Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Previous research on supplier involvement in product development projects has produced contradictory results, with some studies showing a positive relationship, others no relationship, and still others a negative relationship between supplier involvement and project performance. Drawing on data from 124 managers, project leaders, buyer members, and supplier members pertaining to 28 product development projects, the authors find that buyer-supplier collaboration positively relates to product quality, adherence to product cost targets, adherence to development budgets, and adherence to development schedules. Furthermore, their analyses show that communication frequency and intensity has a curvilinear (inverted U-shaped) relationship with project development budget and product cost. Keywords: supplier involvement; product development projects; collaboration; communication.
Numerous scholars have argued that buyers can benefit from involving suppliers in the development process rather than working independently when it comes to market timing of new products, product quality, development cost, and product cost (Birou & Fawcett, 1994; Bonaccorsi & Lipparini, 1994; Bozdogan, Deyst, Hoult, & Lucas, 1998; Clark, 1989; Handfield, Ragatz, Petersen, & Monczka, 1999; Ragatz, Handfield, & Scannell, 1997; Wynstra, van Weele, & Weggemann, 2001). Empirical evidence, however, has provided mixed support for the proposed positive effects of supplier involvement in product developWe wish to thank the editor and the three anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on this article. *Corresponding author. Tel: +49 261 6509-310; fax: +49 261 6509-319. E-mail address: hoegl@whu.edu
Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, August 2005 530-548 DOI: 10.1177/0149206304272291 2005 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved.
530
531
ment. Research in the late 1980s initially confirmed positive effects of supplier involvement (Clark, 1989). Later studies, though, repeatedly found no positive linear relationships or even showed negative linear effects, that is, more supplier involvement leading to increased product and development cost, worse product performance, and longer development times (Eisenhardt & Tabrizi, 1995; Hartley, Zirger, & Kamath, 1997; Littler, Leverick, & Wilson, 1998; von Corswant & Tunlv, 2002; Wynstra et al., 2001). Although such evidence seems somewhat counterintuitive at first, given the largely positive discussion of supplier involvement at the strategic level, it indicates the need for specifying conditions that support the successful implementation of supplier involvement at the project level (Hartley et al., 1997). As some authors correctly point out, the positive effects of supplier involvement argued at the strategic level are not easily achieved in product development processes at the project level (Ragatz et al., 1997; von Corswant & Tunlv, 2002; Wynstra et al., 2001), and the management of supplier involvement in innovation processes appears to be a critical factor (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1995; Littler et al., 1998; McCutcheon, Grant, & Hartley, 1997; Takeishi, 2001). It is important that we conceptualize supplier involvement at the project level because the relationships between the buyer and the supplier members shape the interorganizational exchange and thus are critical in determining its outcomes (Croom, 2001). We therefore focus on the successful implementation of supplier involvement at the project level after the decision to involve a supplier in the firms product development has been taken (Leiblein, Reuer, & Dalsace, 2002). Specifically, we investigate how qualitative and quantitative elements of the interactive work process between buyer and supplier members are related to project performance. We aim to address the following two questions: How does the quality of collaboration between buyer and supplier members relate to project performance? How does the communication frequency and intensity (i.e., the quantity of interaction) between buyer and supplier members relate to project performance? By investigating these questions, we aim to shed light on the inconclusive results of prior research that has indicated positive, negative, or nonsignificant effects of supplier involvement in product development projects.
