Help or Hindrance? Causal Ambiguity and Supplier Involvement in New Product Development Teams

Suppliers are increasingly being involved in interorganizational new product development (NPD) teams. Successful management of this involvement is critical both to the performance of the new product and to meeting the project's goals. Yet the transfer of knowledge between buyer and supplier may be subject to varying degrees of causal ambiguity, potentially limiting the effect of supplier involvement on performance. Understanding the dynamics of causal ambiguity within interorganizational product development is thus an important unanswered empirical question. A theoretical model is developed exploring the effect of supplier involvement practices (supplier involvement orientation, relationship commitment, and involvement depth) on the level of causal ambiguity experienced within interorganizational NPD teams, and the subsequent impact on time to competitor imitation, new product advantage, and project performance. The model also serves as a test of the paradox that causal ambiguity both inhibits imitation by competitors, but adversely affects organizational outcomes. Survey data collected from 119 research and development‐intensive manufacturing firms in the United Kingdom largely support these hypotheses. Results from structural equation modeling show that supplier involvement orientation and long‐term relationship commitment lower causal ambiguity within interorganizational NPD teams. The results also shed light on the causal ambiguity paradox showing that causal ambiguity during interorganizational NPD decreases both product and project performance, but has no significant effect on time to competitor imitation. Instead, competitor imitation is delayed by the extent to which the firm develops a new product advantage within the market. A product development strategy based upon maintaining interfirm causal ambiguity to delay competitor imitation is thus unlikely to result in a sustainable competitive advantage. Instead, managers are encouraged to undertake supplier involvement practices aimed at minimizing the level of knowledge ambiguity in the NPD project, and in doing so, improve product and project‐related performance.     

Exploring the impact of a supplier portal on the buyer-supplier relationship. The case of Ferrari Auto

This article concentrates on the relationship between companies and their suppliers with a specific focus on the impact that information and communication technologies (ICTs) have on industrial (business to business) purchasing processes. After reviewing the extant literature, we classify the potential impact of ICTs on the buyer-supplier interactions into three main categories, i.e. impact on buyer-supplier relationship, impact on purchase process efficiency and impact on logistics process performance. Whilst scholars generally agree on the impact ICTs may have on buyer-supplier exchanges, they have not investigated concurrently all of these three impacts to understand their comparative relevance and the context in which this comparative relevance may change. In order to redress this gap in the literature our research study focuses on a particular form of ICT solution - supplier portals - and takes a supplier (rather than buyer) perspective. We explore empirical evidence from a single customer-multiple supplier case study, that of the Ferrari Auto supplier portal. Our study leads us to contend that suppliers view such portals as offering far more significant benefits to their relationship with customers than to the improvements in purchase process efficiency or to the performance of buyer-supplier logistics processes. We conclude with a short discussion of the main managerial implications and suggestions for future research.     

Buyer-supplier relational strength and buying firm's marketing capability: An outside-in perspective

Extant literature in marketing capability with an inside-out perspective stresses existing internal resources as the basis for developing marketing capability. This study, taking an outside-in perspective, argues that starting from external environment and developing strong buyer-supplier relationship can help formulate strong marketing capability of the buying firm. Using survey data from 199 Chinese manufacturing buyers who identified 937 suppliers, we found that strong buyer-supplier relationship can breed strong supplier information sharing and supplier flexibility, which fully mediate the effect of buyer-supplier relationship on buying firms' marketing capability. The findings provide support to the outside-in approach and reveal how external inter-firm relationship can be turned into intra-firm capability, and suggest that strong upstream buyer-supplier relationship can be a necessity for building downstream buyers' marketing capabilities. The findings also suggest an alternative strategy for developing marketing capabilities starting from external suppliers, and may help close the gap between marketing capability and dynamic external environment.     

