IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-03052992.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Establishing relationships with distant suppliers to explore discontinuous innovation

Author

Listed:
  • Sihem Ben Mahmoud-Jouini

    (GREGH - Groupement de Recherche et d'Etudes en Gestion à HEC - HEC Paris - Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Florence Charue-Duboc

    (i3-CRG - Centre de recherche en gestion i3 - X - École polytechnique - IP Paris - Institut Polytechnique de Paris - Université Paris-Saclay - I3 - Institut interdisciplinaire de l’innovation - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

A controversy exists in the literature regarding the type of suppliers to consider when leveraging external knowledge for exploring discontinuous innovation (DI): familiar suppliers or distant ones. We argue that firms pursuing DI should establish relationships with distant suppliers along cognitive and relational dimensions and that this requires a specific process. Based on a longitudinal study of a firm that developed such relationships and succeeded in exploring DI, we find that firms can develop such relationships through an approach with three main characteristics: 1) a documented mapping coupling identified DI concepts and their underlying technologies with potential suppliers who master and can provide such technologies; 2) a structured and transparent process supporting mutual and progressive commitment; 3) a specific dedicated entity, separate from the rest of the firm, but at the same time connected to the experts who master the internal knowledge to be combined with the leveraged external knowledge as well as the top managers who will make the decisions regarding further development of the explored opportunities for DI. Simultaneous cooperation with both distant and familiar suppliers enables firms to achieve ambidextrous sourcing and pursue both incremental innovation and DI.

