Title Page
Module: MGT3130 Innovations and Technology Management
Name : Abdo Abdullahi
Student Number: M0027455
Module leader: Mr Hong Woo
Question 1: In the Skullcandy case (Chapter 12, Schilling 2010), would you characterise Skullcandy’s new product development team structure as Functional, Lightweight, Heavyweight or Autonomous and why? Provide your analysis with justifications.
Question 2: Discuss the main sources of innovation, and what are particularly important for a company such as Skullcandy and why?
MGT3130 Innovation and Technology Management – CP2

Question 1

Skull candy team structure can be characterised as hybrid lightweight and heavyweight. On the basis of it being lightweight the skull candy team members would still reside in their functional departments (Melissa A. Schilling 2010). The light weight teams at Skull candy have a very clear functional affiliation and would only work on the project that is given part time. The location of the team members of the Skull candy will always be in their functions thus allowing them to easily work together. Therefore the team members conduct the projects in their own departments (V. Patrick et all 2007).

The functional departments will always have the responsibility of the work being done in that department. The skull candy case shows that there is close contact between the team members and also the functional managers and the project manager. Skull candy light weight team structure is cross-functional however they will be under the control of their respective functional managers (Clayton M.Christensen et all 1997). Moderate is the degree in which Skull candy cross-functional integration between the team members. Cross-functional team like Skull candy’s contribution of’ ’different functional entities at different points in the development process of the headphones will have