Fernando Nascimento Zatta
Mackenzie Presbyterian University, Brazil
E-mail: zatta@hmzconsulting.com.br
Elmo Tambosi Filho
Federal University of Santa Catarina, Brazil
E-mail: elmotf@hotmail.com
Rodrigo Randow Freitas
Northern University
Center of Espírito Santo, Federal University of Espirito Santo-UFES, Brazil
E-mail: rodrigo.r.freitas@ufes.br
Wellington Gonçalves
Northern University
Center of Espírito Santo, Federal University of Espirito Santo-UFES, Brazil
E-mail: wellington.goncalves@ufes.br
Rodrigo Ribeiro Oliveira
Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology of
São Paulo, Brazil
E-mail: rodrigoribeirosp@hotmail.com
Liliane Cristina Segura
Mackenzie Presbyterian
University, Brazil
E-mail: lilianecristina.segura@mackenzie.br
Henrique Formigoni
Mackenzie Presbyterian University, Brazil
E-mail: henrique.formigoni@mackenzie.br
Renata Schirrmeister
Pontifical Catholic
University of São Paulo, PUC/SP, Brazil
E-mail: rschirrmeister@gmail.com
Submission: 10/27/2019
Revision: 12/19/2019
Accept: 6/8/2020
ABSTRACT
The debate about relational resources and their influences has followed an internal focus on organizations, and in the literature this has been shown to have a high influence on the ways of the resource-based view. This article aims to analyze the development of operational competencies following the focus of the relational view from the interaction of relational resources shared in supply chains. The research was guided by the strategy of multiple case studies in the steel industry, automotive and industrial applications, pulp production, and engineering for the energy industry. The results of the analysis of the four cases show that deeper relationships in the form of partnerships enable a process of investing in specific assets, knowledge accumulation, learning exchange, and a combination of complementary strategic resources that develop relational operational competencies. And, these competencies that represent the company's ability to promote a skill set to use resources efficiently and to provide a barrier to imitation are further developed by the information and knowledge constructs.
Keywords: Supply chain; Operational competencies; Operations
management; Collaborative relationship; Resource-based view; Relational view
1.
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, within the academic
and managerial environment, theoretical perspectives in the field of Operations
Management have sought to explain the development of competencies with an
internal focus on organizations (Wernerfelt, 1984; Barney, 1991; Barney &
Clark, 2007; Barney & Hesterly, 2011; Barney & Hesterly, 2011; Grant,
1991; Amit & Schoemaker, 1993; Collis & Montgomery, 1995).
All are classic authors of the
operations strategy literature. From these studies, we began to understand how
internal resources can help business strategy, and as a derivation of internal
resources, comes the relational view of the strategy focused on dyads, business
network, and strategic alliances.
With regard to resources, Grant
(1991), Barney (1991), Peteraf (1993), and Wu; Melnyk; Flynn (2010), emphasize
the need to differentiate the concepts between resources and operational
competencies, to obtain competitive advantages. Wu; Melnyk; Swink (2012)
present a discussion of resources, practices, and competencies, arguing that
operational competencies along with resources develop a barrier to imitation
and are a potential source of competitive advantage (Wu, Melnyk & Flynn,
2010).
It is noteworthy that with
increasing competition over the last decades, a more relational view has
emerged, prioritizing interorganizational relationships with the ability to
create and sustain a business strategy (Balestrin, Verschoore & Perucia,
2014). This view is corroborated by Zatta (2015), in order to develop
competencies to compete in high competition environments. For this reason,
companies seek to develop collaborative relationships to improve their
operations management (Cao & Zhang, 2011).
Ingham and Thompson (1994), Das and
Teng (2000) and, Mesquita; Anand; Brush (2008) emphasize obtaining Relational
Profits by creating or developing investments in relationship-specific assets, accumulating
knowledge, sharing learning, complementing strategic resources, and developing
relationships driven by governance mechanisms in situations that involve risk.
A relationship is realized when
partners develop trust, involvement, social relations, communication,
information, and knowledge for joint learning, recognizing that resource
sharing generates relational incomes (Dyer & Singh, 1998; Lavie, 2006; Wu,
Melnyk & Flynn, 2010).
The operational competencies
developed in Operations Management are intended to structure and direct the use
of shared resources between companies and leverage process improvement and
operational performance (Voss, 1995; Narasimhan & Swink & Kim, 2005; Wu,
Melnyk & Flynn, 2010). Synergies developed in collaborative relationships
yield greater benefits than if a company operated in the market individually (Cao,
Zhang, 2011; Dyer & Singh, 1998; Wu, Melnyk & Flynn, 2010).
According to Dyer and Singh (1998),
the relational approach (Relational View - RV) enables the relationship network
in which the company operates, promotes productivity gains for business
partners that make specific investments with unique combined resources (Asanuma,
1989; Dyer, 1996), about competitors who lack the ability to relate.
Thus, gaps on this topic are
presented by recent research. For example, Wu; Melnyk; Flynn (2010) developed
the concept of resources and competencies, from the company's internal
perspective, that is, without considering resources and operational
competencies created in the relations between companies. The theoretical review
indicated that other studies, too, did not analyze which relational resources
influence the development of operational competencies, shared in the supply
chain.
As for Brazilian companies, they
have a variety of internal resources available to be developed and/or used with
those of other companies that have the ability to influence competency
development (Wu, Melnyk & Flynn, 2010). A variety of operational practices
are required to achieve operations performance and develop distinct operational
competencies. An enterprise can anticipate and develop operational practices
and new operational competencies that have critical strategic implications for
resource allocation schemes and how these schemes affect operating performance
(Wu, Melnyk & Swink, 2012).
Thus,
a key issue for operational competency development is: what relational
resources influence the development of operational competencies, considering
various resource categories and the various operational competency categories
that represent the company's ability to promote a skill set to use resources
efficiently?
Thus,
the purpose of this article is to analyze the relational resources that
influence the development of operational competencies that promote the skills
needed to use resources efficiently. Thus, the discussion involves the
interorganizational relationship, from the integration of perspectives from the
field of internal and relational resources, involving operational competencies
and collaborative relationships.
