Buyer-Supplier Collaboration Quality in New Product Development Projects

Received Date : 26-Oct-2012
Accepted Article
Revised Date : 24-Jun-2013
Accepted Date : 24-Jun-2013
Article type : Original Article
How well are we collaborating? Buyer-Supplier collaboration quality in new product

development projects
Tingting Yan
Department of Marketing & Supply Chain Management
School of Business Administration, Wayne State University
5201 Cass Ave., Detroit, MI, 48202
Tingting.Yan@wayne.edu, 313-577-9811
Kevin Dooley
Kevin Dooley
PO Box 874706, Department of Supply Chain Management
WP Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-4706
Kevin.dooley@asu.edu, 480-965-6833, fax: 480-965-8629
a Corresponding Author
ABSTRACT
Previous research has found that buyer-supplier collaboration in new product development can
contribute to project success. Empirical evidence is mixed, however, and the concept of buyer-
supplier collaboration is under-developed. This work develops a new construct, buyer-supplier
collaboration quality, defined as the extent to which a buyer and supplier exploit shared resources
while minimizing waste though interaction during project planning and execution. We use resource
dependence theory to formulate inter-firm and
This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been
through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to
differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi:
10.1111/jscm.12032
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

project-level antecedents of buyer-supplier collaboration quality and argue how it affects new
Accepted Article
product development project outcomes. Data from an empirical survey of 214 buying organizations
validates the measurement structure of the new construct and supports its positive associations with
design quality and project efficiency. We also find that goal congruence, complementary capabilities,
and inter-firm coordination efforts increase buyer- supplier collaboration quality, while inter-firm
relationship-specific investment reduces it.
Keywords: buyer-supplier collaboration quality; new product development; supplier involvement;

resource dependence theory; inter-group management; project management
INTRODUCTION
Supplier involvement in new product development (NPD) is a widely advocated practice, even during
the recent economic recession (Andrew, Manget, Michael, Taylor and Zablit 2010; Harbour-Felax
2009). Buyers depend on suppliers’ resources, such as innovative technologies, manufacturing
capability, engineering talents, and financial support , to improve their NPD performance (Azadegan,
Dooley, Carter and Carter 2008; Handfield, Ragatz, Petersen and Monczka 1999; Parker, Zsidisin and
Ragatz 2008; Narasimhan and Narayanan 2013). Suppliers also rely on buyers for market knowledge,
product architecture information, project management capability, and assembly coordination
expertise (Hong and Hartley 2011; Hong, Pearson and Carr 2009;Joshi and Sharma 2004). To manage
such resource interdependencies, a buyer may collaborate with a supplier to identify, acquire, and
exploit critical resources for developing new products (Pfeffer and Salancik 1978). But, not all buyer-
supplier project-level interactions lead to good designs or efficient processes, which partially explains
the mixed empirical evidence regarding performance of some joint NPD projects (Birou 1994;
Business-Wire 2002; Inforsys 2005; Swink 1999; Zirger and Hartley 1996).
Previous research highlighted the importance of effective buyer-supplier interactions in NPD
(Hartley, Zirger and Kamath 1997; Van Echtelt, Wynstra and Van Weele 2007). Since intensive buyer-
supplier interactions are not always effective, researchers have examined factors regarding the
quality of interactions, such as the timeliness and accuracy of communication, the existence of a

mutually supportive atmosphere, and the participative nature of decision-making (Hoegl and Wagner
Accepted Article
2005; Hoegl, Weinkauf and Germuenden
2004; Marks, Mathieu and Zaccaro 2001; Wagner and Hoegl 2006). Despite such increased attention
given to understanding the quality of buyer-supplier interactions, the NPD literature lacks a coherent
theoretical framework to define and operationalize the concept of buyer-supplier collaboration
quality. Due to this gap, rigorous empirical research has not been done to identify the antecedents
and consequences of buyer-supplier collaboration quality.
A better understanding of buyer-supplier collaboration quality helps examine how contextual
issues at the inter-firm and project level influence the effectiveness of buyer- supplier
interactions. At the inter-firm level, a collaborative buyer-supplier relationship is generally
believed to be critical for joint project success (Petersen, Handfield and Ragatz
2005; Primo and Amundson 2002; Ragatz, Handfield and Scannell 1997). However, studies have
also shown it to be unnecessary or even counterproductive in joint NPD (Bidault and Castello 2010;
Zirpoli and Caputo 2002). Similarly, at the project level, buyer-supplier congruent goals and
complementary capabilities enable synergistic exploitation of interdependent group resources, and,
as a result, should contribute to joint NPD success (Rothaermel and Deeds 2004; Sivadas and Dwyer
2000). However, congruent goals could also reduce decision quality due to a lack of healthy debate
and criticism (Thomsen 1998; Yan 2010), while complementary capabilities might cause inefficient
processes due to the difficulty of processing diverse information and disparate knowledge (Jackson
1992; Lane and Lubatkin 1998). Such mixed empirical evidence makes it important to study whether
effective buyer-supplier interactions are more likely to emerge in seemingly favorable inter- firm
and project contexts.
To address these knowledge gaps, this paper answers the following research questions: (1)

What does buyer-supplier collaboration quality mean and how should it be measured? (2) How do
Accepted Article
the inter-firm relationship and project context influence buyer-supplier collaboration quality? (3)
What are the project-level consequences of buyer-supplier collaboration quality? Built upon Hoegl and
Gemuenden’s teamwork quality concept (Hoegl and Gemuenden 2001) which measures the
effectiveness of intra-group interactions, buyer-supplier collaboration quality is conceptualized as a
project-level inter-group interaction effectiveness construct.
Specifically, it is defined as the extent to which the buyer and supplier synergistically exploit shared
resources while minimizing waste though interaction during project planning and execution.
In the following sections we develop the buyer-supplier collaboration quality construct, propose its
inter-firm and project antecedents and project-level consequences, and use survey responses to test
its measurement structure. We also test the hypotheses associated with these antecedents and
consequences and discuss implications of the results. Table 1 lists definitions of the main constructs
examined in this study.
CONSTRUCT DEVELOPMENT, ANTECEDENTS, AND CONSEQUENCES
Buyer-Supplier Collaboration Quality: The Effectiveness of Buyer-Supplier Project-Level Interactions
Collaboration is a process through which parties with diverse interests and interdependent resources
interact to search for solutions to problems that go beyond their own limited vision of what is
possible (Amabile, Patterson, Mueller, Wojcik, Kramer, Odomirok and Marsh
2001; Gray 1989; Jassawalla and Sashittal 1998). In a buyer-supplier NPD collaboration process, both
groups interact through activities such as communicating, adapting to changes, responding to
requests, devoting group resources to facilitate joint tasks, coordinat ing interdependent activities,

and co-creating knowledge (Cao and Zhang 2011; Hartley, Zirger and Kamath 1997; Hoegl and
Accepted Article
Wagner 2005). The quality of these types of project-level interactions determines whether the two
groups can synergistically exploit project resources such as equipment and facilities, technical know-
how, human resources, and financial assets,
to facilitate joint task achievement (Carton and Cummings 2012). Adopting this process view of
buyer-supplier collaboration in joint projects, we define:
Buyer-supplier collaboration quality (henceforth called collaboration quality, or CQ)
is the extent to which buyer and supplier groups synergistically exploit shared resources while
minimizing wastes though interactions during project planning and execution
Our construct of CQ is derived from the “Teamwork Quality” construct developed by Hoegl and
Gemuenden (2001). They conceptualize Teamwork Quality as a comprehensive concept of quality of
interactions within a single group. It is reflected in six dimensions that focus on the quality of a team’s
collaborative work rather than the content of its tasks and activities: communication, coordination,
balance of member contributions, mutual support, effort, and cohesion. For example, the
communication dimension is concerned with how well team members communicate task-relevant
information, not with what their communication is about. We argue that all of these dimensions with
the exception of cohesion, are relevant to
the context of buyer-supplier CQ. We do not consider cohesion as part of the construct because it
focuses on the nature of inter-group relationship rather than activities. The underlying proposition of
the multi-dimensioned higher-order construct CQ is that effective buyer-supplier interactions are
reflected by all of these states. The hierarchical construct structure of CQ is consistent with other
taxonomies of inter-member interactions that propose first-order teamwork processes to load onto a
Accepted Article
general process factor (LePine, Piccolo, Jackson, Mathieu and Saul 2008; Marks, Mathieu and Zaccaro
2001). The following provides a detailed description of these concepts as they relate to the CQ
construct as a whole.
Sufficiency of efforts indicates the extent to which the two groups exert enough effort to
complete project tasks. When both groups are fully committed to a project task, they can identify
and implement synergetic ways of using shared resources (Campion, Medsker and Higgs 1993;
Hackman 1987; Hoegl and Gemuenden 2001). A shared, high level of effort
from both groups reduces relational conflicts caused by nonproductive behaviors, such as job
avoidance, defiance, or aggression (Locke and Latham 1990; Morgan and Hunt 1994) .
Knowledge/skill-based contribution refers to the extent to which both groups are allowed to
contribute to the project and fully use their task-relevant knowledge and skills (Hoegl and
Gemuenden 2001; Hoegl and Wagner 2005). When a group bases its contributions on task-relevant
knowledge and skills rather than power and status, it is more likely to produce creative solutions due
to a better chance of identifying and exploiting critical resources (Ford and Randolph 1992). On the
contrary, when one group dominates the decision-making process, the other group cannot freely
contribute its knowledge and skills to project tasks. This reduces the quality of the decisions made
through wasting the dominated group’s knowledge resources (Rothaermel and Deeds 2004).
Mutual support relates to whether the groups help and support each other in carrying out project
tasks. A project team’s capability to effectively recognize shared resources and synergistically
integrate expertise relies on a cooperative rather than competitive frame of mind (Tjosvold 1995).
When buyer and supplier groups mutually respect each other and grant assistance when needed, they
use shared resources more efficiently due to fewer relational conflicts (Wech, Mossholder, Steel and

Bennett 1998).
Accepted Article
Coordination refers to how well the groups’ efforts are structured and synchronized. When the
project task is delegated to members belonging to different formal groups, they become dependent
on each other for effective task achievement with minimum resources consumed (Sosa, Eppinger
and Rowles 2004). When buyer-supplier project-level task interdependence is managed well, the
project team avoids wasting resources on non-value- adding rework or conflict resolution (Espinosa
2002). Good project-level coordination also allows participants to use more time, energy, and talent
searching for creative solutions, thus contributing to a more productive usage of shared resources.
Finally, communication quality is defined as the timeliness and accuracy of communication. When
communication is timely and accurate, it helps project teams assess task situations and choose
task strategies, and allows them to correctly recognize and synergistically use complementary
resources (Tannenbaum, Beard and Salas 1992). Exchanging accurate information in a timely
manner expedites task execution, reduces the need for information verification and correction,
and minimizes interferences and rework caused by wrong or late information, all of which prevent
resource waste or misuse (Pinto and Pinto 1990).
As defined, CQ differs from similar collaboration constructs in the literature in the following ways.
First, it is a project-level construct focusing on task-relevant interactions among project members.
This differs from inter-firm level collaboration constructs such as inter-organizational cooperation
(Heide and Miner 1992), supply chain collaboration (Cao and Zhang 2011), collaboration quality in
alliances (Heimeriks 2002), and collaboration capability (Allred, Fawcett, Wallin and Magnan 2011) -
constructs that do not focus on joint projects. Second, CQ focuses on inter-group interactions,
differing from intra-group collaboration constructs, such as teamwork quality (Hoegl and