Theory
Supplier Involvement in Product Development Projects
Supplier involvement in product development has commonly been defined as the extent to which a buyer organization shares responsibility with a supplier organization for the development and design of the subsystems (or components) of a new product (Takeishi, 2001). Indicators of supplier involvement have included the time span of the suppliers involvement in the project, the suppliers contribution to the development and design work, as well as the quantity and complexity of technical interfaces between the supplier and the buyer (Bonaccorsi & Lipparini, 1994; Liker, Kamath, Wasti, & Nagamachi, 1996; Primo & Amundson, 2002). This narrow focus on the quantity and complexity of supplier involvement, however, merely describes the suppliers share of the project. We argue that this narrow focus fails to capture the quality of the collaboration between the buyer members and the supplier members. For
532
instance, although a project may feature a large supplier share (e.g., large supplier content and involvement during the complete duration of the project) as well as frequent and intense communication (e.g., many phone conversations and face-to-face meetings), buyer and supplier members may still lack more qualitative aspects of their interactive work process such as openness, mutual support, accommodation, and commitment to the project. Previous contributions in the relationship marketing, operations management, and innovation management fields have long advocated the involvement of key suppliers in the product development and design process and have provided evidence for the structuring and implementation of supplier involvement at an organizational or strategic level (Bidault, Despres, & Butler, 1998; Littler et al., 1998). Such research has addressed important questions related to the selection of suppliers (e.g., based on the suppliers competencies), the management of the supplier relationship (e.g., the establishment of supplier partnerships), as well as the timing (i.e., how early in the overall innovation process from idea generation to product launch) and the quantity (i.e., the suppliers share) of the involvement (Handfield et al., 1999; Liker et al., 1996; Wynstra & ten Pierick, 2000). Research on collaboration in innovation processes has only started to address issues of supplier involvement. Studies in this research stream offer valuable insights regarding projectinternal processes in innovative projects (Faraj & Sproull, 2000; Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001) as well as project-external functions within one organization (Ancona & Caldwell, 1990). The management of supplier involvement in innovative projects (i.e., at the project level), however, has received very little research attention thus far. A study conducted in the early 1990s by McCutcheon, Hartley, and colleagues involving product design engineers and engineering managers in assembly industries examined the buyer-supplier interface and its effect on schedule performance (Hartley et al., 1997), as well as antecedents of product designerssatisfaction with the suppliers contributions (McCutcheon et al., 1997). The analyses from this study provide support for the importance of the collaborative processes between the buyer and the supplier members. The focus of our research is the product development phase of the innovation process, where we investigate how to make supplier involvement produce the desired results on the ground. We build on the ideas and findings of the above literature streams and specify how different aspects of the collaborative process between buyer and supplier members foster the successful implementation of supplier involvement in product development at the project level.
Project Performance
We conceptualize the performance of product development projects as a multidimensional construct that includes aspects attributable to effectiveness as well as efficiency (Madhavan & Grover, 1998). In general, project performance can be defined as the extent to which established task objectives are being met. Although several studies investigating product development teams narrow performance down to a single dimension, such as quality (Sethi, 2000; Takeishi, 2001), project delay (Hartley et al., 1997), or new product success (McGinnis & Mele Vallopra, 1999), it is widely acknowledged in the literature that the performance of pro-
533
jects in general (Denison, Hart, & Kahn, 1996; Hackman, 1987; Pinto, Pinto, & Prescott, 1993), and of product development projects in particular (Hoegl, Weinkauf, & Gemuenden, 2004; Primo & Amundson, 2002), is a multidimensional construct. For the purpose of this research, the efficiency of a product development project relates to the adherence to development schedules and development cost, whereas effectiveness refers to the degree to which expectations regarding product quality (e.g., functionality, reliability) and product cost are met. Taking this broader multidimensional perspective of project success instead of using single constructs to measure project outcomes is more consistent with the view of practitioners, who have to meet and balance multiple objectives in product development projects.
534
plier involvement, where task complexity and uncertainty make it necessary to seek solutions in cooperation (Courtright, Fairhurst, & Rogers, 1989; Sicotte & Langley, 2000; Tuckman, 1964). As such, buyer-supplier collaboration implies that all project members contribute their ideas in the process of resolving issues and making decisions (Ford & Randolph, 1992; Seers, 1989; Zachary & Krone, 1984), develop higher levels of support and trust for each other (Sethi, 2000), establish a positive affective tone among the project members (Wech, Mossholder, Steel, & Bennett, 1998), improve their identification with the (joint) decisions, and hence directly support their implementation (Vroom, 1987). Buyer-supplier collaboration thus creates an engaging and committing project context where both partners perceive their relationship as important (Littler et al., 1998). Both buyer and supplier members invest in their collaborative endeavor, prioritize the project over other obligations, and expend all effort necessary to ensure project success (Campion, Medsker, & Higgs, 1993; Gladstein, 1984; Hackman, 1987; Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001). Strong task commitment, in turn, helps to make certain that the buyer and supplier members are following through on the work assignments and schedules that have been agreed. Moreover, commitment is not only associated with a higher willingness to perform; it also reduces nonproductive behaviors such as job avoidance, defiance, or aggression (Hunt & Morgan, 1994; Locke & Latham, 1990; Reichers, 1985). Hence, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 1: Buyer-supplier collaboration is positively related to the adherence to development schedule objectives in product development projects with supplier involvement. Hypothesis 2: Buyer-supplier collaboration is positively related to the adherence to development cost objectives in product development projects with supplier involvement. Hypothesis 3: Buyer-supplier collaboration is positively related to the adherence to product cost objectives in product development projects with supplier involvement. Hypothesis 4: Buyer-supplier collaboration is positively related to the adherence to product quality objectives in product development projects with supplier involvement.
