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.

[1]  Boulevard de Constance,et al.  On Uncertainty, Ambiguity, and Complexity in Project Management , 2002 .

[2]  Darren W. Dahl,et al.  Clarity in defining product design : inspiring research opportunities for the design process , 2011 .

[3]  Michael Song,et al.  Supplier's involvement and success of radical new product development in new ventures , 2008 .

[4]  R. Handfield,et al.  A Model of Supplier Integration into New Product Development , 2003 .

[5]  B. Kogut,et al.  Exploring internal stickiness : Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm , 2007 .

[6]  Terry S. Overton,et al.  Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys , 1977 .

[7]  Mitsuo Nagamachi,et al.  Supplier involvement in automotive component design: are there really large US Japan differences? , 1996 .

[8]  Richard C.M. Yam,et al.  The Impact of Product Modularity on New Product Performance: Mediation by Product Innovativeness , 2011 .

[9]  Michael Song,et al.  Manuscript #: RRR97-0379 THE EFFECT OF PERCEIVED TECHNOLOGICAL UNCERTAINTY ON JAPANESE NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT , 1999 .

[10]  Building a supplier-customer relationship using joint new product development☆☆☆ , 1997 .

[11]  武石 彰.  Bridging inter-and intra-firm boundaries : management of supplier involvement in automobile product development , 1998 .

[12]  R. Bagozzi,et al.  On the evaluation of structural equation models , 1988 .

[13]  F. Wynstra,et al.  Managing supplier involvement in new product development: A multiple-case study , 2006 .

[14]  Ludwig Bstieler,et al.  Trust Formation in Collaborative New Product Development , 2006 .

[15]  David R. King,et al.  Reducing Causal Ambiguity in Acquisition Integration: Intermediate Goals as Mediators of Integration Decisions and Acquisition Performance , 2008 .

[16]  A. Bonaccorsi,et al.  Strategic Partnerships in New Product Development: an Italian Case Study , 1994 .

[17]  Richard J. Penlesky,et al.  Impediments to Timely Delivery of New Products at an Industrial Products Firm , 1992 .

[18]  Elaine Mosakowski,et al.  Strategy Making Under Causal Ambiguity: Conceptual Issues and Empirical Evidence , 1997 .

[19]  Augustine A. Lado,et al.  Inter‐organizational communication as a relational competency: Antecedents and performance outcomes in collaborative buyer–supplier relationships , 2008 .

[20]  Bernard L. Simonin.  Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances , 1999 .

[21]  Arvind Parkhe.  Strategic Alliance Structuring: A Game Theoretic and Transaction Cost Examination of Interfirm Cooperation , 1993 .

[22]  Gary L. Ragatz,et al.  Benefits associated with supplier integration into new product development under conditions of technology uncertainty , 2002 .

[23]  D. B. Montgomery,et al.  First‐mover advantages , 1988 .

[24]  K. Jöreskog,et al.  Analysis of linear structural relationships by maximum likelihood and least squares methods , 1983 .

[25]  William J. Doll,et al.  Shared knowledge and product design glitches in integrated product development , 2008 .

[26]  Christoph H. Loch,et al.  Managing the Unknown: A New Approach to Managing High Uncertainty and Risk in Projects , 2006 .

[27]  R. Reed,et al.  Causal Ambiguity, Barriers to Imitation, and Sustainable Competitive Advantage , 1990 .

[28]  Cipriano Forza,et al.  Survey research in operations management: a process‐based perspective , 2002 .

[29]  Véronique Ambrosini,et al.  The Impact of Causal Ambiguity on Competitive Advantage and Rent Appropriation , 2010 .

[30]  B. Chakravarthy,et al.  The persistence of knowledge‐based advantage: an empirical test for product performance and technological knowledge , 2002 .

[31]  Jelena Spanjol,et al.  How Many and What Kind? The Role of Strategic Orientation in New Product Ideation , 2009 .

[32]  Christopher Meyer,et al.  Fast Cycle Time: How to Align Purpose, Strategy, and Structure for Speed , 1993 .

[33]  Kevin McCabe,et al.  Avoiding Competence Substitution Through Knowledge Sharing , 2000 .

[34]  Masaaki Kotabe,et al.  Marketing-Industrial Design Integration in New Product Development: The Case of China , 2011 .

[35]  Steven Postrel,et al.  Shared knowledge, “glitches,” and product development performance , 1999 .

[36]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  Accelerating Adaptive Processes: Product Innovation in the Global Computer Industry , 1995 .

[37]  Martin Wetzels,et al.  In chains? An empirical study of antecedents of supplier product development activity in the automotive industry. , 2010 .

[38]  G. Huber.  Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures , 1991 .

[39]  I. Chen,et al.  Towards a theory of supply chain management: the constructs and measurements , 2004 .

[40]  A. King,et al.  Competencies and firm performance: examining the causal ambiguity paradox , 2001 .

