The role of supplier relationships in the development of new business ventures

New business ventures have rather limited resources, generally suffer from liabilities of smallness and newness and rely on external business relationships, typically with suppliers, for developing and acquiring necessary resources. Yet, to date, research on how new ventures develop initial relationships with suppliers and how these affect the nascent business has been limited. Taking the business network perspective and relating it to studies of supply chain and supplier involvement in product development, our study contributes to the rather limited body of knowledge on new ventures' supplier relationships. Empirically, we draw on a longitudinal, in-depth single-case study of the first two years of operation of a start-up. Our study shows that the development of the key initial supplier relationships starts from open-ended expectations of mutual future relational benefits and involves a stepwise ‘inter-definition’ of solutions in interaction between the parties. We observe that interdependences arise between the new venture and its key suppliers and these enable but also limit, the development paths of both partners. We argue that the key initial supplier relationships extend a new venture's resource and capability base and are an integral part of a new venture's business model.     

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.     

In Chains? An Empirical Study of Antecedents of Supplier Product Development Activity in the Automotive Industry*

In the literature on interorganizational collaboration in product development, considerable attention is given to supplier role classifications. Such classifications often link to a supplier's position in the overall supply chain, but the claim that this position has a substantial impact on its product development activities has seldom been empirically validated. The results from the present survey among Swedish automotive suppliers demonstrate that supplier product development activity is significantly affected by the position of the supplier in the supply chain and the supplier's strategic focus on innovation. While the latter has a stronger impact on product development activities, there is also an interaction effect implying that the effects of a supplier's innovation strategy are contingent on its supply chain position. Contrary to expectations, customer development commitment does not have any significant direct effect on supplier product development activities. Instead, this relation is fully mediated by supplier innovation strategy. These findings imply that, in contrast to conventional wisdom, product development activities are not strictly organized in “chains.” Although supply chains can be useful metaphors for understanding the distribution of regular production activities between firms, they arguably apply less to the distribution of product development activities.     

Effects of Supplier and Customer Integration on Product Innovation and Performance: Empirical Evidence in Hong Kong Manufacturers

While the beneficial impacts of supplier and customer integration are generally acknowledged, very few empirical research studies have examined how an organization can achieve better product performance through product innovation enhanced by such integration. This paper thus examines the impact of key supplier and customer integration processes (i.e., information sharing and product codevelopment with supplier and customer, respectively) on product innovation as well as their impact on product performance. It contributes to existing literature by asking how such integration activities affect product innovation and performance in both direct and indirect ways. After surveying 251 manufacturers in Hong Kong, this study tested the relationships among information sharing, product codevelopment, product innovativeness, and performance with three control variables (i.e., company size, type of industry, and market certainty). Structural equation modeling with correlation and t‐tests was used to test the hypothesized research model. The findings indicate a direct, positive relationship between supplier and customer integration and product performance. In particular, this study verifies that sharing information with suppliers and product codevelopment with customers directly improves product performance. In addition, this study empirically examines the indirect effects of supplier and customer integration processes on product performance, mediated by innovation. This has seldom been attempted in previous research. The empirical findings show that product codevelopment with suppliers improves performance, mediated by innovation. However, the sampled firms cannot improve their product innovation by sharing information with their current customers and suppliers as well as codeveloping new products with the customers. If the adoption of supplier and customer integration is not cost free, the findings of this study may suggest firms work on particular supplier and customer integration processes (i.e., product codevelopment with suppliers) to improve their product innovation. The study also suggests that companies codevelop new products only with new customers and lead users instead of current ones for product innovation. For managers, this study has demonstrated that both information sharing and product codevelopment affect performance directly and indirectly. Managers should put more emphasis on these key processes, especially when linked with product innovation. Managers should consider involving their suppliers and customers in the early stages of design. Information sharing with suppliers is also important in product development. As suggested by this study, extensive effort on supplier and customer integration should be made to directly augment current product performance and product innovation at the same time.     

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.     

