Governing for innovation in horizontal service cooperations

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this study is to provide insights into the role of governance mechanisms in fostering innovativeness in horizontal service cooperations. Design/methodology/approach -Data were collected from 225 horizontal service cooperations in the logistics industry via an online survey. Structural equation modeling was used to analyze the empirical data. Findings -The choice of governance measures helps to improve the innovativeness of service cooperations. The use of formalization and balanced mutual influence, combined with cultural similarity provides the basis for the development of new or enhanced services within the cooperation. In contexts that build on equity-based contracts, innovativeness is driven by the degree of mutual influence among partners. Research limitations/implications -Empirical data were collected in a single industry (logistics) and in a single country (Germany). A confirmation of the results in different service settings is therefore encouraged. Practical implications -This research emphasizes the importance of governance in facilitating innovation in service cooperations. By applying the right governance mechanisms in possible settings of co-opetition, managers can foster coordination and the exchange of knowledge and diminish opportunistic behavior among parties. Originality/value -The research is extended by developing a model based on the knowledge of service innovation, cooperation performance and governance mechanisms and by empirically testing this model.

The Role of External Relationships for LSP Innovativeness: A Contingency Approach

“…Thus, to allow knowledge exchange, the relationship between the respective companies has to be trustful and the risk of opportunistic behavior has to be low (Steinicke et al. ). Otherwise, the low barriers for imitation by competitors, which present a permanent threat in service business, will cause doubt and harm the knowledge flow (Sundbo ).…”

“…The same effect has been shown for LSPs (Steinicke et al. ) as innovation is important for LSPs (Flint et al. ; Daugherty et al.…”

“…Since the companies remain (potential) competitors, it is not clear that they will exchange knowledge relevant to innovation freely and openly (Cruijssen et al 2007;Hurmelinna-Laukkanen and Ritala 2010;Hurmelinna-Laukkanen 2011). Thus, to allow knowledge exchange, the relationship between the respective companies has to be trustful and the risk of opportunistic behavior has to be low (Steinicke et al 2012). Otherwise, the low barriers for imitation by competitors, which present a permanent threat in service business, will cause doubt and harm the knowledge flow (Sundbo 1997).…”

The Interplay of Relational Governance and Formal Control in Horizontal Alliances: A Social Contract Perspective

“…Furthermore, service alliances gain a competitive advantage based on their know‐how (Paulin, Perrien & Ferguson, ; Ritala, Hurmelinna‐Laukkanen & Blomqvist, ). As only limited methods exist to protect against knowledge spillover within such arrangements, the risk of opportunistic behavior is further aggravated (Hamel, ; Khanna, Gulati & Nohria, ; Steinicke et al., ).…”

Effects of suppliers’ trust and commitment on customer involvement

“…Governance coordinates cooperation (Steinicke et al, 2012;Teng and Das, 2008), influences value-creation (Dyer and Singh, 1998) and minimizes the risk of opportunism (Hoetker and Mellewigt, 2009). In the existing literature, governance mechanisms are classified into contractual or relational (Hoetker and Mellewigt, 2009;Poppo and Zenger, 2002;Roath et al, 2002).…”