طبقه بندی یکپارچه سازی دانش در روابط خریدار تامین کننده: تجارت آف بین بهره وری و نوآوری

Based on the knowledge-based view of inter-firm collaboration, this study develops and proposes a parsimonious taxonomy of how buyers and suppliers develop knowledge integration in terms of two mechanisms: joint sense meaning and joint decision making. The first focuses on the interpretation and sense making of knowledge about strategic, relevant issues for the buyer–supplier relationship (BSR). The latter emphasizes joint problem solving related to their interlinked operative routine activities. Using survey data from 130 collaborative BSRs and cluster analysis, the results suggest that buyers that purposely develop a balanced knowledge integration with their suppliers—characterized by managing high levels of both joint sense meaning and joint decision making—show improved efficiency and innovation simultaneously even though they have to deal with the tension of managing the requirements of these two key, albeit competing outcomes. The results also suggest that buyers pursuing focused knowledge integration with their suppliers—characterized by managing high levels of either joint sense meaning or joint decision making—outperform in a specific outcome at the expense of the other. This study thus provides a comprehensive framework that allows organizations to evaluate the knowledge integration strategy that best supports their goals related to their collaborative buyer–supplier relationships.

Ever-changing market competition rules force firms to continuously improve. But what should a firm do to achieve this? Does a firm possess the knowledge and skills to achieve innovative and efficient products and/or processes? How can a firm organize its capabilities and leverage supply chain partners' knowledge in order to reach this goal? This research addresses these challenges by suggesting that different knowledge integration mechanisms between a buying firm and its supplier are essential for enhancing both efficiency and innovation. Consistent with previous studies (e.g., Frohlich and Westbrook, 2001, Vickery et al., 2003, Modi and Mabert, 2007 and Wong et al., 2011), we note the positive impact of buyer–supplier integration on performance and extend this knowledge by offering an in-depth examination of which knowledge integration strategy the buyer and supplier should follow if they are to succeed in competitive markets. Based on the knowledge-based view (KBV), we define knowledge integration as an important capability that enables both buyer and supplier to access, share and exploit knowledge as well as to create new knowledge. Some supply chain management scholars (e.g., Zhao et al., 2008, Fabbe-Costes and Jahre, 2008 and Myers and Cheung, 2008) have studied knowledge integration among buyers and suppliers. They have primarily analyzed the benefits of operative integration among buyers and suppliers—including material movements, ordering processes and forecasting development—in a narrow range of measures such as cost, lead time, flexibility and quality (for a review, see Sahin and Robinson, 2002 and Terpend et al., 2008). However, competitive markets demand these firms to go beyond solely sharing operational information and achieving incremental improvements. They also require an element of interpretation or sense of sharing knowledge about critical, relevant issues (e.g., changes in customer need) that help buyers and suppliers better develop innovative strategies and products which accomplish market needs (Swink et al., 2007, Sanders, 2008 and Lawson et al., 2008). Thus, integration of both operative and strategic knowledge is necessary to compete in demanding markets. Past studies have demonstrated that buyers sharing knowledge with their collaborative suppliers can benefit (e.g., Von Hippel, 1988, Hult et al., 2007, Esper et al., 2010 and Azadegan, 2011). However, how buyers design their strategies in configuring their knowledge integration capabilities with their collaborative suppliers, so as to achieve operative and strategic benefits, remains a research gap (Sanders, 2008). We aim to fill this gap by examining how buyers pursue different strategies to share diverse, albeit complementary knowledge with their collaborative suppliers and by using a more comprehensive set of performance outcomes—efficiency and innovation. The latter would allow us to examine the trade-offs of these two performance outcomes, which remain a debate among academics (cf. Adler et al., 2009) and a major concern for managers (Chandrasekaran et al., 2012). Scholars have pointed out that future research needs to explore how firms (Abernathy, 1978 and March, 1991) and inter-firm relationships (Im and Rai, 2008 and Adler et al., 2009) should be designed to facilitate efficiency while promoting innovation. In industry, failure to manage efficiency and innovation has resulted in meaningful losses for organizations such as Motorola, Ericsson, and Samsung (Christensen and Raynor, 2003). Given its far-reaching and salient effects, we study how organizations configure their knowledge integration strategies to achieve a balance between efficiency and innovation. From the buyer's perspective, this research develops and proposes a parsimonious taxonomy of how buyers and suppliers integrate diverse types of knowledge and how such configurations impact innovation and efficiency. We use a configuration approach because it provides a holistic analysis of the phenomenon under investigation (Miller, 1986 and Flynn et al., 2010) and considers combinations of diverse knowledge flows and their relationships with performance as an interrelated bundle (Doty and Glick, 1994 and Bozarth and McDermott, 1998). We postulate that there are two main mechanisms for developing knowledge integration: joint sense meaning and joint decision making. The first focuses mainly on the interpretation and sense making of shared information about critical, strategic issues within the buyer–supplier relationship (BSR). The latter emphasizes joint decision making related to inter-firm operative routine activities. Based on these two mechanisms, we propose a taxonomy that suggests four types of strategies—operational, strategic, balanced and minimized integrations. When BSRs engage in operational knowledge integration (promoting high levels of joint decision making) or strategic knowledge integration (fostering high levels of joint sense meaning), one can outperform at the expense of the other. For instance, buyers pursuing operational knowledge integration exhibited higher levels of efficiency at the expense of innovation. BSRs that pursue balanced knowledge integration (equilibrium between joint sense meaning and joint decision making) can fully leverage synergies that result in improved efficiency and innovation; however, they might not perform simultaneously at the highest levels in both outcomes. BSRs seeking minimized knowledge integration (joint sense meaning and joint decision making are very low) exhibited low levels of efficiency and innovation. The paper is organized as follows: We first review the literature on collaborative BSRs and knowledge integration and then develop hypotheses based on how the configurations of two knowledge integration dimensions impact efficiency and innovation. The methods section discusses how survey data from 130 BSRs were collected and analyzed using cluster analysis. The results suggest four types of BSRs and show the tradeoffs of pursuing a focused versus a balanced strategy of knowledge integration. Finally, we discuss theoretical and managerial implications and offer future research directions.

This study develops and proposes a parsimonious taxonomy of knowledge integration and evaluates the trade-offs of gearing a balance between efficiency and innovation. It suggests four strategies: balanced, strategic, operational and minimized knowledge integration. BSRs pursuing balanced knowledge integration benefit from better levels of innovation and efficiency simultaneously, although they have to face the inherent tension of the requirements of these competing performance outcomes. BSRs seeking operational knowledge integration show the highest levels of efficiency while those pursuing strategic knowledge integration do not necessarily excel in innovation. BSRs with a minimized knowledge integration strategy were characterized by low levels of efficiency and innovation. These four suggested strategies provide a framework that allows organizations to evaluate the strategy that best supports their goals regarding collaborative supplier relationships.