsgren, 1997; Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1989;2

Nohria and ghoshal, 1997) create project-based organizations as horizontally integratedorganizational structures that are more flexible and flatter than the hierarchies in conventionalorganizational systems (e.g., Child and McGrath, 2001; Child and Rodrigues, 2003). In highly
volatile markets and fluctuating technological circumstances, these flexible and autonomous
project-based organizations are a suitable organizational system for integrating knowledge both
inside and outside the company to bring about new products, services and business models(e.g.,Lundin and Midler, 1998; Hobday, 2000; DeFillipi, 2002; Lindqvist, 2004). In thesesystems, project team members work towards common objectives by collaborating under a fixed
timetable (e.g. Henrie and Sousa-Poza, 2005).
As an organizational form, the project team has been applied in a wide range of industries todate. Classic examples include the construction business (e.g., Gann and Salter, 1998), IT andcommunications industries (e.g., Kodama, 1999), the automotive industry (e.g., Clark andFujimoto, 1991), media industries (e.g., Windeler and Sydow, 2001; DeFillippi and Arthur,1998) and consultancy and service businesses (e.g., Alvesson, 1995).
Essentially, as temporary organizations, project-based organizations are formed from specialist
staff within a company, who work together over a fixed time period, and are on a mission tobring about new products in response to specific customer demands. However, in organizations
like consultancy firms in which there is hardly any routine business, the entire company can bethought of as a collection of project-based organizations.
There is a wealth of accumulated research into project-based organizations (e.g., Turner,
1999; DeFillippi, 2001; Sydow, Lindkvist and DeFillippi, 2004) and diversity among theorists
regarding related terminology.
Firstly, project-based organizations consist of individual functions and resources both insideand outside of the company (for development, manufacturing and sales etc), and there aredifferent systems for executing business between project-based organizations and existingorganizations (Hobday, 1998, 2000; Prencip and Tell, 2001). Secondly, in order to meet thegreatest challenges facing large corporations (projects to improve business efficiency, newproduct development projects etc), members of established organizations are temporarily
brought together as a project team in which team members take charge of executing business(e.g., Midler, 1995; Keegan and Turner, 2002). Thirdly, there are matrix systems in which teammembers participate in additional projects while performing their main business duties in their
existing organizations (e.g., Galbraith, 1969). And fourthly, there are systems in which
project-based organizations are formed unofficially by members of existing organizations both
inside and outside of the company (e.g., Kodama, 2005).
Although there are some meanings and terms described for these various project-basedorganizations, for the purposes of this paper, these are redefined as just project-based3

organizations.
Through research conducted into new product development processes at Japanese company
Mabuchi Motor, this paper describes the dexterous management of the project-basedorganizations that the company forms across the knowledge boundaries between different
organizations and human skills and capabilities, and presents the ways that new organizational
capabilities are brought forth by dynamically merging and fusing the diverse knowledge insideof the company as “exploratory activities” to develop new products. This paper also observes
and analyses the tiered organizational structures of Mabuchi’s ambidextrous R&D that enable
the company to dually engage in “uncertainty management (exploration)” and “existing productmanagement (exploitation),” by dynamically linking diverse skills and capabilities as various
project-based organizations formed from its existing official organizations.
The structure of this paper is as follows: Firstly the paper reviews the existing research into
project-based organizations. Secondly the paper describes the research methodology used.
Thirdly, the paper presents a theoretical framework. Fourthly, the paper describes and analyses
the case study of the processes of new product development at Mabuchi Motor. Section 5
describes observations from the case study. Finally, the paper describes new insights andimplications that can be derived from the research.
2. Literature Review
2.1 The Characteristics of Project-based organizations
Terminology describing project-based organizations has been expressed with the following
words: “A project is a temporary organization to which resources are assigned to undertake aunique, novel and transient endeavor managing the inherent uncertainty and need for integrationin order to deliver beneficial objectives of change” (Turner and Miller, 2003, p.7) and“Project-based organizations refer to a variety of organizational forms that involve the creationof temporary systems for the performance of project tasks. ” (Sydow, Lindkvist and Defillippi,
2004, p.1475)
Project-based organizations are effective exploratory mechanisms for facing challenging new
and high-risk products, or dealing with new issues as they surface, but because project-basedorganizations are formed to execute specific business tasks, they are usually temporary andspecially formulated organizations.
This is not always the case however, especially in Japanese corporations. For example, there
are companies that adopt project-based organizations as organizations charged with exploratory
activities aimed at driving strategy into the future. Also in Japanese corporations, project-basedorganizations are not only formed as official organizations, but are also formed informally as
ad-hoc project-based organizations through unofficial networks across functional organizations
4

(Kodama, 2007).
Not only can project-based organizations be interpreted as simply existing as closed
organizations within a company or between the company and certain customers, but also asorganizations formed across wide-ranging networks between companies that include customers,
group companies and partners (these can appropriately be called project networks). Accordingly,
as well is the idea of projects existing as temporary, autonomous and closed systems, this paper
also describes project-based organizations as “organizational structures optimized to formulate
and execute future strategies, and achieve particular business objectives through the merging
and coordination of resources and capabilities that exist both inside and outside of the company,
including its customers.”
The following section describes some of the important differences between projects inwestern companies and projects in Japanese companies.
In existing academic research that has focused on western companies, projects are seen as afavorable method that should be adopted to bring about innovation (e.g. Hobday, 2000; Lundin
and Midler, 1998). In contrast however, since the majority of project-based organizations aretemporary organizations, it has been pointed out that there is often insufficient accumulation ofknowledge within project themselves, and that there are difficulties with organizational learning
through transferring and sharing of knowledge with other project-based organizations orexisting organizations (e.g. DeFillippi, 2001; Keegan and Turner, 2001; Grabher, 2002; Newell
et al, 2003; Prencipe and Tell, 2001; Middleton, 1967). This means that the difficulties intransferring and sharing knowledge smoothly with other organizations is due to some degree of
constraints arising with “exploitative activities” for improving and upgrading new products
where related technical skills and know-how must be shared with other organizations(organizations other than those whose members are engaged in the product development
project).
How do project-based organizations in Japanese companies deal with this problem?
In comparisons made with western companies to date, research has verified that Japanesecompanies encourage mutual learning, knowledge transfer and sharing among project-basedorganizations and between project-based organizations and existing organizations (e.g., Kodama,2011). Therefore, regarding the aforementioned proposition that the nature of projects in thesekinds of Japanese companies is characterized by sustained new product development(exploration), combined with the strengthening of existing products (exploitation), this paper
aims to present a new framework that can have beneficial effects.
Following is a general review of the organizational systems of project-based organizations
identified to date.

5

2.2 Communities of Practice and Collectives of PracticeFirstly, here are a few observations about the organizational forms that are intrinsically related
to the framework of a project-based organization. In recent research, Lindkvist (2005) compared
and analyzed knowledge activity typologies of communities of practice (Wenger, 1998) andidentified characteristics of new organizational behaviors of temporary projects. Just as Wenger(1998) stated, a project is clearly different from a community of practice. A community ofpractice is a group formed from actors with similar specializations and capabilities within thecompany. These groups are basically characterized as learning communities (Lave and Wenger,
1991; Brown and Duguid, 1991; Orr, 1996) consisting of groups of specialists in the same field(i.e. actors who specialize in sales, development, production etc).
A community of practice has no dependency on any specific personal knowledge. The
members of these groups create and share a consistent knowledge base among themselves
through gently-paced and sustained cooperative endeavors, and knowledge accumulated throughsustained learning in communities of practice has advantages for organizational growth. In thesecommunities, the knowledge boundaries between actors (Brown and Duguid, 2001), who are in
the same areas of specialization and perform similar functions, are comparatively small, andcommunity members also operate in similar thought worlds (Dougherty, 1992).
Furthermore, these communities are mainly concerned with routine and daily business, andso do not have to deal with high levels of novelty or uncertainty. Thus, there is not muchconflict or friction between the actors in these communities. As members bring forth and deeply
share new meaning from their day-to-day business routines, they encourage gradualimprovements and upgrade activities through learning. In other words, they engage in
exploitative activities.
However in contrast to communities of practice, members of project-based organizations
gather together from a diverse range of specializations. Lindkvist (2005, p.1190) has observedthat organizational behaviors in projects are as follows: “Typically, such temporaryorganizations or groups within firms consist of people, most of whom have not met before, whohave to engage in swift socialization and carry out a pre-specific task within set limits as to timeand costs. Moreover, they comprise a mix of individuals with highly specialized competences,making it difficult to establish shared understandings or a common knowledge base. Such atransient group, I suggest, operates more like a ‘collectivity of practice.’”
As far as objectives are concerned, projects are highly autonomous. Notably projects havestrict time limits in which to reach their goals, and thus in contrast to communities of practice,they do not have sufficient time to learn by accumulating and sharing knowledge by spendingtime on new behaviors. Therefore, projects are strongly dependent on the individual knowledge
and capabilities of their team members.
6Projects do not depend on common values and knowledge like communities of practice, rather,
project members have to perform their jobs based on the highly dispersed personal knowledgeof the team members, while project leaders are under particular pressure to provide coordinationthat merges and unifies the unique knowledge and capabilities of the individual team members.
As a result, when the project is over and the team disbands, individual members walk away withmore accumulated and personal knowledge. However, this knowledge doesn’t seem to be easilytransferred or shared with other projects or other existing organizations.
There are actual cases of projects that are as follows: Once a project for a particular client
has finished, and the project disbands, it has been suggested that organizational learning
becomes difficult within the project, between projects and between projects and existingorganizations (e.g. DeFillippi, 2001; Keegan and Turner, 2001; Grabher, 2002; Newell et al,
2003; Prencipe and Tell, 2001; Middleton, 1967). However, once the results of the project havebeen deployed by the client, it is no good if the client company and the project company bothsay “great! That’s that! Finished!” because in IT systems or large-scale systems for instance,
there will be a substantial amount of follow-up with maintenance and upgrading, and as such,some project members who were involved right from the beginning will have to continue towork on the product (because these are the people who have the technical skills and know-how,and remember the circumstances and details of the project).
This type of progression is an example of moving from exploratory activities at the outset to
exploitative activities later on. Depending on the type of project, if there are cases that continue
as they are in the form of a project, then there should be cases where control of projects istransferred to existing organizations, but this all depends on organizational operations in theindividual company or on the human resources available in the company at the time.
Business people involved in ‘collectives of practice’ must face the large knowledge boundaries
and varied thought worlds across their differing capabilities and areas of specialization, andbecause of greater factors of novelty and uncertainty, project-based organizations are places
where big conflicts and friction can occur easily.
Figure 1 illustrates communities of practice and collectives of practice like these with axes
describing the size of knowledge boundaries between actors, the level of conflict and friction
between actors, and the differences of thought worlds that the actors have.
In communities of practice, actors who have knowledge of similar capabilities andspecializations (actors with small knowledge boundaries between themselves) also share asimilar thought world, and engage in business practices through deep dialogue and collaboration(low levels of friction and conflict between actors) based on common contexts and meanings,
and then embed new knowledge in their group or organization as it arises.
In contrast, collectives of practice are characterized by knowledge of dissimilar
7

