strategic management journal, 29: 913–941 (2008)

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 variables1. 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)

Series102468

101214161820

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.