Empirical
research conducted in companies in the steel, automotive and industrial
applications, pulp production, and engineering for the energy industry aimed to
explore this issue. The study is structured in five sections beyond this
introduction. In the second, the theoretical foundation is presented; in the
third section is the research framework; in the fourth, the methodological
procedures of the research; in the fifth, the presentation and discussion of
the research results are presented; and in the sixth and last section the
research findings. The following is the literature review.
2.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1.
Resource-Based View
Resource-based view theory argues
that competitive advantage can be gained by a firm through strategies for
exploiting resources under its control in its business environment (Barney,
1991; Wernerfelt, 1984), consisting of an important stream of strategy (Penrose,
1959; Gohr et al., 2011).
In Resource-Based View, companies
that have the potential to accumulate resources and competencies that are rare,
valuable, irreplaceable, and hard to imitate will achieve sustainable
competitive advantage over competitors (Wernerfelt, 1984; Barney, 1991; Grant,
1991; Amit & Schoemaker, 1993; Collis & Montgomery, 1995).
The traditional Resource-Based View
argument refers to resources and competencies that are acquired, controlled, or
developed internally by companies and that have sustainable competitive
advantages. However, recent studies argue that relationships between companies
can also generate competitive advantages that derive from the
interconnectedness of external resources and interrelated competencies with
partner companies.
The traditional Resource-Based View
was complemented by Dyer and Singh (1998), named Relational View, RV, and
Mathews (2003), named Extended Resource-Based View, ERBV. The characteristics
of relational features will be covered in the following section.
2.2.
Relational View
Relational
View, an expanded perspective of Resource-Based View, argues that a company's
internal resources can be combined into relationships between companies across
its borders, extending the resource-based view unit of analysis to the network
of relationships and thus develop a relational competitive advantage (Dyer
& Singh, 1998).
In
their seminal article on relational resources, Dyer and Singh (1998) argued
that a company that does not have all the resources it needs to create
competitive advantage will have to develop or combine its resources with those
of other companies (Cao & Zhang, 2011). The Relational View suggests that
relational resources create additional relational incomes developed in
relationship partner idiosyncrasies (Dyer & Singh, 1998).
The
present study follows the approach of Relational Vision defended by Dyer and
Singh (1998), which aims, in the Operations Management area, to investigate
relationships between companies that can generate competitive advantages from
the acquisition of external resources and the development of competences. (Balestrin,
Verschoore & Perucia, 2014; Zen, 2010; Dyer & Singh, 1998; Zacharia,
Nix & Lusch, 2011).
According
to the Relational Vision, the relationship strategy creates inimitable sources
of resources through a dyad/triad or company network by providing access to
valuable information, knowledge sharing, resource complementarity, investment
in relationship-specific assets, and effective governance (Balestrin,
Verschoore & Perucia, 2014).
This
process is developed through relationship structure and scope to jointly access
markets and develop an environment of innovation and improvement. As a result,
the relationship is an imitable competitive collective resource, informational
update, and reputation to empower new actions among members (Dyer & Singh,
1998; Gulati, 1999; Balestrin, Verschoore & Perucia, 2014).
Long-term
relationships generate competitive advantage through four potential sources:
investment in relationship-specific assets, substantial exchange of knowledge
for shared learning, a complementary combination of resources, assets,
competencies and skills, and lower transaction costs over time. relationship
between competitors (Dyer & Singh, 1998; Combs & Ketchen Jr., 1999;
Lavie, 2006).
Relational
Vision is not just a way of exchanging or interacting resources, but a crucial
and necessary condition for relative differences between partners to have value
for the relationship. Regarding the value of the relationship, Mesquita, Anand,
and Brush (2008) empirically tested the Relational Vision model and found that
collaborative relationships between customers and suppliers have the potential
for value generation contributing to relational performance resulting from the
exchange of technical knowledge and shared use of specific assets. They also
found evidence of the positive impact of the relationship on company
performance due to inventory reduction, consumer satisfaction, agility, and
efficiency in carrying out activities.
Resources
are formed by tangible and intangible assets, for example, brands,
technological knowledge, machines, plants, personal skills, among others (Wernerfelt,
1984). However, such resources alone only define the potential of the activity,
they are passive and reactive (Wu, Melnyk & Flynn, 2010). Operational
skills, on the other hand, represent the company's ability to promote a
personal skill set to effectively use these resources.
2.3.
Operational Competencies
Operational competencies coupled
with resources promote a barrier to imitation and act as a potential source of
sustainable competitive advantage (Wu, Melnyk & Flynn, 2010), achieved by
outperforming competitors (Hayes & Wheelwright, 1984; Voss, 1995; Laugen,
Boer & Frick, 2005).
Operations Management studies have
focused on concepts and practical applications of operational competencies (Voss,
1995; Swink, Narasimhan & Kim, 2005; Hayes et al., 2008; Wu, Melnyk &
Flynn, 2010; Santos, Gohr & Varvakis, 2011; Zatta, 2015), being an approach
that has been expanded with important contributions in the theoretical field
for competitiveness.
Operational skills are a function of
an organization's strategic commitment to process improvement (Tan, Kannan
& Narasimhan, 2007;
Wu, Melnyk & Flynn, 2010). The Resource-Based View (Penrose, 1959;
Barney, 1991; Peteraf, 1993) provides the rationale for operational competences
regarding the assumption of resource heterogeneity and suggests that
operational competencies are particularly relevant for creating primary income
(Wu, Melnyk & Flynn, 2010).
In the Operations Management
literature, operational competencies are defined in different ways, with
concepts generally interchangeable with resources and practices, without
establishing differences and boundaries between them (Hayes et al., 2008; Wu,
Melnyk & Flynn, 2010). This is an open discussion, but one that has been a
concern about what drives performance.
