Supplier innovation value from a buyer–supplier structural equivalence view: Evidence from the PACE awards in the automotive industry

Abstract

With the growing demand for smarter, cleaner, and safer cars, automotive original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) are increasingly seeking novel inventions from innovative new or foreign suppliers. However, not all innovative suppliers are equally valuable for an OEM. When transforming novel inventions into products, OEMs could find it challenging to work with the suppliers with whom they lack trust or have limited shared understanding. In this study, we adopt a social capital perspective to understand how three types of social capital (i.e., structural, relational, and cognitive) influence a supplier's innovation value to the OEM. Hypotheses are tested using a unique data set combining the supply network structure and automotive supplier innovation award. Our results suggest that it is more difficult to obtain innovation value from a new or culturally distant foreign supplier. However, we also found that suppliers whose networks overlap more with the OEM's network are more likely to provide valuable innovations to the OEM, an effect that is stronger for culturally distant suppliers. This study contributes to the supply network and innovation literature by highlighting the importance of understanding the dyadic social capital between the buyer and supplier when evaluating innovation value of a supplier to a buying firm.

Exploring supplier–supplier innovations within the Toyota supply network: A supply network perspective

“…The integration of suppliers and customers into internal product development efforts is well documented (Clark & Fujimoto, 1991; Lawson, Krause, & Potter, 2015; Rost, 2011; Zhou, Zhang, Sheng, Xie, & Bao, 2014), and researchers also have begun to unravel how the structural characteristics of supply networks can influence the generation of innovations (Narasimhan & Narayanan, 2013). The majority of studies in this field have focused on the relationship between supplier degree centrality and the number of innovations created by firms (Chae, Yan, & Yang, 2020; Gao et al, 2015; Narasimhan & Narayanan, 2013). Yet another route also is pertinent, and arises when firms in the same supply network co‐develop supplier–supplier innovations, an effort that may particularly depend on a firm's embeddedness in the supply network (Hong & Hartley, 2011; Kamath & Liker, 1994; Kim, 2014).…”

Exploring the Relationship between Knowledge Integration and Process Improvement: A Case of Saudi Manufacturing Firms

“…The t-value is adopted to determine the significant level in the hypotheses developed. It could also be revealed that the significance level between the variables is also significant as proposed by Chae and her colleagues (Chae, S., Yan, T., & Yang, Y. 2020).…”

Outsourcing Supply Chain: Systematic Literature Review on Innovation Driver Factors Towards Collaborative Network

“…(Bryan Jean et al, 2017) High intensity of service innovation, both in the form of partnerships (suppliers and customers) as well as ecosystem stakeholders (local government, communities, legislators) increase innovation highly (Lütjen et al, 2019) The importance of understanding social capital (structural, relational, and cognitive) among buyers and suppliers when evaluating supplier value innovations to the buyer organizations. (Chae et al, 2020) Government support plays a key role in logistics innovation (Amling & Daugherty, 2018) University research plays a key role in collaboration, knowledge transfer, and product innovation. (Ciliberti et al, 2016) The "connect & develop" strategy applies innovation, produces innovation with external technology (Huston & Sakkab, 2007), so that the application of an open innovation strategy allows organizations to have the ability to innovate.…”