Gemuenden 2001). Third, CQ is built upon a process view of collaboration, focusing on activities
Accepted Article
rather than relationships. It differs from collaboration constructs that involve relational aspects of
collaboration, such
as goal congruence, incentive alignment, resource sharing, and attitudes towards other parties (Cao
and Zhang 2011; Heide and Miner 1992; Stock and Tatikonda 2008). Finally, CQ indicates how well
parties interact (e.g., whether interdependent tasks fit together well), differing from collaboration
constructs that focus on how partners collaborate, such as those that look at whether joint decision
making is adopted for managing interdependent tasks (Mishra and Shah 2009) or how intensively
partners interact (Allred, Fawcett, Wallin and Magnan 2011; Schleimer and Shulman 2011).
Antecedents to Collaboration Quality: A Resource Dependence Theory Perspective
Resource Dependence Theory (RDT) can effectively explain the reason for interorganizational
collaboration (Gray and Wood 1991). RDT’s central argument is that organizational survival hinges on
tactics used to stabilize the flow of valued resources possessed by other organizations (Pfeffer and
Salancik 1978). Inter-organizational collaboration is one such tactic (Harrigan and Newman 2007). RDT
proposes that organizations can reduce performance uncertainty by involving critical resource
providers in joint actions (Hillman, Withers and Collins 2009). However, joint actions driven by
resource interdependence are not always successful (Inkpen and Beamish 1997). Partners need to be
capable of identifying valued resources and structuring their use in a way that facilitates inter- partner
interactions (i.e., capability), while also being willing to openly share critical resources in a timely
manner (i.e., motivation) (Dyer and Singh 1998).
Managing an NPD process is challenging due to its high levels of dynamism, uncertainty, and
equivocality caused by non-routine, ill-defined and ad hoc decisions and tasks (Wagner 2012).
Involving external suppliers in this process creates further managerial challenges due to the complex
resource dependence structure in joint projects (Gerwin 2004; Koufteros, Vonderembse and Jayaram
2005). In a buyer-supplier joint NPD context, both groups mutually depend on each other for critical
Accepted Article
resources. Without integrating the supplier’s process and component knowledge, a buyer might
waste R&D resources on product concepts that are either not manufacturable or use outdated
technology (Azadegan, Dooley, Carter and Carter 2008; Handfield, Ragatz, Petersen and Monczka
1999; Swink and Mabert 2000). Similarly, without understanding market demand and product
architecture through the help of the buyer, a supplier might create components that either do not
sell or fail to fit with other components in the final product (Hong and Hartley 2011; Hong, Pearson
and Carr 2009; Joshi and Sharma 2004). Finally, both groups depend on each other for financial,
physical, and human resources to share risks (Petersen, Handfield and Ragatz 2003). In the case of the
Boeing 787, for instance, 70 percent of the design and development work
for the aircraft's all-composite wing were subcontracted to a consortium of Japanese risk- sharing
suppliers (MacPherson and Pritchard 2007). Such resource interdependence drives the two firms to
jointly develop the new product so that better designs could be created using fewer overall
resources (Pfeffer and Salancik 1978; Zsidisin and Smith 2005).
In order for the joint action to succeed, buyer and supplier groups need to realize resource
synergy while minimizing resource wastes by effectively interacting with each other. According to
RDT, high-quality project-level interactions are more likely to emerge when critical resources flow
freely and continuously from parent firms to the joint project team (vertical resource flows), as well as
between the two sub-groups of the project team
(horizontal resource flows) (Pfeffer and Salancik 1978). To facilitate vertical resource flows, the two
firms need to have a collaborative relationship, which motivates and enables each firm to openly
provide resources to the joint project team in a timely fashion (Dyer and Singh 1998; Engwall and
Jerbrant 2003). A well-aligned project structure, indicated by congruent goals and complementary

capabilities, is important to facilitate horizontal resource flows, because each group is driven by its
Accepted Article
goals and enabled (or constrained) by its capabilities when exchanging resources (Carton and
Cummings 2012). Below we discuss in detail how coordination efforts and relationship-specific
investment, two indicators of a collaborative relationship, as well as congruent goals and
complementary capabilities contribute to CQ by facilitating both vertical and horizontal resource
flows.
Inter-firm Antecedents to Collaboration Quality. A collaborative buyer-supplier relationship
is distinguished from an arm’s length relationship by its (1) relationship-specific investment
and (2) coordination effort (Jap 1999). Relationship-specific investment is nonfungible
investment that uniquely supports the buyer-supplier relationship (Jap 1999). Relationship-
specific investments may include tools, equipment, operating procedures,
systems, facilities, and employees tailored for use within the buyer-supplier dyad (Heide and
John 1990). These investments lose their value if the relationship is terminated (Williamson
1993). At the same time, they generate relational rents through lower value chain costs, greater
product differentiation, fewer defects, and faster product development cycles, while establishing
expectations of continued exchange in the future and minimizing opportunism (Anderson and Weitz
1992; Dyer and Singh 1998; Heide and John 1990). Buyer-supplier coordination effort is the regular
pattern of similar or complementary activities, often in the form of joint projects, that are tailored to
the dyad’s needs (Jap 1999). It enables partners to share information, opportunities, and processes
to exploit existing and explore new opportunities embedded in the relationship (Anderson and
Narus 1990; Dwyer, Schurr and Oh 1987). In this study, both relationship-specific investment and
coordination efforts occur before the beginning and beyond the scope of the joint NPD project. They
therefore define the nature of the existing inter-firm relational context within which the buyer and
supplier groups interact. Below we discuss how these two facets of the buyer-supplier relationship

influence CQ.
Accepted Article
By generating inter-firm trust and increasing the efficiency of resource flows, relationship-specific
investment increases CQ by motivating the buyer and supplier firms to supply critical resources to
the project team. The relationship-specific nature of these investments implies a very high partner-
switching cost (Williamson 1993). Thus both firms anticipate open-ended and frequent future
interactions. Such a “shadow of the future” enhances each firm’s trustworthiness by increasing the
cost of opportunistic behaviors (Anderson and Weitz 1992; Heide and Miner 1992). Worrying less
about exposing shared
resources to partner opportunism, both firms are more motivated to openly support the project team
with critical resources. Also, relationship-specific investment enhances the efficiency of vertical
resource flows from parent firms to the project team, making resource sharing less costly. For
example, by investing in joint training programs and inter-firm information systems, two firms can
develop a common language and establish routines for exchanging information. As a result, it is less
costly for parent firms to communicate with the project
team to identify resource needs and provide relevant support (Ragatz, Handfield and Scannell
1997). Similarly, co-locating the two firms’ facilities and employees makes it less costly for parent
firms to oversee project progress, allowing them to provide appropriate resources in a more timely
fashion (Kessler and Chakrabarti 1999). Joint investments in establishing inter- firm knowledge-
sharing routines facilitate the knowledge transfer process from parent firms to project teams (Dyer
and Singh 1998; Hoegl and Gemuenden 2001). Overall, these types of investments enhance the
trustworthiness of the partnering firm and reduce the cost of the vertical resource flows, motivating
sustained and timely resource support.

Accepted Article Such sustained and timely vertical resource flows enable and motivate the buyer and supplier
groups to effectively interact (Carson, Madhok, Varman and John 2003). Without securing task-
relevant resources, such as engineering talents, technical information, critical equipment, or financial
support, the two groups are not capable of effectively interacting. Also, by supporting the project
team with critical resources, both firms signal the long-term and cooperative nature of the inter-firm
relationship to their employees. Such signals increase buyer-supplier trust in the joint project (Ring
and van de Ven 1992). With trust, both groups are more motivated to share accurate information in a
timely manner, grant support when needed, contribute relevant knowledge, consider task
interdependence when planning and executing project activities, and devote sufficient efforts to the
project, thus increasing collaboration quality. Thus, we propose that:
H1: In a buyer-supplier joint NPD project, inter-firm relationship-specific investments are

positively associated with collaboration quality (CQ).
Buyer-supplier coordination efforts, in the form of regular patterns of similar or complementary
actions and activities manifested by joint projects, allow both firms to exploit opportunities and
synergies embedded in their relationship (Anderson and Narus 1990; Dwyer, Schurr and Oh 1987; Jap
1999). Such repeated collaborative interactions help
develop overlapping knowledge bases, capabilities, and/or resources, enabling them to recognize,
assimilate, and apply resources from each other (Lane and Lubatkin 1998; Park and Ungson 1997).
As a result, in subsequent joint projects, each firm is more capable of advising its project group
how to interact with the other group, enhancing the quality of buyer-supplier project-level
interactions. For instance, each parent firm could provide its project members information about
“who knows what” in the partnering firm, the common

language that both groups understand, the shared taken-for-granted understandings, and inter- firm
Accepted Article
routines, all of which smooth interactions in the joint project (Lane and Lubatkin 1998). Such
informational support from parent firms is especially critical for effective interactions in NPD
processes, where shared mental models of team members play critical roles in knowledge creation,
transfer, and exploitation (Madhavan and Grover 1998). Thanks to such organizational support, each
group is more capable of effectively exchanging information, resolving project-level conflicts, and
coordinating interdependent activities, thus improving CQ (Mathieu, Heffner, Goodwin, Salas and
Cannon-Bowers 2000).
In addition, repeated partner-specific interactions accumulate a firm’s knowledge about the
partner’s areas of expertise and resource availability, allowing each firm to better support the
project team with the right resources. For instance, if the buyer knows through previous projects
that the supplier has strong engineering expertise about a product’s technology
and lacks financial resources, it should focus on providing the project team with financial support
rather than engineering talents. Only when possessing the right resources can the buyer and
supplier groups effectively support each other through timely communication, supportive
adaptation, strategic resource commitment, proactive task coordination, and open knowledge
sharing, all of which enhance CQ (Hackman 1987). Accordingly, we propose that:
H2: In a buyer-supplier joint NPD project, inter-firm coordination efforts are positively
associated with CQ.
Project-level Antecedents to Collaboration Quality. Group goals direct the identification, acquisition,
and exploitation of group resources, and member capabilities enable or constrain them. As a result,
we consider how project-level buyer-supplier goal congruence and complementary capabilities
influence CQ by affecting horizontal resource flows. We define goal congruence as the extent to

which buyer and supplier groups perceive the possibility of common goal achievement in the joint
Accepted Article
NPD project (Jap 1999). Goals are concerned with desired future states of the world, and represent
the underlying motives for intentional behavior (Mintzberg 1983). Among multiple co-existing goals,
autonomous units often prioritize them differently due to their local expertise and the extent that
they are socially embedded in the institutional infrastructure of their respective communities. For
instance, in a joint NPD project, buyer and supplier groups can differ in how they prioritize project
performance goals, such as cost, schedule, and quality, and product performance goals, such as
weight, speed, or size. Due to a lack of organizational slack, these goals often are
reciprocal constraints to each other (March and Simon 1993). That is why a lack of goal
congruence, either between supervisors and subordinates, or among peers, is traditionally
negatively associated with organizational performance (Kristof-Brown and Stevens 2001;
Levinthal and Fichman 1988). In an inter-firm context, goal congruence facilitates buyer- supplier
collaboration (Jap 1999) and lowers inter-firm friction cost (Lakemond, Berggren and van Weele
2006).
When both groups have congruent goals, there are fewer interfering behaviors in identifying,
acquiring, and exploiting resources across their boundaries, thus improving CQ (Jap and Anderson
2003). Both groups perceive a higher likelihood of achieving their respective goals simultaneously,
so they are more motivated to share resources with each other, believing that the other group will
be equally committed to the project (Austin and Bobko 1985). With fewer goal conflicts, both groups
are more likely to go out of their ways to support each other to adapt to emerging issues (Jap and
Anderson 2003). Congruent goals also motivate sharing high-quality information in a timely fashion
due to less concern about opportunistic behaviors (Jarvenpaa and Leidner 1998; Samaddar,
Nargundkar and Daley

