4.5 Article

Search for alternatives and collaboration with incumbents: Two-sided sourcing behavior in business markets

期刊

DECISION SCIENCES
卷 39, 期 1, 页码 85-114

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00183.x

关键词

Regression Methods; Sourcing Selection; Supplier Relationship Management

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sourcing strategies in business markets have been considered separately and the practice of two-sided sourcing behavior-engaging in search for alternative suppliers and collaboration with an incumbent supplier-has not been examined. To fill that gap, we first identify boundary conditions under which the poor performance of an incumbent supplier intensifies an original equipment manufacturer's (OEM) search and collaboration. Then, we examine how an OEM's two-sided sourcing behavior influences one of the critical elements of sourcing performance: the responsiveness of the incumbent supplier. Our proposed hypotheses were tested with data from a national survey of 539 OEM purchasing managers in the Japanese electronics industry. The analysis results indicate three main findings. First, two environmental conditions-pace of technological change and volume uncertainty-have contrasting influences on the link between incumbent supplier performance and an OEM's search and collaboration. While uncertainty from the upstream channel (pace of technological change) enhances an OEM's search and collaboration, uncertainty from the downstream channel (volume uncertainty) lowers an OEM's search and collaboration. Second, an OEM's dependence on its incumbent supplier has differential effects: an OEM reduces search as its dependence on incumbent supplier increases, while it enhances collaboration as its dependence on incumbent supplier increases. Third, while search alone has a negative effect on responsiveness of an incumbent supplier, engaging in two-sided sourcing behavior (i.e., combining search with collaboration) has a positive effect on responsiveness of the incumbent supplier.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据