specializations (large knowledge boundaries exist among actors, and as a result there is greater
conflict and friction) and actors coming from different thought worlds. Collaboration andcoordination in these communities is based on a bare minimum of shared and common
knowledge. Thus, through the fusion of individual specializations in collectives of practice,
results are delivered as new explicit knowledge - new objectives reached.
Characteristically, communities of practice and collectives of practice also involve
completely opposite ways of thinking.
As a simple classification of these types of organizations, groups such as divisions,departments or sections with similar functions or specializations within a company can be said
to be communities of practice, while temporary projects can be said to be collectives of practice.
However, is it really possible to describe all projects in a company as collectives of practice?
In recalling experiences as a project manager and leaders, we found that there was even more
complexity to real-life organizational systems, including project-based organizations charged
with executing various strategies.
Based on existing research into the above project-based organizations, the theoreticalframework described by this paper is explained as a new organizational concept called “teamsof boundaries (ToB).” The research question as to the extent to which exploration andexploitation can be combined in this theoretical framework also ties in with the discussion about
the way an organizational system should be in order to combine ‘uncertainty management(exploration)’ and ‘existing product management (exploitation).’

3. Research Methodology and Data Collection
Due to the exploratory nature of this research and interest in identifying the main people, events,
activities, and influences that affect the progress of innovation, in the methodological approachchosen for this study, we adopted a qualitative, in-depth case study. This study enabled us to collectrich data and generate theoretical categories that we could not derive satisfactorily from existing
theory. By developing a theory using case studies, the researcher is able to initiate the study as close
as possible to the ideal of no theory under consideration and no hypotheses to test.
Various scholars (Eisenhardt, 1989; Pettgrew, 1990; Yin, 1994) have discussed the validity ofcase studies. Case studies make it possible to explain the relevance and cause-and-effectrelationships of a variety of observations through deep and detailed insights with consideration given
to qualitative information and subjectivity resulting from the peculiarities of individual cases and the
difficulties of general analyses. Case studies not only compensate for the weaknesses of generalities
but are also indispensable to new and creative theorization.

8

The case study in this paper enables a detailed analysis of specific focal points within thecompany in question, such as their internal strategies, organizational structure, culture andcapabilities, as a means to understanding how specific innovation objectives were achieved.
The Mabuchi case study is based on in-depth interviews with senior managers, and on internaland external materials. Based on the data obtained from field studies, we first produced an in-depthcase concerning the Mabuchi business. Next, based on this study, we performed analyses andobservations of new product development management. Finally, we drew a number of managerial
implications from these analyses.

4. Theoretical Framework
4.1 Project-Based Organizations as ‘Teams of Boundaries’
As people with experience as a project team managers and leaders, and through dialog withbusiness people in a number of companies, we have clearly recognized aspects of collectives ofpractice as project team behavior. However, we believe that the nature of projects depends
considerably on countries and individual corporate cultures. Furthermore, project team actions
vary depending on the goals of each individual project (e.g. the complexity and level ofdifficulty of business models, difficulty of product development, demands of particular clients
etc.)
Firstly, different factors in countries or corporations bear a relationship with the training of
project managers and leaders. Compared to Japanese companies, western companies show muchclearer career paths due to greater segmentation of competencies and fields of expertise.
For example in western companies, there are often clear distinctions between project
managers who specialize in management, and technical staff who are concerned with
fundamental research and engineering (in product development etc). In much of the existing
research, these western training systems have been called the ‘dual ladder system’ (e.g., Bailyn,
1991; Maccoby, 1999; McKinnon, 1987; Allen and Kats, 1986; Kochanski, 2003), and it has
been often reported that these western-centered systems function well (e.g., Gunz, 1980;

Omta

and van Engelen, 1998). 3M is a well-known American example that uses this dual laddersystem to bring about its innovative products.
In western companies, project management is executed by specialist business coordinators
who are charged with managing the progress of projects, confirming that milestones have beenreached, managing the individual tasks of project members, and solving problems as they arise.
Accordingly, these personnel understand the detailed technical aspects of a project and arecommitted to their careers.
However, project management mechanisms in Japanese companies differ on this point. Project
leaders and project managers are not just managers, although in nearly all cases these personnel are9also committed to understanding technical details. In particular in the electronics, machine tool and
ICT fields, there are a wide-range of specialist demands placed on project managers and leaders.
In the case of corporations, after earning a bachelor or graduate degree and joining a company,
diverse career paths await new employees in which they will gain experience in a variety ofcompetencies and specialist divisions. In electronics manufacturers, bachelor and graduate degree
holders from technological universities will embark on training paths that advance their skills asengineers from micro technologies through to macro technologies. For instance, they begin bylearning about individual components and parts, and then move on to the technologies and designs ofentire systems, and there are often cases in these training paths in which people are moved into
factories, product planning and marketing departments, and even into sales. Thus, project leadersand managers will usually have experience in more than one specialized field and hold a number ofcompetencies. With each advancement and new responsibility, these people have been able to polishtheir skills in managing subordinates and coordinating with departments, including those that deal
with external partners１.

