A phase model for solution relationship development: a case study in the aerospace industry

Abstract

Purpose The evolution of the business-to-business (BtoB) realm toward solution business calls for a better understanding of how relationships develop over time in such a renewed context. This paper aims to propose a phase model for solution relationship development, considering triadic relationships in complex engineering solutions. Design/methodology/approach To depict how relationships develop in solution business, the authors adopt a qualitative approach which allows to detail the episodes of interactions between the actors. A case study approach in an extreme sector – the aerospace industry – allows highlighting certain key traits. Extending conventional dyadic analysis, this empirical study focuses on the aerospace industry, using a case study approach to analyze relationship developments between a worldwide leading aircraft manufacturer, one of its customer and four providers of products and services. The authors adopt a triadic perspective in the selection of cases, considering a total of four manufacturer-provider-customer triads. Findings Four dynamic phases which track solution provision dynamics and involving dyadic and triadic relationship evolution are identified: matching; combining; mixing; and sharing. Each phase calls, from a management perspective, for specific competencies and resources of the actors in interaction. Originality/value This paper contributes to the gap about solution relationship development in a changing BtoB landscape. Considering the lens of a triadic approach, the paper also helps to fill the as-yet unattended to gap between dyads and triads in the literature.

The configuration of inter-organizational relationship features in the life cycle perspective

“…Supportively to prior conceptual assumptions (Fynes et al. , 2005; Ferreira et al. , 2017) as the main contribution our study provides evidence for changeable (e.g.…”

“…Jap and Ganesan, 2000) we relied on responses about dyadic relationships collected from one actor only while every IOR links at least two actors. Thus to provide a better understanding of the relational issues, the adoption of a dyadic, triadic, or network perspective to every single considered IOR would be more cognitively reasoned (Ferreira et al. , 2017; Lussier and Hall, 2018).…”

“…However, as Meng (2010) highlights, in the initial phase partners are focused only on pursuing their objectives, thus trust and commitment are very low (Lau and Goh, 2005). In the literature initial phase is also labelled as initiating (Duanmu and Fai, 2007), matching (Ferreira et al. , 2017), assessment (Davis and Love, 2011), exploratory (Lee and Johnsen, 2012), or early development (Lau and Goh, 2005).…”

“…Palmatier et al. , 2013; Yaqub, 2017; Ferreira et al. , 2017; Kam and Lai, 2018) suggesting even a cyclical trajectory of relationship development (Ring and Van de Ven, 1994).…”

Cross-functional interconnectedness as an enabler of customer value

“…This network perspective, rather than dyads, may provide richer results and open up new research fronts, with special attention paid to interconnectedness (Schreiner, 2015; Wu and Choi, 2005; Wynstra et al , 2015). Previous literature presents interconnectedness either at an interpersonal level, in social psychology and sociology (Heider, 1958), or at an external level between companies (Choi and Wu, 2009a; Havila et al , 2004; Vedel et al , 2012; Holma et al , 2015; Sampson and Money, 2015; Ferreira et al , 2017). Therefore, the studied literature gives poor evidence about concepts that emerge from the perspective of cross-functional networks, which is the context of analysis of this study.…”