The relational view revisited: A dynamic perspective on value creation and value capture

Abstract

Research Summary: This paper extends the relational view to offer a dynamic perspective on the factors that drive value creation and value capture over the alliance life cycle. We argue that access to complementary resources provides an initial rationale for forming alliances, but benefits from complementarity can attenuate over time. Indeed, viewed dynamically, factors that often lead to higher value creation-informal trust, repeated ties, customized assets-may also lead to diminished alliance performance. We highlight interdependence between the complementary resources of partners as the critical factor determining the pattern of alliance value creation, notably how quickly alliances generate value and how quickly they are likely to dissolve. We identify factors, both internal and external to the alliance, that trigger diminished value creation and increased competition for value capture among partners. Managerial Summary: The "relational view" perspective has shown that firms create value in alliances when they identify partners with complementary resources, when they build high levels of informal trust and they share knowledge and make investments that are customized to the partner. The level of resource interdependence in alliances determines how quickly alliances can reach their potential in value creation and how quickly they are likely to dissolve. Viewed dynamically, factors that often lead to higher value creation-like informal trust, repeated ties, customized assets-may also lead to diminished alliance performance. Finally, a number of factors both internal to and external to an alliance may trigger competition between the partners within an alliance to capture the value created by the alliance and also diminish the value created within the alliance.

Value Creation and Value Capture Alignment in Business Model Innovation: A Process View on Outcome‐Based Business Models

“…In contrast, this study follows the line of recent research (Chesbrough et al, ; Foss and Saebi, ) that argues specifically for an increased focus on the external perspective, with specific reference to understanding the nature of interactions with customers in shaping business model innovation processes. For example, Macdonald, Kleinaltenkamp, and Wilson (, p. 97) place the customer in a sharp focus in defining value as “all customer‐perceived consequences arising from a solution that facilitate or hinder the achievement of the customer's goals.” Thus, rather than viewing value creation and value capture as provider‐centric or customer‐centric processes, there is considerable merit in taking a relational or a dyadic view (Chesbrough, Vanhaverbeke, and West, ; Dyer, Singh, and Hesterly, ).…”

“…For example, Macdonald, Kleinaltenkamp, and Wilson (2016, p. 97) place the customer in a sharp focus in defining value as "all customer-perceived consequences arising from a solution that facilitate or hinder the achievement of the customer's goals." Thus, rather than viewing value creation and value capture as provider-centric or customer-centric processes, there is considerable merit in taking a relational or a dyadic view (Chesbrough, Vanhaverbeke, and West, 2006;Dyer, Singh, and Hesterly, 2018).…”

“…This form of open operation calls for an open business model (Chesbrough et al, 2006;Saebi and Foss, 2015) and a relational view (Dyer et al, 2018) built on agile co-creation between partners and the development of mutual trust to ease the transfer of tacit knowledge across organizational boundaries.…”

Interorganizational Relationships as Political Battlefields: How Fragmentation within Organizations Shapes Relational Dynamics between Organizations

“…Some scholars (e.g., Madhok, 1995;Ring, 1997) point to trust as a necessary social glue that keeps partners together. Others (e.g., Dyer, Singh, & Hesterly, 2018;Faems et al, 2008) have questioned this focus on trust, pointing to mutual interdependence as a stronger partnership lubricant. Our findings provide an alternative perspective on this discussion.…”

Technology uncertainty in supply chains and supplier involvement: the role of resource dependence

“…Interdependence breeds a sense of embeddedness such that supply chain partners will increasingly identify with each other and, in the long term, their values, attitudes and goals will converge (Gulati and Sytch, 2007;Lins et al, 2017). While the resource dependence theory does not provide a clear prediction of the effect of this interdependence, the relational view (Dyer and Singh, 1998;Dyer et al, 2018) suggests that interdependence may drive the buyer to involve the supplier in coping with technology uncertainty. First, interdependence can motivate the buyer and supplier to develop knowledge-sharing routines.…”