In this way, we believe that these experiences in varied fields of expertise and competencies
foster a comparatively greater degree of flexibility in project leaders and managers in Japanesecompanies. For instance, project leaders and managers who start out on the technical side ofthings learn to propose new technologies from the point of view of marketability, while thoseleaders who started out in sales and marketing are highly motivated to learn more about
technology, something that is relatively foreign to them. Thus, Japanese project managers tend
to place great importance on efforts to root out the relationships between markets andtechnologies.
Based on these crossover career paths of project leaders and managers, this paper defines thethought worlds of individuals with skills in different areas of specialization as “shared thoughtworlds,” in which the redundancy or overlapping of those individual thought worlds is retained.
Project leaders and managers in Japanese corporations do not only have to manage people,
things and money, they also must also have wide-ranging specialized technical knowledge, andas they implement project management, these leaders must coordinate and cooperate withexisting organizations, and even carry out business linked to other projects, even though theseare dependent on individual corporate cultures.
At the outset, projects in Japanese companies are formed officially or unofficially beginningwith participation from a variety of existing ‘community of practice’ functional organizations, inwhich the mutual sharing and transfer of knowledge and know-how between existingorganizations is of particular importance. These project teams often consist of colleagues who
have worked together in the past, bosses, subordinates, and members of staff who are oldacquaintances. Therefore, there are not very many people in Japanese project-based
10organizations who have never met (Lindkvist, 2005, P.1190), and so there are many cases inwhich people enter into projects with shared understandings and mutual knowledge (Cramton,2001), and common knowledge (Carlile, 2002) that preexists the formation of the project.
Thus, we conceptualize the fundamental knowledge on which projects are based in Japanesecompanies as not only knowledge as skills and know-how refined by individuals, or knowledge
in a particular field of expertise, but also as a complete merging of these with the “knowledge
abilities” (Orlikowski, 2002) and “competences in practice” that have come to be embedded in
the organization from its business practices across its history (Lave, 1988; Wenger, 1998). Thiscan also be viewed as the group knowledge of a community of practice combined with theknowledge held by individuals in collectives of practice. This paper describes this as the‘harmonized knowledge’ of a project.
The following discusses behaviors among project team members.
The more a business proposition is like a project, the greater the level of novelty anduncertainty stemming from the context and details of it, and the greater the number of problems
and issues that will arise in the process of executing it. Naturally, project members will
experience conflicts and friction among themselves, and due to time constraints, often teammembers will look for trade-offs and compromises.
However, project teams should not just look for these kinds of solutions. As has been
observed in our case study research, project members often aim to find genuine combinations
and integration through thorough accumulation of dialogue and discussion among themselves,
however contradictory, rather than just seek compromise (Kodama, 2005). These ideas of“practical yet creative confrontations or abrasion” (Leonard-Barton, 1995) and “productive
friction” (Hagel III and Brown, 2005) can act as wellsprings of new and creative knowledge.
A higher-up in one company (Canon marketing) described projects as “battles.”… Japanese
corporate projects also feature many cases where other organizations or projects offer support
by helping out or lending a hand to a project (cases at Sharp), as well as regular and familial
meetings within projects (cases at Honda).
This paper describes the simultaneous pursuit of organizational actions by members inprojects that confront the knowledge in collectives of practice, and fuse the familiar knowledge
from communities of practice, as the “creative collaboration” of a project.
The following describes the characteristics of the knowledge boundaries that are required for
project management to achieve innovation.
It goes without saying that knowledge is a source of corporate competitiveness (Kogut andZander, 1992; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Leonard-Barton, 1995). We believe that the starting
point for setting down and executing strategies is knowledge held by human beings. Tacit
knowledge as skills, know-how and competences are embedded in individual people (Brown
11and Duguid, 1991), and in the process of integrating the knowledge necessary for project
management (Kodama, 2011a), knowledge held by various people both in and out of thecompany must be gathered and integrated across organizational boundaries.
There is a strong tendency for new knowledge to be created, in other words innovation,
along the boundaries between different principles and areas of expertise (Leonard-Barton, 1995),
and corporations have within them diverse functional organizations assigned to different fields
of expertise, among which many boundaries, both visible and invisible exist.
However as previously stated, conflicts and frictions often arise among actors with different
knowledge and present obstacles to knowledge merging (Leonard-Barton, 1995). These are notjust organizational boundaries that exist as sectionalism among actors in a corporation, but also
the different values that individual actors hold, and knowledge boundaries that exist as a resultof their differing backgrounds and areas of specialization (Brown and Duguid, 2001).
This is because the actors become dominated by their fixed mental models that have evolved
from their different backgrounds and experiences (e.g. Markides, 1999; Spender, 1990; Grinyerand McKiernan, 1994), or have become dominated by path dependency (Rosenberg, 1982;
Hargadon and Sutton, 1997), and thus feel uncomfortable when faced with unfamiliar or new
knowledge along organizational boundaries and become resistant to it (Carlile, 2002).
Existing research has shown that corporations and organizations in which fixed mental
models dominate are often unable to avoid competency traps (Levitt and March, 1988; Martines
and Kambil, 1999) and core rigidities (Leonard-Barton, 1992, 1995), and as a result of theirpath-dependent knowledge, they miss opportunities for innovation (Christensen, 1997).
Therefore, in a world of fluctuating markets and ferocious competition, actors in many
companies must execute strategies that fuse wide-ranging knowledge across diverse boundaries
both in and out of the company, including its customers.
As examples of dealing with fluctuating markets and rapid technological advances in themobile telephone and digital appliance businesses, Sharp, Canon and Panasonic do not only
seek out deep collaboration across the boundaries between their many different technicaldivisions to fuse technologies, but also execute market domination strategies by continually
producing new products by simultaneously involving all of their marketing, sales, technology
and production divisions (e.g., Kodama, 2011).
This means that project members must hone their thinking in different fields of specialization,and perpetually share product and technological development roadmaps across departments.
As well as advancing technologies, projects to innovate new business models also have toform diverse partnerships through project networks that transcend organizations and individualcompanies, businesses and industries, and include customers. Project networks formed by NTT
DOCOMO for its mobile communication business and Nintendo for its game business are12examples of these (Kodama, 2011). This paper describes this type of project organizational
behavior in which new knowledge is created across different knowledge boundaries as‘boundaries penetration.’In this paper, Figure 1 illustrates the 4 elements of ‘shared thought worlds,’ ‘harmonizedknowledge,’ ‘creative collaboration,’ and ‘boundaries penetration’ in project organizations as‘teams of boundaries’ (ToB), and compares these with communities of practice (CoPs) andcollectives of practice (Col.oPs). As shown, teams of boundaries lie between communities ofpractice and collectives of practice, because we interpret these as projects that havecharacteristics of both.

4.2 Product Development Performance and the 3 Organizational Systems
This section describes the degree of integration between organizations with productdevelopment in these 3 organizational systems (Col.oPs, ToBs, CoPs).
Much has been reported about the relationship between product development performanceand organizational integration (e.g., Allen, 1970; Gupta et al., 1986; Song et al., 1997). Allen(1970) showed that the structure of company communication networks and the level ofcommunication through them influence the performance of R&D organizations. Notably, thecommunications interfaces between marketing and R&D are a factor in determining the successof a product development (Griffin and Hauser, 1996). Furthermore, in cases of high-risk productdevelopment or highly uncertain circumstances, strong integration between organizations raises
the chances of success with new product development, although it has been reported that thedegree of inter-organizational linking should be selected according to the difficulty of the13

product development (Gomez et al., 2003; Gemser and Leenders, 2011). This is because
knowledge boundaries exist between different departments, and the way in which businesspeople behave in response to the disparities (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967; Dougherty, 1992;
Friffin and Hauser, 1996) that accompany these knowledge boundaries influences the process ofdeveloping a product and influences performance.
In relation to the degree of organizational integration, Kahn (1996) describes the behavior of
business people in organizational relationships in product development as ‘interaction’ and‘collaboration.’ ‘Interaction’ indicates a relaxed level of integration between functions ofstructured organizations, in which organizational and personal inter-relationships include routine
business such as communicating company rules or business manuals, and communications bytelephone, e-mail and business meetings. In the context of product development, theseinteractions are equivalent to the traditional sequential model (Cooper, 1988, 1990) of a productdevelopment process - product development processes as routine innovation to improve andupgrade existing products. Interpreted differently, these are routines that are born from theinteractions of the ‘communities of practice’ in each functional organization.
On the other hand, ‘collaboration’ involves relationships between formal and functionalorganizations and informal and unstructured organizations, which is equivalent to project
organizations that operate as cross-functional teams with a high degree of organizational
integration. Collaboration is also an important factor to bring about creative friction andproductive discord while controlling the negative behaviors and ideas of businesspeople
between different

organizations

and specializations.

Accordingly,

the functions

of‘collaboration’ are important to teams of boundaries and collectives of practice.
Gomes et al(2003) argues that ‘collaboration’ with a high degree of integration is a necessary
factor for the success of new products that carry a high risk (uncertainties and technicaldifficulties), while ‘interaction’ is important for the success of routine developments such as
improving and upgrading existing products. In contrast, teams of boundaries and collectives ofpractice are not suitable for low-risk and routine upgrading of existing products, while existingroutine organizations are not suited to dealing with high risk and technical difficulty (Gemserand Leenders, 2011).
From the above discussion, and with reference to the studies carried out by Gemser and
Leenders (2011), Figure 2 describes the suitability of organizational forms in terms of the levelof organizational integration of CoPs, ToBs, and Col.oPs, and risk (uncertainty and technicaldifficulty).
In other words, an appropriate organizational form must be selected for exploration for new
product development when there is a high level of uncertainty, and exploitation for routine
development to upgrade and improve products. This means that by appropriately allocating
14

resources necessary for the organizational form (CoP, ToB, Col.oP), ‘parallel development’ asambidextrous R&D strategy with exploration and exploitation will become possible, dependingon the nature of the target product development.

