Strategic Management Journal, 29: 913–941 (2008)

1. Comparing the Resource-Based and Relational Views: Knowledge Transfer and Spillover in Vertical Alliances Strategic Management Journal, 29: 913–941 (2008) MA2M0102 吳佳蓁

2. Introduction

3. Introduction compare resource-based and relational perspectives to examine competitive advantages suppliers acquire knowledge to forge new capabilities and attain performance improvements firms earn advantages by forging new capabilities through knowledge acquisition (Anand & Khanna, 2000; Dussauge, Garrette, & Mitchell, 2004; Dyer & Hatch, 2006; Grant, 1996; Hatch & Dyer, 2004; Kale, Singh, & Perlmutter, 2000; Khanna, Gulati, & Nohria, 1998; Mowery, Oxley, & Silverman 1996, 1998; Simonin, 1999, 2004; Spender, 1996; von Hippel, 1988)

4. Literature review

5. Literature review (1/8) Collective knowledge in buyer-supplier partnerships Hypothesis 1: redeploy-able performance knowledge acquisition relational performance

6. Literature review (2/8) Joint knowledge acquisition and relational performance • When suppliers develop knowledge acquisition efforts jointly with a given buyer, they are more likely to attain relational performance gains with that buyer. • Anand and Khanna (2000) explain that alliance partners observe greater knowledge transfer effects over time, as their learning alliance becomes more efficient.

7. Literature review (3/8) Joint knowledge acquisition and relational performance Hypothesis 2: redeploy-able performance Joint buyer supplier knowledge acquisition relational performance

8. Literature review (4/8) Joint knowledge acquisition efforts and dyad-specific assets and capabilities • Joint buyer-supplier knowledge acquisition efforts not only have a direct effect on a supplier’s relational performance (2), but also positively relate to a supplier’s investments(3a) in dyad-specific assets and capabilities, which in turn further enhance supplier relational performance (3b).

9. Literature review (5/8) Joint knowledge acquisition efforts and dyad-specific assets and capabilities Hypothesis 3a: • Joint buyer-supplier knowledge acquisition Supplier dyad-specificassets and capabilities

10. Literature review (6/8) Supplier dyad-specific assets and capabilities, and relational performance Hypothesis 3b: redeploy-able performance Supplier dyad-specific assets and capabilities relational performance

11. Literature review (7/8) Dyad-specific assets and capabilities and alliance governance mechanisms Hypothesis 4a: Supplier dyad-specificassets and capabilities Buyer-supplier relational governance mechanisms

12. Literature review (8/8) Dyad-specific assets and capabilities and alliance governance mechanisms redeploy-able performance Hypothesis 4b: Buyer-supplier relational governance mechanisms relational performance

13. Data and Methods

14. Data and Methods (1/2) Research design and data collection 500 firms producing goods that involve machining, stamping, or cutting of basic material (e.g., sheet metal), and assembly of a component. Response rate was just above 50 percent, yielding 253 responses.

15. Data and Methods (2/2) Measures five-point Likert scale, where 1 represents ‘not at all,’ and 5 ‘to a large degree.’ Control variables Firm size Importance of customer Competitive pressure SEM

16. Results

17. Results (1/9) Results of hypotheses tests- hy1 F1F5 = 0.185, t = 3.528, p < 0.001 (F5) redeploy-able performance (F1) knowledge acquisition F1F6 = -0.041, t = -0.748, p>0.1 relational performance (F6)

18. Results (2/9) Results of hypotheses tests- hy2 F2F5 = 0.028, t = 0.545, p > 0.1 redeploy-able performance (F5) Joint buyer supplier knowledge acquisition (F2) relational performance F2F6 = 0.110, t = 2.218, p < 0.001 (F6)

19. Results (3/9) Results of hypotheses tests- hy3a F2F3 = 0.194, t = 3.092, p < 0.001 (F2) (F3) • Joint buyer-supplier knowledge acquisition Supplier dyad-specificassets and capabilities

20. Results (4/9) Results of hypotheses tests- hy3b F3F5 = -0.022, t = -0.412, p > 0.1 redeploy-able performance (F5) Supplier dyad-specific assets and capabilities (F3) relational performance F3F6 = 0.262, t = 4.498, p < 0.001 (F6)

21. Results (5/9) Results of hypotheses tests- hy4a F3F4 = 0.177, t = 2.859, p < 0.001 (F4) (F3) Supplier dyad-specificassets and capabilities Buyer-supplier relational governance mechanisms

22. Results (6/9) Results of hypotheses tests- hy4b F4F5 = -0.035, t = -0.645, p > 0.1 redeploy-able performance (F5) Buyer-supplier relational governance mechanisms (F4) relational performance F4F6 = 0.209, t = 3.499, p < 0.001 (F6)

23. Results (7/9) Results of hypotheses tests 2 > 3.85

24. Results (8/9) Results of control variables p > 0.10 Firm size p > 0.10 redeploy-able performance p > 0.10 Importance of customer p < 0.01 relational performance p < 0.001 Competitive pressure p < 0.01

25. Results (9/9) What the results mean • importance of buyer-supplier knowledge transfer • alliances → relational performance alliances → assets and capabilitiesassets and capabilities → relational performance assets and capabilities → governance mechanism governance mechanism → relational performance

26. Discussion &Conclusion

27. Discussion and conclusion (1/3) tacit, team-based capabilities attain competitive advantages acquired capabilities are redeployable, rendering improvements on a supplier’s performance

28. Discussion and conclusion (2/3)

29. Discussion and conclusion (3/3) Limitations and directions for future research • This study is limited to an analysis of suppliers’ asset investments and relational mechanisms; it thus may have missed the effects of buyers’ complementary asset investments.

30. References

31. References (1/3) Anand BN, Khanna T. 2000. Do firms learn to create value? The case of alliances. Strategic Management Journal March Special Issue 21: 295–315. Dussauge P, Garrette B, Mitchell W. 2004. Asymmetric performance: the market share impact of scale and link alliances in the global auto industry. Strategic Management Journal 25(7): 701–711. Dyer JH, Hatch NW. 2006. Relation-specific capabilities and barriers to knowledge transfers: creating advantage through network relationships. Strategic Management Journal 27(5): 701–719. Grant R. 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal Winter Special Issue 17: 109–122. Hatch NW, Dyer JH. 2004. Human capital and learning as a source of sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic management journal 25(12): 1155–1178.

32. References (2/3) Kale P, Singh H, Perlmutter H. 2000. Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: building relational capital. Strategic Management Journal March Special Issue 31: 217–237. Mowery DC, Oxley JE, Silverman BS. 1996. Strategic alliances and interfirmknowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal, Winter Special Issue 17: 77–91. Mowery DC, Oxley JE, Silverman BS. 1998. Technological overlap and interfirmcooperation: implications for the resource-based view of the firm. Research Policy 27(5): 507–523. Simonin BL. 1999. Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal 20(7): 595–623. Simonin BL. 2004. An empirical investigation of the processes of knowledge transfer in international strategic alliances. Journal of International Business Studies 35(5): 407–427.

33. References (3/3) Spender J-C. 1996. Competitive advantage from tacit knowledge? Unpacking the concept and its strategic implications. In Organizational learning and competitive advantage, Moingeon B, Edmondson A (eds). Sage: Newbury Park, CA; 56–73. Von Hippel E. 1988. The Sources of Innovation. Oxford University Press: New York.

34. Thanks for your attention.