1 Introduction
2 Theoretical Background and Research Questions
2.1 Comparative Advantage Theory and Innovation Intensity
Perspective | Neoclassic Theory | Comparative Advantage Theory |
---|---|---|
Demand | Homogeneous within industries | Heterogeneous within industries |
Consumer information | Perfect and costless | Imperfect and costly |
Human motivation | Self-interest maximization | Constrained self-interest |
Firm’s objective | Profit maximization | Superior financial performance |
Firm’s information | Perfect and costless | Imperfect and costly |
Resources | Capital, labour and land | Financial, physical, legal, human, organizational, informational and relational |
Resource characteristics | Homogeneous, perfectly mobile | Heterogeneous, imperfectly mobile |
Role of management | Determine quantity and implement production function | Recognize, understand, create, select, implement and modify strategies |
Role of environment | Totally determines conduct and performance | Influences conduct and performance |
Competition | Quantity adjustment | Comparative advantage |
RQ 1: How does the intensity of an innovation influence the behavior of the decision makers?
2.2 Resource-Based View and Exclusivity of Innovation Access
RQ 2: Under what circumstances do buyers get exclusive access to innovations?
2.3 Relational View and Positive Perception of Business Relationship
RQ 3: To what extent does the relationship between a supplier and a buyer influence the decision-making behavior when exchanging innovations?
3 Background on Decision Criteria
Supplier selection | Innovation exchange | |
---|---|---|
Involved actors | Supplier and buyer | Supplier and buyer |
Exchange object | Physical goods or services | Innovative preliminary products |
Initial specification of exchange object | Buyer | Supplier |
Involved suppliers | Many | One |
Use of exchanged object | Internal use or as part of own products | Internal use or as part of own products |
Level of uncertainty | Low | High |
Risk of opportunistic behavior | Low | High |
Decision character | One/few out of many | Yes/No |
Involved divisions | Procurement or various | Various |
Task classification | Routine | Special |
4 Methodology
4.1 Process Tracing Method and Experiment Design
Factor | Characteristic value/Ranking scale | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
1 Innovation | Efficiency-enhancing | Incremental | Disruptive | |
Low | Medium | High | ||
2 Exclusivity | Exchange together with 5 other partners | Sole partner of exchange | ||
Low | High | |||
3 Economic | Low | Medium | High | |
4 Relationship | Broken | Neutral | Good | |
Low | Medium | High |
Group | Perspective | Phase 1 | Phase 2 | Phase 3 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
t1 | t2 | t3 | t4 | t5 | t6 | ||
1 | Buyer (B1) | Start Vignette | Observation | Placebo Vignette | Observation | Standard Vignette | Observation |
Supplier (S1) | Observation | Observation | Observation | ||||
2 | Buyer (B2) | Observation | Innovation Vignette | Observation | Observation | ||
Supplier (S2) | Observation | Observation | Observation | ||||
3 | Buyer (B3) | Observation | Relationship Vignette | Observation | Observation | ||
