[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
research-article

Structural anatomy and evolution of supply chain alliance networks: : A multi‐method approach

Published: 28 September 2018 Publication History

Abstract

We investigate the evolution of supply chain alliance networks with a focus on the influence of structural, firm‐, and industry‐level mechanisms. While several structural supply chain characteristics have been found to be significant drivers of firm innovation and performance, a dearth of studies exists examining how these characteristics change over time by influencing one another. We develop and empirically test hypotheses on the impact of prior structural configurations and the moderating roles of absorptive capacity and industry growth on the temporal trajectory of supply chain alliance network structures. Adopting a multi‐method approach, we jointly use econometric analyses and simulation experiments to examine our hypotheses from complementary angles. Specifically, we characterize the dynamic relationship between the structural mechanisms on a longitudinal dataset of 2221 unique firms and 13,668 firm‐year observations spanning 25 years. We find empirical support for negative crossover effects between two key structural properties of supply chain alliance networks, a positive moderation of a firm's absorptive capacity, and a negative moderation of industry growth on the structural reinforcement. We conduct corresponding simulation experiments based on a separable temporal exponential random graph model (STERGM) to track the temporal changes in the simulated networks' key measures. The simulation results concur with most of our empirical findings and provide additional insights complementary to our econometric analysis results. By focusing on the mechanism of temporal changes in network structural properties, our study contributes to supply chain management research with a supply network perspective and interfirm alliance network research by broadening its scope into structural dynamism. Our multi‐method approach demonstrates how multiple complementary methodologies can foster a more nuanced understanding of managing supply chain alliance network management.