Managing interdependencies in supplier networks

Building and managing a supplier base has been referred to in the literature as a key aspect of supplier management. Scholars have proposed a number of models aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of supplier network management, mainly based on a portfolio approach. In the IMP tradition of research, those models are often criticized as they ignore the interdependencies between the different existing dyadic relationships of a focal buyer company and its suppliers. Such interdependencies are the main focus of this paper, which has four objectives: (1) To analyze the types of relationships linking suppliers, (2) to understand the factors and dynamics underlying the creation and management of these relationships (3) to uncover existing links between buyer-supplier and supplier-supplier relationships, and (4) to clarify how different configurations of supplier relationship interactions impact on the performance of the actors involved. The paper discusses two empirical case studies, using the supplier networks of two focal buyer companies. We find that supplier interdependencies are mainly a by-product of the buyer-supplier dyads. Furthermore, the nature and dynamics of these dyads are a strong determinant of the scope and frequency of supplier connections and the corresponding effects on performance.     

The impact of supplier development on buyer competitive advantage: A path analytic model

As manufacturing firms increasingly realize that supplier performance is crucial to their establishing and maintaining competitive advantage, supplier development has been a subject of considerable research in supply chain management. We develop and test a path model to explore how supplier development practices affect buyer-supplier performance from the buying firm's perspective in the context of Hong Kong's electronics industry. The results show that top management, supplier evaluation, and supplier strategic objectives are significant determinants of transaction-specific supplier development, and that buyers that have closer collaborative relationships with suppliers may strengthen their competitive advantage.     

Trust and knowledge sharing in context: A study of international buyer-supplier relationships in Thailand

How does trust facilitate knowledge sharing between business partners in an emerging market? We advance the relational view of knowledge sharing by theoretically developing and empirically testing moderators of the impact of trust on knowledge sharing between MNE subsidiaries and their local suppliers. Distinguishing inter-organizational and inter-personal trust, we argue that the positive relationship between inter-organizational trust and knowledge sharing is moderated by characteristics of the transaction, while the positive impact of inter-personal trust is moderated by the organizational context in which the relationship is embedded. We test our hypotheses on a sample of 156 buyer-supplier relationships between MNE subsidiaries and local suppliers in Thai manufacturing, and find empirical support for our theoretical arguments. We conclude with managerial implications on how to facilitate knowledge sharing in an emerging market.     

Governance of supplier collaboration in technologically uncertain NPD projects

Firms that are searching for new technologies from suppliers through collaborative new product development (NPD) need to devise effective approaches for governing the supplier relationship. Based on in-depth case studies of four collaborative NPD projects, this paper shows that in projects with a high degree of uncertainty (1) firms achieve governance by simultaneously limiting supplier involvement and allowing for high levels of collaboration, (2) transactional and relational governance have distinct roles in achieving limited supplier involvement and establishing high levels of collaboration, and (3) transactional and relational governance are organizationally separated. These findings have implications for the complementary use of relational and transactional governance, as well as for the role of purchasing and R&D in technologically uncertain NPD projects.     

Improving Supplier New Product Development Performance: The Role of Supplier Development

Suppliers play an increasingly central role in helping firms achieve their new product development (NPD) goals. The literature implicitly assumes that suppliers are able to meet or exceed the quality standards and technological expectations of the firm, and yet, in practice, suppliers often lack the technological capabilities needed to undertake collaborative NPD. In such situations, a firm may choose to intervene and actively develop the supplier's technological and product development capabilities. We develop a theoretical framework that conceptualizes supplier development activities within interorganizational NPD projects as part of a bilateral knowledge‐sharing process: design recommendations, technical specifications, and new technology flow from supplier to the firm, and in turn, the firm can implement supplier development activities to upgrade the supplier's technological capabilities. Antecedents (supplier responsibility, skills similarity, single sourcing strategy) and consequences of supplier development activities (on supplier, product, and project performance) are examined using a sample of 153 interorganizational NPD projects within UK manufacturers. We find broad support for our hypotheses. In particular, we show that the relational rents (in the form of improved product and project performance) attained from supplier development activities in new product development are not achieved directly, but rather indirectly, via improvements in the supplier's creative and technological capabilities. Our results emphasize the importance of adopting a strategic view of the potential returns available from investing in the NPD capabilities of key suppliers, and provide clues about underlying reasons for the suboptimal experiences of many companies' collaborative NPD projects.     

