- 권한신청
- P-ISSN1738-3110
- E-ISSN2093-7717
- SCOPUS
신제품 공동 개발 시 공급자의 전략이 신제품 개발성과에 미치는 영향에 대한 연구
A Study on the Effect of Supplier's Strategy on New Product Development Performance
서응교 (Graduate School of Business, Dankook University)
- 다운로드 수
- 조회수
Abstract
Purpose - In the joint development of new products, buyers and suppliers exchange information to solve various problems. Uncertainty and ambiguity are typical examples. Uncertainty refers to the lack of information to solve the problem, and equivocality refers to the case where the information is interpreted in multiple processes in the process of providing the information. These uncertainty and equivocality cause new products to be delayed in their development and adversely affect quality. However, unfortunately, there is a lack of researches on how the uncertainty and equivocality of such concepts control the results of new product joint development. But, smooth communication and effective exchange of information is not emphasized only in the general organization. The importance of the new product joint development projects to achieve the two organizations' common goals becomes even greater. The purposes of this study are to analyse the effect of supplier's strategy on the NPD performance and moderating effect of uncertainty and equivocality. Research design, data, and methodology - In order to make a contribution to the lack of academic researches in Korea, this study collects data through questionnaires based on organizational information processing theory and previous studies, and conducts empirical analysis. Results - As a result, the product modularization strategy and the strategic supply chain relationship positively influenced the new product development performance - return on investment and ease of manufacturing. And the interaction effect of uncertainty and equivocality with supplier's strategy - product modularity strategy and strategic supply chain management relationship - reduces or negates the influence of product modularization strategy on new product development performance. Conclusions - This implies that it is important to control uncertainty and equivocality in order for the supplier strategy to have a positive effect on new product development performance. It also emphasizes the necessity of sharing information appropriately for companies that do not want to share the information as possible due to their fear of loss of competitive advantage in the joint development of new products. Because this kind of negative policy might let uncertainty and equivocality be happen in new product joint development process.
- keywords
- New Product Development, Uncertainty, Equivocality, Supply Chain, Supplier
참고문헌
Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Al-Abdallah, G. M., Abdallah, A. B., & Hamdan, K. B. (2014). The impact of supplier relationship management on competitive performance of manufacturing firms. International Journal of Business and Management, 9(2), 192-202.
Arrow, K. J. (1974). The limits of organization. New York:Norton.
Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. (1997). Managing in an age of modularity. Harvard Business Review, 75(5), 84-93.
Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. (2000). Design rules: The power of modularity (Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Caridi, M., Pero, M., & Sianesi, A. (2012). Linking product modularity and innovativeness to supply chain management in the Italian furniture industry. International Journal of Production Economics, 136(1), 207-217.
Carr, A. S., & Pearson, J. N. (1999). Strategically managed buyer–supplier relationships and performance outcomes. Journal of operations management, 17(5), 497-519.
Clark, K. B. (1989). Project scope and project performance:the effect of parts strategy and supplier involvement on product development. Management science, 35(10), 1247-1263.
Clark, K. B., & Fujimoto, T. (1991). Product development performance: Strategy, organization, and management in the world auto industry. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management science, 32(5), 554-571.
Dyer, J. H. (1996). Does governance matter? Keiretsu alliances and asset specificity as sources of Japanese competitive advantage. Organization Science, 7(6), 649-666.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50.
Forza, C., & Salvador, F. (2002). Managing for variety in the order acquisition and fulfillment process: The contribution of product configuration systems. International journal of production economics, 76(1), 87-98.
Galbraith, J. R. (1974). Organization design: An information processing view. Interfaces, 4(3), 28-36.
Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (2005). A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-Graph: Tutorial and annotated example. Communications of the Association for Information systems, 16(1), 5-19.
Giunipero, L., Handfield, R. B., & Eltantawy, R. (2006). Supply management's evolution: Key skill sets for the supply manager of the future. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 26(7), 822-844.
Gualandris, J., & Kalchschmidt, M. (2013). Product and process modularity: improving flexibility and reducing supplier failure risk. International Journal of Production Research, 51(19), 5757-5770.
Guy, S. P., & Dale, B. G. (1993). The role of purchasing in design: a study in the British defense industry. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 29(2), 26-32.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Babin, B. J., & Black, W. C. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Handfield, R. B., Ragatz, G. L., Petersen, K. J., & Monczka, R. M. (1999). Involving suppliers in new product development. California management review, 42(1), 59-82.
Hsuan, J., Frandsen, T., & Raja, J. (2016). The Impact of Product and Service Modularity on Business Performance: A Survey of Danish Manufacturers. Proceedings of the 5th World Conference on Production and Operations Management P & OM 2016.
Ishaq, M., Hussain, N., Khaliq, W., & Waqas, M. (2012). A review on triple-A supply chain performance. The East Asian Journal of Business Management, 2(2), 35-39.
Jacobs, M., Droge, C., Vickery, S. K., & Calantone, R. (2011). Product and process modularity’s effects on manufacturing agility and firm growth performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(1), 123-137.
Jambul, A., & Dzhulayeva, A. (2015). Development of Quality Management in the Republic of Kazakhstan. The East Asian Journal of Business Management, 5(2), 23-29.
Johnsen, T. E. (2009). Supplier involvement in new product development and innovation: Taking stock and looking to the future. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 15(3), 187-197.
Ketchen, D. J., & Hult, G. T. (2002). To be Modular or not to be? Some Answers to the Question. The Academy of Management Executive, 16(2), 166-168.
Kocabasoglu, C., & Suresh, N. C. (2006). Strategic Sourcing. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 15(2), 165-182.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization science, 3(3), 383-397.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (2003). Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation. Journal of international business studies, 34(6), 516-529.