4.3 Combining Exploratory and Exploitative Activities with Teams of Boundaries (ToBs)
The following takes a look at the influences of 4 characteristics of ToBs on exploration andexploitation (see Figure 3). Firstly is the relationship between ToBs and exploratory activities.
Madhaven and Grover (1998) suggest that leaders and staff involved in exploratory activities for
new product development require cognitive skills that they describe as ‘A-shaped skills’ and‘T-shaped skills２.’
A-shaped skills are the skills that leaders need to build new innovative visions through thesynergistic integration of specialized fields in diverse markets and technologies, based on new
perspectives and insights. Based on the new perspectives gained through sharing a variety ofvalues and knowledge, A-shaped skills involve ‘shared thought worlds’ and ‘harmonizedknowledge’ factors that raise the potential for ideas to be triggered and imagination to be
stimulated.
On the other hand, T-shaped skills are the skills needed to bring about new knowledge
integration (technological integration) by simultaneously pursuing vertical depth into particularareas of specialization, while horizontally branching out into other fields. T-shaped skills are thefactors of ‘creative collaboration’ among team members that function across different fields of15

specialization and knowledge boundaries to link boundaries and seamlessly integrate knowledge
as the project members work to create new knowledge.
ToBs also have qualities of communities of practice. The accumulated daily routines ofcommunities of practice in all functional organizations also promote improvements andupgrading aiming for more efficient existing business processes as ‘exploitative activities’ (inother words ‘process innovation’). These activities are deployed across all functionalorganizations (sales, product development, production technology, services and so on) right up
to task levels that include product assembly processing at the micro level. Thus, value chains are
not only optimized by innovating processes for existing products - value chain optimization also
becomes possible by innovating business processes for new products as well.
Furthermore, according to traditional technology life cycle theory (TLC) (e.g., Abernathyand Utterback, 1978), product innovation occurs at the initial stages of the TLC, whereas
process innovation occurs at the post dominant design stage in the latter half of the TLC. Manyelectronics and automotive products have been based on this TLC theory.
However, in product innovation and process innovation, upstream (R&D, marketing) anddownstream(production

technology,

manufacture,sales,

support)processes

occur

independently in their value chains. Also, the business details of these innovations are based on
dissimilar knowledge and routines. Accordingly, business people are also required to have theskills to execute these two different types of innovation. In short, although staff who can deal
with individual areas of business must be assigned, and suitable organizations must be
configured for a company to simultaneously execute different innovation processes, it ispossible (Tai and Huang, 2008).
Real-world examples of this developmental system３ include Taiwanese EMS businesses
that have followed the OEMODMOBM path (and continue to do so), such as Acer, Lenovo
and ASUS. There are a number of Taiwanese companies like this that not only follow theconventional process innovation path but also simultaneously focus on product innovation for
their development and manufacturing.
Also in the past, semiconductor manufacturers undertook product innovation for new
products simultaneously executed with process innovation to transform their semiconductor
manufacturing processes. In other words, new exploratory product innovations simultaneously
brought forth new process innovations as exploitive activities. These organizational solutions
correspond to the ‘ambidextrous organizations’ mentioned as the theme of this paper, although
they are not organizational systems that are specifically configured to simultaneously executeproduct and process innovation. In contrast, the ToB organizational form is characterized by its
ability to bring forth both product and process innovation.
In thinking about the exploratory and exploitative characteristics of ToBs in this regard, as
16

far as different capabilities and specializations are concerned, the ‘harmonized knowledge’ thatarises from shared understandings, mutual knowledge and common knowledge among project
team members, and the flexibility of their ‘shared thought worlds’ enables them to demonstrate
the A-type skills needed to draw new perspectives and values to focus on product developmentfrom the customer's point of view, consider disruptive innovations, and reinforce their
exploratory activities and develop products with efficient production technologies to overcome‘productivity dilemmas.’
As well as that, as qualities of communities of practice, the specialist skills andorganizational learning skills in ToBs encourage exploitative activities to improve efficiency
with process innovation not only for optimizing value chains from product planning anddevelopment through to manufacturing technologies and sales for existing products, but also
encourage process innovation for new product developments (even at the modular level of the
product).
Furthermore, creative collaboration among members spanning the knowledge boundaries ofdifferent specializations through seamless integration and boundary linking triggers the
T-shaped skills needed for the exploratory activities that fuse the dissimilar knowledge both
inside and outside of the company required to create new knowledge for product innovation,
while the community of practice-type specialist and organizational learning skills trigger
cross-organizational, imaginative and productive cooperation, and go on to encourage
exploitative activities to optimize value chains through process innovation for new productdevelopments, as well as existing products.
Thus, teams of boundaries can be said to have the ambidextrous R&D management
capabilities needed to simultaneously encourage and balance the different corporate activities of
exploration for new product development with exploitation to improve and upgrade existingproducts.
Therefore, in answering the research question of this paper, communities of practiceencourage organizational learning as formal organizations in functional organizations, while
companies that dynamically and constantly adjust their formal organizations as well as theirteams of boundaries across various communities of practice are companies that can be said tohave achieved ambidextrous R&D management and are able to maintain a suitable balance
between exploration and exploitation.

17

5． New Product Development at Mabuchi Motor – a Case Study and Analysis
5.1 Overview of Mabuchi Motor
Mabuchi Motor is a miniature motor specialist that is the largest manufacturer of compact DC
motors for consumer products in the world with more than half of the global market share, andis renowned for its high-precision, high-performance products, which are used in a wide rangeof Japanese and internationally manufactured consumer goods.
Since the mid-1980s, the company’s compact motor products have been manufactured

overseas, mostly in Asia. Only the company's headquarters (including sales and development
departments) and its research facilities remain in Japan.
Currently, company sales consist of 49% for automotive electrics such as mirrors and door
locks, 21% for electric appliances, tools and toys such as electric shavers and toothbrushes,roughly 14% for motors for audiovisual devices such as CD/DVD players, and 17% for
information processing devices such as inkjet printers and digital cameras.
The Mabuchi story would not be complete without mentioning models. The company gained
its worldwide reputation during the slot racing car boom when its products were used by Tamiya
and others. Mabuchi also has an inseparable relationship with motorized model combat vehicles
and so forth, and the company’s motors are also used in hit products such as radio-controlled
and mini four-wheel-drive electric model cars.
Based on its corporate concept ‘dream,’ Mabuchi strives to meet the dreams of people,
18

children, adults, engineers and customers alike, and continues to grow, and as the company
moves into the revolutionary era that is the 21st-century, Mabuchi aims to create new ‘dreams’
in various scenes all over the world as it continues its efforts to support lifestyles, industries andsociety with its motors - compact and functional components.
Mabuchi is aiming for capabilities to realize these dreams one by one, by bringing its
compact DC motors to the peoples of the world even faster, even cheaper, and with even morereliability while never compromising the high performance that the company has strived todeliver since its establishment.
Mabuchi’s management principles involve raising the level of its social contribution andcontinuing as a company indispensable to society at large. All staff in the Mabuchi Group are
inculcated with ideas of participating in social contribution through work as individual membersof a corporation, not only thinking of human beings as important but encompassing nature, theenvironment and all other things into their worldview while learning to grow as a human beings
with a richness of mind that is not solely concerned with material wealth.
These Mabuchi business ideals are essential for the running of the company and are thecompany’s ‘genetic material’ that is passed on into the future.
As a cornerstone of Mabuchi’s management philosophy, however the idea of ‘contribution’expressed in the company’s business ideals might be interpreted or expressed, it stands as aclear mission to be realized through the company’s business activities.
In specific terms, it is defined as follows:(1) To contribute toward the realization of a rich society comfortable to everyone by supplying
better quality and cheaper products.
(2) To transfer technologies to, and offer employment in foreign countries, and contribute toeconomic development in those countries and the general equalizing of international economic
disparities.
(3) To put people as the most important of all economic resources, and to train people to play auseful role in society through their work.
(4) To carry out business that does not sacrifice the global environment or the health of people.
As well as being highly-acclaimed by its customers and society as a company that delivers
value through its business activities, Mabuchi’s efforts to contribute also result in convincing
profit for the company.
Also, the company sets guidelines for its activities that act as the starting point for Mabuchi
to create value and achieve healthy growth which enables it to offer even more of a social
contribution. Specifically, these guidelines are as follows:19

(1) To develop products with a general-purpose focus, and maintain conditions for optimal
production.
(2) To ensure standardization of components and materials, and to develop and improve
products with a devotion to value analysis.
(3) To pursue advanced processing technologies and waste minimization to keep costs down.
(4) To pioneer new markets and ensure proper occupancy in them.
(5) To place personnel in the most appropriate positions and conduct personnel training throughbusiness activities.
(6) To engage in corporate activities that always pursue safety and minimal environmental
impact.
(7) To promote business policies with long-term stability perspectives.
As well as these, the company has other management guidelines defined for its overseas
bases.
Items 1 to 4 above are intrinsically related to Mabuchi’s product development management,
which are described later. Moreover, Mabuchi drives its business activities based on the concept
of “consolidating organizational capabilities based on selection and convergence, to continually
produce difficult-to-copy ‘Mabuchiness’”, which the company declares as follows:(1) Enhancing contribution through new business.
Mabuchi challenges itself to create synergies of the technologies it has fostered with the new
fields on which it is focusing. In facing these challenges, Mabuchi establishes new technologicalframeworks while utilizing resources both inside and outside of the company, raises skill levels
needed for industrialization and commercialization, and establishes company systems that
correspond with these efforts.
While looking at current technological trends and growth prospects, Mabuchi focuses its
resources into business areas that invigorate potential, and aims to move forward into the future
by continuing to offer new high-performance technologies, quality and services that exemplify
the company’s ‘Mabuchiness.’(2) Enhancing contribution through existing businessIn its existing business fields, Mabuchi continues to improve products and processes andmaintain its important component technologies, and by thoroughly investigating causes,
Mabuchi is also able to respond quickly to troubles.
The company is also active on networks using its all-Mabuchi technologies and wisdom to20

