عوامل موثر بر نتایج اتحاد استراتژیک در زنجیره تامین تولید : نقش انگیزه واحد، وابستگی متقابل، ویژگی دارایی ها و سرمایه رابطه ای
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|905||2013||13 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : International Journal of Production Economics, Volume 141, Issue 1, January 2013, Pages 339–351
Integration of various theories is essential to completely understand and explain strategic alliances in a supply chain. The purpose of this paper is to develop a framework by integrating the features of transaction cost theory, resource-based theory, contingency theory, social exchange theory, and Kelley's personal relationship theory and test the framework through empirical research. The present study addresses the impact of strategic alliance motives, environment, asset specificity, perception of opportunistic behavior, interdependence between supply chain partners, and relational capital on strategic alliance outcomes. Besides, the study has also tested the role of relational capital as a central mediating construct. A sample of 2156 companies representing different industries in manufacturing in Malaysia was selected for the distribution of questionnaire. We tested the structural model using structural equation modeling (SEM). Based on the results, we conclude the following significant relationships: (1) strategic alliance motives and perception of opportunistic behavior on interdependence and relational capital, (2) interdependence on relational capital, (3) environment on strategic alliance motives, (4) relational capital on strategic alliance outcomes, and (4) the mediating role of relational capital. The current study adds significantly to the body of knowledge on strategic alliances and can help managers identify factors that influence the success of strategic alliances and provide a proper direction to develop robust and effective collaborative relationships between supply chain partners.
Over the past two decades, inter-organizational cooperative arrangements have become an increasingly attractive way of improving a firm's competitiveness. Forming strategic alliances with suppliers and customers allow manufacturers to focus on core activities of providing quality products and services (Kannan and Tan, 2004). Closer buyer–supplier relationships offer numerous technical, financial, and strategic advantages (Mohr and Spekman, 1994). Although the rate of alliance formation has increased, these arrangements are frequently accompanied by problems of instability, poor performance and premature termination (Parkhe, 1993). Many researchers have projected that more than 50% of the strategic alliances fail (Dyer et al., 2001, Park and Ungson, 2001 and Young-Ybarra and Wiersema, 1999). Overcoming high failure rates of strategic alliances require a better understanding of the factors involved in their establishment and maintenance. According to Kale and Singh (2009), strategic alliance is a “…..purposive relationship between two or more independent firms that involves the exchange, sharing, or co-development of resources or capabilities to achieve mutually relevant benefits.” (p. 46). Due to benefits resulting from collaborative arrangements, scholars have recognized strategic alliances as an important area for research (Das et al., 2003, Elmuti and Kathawala, 2001, Monczka et al., 1998, Parkhe, 1993, Townsend, 2003, Varadarajan and Cunningham, 1995 and Wong et al., 2005; Zineldin and Bredenlow, 2003). A range of conceptual definitions and frameworks have emerged from different perspectives (Das and Teng, 2003 and Parkhe, 1993). Various theories such as transaction cost theory, resource-based theory, contingency theory and game theory have been used by these researchers to explain, develop constructs, and describe strategic alliances. Due to the distinctive nature and richness of alliance stuctures, we believe that there is no single theory that can fully elucidate strategic alliances. According to Tsang (1998), complete behavior of alliances cannot be adequately captured by a few theories. The contributions of this study are threefold. First, the study proposes a model by combining the features of transaction cost theory, contingency theory, resource-based theory, social exchange theory, and personal relationship theory. We argue that combining the features of these theories is essential to adequately understand and explain strategic alliances. Our intention here is not to develop an eclectic theory that can capture all the nuances of strategic alliances. Park and Ungson (2001) have argued that the study of inter-organizational cooperation should adopt a multi-disciplinary perspective, including economics, organization sciences and business strategies. Such an approach can help generate a more complete knowledge about relevant issues. Previous researchers such as Parkhe (1993), Young-Ybarra and Wiersema (1999) and Yasuda (2005) have attempted to use two theories to study strategic alliances. Second, we empirically test the framework and explicitly address the role of relational capital as a