Dyadic Operationalization in Business Relationships: The Empirical Example of Marketing-Purchasing Collaboration

Ashnai, Bahar; Smirnova, Maria; Henneberg, Stephan C.; Naudé, Peter

doi:10.1080/1051712x.2019.1565134

Cited by 10 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 101 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This search and review revealed that the concept of cross-functional integration and cross-functionality has been taken up by authors in a variety of management disciplines, such as logistics and supply chain management, marketing and research and development (R&D). For example, many articles focused on cross-functional endeavours between marketing and other functions, such as R&D (De Clercq et al , 2011; Hausberg and Leeflang, 2019; Lin et al , 2015; Belasen and Rufer, 2014); logistics (Lopes Pimenta et al , 2016); IT (Buckley, 2015); purchasing (Ashnai et al , 2019); sales (Canacott et al , 2018; Hausberg and Leeflang, 2019); corporate communications (Neill and Jiang, 2017); and operations (Piercy, 2010). Other cross-functional combinations in the literature included contexts related to product development (Coradi et al , 2015; Porter and Heppelmann, 2015); cross-functional project teams including two or more functions (Ståhle et al , 2019; Anthony et al , 2014); engineering collaborations (De Clercq et al , 2013); and customer service initiatives (Claro and Ramos, 2018).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While the initial keyword search focused specifically on literature sorted by relevance that used the term cross-functionality (2,660 hits), other related terms were more specifically helpful as they narrowed down the search. These included terms such as “inter-functional collaboration” (235 hits; Canacott et al , 2018; Belasen and Rufer, 2014; Abraham and Reddy, 2010; Ashnai et al , 2019), “inter-departmental integration” (206 hits; Kahn, 1996) and “inter-departmental collaboration” (1,240 hits; Cuijpers et al , 2011; Danowski, 2010; Lee, 2020). Further terms identified included “organizational configuration” (3,490 hits; Lohmann and zur Muehlen, 2019; Mohsen and Eng, 2016) and “cross-group collaboration” (176 hits; Kwan, 2019).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By adopting a selective literature review, we were able to focus on those articles that were thematically most relevant within the management and across management disciplines. Conducting a systematic approach or many articles focused on cross-functional endeavours between marketing and other functions, such as: R&D (de Clercq, Thongpapanl and Dimov, 2011;Hausberg and Leeflang, 2019;Lin, Wang and Kung, 2015;Belasen and Rufer, 2014); logistics (Lopes Pimenta, Lago da Silva and Tate, 2016); IT (Buckley, 2015); purchasing (Ashnai et al, 2019); sales (Canacott et al, 2018;Hausberg and Leeflang, 2019); corporate communications (Neill and Jiang, 2017); and operations (Piercy, 2010). Other cross-functional combinations in the literature included contexts related to product development (Coradi, Heinzen and Boutellier, 2015;Porter and Heppelmann, 2015); crossfunctional project teams including two or more functions (Ståhle, Ahola and Martinsuo, 2019;Anthony, Green and McComb, 2014); engineering (Clercq, Thongpapanl and Dimov, 2013); and customer service (Claro and Ramos, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A review of the literature on cross-functional integration (2010–2020): trends and recommendations

Jeske

Calvard

2020

IJOA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Structural and technological changes are driving functional reorganization in many organizations. To date, there are very few articles that explicitly, consistently and cumulatively focus on cross-functional integration. This paper aims to review and explore the literature that does directly address cross-functional integration. Design/methodology/approach The authors conducted a literature review within the general management domain for the time frame 2010 to 2020 and identified 71 relevant articles that provide an overview of current practices and trends. Findings This conceptual paper reviews this identified literature and outlines key trends, noteworthy articles and a summary of relevant theories, and provides an overview of outcomes linked to cross-functional integration in the literature. The paper concludes with a set of recommendations for practitioners and an outline of potential research areas for academic researchers, including a call for more theory integration, building and testing in the area of cross-functionality. Originality/value This paper is the first of its kind to attempt to summarize the literature on cross-functionality (published between 2010 and 2020), a currently very fragmented field of study spread out across different management disciplines.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A review of the literature on cross-functional integration (2010–2020): trends and recommendations

Jeske

Calvard

2020

IJOA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to Flynn et al (2010), integration basically refers to the extent to which separate parties work together in a cooperative manner to arrive at a mutually acceptable outcome. Moreover, dyadic interaction refers to quality business interactions between two business parties (Ashnai et al, 2019). It shows that seaports and dry ports need to collaborate to achieve effective outcome in the supply chain.…”

Section: Dyadic Integrations Between Dry Ports and Seaportsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Analysis of Dry Port Operations in Coastal and Landlocked Countries