Supplier (S3) | Observation | Observation | Observation | ||||
4 | Buyer (B4) | Observation | Innovation + Relationship | Observation | Observation | ||
Supplier (S4) | Observation | Observation | Observation |
4.2 Sample
Buyer | Supplier | Unknown | SUM | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Delivered | 4067 | 20,302 | 67,768 | 92,137 |
Share | 4.41% | 22.03% | 73.55% | 100.00% |
Respondent hierarchical level | Buyer (%) | Supplier (%) | Sum (%) | Respondents by industry | Buyer (%) | Supplier (%) | Sum (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Owner/Board member | 14.7 | 20.2 | 18.8 | Industrial Products and Engineering | 23.5 | 30.5 | 28.7 |
Managing Director | 21.2 | 23.2 | 22.7 | Automotive | 11.2 | 20.5 | 18.1 |
Vice president | 14.1 | 15.2 | 14.9 | Aerospace and Defense | 10.6 | 11.2 | 11.1 |
Manager | 14.7 | 15.4 | 15.2 | Consulting and Services | 11.8 | 10.0 | 10.5 |
Team leader | 7.6 | 4.6 | 5.4 | Railway, Public Transport and Infrastructure | 5.3 | 5.0 | 5.1 |
Project manager | 8.8 | 7.8 | 8.1 | Transport and Logistics | 4.7 | 3.4 | 3.7 |
Staff member | 11.2 | 11.0 | 11.1 | Consumer and Retail | 3.5 | 2.2 | 2.5 |
Other | 7.6 | 2.4 | 3.7 | Other | 29.4 | 17.1 | 20.2 |
Sum | 100.0 | Sum | 100.0 |
4.3 Analysis
5 Findings
5.1 Relative Factor Relevance per Experiment Group
Buyer | Supplier | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B1 | B2 | B3 | B4 | S1 | S2 | S3 | S4 | |
Hit rate | 78% | 80% | 79% | 83% | 71% | 70% | 72% | 67% |
p‑value | 0.0001 | 0.0001 | 0.0001 | 0.0001 | 0.0001 | 0.0001 | 0.0001 | 0.0001 |
# Returns | 39 | 41 | 40 | 46 | 118 | 122 | 118 | 134 |
Share of returns | 5.9% | 6.2% | 6.1% | 7.0% | 17.9% | 18.5% | 17.9% | 20.4% |
Buyer | Supplier | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B1 (%) | B2 (%) | B3 (%) | B4 (%) | S1 (%) | S2 (%) | S3 (%) | S4 (%) | |
1 Innovation | 6.3 | 18.9 | 34.1 | 34.3 | 19.5 | 14.9 | 28.8 | 33.3 |
2 Exclusivity | 18.8 | 8.2 | 17.8 | 16.6 | 2.2 | 11.4 | 12.5 | 12.4 |
3 Economic | 39.5 | 43.4 | 15.9 | 17.0 | 43.5 | 40.2 | 28.4 | 22.0 |
4 Relationship | 35.5 | 29.4 | 32.2 | 32.1 | 34.8 | 33.5 | 30.2 | 32.3 |
Sum | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
5.2 Utility Analysis of Experiment Groups
Factor | Characteristic value | Group 1 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Buyer (B1) | Supplier (S1) | ||||||
Part-worth-utilities | Centered | Range | Part-worth-utilities | Centered | Range | ||
Innovation | Efficiency-enhancing | 0.16 | 0.16 | 0.32 | 0.35 | 0.33 | 0.63 |
Incremental | −0.16 | −0.16 | – | −0.28 | −0.30 | – | |
Disruptive | 0.00 | 0.00 | – | 0.00 | −0.02 | – | |
Exclusivity | Five exchange partners | 0.00 | −0.48 | 0.95 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.07 |
Sole exchange partner | 0.95 | 0.48 | – | −0.07 | −0.04 | – | |
Economic | Low | −2.00 | −1.05 | 2.00 | −1.41 | −0.73 | 1.41 |
Medium | −0.83 | 0.11 | – | −0.61 | 0.06 | – | |
High | 0.00 | 0.94 | – | 0.00 | 0.67 | – | |
Relationship | Broken | −1.17 | −0.99 | 1.80 | −1.00 | −0.71 | 1.13 |
Neutral | 0.63 | 0.81 | – | 0.13 | 0.42 | – | |
Good | 0.00 | 0.18 | – | 0.00 | 0.29 | – | |
– | LL = −306.47 | LL = −1087.62 | |||||