Thus, competencies have been defined
as the ability to efficiently exploit existing resources (March, 1991), a
category of organizational competencies aimed at performing basic functional
business activities (Collis, 1995), daily problem-solving skills (Winter,
2003), ability to perform daily activities (Pavlou; Sawy, 2011), ability to
explore the resource base through learning, process refinement, skills and
incentives needed to repeat, leverage and sustain past successes (Martin,
2011), and the result of selection of resources and practices that allow
activities to be carried out efficiency and efficacy (Paiva, 2017). The study
by Wu, Melnyk, and Flynn (2010) conceptualized operational competencies as specific
skill sets, processes, and problem-solving routines through resource
configuration. This study adopts operational competencies as a consonant (Wu,
Melnyk & Flynn, 2010).
Thus, it is emphasized that
operational competencies are a distinctive form of accumulated knowledge
necessary for practical application in manufacturing operations and processes (Wu,
Melnyk & Flynn, 2010; Wu, Melnyk & Swink, 2012; Flynn, Huo & Zhao,
2010), solving problems, dealing with operational uncertainties, as they
encompass explicit elements, such as resources and practices, and tacit
elements, as know-how, skills, and leadership (Wu, Melnyk & Flynn, 2010;
Nonaka, 1994), and are tools to achieve predicted results (Voss, 1995; Swink,
Narasimhan & Kim Swink, 2005; Wu, Melnyk & Flynn, 2010).
Based on the Operations Management
literature, based on the initial study by Swink and Hegarty (1998) and Wu,
Melnyk and Flynn (2010) developed a taxonomy of six operational competencies
within the context of product differentiation whose objective is to provide a
theoretical framework to guide its operationalization to solve business
problems:
· Operational Improvements: These occur to incrementally
enhance and enhance current operational processes and can contribute to the
organization's innovation process (Swink & Hegarty, 1998; Peng, Schroeder
& Shah, 2008);
· Operational innovations: occur through radical
improvements to existing operational processes or the creation of new unique
processes (Swink & Hegarty, 1998; Peng, Schroeder & Shah, 2008);
· Operational customizations: developed for knowledge
creation and customization of operational processes (Wheelwright & Hayes,
1985; Schroeder, Bates & Junttila, 2002);
· Operational cooperation: Refers to the ability to
develop stable relationships with internal functional areas and supply chain
partners (Swink & Hegarty, 1998; Droge, Jayaram & Vickery, 2004;
Escrig-Tena & Bou-Llusar, 2005);
· Operational responsiveness: refers to the ability to
react quickly and easily to internal and external changes (Upton, 1994; Swink
& Hegarty, 1998);
· Operational Reconfiguration: Refers to the ability to
perform the transformation necessary to re-establish the fit between operations
strategy arising from environmental contingencies (Teece, Pisano & Shuen,
1997; Swink & Hegarty, 1998; Pandža et al., 2003).
2.4.
Collaborative Supply Chain
Relationships
Changes in the dynamics of markets
and organizations in recent years have prompted studies that argue for the need
for collaborative relationships between companies and between the supply chain.
The relevance of this relationship in the chain stems from increasingly global
processes, for which companies are looking for more effective ways to
coordinate material flow (Zacharia, Nix & Lusch, 2011). In this context,
chain collaboration improves operational performance reach and competitive
advantage, in a situation of positive gains for the parties, which allows
competition with other chains (Cao & Zhang, 2011).
In the supply chain, collaboration
is expressed as the combination of activities in which two or more autonomous
companies work by joining efforts to plan and execute operations as a business
process. Such an approach enables partners to add value through sharing
information and communication, resources and risks, synchronized decisions and
congruent goals, aligning incentives and knowledge creation, reducing costs and
response time, improving resource efficiency and innovation (Burgess, Singh
& Koroglu, 2006; Cao & Zhang, 2011).
For Gulati (1999) collaboration
favors the creation of value for the chain as a whole, provides a competitive
advantage and promotes benefits through the exchange of existing knowledge and
facilitates the creation of new knowledge, the combination, and co-development
of resources and skills.
Thus, Bowersox and Closs (2001) and
David and Stewart (2008) report that collaboration creates unique
organizational and operational competencies when it includes the integration of
knowledge and interorganizational cooperation, as suppliers and customers need
knowledge regarding their position. they locate along the chain to leverage
shared resources and assist in strategic decision making.
The Relational Vision approach
allows us to state that interorganizational relationships produce information
flows, create knowledge and learning with each other, resulting in relational
income and competitive advantage as a complementary strategic resource (Dyer
& Singh, 1998; Hardy; Phillips; Lawrence, 2003 Jap, 2001; Vangen; Huxham, 2003).
Thus, companies increasingly seek to
develop strategies along the length of the chain to achieve satisfactory
performance (Krause et al., 1998; Tummala; Phillips; Johnson, 2006; Cao; Zhang,
2011; Chen; Paulraj, 2004), therefore, in the view of Rungtusanatham et al.
(2003) is the supply chain that presents itself as an area that supports the
application of different theoretical approaches to the understanding of how
companies can develop value activities, coordination Irand control of joint
actions (Lummus; Vokurka, 1999; Tan, 2002).
Increasingly deepened relationships
stem from the external competitive environment that increasingly requires
companies to engage in value activities in the business processes of the
parties to the relationship (Cooper; Lambert; Pagh, 1997; Chen; Paulraj, 2004;
Cao; Zhang, 2011).
2.5.
Research Framework
To enable the analysis of the
development of operational competencies, the proposed research model was
anchored in the main constructs of resource theory, focusing on relational
resources developed and/or shared in the relationships between supply chain
companies, on the operational competencies' constructs. Operations Management
area (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Research Framework
of Interorganizational relationships.
Source: Research
data.
The
relational view provided the basis for the analysis of how shared internal
supply chain resources promote the development of operational competencies. In
terms of dyads, we sought to understand how relational resources and
operational competencies interact in order to analyze how these competencies
are developed (Dyer & Singh, 1998).
The
Interorganizational relationships and the dynamics of competitiveness are based
on the strategic actions undertaken to develop a competitive advantage based on
resources developed and/or shared, but it is important to note that resources
alone only define the potential to perform an activity, and use in isolation
could be restricted to a small portion of companies.