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Malaysia is a coastal country surrounded by sea, while Nepal is a landlocked country with no direct access to the ocean. This paper investigates the challenges faced by dry ports in Malaysia and Nepal and looks into issues concerning the connection of seaports and dry ports both intra-regionally, i.e. within Malaysia, and inter-regionally, i.e. outside of Nepal. The structure of dry port operating systems in these two areas is visibly different. Hence, the relationships between the major nodes in these different geographical regions need to be examined. Face-to-face and telephone interviews with dry port operators, legislative personnel, and public policy stakeholders from both countries were conducted to establish the impediments to dry port operations. Interview session transcripts have been analyzed using grounded theory. This tool is suitable for this paper due to its capacity to identify categories and concepts within the text linked together to form theoretical models. Secondary data have been used to support the primary data collected, to enhance the range and reliability of the findings. The findings indicate challenges such as inadequate connectivity capacity, inefficient border transactions, seaport-dry port integration issues, inefficient economic corridors, insufficient legislative framework for policy and regulation development, and environmental issues faced by the two countries. These challenges have a negative impact on the possibility of dry ports in Malaysia to take full advantage of their potential. Meanwhile, in Nepal, such challenges limit dry port operations since dry ports are the main gateway for the nation’s international trade. This paper recommends strategies for overcoming these challenges and improving the quality of dry port operations, focusing on the provision of sophisticated and modern logistics services to stakeholders in the different geographic landscapes.

show abstract

“…The network building blocks vary according to the level of analysis at which the research is performed. Most authors referred to networks globally or as a result of mutual interaction between any of the two enterprises called "dyads" (Ashnai, Smirnova, Henneberg, & Naudé, 2019). Enterprises establish these dyadic arrangements of strategic alliances, joint ventures, supplier networks, or research consortia to cope with current environment changes (Tikkanen & Halinen, 2003).…”

Section: The Characteristics Of Network Complexitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Complexity, continuity, and strategic management of buyer–supplier relationships from a network perspective

Pech¹,

Vaněček²,

Prazáková³

2021

JEMI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE: Current research seeks to create an economic model that connects strategic management and network theory. However, most theoretical models do not provide empirical evidence of network relationships’ real structure and attributes. The purpose of the paper is to explore the relation between enterprise characteristics and the characteristics of buyer–supplier relationships in supply chain networks. We are specifically interested in business relationships in networks with respect to the various enterprises’ sizes and sectors of industry. The subject of our research was characteristics, such as network relationship complexity, continuity of relationships, and strategic management in networks. The paper summarizes the results of an empirical study on buyer-supplier networks and accentuates the importance of developing and fostering business collaboration for strategic management. METHODOLOGY: We conducted the questionnaire research in 2016–2019 on 360 enterprises from the Czech Republic. We selected the research sample based on the non-probability purposive sampling method. The members of the research team collected data from an online survey and personal visits to enterprises. The statistical analysis of hypotheses is based on the frequency of managers’ answers. To evaluate results, a two-proportion Z-Test is used for comparing different categories of enterprises according to their enterprise size or prevailing sector of the industry. FINDINGS: The main results show that the differences between enterprises involved in the buyer–supplier structures lie mainly in their size. The survey did not identify differences between industry sectors. The findings show that the complexity of networks in the Czech Republic is not high in terms of the number of suppliers or involvement in many supply networks. The continuity of relationships with partners in buyer–supplier networks is relatively long-term oriented. Long-term partnerships reflect the higher quality of relationships and support future integration. However, large enterprises prefer to build contracts for shorter or longer periods. An overall decentralization strategy characterizes the strategic management of buyer–supplier networks. This finding means dividing competencies such as planning, managing, sourcing, decision-making, transporting (delivering) among more enterprises. IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY AND PRACTICE: The paper provides an insight into understanding how the buyer–supplier network functions. The theory’s implication builds on the connection of supply chain management and strategic management from the network perspective. Supply chain management is viewed as a part of strategic management, and the synthesis of both research areas opens an innovative view to business theory. ORIGINALITY AND VALUE: The paper’s principal value is the connection between contemporary ideas of strategic management and supply chain management. The synthesis of supply chain management and network approach enhances strategic management theory.

show abstract

Dyadic Operationalization in Business Relationships: The Empirical Example of Marketing-Purchasing Collaboration

Cited by 10 publications

References 101 publications

A review of the literature on cross-functional integration (2010–2020): trends and recommendations

A review of the literature on cross-functional integration (2010–2020): trends and recommendations

Comparative Analysis of Dry Port Operations in Coastal and Landlocked Countries

Complexity, continuity, and strategic management of buyer–supplier relationships from a network perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About