Comparing the Resource-Based and Relational Views: Knowledge Transfer and Spillover in Vertical...
-
Upload
dontae-preble -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
1
Transcript of Comparing the Resource-Based and Relational Views: Knowledge Transfer and Spillover in Vertical...
Comparing the Resource-Based and Relational Views: Knowledge Transfer and Spillover in Vertical AlliancesStrategic Management Journal, 29: 913–941 (2008)
MA2M0102 吳佳蓁
Introduction
Introduction compare resource-based and relational perspectives
to examine competitive advantages
suppliers acquire knowledge to forge new
capabilities and attain performance improvements firms earn advantages by forging new capabilities through knowledge acquisition (Anand & Khanna, 2000; Dussauge, Garrette, & Mitchell, 2004; Dyer & Hatch, 2006;
Grant, 1996; Hatch & Dyer, 2004; Kale, Singh, & Perlmutter, 2000; Khanna, Gulati, & Nohria, 1998; Mowery, Oxley, & Silverman 1996, 1998; Simonin, 1999, 2004; Spender, 1996; von Hippel, 1988)
Literature review
Literature review (1/8)Collective knowledge in buyer-supplier partnerships
knowledge acquisition
redeploy-able performance
relational performance
Hypothesis 1:
Literature review (2/8)Joint knowledge acquisition and relational performance
When suppliers develop knowledge acquisition
efforts jointly with a given buyer, they are more likely to
attain relational performance gains with that buyer.
Anand and Khanna (2000) explain that alliance
partners observe greater knowledge transfer effects over
time, as their learning alliance becomes more efficient.
Literature review (3/8)Joint knowledge acquisition and relational performance
Hypothesis 2:
Joint buyer supplier knowledge acquisition
relational performance
redeploy-able performance
Literature review (4/8)Joint knowledge acquisition efforts and dyad-specific assets and capabilities
Joint buyer-supplier knowledge acquisition efforts not
only have a direct effect on a supplier’s relational
performance (2), but also positively relate to a supplier’s
investments(3a) in dyad-specific assets and capabilities,
which in turn further enhance supplier relational
performance (3b).
Literature review (5/8)Joint knowledge acquisition efforts and dyad-specific assets and capabilities
Hypothesis 3a:
Joint buyer-supplier knowledge acquisition
Supplier dyad-specificassets and capabilities
Literature review (6/8)Supplier dyad-specific assets and capabilities, and relational performance
Hypothesis 3b:
Supplier dyad-specific assets and capabilities
relational performance
redeploy-able performance
Literature review (7/8)Dyad-specific assets and capabilities and alliance governance mechanisms
Hypothesis 4a:
Supplier dyad-specificassets and capabilities
Buyer-supplier relational governance mechanisms
Literature review (8/8)Dyad-specific assets and capabilities and alliance governance mechanisms
Hypothesis 4b:
relational performance
redeploy-able performance
Buyer-supplier relational governance mechanisms
Data and Methods
Data and Methods (1/2)
500 firms producing goods that involve machining,
stamping, or cutting of basic material (e.g., sheet
metal), and assembly of a component.
Response rate was just above 50 percent,
yielding 253 responses.
Research design and data collection
five-point Likert scale, where 1 represents ‘not at all,’ and 5 ‘to a large degree.’
