Is the formalization of npd collaboration productive or counterproductiveContingent effects of trust between partners

  1. María Pemartín 1
  2. Ana I. Rodríguez-Escudero 2
  1. 1 York University (Canadá)
    info

    York University (Canadá)

    Toronto, Canadá

    ROR https://ror.org/05fq50484

  2. 2 Universidad de Valladolid
    info

    Universidad de Valladolid

    Valladolid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01fvbaw18

Revista:
Business Research Quarterly

ISSN: 2340-9444 2340-9436

Año de publicación: 2021

Volumen: 24

Número: 1

Páginas: 2-18

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.1177/2340944420916307 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Business Research Quarterly

Resumen

New product development (NPD) collaborations with external partners involve high coordination costs and run substantial risks. Formalization seems to be an effective mechanism to mitigate said costs and risks, although the issue of whether formalization actually proves productive or counterproductive remains an open question. This study empirically analyses the direct impact of formalization and the interaction effect between formalization and trust between partners in order to gauge their influence on NPD collaboration performance. Findings indicate that formalization directly boosts the quality and novelty of the new product developed in collaboration, but that it does not affect adherence to schedule. In addition, trust reinforces the productive effect of formalization on new product quality and novelty, and makes the impact of formalization on adherence to schedule positive. However, without trust, we find a null impact of formalization on new product quality and a counterproductive impact on adherence to schedule. These results suggest that formalization and trust may complement each other, reinforcing each other’s positive effect on new product quality and novelty and presenting a positive synergistic effect, while helping to overcome the counterproductive effect of formalization on adherence to schedule.