Coordination of Design Supply Chains for Bundling Physical and Software Products*

Research on product development management has concentrated on physical products or on software, but not both. This article explores a special new product development (NPD) approach in which the internal development of core physical products is augmented by bundled and largely outsourced software features. We studied a medical device producer that has established a new medical information product group (MIPG) within their NPD organization to create software features that are bundled with their core physical products. The MIPG has conceptualized these software features as multiple software development projects, and then coordinated their realization largely through the use of external software suppliers. This case study centers on the question: how can firms effectively coordinate such product development processes? Our analysis of case evidence and related literature suggests that such product bundling processes, when pursued through design supply chains (DSC), are more complex than is typical for the development of streams of either physical products or software products individually. We observe that DSC coordination transcends the requirements associated with traditional “stage‐gate” NPD processes used for physical product development. Managers in DSC settings face a tension inherent to distributed work: keeping internal and external development efforts separate to exploit the design capabilities within a network of software suppliers, while ensuring effective delivery of a stream of bundled products. Many managers face this coordination tension with little, if any, prior knowledge of how to create a streamlined and effective DSC. Our research indicates that these managers need to make a series of interrelated decisions: the number of suppliers to qualify and include in or exclude from the DSC; the basis for measuring and modifying the scope of the suppliers' work; the need to account for asymmetric cost structures and expertise across the DSC; the mechanisms for synchronizing development work across elements of the DSC; and the approaches for developing skills—both technical and administrative—that project managers need for utilizing in‐house competencies while acquiring and assimilating design know‐how from external development organizations. When managers take a flexible approach toward these decisions based on a modular set of software development projects, they can improve their NPD outcomes through technical and organizational experimentation and adjust their own resource deployment to best utilize the suppliers' capabilities within their DSC.     

Suppliers versus Lead Users: Examining Their Relative Impact on Product Variety

Collaboration with parties external to the new product development (NPD) process is seen as a means to reduce costs and improve the product offering to customers. On the suppliers' side, collaboration during the NPD process may lead to a faster and more efficient process. On the users' or customers' side, collaboration may provide ideas for entirely new products and/or modifications to existing ones. This paper examines how collaboration with suppliers and a group of users that experience needs unknown to the public, the so‐called lead users, affects the resulting variety of the products offered. The paper focuses on product variety because of its increasing perceived importance in the satisfaction of changing customer needs. Hierarchical regression analysis of survey data collected from 313 U.K. manufacturers revealed a significant positive relationship between collaboration and product variety. The key findings are that increasing the extent of collaboration with lead users and with suppliers during the NPD process will increase the variety of products offered to customers, and that lead users have a higher impact on product variety to suppliers. Previous studies have found that collaboration increases NPD performance, but to the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first to explicitly explore the link with product variety. The paper concludes by discussing the findings' practical implications, limitations, and recommendations for future studies.     

Strategic cost management across boundaries of firms

In recent years, increasing attention has been placed on how purchasing strategies may contribute to the efficiency of firms. In this paper, a case study illustrates how one firm implemented a supplier base reduction to enable a high involvement strategy in relation to appointed key suppliers. The effects of this change in purchasing strategy were extensive cost rationalisations. The main change in this process was a redefinition of the unit of analysis from individual transactions to buyer-supplier relationships. However, the costs in the relationship are driven not only by internal factors on the two sides of the relationship but also by how the focal relationship relates to other relationships. Therefore, the ways in which the costs are affected by other parties, such as the supplier's supplier, the supplier's other customers, the customer's other suppliers, and the customer's customers, need to be included in the analysis.     

