The effectiveness of relational and contractual governance in new product development collaborations: Evidence from Korea

Bstieler, Ludwig; Hemmert, Martin

doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2015.07.003

Cited by 64 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 78 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For direct effects of governance modes on UIC project success, our findings are mostly in line with previous studies indicating the relevance of contract formality and shared governance in R&D collaboration (Bstieler & Hemmert, ; Gesing et al, ). However, our results do not support contract formality's positive effect on UIC success (Faems et al, ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…We established this construct afresh by building on Hertzfeld et al () and Nelson (). Contract formality (three items) captures the use of a written contractual statement clarifying the use of IP rights and the potential transition of IP rights from one partner to another, the partners' roles and responsibilities, and the expectations regarding the performance obligations (Bstieler & Hemmert, ; Lusch & Brown, ). Shared governance (three items) covers joint responsibility, joint planning and joint advice on how the project should be run (adapted from Bstieler et al, ; Schleimer & Shulman, ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although firms usually have fixed hierarchical structures and procedures, they can flexibly decide on the intensity and varying emphasis of using more contract formality or shared governance in UIC projects. While contract formality may be well suited to ensure efficient collaboration, shared governance can facilitate the planning, coordination and flexibility of adjustments (Bstieler & Hemmert, ). Consequently, contract formality and shared governance are not mutually exclusive governance modes but relate to different dimensions (Holgersson et al, ).…”

Section: Conceptual Framework and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If both UIC partners enhance communication and jointly engage in project progress, this can result in close interaction and create advantages to adapt more flexibly to change requests (Gulati & Singh, ; Lazzarotti et al, ). In line with the relational view (Dyer et al, ), shared governance may be better suited to share control in re‐evaluating projects' progress, agree on adjustments to partners' management activities, and find ad hoc solutions (Bstieler & Hemmert, ; Hofman et al, ).…”

Section: Conceptual Framework and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Firms' intellectual property ownership aggressiveness in university–industry collaboration projects: Choosing the right governance mode

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intellectual property (IP) ownership aggressiveness constitutes an organization's strategic stance that prioritizes its IP protection. An organization thus pursues a rigid approach to protect its background IP and strives for exclusive ownership of the foreground IP that results from collaborative projects. This paper investigates how firms' IP ownership aggressiveness influences university-industry collaboration (UIC) project success and examines if the relationship is contingent on the governance modes that firms employ in UICs, especially the intensity of contract formality and shared governance. Analysing survey data from UIC projects of medium-sized to large firms covering four industries, we find that the levels of contract formality and shared governance moderate the effect of firms' IP ownership aggressiveness on project success. Strong contract formality leads to a negative relationship between firms' IP ownership aggressiveness and UIC project success. Conversely, if firms apply strong shared governance, the relationship between IP ownership aggressiveness and UIC project success is positive. Given firms' strategic approach to protect background IP and claim ownership of foreground IP, these results have implications for UIC managers when selecting governance modes to best support UIC project success.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Conceptual Framework and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Conceptual Framework and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Firms' intellectual property ownership aggressiveness in university–industry collaboration projects: Choosing the right governance mode

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Relationship quality has been shown to influence relationship effectiveness, measured as sales, word-of-mouth, and customer loyalty (Palmatier, 2008;Palmatier et al, 2006). Some papers suggest that relationship quality, measured by trust, reciprocity norms, and exchange efficiency, favors NPD success (Obal, Kannan-Narasimhan, and Ko, 2016, Rindfleisch and Moorman, 2001, Sivadas and Dwyer, 2000, yet the link between commitment, a sub-dimension of relationship quality, and NPD success remains unclear, especially in the relationships that are not continuous in nature (Badrinarayanan and Arnett, 2008;Bstieler and Hemmert, 2015;Sjoerdsma and van Weele, 2015;Walter, 2003).…”

Section: Initial Npd Success Drivers Suggested By the Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Drivers and Pathways of NPD Success in the Marketing–External Design Relationship

Hemonnet‐Goujot¹,

Manceau²,

Abecassis‐Moedas³

2018

J of Product Innov Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Marketing often cooperates with external design in the new product development (NPD) process. While this relationship is crucial for NPD success and is a typical case of interorganizational collaboration between a business‐oriented function (marketing) and a creative partner (external design), a comprehensive understanding of this relationship remains lacking. As the NPD field evolves to open systems that have changed concepts like functional integration into interorganizational integration, this study contributes to NPD literature by developing an integrated conceptual framework leading to a model of drivers and pathways of NPD success in the marketing–external design relationship. Building on the literature on NPD, design management and relationship marketing, and on nine dyadic case studies from the luxury fragrance and cosmetics industry, a content analysis was conducted, enriched by a crisp‐set qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). This research confirms several NPD success drivers suggested in the literature and reveals three new drivers: source of design expertise, designer brand commitment, and number of NPD stages involving designer. The first new driver (source of design expertise) impacts the relationship process, which then impacts NPD success, while the other two drivers (designer brand commitment, and number of NPD stages involving designer) directly influence NPD success. The paper also identifies the pathways of NPD success, showing that contact authority and designer brand commitment are necessary conditions for NPD success, especially when combined with a high number of NPD stages involving designer or a previous relationship. The results also indicate that pathways of NPD success may differ according to the source of design expertise. From a managerial perspective, this study provides recommendations to managers to select the right design partner and choose from a range of drivers and pathways to devise more effective ways to work with external designers, thereby leading to NPD success.

show abstract

Green supplier integration and environmental innovation in Chinese firms: The joint effect of governance mechanism and trust

Yu-qin

Zhao

Guo

et al. 2020

Corp Soc Responsibility Env

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the importance of green supplier integration, how different governance mechanisms affect its influence on environmental innovation is still debated. This article explores the moderating effect of governance mechanisms (i.e., relational norms and contractual control) on the effects of green supplier integration and two dimensions of environmental innovation (i.e., environmental incremental and radical innovation), as well as the moderating roles of trust on the above moderating effects. We examine hypothesized relationships using two‐waved survey data from 206 Chinese manufacturing enterprises. Our results suggest that contractual control positively moderates the impact of green supplier integration on environmental incremental innovation, whereas relational norms negatively moderate this impact. However, both relational norms and contractual control fail to moderate the impact of green supplier integration and environmental radical innovation. Further, trust in supplier strengthens the negative moderating effect of relational norms on the impact of green supplier integration on environmental radical innovation, which reveals the “dark side” of trust in supplier.

show abstract

The effectiveness of relational and contractual governance in new product development collaborations: Evidence from Korea

Cited by 64 publications

References 78 publications

Firms' intellectual property ownership aggressiveness in university–industry collaboration projects: Choosing the right governance mode

Firms' intellectual property ownership aggressiveness in university–industry collaboration projects: Choosing the right governance mode

Drivers and Pathways of NPD Success in the Marketing–External Design Relationship

Green supplier integration and environmental innovation in Chinese firms: The joint effect of governance mechanism and trust

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About