Información de financiación

The authors are grateful for the financial support of the Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad, Plan Estatal de Investigación Científica y Técnica y de Innovación 2013–2016, project reference ECO2017-86628-P.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Adler, P. S., Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 61–89.
  • Armstrong, J. S., Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 369–402.
  • Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.
  • Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., Singh, S. (1991). On the use of structural equation models in experimental designs: Two extensions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8(2), 125–140.
  • Barnes, T. A., Pashby, I. R., Gibbons, A. M. (2002). Effective university—Industry interaction: A multi-case evaluation of collaborative R&D projects. European Management Journal, 20(3), 272–285.
  • Barnes, T. A., Pashby, I. R., Gibbons, A. M. (2006). Managing collaborative R&D projects development of a practical management tool. International Journal of Project Management, 24(5), 395–404.
  • Baum, J. R., Wally, S. (2003). Strategic decision speed and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 24(11), 1107–1129.
  • Bierly, P. E., Damanpour, F., Santoro, M. D. (2009). The application of external knowledge: Organizational conditions for exploration and exploitation. Journal of Management Studies, 46(3), 481–509.
  • Blatt, R. (2009). Tough love: How communal schemas and contracting practices build relational capital in entrepreneurial teams. Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 533–551.
  • Blindenbach-Driessen, F., van Dalen, J., van den Ende, J. (2010). Subjective performance assessment of innovation projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(4), 572–592.
  • Blomqvist, K., Hurmelinna, P., Seppänen, R. (2005). Playing the collaboration game right—Balancing trust and contracting. Technovation, 25(5), 497–504.
  • Bonner, J. M., Ruekert, R. W., Walker, O. C. (2002). Upper management control of new product development projects and project performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(3), 233–245.
  • Brettel, M., Heinemann, F., Engelen, A., Neubauer, S. (2011). Cross-functional integration of R&D, marketing, and manufacturing in radical and incremental product innovations and its effects on project effectiveness and efficiency. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(2), 251–269.
  • Brockman, B. K., Rawlston, M. E., Jones, M. A., Halstead, D. (2010). An exploratory model of interpersonal cohesiveness in new product development teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(2), 201–219.
  • Bstieler, L. (2006). Trust formation in collaborative new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23, 56–72.
  • Bstieler, L., Hemmert, M. (2015). The effectiveness of relational and contractual governance in new product development collaborations: Evidence from Korea. Technovation, 45, 29–39.
  • Bstieler, L., Hemmert, M., Barczak, G. (2015). Trust formation in university–industry collaborations in the US biotechnology industry: IP policies, shared governance, and champions. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(1), 111–121.
  • Cabeza-Pullés, D., Gutierrez-Gutierrez, L. J., Llorens-Montes, F. J. (2018). Drivers for performance in innovative research groups: The mediating role of transactive memory system. Business Research Quarterly, 21(3), 180–194.
  • Carbonell, P., Escudero-Rodríguez, A. I., Pujari, D. (2009).
  • Customer involvement in new service development: An examination of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(5), 536–550.
  • Carson, S. J., Madhok, A., Wu, T. (2006). Uncertainty, opportunism, and governance: The effects of volatility and ambiguity on formal and relational contracting. Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 1058–1077.
  • Chen, Y. C., Li, P. C., Arnold, T. J. (2013). Effects of collaborative communication on the development of market-relating capabilities and relational performance metrics in industrial markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(8), 1181–1191.
  • Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., Aiken, L. S. (2013). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.
  • Cohen, W. M., Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(3), 128–152.
  • Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2004). Benchmarking best NPD practices-I. Research-Technology Management, 47(1), 31–43.
  • Couchman, P. K., Fulop, L. (2009). Examining partner experience in cross-sector collaborative projects focused on the commercialization of R&D. Innovation, 11(1), 85–103.
  • Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555–590.
  • De Luca, L. M., Atuahene-Gima, K. (2007). Market knowledge dimensions and cross-functional collaboration: Examining the different routes to product innovation performance. Journal of Marketing, 71(1), 95–112.
  • Deshpandé, R., Zaltman, G. (1982). Factors affecting the use of market research information: A path analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 14–31.
  • Dickson, P. H., Weaver, K. M., Hoy, F. (2006). Opportunism in the R&D alliances of SMES: The roles of the institutional environment and SME size. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(4), 487–513.
  • Duso, T., Pennings, E., Seldeslachts, J. (2010). Learning dynamics in research alliances: A panel data analysis. Research Policy, 39(6), 776–789.
  • Dyer, J. H., Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660–679.
  • Estrada, I., Faems, D., de Faria, P. (2016). Coopetition and product innovation performance: The role of internal knowledge sharing mechanisms and formal knowledge protection mechanisms. Industrial Marketing Management, 53, 56–65.
  • Faems, D., Janssens, M., Bouwen, R., Van Looy, B. (2006). Governing explorative R&D alliances: Searching for effective strategies. Management Revue, 17, 9–29.
  • Faems, D., Janssens, M., Madhok, A., Van Looy, B. (2008). Toward an integrative perspective on alliance governance: Connecting contract design, trust dynamics, and contract application. Academy of Management Journal, 51(6), 1053–1078.
  • Fornell, C., Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
  • Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(1), 115–134.
  • Fritsch, M., Lukas, R. (2001). Who cooperates on RyD? Research Policy, 30(2), 297–312.
  • García-Canal, E., Valdés-Llaneza, A., Sánchez-Lorda, P. (2008). Technological flows and choice of joint ventures in technology alliances. Research Policy, 37(1), 97–114.
  • Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J. B. E. (2000). Economic and social satisfaction: Measurement and relevance to marketing channel relationships. Journal of Retailing, 76(1), 11–32.