References

[1]
R. Adner, D. Levinthal. Demand heterogeneity and technology evolution: implications for product and process innovation. Manag. Sci. 2001; 47: 611–628.
[2]
G. Ahuja. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: a longitudinal study. Adm. Sci. Q. 2000; 45: 425–455.
[3]
M. Arellano, S. Bond. Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Rev. Econ. Stud. 1991; 58: 277–297.
[4]
B. Badertscher, N. Shroff, H.D. White. Externalities of public firm presence: evidence from private firms' investment decisions. J. Financ. Econ. 2013; 109: 682–706.
[5]
R.C. Basole, M.A. Bellamy. Visual analysis of supply network risks: insights from the electronics industry. Decis. Support Syst. 2014; 67: 109–120.
[6]
R.C. Basole, M.A. Bellamy, H. Park. Visualization of innovation in global supply chain networks. Decis. Sci. J. 2016; 48: 288–306.
[7]
R.C. Basole, M.A. Bellamy, H. Park, J. Putrevu. Computational analysis and visualization of global supply network risks. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf. 2016; 12: 1206–1213.
[8]
R.C. Basole, H. Park, B.C. Barnett. Coopetition and convergence in the ICT ecosystem. Telecommun. Pol. 2015; 39: 537–552.
[9]
M.A. Bellamy, R.C. Basole. Network analysis of supply chain systems: a systematic review and future research. Syst. Eng. 2013; 16: 235–249.
[10]
M.A. Bellamy, S. Ghosh, M. Hora. The influence of supply network structure on firm innovation. J. Oper. Manag. 2014; 32: 357–373.
[11]
D.D. Bergh. Product‐market uncertainty, portfolio restructuring, and performance: an information‐processing and resource‐based view. J. Manag. 1998; 24: 135–155.
[12]
C. Bode, S.M. Wagner. Structural drivers of upstream supply chain complexity and the frequency of supply chain disruptions. J. Oper. Manag. 2015; 36: 215–228.
[13]
K.K. Boyer, M.L. Swink. Empirical elephants—why multiple methods are essential to quality research in operations and supply chain management. J. Oper. Manag. 2008; 26: 337–348.
[14]
U. Brandes, D. Fleischer. Centrality measures based on current flow. Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. 2005, 533–544.
[15]
R.S. Burt. Structural Holes: the Social Structure of Competition, Harvard University Press. 2009.
[16]
A. Chandrasekaran, K. Linderman, F.J. Sting, M.J. Benner. Managing R&D project shifts in high‐tech organizations: a multi‐method study. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2016; 25: 390–416.
[17]
T.M. Choi, T. Cheng, X. Zhao. Multi‐methodological research in operations management. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2016; 25: 379–389.
[18]
T.Y. Choi, K.J. Dooley, M. Rungtusanatham. Supply networks and complex adaptive systems: control versus emergence. J. Oper. Manag. 2001; 19: 351–366.
[19]
T.Y. Choi, Y. Hong. Unveiling the structure of supply networks: case studies in honda, acura, and daimlerchrysler. J. Oper. Manag. 2002; 20: 469–493.
[20]
T.Y. Choi, D.R. Krause. The supply base and its complexity: implications for transaction costs, risks, responsiveness, and innovation. J. Oper. Manag. 2006; 24: 637–652.
[21]
W.M. Cohen, D.A. Levinthal. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm. Sci. Q. 1990; 35: 128–152.
[22]
J.P. Davis, K.M. Eisenhardt, C.B. Bingham. Optimal structure, market dynamism, and the strategy of simple rules. Adm. Sci. Q. 2009; 54: 413–452.
[23]
M. Dufwenberg, U. Gneezy. Price competition and market concentration: an experimental study. Int. J. Ind. Organ. 2000; 18: 7–22.
[24]
J.H. Dyer, N.W. Hatch. Using supplier networks to learn faster. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2004; 45: 57.
[25]
G.B. Eggertsson, N.R. Mehrotra, L.H. Summers. Global reserve assets in a low interest rate world secular stagnation in the open economy. Am. Econ. Rev. 2016; 106: 503–507.
[26]
E. Feser, H. Renski, H. Goldstein. Clusters and economic development outcomes: an analysis of the link between clustering and industry growth. Econ. Dev. Q. 2008; 22: 324–344.
[27]
C.G. Gilbert. Unbundling the structure of inertia: resource versus routine rigidity. Acad. Manag. J. 2005; 48: 741–763.
[28]
A. Grandori, G. Soda. Inter‐firm networks: antecedents, mechanisms and forms. Organ. Stud. 1995; 16: 183–214.
[29]
M.S. Granovetter. The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 1973; 78: 1360–1380.
[30]
R. Gulati. Network location and learning: the influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strat. Manag. J. 1999; 20: 397–420.
[31]
A. Hagberg, P. Swart, D.S. Chult. Exploring Network Structure, Dynamics, and Function Using NetworkX. Technical Report, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). 2008.
[32]
M.S. Handcock, D.R. Hunter, C.T. Butts, S.M. Goodreau, M. Morris. Statnet: Software Tools for the Statistical Modeling of Network Data. Seattle, WA. 2003
[33]
M.T. Hannan, J. Freeman. Structural inertia and organizational change. Am. Socio. Rev. 1984; 49: 149–164.
[34]
L.P. Hansen. Large sample properties of generalized method of moments estimators. Econometrica. 1982; 50: 1029–1054.
[35]
M. Haraguchi, U. Lall. Flood risks and impacts: a case study of thailands floods in 2011 and research questions for supply chain decision making. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2015; 14: 256–272.