Thus,
because resources are passive and reactive and only define the potential of the
activity, operational competencies are the set of personal skills and tacit
knowledge to efficiently use such resources and create barriers to imitation
and develop a competitive advantage. Although there is consensus in the
literature that resources are key components of operational competency
development, the ways in which a company's resources are used to achieve
superior operational performance is mediated by operational competencies (Wu,
Melnyk & Flynn, 2010).
3.
METHODOLOGY
The choice of sectors
and distinct industrial companies aimed to identify issues of complexity of the
phenomenon investigated in each company, as well as make comparisons, in order
to identify convergences and divergences between cases, given the specificities
of each sector (Eisenhardt, 1989; Meredith, 1998).
The companies in the
surveyed sectors were chosen due to their particularities, strategic position
in the Brazilian and world scenario, level of employability, a world reference in
competitiveness and income, and tax generation. The first company studied
belongs to the steel industry and the second to the automotive applications
sector, whose main client is the Brazilian and world automotive industry.
The initial data
collection approach was performed through in-depth semi-structured interviews (Collis
& Hussey, 2005; Miguel, 2010; Lockstrom et al., 2011; Grötsch, Blome &
Schleper, 2013), and data were collected through a pre-tested roadmap and
confirmed by academics and experts in Operations and Supply Chain Management.
Thus, the answers were obtained from thirteen managers and specialists, who
were selected regarding their knowledge - involving areas such as supply
oversight, supply chain management, operations managers, planning and control
management, Quality Analyst, Logistics Management, Human Resources,
Procurement, and Process Engineering, and on the subject of research (Collis
& Hussey, 2005).
The interview script
was prepared in three blocks: Block 1 - with six questions that characterize
the profile of strategic suppliers; Block 2 - with six questions that
characterize the collaborative relationship between focus companies and
strategic suppliers; and Block 3 - with 17 questions related to relational
resources and operational competences. The interviews lasted an average of one
hour and forty minutes at each of the four companies, however, at the steel
company (Alpha), data collection was carried out in two face-to-face rounds,
and at the automotive and industrial applications company. (Gama), data
collection was performed in three rounds. The total duration of the interviews
was eight hours and twenty minutes.
The unit of analysis
was the supply chain and the investigation took place on the focus side of the
steelmaking (Alpha), automotive and industrial applications (Beta), pulp
processing (Gamma), and flexible tube manufacturing and application segments
(Delta). Thus, although the interview script was applied to the focus companies
individually, the collected data reflect perceptions and initiatives adopted by
the buyers and suppliers link and the nature of the relationship (Chen &
Paulraj, 2004).
Due to the exploratory
approach used in the operationalization and use of constructs (Miguel, 2010),
we adopted the analysis of principal components for individual discussion and
triangulation of results. Data analysis of multiple case studies was performed
primarily by individual case analysis and then cross-comparative and case
analysis.
Data evaluation
followed the content analysis proposed by Bardin (1977) and the general
analytical procedure proposed by Collis and Hussey (2005). This general
analytical procedure adopted in data analysis includes the use of data
interpretation and coding techniques, which allowed the systematic texts to be
transformed into numerical variables that allowed the quantitative analysis of
these data.
Thus, content analysis
was used as the formal method of qualitative data collected in field research (Collis
& Hussey, 2005). The result of the content analysis was obtained through
the following steps: (i) pre-analysis with the transcription of the interview
reports with the researcher's perceptions and reflections, aiming at the data
analysis and interpretation; (ii) data analysis and grouping into analytical
categories. In this scenario, the assumptions of reliability and validity of
the research were also used, which are criteria to judge the quality of the
present study (Miguel, 2010), which Yin (2010) calls dimensions that should be
adopted as points of attention to the patient. throughout the development of
the research.
4.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1.
Main Characteristics Of The
Relationship Between Supply Chain
Qualitative
assessment of the value activities of the focus companies in which strategic suppliers
are involved comprised of research into the characteristics of the strategic
supplier and the collaborative relationship with the focus company.
The value activities, in which
strategic suppliers are involved that presented the greatest Provide questions
and answers in the four investigated cases are: development of new products and
management of the principles and guidelines of quality, applied in the focus
companies processes (Cooper, Lambert & Pagh, 1997; Chen & Paulraj,
2004, Cao & Zhang, 2011). There was also convergence between the results
obtained in the companies Alpha and Gama, regarding the joint execution of
production and inventory management.
The
companies Beta and Gama, in turn, showed convergence, regarding the management
of delivery times of raw materials. In general, it can be stated that, in the
investigated cases, the collaborative relationship favors the exchange of
information and knowledge sharing, which results in joint learning (Dyer &
Singh, 1998).
All
contracts are entered into to meet the supply needs of the focus companies, due
to the high criticality of the products and the dependence on raw materials.
Alfa uses commodity raw materials, and it is usual practice in the
international market to contract advance purchases, which can be up to two
years in advance.
Delta,
which operates with flexible tubes, has as its purchasing strategy the
formalization of long-term contracts, made for multi-annual periods (three
years), adopting an advance pricing policy. Gama negotiates prices through a
purchase agreement with wood producers in the domestic market. This was found
to be a strong market feature.
However,
respondents understand that the relative importance of the transactional
mechanism is low; Relational characteristics are more present in the
relationship, as they understand that the relationship provides greater
opportunities to establish deeper relationships with strategic suppliers.
Collaborative
activities are diverse, with the sharing and synchronization of business
processes to acquire raw materials and components, obtain finished products,
and distribute products to customers (Cao & Zangh, 2011) are the most
present. Focus firms have often been found to seek the sharing of goods, key
equipment, intellectual property, as well as the transfer and creation of new
knowledge.
The
most commonly used shared relational resources are the investment in specific
assets, information exchange, knowledge sharing, and complementary resources (Dyer
& Singh, 1998). Investment in specific assets in production facilities within
the Alpha and Gama plants was identified by strategic suppliers. At Alpha,
investments were made by suppliers unilaterally. It was found that the other
relational mechanisms are more intense in the Alpha and Gama companies, showing
that the structures of the steel and pulp sectors are more prone to resource
sharing. This may be linked to the size of the companies, aspects related to
the financial strength, and the ability to relate to the international market,
among other aspects.