Data and Methods (2/2)Measures
Control variables
1. Firm size2. Importance of customer3. Competitive pressure
SEM
Results
Results (1/9)Results of hypotheses tests- hy1
knowledge acquisition
redeploy-able performance
relational performance
F1F5 = 0.185, t = 3.528, p < 0.001
F1F6 = -0.041, t = -0.748, p>0.1
(F1)
(F5)
(F6)
Results (2/9)Results of hypotheses tests- hy2
Joint buyer supplier knowledge acquisition
relational performance
redeploy-able performance
F2F5 = 0.028, t = 0.545, p > 0.1
F2F6 = 0.110, t = 2.218, p < 0.001
(F2)
(F5)
(F6)
Results (3/9)Results of hypotheses tests- hy3a
Joint buyer-supplier knowledge acquisition
Supplier dyad-specificassets and capabilities
F2F3 = 0.194, t = 3.092, p < 0.001
(F2) (F3)
Results (4/9)Results of hypotheses tests- hy3b
Supplier dyad-specific assets and capabilities
relational performance
redeploy-able performanceF3F5 = -0.022, t = -0.412, p > 0.1
F3F6 = 0.262, t = 4.498, p < 0.001
(F3)
(F5)
(F6)
Results (5/9)Results of hypotheses tests- hy4a
Supplier dyad-specificassets and capabilities
Buyer-supplier relational governance mechanisms
F3F4 = 0.177, t = 2.859, p < 0.001
(F3) (F4)
Results (6/9)Results of hypotheses tests- hy4b
relational performance
redeploy-able performance
Buyer-supplier relational governance mechanisms
F4F5 = -0.035, t = -0.645, p > 0.1
F4F6 = 0.209, t = 3.499, p < 0.001
(F4)
(F5)
(F6)
Results (7/9)Results of hypotheses tests
△X △df p-value
Hy1 (supported) 18.972 1 < 0.001
Hy2 (NOT supported) 1.586 1 > 0.100
Hy3a (supported) 14.228 1 < 0.001
Hy3b (supported) 22.265 1 < 0.005
Hy4b (supported) 15.962 1 < 0.001
2
> 3.85
Results (8/9)Results of control variables
relational performance
redeploy-able performance
Firm size
Importance of customer
Competitive pressure
p > 0.10
p > 0.10
p < 0.01
p > 0.10
p < 0.001
p < 0.01
Results (9/9)What the results mean
importance of buyer-supplier knowledge transfer
alliances → relational performance
alliances → assets and capabilities
assets and capabilities → relational performance
assets and capabilities → governance mechanism
governance mechanism → relational performance
Discussion &Conclusion
tacit, team-based capabilities attain competitive
advantages
acquired capabilities are redeployable, rendering
improvements on a supplier’s performance
Discussion and conclusion (1/3)
Discussion and conclusion (2/3)
Series10
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Y X X+
Limitations and directions for future research
This study is limited to an analysis of suppliers’
asset investments and relational mechanisms;
it thus may have missed the effects of buyers’
complementary asset investments.
Discussion and conclusion (3/3)
References
Anand BN, Khanna T. 2000. Do firms learn to create value? The case of alliances. Strategic Management Journal March Special Issue 21: 295–315.
Dussauge P, Garrette B, Mitchell W. 2004. Asymmetric performance: the market share impact of scale and link alliances in the global auto industry. Strategic Management Journal 25(7): 701–711.
Dyer JH, Hatch NW. 2006. Relation-specific capabilities and barriers to knowledge transfers: creating advantage through network
relationships. Strategic Management Journal 27(5): 701–719.
Grant R. 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal Winter Special Issue 17: 109–122.
Hatch NW, Dyer JH. 2004. Human capital and learning as a source of sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic management journal
25(12): 1155–1178.
References (1/3)
Kale P, Singh H, Perlmutter H. 2000. Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: building relational capital. Strategic Management Journal March Special Issue 31: 217–237.
Mowery DC, Oxley JE, Silverman BS. 1996. Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal, Winter Special Issue 17: 77–91.
Mowery DC, Oxley JE, Silverman BS. 1998. Technological overlap and interfirm cooperation: implications for the resource-based view of the firm. Research Policy 27(5): 507–523.
Simonin BL. 1999. Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal 20(7): 595–623.
Simonin BL. 2004. An empirical investigation of the processes of knowledge transfer in international strategic alliances. Journal of International Business Studies 35(5): 407–427.
References (2/3)
Spender J-C. 1996. Competitive advantage from tacit knowledge? Unpacking the concept and its strategic implications. In Organizational learning and competitive advantage, Moingeon B, Edmondson A (eds). Sage: Newbury Park, CA; 56–73.
Von Hippel E. 1988. The Sources of Innovation. Oxford University Press: New York.
References (3/3)
Thanks for your attention.