improve a whole host of production aspects, and thoroughly reflect the effects of these
improvements to technological, service and cost reduction capabilities into its products togenuinely improve customer satisfaction levels.
(3) Demonstrating resilience
By fostering individuality and a sense of responsibility in all staff members, and engaging staff
in challenging and worthwhile work, Mabuchi brings forth realistic and effective organizational
capabilities. Staff members who have these strengths are able to demonstrate leadership, share acommon sense of direction, and work in teams aiming for success.
Mabuchi strives to demonstrate its ‘Mabuchiness’ by bringing out the best in individuals, andcombining their capabilities to maximize the company's social contribution through cooperation
among personnel with unique strengths.
Regarding the above, how does Mabuchi combine ‘exploration’ described in (1) ‘enhancing
contribution through new business, and ‘exploitation’ described in (2) ‘enhancing contribution
through existing businesses’? The answer to this question is closely related to how Mabuchi
combines exploration as uncertainty management, and exploitation as existing productmanagement for its new product development strategies.
Furthermore, with item (3) ‘Demonstrating resilience,’ Mabuchi fosters teamwork andleadership, and in its code of conduct it encourages staff to share common values. staff are able
to operate based on a unique Mabuchi corporate and organizational culture in which they
simultaneously pursue the closely related ideas of enhancing contribution through new business(1) and enhancing contribution through existing business (2).
In specific terms, company’s code of conduct is described below
As an indispensable global company in the wildly fluctuating competitive environment of
the 21st century, Mabuchi strives to add more value to its existence. For this reason, all Mabuchi
staff members understand the essence of the company's business ideology, and form groups thatare actively invigorated from within themselves. The code of conduct below illustrates thevalues that staff at Mabuchi share to overcome difficulties and discordance that occur in thecourse of their work, and achieve further growth.
(1) Achieve both social contribution and self-realization through work.
(2) Always be fair and honest with others, and always be willing to cooperate with and support
other staff members.
(3) Consider how to best contribute in light of other peoples’ roles
21

(4) Formulate unique strengths as sources of social contribution, and strive to continuallycultivate and enhance those strengths.
(5) Take the initiative to uncover issues, challenge yourself with difficult issues, and don't giveup until a solution is found.
In this way, Mabuchi's code of conduct is the source that brings forth the 4 qualities of teamsof boundaries, as well as A-type skills/T-type skills and practical skills in the aforementioned
theoretical framework.
5.2 From developing custom products (exploration) to a line up of standardized
components (exploitation)
When Mabuchi was established, it started out making customized parts (step one in Figure 4),
and achieved good performance. Mabuchi's business activities during this period can beinterpreted as exploratory, focusing on product innovation to respond to its customers’ needs.
After that, (around 1965) the company began to think about standardization as the model racing
car boom at the time saw its sales skyrocket.
In 1964 the company sold 47 million units, which by 1968 had ballooned to 100 million. On
this sort of scale, with custom part orders from different companies having slightly different
dimensions, control on the production floor became overloaded with a diversity of models andcomponents. In other words, production had to be smoothed out.
The key for company founders Kenichi and Takaichi Mabuchi to solve this problem was tocontinue standardizing motors with process innovation, while the only other thing they could do
was set up their business to enable make-to-stock production instead of made-to-orderproduction.
As a result of the company’s technical studies, they found that systemizing the motors
sufficiently enabled them to continue with standardization, and eventually Mabuchi won support
and acceptance of these standardized products, and by 1971 more than 80% of Mabuchi's
products had been standardized.
These changes represent a shift in product development focus from product innovation toprocess innovation that drove component modularization that enabled complete motors to be
produced by assembling modules in order to meet customer needs. Mabuchi's engineers wereencouraged to think differently during this shift to standardization (Figure 4 step 2) as they
move from product innovation to process innovation, and then again in response to further
changes, from process innovation back to product innovation again.
Standardization brought with it novelty in product architecture development, to which thecompany was able to apply its own unique imaginative powers and years of experience and22know-how. Engineers were required to engage in the novel approaches of architecture
innovation and modular innovation (Henderson and Clark, 1990). In this way it can be seen thatthe business of developing standardized products weighs heavily on new product development,
and can also be seen as an example of exploratory activity. Similarly, developing customized
products from components that have already been standardized can be seen as an example of
exploitative activity.
However, component manufacturers, once they have standardized parts, must makeconscious efforts to maintain their ideas of standardization. As final product manufacturers,
customers for these components have a strong tendency to demand parts with custom specs.
Component makers also are justified in listening to their customers’ demands and responding asfaithfully as they can – obviously it is difficult for them to advocate anything different.
For this reason, once standardization has been achieved, if some organizational mechanism is
not put in place to maintain those standards, they will become rarefied as custom products
increase, and such a state of affairs can result in willy-nilly development to make custom parts
just as the customer requests, which in turn leads to an increase in different models, and thus anincrease in defects and troubles.
Illustrating this point in Figure 4 step 2 is the X mark in development based on standard
products, in which there was not enough shift in thinking from process innovation to productinnovation.

23

5.3 Establishing New Strategic Product Development Systems
Although standardization from custom products was continuing at Step 2 in Figure 4, in reality,
the number of customized products on the factory floor increased, and as the factory was caught
up dealing with custom orders for certain customers, the number of things that needed to be
developed increased, and the company's main developmental aims became impossible toachieve. Furthermore, because only conventional technology could be applied to thesedevelopments, basic technological capabilities also rapidly declined. Mabuchi's reputation as atech company had become embroiled in a dangerous situation.
To demolish the overdevelopment situation at the time, the company establishedorganizational mechanisms to maintain standardization, which are illustrated as strategic
development systems at Step 3 in Figure 4 and in Figure 5.
These mechanisms are characterized by a 3-tiered development system. For basic motors,
existing motors are selected to be used as they are, or they can be modified for customized
specifications with the inclusion of optional functions, or if a new basic motor is to be
developed as a new product, each new project is dealt with by a different organizational system
in Mabuchi’s 3-tiered development system, because project teams who study custom
specifications for basic motors have different qualities than project teams involved in actuallycreating new basic motors, keeping these projects clearly separated is clearly a most rational
approach.

24

First of all, the sales team fills out a specification requirements sheet with the customer
demands and sends it to the product development Department. The product development
department starts off by selecting a motor. They do this by considering performance, voltage,
vibration and temperature characteristics, service life and so forth of existing Mabuchi basic
motors to select a motor that best matches the customer’s request. At this stage Mabuchi alsouses its unique know-how to consider whether a motor that meets the customer’s demands canbe achieved by assembling parts that are already on hand.
In its motor routine selection work, Mabuchi has accumulated many years of experience andknowledge – also an example of exploitative activities focusing on process innovation throughregular upgrading and improving activities.
Because Mabuchi’s ideal of thorough standardization cannot create motors with totallycustomized specifications, staff must first of all think about how motors that they already havecan be used, because it isn't easy to make customized devices. If they have a motor which meetsthe specifications demanded by the customer, then they suggest it to the customer.
If they do not have a basic motor which meets these demands, then Mabuchi staff consider
modifying a basic motor to respond to customer demands. This task is called ‘studying custom
specifications.’ In these cases, although final product is not the basic motor in its original form,
the adding of optional functions to respond to the customer’s requests does not change it verymuch.
The work of studying custom specifications until the customer’s needs are met is repeatedover and over again between the customer and a Mabuchi Virtual unit (MVU). MVUs areintegrated units established in 2005 comprising the company's sales and product developmentgroups, and are currently set up as specialist units dedicated to the automotive electrics,
audiovisual, optical and precision, appliance and toy markets.
One of the objectives for the MVUs for each market is to quickly enact motor selection andcustom specifications studies. Although the MVUs perform other ‘boundary spanner-like’
functions (Allen, 1977) and are actually involved in the business of new product development,
they also perform search functions across diverse range of fields and connect these with specificnew businesses.
Although these custom specifications studies are based on basic motors, development of
products optimized to fit customer needs is carried out through repeated trial and error in the
MVUs (recursive frameworks) (Adams, 2003; Constant, 2000; Schroeder et al, 1989; West,1990). These recursive processes are ‘innovation routines’ for normal improvement andupgrading of existing products, and are different from the simple sequential model of productdevelopment processes (Cooper, 1988, 1990).
25