It
is important to highlight the strong presence of relational mechanisms
information exchange and knowledge sharing in the four cases investigated. It
was found that tacit skills, experiences, and more qualified learning,
resulting from the sharing of information and knowledge, were the resources
considered most important for the performance of activities, whether relational
or not.
Resource
sharing linked to operational proximity and relationship duration has been
found to build greater trust between partners, create relevant operational
knowledge and skills to support internal processes and external relationships,
resulting in the development of relational operational competencies (Dierickx
& Cool, 1989; Amit & Schoemaker, 1993; Wu, Melnyk & Flynn, 2010).
In
the four cases investigated, it was revealed that the involvement and
engagement of the senior management of the parties are fundamental to the
success of the relationship, especially in the occurrence of informal
relationships, because it generates greater trust for the relationship.
4.2.
Relationship Between Companies -
Focus And Strategic Suppliers
The
relationship in the supply chain derives mainly from the characteristics of
collaboration, regarding the level of involvement whether deep (relational
characteristics) or superficial (transactional characteristics). Relational
characteristics are more intense than transactional characteristics. It was
evidenced that the adoption of the transactional relationship occurs so as not
to interrupt the supply of supplies, especially of raw materials, however, it
was revealed that this relationship does not affect the collaborative relations
between the parties.
Corroborating
Grant and Baden-Fuller (1995), it is found that the relationships of the focus
companies with their strategic suppliers present a deep relationship level -
partnership - in which the companies work together, showing coalition in the
accomplishment of common activities. The studied cases show that the
collaborative relationship contributes in a major way to the relational
mechanisms that overlap the transactional dimension. Respondents understand
that the transactional mechanism is reduced, mentioning that companies rely
much more on collaborative factors, engagement, and deeper and deeper
interactions with strategic vendors. The following subsection presents the
shared relational resources and operational competencies developed.
4.3.
Characterization Of Shared
Relational Resources And Operational Competencies Developed Between Focus
Companies And Strategic Suppliers
In
line with the objective of this study, which focuses on analyzing the
development of operational competences from the interaction with relational
resources, this subsection presents the results of the analysis of the research
findings, considering the extent of value activities of focus companies in
strategic suppliers are involved (Table 1), the characteristics of the
collaborative interorganizational relationship (Table 2), and the patterns of
the relationship between focus firms and strategic suppliers, discussed in the
previous subsection.
Table 1: Value activities of focus companies in which
strategic suppliers are involved.
|
|
Alfa |
Beta |
Gama |
Delta |
|
Value activities of focus companies in which
strategic suppliers are involved |
Steel |
Automotive applications |
Pulp milling |
Flexible hoses |
|
Product Development and Process Improvement |
New Product Development |
New Product Development |
New Product Development |
|
|
Planning and Production |
|
Joint Production Execution |
|
|
|
Stock Processes |
Order Tracking |
Inventory Management |
|
|
|
Packaging Processes |
Managing Raw Material Delivery Times |
Managing Raw Material Delivery Times |
|
|
|
Distribution Logistics |
|
|
|
|
|
Quality Systems |
Quality Systems |
Quality Systems |
Quality Systems |
Source:
Research data.
Table 2: Summary of key features and the way focus
companies and strategic suppliers act collaboratively.
|
|
Alfa |
Beta |
Gama |
Delta |
|
Steel |
Automotive applications |
Pulp milling |
Flexible hoses |
|
|
Vendor Selection
Method |
Proximity, Financial Strength, Quality, Time and Cost, Technology |
Proximity, Financial Strength, Quality, Time and Cost, Technology |
Proximity, Financial Strength, Quality, Time and Cost, Technology |
Proximity, Financial Strength, Quality, Time and Cost, Technology |
|
Using Contracts |
Formal Contracts (Purchase of Raw Materials) |
Formal Contracts (Purchase of Raw Materials) |
Formal Contracts (Purchase of Raw Materials) |
Formal Contracts (Purchase of Raw Materials) |
|
Collaborative assumptions for sharing high levels of interaction and
engagement |
Relationship term (predominantly long term) |
Relationship term (predominantly long term) |
Relationship term (predominantly long term) |
Relationship term (predominantly long term) |
|
Trusts |
Trusts |
Trusts |
Trusts |
|
|
Collaboration |
Collaboration |
Collaboration |
Collaboration |
|
|
Collaborative Communication |
Collaborative Communication |
Collaborative Communication |
Collaborative Communication |
|
|
Joint Learning |
Joint Learning |
Joint Learning |
Joint Learning |
|
|
Interpersonal Relations and Management Involvement |
Interpersonal Relations and Management Involvement |
Interpersonal Relations and Management Involvement |
Interpersonal Relations and Management Involvement |
|
|
Involvement of suppliers in company value activities |
Involvement of suppliers in company value activities |
Involvement of suppliers in company value activities |
Involvement of suppliers in company value activities |
|
|
Personnel Transfer (unilateral) |
Transfer of specialized personnel (bilateral) |
Transfer of specialized personnel (bilateral) |
Transfer of specialized personnel (bilateral) |
|
|
Supply Chain Integration |
Supply Chain Integration |
Supply Chain Integration |
Supply Chain Integration |
|
|
Relational Resources |
Investing in Specific Assets |
- |
Investing in Specific Assets |
- |
|
Information Exchange |
Information Exchange |
Information Exchange |
Information Exchange |
|
|
Knowledge Sharing |
Knowledge Sharing |
Knowledge Sharing |
Knowledge Sharing |
|
|
Complementarity of Resources |
Complementarity of Resources |
Complementarity of Resources |
Complementarity of Resources |
Source:
Research data.
The
results highlight two important aspects:
· The category of relational resources
shared between focus firms and strategic suppliers is class-based,
relationship-specific asset investments, substantial knowledge exchange,
including knowledge exchange that results in shared learning, resource
complementarity, competencies and skills that result in the joint creation of
new unique products, services, or technologies;
· Regarding the analysis of the
operational competency category, there are six classes, composed of operational
improvement, operational innovation, operational customization, operational
cooperation, rapid market response, and operational reconfiguration.