Risky Business or Competitive Power? Supplier Involvement in Japanese Product Design

Notwithstanding the alleged risks of outsourcing design work, leading manufacturers in the Japanese automotive industry collaborate closely with their key suppliers. Despite widespread recognition of the effectiveness of these close-knit supplier networks, however, little research exists on the factors that affect the purchase of design work from suppliers. S. Nazli Wasti and Jeffrey K. Liker fill this gap by exploring the factors that affect Japanese automotive firms' purchase of design work from their component suppliers. Using data from a survey of 122 Japanese automotive component suppliers, their study addresses two key questions. First, what factors lead Japanese buyers to involve some suppliers heavily in design while giving others relatively little control over design decisions? And second, does the Japanese practice of involving suppliers in design offer performance benefits? The study focuses on first-tier suppliers of parts, assemblies, and complete subsystems (e.g., audio, fuel and emissions, heating and air conditioning). The study does not include suppliers of raw materials and chemicals, assembly and processing equipment, indirect materials, tooling and dies, computers and software, or engineering and business consulting services. The study breaks down the broad concept of supplier involvement in design work into three measurable elements: the extent to which the supplier influences decision-making during the early stages of product development; the amount of control the buyer retains over the design; and the frequency of design-related communication between the buyer and the supplier. Factors that have a positive effect on the level of supplier involvement among the companies studied include technological uncertainty of the component and the supplier's in-house technical capabilities. For companies in the study, the level of competition in the supplier market has a negative effect on the degree of supplier involvement in design. The responses indicate that supplier involvement offers performance benefits for both the supplier and the buyer. For the supplier firms studied, increased involvement in the design process permits greater focus on design for manufacturability (DFM). And of course, supplier-generated design improvements clearly benefit the buyers, allowing these firms to capitalize on the experience and the insight that their suppliers have regarding the parts that they supply.     

The Role of Suppliers in Market Intelligence Gathering for Radical and Incremental Innovation*

Drawing on transaction cost economics theory, this study addresses the following research questions: (1) Does supplier involvement in market intelligence gathering activities have a greater impact on innovation success in predesign or commercialization activities? and (2) Does supplier involvement in market intelligence gathering activities have a greater impact on success in radical or incremental product innovation? Hypotheses are tested using both subjective and objective measures of success from a study of 205 incremental and 110 radical new product development projects. Results from the estimation of a two‐group path model suggest that this theoretical framework is useful in providing guidance as to when product developers should emphasize the gathering of market intelligence through suppliers. Consistent with conventional wisdom, the findings suggest that supplier involvement in market intelligence gathering activities are positively related to success in incremental innovations across predesign and commercialization activities. However, supplier involvement in market intelligence gathering activities is found to have no significant impact on market share and is negatively associated with perceived product performance in radical innovations in predesign tasks. Also, while there was no significant difference in market share for supplier involvement in market intelligence gathering activities between radical and incremental innovation in commercialization activities, supplier involvement in these activities did have a greater impact on perceived product performance in radical innovation than it did in incremental innovation. Although current practice suggests that teams allocate fewer resources to the gathering of market intelligence through their suppliers during predesign activities in incremental innovation projects compared with radical innovation projects, the findings in this study suggest that they should do the opposite. Shifting resources allocated for engaging suppliers in market information gathering activities in predesign activities from radical innovation projects to incremental innovation projects could increase the return on these investments. Alternatively, these resources currently allocated to the gathering of market intelligence through suppliers in predesign activities of radical innovation projects could also provide greater benefits if allocated to commercialization activities of radical innovation projects, where they have the greatest positive impact.     

Don't Trust Trust: A Dynamic Approach to Controlling Supplier Involvement in New Product Development