  • Ghoshal, S., Moran, P. (1996). Bad for practice: A critique of the transaction cost theory. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 13–47.
  • Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.
  • Griffin, A., Page, A. L. (1996). PDMA success measurement project: Recommended measures for product development success and failure. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13(6), 478–496.
  • Gulati, R. (1995). Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 85–112.
  • Gundlach, G. T., Achrol, R. S., Mentzer, J. T. (1995). The structure of commitment in exchange. Journal of Marketing, 59(1), 78–92.
  • Hair, J. F., Jr., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). SAGE.
  • Heide, J. B., Wathne, K. H., Rokkan, A. I. (2007). Interfirm monitoring, social contracts, and relationship outcomes. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(3), 425–433.
  • Hoegl, M., Wagner, S. M. (2005). Buyer-supplier collaboration in product development projects. Journal of Management, 31(4), 530–548.
  • Hoetker, G., Mellewigt, T. (2009). Choice and performance of governance mechanisms: Matching alliance governance to asset type. Strategic Management Journal, 30(10), 1025–1044.
  • Holahan, P. J., Sullivan, Z. Z., Markham, S. K. (2014). Product development as core competence: How formal product development practices differ for radical, more innovative, and incremental product innovations. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(2), 329–345.
  • Janowicz-Panjaitan, M., Noorderhaven, N. G. (2008). Formal and informal interorganizational learning within strategic alliances. Research Policy, 37(8), 1337–1355.
  • Joshi, A. W. (2009). Continuous supplier performance improvement: Effects of collaborative communication and control. Journal of Marketing, 73(1), 133–150.
  • Kahn, K. B., Barczak, G., Moss, R. (2006). Perspective: Establishing an NPD best practices framework. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(2), 106–116.
  • Kale, P., Singh, H., Perlmutter, H. (2000). Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: Building relational capital. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 217–237.
  • Kawakami, T., MacLachlan, D. L., Stringfellow, A. (2012). New venture performance in China, Japan, and the United States: The impact of formalized market information processes. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(2), 275–287.
  • Knudsen, M. P., Mortensen, T. B. (2011). Some immediate—but negative—effects of openness on product development performance. Technovation, 31(1), 54–64.
  • Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11(4), 1–10.
  • Koen, P., Ajamian, G., Burkart, R., Clamen, A., Davidson, J., D’Amore, R., Karol, R. (2001). Providing clarity and a common language to the “fuzzy front end.” ResearchTechnology Management, 44(2), 46–55.
  • Lau, A. K. W., Tang, E., Yam, C. M. (2010). Effects of supplier and customer integration on product innovation and performance: Empirical evidence in Hong Kong manufacturers. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27, 761–777.
  • Ledwith, A., O’Dwyer, M. (2009). Market orientation, NPD performance, and organizational performance in small firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(6), 652–661.
  • Lee, J. (2011). The alignment of contract terms for knowledgecreating and knowledge-appropriating relationship portfolios. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 110–127.
  • Leifer, R., McDermott, C. M., O’Connor, G. C., Peters, L. S., Veryzer, R. W. (2000). Radical innovation: How mature firms can outsmart upstarts. Harvard Business School Press.
  • Lindell, M. K., Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121.
  • Littler, D., Leverick, F., Bruce, M. (1995). Factors affecting the process of collaborative product development: A study of UK manufacturers of information and communications technology products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 12(1), 16–32.
  • Lui, S. S., Ngo, H. Y. (2004). The role of trust and contractual safeguards on cooperation in non-equity alliances. Journal of Management, 30(4), 471–485.
  • Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., Patil, A. (2006). Common method variance in IS research: A comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Management Science, 52(12), 1865–1883.
  • Maltz, E., Kohli, A. K. (1996). Market intelligence dissemination across functional boundaries. Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 47–61.
  • Martínez-Noya, A., Narula, R. (2018). What more can we learn from R&D alliances? A review and research agenda. Business Research Quarterly, 21(3), 195–212.
  • Massey, G. R., Kyriazis, E. (2007). Interpersonal trust between marketing and R&D during new product development projects. European Journal of Marketing, 41(9–10), 1146–1172.
  • McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24–59.
  • Mellewigt, T., Madhok, A., Weibel, A. (2007). Trust and formal contracts in interorganizational relationships—Substitutes and complements. Managerial and Decision Economics, 28(8), 833–847.
  • Menor, L. J., Tatikonda, M. V., Sampson, S. E. (2002). New service development: Areas for exploitation and exploration. Journal of Operations Management, 20(2), 135–157.
  • Mesquita, L. F., Lazzarini, S. G. (2008). Horizontal and vertical relationships in developing economies: Implications for SMEs’ access to global markets. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 359–380.
  • Michaels, R. E., Cron, W. L. L., Dubinsky, A. J., Joachimsthal, E. A. (1988). Influence of formalization on the organizational commitment and work alienation of salespeople and industry buyers. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(4), 376–380.
  • Michaels, R. E., Dubinsky, A. J. (1996). The effects of organizational formalization on organizational commitment and work alienation in US, Japanese and Korean industrial salesforces. European Journal of Marketing, 30(7), 8–24.
  • Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organization: A synthesis of the research. Prentice Hall.
  • Mintzberg, H. (1994). The fall and rise of strategic planning. Harvard Business Review, 72(1), 107–114.
  • Miotti, L., Sachwald, F. (2003). Co-operative RyD. Why and with whom? An integrated framework of analysis. Research Policy, 32(8), 1481–1499.
  • Moenaert, R. K., Souder, W. E., Meyer, A. D., Deschoolmeester, D. (1994). R&D-marketing integration mechanisms, communication flows, and innovation success. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11(1), 31–45.
  • Mohr, J. J., Spekman, R. (1994). Characteristics of partnership success: Partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques. Strategic Management Journal, 15(2), 135–152.
