Breakthrough Scanning, Supplier Knowledge Exchange, and New Product Development Performance

The ability of a firm to scan its environment for breakthrough innovations and develop new products is increasingly central to business success. However, many firms struggle to develop breakthrough innovations alone, and rely increasingly on their supply base to provide input in processing uncertain and ambiguous technological knowledge. This paper develops a theoretical framework, based in information processing theory, to investigate the effects of breakthrough search behaviors by the buyer firm on their technical proficiency, reliance on supplementary processing capacity with suppliers, and subsequent new product development and financial performance. Using data provided by 111 procurement executives from the United Kingdom, we find support for our hypotheses. Increased breakthrough scanning results in higher firm-level technical proficiency, and also an increase in knowledge sharing with the firm's suppliers. A combination of a firm's technical capabilities and knowledge exchange with suppliers was found to result in improved new product development performance and financial performance. This study extends the supply relationship management and new product development literatures, and suggests implications for both research and practice.

[1]  Chad W. Autry,et al.  Evaluating buyer–supplier relationship–performance spirals: A longitudinal study , 2010 .

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

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

[4]  R. Handfield,et al.  Creating supply chain relational capital: The impact of formal and informal socialization processes , 2006 .

[5]  Matthew C. H. Yeung,et al.  Is Guanxi (relationship) a bridge to knowledge transfer , 2006 .

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

[7]  Michael Song,et al.  Marketing and technology resource complementarity : An analysis of their Interaction Effect in two environmental contexts , 2005 .

[8]  W. C. Benton,et al.  The influence of power driven buyer/seller relationships on supply chain satisfaction , 2005 .

[9]  Thomas Y. Choi,et al.  Building deep supplier relationships , 2004 .

[10]  Mohan V. Tatikonda,et al.  Product Technology Transfer in the Upstream Supply Chain , 2003 .

[11]  David L. Deeds,et al.  Honeymoons and Liabilities: The Relationship between Age and Performance in Research and Development Alliances , 2003 .

[12]  Melissa M. Appleyard,et al.  The Influence of Knowledge Accumulation on Buyer-Supplier Codevelopment Projects , 2003 .

[13]  Sandra Rothenberg,et al.  A framework for sourcing product development services , 2003 .

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

[15]  M. Kotabe,et al.  Gaining from vertical partnerships : Knowledge transfer, relationship duration and supplier performance improvement in the U.S. and Japanese automotive industries , 2003 .

[16]  Linda Argote,et al.  Managing Knowledge in Organizations: An Integrative Framework and Review of Emerging Themes , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[17]  John A. Mathews,et al.  Competitive dynamics and economic learning: an extended resource-based view , 2003 .

[18]  J. Hagedoorn,et al.  External Sources of Innovative Capabilities: The Preferences for Strategic Alliances or Mergers and Acquisitions , 2002 .

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

[20]  R. Klassen,et al.  Experimental comparison of Web, electronic and mail survey technologies in operations management , 2001 .

[21]  Kenneth B. Kahn.  Market orientation, interdepartmental integration, and product development performance , 2001 .

[22]  M. Sarkar,et al.  Alliance entrepreneurship and firm market performance , 2001 .

[23]  Curba Morris Lampert,et al.  Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: a longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions , 2001 .

[24]  M. Couper,et al.  Web Surveys , 2001 .

[25]  Akira Takeishi,et al.  Bridging inter‐ and intra‐firm boundaries: management of supplier involvement in automobile product development , 2001 .

[26]  A. Nerkar,et al.  Beyond local search: boundary‐spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry , 2001 .

[27]  Michael Song,et al.  The Effect of Perceived Technological Uncertainty on Japanese New Product Development , 2001 .

[28]  Andrew C. Inkpen.  Learning Through Joint Ventures: A Framework Of Knowledge Acquisition , 2000 .

[29]  Mick P. Couper,et al.  Usability Evaluation of Computer-Assisted Survey Instruments , 2000 .

[30]  G. Ahuja.  The duality of collaboration : Inducements and opportunities in the formation of interfirm linkages , 2000 .

[31]  L. Ellram.  Purchasing and Supply M anagement's Participation in the Target Costing Process , 2000 .

[32]  Christopher M. McDermott,et al.  Concurrent development and strategic outsourcing , 2000 .

[33]  R. Cooper,et al.  New Problems, New Solutions: Making Portfolio Management More Effective , 2000 .

[34]  J. H. Dyer,et al.  Creating and managing a high‐performance knowledge‐sharing network: the Toyota case , 2000 .

[35]  F. Dwyer,et al.  An Examination of Organizational Factors Influencing New Product Success in Internal and Alliance-Based Processes , 2000 .

[36]  A. Zaheer,et al.  Bridging ties: a source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities , 1999 .

[37]  C. McDermott.  Managing radical product development in large manufacturing firms: a longitudinal study , 1999 .

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

[39]  John N. Pearson,et al.  Strategically managed buyer–supplier relationships and performance outcomes , 1999 .

[40]  Wm. E. Souder,et al.  Management Practices Influencing New Product Success and Failure in the United States and Scandinavia: A Cross-Cultural Comparative Study , 1999 .

[41]  P. Bentler,et al.  Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis : Conventional criteria versus new alternatives , 1999 .

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

[43]  R. Gulati.  Alliances and networks , 1998 .

[44]  Wm. E. Souder,et al.  A causal model of the impact of skills, synergy, and design sensitivity on new product performance , 1997 .

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

[46]  A. Griffin,et al.  PDMA Success Measurement Project: Recommended Measures for Product Development Success and Failure , 1996 .

[47]  B. Kogut,et al.  Technological Platforms and Diversification , 1996 .

[48]  Jeffrey H. Dyer.  Specialized supplier networks as a source of competitive advantage : Evidence from the auto industry , 1996 .

[49]  W. Powell,et al.  Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology. , 1996 .

[50]  R. Gulati.  Social Structure and Alliance Formation Patterns: A Longitudinal Analysis , 1995 .

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

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

[53]  James B. Thomas,et al.  INFORMATION PROCESSING IN STRATEGIC ALLIANCE BUILDING: A MULTIPLE‐CASE APPROACH* , 1993 .

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

[55]  K. Clark,et al.  Organizing and Leading “Heavyweight” Development Teams , 1992 .

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

[57]  Kathleen A. Bentley.  A Discussion of the Link Between One Organization's Style and Structure and Its Connection With Its Market , 1990 .

[58]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[59]  R. Daft,et al.  Understanding Managers' Media Choices: A Symbolic Interactionist Perspective , 1990 .

[60]  George P. Huber,et al.  A theory of the effects of advanced information technologies on organizational design, intelligence , 1990 .

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

[62]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Message Equivocality, Media Selection, and Manager Performance: Implications for Information Systems , 1987, MIS Q..

[63]  P. M. Podsakoff,et al.  Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects , 1986 .

[64]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design , 1986 .

[65]  R. Daft,et al.  Toward a Model of Organizations as Interpretation Systems , 1984 .

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

[67]  J. Scott Armstrong,et al.  Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. , 1977 .

[68]  J. Slocum,et al.  Uncertainty: Measures, Research, and Sources of Variation , 1975 .