Prior literature stresses the importance for manufacturers to use formal and informal controls to coordinate collaborative new product development activities with suppliers. In doing so, the existence of trust between manufacturers and suppliers is believed to play a key role because it enables manufacturers to reduce investments in formal controls and rely more on less costly informal controls. Manufacturers and suppliers don't suddenly trust each other though: trust typically grows over time as the partners get to know each other. Trust may also decrease if manufacturers overuse formal controls or if suppliers underperform. These fluctuations in trust over the course of supplier–manufacturer relationships complicate the so‐called trust–control nexus and raise important questions about the impact of trust on the efficiency and effectiveness of formal and informal controls as coordination mechanisms. Therefore, this study examines how manufacturers should balance formal and informal controls over time to reap the full benefits of collaborative product development with suppliers. For that purpose, a conceptual and system dynamics model are developed, which incorporate the links among formal and informal controls, trust, and the supplier's development performance. In an empirical validation in the context of the shipbuilding industry, the results reject the notion that manufacturers must lessen formal controls and increase informal controls with trust. Instead, it is most efficient and effective to invest always in formal controls, particularly process control, to coordinate supplier involvement in new product development. These results have important theoretical and managerial implications: Informal controls are not as profitable as expected.     

Customer and Supplier Involvement in Design: The Moderating Role of Incremental and Radical Innovation Capability

More and more firms are leveraging design as a resource to gain the upper hand in today's competitive business market. To this end, this study draws on the resource‐based view (RBV) of the firm to examine the relationship between customer and supplier involvement in the design process and new product performance. The research also extends the RBV to a contingency lens by introducing product innovation capability (incremental and radical) as a moderator to draw the boundary conditions of the impact of customer/supplier involvement in design on new product performance. Using data collected from Canadian high‐tech companies, the findings provide strong support for the hypotheses in that customer involvement in design helps new product performance under high incremental innovation capability but harms new product performance under high radical innovation capability. In contrast, supplier involvement in design was beneficial to new product performance under both high incremental and radical innovation capability. The managerial implications for the role of design under different innovation capabilities are discussed.     

Multiple dimensions of power influencing knowledge integration in supply chains

This study investigates how multiple dimensions of power each facilitate knowledge integration within innovation projects in supply chains and their interrelationships. Adopting a process perspective of knowledge, we offer an alternative to much of the existing debate, which has focussed on the possession of resources. We collected data from four case-study Original Equipment Manufacturers and six associated suppliers and analysed these using Template Analysis and cross-case analysis. Our findings reveal how the power of the system, operationalized through relative performance measures, performance measurement mechanisms and the individuals in-charge of them, provides a facilitative context within which other dimensions of power operate. Here, the power of resources (expert and legitimate power), processes (associated with raising issues, cross-functional teams, early supplier involvement and reviews) and meaning (creating legitimacy through reviews) interact to support knowledge integration within innovation projects in supply chains. This, we argue, emphasises the plurality of power dimensions deployed and importance of their interrelationships in facilitating knowledge integration within hierarchical supply chain networks.     

The Influence of Knowledge Accumulation on Buyer-Supplier Codevelopment Projects

This article investigates innovation across a supply chain and considers how knowledge accumulation as a consequence of buyer‐supplier codevelopment projects can influence the projects' specifications. The setting is the semiconductor industry, and the players are chip producers who cooperate with their suppliers to modify their manufacturing equipment used to produce new semiconductor devices. Two detailed case studies were undertaken to determine the tradeoffs encountered by the buyer and supplier when setting the parameters that govern codevelopment projects. The findings from the case studies inform a conceptual framework that outlines the net payoffs to buyers when deciding whether to “make” or “buy” their production equipment. If buyers pursue the “make” option, they then have to decide the degree to which they sponsor modifications tailored to their production processes or modifications more generally applicable across the industry. More generally applicable modifications likely would prompt suppliers to invest relatively more in follow‐on knowledge creation for upgrades and field support while leading to lower equipment costs due to economies of scale from larger production runs of the new equipment. The framework suggests that when making this sequence of decisions, an innovative buyer also weighs the importance of codevelopment for securing intellectual property rights, guaranteeing early access to new equipment enabling early product launch, and achieving high production yields quickly due to “previewing” the equipment. The conceptual framework leads to a multi‐period model that focuses on the importance of knowledge accumulation for project parameterization. As captured by the model, buyers may prefer generally applicable modifications to customized ones, because generally applicable modifications may lead to greater knowledge accumulation at the supplier. This knowledge accumulation may be either “embodied” in equipment upgrades or “unembodied” in improved field support. In addition to shaping the nature of particular codevelopment projects, knowledge accumulation also may have profound implications for long‐run industry structure. As seen in the semiconductor industry, knowledge accumulation at equipment suppliers has contributed to the rise of contract manufacturers, because these manufacturers can outfit their production facilities with equipment that embodies the accumulated knowledge. These findings suggest that for both short‐run and long‐run reasons, the dynamics of knowledge accumulation merit thorough attention when members of a supply chain cooperate during the course of new product development.     