Accepted Article
2006). With a high level of trust resulting from congruent goals, each group is more willing to
contribute relevant knowledge and skills to the project (Politis 2003). As a result, the quality of buyer-
supplier project-level interactions could be improved. Thus, we propose that:
H3: In a buyer-supplier joint NPD project, buyer-supplier project-level goal congruence is

positively associated with CQ.
Complementary capabilities refer to the degree to which partners are able to “fill out, or complete,
each other’s performance by supplying distinct capabilities, knowledge, and resources” (Jap 1999, pg.
465). By leveraging complementary resource endowments of all the partners, an alliance could
generate outputs greater than the sum of those obtained from the individual endowments of each
partner (Dyer and Singh 1998). On an inter-firm level, complementary capabilities are viewed as a
main driver of collaboration and alliance due to their potential to create competitive advantages and
relational rents (Azadegan and Dooley
2010; Colombo, Grilli and Piva 2006; Ireland, Hitt and Vaidyanath 2002; Sarkar, Echambadi, Cavusgil
and Aulakh 2001). On a project level, they provide benefits of economies of scope, allowing NPD
teams to identify, produce, and use a wider variety of ideas and opportunities. The widely advocated
adoption of cross-functional teams and the importance of selecting partners with complementary
capabilities also allude to the importance of complementary capabilities (Brown and Eisenhardt
1995; Ernst 2002).
In a buyer-supplier NPD team, complementary capabilities enhance CQ by creating a high degree of
project-level interdependence for knowledge and skills used in resource identification, acquisition,

and exploitation. Because complementary capabilities need to be well integrated in order to deliver
Accepted Article
effective task solutions, both groups need to understand that they rely on each other’s capabilities
to identify, acquire, and exploit critical resources (Petersen, Handfield and Ragatz 2003). Due to this
capability interdependence, each group is
more willing to communicate accurate information in a timely manner in order to acquire and exploit
the right resources in the right way (Tushman and Nadler 1978). The perceived capability
interdependence also motivates each group to go out of its way to offer knowledge and expertise
when the other seeks resource support (Dreu De 2007). More coordinating interactions are expected
when the two groups perceive each other as an integral part of the project, thus reducing
interferences among interdependent tasks (Srikanth and Puranam 2011). Finally, perceived capability
interdependence creates a common understanding that any progress of the joint project depends on
commitment from both groups. They will be
motivated to devote more efforts to the joint task (Somech, Desivilya and Lidogoster 2009). In
short, the mutual dependence of capabilities used in resource identification, acquisition, and
exploitation motivates high-quality buyer-supplier project-level interactions. Thus, we propose
that:
H4: In a buyer-supplier joint NPD project, buyer-supplier project-level complementary

capabilities are positively associated with CQ.
Collaboration Quality and Project Performance
We examine two types of project performance: design quality and design efficiency. Design quality
is the degree to which the product design meets performance goals related to its fitness for use
(Swink and Calantone 2004). Design efficiency is the extent to which resources are utilized on
productive design activities (Hoegl and Gemuenden 2001). These two aspects of NPD performance
capture both the effectiveness and efficiency of the joint NPD process (Wheelwright 1992).
Accepted Article CQ is associated with better design quality and efficiency in NPD projects in several ways
(Hackman 1987; Marks, Mathieu and Zaccaro 2001). Sufficient efforts and knowledge/skill-based
contribution from both groups increase the level and relevancy of resources devoted to seeking
better designs (Anderson and Weitz 1992). Coordinating interdependent activities minimizes rework
caused by design interferences in the NPD process, helping focus engineers’ time and energy on
creative and productive activities (Paulraj, Lado and Chen 2008). Mutual support and high-quality
communication increases both groups’ capability to recognize, transfer, and use emerging
information, allowing the product design to fit the most current requirements (Jayaram 2008). In
sum, effective buyer- supplier project-level interactions indicated by high a CQ increase the joint
team’s capability in identifying, transferring, and co-creating knowledge, contributing to a better
design (Lane and Lubatkin 1998).
High-quality interactions also reduce the time and cost consumed in the NPD process,
contributing to better design efficiency. Specifically, groups who are fully committed to the project
and exchange high-quality information could avoid delays and rework in various
stages of the NPD process (Ragatz, Handfield and Scannell 1997). Aligning distributed activities well
expedites project progress by minimizing corrective activities and reducing the need for conflict
resolution (Terwiesch, Loch and Meyer 2002). Knowledge/skill-based contributions from both groups
also enhances their motivation and capability to search for efficient ways to generate ideas, develop
product features, design manufacturing processes, and test products (Hoegl and Gemuenden 2001).
Mutual buyer-supplier project-level supports enable the joint project team to minimize time and
resources spent on non value-adding activities such as conflict resolution, task rescheduling due to
delayed responses, or information verification due to a lack of trust (Xie, Song and Stringfellow 1998).

In short, effective interactions allow resources to be spent on productive project activities to the
Accepted Article
greatest extent by minimizing resource wastes, contributing to an efficient NPD process. Thus,
we propose that:
H5a(b): In a buyer-supplier joint NPD project, CQ is positively associated with design

quality (efficiency).
METHODOLOGY
We tested the hypotheses using survey responses from buyer organizations on 214 buyer-supplier
joint NPD projects encompassing sixteen industries in the United States. We sampled buyer
organizations that integrate and assemble complex and discrete products such as airplanes,
automobiles, ships, computers, mobile phones, and medical equipment. Service companies as well
as software companies were purposefully avoided due to their significantly different innovation
inputs, processes, and outputs (Ettlie and Rosenthal 2011; Von Hippel and Von Krogh 2003). The
initial set of respondents in the U.S. came from a commercial list provider, supplying contact
information of US company managers (n=2045), 2000 of which have email addresses and 45 of
which have mail addresses. We selected managers based on the following two criteria: (1) job titles
that indicated engineering, manufacturing, product development, project management, or
purchasing responsibilities, and (2) industries limited to those which manufacture physical and
discrete products. Previous NPD literature has shown that managers with these job titles are most
likely to be actively involved in and interact with external suppliers in new product developments
projects (Petersen, Handfield and Ragatz 2005; Takeishi 2001).
To control for bias from a single respondent, we asked two project members from each
buying firm to respond to two different parts of the survey. The first respondent was asked to
consider a recent NPD instance (i.e., finished within the past three years) where an external supplier
collaborated with its business unit about the design of a new product.

Part I of the survey was sent to the first respondent for information about project performance,
Accepted Article
relationship-specific investment, coordination efforts, product complexity, technological newness,
firm size, and sales. The first respondent also provided the contact information of
one key project member who actively participated in developing the product and interacted with the
supplier during the collaboration. Part II of the survey was sent to the second respondent for
information on collaboration quality, goal congruence, complementary capabilities, and task relevant
expertise. A key project member was an appropriate respondent for Part II due to his or her active
participation in the project and intensive interaction with
the supplier firm. This key project member was also likely to have observed more member- member
interaction than others on the project. To ensure informed respondents, we asked respondents to
evaluate the extent to which they were knowledgeable in answering the survey questions and only
those responses that indicated “above average” or “very knowledgeable” were kept.
We adopted two data-collection methods, online and hard-copy. The same survey items were used in
both channels. Using two data collection channels reduced common
method bias in controlling effects from three types of sources: common raters, item context, and
item characteristics (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee and Podsakoff 2003). The two types of survey
channels were attractive to different populations. Respondents who were more comfortable with
modern telecommunication technology may have been more likely to respond to the online survey,
while the part of the population that preferred traditional mail- type communication may have been
more likely to respond to the hard-copy survey. Providing both reduced the risks of using the same
type of raters for the whole sample(common rater effects). Conducting the same survey with

different channels changed the item context due to different ways of grouping items. Each page of
Accepted Article
the online version contained a different set of items than the hard-copy version. We obtained 186
completed online surveys, and 28 completed mailed surveys (Part I and II) for a total of 214
completed surveys and a response rate of 10.46 percent (214/2045). Table 2 shows the data set’s
sample demographics. The data set encompasses sixteen industries and different firm sizes,
enhancing the external generalizability of results from this study.
Control Variables
Our study focuses on inter-firm and project-level factors that influence the capability and motivation
of the buyer and supplier firms in integrating interdependent resources in a joint NPD project team.
We included five control variables that are tangential to our focus but may affect collaboration
outcomes: firm size, supplier involvement timing, technological newness, product complexity, and
task relevant expertise of the joint project team. Company size may also affect its project
management capabilities, collaboration competences, and innovation potentials. Thus, we controlled
for potential effects of firm size, a latent variable indicated by the number of employees (log) and
sales (log), on both design quality and efficiency. The timing of supplier involvement is usually
believed to affect NPD project outcomes
(Blenkhorn and Noori 1990; Hartley, Zirger and Kamath 1997). Thus, we included supplier
involvement timing in the model to control for its potential effects. We also controlled for the
influences of technological newness and product complexity, both of which impact the progress of
NPD projects (Koufteros, Vonderembse and Doll 2002; Tatikonda and Rosenthal
2000). Whether sufficient knowledge and skills are applied to a group task is an important criterion of

Accepted Article group process effectiveness, contribut ing to better group performance (Bunderson
2003; Hackman 1987). Since engineers’ task-relevant expertise at both companies should be
positively associated with design performance, we also controlled for this expertise1.
Measurements of Constructs
Table 3 shows the construct measurements and literature references for the ten multi- item
constructs used in this study. All of the constructs use existing items validated in the literature
except for CQ. We evaluated all items on a five-point scale. To control for the influences of the
difficulty levels of project goals, each indicator for design quality and efficiency is a product of goal
aggressiveness and the extent to which each goal is achieved (Swink and Calantone 2004). Thus,
given a particular level of goal achievement, project performance is higher if the goal was more
aggressive. For instance, if the respondent
strongly agrees with the first goal achievement item “the product design is of high quality” (5) and
strongly agrees with the first goal aggressiveness item “The overall quality goal for this product was
very aggressive” (5), then the product of the two: 5*5=25, becomes the first item measuring design
quality. This measurement approach addresses the possibility that goals themselves may be adjusted
according to the technological novelty and organizational complexity of the NPD project. A 5-point
Likert scale was used for all the constructs to indicate the extent to which managers agree or disagree
with each statement where 1 =
1
Industry was not included as a control variable for two reasons. First, adding a large number of dichotomously
scored items (in this case, 15 industry dummies) to SEM models has been shown to reduce stability of parameter
estimates and create convergence problems (DiStefano 2002; Hutchinson and Olmos 1998). Second, multivariate
linear regression analysis showed that none of the 15 industry dummies was a significant regression predictor of
collaboration quality, design quality, or design efficiency.

strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree.
Accepted Article
Instrument Development, Purification and Validation. We developed instruments for CQ in three
steps: (1) item generation, (2) structured interview, and (3) large-scale analysis. First, we conducted
an extensive literature review to ensure the content validity of the construct and generate the initial
items for measuring the construct. Then, we conducted structured interviews with academic and
industry experts to provide a preliminary assessment of the reliability and validity of the scale.
Finally, we validated the instrument with a large-scale survey.
In step one, we generated items for CQ to achieve the construct’s content validity by
reviewing relevant literature (DeVellis 2011). The measurement items need to cover the content
domain of CQ, measuring the quality of project-level interactions between the buyer and supplier
groups when jointly developing a new product (Churchill 1979). After extensively reviewing the
intra- and inter-organizational collaboration literature, we generated an initial list of 18 items for
five components of collaboration quality (see Table 3) (Cao and Zhang 2011; Heide and Miner 1992;
Heimeriks 2002; Hoegl and Gemuenden 2001; Hoegl and Wagner 2005; Hoegl, Weinkauf and
Germuenden 2004; Littler, Leverick and Bruce 1995; Mishra and Shah 2009; Ragatz, Handfield and
Petersen 2002; Sivadas and
Dwyer 2000; Stock and Tatikonda 2008).
After creating measurement items, practitioners from three different manufacturing firms and two
academic experts in the area of buyer-supplier collaboration reviewed and evaluated them to pre-
assess the reliability and validity of the scales. We conducted
structured interviews to check the relevance and clarity of each sub-construct’s definition and the

wording of question items. Based on the feedback from the experts, we eliminated or modified
Accepted Article
redundant and ambiguous items. Overall, we sent out a refined list of 15 items for the large scale
survey (the three items that were deleted in this step are marked with ** in Table 3).
In step three, we performed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with maximum likelihood
estimation in LISREL 8.80 to further purify the instruments and validate the uni-dimensionality,
convergent validity, discriminant validity, reliability, and second-order construct validity of the
measurement model (Cao and Zhang 2011; Garver and Mentzer
1999). We created one first-order correlated model including all ten latent constructs with the
related multi-items measures grouped together (Garver and Mentzer 1999). We conducted
instrument purification through iterative modifications, which dropped items with loadings less than
0.7 and also items with high correlated errors, thus improving the model fit to acceptable levels (Cao
and Zhang 2011). In all cases, we deleted items if such action was theoretically sound and the
deletions were done one at each step. As a result, we deleted one more item from the
“knowledge/skill-based contribution” component of CQ instrument because of its low factor loading
(the one that was marked with * in Table 3). The final model fit indices of the measurement model
are as follows: Chi-square (1169)=1625.27,
normed Chi-square=1.39, RMSEA=0.038, 90 percent confidence interval for RMSEA (0.032,
0.043), P-value (RMSEA<0.05)=1.00, SRMR=0.055, NNFI=0.97, CFI=0.98, IFI=0.98, all of which meet
the recommended criteria, indicating good uni-dimensionality. As shown in
Table 3, all the item loadings for each factor are greater than 0.70 and significant at p < 0.01 based
on t-values, indicating good convergent validity.
We measure CQ as a reflective second-order construct in order to capture