535
intensity have positive influences on channel results (e.g., coordination, satisfaction, commitment) and enhances channel performance in terms of effectiveness and efficiency (Mohr & Nevin, 1990). The more intensive and frequent the communication between channel members, such as buyers and suppliers, the more likely it is that ambiguity in the message will be reduced. When information about the content and the status of the joint work product is frequently shared, all project members are likely to be better informed and can incorporate this up-to-date information in their own work (Ragatz et al., 1997). Hinting at the limitations of the benefits of interorganizational communication, some innovation management research has emphasized the difficulties, hazards, and inefficiencies of transferring product innovation-related information across organizational boundaries (Allen & Cohen, 1969). Similarly, prior research has found a negative relationship between the degree of extraorganizational communication of individuals working in R&D laboratories and the individuals work performance (Allen 1970; Baker, Siegmann, & Rubenstein, 1967). Although communication across organizational boundaries is vital to product development projects with supplier involvement, such research also suggests that high levels of communication frequency and intensity come at a cost. We argue that the positive relationship between communication frequency and intensity and project outcomes can turn into a negative relationship if communication frequency and intensity become too high. First, information overload increases the likelihood that information related to items of lower priority will be discarded rather than stored for use at a later time (Meier, 1963). If some information received is of low priority at the moment of its communication, it does not necessarily mean that the information cannot ultimately contribute to the project outcome. For example, supplier project members might propose design changes or changes to material specifications, which may make it easier or cheaper for the supplier to manufacture the product later. If the project team is occupied with more urgent problems (e.g., with meeting development deadlines), the supplier members proposals will frequently get lost and hence remain unused. Second, as individuals information-processing capacities and resources are limited, it is reasonable to expect that overloaded buyer and supplier members will be kept busy with processing, interpreting, and disseminating project-relevant information (e.g., long meetings of relatively little content). Project outcomes, particularly with respect to development times and development cost, may suffer as a consequence. Third, if the individual project members are overloaded with information, their assessments and decisions (e.g., regarding technical solutions or measures to improve product quality) will become less accurate and less subtle, affecting project effectiveness. Fourth, buyer and supplier project members in communication overloaded situations are less likely to search for additional information (e.g., evaluate additional technical alternatives), which might be potentially valuable for the success of the development project. Therefore, we posit the following:
Hypothesis 5: Communication frequency and intensity have an inverted U-shaped relationship with the adherence to development schedule objectives in product development projects with supplier involvement. Hypothesis 6: Communication frequency and intensity have an inverted U-shaped relationship with the adherence to development cost objectives in product development projects with supplier involvement.
536
Hypothesis 7: Communication frequency and intensity have an inverted U-shaped relationship with the adherence to product cost objectives in product development projects with supplier involvement. Hypothesis 8: Communication frequency and intensity have an inverted U-shaped relationship with the adherence to product quality objectives in product development projects with supplier involvement.
Method
Research Setting
The hypotheses were tested using a survey methodology on 28 new product development projects in six industrial firms. One company belongs to the plant construction industry; two develop and manufacture high-tech machinery; and the other three develop and manufacture elevators, railway systems, and medical devices, respectively. The sample firms are located across Germany, Austria, and Switzerland and range in size by annual sales varying from US$890 million to US$7.6 billion, with an average of US$3.2 billion. The firms employ between 5,030 and 38,900 people, with an average of 16,800.
Data Collection
The participating companies provided lists of all new product development projects with supplier involvement completed within the preceding 6 months. Besides basic information on the project (e.g., name of the project, project duration, name of the supplier organization), the lists included contact information for the project leader, the project-external manager, as well as buyer members and supplier members. We collected data from all 28 projects that the companies reported as completed within the preceding 6 months. All projects were conducted with the involvement of one supplier (i.e., not multiple suppliers). For each project, multiple respondentsthe project-external manager, the project leader, at least two randomly selected buyer members, and at least one randomly selected supplier memberwere contacted for data collection. The authors and research assistants gathered data by means of standardized questionnaires that were distributed and later collected on site or returned by mail to the university address. Questionnaires for the supplier members were sent to the identified individuals by mail and returned directly to the university address also by mail. Participation in this study was strictly voluntary, and all respondents were assured of complete anonymity. A total of 124 surveys were collected from project-external managers, project leaders, buyer members, and supplier members, yielding an overall response rate of 80.5%.