A Model of Supplier Integration into New Product Development*

In many industries, firms are looking for ways to cut concept‐to‐customer development time, to improve quality, and to reduce the cost of new products. One approach shown to be successful in Japanese organizations involves the integration of material suppliers early in the new product development cycle. This involvement may range from simple consultation with suppliers on design ideas to making suppliers fully responsible for the design of components or systems they will supply. While prior research shows the benefit of using this approach, execution remains a problem. The processes for identifying and integrating suppliers into the new product development (NPD) process in North American organizations are not understood well. This problem is compounded by the fact that design team members often are reluctant to listen to the technology and cost ideas made by suppliers in new product development efforts. We suggest a model of the key activities required for successful supplier integration into NPD projects, based on case studies with 17 Japanese and American manufacturing organizations. The model is validated using data from a survey of purchasing executives in global corporations with at least one successful and one unsuccessful supplier integration experience. The results suggest that (1) increased knowledge of a supplier is more likely to result in greater information sharing and involvement of the supplier in the product development process; (2) sharing of technology information results in higher levels of supplier involvement and improved outcomes; (3) supplier involvement on teams generally results in a higher achievement of NPD team goals; (4) in cases when technology uncertainty is present, suppliers and buyers are more likely to share information on NPD teams; and (5) the problems associated with technology uncertainty can be mitigated by greater use of technology sharing and direct supplier participation on new product development teams. A supplier's participation as a true member of a new product development team seems to result in the highest level of benefits, especially in cases when a technology is in its formative stages.     

Enhancing New Product Development Performance: An Organizational Learning Perspective

Several years ago, an editorial in a software industry journal asked readers, “Why aren’t they using all those marvelous methods?” The focus of the editorial was on software engineering methods, but the question also applies to the broader realm of new product development (NPD). Proven tools exist for gathering, disseminating, and using market information. But despite widespread recognition of the important role that market knowledge plays in NPD, most firms fail to employ these tools in a consistent manner.Marjorie E. Adams, George S. Day, and Deborah Dougherty contend that the tools for successful NPD cannot be implemented successfully until we understand the barriers that hinder an organization’s capabilities for learning about markets. To foster that understanding, they describe the results of a study that explores the organizational barriers to learning about markets for new products. The study examines 40 NPD efforts in 15 large firms, and it has the following goals: identifying the processes through which organizational barriers impede market learning, developing specific ideas for how NPD professionals can cope more effectively with these barriers, and offering suggestions for improving market tools and techniques to help overcome these barriers.The study identifies three organizational learning barriers: avoiding ambiguity, compartmentalized thinking, and inertia. For the participants in this study, these barriers persistently act in specific ways to inhibit market learning. In acquiring market information, people typically focus on less ambiguous, more easily understood technologies and business truisms. Dissemination of market information is hindered because people focus on their own goals, which are often defined within their department’s role instead of the overall goals of the project. Inertia acts as a barrier to the effective use of market information. That is, people tend to proceed as they always have, maintaining the status quo rather than adjusting actions to capitalize on market learning.By encouraging broad functional participation in the acquisition and interpretation of data, NPD organizations can reduce the perceived ambiguity of market information. However, cross-functional approaches are only one step in overcoming organizational barriers. Managers must enable teams to develop rich, vivid market data, help people extend established routines into new practices, and promote trust. Specific market research tools and methods that promote market learning are also suggested.     

Success Factors for Integrating Suppliers into New Product Development

Faster, better, cheaper—these marching orders summarize the challenge facing new product development (NPD). In other words, NPD teams must find the means for speeding time to market while also improving product quality and reducing product costs. Cross-functional teams have proved effective for meeting these challenges, and such teams may extend beyond company boundaries to include key materials suppliers. Effective integration of suppliers into NPD can yield such benefits as reduced cost and improved quality of purchased materials, reduced product development time, and improved access to and application of technology. As Gary Ragatz, Robert Handfield, and Thomas Scannell point out, however, those benefits do not automatically accrue to any NPD team that includes representatives from a supplier's company. In a study of 60 member companies from the Michigan State University Global Procurement and Supply Chain Electronic Benchmarking Network, they explore the management practices and the environmental factors that relate most closely to successful integration of suppliers into the NPD process. The study identifies supplier membership on the NPD project team as the greatest differentiator between most and least successful integration efforts. Although the respondents reported only moderate use of shared education and training, the study cites this management factor as another significant differentiator between most and least successful efforts. Respondents listed direct, cross-functional, intercompany communication as the most widely used technique for integrating suppliers into NPD. To integrate suppliers into NPD, a company must overcome such barriers as resistance to sharing proprietary information, and the not-invented-here syndrome. The results of this study suggest that overcoming such barriers depends on relationship structuring—that is, shared education and training, formal trust development processes, formalized risk/reward sharing agreements, joint agreement on performance measurements, top management commitment from both companies, and confidence in the supplier's capabilities. Overcoming these barriers also depends on assett sharing, including intellectual assets such as customer requirements, technology information, and cross-functional communication; physical assets such as linked information systems, technology, and shared plant and equipment; and human assets such as supplier participation on the project team and co-location of personnel.     