complementarities arising from the first-order constructs (Milgrom and Roberts 1995). From a
Accepted Article
complementarity theory perspective, a second-order reflective measurement model implies that the
returns obtained from jointly displaying the five types of effective buyer- supplier project-level
interacting behaviors are greater than the sum of returns obtained from using individual types in
isolation. To validate this second-order measurement model, we adopted a hierarchical approach
and analyzed four measurement models to establish the
dimensional structure of collaboration quality using CFA (Koufteros, Babbar and Kaighobadi
2009; Mishra and Shah 2009). A hierarchical approach is a systematic process for evaluating
alternative models that have the potential to describe relationships between observed and latent
variables.
Adopting this approach, we constructed four models. Model 1 included one first-order latent variable
with 14 observed indicators. Model 2 hypothesized five first-order
uncorrelated (orthogonal) factors. Model 3 was similar to Model 2 except that we specify factor
correlations. Model 4 included one second-order factor and four first-order factors with
corresponding observed variables. This method of testing second-order measurement models is
reflective of the body of literature that posits and tests higher-order models (Arnau and Thompson
2000; Rindskopf and Rose 1988). The fit statistics for these four models are shown in Table 4.
From Table 4 we see that both Model 1 and 2 fit the data significantly worse than the second-order
model (Model 4). According to the literature (Arnau and Thompson 2000; Marsh and Hocevar 1985), a
model that includes a second-order model structure (such as Model 4) can never produce a model fit
that is ‘‘better’’ than a model that specifies only first - order correlated factors, such as Model 3 (i.e.,
better fitting in terms of the model fit indices). So, it is not surprising that Model 4 fits slightly worse
than Model 3 for both samples. However, the performance difference between Model 3 and 4 is very
minor. The efficacy of second-order models can be assessed by examining the target (T) coefficient
Accepted Article
(where T = first - order 2/second-order 2) (Marsh and Hocevar 1985). The T coefficient 0.80–1.00
indicates the existence of a second-order construct. The T coefficient for collaboration quality is 0.91,
indicating an acceptable second-order measurement model. Given the deficiency of Model 3, such as
discriminant validity and issues of multicollinearity, and the need of second-order models from a
theoretical perspective to capture the complementarity of the five interacting behaviors, Model 4
appears to be the best choice for specifying CQ (Koufteros, Babbar and Kaighobadi 2009; Mishra and
Shah 2009).
We assessed discriminant validity using chi-square difference tests comparing two models for each of
the 45 pairs of the 10 constructs (Garver and Mentzer 1999; O'Leary-Kelly and J. Vokurka 1998), using
a Bonferroni corrected p-value of 0.1139 (Byrne 1994; Kroes and Ghosh 2010). All 45 pairs of chi-
square difference tests were significant (p-value<0.001139), indicating discriminant validity.
To test reliability of all the latent constructs, we used both the traditional reliability measures, such as
Cronbach’s Alpha, average variance extracted (AVE), and construct reliability (Garver and Mentzer
1999) (see Table 3 for detailed results). All the constructs’ Cronbach’s Alpha are higher than .70, and
most are higher than .80, indicating reliable scales. All the constructs have SEM construct reliability
scores higher than 0.70 and AVE scores higher than 0.50, indicating acceptable reliability levels
(Garver and Mentzer 1999; Fornell and Larcker, 1981). To test the reliability of the second-order
latent construct collaboration quality, we tested both construct and first-order sub-dimensions’
reliabilities. We evaluated second-order level construct reliability by calculating Fornell and Larcker
(1981) index of construct reliability. We used the squared multiple correlation to evaluate the
reliability of each sub-dimension (first-order) CQ (MacKenzie, Podsakoff and Podsakoff 2011). The CQ
construct has reliability of 0.96 and AVE of 0.84. The squared multiple correlations for the four first-
order constructs are 0.76, 0.76, 0.86 and 0.74 (one first-order construct is the marker variable with
the factor loading constrained to be 1), all of which are greater than the 0.5 threshold.
Accepted Article We used two procedures to test for the presence of non-response bias using two methods.
First, we compared results from the first and last 30 survey responses on all the items composing the
10 latent constructs (Lambert and Harrington 1990). Second, we conducted t-tests on the 2010 sales
figures and on number of employees between a random sample of 100 respondents and 100 non-
respondents from our population pool. We identified no significant differences in either analysis.
We attempted to minimize common method bias by separating the respondents answering
dependent variables from those evaluating independent variables. In addition, we employed two
data collection methods, on-line and mail surveys, to minimize the bias associated with one data
collection method. We used Harman’s Single Factor Test to examine for common method bias. Our
analysis showed that items load onto 10 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, which is a strong
indication that common method bias is not present in our sample.
RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, correlations, etc.) of the ten latent constructs for
the sample are shown in Table 5. The distribution of performance measures show that the sample
covered both projects that perform very well and those that did not meet expectation. All the items
have skew and kurtosis scores within (+/-2.99) and most are close
to zero, indicating the acceptability of the normal distribution assumption under the SEM
model.
Hypothesis-Testing Results

Figure 1 shows the SEM analysis results for the structural model, which contains structural paths added
Accepted Article
to the measurement model with CQ specified as a second-order reflective latent construct. Fit indices
show this structural model fit s the data well. Chi- square (df=1355) was 1879.88, significantly better
than that of the independent model, where the constructs are specified as independent from each
other, whose Chi-square (df=1485) was
20257.20. The RMSEA is 0.034, with a p-value for test of close fit (RMSEA<0.05) of 1.00, indicating a
good fit to the data. Similarly, the NNFI, CFI, and IFI were all above 0.90, meeting expectations. The
SRMR is 0.057, which is below the threshold of 0.80 for acceptable fit between the model and the
data. In addition, the structural model explains a significant proportion of variance in the two
dependent variables (R-squared values are 46 percent for design quality, 37 percent for design
efficiency and 81 percent for collaboration quality).
As indicated in Figure 1, contradictory to Hypothesis 1, relationship-specific investments
significantly reduced CQ (the standardized structural coefficient is -0.27 with a
p-value<0.01). Consistent with Hypothesis 2, coordination efforts significantly increased CQ (the
standardized structural coefficient is 0.28 with a p-value<0.01). Both project-level factors, goal
congruence, and complementary capabilities, improved CQ at a 0.001 significance level (the
standardized structural coefficients are 0.55 and 0.75 respectively), supporting Hypotheses 3 and 4.
The links from CQ to design quality and design efficiency were positive and significant (standardized
structural coefficients are 0.27 with a p- value<0.05 and 0.34 with a p-value<0.01 respectively),
supporting Hypotheses 5a and 5b.
Exploring the Relative Impacts of Antecedents on Collaboration Quality
We are also interested in understanding which factors are more influential in enhancing CQ.

Relationship-specific investment was not considered in the following comparisons because it was
Accepted Article
found to reduce CQ. In order to explore the answer to this question, we tested the differences
between the structural paths linking the three contributing factors (coordination efforts, relationship-
specific investment, and goal congruence) with CQ using chi-square difference tests in SEM.
Specifically, we used a constrained model, constraining the structural path for one factor (e.g.,
coordination effort) to be equal to that for another (e.g., complementary capabilities). Then, we
compared the constrained model with
the baseline model containing no such equality constraint, through a chi-square difference test, to
determine whether the constrained model fits the data significantly worse than the baseline
model. If the test turns out to be significant, then it suggests the two tested path coefficients are
significantly different from each other. Thus, if one standardized path coefficient is greater than
the other, the former is statistically greater than the latter.
Table 6 shows the results of these three tests. Interestingly, the effects associated with the
two project-level antecedents, goal congruence and capability complementary, are significantly larger
than the contribution of coordination efforts, while the two project -level factors themselves did not
differ significantly. The implications of these findings are discussed in the discussion and conclusion
section.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The goal of this study was to define and operationalize the concept of buyer-supplier collaboration
quality, measuring how well buyer and supplier project members interact in co- developing a new
product. Adopting a resource dependence theory perspective, we theorize its antecedents and
performance implications. Using data from a multi-industry survey of buyer organizations regarding

214 buyer-supplier joint NPD instances in the United States, we empirically validated that CQ as a
Accepted Article
second-order latent construct reflected by five first- order dimensions, was positively associated with
both design quality and efficiency in buyer- supplier joint product development projects. In addition,
we found that three out of the four proposed antecedents contribute to CQ. Surprisingly, we found
relationship-specific investments have a negative impact on collaboration quality. We now discuss
theoretical contributions and managerial implications.
Theoretically, this study adds to the NPD and inter-organizational collaboration research by
conceptualizing and measuring buyer-supplier CQ, a construct that captures the complementarity
among effective buyer-supplier project-level interactions. Through empirically validating CQ’s
positive impacts on project performance, this study suggests that increasing the “quality”, not just
the “quantity”, of buyer-supplier project-level interactions in joint projects is important. The second-
order reflective structure of CQ further highlights that jointly improving all five dimensions creates
returns greater than the sum from improving any individual dimension in isolation (Milgrom and
Roberts 1995).
Adopting a resource dependence theory perspective, we proposed four antecedents to CQ -
two on an inter-firm and two on the project level. We empirically validated that three of the four
contribute to CQ, confirming the importance of effectively managing resource dependence in
improving the quality of buyer-supplier interactions. Specifically, effective buyer-supplier
interactions are more likely to emerge on the project level when the two groups have congruent
goals and complementary capabilities. They are also likely to emerge on an inter-firm level when the
two firms have spent extensive joint efforts beyond the focal
project in exploring synergies and opportunities embedded in the relationship. This is because, in

these project and inter-firm contexts, the parent firms are more capable of supporting the joint
Accepted Article
project team with the right resources and the two groups are more motivated to share critical
resources to achieve tasks. As a result, when group members interact, they are more likely to realize
resource synergy and minimize resources wasted. These findings show empirical support for Van
Echtelt, Wynstra and Van Weele's (2007) claim that both strategic
and operational processes matter for the success of buyer-supplier joint NPD.
Surprisingly, we found that relationship-specific investment has a significant negative effect on
collaboration quality. This finding is surprising due to the general belief that relationship-specific
investments enhance inter-firm collaboration outcomes (Dyer and Singh
1998; Jap 1999; Joshi and Stump 1999; Jap 2001). However, this finding is consistent with recent
studies that point to the “dark side” of a close buyer-supplier relationship (Anderson and Jap 2005)
and repeated collaboration (Skilton and Dooley, 2010). Inter-firm relationship-specific investments,
like capital equipment, dedicated human resources, and specialized information systems, might
prevent collaborative behaviors from emerging on the project level due to the following reasons.
First, relationship-specific investments may trap firms in the existing relationship, thus
reducing project members’ motivation to look for better alternatives when doing things together
(Poppo, Zhou and Rhu 2007; Soda and Usai 1999). The expected long-term open-ended
relationship, signaled by relationship-specific investments, insulates both firms from the pressure
of market competition, thus reducing the motivation to seek more productive ways of interacting
with each other. Second, relationship-specific investments may secure the relationship too much
to even create occasions for opportunistic behaviors (Granovetter 1985). Excessive levels of
relational security may lead both firms to reduce efforts of monitoring, vigilance, and safeguards to
allow rooms for opportunistic behaviors (Villena, Revilla and Choi 2011). With their partner-

specific knowledge gained over time, members from one firm may be able to easily devise a way to
Accepted Article
systematically cheat the other group, such as providing wrong information or hiding important
technical specifications, under the veil of a long-term strategic relationship (Anderson and Jap
2005). Finally, relationship-specific investment may rigidify inter-firm interactions in a way that
harms project performance. For instance, an existing relationship- specific information system,
though reducing the cost of inter-firm communication, could routinely overload each firm with too
much information at wrong occasions, making timely and appropriate decision making in the
project more difficult (Koka and Prescott 2002). Similarly, dedicated human resources in the form
of strong interpersonal relationships linking the two firms may prevent identifying and solving
problems in a timely and appropriate manner. For instance, in order to maintain a harmonious
atmosphere, one group may be reluctant to objectively acknowledge the other group’s low
commitment, performance deterioration, lack of responsiveness, or late communication
throughout the project (Jeffries and Reed 2000; Selnes and Sallis 2003).
Managerial Implications
Our study also has important managerial implications. First, defining and measuring CQ as a
comprehensive buyer-supplier project-level interaction effectiveness measure offers managers an
enhanced understanding of buyer-supplier collaboration in joint projects. Specifically, project
managers are better advised about symptoms of low-quality collaboration, such as a lack of mutual
support, unbalanced contribution to decision making, inaccurate or late communication, or low
commitment. The complementarity among different collaborative practices validated by this study
also suggests that efforts should be devoted to facilitate the joint improvement of all the aspects of a
high-quality collaboration process, rather than focusing on individual dimensions.
Second, our results suggest where the managerial effort should focus in order to improve