In our interpretation, these custom specification studies are close examples of productinnovation as architecture innovation and modular innovation, in that they involve demands fortechnological novelty (exploration) (see Figure 4 step 3).
On the other hand, if a basic motor is to be created anew, or drastically rebuilt, Mabuchi sets up
a new product development project (a core team) to do the job. Product development leaders
propose these multifunctional core teams (since 2000) as cross-functional teams across thecompany’s research facilities, production technology, product development and sales
departments etc, with participation from group managers and team leaders (assistant managers
and so forth) from all groups. On average, Mabuchi has about 20 core teams up and running at
any one time, with participation by about 10 staff members in each team.
Members in core teams are not dedicated only to the team, but participate in them asadditional duties while remaining active as members of their regular functional organizations.
There are no special team rooms or team member seating in Mabuchi’s offices, rather, teammembers remain at their regular posts and meet or work together as necessary. There are many
similarities between Mabuchi’s core team development systems and Canon’s digital camera
development projects (Kodama, 2007c).
Members of Mabuchi’s core teams characteristically debate with each other and reachagreements autonomously. Right from the beginning, new product development projects explore
the potential commonalities of a number of uses to carry out development with an awareness ofthe company’s standardization objectives (Figure 4 step 3), and Mabuchi’s 3-tiered productdevelopment system prevents custom products from being wantonly developed in attempts tomeet every single customer’s special requests, and thus alleviates the risk of difficult-to-manage
increases in models.
These new product development core teams and MVUs studying custom specifications canbe interpreted being teams of boundaries (ToB) which simultaneously have features ofcollectives of practice (Col.oP) as project organizations, and community of practice (CoP)features as functional organizations.
The organizations that carry out the motor selection are the existing functional organizationsuch as the product development and sales departments. Thus, through linking with the MVUs,
knowledge sharing and transfer is encouraged among members through the accumulation ofcollective knowledge in each of the routine ‘community of practice (CoP)’functionalorganizations.
Mabuchi manages uncertainty and difficulty with its new product development by forming
MVUs and core teams dynamically through the company's 3-tiered system, as teams ofboundaries (ToB) across the company’s formal functional organizations. In this way, Mabuchi's
ambidextrous R&D management is able to combine product innovation (exploration) for new
26

product development and process innovation for standardization (exploitation) (see Figure 5).
In assessing Mabuchi's 3-tiered organizational structure and product strategies as shown in
Figure 2, it can be said that Mabuchi is a company that achieves optimal product development
performance by carefully managing its 3 organizational systems (managing levels oforganizational integration) to suit the business circumstances it faces (risk - uncertainty andtechnical difficulty) (see Figure 6).

6. Considerations
As observed in the Mabuchi case, it can be seen that the characteristics of ToBs as project
organizations do not entirely match the conventional definitions of project management. Put
differently, as top management invests resources necessary for a project towards somepre-decided goal, project objectives are not necessarily achieved only as ‘planned strategies’(Mintzberg and Walters, 1985) within a certain time limit as exploitative activities.
With exploratory activities for new product development, teams of boundaries are formed
across the divides between functional organizations within the company, and the project-basedorganizations that drive these exploratory activities focus on emergent and entrepreneurial
strategy formation processes rather than strict deliberate strategies (Mintzberg et al, 1998).
Furthermore, the term ‘emergent strategies’ does not imply that projects have a complete lack ofplanning - trial and error plays an important role in the process of working towards set
objectives, and emergence occurs naturally in the project activity itself.
27

As teams of boundaries are formed across existing functional organizations (communities ofpractice - CoP) for product development projects, mutual sharing of values and learning withexisting organizations can also be achieved. In this way, project team members are able toproductively and imaginatively convert conflicts and frictions that exist in companies byengaging in creative collaboration, as team members, who hold dissimilar knowledge in new
project-based organizations engage in sharing an integration of knowledge by ‘boundary
linking’ of their dissimilar knowledge.
These development projects also promote ‘harmonized knowledge.’ Knowledge in projects
is highly dependent on the knowledge and capabilities of individual team members, while at thesame time, project organizations as teams of boundaries also have elements of communities ofpractice in which learning takes place in the project and in existing organizations, between
project members and specialists in similar fields.
Mabuchi is a company that has grown from its origins as a venture business, and its culture of
sharing of information and knowledge between different capabilities and areas of specialization
is more infused than in ordinary large corporations. Thus, it can be interpreted that the ‘sharedthought worlds’ that cross over specializations and capabilities are firmly embedded in thecompany's organizations, and, as teams of boundaries, projects simultaneously have theambidextrous R&D management characteristics of both exploratory and exploitative aspects.
Projects pursue both refinement and efficiency with existing knowledge (exploitation) while
engaging in risk taking and experimentation to create new knowledge (exploration) when there
is a large degree of uncertainty or novelty involved.
In the Mabuchi case, the company engages in both product innovation for new productdevelopment (the development processes involving the studying of custom specifications) as
exploratory activities, while simultaneously engaging in process innovation as exploitative
activities to select motors that are based on standards. In other words as projects, teams ofboundaries have the qualities of communities of practice, in that they work to gradually improveand upgrade products through organizational learning in which existing knowledge isaccumulated and refined through routine and daily business, while at the same time, these typesof project-based organizations also have a large potential to bring about innovations with newknowledge and creativity through exploratory activities as radical innovations or discontinuoustransformation.
Expressing this differently, exploratory activities transform existing routines, pioneer newmarkets and bring forth new technologies, which in turn results in new company routines(Nelson and Winter, 1982).
As a rule However, especially in the science and technology fields, if there is no
accumulation and refinement of knowledge in daily R&D activities, then project members will28

not be able to surmount the high hurdles blocking the path towards their new goals, and will notachieve radical innovation.
There is also the important challenge of transferring knowledge (know-how skills, newroutines and established technologies) gained through the achievement of an innovation to otherprojects and organizations, rather than just the sharing of the knowledge among certain project
members themselves. More importantly, this really means that smooth execution of exploratory
and exploitative activities will result in new knowledge and routines being deployed andembedded throughout the entire company.
In the Mabuchi case, the idea of product innovation through to process innovation is an
important aspect of the company's standardization strategy. To keep current and future businesswithin reach, Mabuchi's top management makes the best use of the company’s functionalorganizations and the characteristics of projects simultaneously, in other words it uses theorganizational qualities of both exploratory and exploitative activities as an ambidextrous R&D
strategy that can respond to the circumstances of a product development or the details of a
product strategy.
Mabuchi's top and middle management continually and dynamically form wide-ranging
organizations that combine exploratory and exploitative activities in the company (by not only
forming communities of practice, but also forming core teams and MVUs as teams ofboundaries). The dynamic formation and linking (networking) of these various organizations is
a management platform that enables fusing of diverse knowledge and is the source of Mabuchi'sorganizational capability (see Figure 5).
7. Implications and Conclusion
From the theoretical framework and the case study research, it can be concluded that thecharacteristics required for a project vary depending on the degree of complexity and difficultyof the target business model, the degree of technical difficulty with new product development,
and the requirements of particular clients. However, new product developments are often
dependent on technologies accumulated over time, even if there is a lot of weight placed on
novel technological development. Thus in most cases, team members who participate in projects
are well-versed in existing technologies.
In particular, the higher the degree of technical difficulty, for example the processes ofanalyzing specifications demanded by the customer through to entire system design(architecture) and the design details therein (subsystems, components, hardware and software)and so forth involve the deployment of more multitiered structures and multi-branched
technological specializations. Such business projects are often accompanied by a radical andarchitecture innovation (Henderson and Clark, 1990). Furthermore, r ealistically speaking, it isn't
29always a good idea for engineers who have never met each other to form a project for a difficult
product development in typical large corporation.
Assembling modularized devices with clear technical interfaces enables the creation of new
products, and enables development through routine business between existing functionalorganizations (e.g. Mabuchi's motor selection operations).
However, a product’s competitiveness is hidden in individual modular devices, between
modules, between subsystems, in unique software and in entire architectures and so forth as
black boxing. Engineers who have accumulated know-how in black boxing are often membersof existing organizations who have learnt path-dependent technologies.
With new product developments in which architecture or components are to be substantiallyreinvented, existing research argues that development should be carried out by neworganizations consisting of members with new skills, rather than organizations with existing
members (e.g., O’Reilly III and Tushman, 2004; Tushman and O’Reilly, 1997; Utterback, 1994;
Tushman and Anderson, 1986). However, from a technological point of view, it really depends
on the circumstances surrounding the development (e.g. the product lineup of individual
businesses, the scale of the development, the scale of the organization doing the development,
corporate culture, country, and so on).
For example, to achieve technological integration with many aspects of radical or
architectural innovation, it is important at the beginning to consider forming a project fromengineers with different specializations from within the company - creating a new organization
with new members should not be a top priority.
Also, in cases of radical innovation where architectures and components are drastically
reinvented, new ideas must be brought to the fore from an array of technological viewpoints.
In these sorts of cases, it is appropriate to bring in knowledge and abilities from outside thecompany as required, while making the best use of existing human resources. Making the bestuse of human resources means placing importance on engineers’ experience and know-how, andaccumulating scientific and technical knowledge through regular training. It is this kind ofpath-dependent accumulation of technologies that also enables a company to overcome the highhurdles that obstruct the path to creative radical innovation.
When it comes to focusing on existing resources and existing organizational capabilities,
Japanese companies have a characteristic custom. Compared to western companies, the external
labor markets surrounding Japanese companies have lower fluidity, and those recruited after
obtaining a bachelor or graduate degree set out on career paths which involve gaining
experience across a range of business divisions and specialist technologies.
Also, the peculiarity of lifetime employment offered by Japanese corporations, crossovercareer paths and mechanisms for learning in groups and organizations embed the unique tacit
30