LLR = 263.21 | LLR = 426.84 | ||||||
p-value = 0.0001 | p-value = 0.0001 | ||||||
Hit rate = 78.3% | Hit rate = 71.4% |
Factor | Characteristic value | Group 2 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Buyer (B2) | Supplier (S2) | ||||||
Part-worth-utilities | Centered | Range | Part-worth-utilities | Centered | Range | ||
Innovation | Efficiency-enhancing | 1.36 | 0.40 | 1.54 | 0.57 | 0.37 | 0.57 |
Incremental | 1.54 | 0.57 | – | 0.03 | −0.17 | – | |
Disruptive | 0.00 | −0.97 | – | 0.00 | −0.20 | – | |
Exlusivity | Five exchange partners | 0.00 | −0.34 | 0.67 | 0.00 | 0.22 | 0.43 |
Sole exchange partner | 0.67 | 0.34 | – | −0.43 | −0.22 | – | |
Economic | Low | −3.54 | −1.79 | 3.54 | −1.53 | −0.78 | 1.53 |
Medium | −1.70 | 0.04 | – | −0.72 | 0.03 | – | |
High | 0.00 | 1.75 | – | 0.00 | 0.75 | – | |
Relationship | Broken | −0.58 | −0.99 | 2.40 | −1.05 | −0.77 | 1.27 |
Neutral | 1.82 | 1.41 | – | 0.23 | 0.50 | – | |
Good | 0.00 | −0.41 | – | 0.00 | 0.27 | – | |
– | LL = −285.15 | LL = 1136.21 | |||||
LLR = 346.04 | LLR = 419.76 | ||||||
p-value = 0.0001 | p-value = 0.0001 | ||||||
Hit rate = 80.0% | Hit rate = 69.7% |
Factor | Characteristic value | Group 3 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Buyer (B3) | Supplier (S3) | ||||||
Part-worth-utilities | Centered | Range | Part-worth-utilities | Centered | Range | ||
Innovation | Efficiency-enhancing | −5.03 | −0.54 | 8.46 | 6.56 | 1.05 | 9.97 |
Incremental | −8.46 | −3.96 | – | 9.97 | 4.46 | – | |
Disruptive | 0.00 | 4.50 | – | 0.00 | −5.51 | – | |
Exclusivity | Five exchange partners | 0.00 | −2.21 | 4.43 | 0.00 | 2.16 | 4.33 |
Sole exchange partner | 4.43 | 2.21 | – | −4.33 | −2.16 | – | |
Economic | Low | 3.95 | 1.88 | 3.95 | −9.81 | −4.94 | 9.81 |
Medium | 2.24 | 0.18 | – | −4.81 | 0.06 | – | |
High | 0.00 | −2.06 | – | 0.00 | 4.87 | – | |
Relationship | Broken | −6.03 | −1.36 | 7.99 | 5.40 | 0.12 | 10.44 |
Neutral | −7.99 | −3.31 | – | 10.44 | 5.16 | – | |
Good | 0.00 | 4.67 | – | 0.00 | −5.28 | – | |
– | LL = −273.35 | LL = 1098.58 | |||||
LLR = 262.89 | LLR = 454.82 | ||||||
p-value = 0.0001 | p-value = 0.0001 | ||||||
Hit rate = 79.5% | Hit rate = 72.1% |
Factor | Characteristic value | Group 4 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Buyer (B3) | Supplier (S3) | ||||||
Part-worth-utilities | Centered | Range | Part-worth-utilities | Centered | Range | ||
Innovation | Efficiency-enhancing | −5.73 | −0.39 | 10.27 | −7.00 | −0.55 | 12.34 |
Incremental | −10.27 | −4.94 | – | −12.34 | −5.89 | – | |
Disruptive | 0.00 | 5.33 | – | 0.00 | 6.45 | – | |
Exclusivity | Five exchange partners | 0.00 | −2.48 | 4.96 | 0.00 | −2.29 | 4.58 |
Sole exchange partner | 4.96 | 2.48 | – | 4.58 | 2.29 | – | |
Economic | Low | 5.09 | 2.49 | 5.09 | 8.18 | 4.02 | 8.18 |
Medium | 2.73 | 0.12 | – | 4.29 | 0.13 | – | |
High | 0.00 | −2.61 | – | 0.00 | −4.15 | – | |
Relationship | Broken | −6.94 | −1.43 | 9.59 | −8.13 | −1.42 | 12.00 |
Neutral | −9.59 | −4.08 | – | −12.00 | −5.29 | – | |
Good | 0.00 | 5.51 | – | 0.00 | 6.71 | – | |
– | LL = −225.25 | LL = 1276.14 | |||||
LLR = 300.87 | LLR = 342.29 | ||||||
p-value = 0.0001 | p-value = 0.0001 | ||||||
Hit rate = 82.8% | Hit rate = 67.2% |