The Role of Trust and Contractual Safeguards on Cooperation in Non-equity Alliances

Lui, Steven S.; Ngo, Hang‐Yue

doi:10.1016/j.jm.2004.02.002

Cited by 367 publications

(350 citation statements)

References 50 publications

(67 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

315

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our findings support Das and Teng's (2001) and Lui and Ngo's (2004) work and elaborate on their findings that it is crucial to identify specific relationships among different trust types and organizational outcomes. Specifically, the paper contributes to the relationship between trust and knowledge integration processes by showing that different types of trust promote coupled or decoupled knowledge integration processes.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 85%

Integrating knowledge with suppliers at the R&D-manufacturing interface

Rosell

Lakemond

Wasti

2014

Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose -Many manufacturing firms source components and subsystems from suppliers. Consequently, the suppliers' product and manufacturing knowledge is a central concern at the interface between R&D and manufacturing. This paper specifically investigates how supplier knowledge is integrated and what role trust plays in knowledge integration with suppliers at the R&D -manufacturing interface. Design/methodology/approach -The study is based on qualitative case studies of two different collaborations with suppliers at one firm. Findings -Two distinct processes are identified. First, capturing represents knowledge integration through decoupling, for which a basic level of trust specifically with regard to the competence of the supplier is necessary. Capturing can take place through interactions that are limited in time and scope. Second, joint learning represents a coupled knowledge integration process and takes place during a more extended period of time preceding and following the R&D-manufacturing interface and builds on relational-based trust. Practical implications -The interface between R&D and manufacturing needs to be extended to include a focus on suppliers' contributions in terms of product and manufacturing knowledge. The choice for suitable knowledge integration processes needs to be guided by concerns about the level of trust and the character of the supplier contributions. Originality/value -The paper adds new insights to previous literature by distinguishing between different types of knowledge integration processes and levels of trust. It bridges the gap between innovation and operations management, and clearly shows that the interface between R&D and manufacturing crosses organizational borders.Key words Knowledge integration; Buyer-Supplier collaboration; Trust; Product development; R&D-manufacturing interface 2 IntroductionSuppliers are increasingly contributing to their buyer's product development processes and acting as production partners (e.g., Appleyard, 2003, Beecham and Cordey-Hayes, 1998, Lau et al., 2010. In a recent report on global manufacturing by KPMG (KPMG, 2012), it is emphasized that tighter collaboration with suppliers is an important trend in the manufacturing industry, not only for manufacturing and logistics, but also specifically with regard to R&D activities. Consequently, the interface between R&D and manufacturing does not only involve internal functions, but includes external supplier relationships. These supplier relationships represent an important source of knowledge that has to cross the R&D -manufacturing interface in order to be integrated. Trust appears to be an important antecedent in these relationships as it increases the likelihood that information is being shared between the organizations (e.g. Ha et al., 2009;Fawcett et al., 2012, Lincoln et al., 1998Squire et al., 2009, Walter, 2003. Consequently, while there is a fair amount of literature on work integration at the R&D-manufacturing interface, the knowledge relationships and knowledge integration proc...

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 85%

Integrating knowledge with suppliers at the R&D-manufacturing interface

Rosell

Lakemond

Wasti

2014

Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In other words, relationally capable organisations focus on creating relationship-specific assets and effectively create, exchange and exploit knowledge and skills through the application of social routines and behaviour (Dyer and Singh, 1998). This form of capability is derived from values and processes in the exchange relationship (Macneil, 1980) and incorporates: trust and commitment, relational capital, information sharing routines and informal exchange (Lui and Ngo, 2004). Any unforeseeable contingencies in these relationships are safeguarded by flexibility, fostering a joint approach to solving problems and disagreements through solidarity and information sharing (Poppo and Zenger, 2002).…”

Section: Capability Development For Pss Deliverymentioning

confidence: 99%

Servitising manufacturers: the impact of service complexity and contractual and relational capabilities

Kreye

Roehrich

Lewis

2015

Production Planning & Control

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Alliances characterized by poor relational quality suffer dysfunctional conflicts, distrust, and low commitment, which is, low social satisfaction (Anderson and Narus, 1990). To achieve their firms' strategic objectives, alliance managers likely respond to situations of low relational quality, which increase the costs of managing and monitoring partners (Lui and Ngo, 2004). Social satisfaction builds over the long run when partners work together (Ariño et al, 2001).…”

Section: Antecedents Of Response Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The antecedents of response strategies in strategic alliances

Tjemkes

Furrer

2010

Management Decision

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose -Strategic alliances involve uncertainty, interdependence, and vulnerability, which often create adverse situations. This paper seeks to understand how alliance managers respond to these adverse situations by examining the influence of four exchange variables on response strategies. Design/methodology/approach -A scenario-based experiment provides empirical support for a typology consisting of seven conceptually and empirically distinct response strategies: exit, opportunism, aggressive voice, creative voice, considerate voice, patience, and neglect. Findings -The results indicate that economic satisfaction, social satisfaction, alliance-specific investments, and the availability of attractive alternatives differentially and interactively affect response strategies. Research limitations/implications -The study offers two main contributions to alliance literature. First, the seven response strategies accurately represent reactions that alliance managers use to deal with adverse situations. Second, the study findings validate and extend previous alliance research by highlighting that a comprehensive response strategy typology is necessary to disentangle the effects of the four exchange conditions on response strategy use, which fosters theory development and managers' ability to manage their alliances effectively. Originality/value -The study contributes to the process perspective on strategic alliances by highlighting the various response strategies that alliance managers use to deal with adverse situations and their antecedents.

show abstract

The Role of Trust and Contractual Safeguards on Cooperation in Non-equity Alliances

Cited by 367 publications

References 50 publications

Integrating knowledge with suppliers at the R&D-manufacturing interface

Integrating knowledge with suppliers at the R&D-manufacturing interface

Servitising manufacturers: the impact of service complexity and contractual and relational capabilities

The antecedents of response strategies in strategic alliances

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About