knowledge, norms, values and culture of a company among its staff members. This has led to
the formation of organizational systems in companies that are informal and autonomous
communities or ‘ba’ (e.g., Ouchi, 1980: Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995).
Accordingly, project organizations in Japanese companies have a strong tendency to beformed as extensions of existing organizations, regardless of whether they are official orotherwise, which when compared with Western businesses, means there is a greater likelihoodthat the ‘community of practice’ atmosphere of an existing organization will be introduced into
the project.
Put differently, because Japanese corporations have unique employment customs andtraining systems strongly embedded in them, their first priority appears as a dependence on
existing resources such as company personnel and organizations when it comes to forming
projects for new product development or new businesses. These tendencies have the added
benefit of enabling companies to get projects off the ground and execute business quickly.
More research is required into the processes of forming and executing projects, as there are awide range of cases with varying aspects, including cases of project management systems inwestern companies.
This paper has considered product development strategies from the point of view of productdevelopment processes at Mabuchi Motor. Existing research has shown that when faced withchanging circumstances (markets and technologies), an excessive tendency towards
path-dependent knowledge (Rosenberg, 1982; Hargadon and Sutton, 1997), stemming fromhabits formed over long years of dealing with key products, is a cause of competency traps(Levitt and March, 1988; Martines and Kambil, 1999) and core rigidities (Leonard-Barton,
1992,1995).
Nobody can predict whether a company will be able to maintain its competitiveness over thelong term - even a company that is currently profitable, but the lesson of the Mabuchi case is‘don't ever become content or complacent with your current main product lineup.’
Top and middle management in high-tech companies must consciously and continuallyacquire dynamic and new strategic positions to create the businesses of the future (the dynamic
view of strategy)(e.g., Markides, 1997, 1999; Chakravarty, 1997; Eisenhardt and Sull, 2001),
and project organizations as teams of boundaries are a management platform that enables theambidextrous R&D management needed to execute businesses with a high degree of risk anduncertainty (new products and so forth) as ‘exploration,’ while refining existing businesses andexpanding markets as ‘exploitation.’

Acknowledgements31

We would like to sincerely thank Mr. Kiyomi Sugamoto (business planning department ,product planning group manager ) for his time given in interviews. We would also like toexpress their sincere gratitude to the College of Commerce, Nihon University for researchfunding provided.
References
Adams, R. (2003). Perceptions of Innovations: Exploring and Developing Innovation
Classification. Ph.D. diss., Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK.
Ahn, J.-H., Lee, D.-J., & Lee, S.-Y. (2006). Balancing business performance and knowledge
performance of new product development. Lessons from ITS Industry. Long Range
Planning, 39(6), 525-542.
Allen, T. and Cohen S.(1969). ‘Information Flow in Research and Development Laboratories’,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, 12-20.
Allen, T.J. (1977), Managing the Flow of Technology, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Allen, T.J. (1970). Communication networks in research and development laboratories. R&D
Management, 1, 14-21.
Allen, T.J. and Katz, R. (1986). ‘The Dual Ladder: Motivational Solution or Managerial
Delusion?, R&D Management, 16(2), 185-197.
Alvesson, M. (1995). Management of Knowledge-Intensive Companies, De Gruyter, New York.
Bailyn, L.(1991), ‘The Hybrid Career: An Exploratory Study of Career Routes in R&D’,
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 8(1), 1-14.
Barlett, C. and Ghoshal, S.(2000). Transnational Management. Boston, MA, McGraw-Hill.
Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P. (1991), ‘Organizational Learning and communities-of-practice’,
Organization Science, 2(3): 40-57.
Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P., (2001), ‘Knowledge and Organization: A Social-practiceperspective’, Organization Science 12(6): 198-213.
Carlile, P.(2002), ‘A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New
Product Development’, Organization Science, 13(4), 442-455.
Chakravarthy, B.(1997), ‘A new strategy framework for coping with turbulence’, Sloan
Management Review, 38, 69-82.
Child, J. and Rodrigues, S. B. (2003). ‘Corporate governance and new organizational forms:
issues of double and multiple agency’, Journal of Management and Governance, 7,337-360.
Christensen, C.M.(1997), The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great32

Firms to Fail, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Clark, K.B. and Fujimoto, T.(1991), Product Development Performance, Harvard Business
School Press, MA.
Constant, E. (2000). Recursive Practice and the Evolution of Technological Knowledge. In:
Technological Innovation as an Evolutionary Process. J. Ziman (ed.). Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press, 219–33, UK.
Cooper, R.G. (1988). The new product process: a decision guide for management. Journal ofMarketing Management, 3(3), 238-258.
Cooper, R.G. (1990). Stage-gate systems: a new tool for managing new products. Business
Horizons, 33(3), 44-54.
Cramton, C.(2001), ‘The mutual knowledge problem’, Organization Science, 12, 346-371.
DeFillippi, R. J. (2001). ‘Introduction: project-based learning, reflective practices and learning
outcomes’’, Management Learning, 32, 5-10.
DeFillippi, R. J. (2002). ‘Information technology and organizational models for project
collaboration in the new economy’, Human Resource Planning, 25(4), 7-18.
DeFillippi, R. J. and Arthur, M. (1998). ‘Paradox in project-based enterprise: The case offilmmaking’, California Management Review, 40(2),125-139.
Dougherty, D. (1992), ‘Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms’,
Organization Science 3(2): 179-202.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) ‘Building Theories from Case Study Research’, Academy ofManagement Review 14, 532-50.
Eisenhardt, K. M. and Sull, D. N. (2001,) ‘Strategy as Simple Rules’, Harvard Business Review
79, 106-16.
Forsgren, M. (1997). The advantage paradox of the multinational corporation: Nordic
contribution to international business research. In I. Bjorkman and M. Forsgres (Eds.),
The nature of the international firm, 69-83., Copenhagen, Handelshojskolens forlag.
Griffin, A. and Hauser, J.R. (1996). Integrating R&D and Marketing: A review and analysis of
the literature. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13, 191-215.
Galbraith, J. (1973), Designing Complex Organizations, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Gemser and Leenders, (2011). Managing Cross-Functional Cooperation for New ProductDevelopment Success, Long Range Planning, 44(1), 26-41.
Gibson, C.B. and Birkinshaw, J. (2004) The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role oforganizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 2, 209–226.
Gomes, J., Weerd-Nederhof, P, Pearson, A. and Cunha, M. (2003) Is more always better? An
33

exploration of the differential effects of functional integration on performance in
new product development, Technovation, 23(2), 185-191.
Grabher, G. (2002). ‘Cool projects, boring institutions: Temporary collaboration in social
context’ ,Regional Studies, 36(3), 205-214.
Griffin, A. and Hauser, J.R. (1996). Integrating R&D and Marketing: A review and analysis of
the literature. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13, 191-215.
Grinyer, P. and McKiernan, P. (1994), ‘Triggering Major and Sustained Changes in Stagnating
Companies’, in Strategic Groups, Strategic Moves and Performance, 173-195, ed.
Herman Daems and Howard Thomas, New York: Pergamon.
Gunz, H. P. (1980). ‘Dual ladders in research: A paradoxical organizational fix’, R & DManagement, 9(1), 29-32.
Gupta, A.K., Raj, S.P. and Wilemon, D. (1986). A model for studying R&DMarketing interface
in the product innovation process. Journal of Marketing, 50(2), 7-17.
Hagel III and Brown, J.S. (2005), ‘Productive Friction’, Harvard Business Review 83(2):139-145.
Hargadon, A. and Sutton, R. (1997), ‘Technology brokering and innovation in a productdevelopment firm’, Administration Science Quarterly 42, 716-749.
He, Z. and Wong, P.(2004). ‘Exploration vs. exploitation: an Empirical test of the ambidexterity
hypothesis’, Organization Science, 15, 481-494.
Henderson, R.M. and Clark, K.B.(1990), ‘Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration ofexisting product technologies and the failure of established firms’, Administrative
Science Quarterly, 35(1), 9-30.
Henrie, M. and Sousa-Poza, A. (2005). ‘Project management: a cultural literature review’,
Project Management Journal, 36(2), 5-14.
Hobday, M.（1995）, ‘East Asian latecomer firms: Learning the technology of electronics’,
World Development, 23(7), 1171-1193 .
Hobday, M. (1998). ‘Product complexity, innovation and industrial organization’, Research
Policy, 26, 689-710.
Hobday, M. (2000). ‘The project-based organisation: An ideal form for managing complex
products and systems?’ Research Policy, 29, 871-893.
Kahn, K.B. (1996). Interdepartmental integration: a definition with implications for productdevelopment performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13(2),137-151.