Web-Based Product Development Systems Integration and New Product Outcomes: A Conceptual Framework

In hopes of improving the effectiveness of their new product development (NPD) processes, many firms increasingly are eager to adopt integrated web‐based NPD systems for NPD. However, few would argue that the mere use of web‐based NPD systems substantially will improve the NPD process. But we know little about how and when these systems can be used for enhancing NPD. An organization desiring to employ the web in its NPD process can use it at varying levels of functionality and sophistication, ranging from a tool for automating manual tasks and exchanging data to a means of integrating various intra‐ and interorganizational NPD functions and processes. At higher levels of technology sophistication or integration, an organization's NPD processes will get more integrated internally, i.e., between different stages of the NPD process and with the processes of its suppliers, technology providers, etc. Such integration of both internal and external NPD processes is considered important for successful innovation. Thus, on the surface, higher levels of web‐based systems integration may seem universally desirable. However, each increasing level of integration brings with it higher costs—not only the costs of expensive technology but also costs of implementing a complicated system, redesigning intra‐ and interorganizational processes, disrupting the status quo, and spending management time and energy during implementation. Therefore, it may not be wise for firms to jump blindly on the web‐based NPD bandwagon. High levels of web‐based NPD systems integration may be created when low levels of integration may not deliver the desired results. Further, if such systems are installed without appropriate conditions within and outside the firm, it may not be possible to exploit their full potential. As such, it is important to know how much web‐based NPD systems integration is suitable for different conditions. In this article, we develop a conceptual framework that focuses on how web‐based NPD systems integration can influence the outcome of NPD and how the relationship between systems integration and outcomes can be affected by various contextual factors. For this purpose, we draw on research in areas such as NPD, web‐based information systems, and organization theory and on many discussions we had with professionals and software vendors who deal with NPD and web‐based NPD systems. The contextual factors of interest in this framework are strategic orientation of the firm, product‐related factors, business environment, organizational factors, information technology factors, and partner‐characteristics. Managerial and research implications of the framework are discussed.     

Competencies and firm performance: examining the causal ambiguity paradox

Resource‐based theory argues that resources must be valuable, rare, inimitable, and lack substitutes to confer competitive advantage. Inimitability is a lynchpin of resource‐based theory and central to understanding the sustainability of competitive advantage. Although scholars recognize a positive relationship between causal ambiguity and inimitability, the relationship among critical resources called competencies, causal ambiguity, and firm performance remains an unresolved conundrum. One perspective suggests that causal ambiguity regarding competencies and performance is necessary among internal and external managers for sustainable competitive advantage because it severely limits imitation. Causal ambiguity, therefore, enhances firm performance. Another view holds that causal ambiguity places a constraint on the transfer and leveraging of these competencies within a firm. In this case, causal ambiguity may adversely influence firm performance. This paper takes a resource‐based view to develop and test hypotheses that relate managers' perceptions of causal ambiguity to their firm's performance. The hypotheses examine relationships between firm performance and (1) causal ambiguity regarding the link between competencies and competitive advantage, and (2) causally ambiguous characteristics of competencies. Research involving 224 executives in 17 organizations provides valuable insights into the relationships between causal ambiguity and firm performance. A model is then developed based on these findings. Particular consideration is given to the differing ways top and middle managers in a firm may experience causal ambiguity and to how these differences may be understood and managed. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Guanxi practice and Chinese buyer-supplier relationships: The buyer's perspective

This study explores the different effects of guanxi practice on Chinese buyer-supplier relationships in the initiation and the maintenance stages during the buyer-supplier relationship lifecycle. Using survey data collected from the retail industry in China, we find that retailers perceive varying buyer-supplier relationship behaviors in these two relationship stages and, accordingly, guanxi practice exerts opposite effects on retailer satisfaction. Specifically, during the relationship initiation stage, guanxi practice is negatively related to retailer social satisfaction and commitment. However, during the relationship maintenance stage, guanxi practice is positively related to retailer economic satisfaction. The results from this study provide suppliers with managerial implications on when to and when not to practice guanxi in China.     