Managing Supplier Involvement in New Product Development: A Multiple‐Case Study*

Existing studies of supplier involvement in new product development have mainly focused on project‐related short‐term processes and success factors. This study validates and extends an existing exploratory framework, which comprises both long‐term strategic processes and short‐term operational processes that are related to supplier involvement. The empirical validation is based on a multiple‐case study of supplier collaborations at a manufacturer in the copier and printer industry. The analysis of eight cases of supplier involvement reveals that the results of supplier–manufacturer collaborations and the associated issues and problems can best be explained by the patterns in the extent to which the manufacturer manages supplier involvement in the short term and the long term. The results of this study reveal that the initial framework is helpful in understanding why certain collaborations are not effectively managed yet conclude that the existing analytical distinction among four different management areas does not sufficiently reflect empirical reality. This leads to the reconceptualization and further detailing of the framework. Instead of four managerial areas, this study proposes to distinguish between the strategic management arena and the operational management arena. The strategic management arena contains processes that together provide long‐term, strategic direction and operational support for project teams adopting supplier involvement. These processes also contribute to building up a supplier base that can meet current and future technology and capability needs. The operational management arena contains processes that are aimed at planning, managing, and evaluating the actual collaborations in a specific development project. The results of this study suggest that success of involving suppliers in product development is reflected by the firm's ability to capture both short‐ and long‐term benefits. If companies spend most of their time on operational management in development projects, they will fail to use the leverage effect of planning and preparing such involvement through strategic management activities. Also, they will not be sufficiently able to capture possible long‐term technology and learning benefits that may spin off from individual projects. Long‐term collaboration benefits can only be captured if a company can build long‐term relationships with key suppliers, with which it builds learning routines and ensures that the capability sets of both parties are aligned and remain useful for future joint projects.     

Suppliers capability and price analysis chart

To remain competitive in customer-oriented economics, the major parties in the supply chain should be integrated and managed effectively to respond to customer needs. Thus, the efficiency of the entire supply chain is a main concern, and is determined by the members of that supply chain. Partner selection thus becomes one of the key steps in supply chain construction. Given buyer–supplier information asymmetry, obtaining complete information from suppliers is difficult, since some supplier attributes cannot be definitely and quantitatively measured. This study establishes a suppliers capability and price analysis chart (SCPAC) focused on the case where the specification limits are symmetric about the target for evaluating supplier performance which applies the process incapability index C_pp introduced by Greenwich and Jahr-Schaffrath (International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 12 (1995) 58) to measure supplier quality performance and the price index I_p is proposed here to display the difference between budget and component price. Practitioners can instantly and visually obtain information based on the locations of suppliers and price indices on SCPAC. SCPAC also provides clear directions for quality improvement, such as process accuracy and precision. SCPAC thus is an effective and efficient method for evaluating suppliers, which can simplify supplier evaluation, facilitate their effective visual selection, and provide insights into the process situation of suppliers who can become technological innovation partners.     

Supplier adaptation: A qualitative investigation of customer and supplier perspectives

Differing views and goals in the buyer–supplier dyad can create underlying tension in supply chain relationships. Although research recognizes that adaptation is often expected from both customers and suppliers in exchange relationships, researchers have not adequately explored the long-range relational implications of customer adaptation requests. This research uses data from two qualitative focus groups to examine the interaction of customers and suppliers surrounding adaptation, as prior research has not yet considered how the customer's response to adaptation may change if they are aware of how the supplier actually perceives and evaluates specific adaptation requests. The first focus group included 20 active participants representing both customer and supplier perspectives, while the second focus group included five participants to provide a more in-depth examination of issues that emerged in the first focus group. Results suggest that customers' and suppliers' adaptation expectations differ; each has difficulty recognizing adaptation conflict because of perceived benefits and biases surrounding adaptation. Results suggest several adaptation conflict management behaviors are utilized to minimize its negative impacts on supply chain relationships, including blameshifting, justifying and negotiating techniques. Results suggest that trust can create blind spots in relationships, potentially causing customers and their suppliers to have difficulty recognizing conflict until it deteriorates relationships' foundational trust.     

