Table 5 Triadic relationships in... | Emerald Publishing

Table 5

Triadic relationships in innovation projects – Prostate, IoT, Panel

Relational view construct and project performance		Quaser Prostate	BeEnergy IoT	Heliland Panel
Governance structure	*Type of suppliers involved*	A direct supplier for developing the laser beam; an indirect supplier for developing the reflective cylinder	A direct supplier for developing the software for the central control system; an indirect supplier for supporting the development of some code aspects	A direct supplier for developing the panel; an indirect supplier for developing the main material (phenolic resin)
	*Type of buyer–supplier relationship*	Formal and direct only with the direct supplier	Formal and direct only with the direct supplier	Formal and direct only with the direct supplier
	*Type of supplier–supplier relationship*	Formal and direct	Formal and direct	Formal and direct
Complementary resources		Suppliers involved to provide primarily managerial resources and capabilities “The supplier was a leader in the market, and definitely reliable to manage the interface with the indirect supplier … They have as much project management experience as we do” (QB1)	Suppliers involved to provide primarily managerial resources and capabilities “…we were asked to develop the main software … but we were first responsible for favoring integration of one of our suppliers as well” (BS1)	Suppliers involved to provide primarily managerial resources and capabilities “We trusted the supplier and their capabilities to select and involve the right strategic partner without the need for us to be involved” (HLB1)
Relationship-specific assets		Joint goals definition and PMS design	Joint goals definition and PMS design	Joint goals definition
		Development of a platform for co-design	Definition of cost/benefit sharing mechanisms	Definition of cost/benefit sharing mechanisms
		Information systems integration for real-time information sharing	Development of a platform for co-design	Information systems integration for real-time information sharing
		Buyer’s physical asset sharing with suppliers	Continuous communication channel through frequent meetings	Continuous communication channel through regular meetings
Knowledge exchange	*Buyer–suppliers*	Very high “Information exchange was intense, especially at the beginning … we were fully informed and aligned about the involvement process for the second-tier supplier” (QB2)	Very high “Our engineers had an executive meeting with the supplier every week … updates about the application and system development were provided to each other” (BB2)	Very high “This [direct] supplier was the only actor having a full understanding of project progress … we discussed technical and managerial issues every other day” (HLB2)
Knowledge exchange	*Supplier–supplier*	High “We learned a lot from this project, from both the customer and our supplier” (QB1)	High “The two suppliers worked basically side-by-side for the whole duration of their activities, given the existing interconnection” (BB1)	High “We were chasing them [the other supplier] every 2–3 days, to update them, receive information and assure we were on track with industry standards” (HLS1)
Innovation project performance	*Cost*	Exceed expectations “There were some delays, but overall, it was a very efficient project … we used resources wisely” (QB2)	Exceed expectations “The project was able to save 10% of the budget costs … we thought supplier involvement would have been more complicated” (BB3)	Exceed expectations “We did not use all the resources, especially labor costs … the fact we did not directly manage the interface with one supplier definitely helped” (HLB1)
	*Time*	Below expectations “The laser system was delivered on time, but quality control and testing took a very long time … we finished 1.5 months later than expected” (QB2)	Below expectations “Some project activities were really slow; we ended up with more than two months of delay” (BB3)	In line with expectations “We worked to deliver the panel parts on time and ready to be installed … it seems that everything was good” (HLS3)
	*Quality*	In line with expectations “Overall, the machine was good … we initially include features that were not really feasible” (QB2)	In line with expectations “The final result was satisfactory … there will be space in the future to include more functionalities” (BB3)	In line with expectations “Materials unavailability required some design changes … at the end, the innovation was nicely introduced” (HLB2)

Relational view construct and project performance		Quaser Prostate	BeEnergy IoT	Heliland Panel
Governance structure	Type of suppliers involved	A direct supplier for developing the laser beam; an indirect supplier for developing the reflective cylinder	A direct supplier for developing the software for the central control system; an indirect supplier for supporting the development of some code aspects	A direct supplier for developing the panel; an indirect supplier for developing the main material (phenolic resin)
	Type of buyer–supplier relationship	Formal and direct only with the direct supplier	Formal and direct only with the direct supplier	Formal and direct only with the direct supplier
	Type of supplier–supplier relationship	Formal and direct	Formal and direct	Formal and direct
Complementary resources		Suppliers involved to provide primarily managerial resources and capabilities“The supplier was a leader in the market, and definitely reliable to manage the interface with the indirect supplier … They have as much project management experience as we do” (QB1)	Suppliers involved to provide primarily managerial resources and capabilities“…we were asked to develop the main software … but we were first responsible for favoring integration of one of our suppliers as well” (BS1)	Suppliers involved to provide primarily managerial resources and capabilities“We trusted the supplier and their capabilities to select and involve the right strategic partner without the need for us to be involved” (HLB1)
Relationship-specific assets		Joint goals definition and PMS design	Joint goals definition and PMS design	Joint goals definition
		Development of a platform for co-design	Definition of cost/benefit sharing mechanisms	Definition of cost/benefit sharing mechanisms
		Information systems integration for real-time information sharing	Development of a platform for co-design	Information systems integration for real-time information sharing
		Buyer’s physical asset sharing with suppliers	Continuous communication channel through frequent meetings	Continuous communication channel through regular meetings
Knowledge exchange	Buyer–suppliers	Very high“Information exchange was intense, especially at the beginning … we were fully informed and aligned about the involvement process for the second-tier supplier” (QB2)	Very high“Our engineers had an executive meeting with the supplier every week … updates about the application and system development were provided to each other” (BB2)	Very high“This [direct] supplier was the only actor having a full understanding of project progress … we discussed technical and managerial issues every other day” (HLB2)
Knowledge exchange	Supplier–supplier	High“We learned a lot from this project, from both the customer and our supplier” (QB1)	High“The two suppliers worked basically side-by-side for the whole duration of their activities, given the existing interconnection” (BB1)	High“We were chasing them [the other supplier] every 2–3 days, to update them, receive information and assure we were on track with industry standards” (HLS1)
Innovation project performance	Cost	Exceed expectations“There were some delays, but overall, it was a very efficient project … we used resources wisely” (QB2)	Exceed expectations“The project was able to save 10% of the budget costs … we thought supplier involvement would have been more complicated” (BB3)	Exceed expectations“We did not use all the resources, especially labor costs … the fact we did not directly manage the interface with one supplier definitely helped” (HLB1)
	Time	Below expectations“The laser system was delivered on time, but quality control and testing took a very long time … we finished 1.5 months later than expected” (QB2)	Below expectations“Some project activities were really slow; we ended up with more than two months of delay” (BB3)	In line with expectations“We worked to deliver the panel parts on time and ready to be installed … it seems that everything was good” (HLS3)
	Quality	In line with expectations“Overall, the machine was good … we initially include features that were not really feasible” (QB2)	In line with expectations“The final result was satisfactory … there will be space in the future to include more functionalities” (BB3)	In line with expectations“Materials unavailability required some design changes … at the end, the innovation was nicely introduced” (HLB2)