Specifically, operational reconfiguration competence was not identified in the
data collection.
· The analysis then focuses on the role relational
resources play in developing operational competencies in supply chains. To this
end, the shared resources that have shown dynamism are:
· Investments in specific assets - consisting of
investments made by suppliers in infrastructure, industrial plants, facilities
and equipment (Alpha) and joint investments with suppliers in infrastructure,
industrial plants, equipment, technology, trademarks and patents, financial
resources, and resources human (Gamma). Beta and Delta companies do not make
investments in specific assets with their suppliers;
· Information exchange - linked to supply chain
performance, procurement information, raw material consumption, delivery times
and related to value activities (Alpha); linked to supply chain, product
improvement, cost structure, and supplier quality standards (Beta); linked to
the supply chain, production, planning, and deadlines and related to value
activities (Gamma); and linked to the supply and production chain and related to
value activities (Delta);
· Knowledge sharing - with the strategic supplier on
ways to use materials, operate equipment, improve processes, customize and
develop new materials and products (Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta);
· Combination of complementary resources -
transportation systems development, logistics operators, raw material delivery,
technical assistance services, research and development, and an
interorganizational alignment to harmonize systems and processes (Alpha, Beta,
Gamma, and Delta).
· The operational competencies
developed, here called relational operational competences are:
· Operational improvement - continuous improvement,
waste elimination, waste, rework, inventory reduction, setup time reduction,
development of new working methods, technical knowledge, and use of Six Sigma,
Just In Time, and Total Quality Management, TQM (Alpha) tools. Continuous
improvement, manufacturing with low levels of process variability,
technological improvements, process standardization, cost reduction, quality and
flexibility, technical expertise, and use of Six Sigma and TQM (Beta) tools.
Continuous improvement, inventory reduction and setup time reduction,
application of new knowledge in technical and operational resources to improve
working methods, technical knowledge, and use of Six Sigma, Just In Time, and
TQM (Gamma) methodologies. Continuous improvement and increase of technical
knowledge, the introduction of new technologies and adjustments to those
already developed, management of raw material use efficiency and management of
receipt time, use of Six Sigma, Just In Time and TQM (Delta) tools;
· Operational innovation - development of new production
processes combining joint work expertise and development of new products for
specific customers (Alpha). Development of new products, systems, and processes
continuously, testing of new products and new methods of simulation and testing
of material laboratories (Beta). Investment in new technologies and product and
process development (Gama). Development of experiments, tests, and analysis of
error tolerance and product qualification (Delta);
· Operational customization - development of new
equipment, adaptation of planning systems, modification of production processes
for specific customers (Alpha). Development of products and solutions to meet
specific sectors, specialization, learning, and knowledge developed with
suppliers (Beta). Development of manufacturing processes for production
flexibility (Gama). Product development to customer specifications, product
application testing and computer simulation (Delta);
· Operational cooperation - information sharing to
perform operational activities, joint decision making to solve supply chain
problems, information sharing to deal with uncertainties and to resolve
cross-functional and inter-organizational conflicts (Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta);
· Rapid market response - sharing information with
suppliers to meet production orders, managing demand fluctuations, adjusting
production capacity, changing process flows, changing inputs, labor, and
equipment (Alpha, Beta, Gamma). Sharing information with suppliers to fulfill
production orders, resource management, and production sequencing for volume flexibility
(Delta) performance.
The
development of competencies is carried out through an important research
finding, which refers to the relevance of the information and knowledge and
learning constructs, considered as significant relational resources for the
development of operational competencies. These constructs generate learning based
on jointly performing key operational routines and practices that develop
supply chain specific experiences and skills.
Information
facilitates collaborative activities, creates shared organizational and
operational knowledge, and develops skills to build new competencies. Already,
knowledge and learning develop innovation capacity, shorten the learning curve,
and promotes higher innovation rates when companies share information and
learning on a regular basis.
Technology,
on a large scale, has been identified as crucial to the strategy for defect
prevention, product and service quality improvement, cost reduction, and
process variability.
For
relationships with strategic suppliers, focus companies require expertise in
product technology, processes, customized solutions, automation, and the
ability to innovate, drivers of flexibility, and competitive costs.
Technological innovations that relate to the product and/or process are made to
meet specific customer needs.
In
the investigated organizations, personalized training, experience exchange, and
personnel transfer are required to address continuous improvements and changes
in operational practices and processes, considering individual and collective
skills to develop new processes, operate new equipment, match decision making,
and align. cultural differences that may arise in the relationship.
5.
CONCLUSIONS
Understanding the development of
operational competencies from the interaction with relational resources opens
new perspectives for Operations Management research and especially in the
supply chain theme, by importing the supply chain. The consideration that
internal resources and relational resources can influence competency
development allows new understandings of the creation and pursuit of competitive
advantages by the Operations area. In addition, this approach provides a
breakthrough perspective in which the company's competencies evolve from an
internal stage Provide theory.
From
the definition of the central objective of the article and execution of the
proposed framework, it was possible to explain how operational skills are
developed from the interaction of relational resources shared in the supply
chain and revealed that the information, knowledge and learning constructs have
a direct influence on development specific set of collective skills to solve
problems. Information, knowledge, and learning emerge broadly regarding other
relational mechanisms, that is, the exchange of information and knowledge and
learning are directly present in other relational resources and in the most
diverse relational activities developed.
The
results of this study contribute to extending the knowledge about the
operational competences literature. Previous studies have assessed operational
competencies and resources in other countries in non-industrial companies. This
study finds that the decision to share rare and inimitable resources
(manufacturing plant, equipment, knowledge, complementary resources) is related
to the development of competitive advantages between companies, and the sharing
of information, knowledge and learning is crucial to share superior relational
gains to the parties in a sustainable manner over time. This is due to the use
of collaborative relationships and synergies that promote learning and skills
development for competency building from specific operating practices between
companies that have common goals and share similar perspectives.
Therefore,
long-term relationships based on trust and reputation produce less risk and
uncertainty for partners to allocate their resources, which when combined
provide greater gain than each party independently.