[36]
J.R. Harrison, Z. Lin, G.R. Carroll, K.M. Carley. Simulation modeling in organizational and management research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2007; 32: 1229–1245.
[37]
R.O. Hoskisson, R.A. Johnson. Research notes and communications corporate restructuring and strategic change: the effect on diversification strategy and r&d intensity. Strat. Manag. J. 1992; 13: 625–634.
[38]
S. Karim. Business unit reorganization and innovation in new product markets. Manag. Sci. 2009; 55: 1237–1254.
[39]
S. Karim, T.N. Carroll, C.P. Long. Delaying change: examining how industry and managerial turbulence impact structural realignment. Acad. Manag. J. 2016; 59: 791–817.
[40]
D. Kelly, T.L. Amburgey. Organizational inertia and momentum: a dynamic model of strategic change. Acad. Manag. J. 1991; 34: 591–612.
[41]
J.L. Kent, J.T. Mentzer. The effect of investment in interorganizational information technology in a retail supply chain. J. Bus. Logist. 2003; 24: 155–175.
[42]
J.Y.R. Kim, M. Howard, E. Cox Pahnke, W. Boeker, et al. Understanding network formation in strategy research: exponential random graph models. Strat. Manag. J. 2016; 37: 22–44.
[43]
Y. Kim, Y.S. Chen, K. Linderman. Supply network disruption and resilience: a network structural perspective. J. Oper. Manag. 2015; 33: 43–59.
[44]
Y. Kim, T.Y. Choi. Deep, sticky, transient, and gracious: an expanded buyer‐supplier relationship typology. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2015; 51: 61–86.
[45]
Y. Kim, T.Y. Choi, T. Yan, K. Dooley. Structural investigation of supply networks: a social network analysis approach. J. Oper. Manag. 2011; 29: 194–211.
[46]
A.N. Kiss, P.S. Barr. New venture strategic adaptation: the interplay of belief structures and industry context. Strat. Manag. J. 2015; 36: 1245–1263.
[47]
B.R. Koka, J.E. Prescott. Designing alliance networks: the influence of network position, environmental change, and strategy on firm performance. Strat. Manag. J. 2008; 29: 639–661.
[48]
P.N. Krivitsky, S.M. Goodreau. Stergm‐separable Temporal Ergms for Modeling Discrete Relational Dynamics with Statnet. 2017
[49]
P.N. Krivitsky, M.S. Handcock. A separable model for dynamic networks. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. B. 2014; 76: 29–46.
[50]
I.W.G. Kwon, T. Suh. Factors affecting the level of trust and commitment in supply chain relationships. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2004; 40: 4–14.
[51]
P.J. Lane, M. Lubatkin. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strat. Manag. J. 1998; 19: 461–477.
[52]
Z. Lin, H. Yang, I. Demirkan. The performance consequences of ambidexterity in strategic alliance formations: empirical investigation and computational theorizing. Manag. Sci. 2007; 53: 1645–1658.
[53]
Littlefield, B., Skyrocketing Aerospace Growth and Complex Supply Chains. Technical Report. Wall Street Journal, Custom Studios.
[54]
X. Liu, A.C.L. Yeung, C.K.Y. Lo, T.C.E. Cheng. The moderating effects of knowledge characteristics of firms on the financial value of innovative technology products. J. Oper. Manag. 2014; 32: 79–87.
[55]
J. Luo, C.Y. Baldwin, D.E. Whitney, C.L. Magee. The architecture of transaction networks: a comparative analysis of hierarchy in two sectors. Ind. Corp. Change. 2012; 21: 1307–1335.
[56]
J.G. March. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 1991; 2: 71–87.
[57]
S. Minner. Multiple‐supplier inventory models in supply chain management: a review. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2003; 81: 265–279.
[58]
R.M. Monczka, K.J. Petersen, R.B. Handfield, G.L. Ragatz. Success factors in strategic supplier alliances: the buying company perspective. Decis. Sci. J. 1998; 29: 553–577.
[59]
A. Nair, R. Narasimhan, T.Y. Choi. Supply networks as a complex adaptive system: toward simulation‐based theory building on evolutionary decision making. Decis. Sci. J. 2009; 40: 783–815.
[60]
G.N. Nyaga, J.M. Whipple, D.F. Lynch. Examining supply chain relationships: do buyer and supplier perspectives on collaborative relationships differ?. J. Oper. Manag. 2010; 28: 101–114.
[61]
Ohio Supercomputer Center. Ohio Supercomputer Center. 1987http://osc.edu/ark:/19495/f5s1ph73
[62]
Ostermann, D., Harvey, D., Hesse, J., Haque, S., Consolidation in the Global Automotive Supply Industry: 2016 Report. Technical Report. PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC).
[63]
H. Park, M.A. Bellamy, R.C. Basole. Visual analytics for supply network management: system design and evaluation. Decis. Support Syst. 2016; 91: 89–102.
[64]
P.C. Patel, S. Terjesen, D. Li. Enhancing effects of manufacturing flexibility through operational absorptive capacity and operational ambidexterity. J. Oper. Manag. 2012; 30: 201–220.
[65]
S.D. Pathak, J.M. Day, A. Nair, W.J. Sawaya, M.M. Kristal. Complexity and adaptivity in supply networks: building supply network theory using a complex adaptive systems perspective. Decis. Sci. J. 2007; 38: 547–580.
[66]
S.D. Pathak, Z. Wu, D. Johnston. Toward a structural view of co‐opetition in supply networks. J. Oper. Manag. 2014; 32: 254–267.
[67]