[41]  Fred Langerak,et al.  Understanding a Two-Sided Coin: Antecedents and Consequences of a Decomposed Product Advantage , 2008 .

[42]  David M. McCutcheon,et al.  Suppliers' contributions to product development: an exploratory study , 1997 .

[43]  Martin Hemmert,et al.  Increasing Learning and Time Efficiency in Interorganizational New Product Development Teams , 2010 .

[44]  T. C. Powell,et al.  CAUSAL AMBIGUITY, MANAGEMENT PERCEPTION, AND FIRM PERFORMANCE , 2006 .

[45]  Regina C. McNally,et al.  Product Innovativeness Dimensions and Their Relationships with Product Advantage, Product Financial Performance, and Project Protocol , 2010 .

[46]  Kwaku Atuahene-Gima,et al.  The Vital Role of Problem-Solving Competence in New Product Success† , 2011 .

[47]  M. Sako.  Prices, quality and trust: Notes , 1992 .

[48]  Francisco Polidoro,et al.  Letting Rivals Come Close or Warding Them Off? The Effects of Substitution Threat on Imitation Deterrence , 2011 .

[49]  D. Strang,et al.  Does Ambiguity Promote Imitation, or Hinder it? An Empirical Study of Benchmarking Teams , 2006 .

[50]  Thomas V. Scannell,et al.  Success Factors for Integrating Suppliers into New Product Development , 1997 .

[51]  Jayanth Jayaram,et al.  Supplier involvement in new product development projects: dimensionality and contingency effects , 2008 .

[52]  R. Handfield,et al.  Knowledge Sharing in Interorganizational Product Development Teams: The Effect of Formal and Informal Socialization Mechanisms* , 2009 .

[53]  Gerard A. Athaide,et al.  Managing Seller–Buyer Relationships during New Product Development* , 2009 .

[54]  D. Dillman.  Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method, 2nd ed. , 2007 .

[55]  Karel Cool,et al.  Asset Stock Accumulation and the Sustainability of Competitive Advantage: Reply , 1989 .

[56]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of , 1990 .

[57]  E. Hippel.  Sticky Information and the Locus of Problem Solving: Implications for Innovation , 1994 .

[58]  M. Primo,et al.  An exploratory study of the effects of supplier relationships on new product development outcomes , 2002 .

[59]  Jeffrey H. Dyer,et al.  The Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Interorganizational Competitive Advantage , 1998 .

[60]  M. Parry,et al.  The Determinants of Japanese New Product Successes , 1997 .

[61]  James C. Anderson,et al.  Monte Carlo Evaluations of Goodness of Fit Indices for Structural Equation Models , 1992 .

[62]  C. Fornell,et al.  Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. , 1981 .

[63]  W. Ouchi,et al.  JAPANESE-STYLE PARTNERSHIPS -- GIVING COMPANIES A COMPETITIVE EDGE. , 1993 .

[64]  E. von Hippel,et al.  Sources of Innovation , 2016 .

[65]  R. Handfield,et al.  Supplier integration into new product development: coordinating product, process and supply chain design , 2005 .

[66]  James C. Anderson,et al.  STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING IN PRACTICE: A REVIEW AND RECOMMENDED TWO-STEP APPROACH , 1988 .

[67]  F. Liu,et al.  Product development performance measures in manufacturing firm , 2007, 2007 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management.

[68]  T. Johnsen.  Supplier involvement in new product development and innovation: Taking stock and looking to the future , 2009 .

[69]  Rajan R. Kamath,et al.  Managing the buyer-supplier interface for on-time performance in product development , 1997 .

[70]  A. King.  Disentangling Interfirm and Intrafirm Causal Ambiguity: A Conceptual Model of Causal Ambiguity and Sustainable Competitive Advantage , 2007 .

[71]  Jan B. Heide,et al.  Controlling Supplier Opportunism in Industrial Relationships , 1996 .

[72]  A. Ordanini,et al.  The Many Moods of Inter-Organizational Imitation: A Critical Review , 2008 .

[73]  Rupak Rauniar,et al.  Organizational Integration for Product Development: The Effects on Glitches, On-Time Execution of Engineering Change Orders, and Market Success , 2010, Decis. Sci..

[74]  M. Lieberman,et al.  Why Do Firms Imitate Each Other , 2006 .

[75]  Stephan M. Wagner,et al.  Involving suppliers in product development: Insights from R&D directors and project managers , 2006 .

[76]  S. Mulaik,et al.  EVALUATION OF GOODNESS-OF-FIT INDICES FOR STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELS , 1989 .

[77]  John Roberts,et al.  Uncertain Imitability : An Analysis of Interfirm Differences in Efficiency under Competition , 2007 .

[78]  Esther P. Y. Tang,et al.  Effects of supplier and customer integration on product innovation and performance: Empirical evidence in Hong Kong manufacturers , 2010 .

[79]  J. Barney.  Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage , 1991 .