Shared learning in supply networks: evidence from an emerging market supply network

Abstract

1 SHARED LEARNING IN SUPPLY NETWORKS: EVIDENCE FROM AN EMERGING MARKET SUPPLY NETWORK STRUCTURED ABSTRACTPurpose: Firms face the challenge of developing learning capabilities that enable them to work as part of an effective business network. While an extensive literature examines learning capabilities within the firm little research examine the shared learning that occurs between networked firms. The paper explores how a manufacturer and businesses services provider learn to develop their supply network. Specifically, the paper investigates four areas of shared learning, central to supply network success and discusses the development of shared learning capabilities.Methodology/Approach: An in-depth, longitudinal case study of a supply network which involves an engineering company and two business services suppliers. Findings:The study suggests that developing shared learning capabilities in four key areas is imperative for network success: (i) business relationships, (ii) customers' desired values, (iii) firm boundaries, and (iv) network structures. Furthermore, there are three distinct types of shared learning that were common to all fours areas of shared learning identified. These are; strategic shared learning; operational shared learning and exchange shared learning. Research limitations:The research findings are based on a single case study. Additional research across multiple case studies is needed in order to verify the findings reported. Practical implications:The four learning areas have significant managerial implications for the way managers develop mechanisms to capture and share learning associated with developing supply networks. that organizations most likely to innovate are those which posses the ability to learn and share information within inter-firm relationships. However, the majority of the extant literature focuses on learning within firms rather than on shared learning between firms. Such research emphasises that learning varies depending on the learning context (Lane et al. 2001) and that over time, the basic conditions for network success change. In this regard, members of the network need shared learning, over time, to adjust to the changing conditions that may affect the success of their network (Bessant et al. 2003).Shared learning is essential because the competitive success of a value system (such as a supply network) depends upon the learning and development of the whole system, not just the core firm. Despite these observations the vast majority of studies have focused on understanding the key determinants of network success within a single firm. This study seeks to focus on learning capabilities between firms within the supply network. The purpose of this research is to explore how a supply network learns to adjust to the changing conditions 3 that affect network success. Network success is defined as the member's motivation to engage in future transactions between members of the network (Gallivan 2001a). The study contributes to our understanding of shared learning capabilities ...

Cultural features of design and shared learning for safety: A Nordic nuclear industry perspective

“…However, international supply networks represent a challenging case because learning generated within a network is highly contextual: it is difficult for the parties involved to easily re-apply lessons learned in other contexts since it requires engaging in significant knowledge and understanding reconfiguration activities (Verona and Ravasi, 2003). Also, complex project networks involve geographically dispersed partners, which offer fewer opportunities to create socialization capabilities, needed for generating learning between members of the network (Mason et al, 2012). Such large project networks resemble virtual organizations, in which partners are organizationally and culturally heterogeneous, have little shared history, and members have fairly weak relationships (Bosch-Sijtsema and Rispens, 2003).…”

Individual and organizational learning from inter‐firm knowledge sharing: A framework integrating inter‐firm and intra‐firm knowledge sharing and learning

“…However, tacit knowledge cannot be shared through lectures, databases, manuals, or textbooks; rather, it requires intense socialization and involvement in practice (Mason et al, 2012;Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Formal and informal meetings, discussions, observations, and conversations are also viewed as tacit knowledge-sharing mechanisms (Mason & Leek, 2008;Ranucci & Souder, 2015).…”

“…Trust increases the likelihood of tacit and explicit knowledge sharing, outweighs the transaction cost relevant to alliance formation, and contributes to the achievement of the partner firms' objectives (Delbufalo, 2015;Easterby-Smith et al, 2008;Lane et al, 2001;Szulanski et al, 2004;Valkokari, 2015). Gaining access to the tacit knowledge of the partner firms can be the explicit focus of the collaborating firm (Dyer & Nobeoka, 2000;Mason et al, 2012). Gaining access to the tacit knowledge of the partner firms can be the explicit focus of the collaborating firm (Dyer & Nobeoka, 2000;Mason et al, 2012).…”

The Effect of Ethical Leadership on Organizational Learning: Evidence from a Petroleum Company

“…Organizational learning rejuvenates the competencies of the firms and make them flexible and dynamic to counter the effects of changing market dynamics (Fiol & Lyles, 1985;Mason, Oshri & Leek, 2012;Senge, 1990). Following the common constructive notion of organizational learning, we understand organizational learning as the capability that improves organizational practices and performance (Fiol & Lyles, 1985;Senge, 1990;Mason et al, 2012).…”

“…An initial set of semi-structured questions is presented in table (1). To prepare interview guide (table 1), we followed Brown et al (2005) and Yukl, Mahsud, Hassan and Prussia (2013) for ethical leadership constructs and Argyris and Schön (1996), Senge (1990) and Mason et al (2012) for organizational learning. These studies helped us extract key themes that were relevant to our research questions.…”