the quality of buyer-supplier collaboration in joint NPD projects. Specifically, buyers should favor
Accepted Article
selecting suppliers with whom they have prior collaborations in joint projects. Previous
coordination efforts enable the partnering firms to better support the joint project team with the
right organizational resources. When designing the joint project team, project managers should
align the goals of both member groups at the beginning of the
collaboration to avoid conflicts in resource sharing and exchange in later stages. For instance, they
could hold face-to-face meetings early in the NPD process involving all participants to clarify
expectations and resolve conflicts. Given the positive effect of complementary capabilities on CQ,
managerial attention should be paid to selecting project members who possess complementary skills
and expertise. In addition, the negative effect of inter-firm relationship-specific investments on the
quality of buyer-supplier project-level interactions warns managers of the project-level “dark side” of
a collaborative buyer-supplier relationship (Stephan M 2011; Villena, Revilla and Choi 2011). Due to
the relational security created by relationship-specific investment, project members might not be
motivated to seek better solutions when interacting with each other. To counteract this, project
managers should design incentive mechanisms to motivate explorative learning, award continuous
improvement, and discourage routine but unproductive interactions. In addition, intensifying
monitoring and aligning incentives at the project-level could help minimize opportunistic behaviors,
an unwelcomed side product of relationship-specific investment.
Fourth, managers are reminded of the importance of monitoring emerging buyer-supplier
project-level interaction behaviors throughout the project in order to secure project success. Without
contributing to effective project-level interaction behaviors, congruent goals may reduce design
innovativeness due to a lack of healthy debate and criticism (Thomsen
1998; Yan 2010). Complementary capabilities may reduce process efficiency due to the difficulty of

processing diverse information and integrating disparate knowledge in a heterogeneous team
Accepted Article
(Jackson 1992; Lane and Lubatkin 1998). Also, rich inter-firm collaboration experience may lead to
creative abrasion that harms both design quality and process efficiency (Bidault and Castello 2010;
Hoang and Rothaermel 2005; Skilton and Dooley 2010). Through active monitoring and improving
the quality of interactions, groups are more likely to realize the full benefits of a good buyer-
supplier relationship and project team design.
Finally, this study suggests that managers should prioritize creating an aligned buyer-
supplier project structure over relying on a good inter-firm relationship in order to have a high-CQ
process. The two project-level factors, goal congruence and complementary capabilities, significantly
outperform the inter-firm causal factor, coordination efforts, in enhancing collaboration quality. This
implies the risk of ignoring designing the project structure and relying on the inter-firm relationship in
supplier selection. Without a well-
structured joint project team composed of members with congruent goals and complementary
capabilities, even long-term partnering firms could fail in joint NPD endeavors (Bidault and Castello
2010).
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
This research only collected buyers’ responses regarding project performance and inter-firm
interactions, which may have led to bias in results. We used buyers’ responses as the sole source
based on the assumption that they have greater initiatives and assume the most responsibility in
coordinating the inter-firm joint innovation process. However, suppliers may have different views
on how they coordinate with the buyer and how well the collaboration went. Collecting information
from both buyer and supplier firms would enhance the validity and reliability in measuring latent
constructs.

This study only examined performance of the productive output, a design of the
Accepted Article
buyer-supplier group. According to the work group management literature, another important
criterion for group effectiveness is enhanced capability of group members to work together in the
future (Hackman 1987). Cooperative competency on an inter-organizational level is an important
predictor of firm performance (Blomqvist and Levy 2006; Dyer and Singh 1998; Heimeriks and
Duysters 2007; Sivadas and Dwyer 2000). Thus, it is important to examine whether an effective
collaborative process in one project could benefit the two firms by improving cooperative
competency in the future. Longitudinal data is needed to do such research.
This study used product complexity and technological newness as control variables. Future
studies could examine how these widely-examined technical project characteristics moderate the
influences of inter-firm and project causal factors on CQ and project performance. Product complexity
and technological newness influence the amount of task uncertainty in a project (Tatikonda and
Rosenthal 2000; Yan 2010), which may influence the impacts of different causal factors on
collaborative behaviors. Findings from future studies of
this sort could help project managers understand which factors are more important in facilitating
the emergence of collaborative inter-firm interactions for each type of project.
References
Allred, C.R., S.E. Fawcett, C. Wallin and G.M. Magnan "A dynamic collaboration capability as a source
of competitive advantage," Decision Sciences, (42:1), 2011, pp 129-161.
Amabile, T.M., C. Patterson, J. Mueller, T. Wojcik, S.J. Kramer, P.W. Odomirok and M.
Marsh "Academic-practitioner collaboration in management research: A case of
cross-profession collaboration," Academy of Management Journal, (44:2), 2001, pp
418-431.
Anderson, E. and D.S. Jap "The dark side of close relationships," MIT Sloan Management
Accepted Article Review, (46:3), 2005.
Anderson, E. and B. Weitz "The use of pledges to build and sustain commitment in distribution
channels " Journal of Marketing Research, (29:1), 1992, pp 18-34.
Anderson, J.C. and J.A. Narus "A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working
partnerships," The Journal of Marketing, (54:1), 1990, pp 42-58.
Andrew, P.J., J. Manget, C.D. Michael, A. Taylor and H. Zablit. Innovation 2010: A return to
prominence- and the emergence of a new world order, The Boston Consulting Group,
2010.
Arnau, R.C. and B. Thompson "Second-order confirmatory factor analysis of the WAIS-III,"
Assessment, (7:3), 2000, pp 237-246.
Arnau, R.C. and B. Thompson "Second Order Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the WAIS-
III," Assessment, (7:3), 2000, pp 237-246.
Austin, J.T. and P. Bobko "Goal-setting theory: Unexplored areas and future research needs,"
Journal of Occupational Psychology, (58:4), 1985, pp 289-308.
Azadegan, A. and K.J. Dooley "Supplier innovativeness, organizational learning styles and
manufacturer performance: An empirical assessment," Journal of operations

management, (28:6), 2010, pp 488-505.
Azadegan, A., K.J. Dooley, P.L. Carter and J.R. Carter "Supplier innovativeness and the role of
interorganizational learning in enhancing manufacturer capabilities " Journal of
Supply Chain Management, (44:4), 2008, pp 14-35.
Babakus, E., C.E. Ferguson Jr and K.G. Jöreskog "The sensitivity of confirmatory maximum
likelihood factor analysis to violations of measurement scale and distributional

assumptions," Journal of Marketing Research), 1987, pp 222-228.
Bidault, F. and A. Castello "Why too much trust is death to innovation?," MIT Sloan
Management Review, (51:4), 2010, pp 33-38.
Birou, M.L. "The role of the buyer-supplier linkage in an integrated product development
environment," Michigan State University 1994.
Blenkhorn, D.L. and A.H. Noori "What it takes to supply Japanese OEMs," Industrial
Marketing Management, (19:1), 1990, pp 21-30.
Blomqvist, K. and J. Levy "Collaboration capability-a focal concept in knowledge creation and
collaborative innovation in networks," International Journal of Management Concepts and

Accepted Article Philosophy, (2), 2006, pp 31-48.
Brown, S.L. and K.M. Eisenhardt "Product Development: Past Research, Present Findings,
and Future Directions," The Academy of Management Review, (20:2), 1995, pp 343-
378.
Bunderson, J.S. "Recognizing and utilizing expertise in work groups: A status characteristics
perspective," Administrative Science Quarterly, (48), 2003, pp 557-591.
Business-Wire. PRTM/MRT/PDMA Survey Shows Gaps in Critical Co-Development
Practices at Majority of Companies, 2002.
Byrne, B.M. Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows: Basic Concepts,
Applications, and Programming Sage Publications Thousand Oaks, CA, 1994.
Campion, M.A., G.J. Medsker and A.C. Higgs "Relations between work group characteristics and
effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups," Personnel Psychology, (46),
1993, pp 823-847.
Cao, M. and Q. Zhang "Supply chain collaboration: Impact on collaborative advantage and
firm performance," Journal of Operations Management, (29:3), 2011, pp 163-180. Carson,

S.J., A. Madhok, R. Varman and G. John "Information processing moderators of the
effectiveness of trust-based governance in interfirm R&D collaboration,"
Organization Science, (14:1), 2003, pp 45-56.
Carton, A.M. and J.N. Cummings "A theory of subgroups in work teams," Academy of
Choi, T.Y. and D.R. Krause "The supply base and its complexity: Implications for transaction costs,
risks, responsiveness, and innovation," Journal of Operations Management, (24:5), 2006, pp
637-652.
Churchill Jr, G.A. "A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs,"
Journal of Marketing Research), 1979, pp 64-73.
Colombo, M.G., L. Grilli and E. Piva "In search of complementary assets: The determinants
of alliance formation of high-tech start-ups," Research Policy, (35:8), 2006, pp 1166-
1199.
DeVellis, R.F. Scale development: Theory and applications, Sage Publications, Incorporated,
2011.

DiStefano, C. "The impact of categorization with confirmatory factor analysis," Structural
Accepted Article Equation Modeling, (9:3), 2002, pp 327-346.
Dooley, K.J. and A. Van de Ven "Explaining complex organizational dynamics,"
Organization Science, (10:3), 1999, pp 358-372.
Dreu De, C.K.W. "Cooperative outcome interdependence, task relexivity, and team effectiveness:
A motivated information processing perspective," Journal of Applied Psychology, (92:3),
2007, pp 628-638.
Dwyer, R.F., P.H. Schurr and S. Oh "Developing buyer-seller relationships," The Journal of
Marketing, (51:2), 1987, pp 11-27.
Dyer, H.J. and H. Singh "The Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and Sources of
Interorganizational Competitive Advantage," Academy of Management Review, (23:4),
1998, pp 660-679.
Engwall, M. and A. Jerbrant "The resource allocation syndrome: the prime challenge of multi-
project management?," International journal of project management, (21:6),
2003, pp 403-409.
Ernst, H. "Success Factors of New Product Development: A Review of the Empirical
Literature," International Journal of Management Reviews, (4:1), 2002, pp 1-40.

Espinosa, J.A. "Shared Mental Models and Coordination in Large-Scale, Distributed
Software Development," Carnegie Mellon University, 2002.
Ettlie, J.E. and S.R. Rosenthal "Service versus Manufacturing Innovation*," Journal of
Product Innovation Management, (28:2), 2011, pp 285-299.
Ford, C.R. and W.A. Randolph "Cross-Functional Structures: A Review and Integration of
Matrix Organization and Project Management," Journal of Management, (18:2), 1992, pp

267-294.
Fornell, C. and D.F. Larcker "Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error," Journal of Marketing Research, (18:1), 1981, pp
39-50.
Garver, M.S. and J.T. Mentzer "Logistics research methods: employing structural equation
modeling to test for construct validity " Journal of Business Logistics, (20:1), 1999, pp 33-
57.

Gerwin, D. "Cordinating new product development in strategic alliances " Academy of
Accepted Article Management Review, (29:2), 2004, pp 241-257.
Granovetter, M. "Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness,"
American Journal of Sociology, (91:3), 1985, pp 481-510.
Gray, B. "Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems," San Francisco),
1989.
Gray, B. and D.J. Wood "Collaborative alliances: Moving from practice to theory," The
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, (27:1), 1991, pp 3-22.
Griffin, A. "The effect of project and process characteristics on product development cycle time,"
Journal of Marketing Research, (34), 1997, pp 24-35.
Hackman, J.R. "The design of work teams." In Lorsch, J. W. (Ed.), Handbook of

organizational behavior Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Handfield, R.B., G.L. Ragatz, J.K. Petersen and M.R. Monczka "Involving suppliers in new product
development " California Management Review, (42:1), 1999, pp 59-82.
Harbour-Felax, L.A. "Differences that matter," Automotive Design & Production, (121:5),
2009.
Harrigan, K.R. and W.H. Newman "Bases of interorganization cooperation: Propensity, power,
persistence " Journal of Management Studies, (27:4), 2007, pp 417-434.
Hartley, J.L., B.J. Zirger and R.R. Kamath "Managing the buyer-supplier interface for on- time
performance in product development," Journal of Operations Management,
(15:1), 1997, pp 57-70.
Heide, J.B. and G. John "Alliances in industrial purchasing: The determinants of joint action
in buyer-supplier relationships," Journal of Marketing Research, (27:1), 1990, pp 24-
36.
Heide, J.B. and A.S. Miner "The shadow of the future: effects of anticipated interaction and
frequency of contact on buyer-seller cooperation," Academy of Management Journal, (35:2),
1992, pp 265-291.
Heimeriks, K. "Alliance Capability, Collaboration Quality, and Alliance Performance: An
Integrated Framework," Eindhoven Centre for Innovation Studies working paper series),
2002.
Heimeriks, K.H. and G.M. Duysters "Alliance capability as mediator between experience and alliance
performance: an empirical investigation into the alliance capability