  • Mohr, J. J., Fisher, R. J., Nevin, J. R. (1996). Collaborative communication in interfirm relationships: Moderating effects of integration and control. Journal of Marketing, 60, 103–115.
  • Montoya-Weiss, M. M., O’Driscoll, T. M. (2000). From experience: Applying performance support technology in the fuzzy front end. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17(2), 143–161.
  • Nieto, M., Quevedo, P. (2005). Absorptive capacity, technological opportunity, knowledge spillovers and innovative effort. Technovation, 25, 1141–1157.
  • Nieto, M. J., Santamaría, L. (2010). Technological collaboration: Bridging the innovation gap between small and large firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 48(1), 44–69.
  • Noordhoff, C. S., Kyriakopoulos, K., Moorman, C., Pauwels, P., Dellaert, B. G. (2011). The bright side and dark side of embedded ties in business-to-business innovation. Journal of Marketing, 75(5), 34–52.
  • Nooteboom, B. (1999). Innovation, learning and industrial organisation. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23(2), 127–150.
  • Oxley, J. E. (1997). Appropriability hazards and governance in strategic alliances: A transaction cost approach. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 13(2), 387–409.
  • Peng, K., Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54(9), 741–754.
  • Petersen, K. J., Handfield, R. B., Ragatz, G. L. (2005). Supplier integration into new product development: Coordinating product, process and supply chain design. Journal of Operations Management, 23(3–4), 371–388.
  • Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D., Neely, A. (2004). Networking and innovation: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5–6, 137–168.
  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
  • Poppo, L., Zenger, T. (2002). Do formal contracts and relational governance function as substitutes or complements? Strategic Management Journal, 23(8), 707–725.
  • Poskela, J., Martinsuo, M. (2009). Management control and strategic renewal in the front end of innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(6), 671–684.
  • Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 116–145.
  • Provan, K. G., Skinner, S. J. (1989). Interorganizational dependence and control as predictors of opportunism in dealersupplier relations. Academy of Management Journal, 32(1), 202–212.
  • Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M., Henseler, J. (2009). An empirical comparison of the efficacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(4), 332–344.
  • Rindfleisch, A., Moorman, C. (2001). The acquisition and utilization of information in new product alliances: A strengthof-ties perspective. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 1–18.
  • Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Straub, D. (2012). A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), iii–xiv.
  • Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404.
  • Ryall, M. D., Sampson, R. C. (2009). Formal contracts in the presence of relational enforcement mechanisms: Evidence from technology development projects. Management Science, 55(6), 906–925.
  • Salomo, S., Talke, K., Strecker, N. (2008). Innovation field orientation and its effect on innovativeness and firm performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(6), 560–576.
  • Sampson, R. C. (2004). The cost of misaligned governance in R&D alliances. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 20(2), 484–526.
  • Sarin, S., Mahajan, V. (2001). The effect of reward structures on the performance of cross-functional product development teams. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 35–53.
  • Schleimer, S. C., Faems, D. (2016). Connecting interfirm and intrafirm collaboration in NPD projects: Does innovation context matter? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(2), 154–165.
  • Schrader, S. (1991). Informal technology transfer between firms: Cooperation through information trading. Research Policy, 20(2), 153–170.
  • Sivadas, E., Dwyer, F. R. (2000). An examination of organizational factors influencing new product success in internal and alliance-based processes. Journal of Marketing, 64(1), 31–49.
  • Song, X. M., Montoya-Weiss, M. M. (1998). Critical development activities for really new versus incremental products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(2), 124–135.
  • Tatikonda, M. V., Montoya-Weiss, M. (2001). Integrating operations and marketing perspectives of product innovation: The influence of organizational process factors and capabilities on development performance. Management Science, 47(1), 151–172.
  • Tatikonda, M. V., Rosenthal, S. R. (2000). Successful execution of product development projects: Balancing firmness and flexibility in the innovation process. Journal of Operations Management, 18(4), 401–425.
  • Thompson, M. (2005). Structural and epistemic parameters in communities of practice. Organization Science, 16(2), 151–164.
  • Tortoriello, M., Krackhardt, D. (2010). Activating cross-boundary knowledge: The role of Simmelian ties in the generation of innovations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 167–181.
  • Veryzer, R. W. (1998). Discontinuous product development and the product development process. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(4), 304–321.
  • Vlaar, P. W., Van den Bosch, F. A., Volberda, H. W. (2006). Coping with problems of understanding in interorganizational relationships: Using formalization as a means to make sense. Organization Studies, 27(11), 1617–1638.
  • Vlaar, P. W., Van Den Bosch, F. A., Volberda, H. W. (2007). Towards a dialectic perspective on formalization in interorganizational relationships: How alliance managers capitalize on the duality inherent in contracts, rules and procedures. Organization Studies, 28(4), 437–466.
  • Wallenburg, C. M., Schäffler, T. (2014). The interplay of relational governance and formal control in horizontal alliances: A social contract perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 50(2), 41–58.
  • Walter, A., Auer, M., Ritter, T. (2006). The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university spin-off performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(4), 541–567.
  • Walter, S. G., Walter, A., Müller, D. (2015). Formalization, communication quality, and opportunistic behavior in R&D alliances between competitors. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(6), 954–970.
  • Wathne, K. H., Heide, J. B. (2000). Opportunism in interfirm relationships: Forms, outcomes, and solutions. Journal of Marketing, 64(4), 36–51.
  • Zahra, G., George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review and reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 27, 185–203.