Measures
All constructs considered in this investigation refer to the project as the unit of analysis. Accordingly, all measures were specified at the project level. The questionnaire was adminis-
537
tered in German. The German-language measurement scales were generated for the present study based on descriptions and measures of related constructs in the literature. For each respondent type, a fully standardized questionnaire (5-point answer scale) was developed on the basis of existing research and pretested prior to the study. Following this pretest, the wording of some items was refined for the present study. For measuring project performance, we collected data from the project-external managers responsible for the projects, who provided information based on company records in terms of schedule (indicated as percentage beyond/ahead of schedule), development budget (percentage above/below budgeted development cost), and product cost (percentage above/below product target cost). This information was used as factual evidence of project performance. In addition, we used a seven-item scale adapted from the scale used by Hoegl and Gemuenden (2001) to assess product quality. The seven items (all on a 5-point rating scale) refer to qualitative aspects of the product developed, such as functionality, durability, dimensional integrity, as well as optical and tactile attractiveness. These items were combined by calculating their arithmetic mean to form a product quality index. Buyer-supplier collaboration (nine-item scale, Cronbachs = .93, 5-point rating scale) was measured building on the operationalizations and discussion of related constructs by Hoegl and Gemuenden (2001), Littler et al. (1998), Ragatz et al. (2002), and Tjosvold (1984). Two items were used to measure the communication frequency and intensity between the buyer members and the supplier members (Cronbachs = .86, 5-point rating scale). Table 1 documents descriptive statistics as well as intercorrelations of all variables. Translations of the German language items used in the study are included in the appendix.
Control Variables
We included the number of buyer members as well as the number of supplier members involved in the project as control variables in our analysis. This information was reported to us by the project leaders. The size of a project (in terms of head count) is an important structural variable with potential influences on the quality of collaborative task processes and project success (Campion et al., 1993; Gladstein, 1984; Hackman, 1987). Large projects make it more difficult for project members to interact with all other project members, given the dramatic increase of (possible) individual links between members as the number of people grows (Steiner, 1966). Therefore, we controlled for the possible influence of number of buyer members as well as number of supplier members in all our analyses. Furthermore, we controlled for variance in the suppliers share of the project. As already noted, prior research evidence suggests both possible positive and negative influences of the suppliers share of the project on project success as well as collaborative processes in the project. The suppliers share of the project was measured using three items (Cronbachs = .83) developed on the basis of the conceptual discussions of Bonaccorsi and Lipparini (1994), Liker et al. (1996), Takeishi (2001), and Primo and Amundson (2002). The three items pertain to the suppliers project share in terms of development hours and development budget, as well as the time span of the suppliers involvement in the project.
538
Variable
SD
Item
1. Beyond schedule 2. Beyond development budget 3. Beyond product cost 4. Product quality evaluation 5. Buyer-supplier collaboration 6. Communication frequency and intensity 7. Number of buyer members 8. Number of supplier members 9. Suppliers share of the project
Note: N = 28 (projects). Coefficients below the diagonal are zero-order correlations before controlling for firm. The coefficients above the diagonal are zero-order correlations after controlling for firm. Coefficients greater than .51 are significant at the .01 level, those greater than .36 are significant at the .05 level, and those greater than .27 are significant at the .10 level. a. 5-point refers to a 5-point rating scale with 1 = lowest and 5 = highest. b. Cronbachs alpha coefficient.
539
In addition, in testing the proposed relationships between buyer-supplier collaboration and the project performance variables, we also controlled for communication frequency and intensity. In doing so, we account for influences that the quantity of exchanges between buyer and supplier members may have on the relationships investigated. Given that this study includes data from different organizations, we controlled for possible organizational effects (i.e., dependencies between observations from one organization) in our analysis. Following the partialing procedure outlined by Cohen and Cohen (1983: 402-427 and 487-518), we regressed the independent variables and the dependent variables on organization and saved the standardized residuals. We used the standardized residuals as the basis for further analyses. This method controls for all constant and unmeasured differences across organizations (e.g., size, industry, maturity) that may explain differences in the variables and relationships investigated. As such, this partialing procedure is effectively equivalent to the inclusion of dummy variables for the six organizations in the regression analyses. In light of the limited project-level sample of this study, we opted for the partialing procedure that helps reduce the number of covariates in the main regression equations, thereby enhancing the precision of parameter estimation and preserving statistical power (Cohen & Cohen, 1983: 412413).
Multiple Informants
To ensure content validity and to avoid common source bias, data from different respondents were used to measure the different variables. Project performance was measured using data from (project-external) managers. The suppliers share of the project was measured on the basis of data from the project leaders. Buyer-supplier collaboration, as well as the communication frequency and intensity (between the buyer and the supplier members), was measured using aggregated responses from multiple buyer members (excluding project leaders). Prior to the hypotheses-testing analyses, we calculated interrater agreement for buyersupplier collaboration as well as communication frequency and intensity on the basis of buyer member and supplier member data available. Our data set contains 21 valid supplier member responses pertaining to 16 of the 28 projects investigated. Using the multiple-item estimator for within-group interrater reliability (IRR) as proposed by James, Demaree, and Wolf (1984), we found generally strong agreement between the raters (buyer-supplier collaboration: IRR = .96, communication frequency and intensity: IRR = .83). This offers support for using the buyer members as reliable key informants for these variables. All further analyses are conducted on the buyer member responses for buyer-supplier collaboration as well as communication frequency and intensity.