Early supplier integration: the dual role of purchasing in new product development

Interest in early supplier integration in new product development (NPD) has increased as an open innovation approach has become more common in firms. To support supplier integration, the purchasing function of a firm can assume a new ‘dual’ role: contributing to NPD while also managing overall costs. Previous research has offered few insights into how the purchasing function should best be organised so that it will fulfil this dual role. This paper reports on the results of a consortial benchmarking study in which an industry–academic consortium visited and analysed six best‐practice firms. The findings describe how innovative firms organise their purchasing function, distinguishing between ‘advanced sourcing’ and ‘life‐cycle sourcing’ units. The results include the tools that these firms use, such as regular innovation meetings with suppliers and technology roadmaps linking firm strategy, innovation strategy and sourcing strategies. The paper also recommends that researchers shift from a narrow focus on a single project to a broader consideration of supplier and organisational issues in NPD.     

Investigating Adoption of Free Beta Applications in a Platform‐Based Business Ecosystem

Planning new product development (NPD) activities is becoming increasingly difficult, as contemporary businesses compete at the level of business ecosystems in addition to the firm‐level product‐market competition. These business ecosystems are built around platforms interlinking suppliers, complementors, distributors, developers, etc. together. The competitiveness of these ecosystems relies on members utilizing the shared platform for their own performance improvement, especially in terms of developing new valuable offerings for end users. Therefore, managing the development of the platform‐based applications and gaining timely end‐user input for NPD are of vital importance both to the ecosystem as a whole and to the developers. Subsequently, to succeed in NPD planning developers utilizing beta testing need a thorough understanding of the adoption dynamics of beta products. Developers need to plan for example resource allocation; development costs; and timing of commercial, end‐product launches. Therefore, the anticipation of the adoption dynamics of beta products emerges as an important antecedent in planning NPD activities when beta testing is used for gaining end‐user input to the NPD process. Consequently, we investigate how free beta software products that are built upon software platforms diffuse among their end users in a cocreation community. We specifically study whether the adoption of these beta products follows Bass or Gompertz model dynamics used in the previous literature when modeling the adoption of stand‐alone products. Further, we also investigate the forecasting abilities of these two models. Our results show that the adoption dynamics of free beta products in a cocreation community follow Gompertz's model rather than the Bass model. Additionally, we find that the Gompertz model performs better than the Bass model in forecasting both short and long out‐of‐sample time periods. We further discuss the managerial and research implications of our study.     

Supplier Development Responsibility and NPD Project Outcomes: The Roles of Monetary Quantification of Differences and Supporting‐Detail Gathering

Firms increasingly rely on suppliers to perform tasks in new product development (NPD). Research has only recently begun to focus on the processes to manage this supplier development responsibility, and has hardly investigated how firms collect and analyze information regarding the cost and performance of alternative supplier offerings. Our study addresses this gap, through a field survey among 144 paired samples of project leaders and cost analysts involved in the same NPD projects. On the basis of literature and qualitative research, we conceptualize a substantive model. We first use a substantive validity assessment to vet the measures for the proposed constructs. We then test the substantive model with structural equation modeling using a multiple‐sample analysis. The results strongly show that monetary quantification of differences and detail gathering play significant roles in successfully leveraging supplier development responsibility. The findings support the hypothesis that the extent of development responsibility that suppliers have leads the development team to a more focused monetary quantification of the differences in alternative supplier offerings. Monetary quantification of differences has a significant, positive effect on the extent of supporting‐detail gathering and on the development speed of the project, whereas supporting‐detail gathering has a significant, positive effect on the product advantage of the new product as well as development speed. These findings are robust across the two functional perspectives. Our study complements the literature on interfirm control and monitoring by demonstrating the effects of selective and focused output controls.