Strategic partnerships in new product development: An Italian case study

Bonaccorsi, Andrea

doi:10.1016/0737-6782(94)90061-2

Cited by 210 publications

(128 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

125

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, there is also evidence that firms can sometimes manage dense technical interdependencies across their boundaries. A number of studies of buyer-supplier relations document early supplier involvement in the design of components, ongoing technical communication, and generally cooperative behavior on both sides of the relationship (Andersen, 1999;Bonaccorsi and Lipparini, 1994;Dibiaggio, 2007;Howard and Squire, 2007;Langner and Seidel, 2009;Miozzo and Grimshaw 2005;Sako, 2004). Supplier involvement and information sharing may vary across components in the same system: more complex and/or novel components generally are associated with higher levels of communication between buyers and suppliers (Monteverde and Teece, 1982;Novak and Eppinger, 2001;Takeishi, 2001Takeishi, , 2002Cantamessa et al, 2006;Camuffo, 2012: Furlan et al, 2014).…”

Section: Collaboration Across Firm Boundariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the alliances and consortia, the motivation generally took the form of a new, advanced technology or product, such as a next-generation manufacturing process, a military aircraft, or an advanced scientific instrument that would benefit all participants, but which none could build alone (Appleyard et al, 2008;Argyres 1999;Tuertscher et al, 2014). In buyer-supplier relations, the motivation was generally a better performing component and/or a more harmonious, responsive relationship (Bonaccorsi and Lipparini, 1994;Sako, 2004). Notably some suppliers proactively sought high levels of involvement as a means of strategic differentiation (Andersen, 1999;Miozzo and Grimshaw, 2005).…”

Section: Collaboration Across Firm Boundariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Mirroring Hypothesis: Theory, Evidence and Exceptions

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The mirroring hypothesis predicts that organizational ties within a project, firm, or group of firms (e.g., communication, collocation, employment) will correspond to the technical dependencies in the work being performed. This article presents a unified picture of mirroring in terms of theory, evidence, and exceptions. First, we formally define mirroring and argue that it is an approach to technical problem-solving that conserves scarce cognitive resources. We then review 142 empirical studies, divided by organizational form into (i) industry studies, (ii) firm studies, and (iii) studies of open collaborative projects. The industry and firm studies indicate that mirroring is a prevalent pattern but not universal. However, in technologically dynamic industries, partial mirroring, where knowledge boundaries are drawn more broadly than operational boundaries, is likely to be a superior strategy. Firms can also strategically 'break the mirror' by implementing modular partitions within their boundaries, or by building relational contracts across their boundaries. Finally, studies of open collaborative projects, most of which focused on software, were not supportive of the hypothesis. We argue that digital technologies make possible new modes of coordination that enable groups to deviate from classical mirroring as seen in firms.

show abstract

Section: Collaboration Across Firm Boundariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Collaboration Across Firm Boundariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Mirroring Hypothesis: Theory, Evidence and Exceptions

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lamming (2002) also pointed out the importance of the move away from purely contractual relations in favor of new partnership supplier relations based on collaboration. On the same theme some authors have introduced a distinction between different models of supplier involvement: Bonaccorsi and Lipparini (1994) (traditional, Japanese, advanced/partnership model), Kamath and Liker (1994) (partner, mature, child, and contractual typology).…”

Section: (B) Supplier Involvement In New Product Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supplier-Buyer Networks and Buyer's Innovation

Ahuja

Boccardelli

D'Alise

2013

AMPROC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To my family, my brother-in-law Paolo, and to Valerio with infinite gratitude for reasons they know well ACKNOWLEDGMENTSNow that I am at the end of the path of my PhD program, it is a pleasure to contemplate this important and meaningful experience. At the same time, I would like to show my gratitude for the great care and the support that I received from numerous people at different periods of time. It has been both an exacting and educational journey, and I was lucky to have had the pleasure of meeting and interacting with so many eminent professors, some of whom were members of the dissertation committee. They have made essential and precious contributions to my growth. To those people, I would like to express my deepest gratitude.First and foremost, I would like to thank Professor Fontana, an outstanding figure and my point of reference even before I began the doctorate program. During the degree course and under his guidance, I was able to approach and accomplish my first thesis experiences; without him, I would never have started my PhD program. Since he encouraged me to pursue my present research path, he played a decisive role in my choice. I had the opportunity to benefit from his experience and reassuring guidance.The fulfillment of this work was made possible thanks to my very good interaction with the members of my dissertation committee.I am particularly grateful to Professor Boccardelli for several important reasons. He helped me to achieve a crucial breakthrough in my studies, and it is in large part due to him that I have achieved results. As Director of the Doctoral Program, he undertook a leading role in the orientation process. I would like to thank him for his psychological support and firm encouragement: he always expressed faith in my abilities when sometimes I was in doubt. During some crucial steps in the execution of my work, his valid intervention helped me to find solutions and persevere. His essential contributions induced me to find alternatives to some points in a lasting and fruitful exchange of ideas. He played a decisive role during the difficult starting steps when I was identifying and defining my research problem and he made the difference when suggesting how to direct my ideas towards goals. Furthermore, he helped me to define the model by turning my attention to key matters combining a pragmatic approach with the capability of seizing shades. During the final stage, he provided advice about data processing. On several occasions, he made time to answer to my questions. I also owe a debt of thanks to him for my wonderful opportunity to conduct my research for this thesis at the University of Michigan for a year. It has been an absorbing and educational experience. Professor Boccardelli has been and will remain an important point of reference.I will never be able to fully thank Professor Ahuja for having assisted me during this long period at his university. It is an honor that he agreed to be part of my dissertation committee. I owe a great debt to him for all of the opportuni...

show abstract

“…Furthermore, Johnsen (2009) describes how collaboration and relationship between customers and suppliers affect product innovation and development. It seems to be a consensus that close communication between these partners is positive for product development (Croom 2001, Nellore and Balachandra 2009, Wu and Wu 2015; it decreases cost and development time and increases product quality (Bonaccorsi and Lipparini 1994). Although this is applied in other domains, the subsea oil and gas business has a limited number of publications on the use of MBSE, and such tools were not included in the engineering process in the company when this research was conducted.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cause and Impact Analysis of Cost and Schedule Overruns in Subsea Oil and Gas Projects – A Supplier's Perspective

Bergli

Falk

2017

INCOSE International Symp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This paper identifies drivers for cost and schedule overruns in subsea production system projects from a supplier's point of view. Subsea Production Systems connects subsea wells to offshore vessels, and enable efficient and safe hydrocarbon production. Using root cause analysis, cause and effect diagram, and Pareto charts in a specific company we identified three main drivers of cost and schedule overruns: qualification of products, changing vendors frequently, and project management. Detailed analyzes of a reference project found that the supplier identified about half of the technology gaps during the tender phase. Technology qualification programs of key components were not included in the bid, although the project had to pay for related cost overruns. In summary, the project could have eliminated more than two thirds of the cost escalation related to qualification costs by capturing all technology gaps in the early tendering phase, and as a result significantly increased the profitability.

show abstract

Strategic partnerships in new product development: An Italian case study

Cited by 210 publications

References 14 publications

The Mirroring Hypothesis: Theory, Evidence and Exceptions

The Mirroring Hypothesis: Theory, Evidence and Exceptions

Supplier-Buyer Networks and Buyer's Innovation

Cause and Impact Analysis of Cost and Schedule Overruns in Subsea Oil and Gas Projects – A Supplier's Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About