central mediating construct in a strategic alliance framework. This construct is critical in the effective formation and maintenance of strategic alliances between supply chain partners. Third, the results of the study can help managers identify factors that influence the success of strategic alliances and provide a proper direction to develop robust and effective collaborative relationships between supply chain partners. These relationships can help reduce the failure rate of strategic alliances. This research has been carried out from the manufacturers' perspective and addresses the impact of strategic alliance motives, environment, asset specificity, perception of opportunistic behavior, interdependence between supply chain partners, and relational capital on strategic alliance outcomes.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The move toward the engagement of strategic alliance has been of great significance to many firms in positioning themselves to achieve sustainable competitive advantages within their respective industries. Although previous theories have been proposed to study how these inter-firm collaborations have developed and what they need to do in order to effectively manage cooperative relationships, the use of one or two theoretical frameworks in explaining strategic alliances seem to be largely insufficient. Yasuda (2005), for instance, has applied transaction cost theory and resource-based theory in justifying a firm's motivation for engaging in strategic alliances in a high-technology business environment; but devoted little attention examining the governance and management of the collaborative relationship. On the other hand, a study by Young-Ybarra and Wiersema (1999) have utilized factors from transaction cost theory and social exchange theory to provide a thorough explanation on flexibility in strategic alliances, but their theoretical framework did not address the formation and development of strategic alliances. A need for a model that incorporates insights related to the formation and maintenance of a strategic alliance is therefore obvious. This research has borrowed concepts from theories of transaction cost, resource-based, contingency, social exchange, and personal relationship to develop a framework that can address formation, maintenance, and success of strategic alliances. Based on the results, we conclude the following significant relationships: (1) strategic alliance motives and perception of opportunistic behavior on interdependence and relational capital, (2) interdependence on relational capital, (3) environment on strategic alliance motives, (4) relational capital on strategic alliance outcomes, and (4) the mediating role of relational capital. However, a surprising result in this study is the role of asset specificity. Williamson (1985) extols the role of asset specificity in handling opportunism and uncertainty in relationships, since it makes partners more committed. Some studies have confirmed the significant impact of asset specificity (Kwon and Suh, 2005, Lui et al., 2009, Murray and Kotabe, 2005, Parkhe, 1993 and Young-Ybarra and Wiersema, 1999). As indicated earlier, this result may be due to the fact that asset specific investments are not popular among Malaysian manufacturing firms. Nearly 70% of the companies sampled had a paid-up capital less than RM 10 million (USD 3 million). The majority of the companies consider asset specific investments to be prohibitive. Although this study has attempted to provide an in-depth view on the strategic alliance dimensions, factors influencing such collaborative arrangement are not exhaustive. Given the diversity of today's business environment, future study should therefore consider other elements that challenge the inter-firm linkages such as organizational culture. Organization that recognizes joint efforts within a strategic alliance relationship can help improve overall operational activities and value chain coordination. In this framework, one interesting aspect that is missing is the effect of culture; both organizational and national. Culture as an important factor in the study of strategic alliances is well documented (Murray and Siehl, 1989; Sambasivan and Yen, 2010). Shared cultural values between the alliance partners increases the likelihood of alliance success (Murray and Siehl, 1989). Finally, it is strongly recommended that greater emphasis should be given to longitudinal studies. This is because positive reinforcement (e.g. by increasing the levels of operational interdependency and information-sharing) can powerfully affect how partners shape their contributions to value creation over a long run. On the other hand, negative interactive experiences and signals of opportunistic behavior can move trust to a state of distrust as highlighted by Perks and Halliday (2003). Therefore, longitudinal studies will be useful to capture the dynamic evolution of a strategic alliance relationship. This study has used manufacturing sectors as a sample. The future studies can also look at the service sector to validate the framework.