Relationship Determinants of Performance in Service Triads: A Configurational Approach

Abstract

The increasing popularity of service-based strategies among manufacturers, such as solution provision, make service triads commonplace within business. While there is some consensus that 'relational' (i.e., close or collaborative) relationships are beneficial for the performance of individual actors and the triad as a whole, there is little known on what exactly affects the service performance of an actor in these triads. In this study we investigate the influence of the manufacturer -service supplier relationship on the performance of the service supplier towards the manufacturer's customers. As this phenomenon is causally complex and context dependent, we assume that there will be alternative configurations of relationship characteristics and contingent factors that lead to high service performance. In order to uncover potential configurations we deployed fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA), on data collected from 38 triads within the network of a large Anglo-German commercial vehicle manufacturer. Our research shows that -in this context -superior service performance cannot be generalized to one relationship configuration and is also contingent upon exogenous factors -i.e., contract support and service site size. We uncovered four 'core', configurations of relationship dimensions and two exogenous factors. Three of the configurations exhibited relational properties, while the fourth configuration had transactional properties. This is counter to extant research findings. We extend the perspective that within triads, service performance is not an outcome of a single 'close', or 'collaborative' relationship, and is a combination of multiple configurations consisting of varying relationship dimensions and exogenous factors.

Trustworthiness Change and Relationship Continuity after Contract Breach in Financial Supply Chains

“…The new variable, RELCONT, was coded based on three levels of relationship continuity—relationships in which no new contract was established as “0”, relationships in which new contracts were launched in less than a quarter of a year after the default events as “1”, and “2” otherwise. Consistent with previous studies, we used quarterly coding since quarterly reporting is a standard practice in business (Karatzas, Johnson, & Bastl, ; Kovach, Hora, Manikas, & Patel, ). We then repeated the linear, quadratic, and interaction model runs using multinomial logistics analyses (shown in Table ) with RELCONT as the dependent variable.…”

A Mid‐Range Theory of Control and Coordination in Service Triads

“…Service triads have become an important topic in the supply chain management discipline (Wynstra et al., ). In comparison to manufacturing triads, service triads typically involve three distinct actors—a manufacturer, a service supplier, and a customer (Karatzas et al., )—as opposed to manufacturing triads, where one manufacturer interacts with two suppliers (Wu & Choi, ; Wu, Choi & Rungtusanatham, ) or with a supplier and a customer (Rossetti & Choi, , ). While we acknowledge that multiple suppliers may provide service to a manufacturer, similar to how multiple suppliers may supply components or parts in a manufacturing context, our focus is on a service supplier–manufacturer–customer triad.…”

“…The increasing popularity of service-based business models, such as the provision of integrated solutions (cf. Tuli, Kohli & Bharadwaj, 2007), combined with firms' increasing specialization is giving rise to a network-centric mode of solution delivery (Karatzas, Johnson & Bastl, 2016;Wynstra, Spring & Schoenherr, 2015). This allows firms to respond to customer demands through increasingly customized and complex offerings, often incorporating multivendor technologies, products, and services (Story, Raddats, Burton, Zolkiewski & Baines, 2017).…”

“…In this arrangement, the three key actors that form a service triad are (1) the manufacturer of an asset who typically bundles the asset with services and sells the offering as a solution to its customer; (2) the service supplier who supplies the service capability of the solution directly to the manufacturer's customer; and (3) the manufacturer's customer, which buys the solution (Karatzas et al, 2016;Wynstra et al, 2015). In service triads, all three actors are performance and relationship interdependent (Choi & Wu, 2009a,b;Choi, Wu, Ellram & Koka, 2002;Lazzarini, Miller & Zenger, 2008;Li & Choi, 2009;Wu & Choi, 2005), which in consequence means that the effectiveness of the provision of services, and ultimately the customer's satisfaction, is dependent upon how effectively the three actors and the relationships between them are controlled (Li & Choi, 2009;Van der Valk & Van Iwaarden, 2011).…”

“…Wynstra et al, 2015). It has been argued that the responsibility for the control and coordination of the triad lies, depending on the context, with the prime contractor (e.g., Karatzas et al, 2016) outsourcer of services (Li & Choi, 2009;Van der Valk & Van Iwaarden, 2011), or the seller of the solution (Bastl, Johnson, Lightfoot & Evans, 2012;Karatzas et al, 2016;Windahl & Lakemond, 2006). Structurally, these are the same actor, whose key role is to retain control and visibility over the triadic interactions with the aim of facilitating the effective delivery of the offering to the customer.…”