Accepted Article development process," Journal of Management Studies, (44:1), 2007, pp 25-49.
Hillman, A.J., M.C. Withers and B.J. Collins "Resource dependence theory: A review,"
Journal of Management, (35:6), 2009, pp 1404-1427.
Hoang, H. and F.T. Rothaermel "The effect of general and partner-specific alliance
experience on joint R&D project performance," Academy of Management Journal, (48:2),

2005, pp 332-345.
Hoegl, M. and G.H. Gemuenden "Teamwork Quality and the Success of Innovative Projects: A
Theoretical Concept " Organization Science, (12:4), 2001, pp 435-449.
Hoegl, M. and S.M. Wagner "Buyer-Supplier Collaboration in Product Development
Projects," Journal of Management, (31:4), 2005, pp 530-548.
Hoegl, M., K. Weinkauf and H.G. Germuenden "Interteam coordination, project commitment, and
teamwork in multiteam R&D projects: A longitudinal study," Organization Science, (15:1),
2004, pp 38-55.
Hong, Y. and J.L. Hartley "Managing the Supplier–Supplier Interface in Product
Development: The Moderating Role of Technological Newness," Journal of Supply
Chain Management, (47:3), 2011, pp 43-62.
Hong, Y., J.N. Pearson and A.S. Carr "A typology of coordination strategy in multi-
organizational product development," International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, (29:10), 2009, pp 1000-1024.
Hutchinson, S.R. and A. Olmos "Behavior of descriptive fit indexes in confirmatory factor
analysis using ordered categorical data," Structural Equation Modeling: A

Multidisciplinary Journal, (5:4), 1998, pp 344-364.
Inforsys. "Managing the global supply chain and collaboration are the biggest challenges.",
http://www.infosys.com/offerings/industries/high-technology/white-
papers/Documents/managing-global-supply-chain.pdf.
Inkpen, A.C. and P.W. Beamish "Knowledge, bargaining power, and the instability of
international joint ventures," Academy of Management Review), 1997, pp 177-202.

Ireland, D., R. , M.A. Hitt and D. Vaidyanath "Alliance management as a source of
competitive advantage," Journal of Management, (28:3), 2002, pp 413-446. Jackson,

S.E. "Consequences of group composition for the interpersonal dynamics of
strategic issue processing." In Shrivastava, P., A. Huff and J. Dutton (Eds.), Advances in
strategic management, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
Jap, D.S. "Pie-expansion efforts: Collaboration processes in Buyer-Supplier relationships,"

Accepted Article Journal of Marketing Research, (36:November), 1999, pp 461-475.
Jap, D.S. and E. Anderson "Safeguarding interorganizational performance and co ntinuity under ex
post opportunism " MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, (49:12), 2003, pp 1684-
1701.
Jarvenpaa, S.L. and D.E. Leidner "Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams,"
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, (3:4), 1998, pp 0-0.
Jassawalla, A.R. and H.C. Sashittal "An Examination of Collaboration in High‐Technology
New Product Development Processes," Journal of Product Innovation Management, (15:3),

1998, pp 237-254.
Jayaram, J. "Supplier involvement in new product development projects: dimensionality and
contingency effects," International Journal of Production Research, (46:13), 2008, pp
3717-3735.
Jeffries, F.L. and R. Reed "Trust and adaptation in relational contracting," Academy of
Joshi, A.W. and S. Sharma "Customer knowledge development: Antecedents and impact on new
product performance," Journal of Marketing), 2004, pp 47-59.
Joshi, A.W. and R.L. Stump "The Contingent Effect of Specific Asset Investments on Joint
Action in Manufacturer-Supplier Relationships: An Empirical Test of the Moderating
Role of Reciprocal Asset Investments, Uncertainty, and Trust," Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, (27:3), 1999, pp 291-305.
Kessler, E.H. and A.K. Chakrabarti "Speeding Up the Pace of New Product Development,"
Journal of Product Innovation Management, (16:3), 1999, pp 231-247.
Koka, B.R. and J.E. Prescott "Strategic alliances as social capital: a multidimensional view,"
Strategic Management Journal, (23:9), 2002, pp 795-817.
Koufteros, X., S. Babbar and M. Kaighobadi "A paradigm for examining second-order factor models
employing structural equation modeling," International Journal of Production Economics,
(120:2), 2009, pp 633-652.
Koufteros, X., M. Vonderembse and J. Jayaram "Internal and external integration for product
development: the contingency effects of uncertainty, equivocality, and platform

strategy," Decision Sciences, (36:1), 2005, pp 97-133.
Koufteros, X.A., M.A. Vonderembse and W.J. Doll "Integrated product development practices and

Accepted Article competitive capabilities: the effects of uncertainty, equivocality, and
platform strategy," Journal of Operations Management, (20:4), 2002, pp 331-355.
Kristof-Brown, A.L. and C.K. Stevens "Goal congruence in project teams: Does the fit between
members' personal mastery and performance goals matter?," Journal of Applied
Psychology, (86:6), 2001, pp 1083-1095.
Kroes, J.R. and S. Ghosh "Outsourcing congruence with competitive priorities: Impact on
supply chain and firm performance," Journal of Operations Management, (28:2),
2010, pp 124-143.
Lakemond, N., C. Berggren and A. van Weele "Coordinating supplier involvement in product
development projects: a differentiated coordination typology," R&D Management, (36:1),
2006, pp 55-66.
Lambe, C.J., R.E. Spekman and S.D. Hunt "Alliance competence, resources and alliance
success: conceptualization, measurement, and initial test," Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, (30:2), 2002, pp 141-158.
Lambert, D.M. and T.C. Harrington "Measuring nonresponse bias in customer service mail surveys,"
Journal of Business Logistics, (11:2), 1990, pp 5-25.
Lane, P.J. and M. Lubatkin "Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning "
Strategic Management Journal, (19), 1998, pp 461-477.
Lane, P.J. and M. Lubatkin "Relative Absorptive Capacity and Interorganizational Learning,"
Strategic Management Journal, (19:5), 1998, pp 461-477.
LePine, J.A., R.F. Piccolo, C.L. Jackson, J.E. Mathieu and J.R. Saul "A meta analysis of teamwork
processes: tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness
criteria," Personnel Psychology, (61:2), 2008, pp 273-307.
Levinthal, D.A. and M. Fichman "Dynamics of Interorganizational Attachments: Auditor-
Client Relationships," Administrative Science Quarterly, (33:3), 1988, pp 345-369. Littler, D., F.
Leverick and M. Bruce "Factors Affecting the Process of Collaborative Product
Development: A Study of UK Manufacturers of Information and Communications
Technology Products," Journal of Product Innovation Management, (12:1), 1995, pp
16-32.
Littler, D., F. Leverick and D. Wilson "Collaboration in new technology based product

Accepted Article markets," International Journal of Technology Management, (15:1-2), 1998, pp 139-
159.
Locke, E. and G. Latham. A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1990.
MacKenzie, S.B., P.M. Podsakoff and N.P. Podsakoff "Construct measurement and validation
procedures in MIS and behavioral research: integrating new and exisitng
techniques " MIS Quarterly, (35:2), 2011, pp 293-334.
MacPherson, A. and D. Pritchard "Boeing’s diffusion of commercial aircraft technology to
Japan: surrendering the US industry for foreign financial support," Journal of Labor
Research, (28:3), 2007, pp 552-566.
Madhavan, R. and R. Grover "From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledge: new product
development as knowledge management," The Journal of Marketing), 1998, pp 1-12.
March, J.G. and H.A. Simon "Organizations Revisited," Industrial and Corporate Change,
(2:1), 1993, pp 299-316.
Marks, M.A., J.E. Mathieu and S.J. Zaccaro "A Temporally Based Framework and
Taxonomy of Team Processes," The Academy of Management Review, (26:3), 2001, pp 356-
376.
Marsh, H.W. and D. Hocevar "Application of confirmatory factor analysis of the study of selfconcept:
first and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups,"
Psychological Bulletin, (97:3), 1985, pp 562-582.
Marsh, H.W. and D. Hocevar "Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of
self-concept: First-and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups,"
Psychological Bulletin, (97:3), 1985, pp 562.
Mathieu, J.E., T.S. Heffner, G.F. Goodwin, E. Salas and J.A. Cannon-Bowers "The influence
of shared mental models on team process and performance," Journal of Applied
Psychology, (2000:85), 2000, pp 2.
Milgrom, P. and J. Roberts "Complementarities and fit strategy, structure, and organizational change
in manufacturing," Journal of Accounting and Economics, (19:2-3), 1995, pp
179-208.
Mintzberg, H. "The Case for Corporate Social Responsibility," Journal of Business Strategy,
(v4), 1983, pp p3-15.

Mishra, A.A. and R. Shah "In union lies strength: Collaborative competence in new product
Accepted Article development and its performance effects," Journal of Operations Management, (27:4),
2009, pp 324-338.
Morgan, M.R. and D.S. Hunt "The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing,"
Journal of Marketing, (58:3), 1994, pp 20-38.
Narasimhan, R. and S. Narayanan "Perspectives on supply network-enabled innovations," Journal of

Supply Chain Management, (49:4), 2013, in print.
Netemeyerm, R.G. and B.O. William "A comparative analysis of two models of behavioral intention
" Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, (20:1), 1992, pp 49-59.
O'Leary-Kelly, S.W. and R. J. Vokurka "The empirical assessment of construct validity,"
Journal of Operations Management, (16:4), 1998, pp 387-405.
Park, S.H. and R.G. Ungson "The effect of national culture, organizational complemenarity, and
economic motivation on joint venture dissolution," Academy of Management Journal,
(40:2), 1997, pp 279-307.
Parker, D.B., G.A. Zsidisin and G.L. Ragatz "Timing and extent of supplier integration in
new product development: A contingency approach " Journal of Supply Chain
Management, (44:1), 2008, pp 71-83.
Paulraj, A., A.A. Lado and I.J. Chen "Inter-organizational communication as a relational competency:
Antecedents and performance outcomes in collaborative buyer–supplier relationships,"
Journal of Operations Management, (26:1), 2008, pp 45-64.
Petersen, K.J., R.B. Handfield and G.L. Ragatz "A Model of Supplier Integration into New
Product Development*," Journal of Product Innovation Management, (20:4), 2003, pp

284-299.
Petersen, K.J., R.B. Handfield and G.L. Ragatz "Supplier integration into new product
development: coordinating product, process and supply chain design," Journal of
Operations Management, (23:3–4), 2005, pp 371-388.
Petersen, K.J., R.B. Handfield and G.L. Ragatz "Supplier integration into new product
development: coordinating product, process and supply chain design," Journal of
Operations Management, (23:3), 2005, pp 371-388.
Pfeffer, J. and G.R. Salancik. The external control of organizations: A resource dependence
perspective., Harper & Row, New York, 1978.
Pinto, M.B. and J.K. Pinto "Project team communication and cross-functional cooperation in new
program development," Journal of Product Innovation Management, (7:3), 1990,
Accepted Article pp 200-212.
Podsakoff, P.M., S.B. MacKenzie, J.-Y. Lee and N.P. Podsakoff "Common method biases in
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. ,"
Journal of Applied Psychology, (88:5), 2003, pp 879-903.
Politis, J.D. "The connection between trust and knowledge management: what are its implications
for team performance," Journal of Knowledge Management, (7:5), 2003, pp 55-66.
Poppo, L., K. Zhou and S. Rhu "Alternative Origins to Interorganizational Trust: An

