Selecting Startups as Suppliers: A Typology of Supplier Selection Archetypes

Abstract

Recent research highlights opportunities to study collaborations between established firms and startups from a buyer-supplier relationship perspective. However, before firms can leverage startups' resources and capabilities in a buyer-supplier relationship, they need to identify, evaluate, and select suitable startups as their suppliers. As prior research has only studied how buying firms select established firms as suppliers, it is unclear which processes, tools, or organizational approach firms use when selecting startup firms as suppliers. These suppliers are markedly different in that they lack organizational routines, financial resources, and operational capabilities, posing a significant risk for buying companies. This inductive, qualitative case study research collects data from 20 established buying firms and investigates how they select startups as suppliers. We first identify five design themes distinguishing buying firms' selection strategies. Based on these themes, we develop a typology of three supplier selection archetypes. The results suggest that firms that are willing and able to adapt their selection approach to startups are expected to show a higher selection performance, meaning that they are more likely to select suitable startups as suppliers. The results extend the supplier selection literature and provide new insights into the emerging field of new venture suppliers.

Emerging technologies and the use case: A multi‐year study of drone adoption

“…The IKEA approach was also more explicit (again in part a reflection of market dynamics) in “managing” the supply system, particularly in its engagement with drone startups. Although championing emerging technology through pilot projects with new firms requires sophisticated procurement skills to complement the internal capabilities that support experimentation with new technologies (Kurpjuweit et al, 2021; Wagner, 2021), it allowed the firm to manage the timing of technology adoption better.…”

Configurational approaches to theory development in supply chain management: Leveraging underexplored opportunities

“…Meanwhile, taxonomies are "based on quantitative techniques," but they "need to be theoretically grounded if they are to be useful beyond a single sample." Overall, then typologies are "the result of conceptual ideas based on empirical experience" (e.g., Kurpjuweit et al, 2021), whereas taxonomies are the "result of empirical techniques only made useful through conceptualization. "…”

“…As Short et al (2008, p. 1058) explain, the term “typology refers to a conceptually driven classification scheme, whereas taxonomy refers to an empirically generated classification.” Although this seems at first glance to be a clear distinction, “both typologies and taxonomies are products of cycling between induction and deduction.” In the case of typologies, they center on theory, but they often draw on empirics as well. For example, as Short et al (2008, p. 1058) note, “the Miles and Snow (1978) typology was based, in part, on theories of strategic choice and enactment, and in part, on the authors' qualitative research in the textbook industry.” Meanwhile, taxonomies are “based on quantitative techniques,” but they “need to be theoretically grounded if they are to be useful beyond a single sample.” Overall, then typologies are “the result of conceptual ideas based on empirical experience” (e.g., Kurpjuweit et al, 2021), whereas taxonomies are the “result of empirical techniques only made useful through conceptualization.”…”

Toward A Theory Of Supply Chain Entrepreneurial Embeddedness In Disrupted And Normal States

“…First, extant research has focused on suppliers in a general sense and in doing so does not explicitly address whether the suppliers are entrepreneurial (cf. Kurpjuweit, Wagner, & Choi, 2020 as a notable exception), the lynchpin of SCEE. Second, past work often has examined supplier‐enabled innovation in hierarchical arrangements, whereas our SCEE allying concept also encompasses other forms of relationships such as the “small business federation” illustrated in the Raytheon example (Ketchen et al, 2007).…”