How to apply RDT to ramp-up dependencies

The relationship between the members of the ramp-up organisational unit with other functional areas is contingent with the degree of changes made to the product and process while in the ramp-up stages. Through a close examination of all six cases, we use RDT in identifying and comparing the number of resources, activities, and collaborative commitments and agreements needed.

We discovered that radical changes made to the product and the process increase the ramp-up unit’s dependency on the resources and expertise of new technologies, material, and process from other functions in the company. However, with small incremental changes, a higher inter-functional integration strategy is less likely to lead to power imbalance and external control over the ramp-up organisation. Based on our findings we propose the following theoretical propositions:

1. The effects of PI and MD between the ramp-up organisational unit and the various organisational functions are influenced by the degree of novelty of the innovation changes.

2. The more radical changes made to the product/process, the higher degree of ramp-up department dependence on inter-functional involvement.

3. PI between the ramp-up organisational unit and its functional integration is moderated by the strategic choices made in the rest of the organisation.

We focus on how the structure of the relationships dictates the dependencies, which now will be analysed and discussed.

be facilitated by the degree of mutual actions two or more functions undertake (Gulati & Sytch, 2007). Different functions throughout the ramp-up process could become pre-disposed to carrying out mutually coordinated activities and could develop greater overlap in their strategic goals, in part because they face fewer structural obstacles to the joint pursuit of such goals (ibid).

The aim is to explore the contingencies found in the mutual dependence and the power imbalance among the actors. We then analyse the data collected, transcribed, and coded from key informants. Casciaro and M. Piskorski (2005) suggest employing the difference between each party’s dependence on the other as power imbalance in a dyad, and the sum of each actor’s dependence as mutual dependence. We have explored this suggestion by assigning the value (1) to incremental changes in the product/process’s dependency on inter-functional involvement, and the value (2) to radical or novel changes and its -higher- dependency on the inter-functional integration.

In the course of analysing the practices of ramp-up business unit and the managers involved, it became increasingly evident that understanding the dynamics of inevitable modifications in the product or the process at this stage, leads to substantial consequences. In particular, viewing the changes throughout the phase of ramp-up differently significantly overlooks their impact and how these changes lead to shifting exploitations risks.

The different configurations are presented in the following table, ‘Configuration 1’ represents the PI between the radical and the low involvement of cross-functional units, valued at 1, which is the difference between their dependencies on each other (2 – 1 = 1). Their MD is on the other hand the sum of their joint dependencies (2 + 1 = 3).

Power imbalance and mutual dependence are simultaneously dealt with the purpose of producing a theoretically sound representation of the power-dependence structure as seen in table 1. This is done because the goal is to address the three propositions and identify potential exploitation risks embedded in these relationships. We took note on each party’s dependence profile as power imbalance in figure 2, configuration of PI and MD.

‘Configuration 1’ for instance, the PI value is 1, which is the difference between the dependencies of the functional integration level and its dependence on innovation being a radical (See figure 3 for overview).

[107]

Product a nd Proces s ch anges a t t he R amp-up

business un it level

Functional integration Low High Dependence on the other 1 2 Incremental 1

Configuration:3 PI: 0 MD: 2

Configuration:4 PI: 1 MD: 3 Radical 2

Configuration:1 PI: 1 MD: 3

Configuration:2 PI: 0 MD: 4 Figure 2 – Degree of changes and functional integration effects on Power Imbalance (PI) and Mutual Dependence (MD)

[108]

figuration Degree of changes Functional integration Power imbalance Mutual dependence Exploitation risk Radical Low AsymmetricalModerate High Radical High Symmetrical High Low Incremental Low Symmetrical Low Low Incremental High AsymmetricalModerate High Table 3 – Control effects of product/process changes, functional involvement on the effects of power imbalance and mutual dependence on exploitation (Casciaro & Piskorski, 2005).

In taking a closer look at table 3, the developed theoretical model serves to illustrate how the configurations of degree of changes in the product or the process and degree of functional integration will affect the power imbalance and mutual dependence, which will consequently influence the exploitation risk profile. The classifications presented in table 3 are that of power imbalance and mutual dependence simply corresponding to the values in the boxes in Figure 2.

Therefore, configuration 1, power is imbalanced because the radical changes in the product or the process lead to high dependency of the ramp-up business unit on the functional integration, simply because of the significant novelty of the product or the process requires commitment and expertise from other actors. Whereas, the functional integration is less dependent on the ramp-up organisational unit because of its low concern for resource allocation.

In configuration 4, there are also asymmetrical power relations. However, here the disadvantage is within the functional integration, which makes it more dependent on the ramp-up organisational unit dealing with minor incremental changes. These changes make the business unit less dependent on resources from the organisation due to the familiarity with the changes made to the product or the process.

In configuration 2 and 3, power is symmetric and balanced because in configuration 2, both the ramp-up unit and the inter-functional integration are equally dependent on each other, and in configuration 3 they are both equally low dependent on each other. The dyadic relationship as seen in table 3 between the degree of changes and the dependencies and power imbalance result in different combinations of exploitation risks.