Suggested Citation

  • Sihem Ben Mahmoud-Jouini & Florence Charue-Duboc, 2019. "Establishing relationships with distant suppliers to explore discontinuous innovation," Post-Print hal-03052992, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-03052992
    DOI: 10.1504/IJTM.2019.105320
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-03052992v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-03052992v1/document
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1504/IJTM.2019.105320?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael G. Jacobides & Stephan Billinger, 2006. "Designing the Boundaries of the Firm: From “Make, Buy, or Ally” to the Dynamic Benefits of Vertical Architecture," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(2), pages 249-261, April.
    2. Joe Tidd (ed.), 2013. "Open Innovation Research, Management and Practice," World Scientific Books, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., number p900, August.
    3. Giovanni Dosi & Luigi Marengo, 2007. "On the Convergence of Evolutionary and Behavioral Theories of Organizations: A Tentative Roadmap," LEM Papers Series 2007/01, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    4. Thomas Johnsen & Richard Calvi & Wendy Phillips, 2011. "Purchasing and supplier involvement in discontinuous innovation: a literature review," Post-Print hal-00763038, HAL.
    5. Katherine C. Kellogg & Wanda J. Orlikowski & JoAnne Yates, 2006. "Life in the Trading Zone: Structuring Coordination Across Boundaries in Postbureaucratic Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 22-44, February.
    6. Paul S. Adler & Barbara Goldoftas & David I. Levine, 1999. "Flexibility Versus Efficiency? A Case Study of Model Changeovers in the Toyota Production System," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(1), pages 43-68, February.
    7. Florence Crespin-Mazet & Karine Goglio-Primard & François Scheid, 2013. "Open innovation processes within clusters : the role of tertius iugens," Post-Print hal-02313065, HAL.
    8. Hughes, Mathew & Perrons, Robert K., 2011. "Shaping and re-shaping social capital in buyer-supplier relationships," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 164-171, February.
    9. Paul R. Carlile, 2002. "A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 442-455, August.
    10. Wendy Phillips & Hannah Noke & John Bessant & Richard Lamming, 2006. "Beyond The Steady State: Managing Discontinuous Product And Process Innovation," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 10(02), pages 175-196.
    11. Giovanni Dosi & Luigi Marengo, 2007. "Perspective---On the Evolutionary and Behavioral Theories of Organizations: A Tentative Roadmap," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 491-502, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Linda Argote & Henrich R. Greve, 2007. "A Behavioral Theory of the Firm ---40 Years and Counting: Introduction and Impact," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 337-349, June.
    2. Paul Spee & Paula Jarzabkowski & Michael Smets, 2016. "The Influence of Routine Interdependence and Skillful Accomplishment on the Coordination of Standardizing and Customizing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 759-781, June.
    3. Richard J. Boland & Kalle Lyytinen & Youngjin Yoo, 2007. "Wakes of Innovation in Project Networks: The Case of Digital 3-D Representations in Architecture, Engineering, and Construction," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 631-647, August.
    4. Moshe Farjoun & Christopher Ansell & Arjen Boin, 2015. "PERSPECTIVE—Pragmatism in Organization Studies: Meeting the Challenges of a Dynamic and Complex World," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 1787-1804, December.
    5. Jan-Erik Vahlne & Jan Johanson, 2017. "From internationalization to evolution: The Uppsala model at 40 years," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 48(9), pages 1087-1102, December.
    6. Joel Isabirye, 2021. "The Behavioral Theory of the Firm: Foundations, Tenets and Relevance," Technium Social Sciences Journal, Technium Science, vol. 19(1), pages 324-335, May.
    7. Hilda Bø Lyng & Eric Christian Brun, 2018. "Knowledge Transition: A Conceptual Model of Knowledge Transfer for Cross-Industry Innovation," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(05), pages 1-23, October.
    8. Christopher M. Schlick & Soenke Duckwitz & Sebastian Schneider, 2013. "Project dynamics and emergent complexity," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 480-515, December.
    9. Geiger, Susi & Finch, John, 2016. "Making incremental innovation tradable in industrial service settings," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 2463-2470.
    10. Corinne Bendersky & Kathleen L. McGinn, 2010. "Perspective---Open to Negotiation: Phenomenological Assumptions and Knowledge Dissemination," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 781-797, June.
    11. Hall, Matthew & Mikes, Anette & Millo, Yuval, 2015. "How do risk managers become influential?: a field study of toolmaking in two financial institutions," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 60485, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    12. Coad, Alex, 2019. "Persistent heterogeneity of R&D intensities within sectors: Evidence and policy implications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 37-50.
    13. Järvi, Kati & Almpanopoulou, Argyro & Ritala, Paavo, 2018. "Organization of knowledge ecosystems: Prefigurative and partial forms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8), pages 1523-1537.
    14. Jennifer A. Howard-Grenville, 2005. "The Persistence of Flexible Organizational Routines: The Role of Agency and Organizational Context," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(6), pages 618-636, December.
    15. Samuel C MacAulay & John Steen & Tim Kastelle, 2020. "The search environment is not (always) benign: reassessing the risks of organizational search," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 29(1), pages 1-23.
    16. Brunswicker, Sabine & Schecter, Aaron, 2019. "Coherence or flexibility? The paradox of change for developers’ digital innovation trajectory on open platforms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(8), pages 1-1.
    17. Francesco Rullani & Francesco Zirpoli, 2013. "Coordination of joint search in distributed innovation processes: Lessons from the effects of initial code release in Open Source Software development," Working Papers 20, Venice School of Management - Department of Management, Università Ca' Foscari Venezia.
    18. Charlotte Baille, 2017. "Contrôle aux frontières de l'organisation et apprentissage organisationnel : quel rôle des outils de gestion ?," Post-Print hal-01907577, HAL.
    19. Isabel Maria Bodas Freitas, 2011. "Technological learning environments and organizational practices--cross-sectoral evidence from Britain," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 20(5), pages 1439-1474, October.
    20. Karimikia, Hadi & Bradshaw, Robert & Singh, Harminder & Ojo, Adegboyega & Donnellan, Brian & Guerin, Michael, 2022. "An emergent taxonomy of boundary spanning in the smart city context – The case of smart Dublin," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-03052992. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.