Multiple dimensions of power influencing knowledge integration in supply chains

Abstract

This study investigates how multiple dimensions of power each facilitate knowledge integration within innovation projects in supply chains and their interrelationships. Adopting a process perspective of knowledge, we offer an alternative to much of the existing debate, which has focussed on the possession of resources. We collected data from four case‐study Original Equipment Manufacturers and six associated suppliers and analysed these using Template Analysis and cross‐case analysis. Our findings reveal how the power of the system, operationalized through relative performance measures, performance measurement mechanisms and the individuals in‐charge of them, provides a facilitative context within which other dimensions of power operate. Here, the power of resources (expert and legitimate power), processes (associated with raising issues, cross‐functional teams, early supplier involvement and reviews) and meaning (creating legitimacy through reviews) interact to support knowledge integration within innovation projects in supply chains. This, we argue, emphasises the plurality of power dimensions deployed and importance of their interrelationships in facilitating knowledge integration within hierarchical supply chain networks.

Near-Field Communication (NFC) Technology Emergence: One or Several Technological Paths?

“…Different tactics might be deployed simultaneously on various properties of the same technology. Hence, Matheus et al (2017) demonstrated that it is the cumulative effects of those three dimensions of power that explain knowledge integration in innovation and the ability to overcome conflicts. Furthermore, Kraus and Strömsten (2016) highlighted that combination of power determines the ability of organizations to collaborate in the electronics industry.…”

Managing emergent changes: ad hoc teams’ praxis and practices

“…Change requests have a different meaning to different companies and scholars (e.g. Matheus et al , 2016; Pattit and Wilemon, 2005; Tang, 2015). In the project studied in this paper, the terms and processes were interpreted, primarily, as changes to technical requirements, and subsequent changes to project scope and scheduling.…”

A research and development decision model for pharmaceutical industry: case of China

“…As an industrializing country, China faces the decisions of ‘Make’ or ‘Buy’, or somewhere in between (White, ). The following strategies are defined to describe the situation (Chan et al, ): (1)Indigenous Innovation (Lazonick, ; Yang and Shu, ; Li‐Ying et al, ; Li and Yu, ). (2)Imitative Innovation (Mukoyama, ; Yang and Shu, ; Cheng and Shiu, ; Li‐Ying et al, ). (3)Collaborative Innovation (Yang and Shu, ; Wang and Li, ; Velamuri et al, ; Chen et al, ; Dooley et al, ; Matheus et al, ). International Technology Transfer (Farhang, ; Guan et al, ; Salicrup and Fedorkova, ; Bin, ; Li‐Ying et al, ). …”

“…(2) Imitative Innovation (Mukoyama, 2003;Yang and Shu, 2005;Cheng and Shiu, 2008;Li-Ying et al, 2014). (3) Collaborative Innovation (Yang and Shu, 2005;Wang and Li, 2007;Velamuri et al, 2015;Chen et al, 2016;Dooley et al, 2016;Matheus et al, 2016). International Technology Transfer (Farhang, 1997;Guan et al, 2006;Salicrup and Fedorkova, 2006;Bin, 2008;Li-Ying et al, 2014).…”