روابط بین توسعه تامین کننده، تعهد، انباشت سرمایه و بهبود عملکرد
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|21169||2007||18 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 10351 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Operations Management, Volume 25, Issue 2, March 2007, Pages 528–545
This study investigates the relationships between U.S. buying firms’ supplier development efforts, commitment, social capital accumulation with key suppliers, and buying firm performance. We identify linkages between supply chain management research on supplier development and organization theory research on social capital to consider how buying firm commitment to a long-term relationship, cognitive capital (goals and values), structural capital (information sharing, supplier evaluation, supplier development), and relational capital (length of relationship, buyer dependency, supplier dependency) are related to buying firm performance improvements (cost improvements, and quality, delivery, flexibility improvements). Analysis of buying firms from the U.S. automotive and electronics industries provides support for the theory that buyer commitment and social capital accumulation with key suppliers can improve buying company performance. Moreover, the findings suggest that the relationships of structural and relational capital vary depending on the type of performance improvement considered.
Previous research has shown that Japanese firms have, at minimum, been able to gain temporary competitive advantage from resource investments in supplier relationships (Liker and Choi, 2004). However, the empirical evidence is less complete for U.S. firms. Across the various fields associated with organizational research there is growing recognition of the importance of inter-organizational relationships as a source of competitive advantage and value creation (Osborn and Hagedoorn, 1997, Powell, 1996 and Smith et al., 1995). Using a social capital lens, this study was initiated to better understand the value created by U.S. firms willing to commit to long-term relationships and to develop social capital with key suppliers through supplier development. The relationship between value creation and inter-organizational relationships has been explored using resource dependence theory (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978), marketing channel theory (Frazier, 1983 and Stern et al., 1977); transaction cost economics (Williamson, 1985), transactional value analysis (Dyer, 1997 and Zajac and Olsen, 1993), resource-based theory (Tyler, 2001 and Wernerfelt, 1995), social capital theory (Granovetter, 1985, Jones et al., 1997 and Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998), and information processing theory (Hult et al., 2004). A central proposition of these theories is that when organizations invest in relation-specific assets, engage in knowledge exchange, and combine resources through governance mechanisms, a supernormal profit can be derived on the part of both exchange parties. In this study we leverage social capital theory to explain the value created for buying firms committed to supplier development. One tangible form of inter-organizational exchange that falls under the auspices of supply chain management research is a practice initiated by industrial firms called “supplier development.” Supplier development is any activity initiated by a buying organization1 to improve the performance of its suppliers (Krause et al., 1998). Supplier development is an important strategy for examination because it encapsulates two of the most evident features of social capital: shared knowledge and shared asset investments. Supplier development may include goal setting, supplier evaluation, performance measurement, supplier training, and other related activities. Although this type of activity has been prevalent in Japanese and Korean firms for a number of years, it has been less evident in U.S. firms, or at least, less studied (Krause and Handfield, 1999, MacDuffie and Helper, 1997 and MacDuffie, 1995). Perhaps U.S. firms have been reluctant to invest in supplier development due to a perceived lack of immediate return on investment associated with deploying the resources required to make it successful (Liker and Wu, 2000, Dyer and Nobeoka, 2000 and Smock, 2001). Alternatively, perhaps U.S. firms work in different ways to improve supplier performance. This research was undertaken to better understand the nature of supplier development efforts in the U.S. and to better understand the specific form of returns gained from investments by U.S. firms in supplier development activities. The results of this study provide two principal contributions to the extant literature. First, we argue, and subsequently demonstrate, that supplier development can conceptualized through a social capital theory lens, and that this effort provides valuable insights into the different dimensions of social capital as they pertain to relationships between industrial buying firms and their suppliers. Second, the results indicate that the importance of the dimensions of social capital varies depending on the type of buyer performance improvements being emphasized, either in the form of cost and total cost, or in terms of quality, delivery and flexibility. More broadly, the paper provides important insights into the relationship between buyer social capital commitments and buyer value creation. The remainder of the paper briefly reviews the literature on supplier development, buyer performance goals, and the three types of social capital buying firms may establish with key suppliers to improve buyer performance: cognitive capital, structural capital, and relational capital. Next, we draw associations between supplier development practices and the different dimensions of social capital, and develop a set of hypotheses that identify relationships between the three types of social capital and buyer performance improvements. In the following sections, we describe the data, the measures, and the analysis. Finally, we present the results and discuss implications for further research.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The significant increase in outsourcing over the past two decades has fueled researchers’ interest in the benefits of buyer–supplier relationships. As cooperation and collaboration between buyers and suppliers has increased, the performance of these relationships, and the fact that there are socially embedded dimensions should be of interest to researchers. However, knowledge is limited in terms of the different dimensions of social capital and their unique contributions to the various dimensions of performance. The literature in strategy and organizational theory has examined social capital for some time, but the applications in supply chain research are relatively limited. Inkpen and Tsang (2005) argued that we need to examine in detail the characteristics of different network types. This study is in response, in part, to their call. We have taken a special type of strategic alliance – supplier development initiatives by buying firms – and sought to study dimensions of cognitive, structural and relational capital. We found support for their suggestion that different types of knowledge types have different effects on organizational processes and that tacit knowledge requires more intimate personal interaction than more codified and easily understood knowledge. Thus, the present study provides some initial understanding of industrial buyer–supplier relationships and how their social capital dimensions relate to buying firm performance. We believe more research is needed. Specifically, future efforts could focus on existing measures of the three dimensions of social capital, and on additional measures of buying firm performance such as innovation. Compared to the transaction cost economics perspective that prevails in the extant supply chain literature, social capital offers an opportunity for increased understanding of the complexities of supply chain relationships. We hope other researchers will further investigate the social dimensions of these relationships.