Therefore,
when deciding to form collaboration, the buying companies require the selling
companies to have experience in product and process technology, automation and
innovativeness, flexibility, and competitive costs, in addition to operational
proximity, financial strength, and ability to maintain relationships,
predominantly established by long-term partnerships.
Finally, future analyzes may extend the analysis
unit to strategic companies and suppliers, from the suppliers' perspective; for
triads, networks and/or chains, involving companies, suppliers, and customers;
and to investigate the role of operational competencies in the mediation between
relational resources and operational performance.
REFERENCES
Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1993)
Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal,
14(1), 33-46.
Asanuma, B. (1989) Manufacturer-Supplier
Relationships in Japan and the Concept of Relationship-Specific Skill. Journal of the Japanese and International
Economies, 3(1), 1-30.
Bardin, L. (1977) Análise de conteúdo. Lisboa: Edições 70.
Barney, J. B. (1991) Firm resources and
sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
Barney, J. B., & Clark, D. N. (2007) Resource-Based
Theory: Creating and Sustaining Competitive Advantage. Nova York: Oxford
University Press.
Barney, J. B., & Hesterly, W. S. (2011) Administração
Estratégica e Vantagem Competitiva. 3. ed. São Paulo: Pearson Prentice
Hall.
Barney, J. B., Ketchen Jr., D. J., & Writht, M. (2011) The Future of Resource-Based Theory: Revitalization or Decline? Journal of Management, 37(5), 1299-1315.
Bowersox, D. J., &
Closs, D. J. (2001) Logística Empresarial: O Processo de Integração da
Cadeia de Suprimento. São
Paulo: Atlas.
Burgess, K., Singh, P. J., & Koroglu, R.
(2006) Supply chain management: a structured literature review and implications
for future research. International Journal of Operations; Production
Management, 26(7), 703-729.
Cao, M., & Zhang, Q. (2011) Supply Chain
Collaboration: Impact on Collaborative Advantage and Firm Performance. Journal
of Operations Management, 29(3), 163-180.
Chen, I. J., & Paulraj, A. (2004) Towards a
theory of supply chain management: the constructs and measurements. Journal
of Operations Management, 22(2), 119-150.
Collis, D. J., &Montgomery, C. A. (1995) Competing on resources: strategy in the 1990s. Harvard Business Review, 73(4), 118-128.
Collis, J., & Hussey,
R. (2005) Pesquisa em administração:
um guia prático para alunos de
graduação e pós-graduação. 2. ed. Porto Alegre: Bookman.
Combs, J. G., & Ketchen Jr., D. J. (1999)
Explaining interfirm cooperation and performance: toward a reconciliation of
predictions from the resource-based view and organizational economics. Strategic
Management Journal, 20(9),
867-888.
Cooper, M. C., Lambert, D. M., & Pagh, J.
D. (1997) Supply Chain Management: More than a new name for Logistics. The
International Journal of Logistics Management, 8(1), 1-14.
Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (2000) A
Resource-Based Theory of Strategic Alliances. Journal of Management, 26(1), 31-61.
David, P., & Stewart, R. (2008) Logística
Internacional. São Paulo: Cengage
Learning.
Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset
stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management
Science, 35(12), 1504-1511.
Droge, C., Jayaram, J., & Vickery, S. K.
(2004) The effects of internal versus external integration practices on
time-based performance and overall firm performance. Journal of Operations Management, 22(6), 557-573.
Dyer, J. H. (1996) Specialized supplier
networks as a source of competitive advantage: Evidence from the auto industry.
Strategic
Management Journal, 17(4),
271-291.
Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998) The
relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of inter-organizational
competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660-679.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) Building Theories from
Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
Escrig‐Tena, A. B., &
Bou‐Llusar, J. C. (2005) A model for evaluating organizational
competencies: An application in the context of a quality management initiative.
Decision
Sciences, 36(2), 221-257.
Flynn, B. B., Huo, B., & Zhao, X. (2010) The impact of supply chain integration on performance: A contingency and configuration approach. Journal of Operations Management, 28(1), 58-71.
Gohr, C. F., Santos, L. C., Burin, C. B., Santos Marques, M., & Arai,
R. M. (2011) Recursos estratégicos e vantagem competitiva: aplicação do modelo
VRIO em uma organização do setor sucroalcooleiro. Revista Gestão Organizacional, 4(1), 60-71.
Grant, R. M. (1991) The resource-based theory
of competitive advantage: implications for strategy formulation. California
Management Review, 33(3), 114-135.
Grant, R. M., & Baden-Fuller, C. (1995) A
knowledge-based theory of inter-firm collaboration. Academy of Management
Journal, (1), 17-21.
Grötsch, V. M., Blome, C., & Schleper, M.
C. (2013) Antecedents of proactive supply chain risk management–a contingency
theory perspective. International Journal of Production Research,
51(10), 2842-2867.
Gulati, R. (1999) Network location and
learning: the influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance
formation. Strategic Management Journal, 20(5), 397-420.
Hardy, C., Phillips, N., & Lawrence, T. B.
(2003) Resources, Knowledge and Influence: the organizational effects of
interorganizational collaboration. Journal of Management Studies, 40(2),
321-347.
Hayes, R. H., Pisano, G. P., Upton, D. M., &
Wheelwright, S. C. (2008) Produção, Estratégia e Tecnologia. Em busca da vantagem competitiva. 2.
ed. Porto Alegre: Bookman.
Hayes, R.
H., & Wheelwright, S. C. (1984) Restoring our Competitive Edge:
Competing through Manufacturing. New York: Wiley.
Ingham, H., & Thompson, S. (1994)
Wholly-owned versus collaborative ventures for diversifying financial services.
Strategic Management Journal, 15(4), 325-334.
Jap, S. D. (2001) Perspectives on joint
competitive advantages in buyer-supplier relationships. International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 18(1-2), 19-35.
Krause, D. R., Handfield, R. B., & Scannell,
T. V. (1998) An empirical investigation of supplier development: reactive and
strategic processes. Journal of Operations Management,
17(1), 39–58.
Laugen, T. B., Boer, N. A. H., & Frick, J.