M. Perry, A.S. Sohal, P. Rumpf. Quick response supply chain alliances in the australian textiles, clothing and footwear industry. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 1999; 62: 119–132.
[68]
M.E. Porter. The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2008; 86: 25–40.
[69]
M.E. Porter, J.E. Heppelmann. How smart, connected products are transforming competition. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2014; 92: 64–88.
[70]
W.W. Powell, K.W. Koput, L. Smith‐Doerr. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Adm. Sci. Q.1996; 116–145
[71]
T.R. Randall, R.M. Morgan, A.R. Morton. Efficient versus responsive supply chain choice: an empirical examination of influential factors. J. Prod. Innovat. Manag. 2003; 20: 430–443.
[72]
G. Robins, P. Pattison, Y. Kalish, D. Lusher. An introduction to exponential random graph (p*) models for social networks. Soc. Network. 2007; 29: 173–191.
[73]
D. Roodman. How to Do Xtabond2: an Introduction to Difference and System GMM in Stata. 2006, Center for Global Development Working Paper No. 103
[74]
F.T. Rothaermel, D.L. Deeds. Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: a system of new product development. Strat. Manag. J. 2004; 25: 201–221.
[75]
R.C. Sampson. R&d alliances and firm performance: the impact of technological diversity and alliance organization on innovation. Acad. Manag. J. 2007; 50: 364–386.
[76]
M.A. Schilling, C.C. Phelps. Interfirm collaboration networks: the impact of large‐scale network structure on firm innovation. Manag. Sci. 2007; 53: 1113–1126.
[77]
J. Stavins. Price discrimination in the airline market: the effect of market concentration. Rev. Econ. Stat. 2001; 83: 200–202.
[78]
K. Stephenson, M. Zelen. Rethinking centrality: methods and examples. Soc. Network. 1989; 11: 1–37.
[79]
H.C. Su, S. Dhanorkar, K. Linderman. A competitive advantage from the implementation timing of iso management standards. J. Oper. Manag. 2015; 37: 31–44.
[80]
V. Swaminathan, C. Moorman. Marketing alliances, firm networks, and firm value creation. J. Market. 2009; 73: 52–69.
[81]
T.A. Taylor, E.L. Plambeck. Supply chain relationships and contracts: the impact of repeated interaction on capacity investment and procurement. Manag. Sci. 2007; 53: 1577–1593.
[82]
Thomson Reuters, Artificial Intelligence: 2018 AI Predictions. Technical Report.
[83]
S. Titman. Financial markets and investment externalities. J. Finance. 2013; 68: 1307–1329.
[84]
W. Tsai. Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Acad. Manag. J. 2001; 44: 996–1004.
[85]
UPS, Insight on Emerging Markets and Supply Chain Complexity. Technical Report.
[86]
J.M. Utterback, W.J. Abernathy. A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega. 1975; 3: 639–656.
[87]
Voxant FD Wire. Schneider Electric SA New Company Program – Conference Call. 2009
[88]
S. Wasserman, K. Faust, Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications Cambridge University Press. 1994 vol. 8:.
[89]
S.P. Willems. Data set real‐world multiechelon supply chains used for inventory optimization. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 2008; 10: 19–23.
[90]
T. Yan, T.Y. Choi, Y. Kim, Y. Yang. A theory of the nexus supplier: a critical supplier from a network perspective. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2015; 51: 52–66.
[91]
J. Yang, J. Wang, C.W. Wong, K.H. Lai. Relational stability and alliance performance in supply chain. Omega. 2008; 36: 600–608.
[92]
H. Yli‐Renko, E. Autio, H.J. Sapienza. Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young technology‐based firms. Strat. Manag. J. 2001; 22: 587–613.
[93]
A. Zaheer, G.G. Bell. Benefiting from network position: firm capabilities, structural holes, and performance. Strat. Manag. J. 2005; 26: 809–825.
[94]
S.A. Zahra, G. George. Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2002; 27: 185–203.
[95]
Y. Zhang, H. Li. Innovation search of new ventures in a technology cluster: the role of ties with service intermediaries. Strat. Manag. J. 2010; 31: 88–109.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Knowledge Sharing in an Insurance Collaborative Supply Chains Network: A Social Network PerspectiveInformation Systems Frontiers10.1007/s10796-023-10410-926:3(1139-1159)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2024

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Journal of Operations Management
Journal of Operations Management  Volume 63, Issue 1
November 2018
98 pages
ISSN:0272-6963
EISSN:1873-1317
DOI:10.1002/joom.2018.63.issue-1
Issue’s Table of Contents

Publisher

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

United States

Publication History

Published: 28 September 2018

Author Tags

  1. Supply chain alliance network
  2. Network panel
  3. Exponential random graph model (ERGM)
  4. Multi‐method

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 13 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Knowledge Sharing in an Insurance Collaborative Supply Chains Network: A Social Network PerspectiveInformation Systems Frontiers10.1007/s10796-023-10410-926:3(1139-1159)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2024

View Options

View options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media