Data Analysis
We conducted multiple regression analyses to test our hypotheses. All analyses were conducted at the project level (N = 28). First, to test the linear relationships hypotheses for buyersupplier collaboration, we regressed the four project performance constructs on the control variables entered in Step 1 (i.e., number of buyer members, the number of supplier members,
540
the suppliers share of the project, and communication frequency and intensity) and buyersupplier collaboration entered in Step 2. Second, to test the curvilinear relationships hypotheses for communication frequency and intensity, we conducted hierarchical regression analyses with the linear relationships model estimated in Steps 1 and 2 (see above), and the quadratic term of communication frequency and intensity entered in Step 3. A significant increase of variance explained (R2) upon entering the quadratic term would indicate the presence of a curvilinear relationship.
Results
Table 2 displays the regression models based on the four dependent variables (schedule, development cost, product cost, product quality). As the results show, buyer-supplier collaboration is significantly (in the case of product quality, marginally significantly) related to all four measures of project performance. Stronger buyer-supplier collaboration is related to decreased schedule slippage ( = .65, p < .01), decreased development cost overrun ( = .59, p < .05), decreased product cost overrun ( = .58, p < .01), and increased product quality ( = .37, p < .10). Hence, these results lend support to our Hypotheses 1 through 4 asserting that buyer-supplier collaboration helps both the effectiveness (adherence to product cost and quality objectives) and the efficiency (adherence to schedule and development cost objectives) of product development projects. To test the curvilinear relationships posited in Hypotheses 5 through 8, we have included the quadratic term of communication frequency and intensity in the regression models; that is, the quadratic term of communication frequency and intensity was added to the regression equations after all control variables and buyer-supplier collaboration were already entered. The results support our Hypotheses 6 and 7 regarding curvilinear relationships with the teams adherence to development budgets ( of quadratic term = .88, p < .01) and adherence to product cost targets ( of quadratic term = .71, p < .01). The corresponding R2 increases are .37 (adherence to development budget) and .24 (adherence to product cost), respectively, and are both significant at the .01 level. However, these analyses fail to support our Hypotheses 5 and 8 regarding schedule performance and product quality as the inclusion of the quadratic term of communication frequency and intensity results in nonsignificant increases of R2 (i.e., .02 and .06, respectively).
Discussion
The results from our study support the hypotheses that buyer-supplier collaboration, that is, the quality of the interactive work process of buyer and supplier members in the project, improves project performance regardless of the suppliers share of the project. Specifically, we found that strong buyer-supplier collaboration is positively related with efficiency (development schedule and development cost) and effectiveness (product cost and product quality) of product development projects. As this research underscores the importance of the project level in new product development with supplier involvement, our results regarding collaboration are nevertheless consistent with findings in interfirm product development research at the
Independent Variables
Number of buyer members Number of supplier members Suppliers share of the project Communication freqency and intensity Buyer-supplier collaboration (Hypotheses 1-4) Quadratic term of communication frequency and intensity (Hypotheses 5-8)
R2 R2 change F
Note: N = 28 (projects). Significant at the .10 level * Significant at the .05 level ** Significant at the .01 level
541
542
organizational or strategic level. Boundary-spanning activities surrounding product development and design greatly benefit from collaborative partnerships as opposed to arms-length relationships between the firms involved (Primo & Amundson, 2002; Takeishi, 2001). Strong cooperation and regular patterns of similar or complementary action, for example, enable the firms involved to share opportunities in such a way as to facilitate the achievement of joint goals (Dwyer, Schurr, & Oh, 1987; Jap, 1999). Consistent with the hypothesized inverted U-shaped relationships, this research supports the general belief that increases in communication quantity do not have uniformly positive effects on performance (Guetzkow, 1965). To the best of our knowledge, previous studies have not been able to empirically demonstrate the conceptually well-established (and to many practitioners quite intuitive) notion of communication overload in the context of interorganizational product development projects (see Leenders, van Engelen, & Kratzer, 2003, for similar findings with intraorganizational product development projects). It is surprising that we were not able to confirm curvilinear relationships of communication frequency and intensity with schedule overrun or product quality. New product development projects in general, and interorganizational product development projects in particular, are regularly associated with high uncertainty, turbulence, and complexity (Miles, Snow, & Pfeffer, 1974), as well as high tacitness concerning information and knowledge handling among project participants (Nonaka, 1994). In such a context, other drivers might better explain development schedule and product quality performance. For example, it could be more important that buyer and supplier project members possess adequate technical and social skills to interact competently with one another about the mostly very technical aspects of quality. These arguments are in line with our rationale that buyer-supplier collaboration (which relates to these more qualitative aspects) serves as a substantial predictor for all four project performance measures.
