Results

4.2.1. Direct Effects

The results of testing hypotheses related to direct effects are shown in Table 6 and Table 8.

Hypothesis 1 states that the more functionally diverse new product development teams are, the higher the new product quality will be. This hypothesis was not supported for Taiwanese teams, in that the coefficient for the linear term (β = -.07, t = -1.01, p = .31) was not significant.

However, it was supported for American teams where the coefficient for the linear term (β = .16, t = 2.25, p < .05) was significant.

Hypothesis 2 posits that the more tenure diverse new product development teams are, the

higher the new product quality will be. The results did not support the linear relationship between tenure diversity and new product quality proposed in Hypothesis 2 for both Taiwanese and American teams. The coefficients for the linear terms (β = .07, t = 1.24, p = .22 for Taiwanese teams; β = -.11, t = -1.82, p = .07 for American teams) were not significant.

Consistent with expectations, the capability of information integration of a new product development team was positively related to new product quality for both Taiwanese and American teams (β = .66, t = 2.15, p < .05 for Taiwanese teams; β = .37, t = 4.03, p < .001 for American teams). Thus, Hypothesis 3 was supported.

As expected, speed-to-market was negatively related to new product quality for Taiwanese teams (β = -.17, t = -2.19, p < .05). It was not however, associated with new product quality for American teams (β = .10, t = 1.52, p = .13).Thus, as for Taiwanese teams, Hypothesis 4 was supported; but was not supported for American teams. To explore further if speed-to-market pressure below a moderate level has a stronger positive relationship to product quality than does speed-to-market beyond a moderate level, we dichotomized the speed-to-market pressure at its median. We then correlated product quality with speed-to-market pressure below a moderate level and beyond a moderate level. The results indicated that speed-to-market pressure below a moderate level seems to have a stronger relationship to new product quality (r = .43, p < .01) than does speed-to-market pressure beyond a moderate level (r

= .24, p = .07, ns).

Referring to Hypothesis 5, product innovativeness was expected to reduce new product quality. Because the coefficient for the linear term (β = -.5, t = -2.04, p < .05) was significant for Taiwanese teams, this hypothesis was supported. However, the coefficient for the linear term (β

= .02, t = .35, p = .73) was not significant for American teams, so this hypothesis was not supported. Hypothesis 6 posits that quality orientation would be positively related to product

quality. This prediction was supported for both Taiwanese and American team (β = .59, t = 2.39, p < .01 for Taiwanese teams; β = .37, t = 4.69, p < .001 for American teams).

The result did not support the linear relationship between supplier involvement and product quality for both Taiwanese and American teams. Although the correlation coefficients of supplier involvement and customer involvement with NPQ (American teams), and customer involvement with NPQ (Taiwanese teams) were significant in Tables 4 and 5, we found that the correlation coefficients of supplier involvement and customer involvement with capability of information integration (American teams), and customer involvement with capability of information integration (Taiwanese teams) were much higher than those of the former. This indicated that supplier involvement and customer involvement with capability of information integration (American teams), and customer involvement with capability of information integration (Taiwanese teams) existed the multicollinearity, and therefore supplier involvement and customer involvement (American teams), and customer involvement (Taiwanese teams) should be removed from the regression equation. This was the reason why supplier involvement and customer involvement (American teams), and customer involvement (Taiwanese teams) are shown as nonsignificant in Tables 6 and 8, and are discussed later, because their variations were explained by capability of information integration instead.

The coefficient for supplier involvement and new product quality in Taiwanese teams was not significant (β = - .02, t = - .25, p = .81). But as far as American teams were concerned, the result showed that supplier involvement was significantly, negatively related rather than positively related to new product quality (β = -.17, t = -2.36, p < .05). Therefore, Hypothesis 7 was not supported for either Taiwanese or American teams.

Hypothesis 8 predicted that customer involvement in the product development process is positively associated with new product quality. Coefficients for customer involvement and new

product quality showed no significance for both Taiwanese (β = .01, t = .15, p = .88) and American (β = .05, t = .68, p = .50) teams. Thus, Hypothesis 8 was not supported for both Taiwanese and American teams.

4.2.2. Moderating Effects

4.2.2.1. The Interactions of Taiwanese Teams

The results of the moderated regression analysis for Taiwanese teams are shown in Table 6 (Model 2). Consistent with Hypothesis 9, capability of information integration will reduce the negative effect of speed-to-market pressure on new product quality. The interaction between speed-to-market pressure and capability of information integration was significant (β = .22, t = 2.05, p < .05). Hypothesis 9 was supported for Taiwanese teams. However, these three interactions did not surface in the American teams’ regression model; as shown in Table 7, model 2, since it did not increase less than a percent of its multiple squared correlation coefficient (R²).

Thus, Hypotheses 9, 10 and11 were not supported in American teams.

Hypothesis 10 predicts that the negative effect of product innovativeness on new product quality will be mitigated by the capability of information integration of a new product development team. On the basis of the moderated regression analysis shown in Table 6, the interaction between capability of information integration and product innovativeness was not significant (β = .13, t = .54, p = .59). Therefore, Hypothesis 10 was not supported in Taiwanese teams.

It was hypothesized that quality orientation was expected to enhance the effect of capability of information integration on new product quality. The interaction between quality orientation and capability of information integration was barely significant (β = -.78, t = -1.82, p

< .1). Thus, Hypothesis 11 was also not supported in Taiwanese teams.

4.2.2.2. The Interactions of American Teams

Based on the conceptual framework, we found that there were no interactions in American teams’ regression model, as described earlier. Therefore, we repeated the regression analysis with the interactions of supplier involvement and capability of information integration, and customer involvement and capability of information integration. We then found that the revised regression model of American teams revealed moderating effects. In Table 8, Model 2, the interaction between supplier involvement and capability of information integration was not significant (β

= .03, t = .46, p = .65), but the interaction between customer involvement and capability of information integration was positively significant (β = .19, t = 2.51, p = <.05). Thus, it showed that there exists an interaction between customer involvement and capability of information integration in Americans teams.

4.2.3. Covariate

The covariate team size was found to have no significant effect on new product quality for both Taiwanese teams (β = .09, t = 1.49, p = .14) and American teams (β = .06, t = .71, p = .48).