1 / 20

A Transaction Cost Approach to Make-or-Buy Decisions

A Transaction Cost Approach to Make-or-Buy Decisions. Gordon Walker and David Weber. Presenter: Wen ZHENG. Research Question. Apply transaction cost framework to investigate make-or-buy decisions for relative simple components in a manufacturing division of a large U.S. automobile company .

hanne
Download Presentation

A Transaction Cost Approach to Make-or-Buy Decisions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. A Transaction Cost Approach to Make-or-Buy Decisions Gordon Walker and David Weber Presenter: Wen ZHENG

  2. Research Question • Apply transaction cost framework to investigate make-or-buy decisions for relative simple components in a manufacturing division of a large U.S. automobile company. • Transaction cost • Production Cost

  3. Theory and Hypothesis • Williamson (1981) • Production cost (ΔPC) • Buyers’ production Cost -Supplier’s production cost • Transaction cost • Transaction cost of buy -Transaction cost of make

  4. Theory and Hypothesis • Williamson (1981) • Make or buy=f(asset specificity * uncertainty) • Walker and Weber (1984) • Make or buy= f(asset specificity, uncertainty)

  5. Theory and Hypothesis • Williamson (1981) • Make or buy=f(asset specificity * uncertainty) • Walker and Weber (1984) • Make or buy= f(asset specificity, uncertainty) Supplier Market Competition Volume uncertainty Technological Uncertainty

  6. Theory and Hypothesis H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H7 H6 H8

  7. Empirical Test • Sample • 60 decisions made in a component division of a large U.S. automobile manufacture over a period of three years • Method • Structure Equation Model (SEM) • Unweighted Least Squares (ULS)

  8. Variables Supplier Competition Buyer Experience Volume Uncertainty Supplier Advantage Technological Uncertainty

  9. SEM

  10. Results

  11. Results H3 H5 H7 H2 H1

  12. Results H4

  13. Results H6 H8

  14. Result • H1, H3, H4, H5 and H8 are corroborated • Transaction cost (TC) > Production Cost (PC) • Market Competition TC make/buy >  PC make/buy • Volume Uncertainty TC > Technological Uncertainty TC • Buyer Experience  PC • Buyer Experience  make/buy • Technological Uncertainty make/buy

  15. Result • H1, H3, H4, H5 and H8 are corroborated • Transaction cost (TC) > Production Cost (PC) • Simplicity • Division outcomes > Functional outcomes

  16. Result • H1, H3, H4, H5 and H8 are corroborated • Transaction cost (TC) > Production Cost (PC) • Market Competition TC make/buy >  PC make/buy • Method bias • Implicit Assumption: the cost of administrating interfunctionalcoordination within the firm were virtually independent of the transaction cost associated with contracting in the market

  17. Result • H1, H3, H4, H5 and H8 are corroborated • Transaction cost (TC) > Production Cost (PC) • Market Competition TC make/buy >  PC make/buy • Volume Uncertainty TC > Technological Uncertainty TC • Simplicity • Buyer pay retooling and both parties pay the changes in volume • Scale economies may be crucial for suppliers

  18. Result • H1, H3, H4, H5 and H8 are corroborated • Transaction cost (TC) > Production Cost (PC) • Market Competition TC make/buy >  PC make/buy • Volume Uncertainty TC > Technological Uncertainty TC • Buyer Experience  PC • Simplicity

  19. Result • H1, H3, H4, H5 and H8 are corroborated • Transaction cost (TC) > Production Cost (PC) • Market Competition TC make/buy >  PC make/buy • Volume Uncertainty TC > Technological Uncertainty TC • Buyer Experience  PC • Buyer Experience  make/buy • Technological Uncertainty make/buy Poor communication within the division of important information for contracting with suppliers

  20. Discussion • Weakness • Small sample size drawn from a single corporate division limit the generalizability of the empirical findings • Relative simplicity of the components studied may explain to some extent the failure of part of the model • Method Bias: The component manager answers questions about both supplier market competition and supplier production cost advantage • Future Research • Other forms of buyer-supplier relationships (e.g. tapered integration, joint venture, and the type of coordination and dedicated supply called “kanban” by the Japanese)

More Related