Buyer–supplier collaboration during emerging technology development

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to understand how buyers and suppliers collaborate during the development of emerging technologies. Using the relational view, the paper examines a high technology aerospace firm as it develops additive manufacturing technology with two suppliers. Data collected from 46 interviews with senior managers, middle managers and operational employees are triangulated using 8 focus groups and secondary company documentation. It is found that the radical novelty and high degree of technological uncertainty associated with emerging technologies leads to a small pool of capable suppliers, limited machine capacity and constrained raw material supply. Companies therefore turn to University Technology Centres (UTCs) to incubate new ideas and test prototypes before involving suppliers in development efforts. Companies also seek out government funded catapult centres where buyers, suppliers and customers are co-located in a single facility, allowing them to interact and share knowledge on a regular basis. The study contributes to the relational view by identifying that regular interaction within collaborative relationships does not necessarily lead to knowledge spill-overs between buyers and suppliers during the development of emerging technologies. Instead, the study finds that knowledge exchange is facilitated when suppliers have the freedom to use intellectual property in non-competing industries and have guarantees of future business that allow them to invest in machine capacity and raw material supply. Managers are provided with an empirically informed framework for buyer-supplier collaboration during emerging technology development.

Post-Brexit back-shoring strategies: what UK manufacturing companies could learn from the past?

“…Moreover, in all three aforementioned cases, improvement in product design and encouragement for innovation was captured. This manifested itself by the further development in collaboration with suppliers at the home country to develop new products and technologies (Moradlou et al, 2020b). Proximity to the suppliers and sharing the same language and time zone were viewed as facilitating factors for enhancing the collaboration.…”

Stakeholder Perspectives on the Current and Future of Additive Manufacturing in Healthcare

“…In this regard, it must be said that current AM technologies are still classed as emerging and perhaps lack the infrastructure capable of supporting their full potential. Such is the case for the limited pool of suppliers, usually constrained to AM machine manufacturers[ 54 , 55 ]. Similarly, although technological advances on AM systems are common in the academic field[ 56 ], systems currently in use are limited by bed size, build time, technical expertise, and post processing requirements[ 40 ].…”

“…A senior manager of an aerospace firm that have adopted AM who was recently interviewed by Moradlou et al . [ 55 ] indicated that “the technology itself is not seen as a core competency, prompting the company to partner with external organizations,” resulting in increased University Technology Centers, business lead collaborations with research (e.g., Catapult centers) or a supplier driven product and process design. Nevertheless, important differences between manufacturing experts and the rest of the surveyed professionals are still observed, suggesting that limited influence of these structures may take place in healthcare.…”

A Delphi study on the supply risk-mitigating effect of additive manufacturing during SARS-COV-2

“…On the other hand, the increased discussion about intellectual property rights on AM's potential for direct manufacturing ( Berman, 2012 ) within the coronavirus pandemic ( Mahr and Dickel, 2020 ) presumes an increased vulnerability for a supply organisation. CAD data might contain sensitive information that has high plasticity ( Moradlou et al, 2020 ), and its control against opportunistic supplier behaviour may become difficult for a procurement organisation ( Picot, 1993 ). On the one hand, this is in line with previous research which identifies suppliers as an important risk source, but with an additional risk category caused by the value of digital information exchange (3D data) with suppliers ( Zsidisin and Wagner, 2010 ).…”