Suchergebnisse

ABSTRACTBuying and supplying organizations rely on each other for developing better products in an efficient manner, which explains the popularity of involving suppliers in new product development (NPD). However, such involvement is not always successful, partially due to the challenges of structuring a buyer–supplier team to manage joint dependence and dependence asymmetry. This study adopts an organizational dependence view to examine how three types of intergroup structures—administrative (formalization and centralization), task (task interdependence), and physical (colocation)—influence project performance and buyer learning in NPD projects. Furthermore, adopting a contingency theory perspective, we study whether the national context moderates the effects of intergroup structures on project outcomes. We adopt a two‐group structural equation modeling approach to test hypotheses with survey responses from a sample of NPD projects in the United States (US) and China. Results show different ways in which intergroup structures influence project performance and buyer learning in the two culturally, economically, and institutionally distinct countries. We discuss the implications of these new findings and present directions for future research.

ABSTRACTCollaborating with a supplier in a buying firm's new product development (NPD) project is commonly advocated and adopted, but does not always improve project performance. Some pre‐existing collaboration contexts, such as buyer–supplier NPD projects, are especially exposed to supplier opportunism due to the uncertain nature of the collaboration process. Adopting agency theory and transaction cost theory perspectives, we examine: (i) contextual antecedents and project consequences of supplier opportunism and (ii) if these causal influences vary in different cultural and institutional contexts. Using a survey sample of 214 United States (U.S.) and 212 Chinese buying firms' responses about buyer–supplier NPD projects, we find that supplier opportunism is significantly influenced by the task and relational contexts. We also show that supplier opportunism damages both design quality and efficiency, two aspects of project performance. When comparing U.S. to China, we find that task and relational contexts have a greater impact on supplier opportunism in the U.S., but design efficiency is less hurt by supplier opportunism there. Finally, we show challenges of preventing supplier opportunism in certain NPD collaboration contexts, and offer solutions for overcoming these challenges.

PurposeWhen developing a new product, a buying firm solicits revenue sharing bids from two competing suppliers. Bidding behaviors of suppliers do not always align with predictions from rational agent models due to task uncertainty and bounded rationality, which could result in non-optimal supplier offers and ultimately hurt buying firm interests. This paper aims to discuss the aforementioned issues.Design/methodology/approachThe authors built an analytical model that considers the impact of supplier technological risk, buyer–supplier coordination cost and supplier loss aversion on the optimal bid of the supplier. Next, using limited information processing capacity as a theoretic lens, the authors explore antecedents to the size of a focal supplier's bidding error, the absolute difference between the actual bid and the optimal bid. The authors used quantitative lab experimental data to test the hypotheses.Findings(1) Bounded rational bidders often fail to differentiate between relevant and irrelevant competitive information when placing bids, (2) loss aversion of a bidder significantly affects not only levels of bids, particularly for bidders with competitive disadvantages, but also sizes of the bidding error and (3) competitive information that has clearer performance implications are more influential in reducing sizes of bidding errors.Originality/valueThe results provide a comprehensive view of the bidding behaviors of a bounded rational supplier in an innovation outsourcing context with competition. With the results, managers now have a better understanding of behavioral influencers behind non-optimal supplier bids in an innovation outsourcing context.

PurposeThis study investigates the extent to which a firm's centrality and autonomy in its supply network are associated with the intensity and complexity of its competitive actions.Design/methodology/approachUtilizing social network analysis and dynamic panel data models, this study analyzes a comprehensive panel dataset with 10,802 firm-year observations across various industries between 2011 and 2018 to test the hypotheses.FindingsOur findings show that a firm's level of centrality in its supply network has an inverted U-shaped relationship with both competitive intensity and competitive complexity. In addition, the turning points of these two inverted U-shaped relationships differ in that firms with a lower level of centrality tend to compete aggressively by launching more actions within fewer categories, while firms with a higher level of centrality tend to compete aggressively by launching fewer actions that cover a larger range of categories. Finally, we find that a firm's structural autonomy has a positive relationship with competitive complexity.Originality/valueThis study bridges the gap between the supply chain management literature and strategic management literature and investigates how supply networks shape competitive aggressiveness. In particular, this research investigates how a firm's structural position in its supply network affects its competitive actions, an important intermediate mechanism for competitive advantage that has been overlooked in the supply chain management literature.

