Abstract
AbstractSupplier firms, especially the more resource constraint SMEs, form alliances for product innovation. Supplier firms can try to push in creative inputs while needing to align them with the overall solution of the buyer. Our study zooms in on this push and alignment balancing act. Our theoretical model is informed by the attention-based view. It considers two centralization mechanisms, relationship intensity and formalized specifications of the buyer firm. Our dependent variable is innovation of the SME supplier. The model hypothesizes linear and non-linear effects by relationship intensity and the buyer’s detailed and formalized specifications (e.g., functional principles, features, and design elements). Data collected from 279 European supplier SMEs reveals that moderate levels of “post-formational specifications” proposed by the buyer firm are associated with greater product innovation of the supplier. Interestingly, less product innovation results when the specifications of the buyer are either minimal or high. Stronger relationship intensity allows greater product innovation as it enables partners to capture more benefits from the post-formational specifications as they constructively work together.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Economics and Econometrics,General Business, Management and Accounting
Reference93 articles.
1. Ahmadi, E., Macassa, G., & Larsson, J. (2021). Managers’ work and behaviour patterns in profitable growth SMEs. Small Business Economics, 57(2), 849–863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00386-0
2. Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2014). Causality and endogeneity: Problems and solutions. In D. V. Day (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Leadership and Organizations (pp. 93–117). Oxford University Press.
3. Argyres, N., & Mayer, K. J. (2007). Contract design as a firm capability: An integration of learning and transaction cost perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1060–1077. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.26585739
4. Barnett, M. L. (2008). An attention-based view of real options reasoning. Academy of Management Review, 33(3), 606–628.
5. Becker, J.-M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2018). Estimating moderating effects in PLS-SEM and PLSc-SEM: Interaction Term Generation*Data Treatment. Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling, 2(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.47263/JASEM.2(2)01
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献