1 / 34

Strategic Management Journal, 29: 913–941 (2008)

Comparing the Resource-Based and Relational Views: Knowledge Transfer and Spillover in Vertical Alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 29: 913–941 (2008). MA2M0102 吳佳蓁. Introduction. Introduction.

howie
Download Presentation

Strategic Management Journal, 29: 913–941 (2008)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Comparing the Resource-Based and Relational Views: Knowledge Transfer and Spillover in Vertical Alliances Strategic Management Journal, 29: 913–941 (2008) MA2M0102 吳佳蓁

  2. Introduction

  3. 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)

  4. Literature review

  5. Literature review (1/8) Collective knowledge in buyer-supplier partnerships Hypothesis 1: redeploy-able performance knowledge acquisition relational performance

  6. 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.

  7. Literature review (3/8) Joint knowledge acquisition and relational performance Hypothesis 2: redeploy-able performance Joint buyer supplier knowledge acquisition relational performance

  8. 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).

  9. 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

  10. Literature review (6/8) Supplier dyad-specific assets and capabilities, and relational performance Hypothesis 3b: redeploy-able performance Supplier dyad-specific assets and capabilities relational performance

  11. 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

  12. Literature review (8/8) Dyad-specific assets and capabilities and alliance governance mechanisms redeploy-able performance Hypothesis 4b: Buyer-supplier relational governance mechanisms relational performance

  13. Data and Methods

  14. Data and Methods (1/2) Research design and data collection 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.

  15. Data and Methods (2/2) Measures five-point Likert scale, where 1 represents ‘not at all,’ and 5 ‘to a large degree.’ Control variables Firm size Importance of customer Competitive pressure SEM

  16. Results

  17. Results (1/9) Results of hypotheses tests- hy1 F1F5 = 0.185, t = 3.528, p < 0.001 (F5) redeploy-able performance (F1) knowledge acquisition F1F6 = -0.041, t = -0.748, p>0.1 relational performance (F6)

  18. Results (2/9) Results of hypotheses tests- hy2 F2F5 = 0.028, t = 0.545, p > 0.1 redeploy-able performance (F5) Joint buyer supplier knowledge acquisition (F2) relational performance F2F6 = 0.110, t = 2.218, p < 0.001 (F6)

  19. Results (3/9) Results of hypotheses tests- hy3a F2F3 = 0.194, t = 3.092, p < 0.001 (F2) (F3) • Joint buyer-supplier knowledge acquisition Supplier dyad-specificassets and capabilities

  20. Results (4/9) Results of hypotheses tests- hy3b F3F5 = -0.022, t = -0.412, p > 0.1 redeploy-able performance (F5) Supplier dyad-specific assets and capabilities (F3) relational performance F3F6 = 0.262, t = 4.498, p < 0.001 (F6)

  21. Results (5/9) Results of hypotheses tests- hy4a F3F4 = 0.177, t = 2.859, p < 0.001 (F4) (F3) Supplier dyad-specificassets and capabilities Buyer-supplier relational governance mechanisms

  22. Results (6/9) Results of hypotheses tests- hy4b F4F5 = -0.035, t = -0.645, p > 0.1 redeploy-able performance (F5) Buyer-supplier relational governance mechanisms (F4) relational performance F4F6 = 0.209, t = 3.499, p < 0.001 (F6)

  23. Results (7/9) Results of hypotheses tests 2 > 3.85

  24. Results (8/9) Results of control variables p > 0.10 Firm size p > 0.10 redeploy-able performance p > 0.10 Importance of customer p < 0.01 relational performance p < 0.001 Competitive pressure p < 0.01

  25. Results (9/9) What the results mean • importance of buyer-supplier knowledge transfer • alliances → relational performance alliances → assets and capabilitiesassets and capabilities → relational performance assets and capabilities → governance mechanism governance mechanism → relational performance

  26. Discussion &Conclusion

  27. Discussion and conclusion (1/3) tacit, team-based capabilities attain competitive advantages acquired capabilities are redeployable, rendering improvements on a supplier’s performance

  28. Discussion and conclusion (2/3)

  29. Discussion and conclusion (3/3) 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.

  30. References

  31. References (1/3) 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.

  32. References (2/3) 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 interfirmknowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal, Winter Special Issue 17: 77–91. Mowery DC, Oxley JE, Silverman BS. 1998. Technological overlap and interfirmcooperation: 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.

  33. References (3/3) 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.

  34. Thanks for your attention.

More Related