Managerial Implications
The evidence presented in this article underscores the notion that buyer-supplier collaboration (i.e., the quality of supplier involvement), as well as communication frequency and intensity, has significant relationships with the performance of interfirm product development projects. This implies that firms cannot limit their decision of whether and how to extend new product development activities to suppliers to questions at the strategic or interorganizational level. Instead, for supplier involvement to prove successful, prior evaluation and preparation at the project level are vital to ensure strong buyer-supplier collaboration and find a suitable level of communication frequency and intensity. There are several measures that the buyer organization can take to foster high-quality collaboration in the project. First, given the performance relevance of the quality of collaborative exchanges between buyer and supplier members on the project, the buyer organization needs to recognize that not only technical expertise and experience but also social and project management skills are important in ensuring that supplier involvement yields the desired benefits. Such soft skills, alongside technical considerations, also should be emphasized in employee training and development, as well as in recruiting decisions.
543
Second, if both the buyer and the supplier are to capitalize on the benefits of joint development projects, managers in both firms must create an atmosphere that is characterized by an open sharing of information, mutual support and accommodation, and high project commitment. In fact, it is the responsibility of employees at all levels of the organization to create such an atmosphere of earnest collaboration with other members of the supply chain on a daily basis. In this regard, to ensure a partnership-like climate, it is important to counteract sentiments of buyer dominance over suppliers (e.g., the customer is king) or any sense of technical superiority of any firm over the other. Third, the buyer firm should evaluate potential suppliers not only on the basis of technical competencies and/or price considerations for the future component but also in terms of a collaborative fit with its own development organization. To this end, companies should look at the quality of collaboration in past projects where a specific supplier was involved and/or ensure that their own project members have an opportunity to interact with the future supplier members prior to project start. Fourth, the buying firm, and here in particular the managers and project leaders, should take action to achieve an adequate rather than maximal level of communication between the buyer and supplier members. There is no general recipe to this task as the level at which adequate communication frequency and intensity turn into overload is likely contingent on a number of issues. It is, however, important to ensure that all project members are aware that projects can suffer from too much communication and that the number of exchanges needs to be managed carefully.
544
variables. Only a longitudinal (preferably multi-informant) research design could provide answers to questions of causality as well as the development of key variables such as buyersupplier collaboration or communication frequency and intensity over time, for example, during different project phases. Also, by focusing on the project level and individual projects, insights about the transfer of experiences from one project to another or about learning effects cannot be gained. The data for our analysis are based on product development projects of multiple companies from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. This restricts the immediate generalizability of our findings by geographic region. However, we have no indication to expect substantial regional effects as our conceptual arguments are based on international scholarly research and hence are not region-specific. Nevertheless, we encourage further research to assess whether our findings replicate in other task contexts (e.g., software development) and other geographic areas such as North America or Asia. Furthermore, as this research identifies buyer-supplier collaboration, communication frequency, and intensity as strong drivers of the performance of product development projects with supplier involvement, future research should aim at exploring important antecedents of these process variables. Last, although buyer-supplier collaboration and communication frequency and intensity explain a large part of variance in project performance in this study, they cannot completely account for the variation in project success. Other factors at various levels of analysis such as the organizational level (e.g., technical competency of the supplier) and the project level (e.g., the adequacy of work strategies chosen and the correctness of technical decisions) are also likely to affect different aspects of project performance. We encourage future research to draw on these and other aspects to construct comprehensive models of project performance in interorganizational product development.
APPENDIX Measurement Scales Variable Product quality Indicators The project outcome is of high quality. The project outcome fully complies with the specifications regarding . . . a. dimensional integrity. b. durability. c. functionality. d. manufacturability. e. optical attractiveness. f. tactile attractiveness. Between the buyer and the supplier members . . . a. important ideas and information were exchanged openly. b. people adapted well to each other. c. the general atmosphere was cooperative. The buyer and the supplier members were fully satisfied with . . . a. the timeliness in which information was made available. b. the accuracy of the information. The buyer and the supplier members . . .
Buyer-supplier collaboration
545
a. assumed full responsibility for achieving the projects objectives. b. fully contributed to carrying the projects workload. c. were fully committed to reaching the project objectives. d. contributed equally to the common objectives. Communication frequency Between the buyer and the supplier members . . . and intensity a. communication was frequent. b. communication was intensive. Suppliers share of the How long was this supplier involved in the project? _____ % of the total project project duration What was this suppliers contribution? a. _____ % of total development hours b. _____ % of total project budget
Note: These items are translations of the German items used.
