Table 3 Triadic relationships in... | Emerald Publishing

Table 3

Triadic relationships in innovation projects – Elastic and Weapon

Relational view construct and project performance		Heartchild Elastic	Heliland Weapon
Governance structure	*Type of suppliers involved*	Two direct suppliers of high-tech fibers	Two 1st tier suppliers of strategic parts of the weapon system equipment
	*Type of buyer–supplier relationship*	Formal and direct with both suppliers	Formal and direct with both suppliers
	*Type of supplier–supplier relationship*	Absent (coordination managed by the buyer)	Absent (coordination managed by the buyer)
Complementary resources		Suppliers involved to provide primarily technical resources and capabilities “Involving suppliers helped us to gain a clearer knowledge about the process development of components and possible integration issues with the final product” (HCB2)	Suppliers involved to provide primarily technical resources and capabilities “Both suppliers were involved early … we wanted to gain as much knowledge as possible about parts development and integration in the final product” (HLB3)
Relationship-specific assets		Dedicated team to support effective suppliers’ integration	Dedicated team to support effective suppliers’ integration
		Definition of cost/benefit sharing mechanisms	Definition of cost/benefit sharing mechanisms
		Colocation of buyer’s engineers on suppliers’ facilities	Suppliers’ training on quality and technical aspects
		Information systems integration for real-time information sharing	Definition of customized non-disclosure agreement documents
Knowledge exchange	*Buyer–suppliers*	Very high “The colocation of our technical people on suppliers’ sites helped a lot a constant knowledge exchange about development decisions” (HCB2)	Very high “We learned a lot from both suppliers … they were happy to give us more information than needed, and we gave them as much as visibility as possible” (HLB3)
Knowledge exchange	*Supplier–supplier*	Absent “We did not even tell suppliers their respective names … they both work with other competitors … we do not want them to have full visibility on the new product” (HCB1)	Absent “There is a lot of confidentiality in our projects … avoiding contacts between suppliers was an obliged choice in this case … we must coordinate suppliers’ interaction and knowledge exchange for confidentiality reasons” (HLB1)
Innovation project performance	*Cost*	In line with expectations “There was an unexpected higher use of materials that caused an increase of costs, but we were able to counterbalance by saving on other resources” (HCB2)	Exceed expectations “Believe it or not, in the end, we were able to save 5% of the cost that we planned to use” (HLB3)
	*Time*	Below expectations “The suppliers provided the materials on time …; at the end, we had a delay of a couple of weeks because some additional quality tests were required” (HCB1)	Below expectations “We were late one month in delivering the final version of the component” (HLS1) “Suppliers were late, we were late, and Quality took forever to give us the final go” (HLB3)
	*Quality*	In line with expectations “We develop a very innovative material, even stronger than what requested by them” (HCS2) “We had no quality issue with the final product” (HCB2)	Below expectations “The parts developed by the suppliers were very critical … there were some problems at the end that pushed us to review some of the initially planned functionalities” (HLB1)

Relational view construct and project performance		Heartchild Elastic	Heliland Weapon
Governance structure	Type of suppliers involved	Two direct suppliers of high-tech fibers	Two 1st tier suppliers of strategic parts of the weapon system equipment
	Type of buyer–supplier relationship	Formal and direct with both suppliers	Formal and direct with both suppliers
	Type of supplier–supplier relationship	Absent (coordination managed by the buyer)	Absent (coordination managed by the buyer)
Complementary resources		Suppliers involved to provide primarily technical resources and capabilities“Involving suppliers helped us to gain a clearer knowledge about the process development of components and possible integration issues with the final product” (HCB2)	Suppliers involved to provide primarily technical resources and capabilities“Both suppliers were involved early … we wanted to gain as much knowledge as possible about parts development and integration in the final product” (HLB3)
Relationship-specific assets		Dedicated team to support effective suppliers’ integration	Dedicated team to support effective suppliers’ integration
		Definition of cost/benefit sharing mechanisms	Definition of cost/benefit sharing mechanisms
		Colocation of buyer’s engineers on suppliers’ facilities	Suppliers’ training on quality and technical aspects
		Information systems integration for real-time information sharing	Definition of customized non-disclosure agreement documents
Knowledge exchange	Buyer–suppliers	Very high“The colocation of our technical people on suppliers’ sites helped a lot a constant knowledge exchange about development decisions” (HCB2)	Very high“We learned a lot from both suppliers … they were happy to give us more information than needed, and we gave them as much as visibility as possible” (HLB3)
Knowledge exchange	Supplier–supplier	Absent“We did not even tell suppliers their respective names … they both work with other competitors … we do not want them to have full visibility on the new product” (HCB1)	Absent“There is a lot of confidentiality in our projects … avoiding contacts between suppliers was an obliged choice in this case … we must coordinate suppliers’ interaction and knowledge exchange for confidentiality reasons” (HLB1)
Innovation project performance	Cost	In line with expectations“There was an unexpected higher use of materials that caused an increase of costs, but we were able to counterbalance by saving on other resources” (HCB2)	Exceed expectations“Believe it or not, in the end, we were able to save 5% of the cost that we planned to use” (HLB3)
	Time	Below expectations“The suppliers provided the materials on time …; at the end, we had a delay of a couple of weeks because some additional quality tests were required” (HCB1)	Below expectations“We were late one month in delivering the final version of the component” (HLS1)“Suppliers were late, we were late, and Quality took forever to give us the final go” (HLB3)
	Quality	In line with expectations“We develop a very innovative material, even stronger than what requested by them” (HCS2)“We had no quality issue with the final product” (HCB2)	Below expectations“The parts developed by the suppliers were very critical … there were some problems at the end that pushed us to review some of the initially planned functionalities” (HLB1)