Interdependence Perspective on the Shadow of the Past and the Shadow of the
Future," Social Science Research Network Working Paper Series), 2007.
Primo, M.A. and S.D. Amundson "An exploratory study of the effects of supplier
relationships on new product development outcomes," Journal of Operations
Management, (20:1), 2002, pp 33-52.
Ragatz, G.L., R.B. Handfield and K.J. Petersen "Benefits associated with supplier integration into new
product development under conditions of technology uncertainty," Journal of Business
Research, (55:5), 2002, pp 389-400.
Ragatz, G.L., R.B. Handfield and T.V. Scannell "Success Factors for Integrating Suppliers
into New Product Development," Journal of Product Innovation Management, (14:3),
1997, pp 190-202.
Rindskopf, D. and T. Rose "Some Theory and Applications of Confirmatory Second-Order
Factor Analysis," Multivariate Behavioral Research, (23:1), 1988, pp 51-67.
Ring, P.S. and A.H. van de Ven "Structuring cooperative relationships between
organizations," Strategic Management Journal, (13:7), 1992, pp 483-498.
Rothaermel, F.T. and D.L. Deeds "Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: a system of
new product development," Strategic Management Journal, (25:3), 2004,
pp 201-221.
Samaddar, S., S. Nargundkar and M. Daley "Inter-organizational information sharing: The
role of supply network configuration and partner goal congruence," European Journal of
Operational Research, (174:2), 2006, pp 744-765.
Sandy D, J. "Perspectives on joint competitive advantages in buyer–supplier relationships,"
International Journal of Research in Marketing, (18:1-2), 2001, pp 19-35.
Sarkar, M., R. Echambadi, T.S. Cavusgil and P.S. Aulakh "The influence of complementarity,
compatibility, and relationship capital on alliance performance " Journal of the Academy of
Accepted Article Marketing Science, (29:4), 2001, pp 358-373.
Schleimer, S.C. and A.D. Shulman "A comparison of new service versus new product
development: Configurations of collaborative intensity as predictors of performance,"
Journal of Product Innovation Management, (28:4), 2011, pp 521-535.
Selnes, F. and J. Sallis "Promoting relationship learning," Journal of Marketing, (67), 2003, pp 80-95.
Sivadas, E. and F.R. Dwyer "An Examination of Organizational Factors Influencing New
Product Success in Internal and Alliance-Based Processes," Journal of Marketing,
(64:1), 2000, pp 31-49.
Sivadas, E. and F.R. Dwyer "An examination of organizational factors influencing new
product success in internal and alliance-based processes," The Journal of Marketing),
2000, pp 31-49.
Skilton, F.P. and J.K. Dooley "The Effects of Repeat Collaboration on Creative Abrasion,"
Academy of Management Review, (35:1), 2010, pp 118-134.
Soda, G. and A. Usai. "The dark side of dense networks: from embeddedness to indebtedness " In
Grandori, A. (Ed.), Interfirm Networks: Organization and Industrial Competitiveness
Routledge, London
Somech, A., H.S. Desivilya and H. Lidogoster "Team conflict management and team
effectiveness: the effects of task interdependence and team identification," Journal of
Organizational Behavior, (30:3), 2009, pp 359-378.
Sosa, M., S. Eppinger and C. Rowles "The Misalignment of Product Architecture and
Organizational Structure in Complex Product Development," MANAGEMENT
SCIENCE, (50:12), 2004, pp 1674-1689.
Srikanth, K. and P. Puranam "Integrating distributed work: comparing task design, communication,
and tacit coordination mechanims " Strategic Management Journal, (32:8), 2011, pp 879-
875.
Stephan M, W. "Supplier development and the relationship life-cycle," International Journal
of Production Economics, (129:2), 2011, pp 277-283.
Stock, G.N. and M.V. Tatikonda "The joint influence of technology uncertainty and
interorganizational interaction on external technology integration success," Journal of

Accepted Article Operations Management, (26:1), 2008, pp 65-80.
Swink, M.L. "Threats to new product manufacturability and the effects of development team
integration processes," Journal of Operations Management, (17:6), 1999, pp 691-709.
Swink, M.L. and R. Calantone "Design-manufacturing integration as a mediator of

antecedents to new product design quality " Engineering Management, IEEE
Transactions on, (51:4), 2004, pp 472-482.
Swink, M.L. and V.A. Mabert "Product development partnerships: Balancing the needs of
OEMs and suppliers," Business Horizons, (43:3), 2000, pp 59-68.
Takeishi, A. "Bridging inter- and intra-firm boundaries: management of supplier involvement in

automobile product development," Strategic Management Journal, (22:5), 2001, pp. 403-433.
Takeishi, A. "Bridging inter‐and intra‐firm boundaries: management of supplier involvement in

automobile product development," Strategic Management Journal, (22:5), 2001, pp 403-433.
Tannenbaum, S.I., R.L. Beard and E. Salas. "Chapter 5 Team Building and its Influence on
Team Effectiveness: an Examination of Conceptual and Empirical Developments." In Kathryn, K.

(Ed.), Advances in Psychology, North-Holland.
Tatikonda, M.V. and S.R. Rosenthal "Successful execution of product development projects:
Balancing firmness and flexibility in the innovation process," Journal of Operations
Management, (18:4), 2000, pp 401-425.
Terwiesch, C., C.H. Loch and A.d. Meyer "Exchanging Preliminary Information in Concurrent
Engineering: Alternative Coordination Strategies," Organization Science, (13:4), 2002, pp
402-419.
Thomsen, J. "The Virtual Team Alliance (VTA): Modeling the Effects of Goal Incongruence in Semi-
Routine, Fast-Paced Project Organizations," Stanford University, 1998.
Tjosvold, D. "Cooperation theory, constructive controversy, and effectiveness: Learning from crisis." In
R. A. Guzzo, E. Salas and Associates (Eds.), Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in
Organizations Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Tushman, M. and D.A. Nadler "Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational

design," Academy of Management Review, (3:3), 1978, pp 613-624.
Van Echtelt, F.E.A., F. Wynstra and A. Van Weele "Strategic and Operational Management of
Supplier Involvement in New Product Development: A Contingency Perspective "
Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on, (54:4), 2007, pp 644-661.
Villena, V.H., E. Revilla and T.Y. Choi "The dark side of buyer–supplier relationships: A
social capital perspective," Journal of Operations Management, (29:6), 2011, pp 561-576.
Von Hippel, E. and G. Von Krogh "Open source software and the “private-collective”

Accepted Article innovation model: Issues for organization science," Organization Science, (14:2),
2003, pp 209-223.
Wagner, S.M. "Tapping Supplier Innovation," Journal of Supply Chain Management, (48:2),
2012, pp 37-52.
Wagner, S.M. and M. Hoegl "Involving suppliers in product development: Insights from
R&D directors and project managers," Industrial Marketing Management, (35:8), 2006,
pp 936-943.
Wech, B.A., K.W. Mossholder, R.P. Steel and N. Bennett "Does work group cohesiveness
affect individuals' performance and organizational commitment? A cross-level

examination. ," Small Group Research, (29:4), 1998.
Wheelwright, S.C. Revolutionizing product development: quantum leaps in speed, efficiency, and
quality, Free Press, 1992.
Williamson, O.E. "Calculativeness, trust, and economic organization," Journal of Law and
Economics, (36:April ), 1993, pp 453-486.
Xie, J., X.M. Song and A. Stringfellow "Interfunctional Conflict, Conflict Resolution Styles, and New
Product Success: A Four-Culture Comparison," MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, (44:12), 1998, pp
S192-S206.
Yan, T. "Communication, Goals and Collaboration in Buyer-Supplier Joint Product Design,"
PhD Dissertation, Arizona State University, , 2010.
Zirger, B.J. and J.L. Hartley "The effect of acceleration techniques on product development time,"
Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on, (43:2), 1996, pp 143-152.
Zirpoli, F. and M. Caputo "The nature of buyer-supplier relationships in co-design activities: The
Italian auto industry case," International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
(22:12), 2002, pp 1389-1410.
Zsidisin, G.A. and M.E. Smith "Managing supply risk with early supplier involvement: a case study and
research propositions," Journal of Supply Chain Management, (41:4), 2005, pp 44-57.

Accepted Article TABLES & FIGURES
TABLE 1
Definitions of the main constructs
Constructs Definitions
the extent to which buyer and supplier groups synergistically exploit shared
Buyer-supplier collaboration
resources while minimizing wastes though interactions during project planning
quality
and execution.
the regular pattern of similar or complementary activities, often in the form of

Coordination efforts
joint projects, that are tailored to the dyad’s needs
Relationship-specific
nonfungible investment that uniquely supports the buyer-supplier relationship
investment
the extent to which a buyer group and a supplier group perceive the possibility of
Goal congruence
common goal achievement in the joint NPD project
the degree to which partners are able to fill out, or complete, each other’s
Complementary capabilities performance by supplying distinct capabilities, knowledge, and resources in the
joint NPD project
Design quality the degree to which the product design meets performance goals related to its
fitness for use

Accepted Article
Design efficiency the extent to which resources are fully utilized on productive design activities
TABLE 2
Sample Demographics
Industry Sectors Frequency Percentage Industry Sectors Frequency Percentage
Machinery
Food Manufacturing 1 0.5 12 5.6
Manufacturing
Computer and
Wood Product
2 0.9 Electronic Product 63 29.4
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Electrical Equipment,
Printing and Related Appliance, and
1 0.5 35 16.4
Support Activities Component
Manufacturing
Transportation
Petroleum and Coal
1 0.5 Equipment 7 3.3
Products Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Plastics and Rubber Furniture and Related

2 0.9 4 1.9
Products Manufacturing Product Manufacturing
Nonmetallic Mineral Medical Equipment and

1 0.5 35 16.4
Product Manufacturing Supplies Manufacturing
Fabricated Metal Other Miscellaneous

8 3.7 33 15.4
Product Manufacturing Manufacturing
Missing values 9 4.2

Accepted Article
Firm Size Frequency Percentage Firm Sales ($) Frequency Percentage
0-100 51 23.83 <=2.5M 78 36.45
101-300 40 18.69 2.5M-5M 69 32.24
301-5000 57 26.63 5M-40M 22 35
Above 5001 61 28.50 >40M 35 16.36
Missing values 5 2.34 Missing values 10 4.67
Part I Part II
Functions Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Marketing 30 14.0 14 6.5
Engineering 129 60.3 133 62.1
Manufacturing 15 7.0 16 7.5
Purchasing 13 6.1 49 23.0
Others 20 9.3 1 0.5
Missing values 7 3.3 1 0.5
TABLE 3
Measurements of the Constructs
Constr Literat
Measurements
ucts ure

Sufficiency of efforts (R-square: 0.76):
Accepted Article In this project, the buyer and the supplier members
1. assumed full responsibility for achieving the project’s

objectives (λ=0.80, t=9.47)
2. fully contributed to carrying the project’s workload. (λ=0.80,

t=8.91)
3. were fully committed to reaching the project objectives.

(λ=0.75, t=9.19)
4. fully pushed the project (**)
Communication quality (R-square: 0.76)
In this project, the buyer and the supplier members were fully
satisfied with
1. the timeliness in which information was made available.

(λ=0.75, t=8.67)
2. the accuracy of the information. (λ=0.75, t=9.50) Hoegl

and
3. the open manner in which information is shared with each
Wagne
other (**)
r
Coordination (R-square: 0.86) (2005),
Hoegl
In this project, and
Gemue
1. The different job and work activities conducted by members
nden
from the two firms fit together very well. (λ=0.78, t=7.64)
(2001),
Collab Littler,
2. People from the two firms who had to work together did
oration Leveric
their jobs properly and efficiently. (λ=0.78, t=7.93)
k and
Quality
3. All related things and activities were well timed in the Wilson
everyday routine of the project. (λ=0.79, t=7.26) (1998),
Ragatz,
4. The work assignments of the people from the two firms Handfi
were well planned. (λ=0.84, t=8.38) eld and
Peterse
Mutual support (Marker variable):
n
In this project, between the buyer and the supplier members . . . (2002),
Sivadas
1. important ideas and information were exchanged openly. and
(λ=0.73, t=13.22) Dwyer
(2000)
2. people adapted well to each other. (λ=0.75, t=13.79)
3. the general atmosphere was cooperative. (λ=0.70, t=14.06)
4. quickly and easily resolved conflicts if they came up (**)

Knowledge/skill-based contribution (R-square: 0.74):
In this project,
1. Strengths and weakness of members from our firm and the

Accepted Article In this project, members from the buyer and supplier firms:
1. have goals that are in conflict with each other (reverse

Jap
coded) (λ=0.85, t=10.99)
and
Goal 2. have compatible goals (λ=0.74, t=16.92) Anders
congru on
ence 3. support each other’s objectives (λ=0.87, t=21.51) (2003),
Jap
4. felt it is highly likely to simultaneously realize goals of the
(1999)
two firms (λ=0.76, t=17.26)
AVE: 0.69, Construct reliability: 0.90, Cronbach’s Alpha: 0.846
During the project, we and people from the supplier
1. contributed different resources to the project that helped us

achieve a better product design. (λ=0.71, t=11.33)
Lambe,
Compl 2. had complementary strengths that were useful to the Spekm
ement project (λ=0.77, t=13.81) an and
ary Hunt
capabil 3. had separate capabilities that, when combined together, (2002),
ities enabled us to achieve a better product design beyond our Jap
individual reach. (λ=0.82, t=13.27) (1999)
Outside this project,
1. Our firm works with this supplier on joint projects tailed to

our respective needs. (λ=0.70, t=9.6)
Coordi 2. Our firm works with the supplier to exploit unique

opportunities. (λ=0.74, t=9.75) Jap
nation
(1999)
efforts
3. Both our firm and the supplier are looking for synergetic
ways to do business together. (λ=0.76, t=10.71)