References
Allen, T. J. 1970. Communication networks in R&D laboratories. R&D Management, 1: 14-21. Allen, T. J., & Cohen, S. 1969. Information flow in R&D labs. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14: 12-19. Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. 1990. Beyond boundary spanning: Managing external dependence in product development teams. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 1: 119-135. Baker, N., Siegmann, J., & Rubenstein, A. 1967. The effects of perceived needs and means on the generation of ideas for industrial research and development projects. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 14: 156-163. Bidault, F., Despres, C., & Butler, C. 1998. The drivers of cooperation between buyers and suppliers for product innovation. Research Policy, 26: 719-732. Birou, L. M., & Fawcett, S. E. 1994. Supplier involvement in integrated product development: A comparison of US and European practices. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 24(5): 4-14. Bonaccorsi, A., & Lipparini, A. 1994. Strategic partnerships in new product development: An Italian case study. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11: 134-145. Bozdogan, K., Deyst, J., Hoult, D., & Lucas, M. 1998. Architectural innovation in product development through early supplier integration. R&D Management, 28: 163-173. Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 1995. Product development: Past research, present findings, and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 20: 343-378. Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. 1993. Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46: 823-850. Clark, K. B. 1989. Project scope and project performance: The effect of parts strategy and supplier involvement on product development. Management Science, 35: 1247-1263. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. 1983. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Courtright, J. A., Fairhurst, G. T., & Rogers, I. E. 1989. Interaction patterns in organic and mechanistic systems. Academy of Management Journal, 32: 773-802. Croom, S. R. 2001. The dyadic capabilities concept: Examining the processes of key supplier involvement in collaborative product development. European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 7: 29-37. Denison, D. R., Hart, S. L., & Kahn, J. A. 1996. From chimneys to cross-functional teams: Developing and validating a diagnostic model. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 1005-1023. Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. 1987. Developing buyer-supplier relationships. Journal of Marketing, 51(2): 11-27. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Tabrizi, B. N. 1995. Accelerating adaptive processes: Product innovation in the global computer industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 84-110. Farace, R., Monge, P., & Russell, H. 1977. Communicating and organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
546
Faraj, S., & Sproull, L. 2000. Coordinating expertise in software development teams. Management Science, 46: 15541568. Ford, R. C., & Randolph, W. A. 1992. Cross-functional structures: A review and integration of matrix organization and project management. Journal of Management, 18: 267-294. Gladstein, D. L. 1984. Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 499-517. Guetzkow, H. 1965. Communications in organizations. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations: 534-573. Chicago: Rand McNally. Hackman, J. R. 1987. The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior: 315342. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Handfield, R. B., Ragatz, G. L., Petersen, K. J., & Monczka, R. M. 1999. Involving suppliers in new product development. California Management Review, 42(1): 59-82. Hartley, J. L., Zirger, B. J., & Kamath, R. R. 1997. Managing the buyer-supplier interface for on-time performance in product development. Journal of Operations Management, 15: 57-70. Hoegl, M., & Gemuenden, H. G. 2001. Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science, 12: 435-449. Hoegl, M., Weinkauf, K., & Gemuenden, H. G. 2004. Interteam coordination, project commitment, and teamwork in multiteam R&D projects: A longitudinal study. Organization Science, 15: 38-55. Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. 1994. Organizational commitment: One of many commitments or key mediating construct? Academy of Management Journal, 37: 1568-1587. James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. 1984. Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 85-98. Jap, S. D. 1999. Pie-expansion efforts: Collaboration processes in buyer-supplier relationships. Journal of Marketing Research, 26: 461-475. Katz, R. 1982. The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22: 81-104. Keller, K. L., & Staelin, R. 1987. Effects of quality and quantity of information on decision effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Research, 14: 200-213. Leenders, R. T. A. J., van Engelen, J. M. L., & Kratzer, J. 2003. Virtuality, communication, and new product team creativity: A social network perspective. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 20: 69-92. Leiblein, M. J., Reuer, J. J., & Dalsace, F. 2002. Do make or buy decisions matter? The influence of organizational governance on technological performance. Strategic Management Journal, 23: 817-833. Liker, J. K., Kamath, R. R., Wasti, S. N., & Nagamachi, M. 1996. Supplier involvement in automotive component design: Are there really large US Japan differences. Research Policy, 25: 59-89. Littler, D., Leverick, F., & Wilson, D. 1998. Collaboration in new technology based product markets. International Journal of Technology Management, 15: 139-159. Loch, C. H., & Terwiesch, C. 1998. Communication and uncertainty in concurrent engineering. Management Science, 44: 1032-1048. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. 1990. A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Madhavan, R., & Grover, R. 1998. From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledge: New product development as knowledge management. Journal of Marketing, 62(4): 1-12. McCutcheon, D. M., Grant, R. A., & Hartley, J. L. 1997. Determinants of new product designerssatisfaction with suppliers contributions. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 14: 273-290. McGinnis, M. A., & Mele Vallopra, R. 1999. Purchasing and supplier involvement: Issues and insights regarding new product success. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 35(3): 4-15. Meier, R. L. 1963. Communications overload: Proposals from the study of a university library. Administrative Science Quarterly, 7: 521-544. Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., & Pfeffer, J. 1974. Organization-environment: Concepts and issues. Industrial Relations, 13: 244-264. Mohr, J. J., & Nevin, J. R. 1990. Communication strategies in marketing channels: A theoretical perspective. Journal of Marketing, 54(4): 36-51.
