Value-Creation Logic in Supply Chain Relationships

Abstract

Purpose: This article explores the idea that different types of interaction among supply chain partners entail different valuecreation logics (interdependence, objective, focus of coordination, and value-creation initiatives) and that they must, therefore, be managed in different ways.Approach: The article reviews and synthesises the relevant literature and presents a summary of the findings.Findings: Four types of value-creation logic are explored: (1) Logistics integration is best managed by undertaking efforts to achieve mutual transparency, adaptations, and appropriate logistical planning; (2) in unilateral learning, management's task is to ensure the efficient flow and processing of information from one party to another; (3) in unilateral development, one party must have good knowledge of the partner's organization and provide the relevant expertise for coaching the latter's problem-solving efforts-management's task is primarily to define relevant projects and facilitate coaching; and (4) in bilateral learning, management's task is to obtain a mutual understanding of the partner's organisations and establish appropriate joint problem-solving arrangements.Research implications: The article calls for a better understanding of the motivations, effects, and strategic implications of different ways of collaborating with partners in supply chain relationships.

Recognition of relational strategy content: insight from the managers’ view

“…The management team must make its own strategic choice regarding the logic of value creation as well as the mechanism for appropriating it. In the first case, a choice can be made between the logic of a value chain (Hammervoll 2009), according to which forming and maintaining relations is of a transactional character, and the logic of a value network (Peppard and Rylander 2006;Ritala and Ellonen 2010), according to which the collaboration of businesses, clients (consumers), suppliers, complementors and competitors provides benefits to each of these (Stabell and Fjeldstad 1998). Regarding appropriating value, strategists make a choice between mechanisms for protecting value and mechanisms for maximizing value (Ellegaard et al 2014).…”

Managing interaction for learning and value creation in exchange relationships

“…The present study utilizes the interaction typology suggested by Hammervoll (2009). This typology distinguishes between different ways of collaborative learning, with reference to differences in the valuecreation logic at play.…”

“…Inter-organizational management is the enforcement mechanism for ensuring that the exchange partners' obligations are fulfilled (Dyer and Singh, 1998). Value-creation initiatives are actions undertaken by firms in exchange relationships that directly enhance value creation (Hammervoll, 2009). Value creation is the process whereby the capabilities of exchange partners are improved (Borys and Jemison, 1989).…”

“…Value creation is the process whereby the capabilities of exchange partners are improved (Borys and Jemison, 1989). Drawing on Borys and Jemison (1989) and Hammervoll (2009) this study investigates value creation in terms of collaborative learning in three types of interaction (taking the perspective of the supplier): unilateral supplier learning, unilateral supplier development, and bilateral learning.…”

Endüstri̇yel Pazarlama Alaninda 2000-2010 Yillari Arasinda Yapilan Çalişmalarin Kategori̇k Olarak İncelenmesi̇

“…Webster'ın 1978 yılındaki erken dönem taramasının ardından yapılan belki de en kapsamlı çalışma Reid ve Plank'in (2000) 2194 makaleyi inceledikleri çalışmadır. Daha sonra yapılan nispeten yeni çalışmalarda, genellikle endüstriyel pazarlamanın belirli bir alt konusuna ilişkin (Leonidou, Katsikeas, 2010;Hammervoll, 2009) veya tek bir dergiye odaklanan (Ford, LaTour, Henthorne, 2001) literatür taramaları yapılmıştır. Son on yılda yayınlanan endüstriyel pazarlama çalışmalarının kategorik olarak sınıflandırılıp incelendiği bir çalışmaya rastlanamamıştır.…”