Types of R&D Collaborations and Process Innovation: The Benefit of Collaborating Upstream in the Knowledge Chain

This paper explains how research and development (R&D) collaborations impact process innovation; given the differences in innovation mechanisms, prior insights from studies of product innovation do not necessarily apply to process innovation. Extending the knowledge‐based view of the firm, this paper classifies four types of R&D collaborations—with universities, suppliers, competitors, and customers—in terms of two knowledge dimensions: position in the knowledge chain and contextual knowledge distance. Position in the knowledge chain is the position of the R&D collaboration partner in the knowledge chain of the industry—the input–output sequence of activities that result in the transformation of raw materials into products that are used by end customers. Based on this knowledge chain, this paper considers universities and suppliers as upstream R&D collaborators, and competitors and customers as downstream R&D collaborators. Contextual knowledge distance is the difference in industry‐related contexts of operation of the R&D collaboration partners and the firm. Based on this, this paper views R&D collaborators that are suppliers and competitors as having low contextual knowledge distance to the firm, and R&D collaborators that are customers and universities as having high contextual knowledge distance to the firm. Using this classification, this paper proposes a ranking of R&D collaborations in terms of their impact on process innovation: R&D collaborations with suppliers have the highest impact, followed by R&D collaborations with universities, then R&D collaborations with competitors, and finally R&D collaborations with customers. These arguments are tested on a four‐year panel of 781 manufacturing firms. The results of the analyses indicate that R&D collaborations with suppliers and universities appear to have a positive impact on process innovation, R&D collaborations with customers appear to have no impact, and R&D collaborations with competitors appear to have a negative impact. As a consequence, the main driver of the impact of R&D collaborations on process innovation appears to be position in the knowledge chain rather than contextual knowledge distance. These novel ideas and findings contribute to the literature on process innovation. Even though process innovation tends to be internal and tacit to the firm, it can still benefit from external R&D collaborations; this paper is the first to analyze this relationship and provide a theoretical framework for understanding why this would be the case. This study also has important managerial implications. It suggests that managers need to be careful in choosing the partners for their firms' R&D collaborations. Engaging in R&D collaborations with universities and suppliers appears to be helpful for process innovation, whereas conducting R&D collaborations with competitors may potentially harm process innovation.     

Where to search for process innovations? The mediating role of absorptive capacity and its impact on process innovation

While the potential of open innovation to develop product-related improvements through the use of external knowledge sources is undeniable, our understanding of how firms become process innovators remains limited. Distinguishing between product and process innovation is important, as insights gleaned from investigating product innovation may not relate directly to the study of process innovation. This study provides new insight into open innovation and absorptive capacity by proposing the mediating role of absorptive capacity – potential and realized – on the relationship between knowledge search from external sources and process-related innovation activities. We test our model using a sample of 171 auto component suppliers in Iran, and find evidence that the learning effects of external scanning increase when a firm learns how to better manage external searches in terms of external absorptive capacity routines. Our results indicate that, while knowledge search from value chain partners is related to process innovation, knowledge search from universities and other research organizations is not, and that potential absorptive capacity mediates the relationship between external knowledge search and process innovation. These findings shed further light on the relationship between a firm’s openness and its process innovation.     

Supplier traits for better customer firm innovation performance

Previous research on embedded ties with suppliers in an innovation context has ignored the need for customer firms to assess and select suppliers on the basis of market orientation strategies and relationship marketing attributes. To address this void, this study investigates the effects of suppliers' downstream customer orientation and supplier-customer homophily (i.e., similarity of the supplier and the customer) on the customers' innovation performance. Data pertaining to new product development projects with contributions from supplier firms was collected on both sides of the supplier-customer dyad. The analysis shows that downstream customer orientation and supplier-customer homophily have a significant impact on the customer firms' new product efficiency (i.e., project cost and project speed) and new product effectiveness (i.e., innovativeness), which in turn positively influence new product performance in terms of profitability, market share, and growth.     