547
Nonaka, I. 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge. Organization Science, 5: 14-37. Pinto, M. B., Pinto, J. K., & Prescott, J. E. 1993. Antecedents and consequences of project team cross-functional cooperation. Management Science, 39: 1281-1297. Primo, M. A. M., & Amundson, S. D. 2002. An exploratory study of the effects of supplier relationships on new product development. Journal of Operations Management, 20: 33-52. Ragatz, G. L., Handfield, R. B., & Petersen, K. J. 2002. Benefits associated with supplier integration into new product development under conditions of technology uncertainty. Journal of Business Research, 55: 389-400. Ragatz, G. L., Handfield, R. B., & Scannell, T. V. 1997. Success factors for integrating suppliers into new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14: 190-202. Reichers, A. E. 1985. A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Review, 10: 465-476. Richeson, L., Lackey, C. W., & Starner, J. W., Jr. 1995. The effect of communication on the linkage between manufacturers and suppliers in a just-in-time environment. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, 31(1): 21-28. Seers, A. 1989. Team-member exchange quality: A new construct for role-making research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 43: 118-135. Sethi, R. 2000. Superordinate identity in cross-functional product development teams: Its antecedents and effect on new product performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28: 330-344. Sicotte, H., & Langley, A. 2000. Integration mechanisms and R&D project performance. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 17: 1-37. Steiner, I. D. 1966. Models for inferring relationships between group size and potential group productivity. Behavioral Science, 11: 273-283. Takeishi, A. 2001. Bridging inter- and intra-firm boundaries: Management of supplier involvement in automobile product development. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 403-433. Tannenbaum, S. I., Beard, R. L., & Salas, E. 1992. Team building and its influence on team effectiveness: An examination of conceptual and empirical developments. In K. Kelley (Ed.), Issues, theory, and research in industrial/ organizational psychology: 117-153. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Tjosvold, D. 1984. Cooperation theory and organizations. Human Relations, 37: 743-767. Tuckman, B. W. 1964. Personality structure, group composition, and group functioning. Sociometry, 27: 469-487. von Corswant, F., & Tunlv, C. 2002. Coordinating customers and proactive suppliers: A case study of supplier collaboration in product development. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 19: 249-261. Vroom, V. H. 1987. A new look at managerial decision making. In L. E. Boone & D. D. Bowen (Eds.), The great writings in management and organizational behavior: 365-383. New York: McGraw-Hill. Watson, W., Michaelsen, L. K., & Sharp, W. 1991. Member competence, group interaction, and group decision making: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 803-809. Wech, B. A., Mossholder, K. W., Steel, R. P., & Bennett, N. 1998. Does work group cohesiveness affect individuals performance and organizational commitment? A cross-level examination. Small Group Research, 29: 472-494. Wynstra, F., & ten Pierick, E. 2000. Managing supplier involvement in new product development: A portfolio approach. European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 6: 49-57. Wynstra, F., van Weele, A., & Weggemann, M. 2001. Managing supplier involvement in product development: Three critical issues. European Management Journal, 19: 157-167. Zachary, W. B., & Krone, R. M. 1984. Managing creative individuals in high-technology research projects. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 31: 37-40.
Biographical Notes
Martin Hoegl (Ph.D., University of Karlsruhe, Germany) is a professor at WHUOtto Beisheim Graduate School of Management (Vallendar, Germany), where he holds the Chair of Leadership and Human Resource Management. Before joining WHU, he served on the faculties of Washington State University and Bocconi University (Milan, Italy). His research interests include collaboration, knowledge creation, and innovation processes. He has published in lead-
548
ing international journals including the Academy of Management Journal, Organization Science, Small Group Research, Decision Sciences, and others. Stephan M. Wagner (Ph.D., University of St. Gallen, Switzerland) is a professor of business administration and holds the Kuehne Endowed Chair of Logistics Management at WHUOtto Beisheim Graduate School of Management. Previously, he worked for 10 years as head of supply chain management for a Swiss-based packaging technology group and as senior manager for a top-management consulting firm. His research interests include supply chain strategy, interfirm relationship management, and innovation in supply chains. Among others, he has published in the Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, the Journal of Supply Chain Management, and Industrial Marketing Management.