Outside this project,
Accepted Article 1. If our relationship with the supplier were to end, both firms
would waste a lot of knowledge that’s tailored to our
relationship. (λ=0.71, t=10.72)
Relatio 2. If either our firm or the supplier were to switch to a

nship- competitive buyer or vendor, it would lose a lot of the
Jap
specific investments made in the present relationship. (λ=0.84,
(1999)
invest t=12.82)
ments
3. Both our firm and the supplier have invested a great deal in
building up our joint business (λ=0.84, t=13.57)
Yan
1. The number of components in this product is much more (2010),
than that in similar or substitute products (λ=0.70, t=15.65) Griffin
(1997),
2. The product design required a higher number of interfaces
Griffin
than for similar or substitute products (λ=0.87, t=21.15)
(1997),
3. The components for the product are more difficult to Dooley
Produc
modularize than components for similar or substitute and
t
products (λ=0.83, t=19.55) Van de
comple
Ven
xity 4. The level of expertise required for the design of the new (1999),
product is high and more differentiated than for similar or Swink
substitute products (λ=0.77, t=12.13) (1999),
Choi
and
AVE: 0.63, Construct reliability: 0.87, Cronbach’s Alpha: 0.797 Krause
(2006)

1. How new, on average, were the individual manufacturing
Accepted Article 2.
stages? (λ=0.79, t=17.46)
How new was the process layout? (λ=0.73, t=15.85)
3. Overall, how new were the manufacturing technologies to

be employed with this project? (λ=0.74, t=16.25)
Tatikon
Techno
4. How new, on average, were the product modules? (λ=0.83, da and
logical
t=19.80) Rosent
newne
hal
ss 5. How new was the product configuration? (λ=0.80, t=18.63) (2000)
6. Overall, how new were the product technologies to be

employed in this project? (λ=0.84, t=20.09)

Please evaluate the design process for this product (goal
Accepted Article achievement):
The product design
1. is of high quality. (λ=0.84, t=11.57)
2. dimensional integrity (λ=0.84, t=11.59)
3. durability (λ=0.86, t=11.83) Hoegl

and
4. functionality (λ=0.86, t=11.91) Wagne
r
5. manufacturability(λ=0.80, t=11.17)
(2005),
6. fits to the target customers’ needs. (λ=0.76, t=9.99) Hoegl
and
Please assess the aggressiveness of project goals for designing this Gemue
product (goal aggressiveness): nden
Design (2001),
Quality 1. The overall quality goal for this product was very aggressive Swink
and
2. The dimensional integrity goal for this product was very
Calant
aggressive
one
3. The durability goal for this product was very aggressive (2004),
Takeish
4. The functionality goal for this product was very aggressive i
(2001)
5. The manufacturability goal for this product was very
aggressive
6. The target customers’ needs are very difficult to satisfy
Note: Each of the six items for design quality is a product of goal
aggressiveness and goal achievement

Accepted Article Please evaluate the design process for this product (goal
achievement):
1. Our budget goal for the project was fully achieved (λ=0.74,
t=8.05)
2. The development cost for this product was kept low (λ=0.74,
t=7.84)
3. The development cycle time goal for this component was

fully achieved (λ=0.87, t=8.46)
4. The component design was completed on time (λ=0.86,

t=8.62)
Please assess the aggressiveness of project goals for designing this

Design product (goal aggressiveness): Swink
efficien (1999)
1. The development budget goal for this product was very
cy aggressive
2. The development cycle time goal for this product was very
aggressive
Note: Each of the four items for design efficiency is a product of goal
aggressiveness and goal achievement. Specifically, the first item for
goal aggressiveness corresponds to item 1 and 2 in the goal
achievement scale and the second item for goal aggressiveness
corresponds to item 3 and 4 in the goal achievement scale.
Project members (from both your firm and the supplier)
1. were knowledgeable about designing the product (λ=0.84,

t=15.53)
Netem
Task 2. were competent in designing the product (λ=0.88, t=16.96)
eyerm
Releva
3. were expert in designing the product (λ=0.95, t=14.34) and
nt
Willia
Experti
4. were well trained in designing the product (λ=0.96, t=15.56) m
se
(1992)
5. were experienced in designing the product (λ=0.74, t=8.27)
Note: λ stands for standardized factor loadings, while t is the associated t-value for each factor loading.
** items were removed from the construct during Step 2 of the instrument development process and * items were removed from the
instrument in Step 3 of the instrument development process.

TABLE 4
Accepted Article Measurement Model for Collaboration Quality
Models Δχ2 (df) Norme GFI IFI TLI/NN CFI RMSEA (90% SRM
2
dχ FI CI) R
Model 1 (one-factor 2939.50 2.41 0.8 0.8 0.88 0.9 0.06 (0.04, 0.12
model) (1219) 0 8 0 0 07)
Model 2 (5 uncorrelated 3861.43 3.28 0.6 0.8 0.84 0.8 0.07 (0.07, 0.18
factors) (1179) 2 6 6 0 08)
Model 3 (5 correlated 1625.27 1.39 0.9 0.9 0.97 0.9 0.04 (0.03, 0.06
factors) (1169) 1 8 8 0 04)
Model 4 (onesecond- 1790.80 1.48 0.9 0.9 0.98 0.9 0.05(0.04, 0.06
orderfactor) (1210) 0.05)
TABLE 5
Descriptive Statistics
Mean S.d 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 Collaboration 3.94 0.7 1.00

Quality 1
0.70
Complementar 0.8 1.0
2 y capabilities 4.14 2 0
***
0.60 0.4
3 Goal 3.96 0.8 7 1.0
congruence 8 *** 0
***
0.16 0.1
4 Coordination 3.62 1.0 4 9 0.0 1.0
efforts 4 8 0
* **
Relationship- 0.2 0.4

5 specific 3.24 1.1 0.02 0 0.0 4 1.0
investments 1 7 0
** ***
- 0.1 0.3
6 Product 2.99 0.9 0.03 0.1 5 0 1.0
complexity 9 0 0.0
4 0
* ***
0.1 0.4
7 Technological 2.95 0.8 0.13 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 0 1.0
newness 5 9 5 1 0
** ***
8 Task relevant 3.96 0.8 -0.02 - 0.0 0.0 - - - 1.0

expertise 5 0.0 1 1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0

7 9 4 0
Accepted Article
9 Design quality 14.45(2
)
5.1
3
0.35
***
0.2
7
0.2
8
0.2
2
0.2
1
0.1
5
0.2
1 -
0.0
5
1.0
0
*** *** *** ** * **
0.2 0.2 0.1 0.6

1 Design 12.66(2 5.6 0.33 1 6 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 3 1.0
) 0.0
0 efficiency 3 *** 8 5 9 7 0
** *** * ***
- - - -
1 Firm size (1) 10.70 3.1 -0.04 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
1 8 6 5 7 3 8 7 9 4 1 0
*p<0.05, **p<0.01,***p<0.001, n=214
(1) Firm size is a latent construct indicated by # of employees (log) and firm sales (log)
(2) Values for design quality and design efficiency range from 1 to 25 because each value is a product of a goal
aggressiveness score (1-5) and a goal achievement score (1-5).
TABLE 6
Results of Comparing Structural Paths from Antecedents to Collaboration Quality
Antecedents to Collaboration Standardized path coefficient in Chi-square p-

Result
Quality compared the baseline model difference statistics value
Complementary capabilities vs.

0.75 (CC) 0.55 (GC) Chi-square (1)=3.47 0.062 CC=GC
Goal congruence
Coordination efforts vs. Goal

0.28 (CE) 0.55 (GC) Chi-square (1)=4.72 0.030 CE<GC
congruence
Coordination efforts vs.

0.28 (CE) 0.75 (GC) Chi-square (1)=5.82 0.016 CE<CC
Complementary capabilities

Accepted Article FIGURE 1
SEM analysis results

0.50
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.26
0.7
0.84
4
1 0.8
0.
0.84
84
86
0.42
0.36
0.
0.44
0.36
0.42
0. 0.
0.80
7 8 5
76
6 0 0. 7
0.
0.80
-0
.2
7*
7*
*
0. 2
0.74
0.36
0.26
0.42
0.24
6
5
0.45
0. 2
0.4
0.45
0.51
0.42
0.
0. 2
0. 4
0. 2
0. 4
7
34
0.
0 .8
8
74
**
**
5 5*
0.
0.9
1.00
8
0.
8 2
0.
74
***
75
0.
0. 0 .7 0 .7
75 78
0.78
0.75
75
0. 0 0. 9
4
8
7
9
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.8
0.77
1
0.7 2
0.50
0.41
0.33
Chi-square (1355): 1879.88

***: p-value<0.001
RMSEA: 0.034
** : p-value<0.01
P-value (RMSEA<0.05)=1.00
* : p-value<0.05
NNFI:0.97
CFI: 0.97
IFI: 0.97
SRMR: 0.057

Buyer-Supplier Collaboration Quality in New Product Development Projects

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Buyer-Supplier Collaboration Quality in New Product Development Projects

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Received Date : 26-Oct-2012

Accepted Date : 24-Jun-2013

Article type : Original Article

How well are we collaborating? Buyer-Supplier collaboration quality in new product

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Keywords: buyer-supplier collaboration quality; new product development; supplier involvement;

2009). Buyers depend on suppliers’ resources, such as innovative technologies, manufacturing

product architecture information, project management capability, and assembly coordination

Previous research highlighted the importance of effective buyer-supplier interactions in NPD

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

theoretical framework to define and operationalize the concept of buyer-supplier collaboration

and consequences of buyer-supplier collaboration quality.

A better understanding of buyer-supplier collaboration quality helps examine how contextual

interactions. At the inter-firm level, a collaborative buyer-supplier relationship is generally

complementary capabilities enable synergistic exploitation of interdependent group resources, and,

and project contexts.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

effectiveness of intra-group interactions, buyer-supplier collaboration quality is conceptualized as a

project-level inter-group interaction effectiveness construct.

examined in this study.

CONSTRUCT DEVELOPMENT, ANTECEDENTS, AND CONSEQUENCES

Buyer-Supplier Collaboration Quality: The Effectiveness of Buyer-Supplier Project-Level Interactions

possible (Amabile, Patterson, Mueller, Wojcik, Kramer, Odomirok and Marsh

groups interact through activities such as communicating, adapting to changes, responding to

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

how, human resources, and financial assets,

buyer-supplier collaboration in joint projects, we define:

Buyer-supplier collaboration quality (henceforth called collaboration quality, or CQ)

minimizing wastes though interactions during project planning and execution

Gemuenden (2001). They conceptualize Teamwork Quality as a comprehensive concept of quality of

the exception of cohesion, are relevant to

the multi-dimensioned higher-order construct CQ is that effective buyer-supplier interactions are

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

resource waste or misuse (Pinto and Pinto 1990).

First, it is a project-level construct focusing on task-relevant interactions among project members.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Antecedents to Collaboration Quality: A Resource Dependence Theory Perspective

manner (i.e., motivation) (Dyer and Singh 1998).

resources (Pfeffer and Salancik 1978; Zsidisin and Smith 2005).

between the two sub-groups of the project team

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

investment, two indicators of a collaborative relationship, as well as congruent goals and

complementary capabilities contribute to CQ by facilitating both vertical and horizontal resource

Inter-firm Antecedents to Collaboration Quality. A collaborative buyer-supplier relationship

is distinguished from an arm’s length relationship by its (1) relationship-specific investment

and (2) coordination effort (Jap 1999). Relationship-specific investment is nonfungible

specific investments may include tools, equipment, operating procedures,

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

about exposing shared

costly for parent firms to communicate with the project

sustained and timely resource support.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

project, thus increasing collaboration quality. Thus, we propose that:

H1: In a buyer-supplier joint NPD project, inter-firm relationship-specific investments are

Buyer-supplier coordination efforts, in the form of regular patterns of similar or complementary

1999). Such repeated collaborative interactions help

“who knows what” in the partnering firm, the common

In addition, repeated partner-specific interactions accumulate a firm’s knowledge about the

sharing, all of which enhance CQ (Hackman 1987). Accordingly, we propose that:

we consider how project-level buyer-supplier goal congruence and complementary capabilities

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

congruence, either between supervisors and subordinates, or among peers, is traditionally

negatively associated with organizational performance (Kristof-Brown and Stevens 2001;

Nargundkar and Daley