Interfirm Innovation under Uncertainty: Empirical Evidence for Strategic Knowledge Partitioning*

This paper analyzes how uncertainty and life‐cycle effects condition the knowledge boundary between assemblers and suppliers in interfirm product development. Patents associated with automotive emission control technologies for both assemblers and suppliers are categorized as architectural or component innovations, and technology‐forcing regulations imposed by the government on the auto industry from 1970 to 1998 are used to define periods of high and low uncertainty. Results confirm that suppliers dominate component innovation whereas assemblers lead on architectural innovation. More importantly, when facing uncertainty firms adjust their knowledge boundary by increasing the knowledge overlap with their supply‐chain collaborators. Suppliers clearly expand their knowledge base relatively more into architectural knowledge during such periods. But assemblers' greater emphasis on component innovation in periods of greater uncertainty is only true as a relative deviation from an overall trend toward increasing component innovation over time. This trend results from an observed life‐cycle effect, whereby architectural innovation dominates before the emergence of a dominant design, with component innovation taking the lead afterward. Thus, for assemblers life‐cycle effects may dominate over task uncertainty in determining relative effort in component versus architectural innovation. This work extends research on strategic interfirm knowledge partitioning as well as on the information‐processing view of product development. First, it provides a large‐scale empirical justification for the claim that firms' knowledge boundaries need to extend beyond their task boundaries. Further, it implies that overlaps in knowledge domains between an assembler and suppliers are particularly important for projects involving new technologies. Second, it offers a dynamic view of knowledge partitioning, showing how architectural knowledge prevails in the early phase of the product life cycle whereas component knowledge dominates the later stages. Yet the importance of life‐cycle effects versus task uncertainty in conditioning knowledge boundaries is different for assemblers and suppliers, with the former dominating for assemblers and the latter more influential for suppliers. Finally, it supports the idea that architectural and component knowledge are critical elements in the alignment of cognitive frameworks between assemblers and suppliers and thus are key for information‐exchange effectiveness and resolution of task uncertainties in interfirm innovation.     

基于供应链的煤炭企业供应商管理研究

煤炭企业的生产特点和物资需求特性,决定了煤炭企业应该进一步改革物资采购模式,完善供应商管理工作。为有效跟踪供应商绩效表现,降低供应链风险,基于供应链管理理论提出目前中国煤炭企业应实施供应商全生命周期管理,并将供应商分类、供应商评价体系和关系管理纳入企业信息化系统建设中,有助于企业实现全方位的供应商关系管理。     

The Chinese paradigm of global supplier relationships: Social control,formal interactions and the mediating role of culture

This paper reports the results of a study that examined how firms can establish successful business relationships with Chinese suppliers. Its aim is to explore salient characteristics of the nature of buyer supplier relationships with the emergence of China as a dominant economic power. Two surveys have been conducted that investigated several factors that inhibit and enable effective supplier relationship management (SRM) between organisations sourcing from China and Chinese suppliers, and explored the impact of cultural characteristics of Chinese management on the nature and performance of supplier relationships. The research highlights the importance of the social control aspect of governance structure of supplier relationships and stresses that both social and formal control mechanisms should be implemented for more effective relationships with Chinese suppliers. It also demonstrates the need for companies to recognise the importance of guanxi and several cultural characteristics of the Chinese style of management in SRM and advocates the need for the development of a hybrid Sino-Japanese and global supplier relationship management paradigm that incorporates elements from the existing SRM models. It generates insights into how the cultural context of emerging markets affects the nature of business relationships and generates a research agenda in the field of supply chain management that can explore the development of new paradigms in supplier relationships management. The main theoretical argument put forward centres on the need for the development of a new global supplier relationship management paradigm that will take into account the cultural elements of the Chinese society.