Table 2 Triadic relationships in... | Emerald Publishing

Table 2

Triadic relationships in innovation projects – Totem and Car

Relational view construct and project performance		Konsum Totem	Ideafix Car
Governance structure	Type of suppliers involved	A direct supplier for technology design and manufacturing, and another direct supplier for the conceiving and manufacturing of totem design	Two direct suppliers of strategic components for the board computer
	Type of buyer–supplier relationship	Formal and direct with both suppliers	Formal and direct with both suppliers
	Type of supplier–supplier relationship	Formal and direct	Formal and direct
Complementary resources		Suppliers involved to provide primarily technical resources and capabilities “They [the buyer] asked to work directly with the other supplier … they gave us a blank cheque for the design and development of the technology” (KS1)	Suppliers involved to provide primarily technical resources and capabilities “Suppliers were given full responsibilities on design and development of components” (IB2)
Relationship-specific assets		Buyer’s physical asset sharing with suppliers	Dedicated team to support effective suppliers’ integration
		Colocation of suppliers on buyer’s facilities	Colocation of suppliers’ engineers on buyer’s facilities
		Platform for co-development	Information systems integration for real-time information sharing
		Frequent progress meetings	Suppliers’ training on quality aspects
Knowledge exchange	Buyer–suppliers	High “To adjust our project infrastructure to the design and development decisions, updates about suppliers’ activities were frequent and intense” (KB2)	High “We needed to discuss with both suppliers how to move forward for each development activity … we exchanged so many documents” (IB2)
Knowledge exchange	Supplier–supplier	High “The dialogue with them [the other supplier] happened daily … we needed to avoid any possible constraints on final product development” (KS1)	High “We worked side-by-side with the other supplier … there were a lot of choices that were jointly made” (IS2)
Innovation project performance	Cost	In line with expectations “We used the planned budget … coordinating with the two suppliers was not easy” (KB1)	Below expectations “We used 5% more of the budgeted costs, due to increase in labor cost” (IB3)
	Time	Exceeded expectations “The totem was developed one month in advance … this was the result of a good integration between us and the suppliers” (KB1)	Exceeded expectations “We delivered the console two months in advance” (IB2) “We both provided the components at the time that was agreed” (IS1)
	Quality	Exceeded expectations “We developed a product with functionalities that exceeded our customer’s requests” (KS1)	Exceeded expectations “Our suppliers realized the components with even better functionalities that we requested, and easy to be integrated … we did not experience any problem with the system” (IB2)

Relational view construct and project performance		Konsum Totem	Ideafix Car
Governance structure	Type of suppliers involved	A direct supplier for technology design and manufacturing, and another direct supplier for the conceiving and manufacturing of totem design	Two direct suppliers of strategic components for the board computer
	Type of buyer–supplier relationship	Formal and direct with both suppliers	Formal and direct with both suppliers
	Type of supplier–supplier relationship	Formal and direct	Formal and direct
Complementary resources		Suppliers involved to provide primarily technical resources and capabilities“They [the buyer] asked to work directly with the other supplier … they gave us a blank cheque for the design and development of the technology” (KS1)	Suppliers involved to provide primarily technical resources and capabilities“Suppliers were given full responsibilities on design and development of components” (IB2)
Relationship-specific assets		Buyer’s physical asset sharing with suppliers	Dedicated team to support effective suppliers’ integration
		Colocation of suppliers on buyer’s facilities	Colocation of suppliers’ engineers on buyer’s facilities
		Platform for co-development	Information systems integration for real-time information sharing
		Frequent progress meetings	Suppliers’ training on quality aspects
Knowledge exchange	Buyer–suppliers	High“To adjust our project infrastructure to the design and development decisions, updates about suppliers’ activities were frequent and intense” (KB2)	High“We needed to discuss with both suppliers how to move forward for each development activity … we exchanged so many documents” (IB2)
Knowledge exchange	Supplier–supplier	High“The dialogue with them [the other supplier] happened daily … we needed to avoid any possible constraints on final product development” (KS1)	High“We worked side-by-side with the other supplier … there were a lot of choices that were jointly made” (IS2)
Innovation projectperformance	Cost	In line with expectations“We used the planned budget … coordinating with the two suppliers was not easy” (KB1)	Below expectations“We used 5% more of the budgeted costs, due to increase in labor cost” (IB3)
	Time	Exceeded expectations“The totem was developed one month in advance … this was the result of a good integration between us and the suppliers” (KB1)	Exceeded expectations“We delivered the console two months in advance” (IB2)“We both provided the components at the time that was agreed” (IS1)
	Quality	Exceeded expectations“We developed a product with functionalities that exceeded our customer’s requests” (KS1)	Exceeded expectations“Our suppliers realized the components with even better functionalities that we requested, and easy to be integrated … we did not experience any problem with the system” (IB2)