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.

[1]  K. Mardia.  Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications , 1970 .

[2]  T. Cook,et al.  Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings , 1979 .

[3]  James C. Anderson,et al.  Some Methods for Respecifying Measurement Models to Obtain Unidimensional Construct Measurement , 1982 .

[4]  S. Sitkin,et al.  Corporate Acquisitions: A Process Perspective , 1986 .

[5]  O. Williamson,et al.  The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting. , 1987 .

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

[7]  B. Kogut.  Joint ventures: Theoretical and empirical perspectives , 1988 .

[8]  Peter M. Bentler,et al.  EQS : structural equations program manual , 1989 .

[9]  A. Chakrabarti,et al.  The division of labour in innovation management , 1989 .

[10]  K. Clark.  Project scope and project performance: the effect of parts strategy and supplier involvement on product development , 1989 .

[11]  Ellen R. Auster.  THE RELATIONSHIP OF INDUSTRY EVOLUTION TO PATTERNS OF TECHNOLOGICAL LINKAGES, JOINT VENTURES, AND DIRECT INVESTMENT BETWEEN U.S. AND JAPAN. , 1990 .

[12]  B. Zirger,et al.  A Model of New Product Development: An Empirical Test , 1990 .

[13]  R. P. McDonald,et al.  Structural Equations with Latent Variables , 1989 .

[14]  R. Eccles,et al.  Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, and Action , 1992 .

[15]  R. Schmenner,et al.  Collapsing new product development times: Six case studies , 1992 .

[16]  A. Griffin,et al.  Patterns of Communication Among Marketing, Engineering and Manufacturing-A Comparison Between Two New Product Teams , 1992 .

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

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

[19]  Lars Trygg,et al.  Concurrent Engineering Practices in Selected Swedish Companies: A Movement or an Activity of the Few? , 1993 .

[20]  Rajneesh Narula,et al.  Choosing Organizational Modes of Strategic Technology Partnering: International and Sectoral Differences , 1996 .

[21]  E. Zajac,et al.  FROM TRANSACTION COST TO TRANSACTIONAL VALUE ANALYSIS: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE STUDY OF INTERORGANIZATIONAL STRATEGIES* , 1993 .

[22]  D. Teece.  Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy , 1993 .

[23]  R. Handfield.  A resource dependence perspective of Just-in-Time purchasing , 1993 .

[24]  T. Nishiguchi,et al.  Strategic Industrial Sourcing: The Japanese Advantage , 1994 .

[25]  R. Kanter.  Collaborative advantage: The art of alliances , 1994 .

[26]  R. Keller,et al.  Technology-Information Processing Fit and the Performance of R&D Project Groups: A Test of Contingency Theory , 1994 .

[27]  西口 敏宏.  Strategic industrial sourcing : the Japanese advantage , 1994 .

[28]  Daniel J. McAllister.  Affect- and Cognition-Based Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations , 1995 .

[29]  Preston G. Smith,et al.  Developing products in half the time , 1995 .

[30]  Rajan R. Kamath,et al.  A Second Look at Japanese Product Development , 1995 .

[31]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT: PAST RESEARCH, PRESENT FINDINGS, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS , 1995 .

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

[33]  VenkatramanN.,et al.  Configurations of Interorganizational Relationships , 1995 .

[34]  Antonio J. Bailetti,et al.  Integrating customer requirements into product designs , 1995 .

[35]  Kwaku Atuahene-Gima,et al.  Involving organizational buyers in new product development , 1995 .

[36]  D. Littler,et al.  Factors Affecting the Process of Collaborative Product Development: A Study of UK Manufacturers of Information and Communications Technology Products , 1995 .

[37]  John Hagedoorn,et al.  A note on international market leaders and networks of strategic technology partnering. , 1995 .

[38]  N. Venkatraman,et al.  Configurations of inter-organizational relationships : a comparison between US and Japanese automakers , 1995 .

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

[40]  Pär Åhlström,et al.  The difficult path to lean product development , 1996 .

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

[42]  Dietmar Harhoff,et al.  Strategic spillovers and incentives for research and development , 1996 .

[43]  J. Hauser,et al.  Integrating R&D and marketing: A review and analysis of the literature , 1996 .

[44]  A. Chakrabarti,et al.  Innovation Speed: A Conceptual Model of Context, Antecedents, and Outcomes , 1996 .

[45]  J. Liker,et al.  Risky Business or Competitive Power? Supplier Involvement in Japanese Product Design , 1997 .

[46]  B. Nooteboom,et al.  Effects of trust and governance on relational risk. , 1997 .

[47]  J. H. Dyer.  Effective interim collaboration: how firms minimize transaction costs and maximise transaction value , 1997 .

[48]  Todd Saxton,et al.  The Effects of Partner and Relationship Characteristics On Alliance Outcomes , 1997 .

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

[50]  D. Gerwin,et al.  Withdrawal of team autonomy during concurrent engineering , 1997 .

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

[52]  Kulwant Singh,et al.  The Impact of Technological Complexity and Interfirm Cooperation on Business Survival , 1997 .

[53]  J. Hagedoorn,et al.  The institutionalization and evolutionary dynamics of interorganizational alliances and networks. , 1997 .

[54]  M. Bensaou,et al.  Interorganizational Cooperation: The Role of Information Technology an Empirical Comparison of U.S. and Japanese Supplier Relations , 1997, Inf. Syst. Res..

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

[56]  Durward K. Sobek,et al.  Another look at how Toyota integrates product development , 1998 .

[57]  Lawrence M. Wein,et al.  Economics of Product Development by Users: the Impact of Sticky Local Information , 1998 .

[58]  Jeffrey H. Dyer.  EFFECTIVE INTERFIRM COLLABORATION : HOW FIRMS MINIMIZE TRANSACTION COSTS AND MAXIMIZE TRANSACTION VALUE r , 1998 .

[59]  J. Johanson,et al.  Creating value through mutual commitment to business network relationships , 1999 .

[60]  J. Liker,et al.  Collaborating with suppliers in product development: a US and Japan comparative study , 1999 .

[61]  R. Handfield,et al.  Involving Suppliers in New Product Development , 1999 .

[62]  James G. Combs,et al.  Explaining interfirm cooperation and performance: toward a reconciliation of predictions from the resource-based view and organizational economics , 1999 .

[63]  R. Handfield,et al.  New Product Development: Strategies for Supplier Integration , 2000 .

[64]  S. Vickery,et al.  The ability to minimize the timing of new product development and introduction: an examination of antecedent factors in the North American automobile supplier industry , 2000 .

[65]  Geert Duysters,et al.  Organizational modes of strategic technology partnering. , 2000 .

[66]  Elliot Maltz,et al.  Is all communication created equal?: an investigation into the effects of communication mode on perceived information quality , 2000 .