Koufteros, X. A., Vonderembse, M. A., & Doll, W. J. (2002). Integrated product development practices and competitive capabilities: the effects of uncertainty, equivocality, and platform strategy. Journal of Operations Management, 20(4), 331-355.
Koufteros, X. A., Cheng, T. E., & Lai, K. H. (2007). “Black-box”and “gray-box” supplier integration in product development: Antecedents, consequences and the moderating role of firm size. Journal of Operations Management, 25(4), 847-870.
Kotabe, M., Martin, X., & Domoto, H. (2003). Gaining from vertical partnerships: knowledge transfer, relationship duration, and supplier performance improvement in the US and Japanese automotive industries. Strategic management journal, 24(4), 293-316.
Lau, A. K., Yam, R., & Tang, E. (2011). The impact of product modularity on new product performance: Mediation by product innovativeness. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(2), 270-284.
Li, S., Rao, S. S., Ragu-Nathan, T. S., & Ragu-Nathan, B. (2005). Development and validation of a measurement instrument for studying supply chain management practices. Journal of operations management, 23(6), 618-641.
Liao, S. C. (2014). Using the MCDM of the Innovative Product Value Chain to Promote New Product Design. The East Asian Journal of Business Management, 4(3), 27-37.
Liu, H., Luo, J. H., & Huang, J. X. (2011). Organizational learning, NPD and environmental uncertainty: An ambidexterity perspective. Asian Business &Management, 10(4), 529-553.
McIvor, R., & Humphreys, P. (2004). Early supplier involvement in the design process: lessons from the electronics industry. Omega, 32(3), 179-199.
Melander, L., & Tell, F. (2014). Uncertainty in collaborative NPD: Effects on the selection of technology and supplier. Journal of engineering and technology management, 31(1), 103-119.
Milliken, F. J. (1987). Three types of perceived uncertainty about the environment: State, effect, and response uncertainty. Academy of Management review, 12(1), 133-143.
Milliken, F. J. (1990). Perceiving and interpreting environmental change: An examination of college administrators' interpretation of changing demographics. Academy of management Journal, 33(1), 42-63.
Monczka, R. M., Trent, R. J., & Callahan, T. J. (1993). Supply base strategies to maximize supplier performance. International Journal of Physical Distribution &Logistics Management, 23(4), 42-54.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York, NY: Oxford university press.
Oke, A., Prajogo, D. I., & Jayaram, J. (2013). Strengthening the innovation chain: The role of internal innovation climate and strategic relationships with supply chain partners. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 49(4), 43-58.
Paulraj, A., & Chen, I. J. (2005). Strategic supply management and dyadic quality performance: A path analytical model. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 41(3), 4-18.
Pine, B. J. (1993). Mass customization: the new frontier in business competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.
Prahinksi, C., & Benton, W. C. (2004). Supplier Evaluations, Journal of Operations Management, 27(4), 345-372.
Primo, M. A., & Amundson, S. D. (2002). An exploratory study of the effects of supplier relationships on new product development outcomes. Journal of Operations management, 20(1), 33-52.
Putnam, L. L., Phillips, N., & Chapman, P. (1996). Metaphors of Communication and Organization. Handbook of organization studies. London: SAGE.
Rai, A., & Al-Hindi, H. (2000). The effects of development process modeling and task uncertainty on development quality performance. Information &Management, 37(6), 335-346.
Sanchez, R., & Mahoney, J. T. (1996). Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic management journal, 17(S2), 63-76.
Sanchez, R., & Collins, R. P. (2001). Competing—and learning —in modular markets. Long Range Planning, 34(6), 645-667.
Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois press.
Simonin, B. L. (1999). Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal. 20(7), 595-623.
Simonin, B. L.. (2004). An empirical investigation of the process of knowledge transfer in international strategic alliances. Journal of International Business Studies. 35(5), 407-427.
Swink, M., Narasimhan, R., & Kim, S. W. (2005). Manufacturing practices and strategy integration:Effects on cost efficiency, flexibility, and market‐based performance. Decision Sciences, 36(3), 427-457.
Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness:Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic management journal, 17(S2), 27-43.
Takeishi, A. (2001). Bridging inter‐and intra‐firm boundaries:Management of supplier involvement in automobile product development. Strategic management journal, 22(5), 403-433.
Tatikonda, M. V., & Rosenthal, S. R. (2000). Successful execution of product development projects: Balancing firmness and flexibility in the innovation process. Journal of Operations Management, 18(4), 401-425.
Tatikonda, M. V., & Stock, G. N. (2003). Product technology transfer in the upstream supply chain. Journal of product innovation management, 20(6), 444-467.
Thompson, J. D. (2003). Organizations in action: social science bases of administrative theory (Classics in Organization and Management Series). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Tu, Q., Vonderembse, M. A., Ragu‐Nathan, T. S., & Ragu‐ Nathan, B. (2004). Measuring modularity‐based manufacturing practices and their impact on mass customization capability: A customer‐driven perspective. Decision Sciences, 35(2), 147-168.
Tushman, M. L., & Nadler, D. A. (1978). Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design. Academy of management review, 3(3), 613-624.
Vickery, S. K., Bolumole, Y. A., Castel, M. J., & Calantone, R. J. (2015). The effects of product modularity on launch speed. International Journal of Production Research, 53(17), 5369-5381.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wynstra. F., Weele, A. V., & Weggeman, M. (2001). Managing Supplier Involvement in Product Development: Three Critical Issues, European Management Journal, 19(2), 157-167.
Yan, T. T., & Dooley, K. J. (2013). Communication intensity, goal congruence, and uncertainty in buyer–supplier new product development. Journal of Operations Management, 31(7), 523-542.
- 다운로드 수
- 조회수
- 0KCI 피인용수
- 0WOS 피인용수