34

Keegan, A. and Turner, J. R. (2002). ‘The management of innovation in project-based firms’,
Long Range Planning 35(4), 367-388.
Kochanski, J. M. (2003). ‘Paul and Ledford, Gerry, "People Solutions for R&D"’,
Research-Technology Management, 46(1), 59-61.
Kodama, M (1999) ‘Strategic innovation at large companies through strategic community
management-an NTT multimedia revolution case study’, European Journal of
Innovation Management, 2(3), 95-108.
Kodama, M. (2005), ‘Knowledge Creation through Networked Strategic Communities: Case
Studies in New Product Development’, Long Range Planning, 38(1), 27–49.
Kodama, M.(2009), ‘Boundaries Innovation and Knowledge Integration In The Japanese Firm’,Long Range Planning, 42(4), 463-494.
Kodama, M. (2011), Knowledge Integration Dynamics –Developing Strategic Innovation
Capability, World Scientific Publishing, SI.
Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1992), ‘Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and thereplication of technology’, Organization Science, 5(2), 383-397.
Lave, J. (1988), Cognition in Practice, Cambride University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning, Legitimate Peripheral Participation, New
York, Cambridge University Press.
Lawrence, P. and Lorsch, J. (1967), Organization and Environments; Managing Differentiation
and Integration, Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA.
Leonard-Barton, D.(1992), ‘Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new
product development’, Strategic Management Journal, 13, 111-125.
Leonard-Barton, D.(1995), Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation, Boston, Harvard Business School Press.
Levitt, B. and March, J.B. (1988) ‘Organization learning’, W.R. Scott, J. Blake, eds., Annual
Review of Sociology, Annual Reviews, Palo Alto, CA, 319-340.
Lindkvist, L. (2004). ‘Governing project-based firms: Promoting market-like processes withinhierarchies’, Journal of Management and Governance, 8, 3-25
Lindkvist, L. (2005). ‘Knowledge Communities and Knowledge Collectivities: A Typology ofKnowledge Work in Groups’, Journal of Management Studies, 42(6), 1189-1210.
Lundin, R. A. and Midler, C. (1998). Projects as arenas for renewal and learning processes,
London, Kluwer Academic.
Maccoby, M. (1999). ‘Find Young Leaders or Lose Them", Research-Technology
Management’, 42(1), 58-59.
35

Madhaven and Grover (1998) From Embedded Knowledge to Embodied Knowledge: New
Product Development as Knowledge Management, Journal of Marketing, 62(4),1-12.
March, J.(1991), ‘Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning’, Organization Science,2(1):71-87.
Markides, C. (1998), ‘Strategic Innovation in Established Companies’, Sloan Management Review,
39(3): 31-42.
Markides,C.(1999), All the right moves:a guide to crafting breakthrough strategy, Boston,
Harvard Business School Press.
Martines, L. and Kambil, A. (1999) ‘Looking back and thinking ahead: Effects of priorsuccesson managers’ interpretations of new information technologies’, Academy ofManagement Journal 42: 652-661.
McCarthy, I.P., and Gordon, B.R. 2011. Achieving Contextual Ambidexterity in R&D
Organizations: A Management Control System Approach. R&D Management, 41(3),240-258.
Middleton, C. J. (1967). ‘How to set up a project organization,

Harvard Business Review,

March-April, 73-82 .
Midler, C. (1995). ‘"Projectification" of the firm: The Renault case’, Scandinavian Journal ofManagement, 11(4),363-375.
Mintzberg, H. & Walters, J. (1985) ‘Of strategies deliberate and emergent, Strategic
Management Journal, 6: 357-272.
Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. and Lampel, J.(1998), Strategy Safari: A Guided Tour Through theWilds of Strategic Management. New York, The Tree Press.
Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change, Cambridge,
MA, Belknap Press.
Newell, S., Edelman, L., Scarbrough, H., Swan, J. and Bresnen, M. (2003). ‘"Best practice"development and transfer in the NHS: The importance of process as well as productknowledge’ . Health Services Management Research, 16, 1-12.
Nohria, N. & Ghoshal, S. (1997) The Differentiated Network: Organizing Multinational
Corporations for Value Creation, San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass.
Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Omta, S.W.F. and van Engelen, J. M.L.(1998), ‘Preparing for the 21st Century’,Research-Technology Management, 41(1), 31-35
Orlikowski, (2002), ‘Knowing in Practice: Enacting a Collective Capability in Distributed36Organizing’, Organization Science, 13(3): 249-273.
Orr, J. (1996), Talking about machines: An ethnography of a modern job, ILP Press, Ithca, NY.
Ouchi, W.G. (1981). ‘Theory Z: How American Business Can Meet the Japanese Challenge,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
O’Reilley III, C. and Tushman, M. (2004), ‘The Ambidextrous Organization’, Harvard Business
Review, 82, April, 74-82.
Prencipe, A. and Tell, F. (2001). ‘Inter-project learning: Processes and outcomes of knowledge
codification in project-based firms’, Research Policy, 30, 1371-1394.
Rosenberg, N. (1982), Inside the black Box: Technology and Economics, Cambridge University
Press.
Schroeder, R.G., Van De Ven, A.H., Scudder, G.D. and Polley, D. (1989). The Development of
Innovation Ideas. In: Research on the Management of Innovation: The Minnesota
Studies. A.H. Van de Ven, H.L. Angle and M. Poole (eds.). New York: Harper &Row, 107–33.
Song, X.M.; Montoya-Weiss, M.M. and Schmidt, J.B. (1997). Antecedents and consequences ofcross-functional cooperation: a comparison of R&D, manufacturing, and marketing
perspectives. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14(1), 35-47.
Spender, C. (1990), Industry Recipes: An Enquiry into the Nature and Sources of Managerial
Judgement, Oxford, Basil Blackwell.
Sydow, J., Lindkvist, L. and DeFillippi, R. (2004）. ‘Project-Based Organizations,Embeddedness and Repositories of Knowledge: Editorial’, Organization Studies,25(9), 1475-1489.
Turner, J. R. (1999). The Handbook of Project Based Management, 2 nd ed. London,
McGraw-Hill.
Turner, J. R. and Miller, R. (2003). ‘On the nature of the project as a temporary organization’,International Journal of Project Management, 21, 1-8.
Tushman, M. L. and Anderson, P. (1986). ‘Technological Discontinuities and Organizational
Environments’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 439-465.
Tushman, M. L., and O’Reilly, C. A. (1997) Winning Trough Innovation, Cambridge, NA,
Harvard Business School Press.
Tsai, M-T and Huang, V-C.(2008). ‘Exploratory Learning And New Product Performance: The
Moderating Role Of Cognitive Skills And Environmental Uncertainty’ Journal ofHigh Technology Management Research, 19(2), 83-93.
Utterback, J.M.(1994). Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation, Boston, M.A, Harvard Business
School Press, MA.
Wenger, E.(1998), Community of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
37

West, M.A. (1990). The Social Psychology of Innovation in Groups. In: Innovation andCreativity at Work: Psychological and Organizational Strategies. M.A. West and J.L.
Farr (eds.). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 309–33.
Windeler, A. and Sydow, J. (2001). ‘Project networks and changing industry practices:
Collaborative content production in the German television industry’, Organization
Studies, 22(6),1035-1060.
Yin, R.K.,1994. Case study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd ed., London, Sage.

38

Notes１This evidence is based on conversations with many business people and fellow graduate

students who entered electronics companies. Also, one of the co-authors of this article has
extensive experience in a number of duties and specialist fields working in a communications
company, on a career path similar to those of electronics companies.
In the major Japanese communications company in which the co-author served, engineers
are allocated to business or research divisions. Engineers allocated to the business division arerotated through a number of different functional departments every 2 to 3 years after joining thecompany.
For instance as one pattern, engineers experience career paths in which they will be allocatedto technological departments (responsible for communications equipment and communications
services development), office work (as assistant managers or section chiefs in facilities
departments), again in technological departments (as development managers), in offices again(general manager of sales and facilities), technological department (general manager), offices(Director), marketing and sales department (Director) etc.
There are many other career paths, including cases where personnel from sales moved into towork as R&D managers, and there are also research personnel who mainly begin working on
particular R&D projects and then get promoted to an R&D managerial position. There are also
dedicated scientific and technological research career paths.
The exchange between the research and sales departments in Japanese companies is particularly
vigorous, and there are many cases where researchers move into technical sections within
business divisions, or into marketing and sales departments, and then after gaining experience inbusiness divisions, sometimes these researchers go back to their original research posts.
This is a consistent personnel training approach that is oriented towards directly tying
research and development with business to avoid the so-called ‘death Valley’ (Kodama, 2011).
２

Tai and Huang (2008) verified that these two knowledge skills have positive effects on theperformance of new product development.
３

Refer to Hobday（1995）. OEM： Original Equipment Manufacturing (manufacturers who arecontracted by the product branding company), ODM： Original Design Manufacturing(designers and manufacturers who are contracted by the product branding company), OBM：
Own-Brand Manufacturing (a company that manufactures its own brands entirely).

39