PurposeThere is good evidence that the shift in global sourcing is toward so‐called "low cost country suppliers." Yet conditions in these countries are often not well‐known. At the same time, best practices in integrated supply dictate a multi‐faceted decision, rather than basing supplier location on a single attribute say, labor cost alone. With these issues in mind, a research project was formulated with two primary objectives. First, the authors wanted to compile the knowledge and perceptions of purchasing managers regarding low cost regions and their capabilities and to reflect the multiple factors involved in current sourcing strategies and supplier selection decisions in these low cost geographies. Second, the authors wanted to compare managers' subjective perceptions with objective data regarding attributes of sourcing locations to identify the relationship between perceptions and reality. This paper aims to explore the issues.Design/methodology/approachThe authors surveyed over 100 sourcing professionals on their perceptions of various low cost sourcing alternatives. Perceptual mapping techniques were used to combine the rankings on some 12 different attributes to visualize how the various attributes relate to each other and how the low cost regions compare when rated against sourcing managers' ideal perceptions.FindingsThe research results show that procurement managers select regions for low cost sourcing based on both specific measures and individual and/or group perceptions of the region, whether these perceptions are correct or not. This paper probes these perceptions. Also the paper compares these subjective perceptions with objective data to show that cultural stereotypes may bias managers' perception of location‐specific characteristics. The paper closes with implications for procurement managers and opportunities for further research.Practical implicationsThe authors have demonstrated that purchasing managers choose sourcing locations using multiple criteria instead of only focusing on cost. But some perceptions are biased by cultural stereotypes and do not reflect reality. This suggests that managers have to be careful when using their subjective judgment in choosing sourcing locations.Originality/valueThe authors believe that visual representations of alternative sourcing options have great potential to improve the efficiency of cross‐disciplinary and multi‐company teams that are increasingly responsible for global sourcing strategies. Comparing managers' perception with objective data of location attributes shows that mangers' perception may be biased by cultural stereotypes.

AbstractFirms increasingly engage in mergers and acquisitions (M&As) to improve their network positions and enhance performance. Yet, how the fundamental structure of the merged supply base changes after the M&A and how the structural changes affect the performance are largely unknown. Building upon the strategy‐structure‐performance framework, this study investigates dual roles of supply base structural changes in M&A events, namely, as an outcome and as a moderator to post‐M&A performance. In particular, we examine how the size and the country diversity of the merged supply base change after M&As, as well as how these structural changes affect the merged firm's operational performance. We conduct a difference‐in‐differences analysis by comparing firms that engaged in M&A events (treatment group) with those comparable firms that did not engage in any M&A events (control group). The results show that the merged firms tend to reduce the size of their supply bases after M&As. In addition, our results demonstrate that both supply base consolidation (i.e., reducing the number of suppliers) and country diversification (i.e., spreading suppliers across multiple countries) improve the merged firms' post‐M&A operational performance, an effect that becomes stronger for horizontal M&As. We also explore how the type of M&As (i.e., horizontal vs. nonhorizontal), industry relatedness between the two merging firms, and the purposes of M&As affect the post‐M&A structural changes to the supply bases. This study helps inform supply managers the important roles of supply base in M&As to enhance post‐M&A operational performance or to limit the synergies when not properly done.

PurposeThis study investigates the extent to which structural equivalence between acquiring and target firms is associated with post-merger and acquisition (M&A) performance—a relationship that is proposed to be moderated by industry-level vertical relatedness between acquiring and target firms.Design/methodology/approachApplying social network analysis and regression, this study analyzes a buyer–supplier relationship network dataset of 279 M&A deals completed between 2010 and 2017 to test the hypotheses. Structural equivalence is measured as the proportion of common customers and suppliers between an acquiring firm and a target firm.FindingsSupporting a view about the importance of supply chains in explaining M&As outcomes, the results suggest that the structural equivalence in the supplier network is positively associated with post-M&A firm performance. The results also show that the effect of the structural equivalence in the customer network is moderated by vertical relatedness between two merging firms (i.e. structural equivalence contributes to post-M&A performance when vertical industry relatedness is high).Originality/valueThis study contributes to the M&A and supply network literature by investigating the performance implications of structural equivalence in supplier and customer networks, demonstrating the importance of taking a supply chain view when explaining M&As outcomes. Specifically, the authors suggest considering structural equivalence as a new type of relatedness between merging firms (i.e. relatedness in network resources in explaining post-M&A performance). It also indicates how industry-level vertical resource relatedness, which is about relatedness in internal resources between the two firms, could interact with firm-level network resource relatedness, which is about relatedness in external supply chain resources between the two firms, in affecting post-M&A performance.