(2005) Best manufacturing practices: what do the best performing companies do? International
Journal of Operations & Production Management,
25(2), 131-150.
Lavie, D. (2006) The competitive advantage of
interconnected firms: an extension of the resource-based view. Academy of
Management Review, 31(3),
638-658.
Lockstrom, M., Schadel, J., Moser, R., & Harrison,
N. (2011) Domestic supplier integration in the Chinese automotive industry: the
buyer's perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management,
47(4), 44-63.
Lummus, R. R., & Vokurka, R. J. (1999)
Defining supply chain management: a historical perspective and practical guidelines.
Industrial
Management & Data Systems, 99(1), 11-17.
March, J.
G. (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.
Mathews,
J. A. (2003) Competitive dynamics and economic learning: An extended
resource-based view. Industrial and Corporate Change,
12(1), 115-145.
Martin,
J. A. (2011) Dynamic Managerial Capabilities and the Multibusiness Team: The
Role of Episodic Teams in Executive Leadership Groups. Organization Science, 22(1), 118-140.
Meredith, J. (1998) Building operations
Management Theory Through Case and Field Research. Journal of Operations
Management, 16(4), 441-54.
Mesquita, L. F., Anand, J., & Brush, T. H.
(2008) Comparing the resource-based and relational views: knowledge transfer
and spillover in vertical alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 29(9), 913-941.
Miguel, P. A. C. (2010) (Org.). Metodologia de pesquisa em engenharia de produção
e gestão de operações. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier.
Narasimhan, R., Swink, M., & Kim, S. W.
(2005) An exploratory study of manufacturing practice and performance
interrelationships: Implications for capability progression. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 25(10),
1013-1033.
Nonaka, I. (1994) A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37.
Paiva, E. L. (2017) Coevolução e competências operacionais: visão
presente e oportunidades de pesquisas futuras. Revista Alcance, 24(2), 164-174.
Pandža, K.,
Polajnar, A., Buchmeister, B., & Thorpe, R. (2003) Evolutionary
perspectives on the capability accumulation process. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, 23(8), 822-849.
Pavlou,
P. A., & Sawy, E. L. O. A. (2011) Understanding the elusive black box of
dynamic capabilities. Decision Sciences,
42(1), 239-273.
Peng, D. X.,
Schroeder, R. G., & Shah, R. (2008) Linking routines to operations
capabilities: a new perspective. Journal
of Operations Management, 26(6), 730-748.
Penrose, E. T. (1959) The Theory of the
Growth of the Firm. New York:
Wiley.
Peteraf, M. A. (1993) The cornerstones of
competitive advantage: a resource‐based view. Strategic management journal,
14(3), 179-191.
Tummala, V. M. R., Phillips, C. L. M., & Johnson,
M. (2006) Assessing supply chain management success factors: a case study. Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, 11(2), 179-192.
Rungtusanatham, M., Salvador, F., Forza, C., & Choi, T. Y. (2003) Supply-chain linkages and operational performance: a resource-based-view perspective. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 23(9), 1084-1099.
Santos, L. C., Gohr, C. F., & Varvakis,
G. (2011) Um método para identificação e análise de competências e recursos
estratégicos das operações de serviços. Gestão e Produção, 18(4), 791-808.
Schroeder,
R. G., Bates, K. A., & Junttila, M. A. (2002) A Resource-Based View of
Manufacturing Strategy and the Relationship to Manufacturing Performance. Strategic
Management Journal, 23(2), 105-117.
Swink, M.,
& Hegarty, W. H. (1998) Core manufacturing capabilities and their
links to product differentiation. International. Journal of Operations and
Production Management, 18(4),
374-396.
Swink, M., Narasimhan, R., & Kim, S. W.
(2005) Manufacturing practices and strategy integration: Effects on cost
efficiency, flexibility, and market-based performance. Decision Sciences,
36(3), 427-457.
Tan, K. C. (2002) Supply chain
management: practices, concerns, and performance issues. Journal of Supply Chain
Management, 38(4), 42-53.
Tan, K. C., Kannan, V. R., & Narasimhan, R.
(2007) The impact of operations capability on firm performance. International
Journal of Production Research,
45(21), 5135-5156.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A.
(1997) Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management
Journal, 18(7), 509-533.
Upton, D. M. (1994) The
management of manufacturing flexibility. California Management Review,
36(2), 72-89.
Vangen, S., & Huxham, C. (2003) Nurturing
collaborative relations: building trust in interorganizational collaboration. Journal
of Applied Behavioural Science,
39(1), 5-31.
Voss, A. C. (1995) Alternative paradigms for
manufacturing strategy. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, 15(4), 5-16.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984) A resource-based view of
the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171-180.
Wheelwright, S. C., & Hayes, R. H. (1985)
Competing through manufacturing. Harvard Business Review, 63(1),
99-109.
Winter,
S. G. (2003) Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24(1), 991-995.
Wu, S. J., Melnyk, S. A., & Flynn, B. B.
(2010) Operational Capabilities: The Secret Ingredient. Decision Sciences,
41(4), 721-754.
Wu, S. J., Melnyk, S. A., & Swink, M.
(2012) An empirical investigation of the combinatorial nature of operational
practices and operational capabilities: Compensatory or additive? International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 32(2), 121-155.
Yin, R. K. (2010) Estudo de Caso: planejamento e métodos. 4.
ed. Porto Alegre: Bookman.
Zacharia, Z. G., Nix, N. W., & Lusch, R. F. (2011) Capabilities that enhance outcomes of an episodic supply chain collaboration. Journal of Operations Management, 29(6), 591-603.
Zatta, F. N. (2015) Uma análise
da influência dos Recursos Relacionais sobre as Competências Operacionais:
estudo multicascos. 225 f. Santa Bárbara D`Oeste - Brasil. Tese (doutorado)
- Universidade Metodista de Piracicaba, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Engenharia
de Produção.
Zen, A.
C. (2010) A influência dos recursos na internacionalização de empresas
inseridas em clusters: uma pesquisa no setor
vitivinícola no Brasil e na França. 270 f. Tese (Doutorado) - Universidade
Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Administração.