Comparing the Resource-Based and
Relational Views:
Knowledge Transfer and Spillover in
Vertical Alliances
Strategic Management Journal, 29: 913–941 (2008)
MA2M0102 吳佳蓁
Introduction
Introduction

compare resource-based and relational perspectives
to examine competitive advantages

suppliers acquire knowledge to forge new

capabilities and attain performance improvements
firms earn advantages by forging new capabilities
through knowledge acquisition
(Anand & Khanna, 2000; Dussauge, Garrette, & Mitchell, 2004; Dyer & Hatch, 2006;
Grant, 1996; Hatch & Dyer, 2004; Kale, Singh, & Perlmutter, 2000; Khanna, Gulati,
& Nohria, 1998; Mowery, Oxley, & Silverman 1996, 1998; Simonin, 1999, 2004;
Spender, 1996; von Hippel, 1988)
Literature review
Literature review (1/8)
Collective knowledge in buyer-supplier partnerships
Hypothesis 1:
redeploy-able
performance
knowledge
acquisition
relational
performance
Literature review (2/8)
Joint knowledge acquisition and relational
performance
 When suppliers develop knowledge acquisition
efforts jointly with a given buyer, they are more likely to
attain relational performance gains with that buyer.
 Anand and Khanna (2000) explain that alliance
partners observe greater knowledge transfer effects over
time, as their learning alliance becomes more efficient.
Literature review (3/8)
Joint knowledge acquisition and relational
performance
Hypothesis 2:
redeploy-able
performance
Joint buyer supplier
knowledge acquisition
relational
performance
Literature review (4/8)
Joint knowledge acquisition efforts and dyadspecific assets and capabilities
 Joint buyer-supplier knowledge acquisition efforts not
only have a direct effect on a supplier’s relational
performance (2), but also positively relate to a supplier’s
investments(3a) in dyad-specific assets and capabilities,
which in turn further enhance supplier relational
performance (3b).
Literature review (5/8)
Joint knowledge acquisition efforts and dyadspecific assets and capabilities
Hypothesis 3a:
Joint buyer-supplier
knowledge acquisition
Supplier dyad-specific
assets and capabilities
Literature review (6/8)
Supplier dyad-specific assets and capabilities, and
relational performance
Hypothesis 3b:
redeploy-able
performance
Supplier dyad-specific
assets and capabilities
relational
performance
Literature review (7/8)
Dyad-specific assets and capabilities and alliance
governance mechanisms
Hypothesis 4a:
Supplier dyad-specific
assets and capabilities
Buyer-supplier relational
governance mechanisms
Literature review (8/8)
Dyad-specific assets and capabilities and alliance
governance mechanisms
Hypothesis 4b:
redeploy-able
performance
Buyer-supplier relational
governance mechanisms
relational
performance
Data and Methods
Data and Methods (1/2)
Research design and data collection

500 firms producing goods that involve machining,
stamping, or cutting of basic material (e.g., sheet
metal), and assembly of a component.

Response rate was just above 50 percent,
yielding 253 responses.
Data and Methods (2/2)
Measures
five-point Likert scale, where 1 represents ‘not at all,’
and 5 ‘to a large degree.’
Control variables
1. Firm size
2. Importance of customer
3. Competitive pressure
SEM
Results
Results (1/9)
Results of hypotheses tests- hy1
F1F5 = 0.185, t = 3.528, p < 0.001
redeploy-able
performance
(F5)
knowledge
acquisition
(F1)
F1F6 = -0.041, t = -0.748, p>0.1
relational
performance
(F6)
Results (2/9)
Results of hypotheses tests- hy2
F2F5 = 0.028, t = 0.545, p > 0.1
redeploy-able
performance
(F5)
Joint buyer supplier
knowledge acquisition
(F2)
F2F6 = 0.110, t = 2.218, p < 0.001
relational
performance
(F6)
Results (3/9)
Results of hypotheses tests- hy3a
F2F3 = 0.194, t = 3.092, p < 0.001
Joint buyer-supplier
knowledge acquisition
(F2)
Supplier dyad-specific
assets and capabilities
(F3)
Results (4/9)
Results of hypotheses tests- hy3b
F3F5 = -0.022, t = -0.412, p > 0.1
redeploy-able
performance
(F5)
Supplier dyad-specific
assets and capabilities
(F3)
F3F6 = 0.262, t = 4.498, p < 0.001
relational
performance
(F6)
Results (5/9)
Results of hypotheses tests- hy4a
F3F4 = 0.177, t = 2.859, p < 0.001
Supplier dyad-specific
assets and capabilities
(F3)
Buyer-supplier relational
governance mechanisms
(F4)
Results (6/9)
Results of hypotheses tests- hy4b
F4F5 = -0.035, t = -0.645, p > 0.1
redeploy-able
performance
(F5)
Buyer-supplier relational
governance mechanisms
(F4)
F4F6 = 0.209, t = 3.499, p < 0.001
relational
performance
(F6)
Results (7/9)
Results of hypotheses tests
2
△X
△df
p-value
Hy1 (supported)
18.972
1
< 0.001
Hy2 (NOT supported)
1.586
1
> 0.100
Hy3a (supported)
14.228
1
< 0.001
Hy3b (supported)
22.265
1
< 0.005
Hy4b (supported)
15.962
1
< 0.001
> 3.85
Results (8/9)
Results of control variables
p > 0.10
Firm size
p > 0.10
redeploy-able
performance
relational
performance
Importance
of customer
p > 0.10
Competitive
pressure
p < 0.001
p < 0.01
p < 0.01
Results (9/9)
What the results mean
 importance of buyer-supplier knowledge transfer
 alliances → relational performance
alliances → assets and capabilities
assets and capabilities → relational performance
assets and capabilities → governance mechanism
governance mechanism → relational performance
Discussion
&
Conclusion
Discussion and conclusion (1/3)

tacit, team-based capabilities attain competitive
advantages

acquired capabilities are redeployable, rendering
improvements on a supplier’s performance
Discussion and conclusion (2/3)
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Y
X
X+
Discussion and conclusion (3/3)
Limitations and directions for future research
 This study is limited to an analysis of suppliers’
asset investments and relational mechanisms;
it thus may have missed the effects of buyers’
complementary asset investments.
References
References (1/3)
Anand BN, Khanna T. 2000. Do firms learn to create value? The case of
alliances. Strategic Management Journal March Special Issue 21:
295–315.
Dussauge P, Garrette B, Mitchell W. 2004. Asymmetric performance: the
market share impact of scale and link alliances in the global auto
industry. Strategic Management Journal 25(7): 701–711.
Dyer JH, Hatch NW. 2006. Relation-specific capabilities and barriers to
knowledge transfers: creating advantage through network
relationships. Strategic Management Journal 27(5): 701–719.
Grant R. 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic
Management Journal Winter Special Issue 17: 109–122.
Hatch NW, Dyer JH. 2004. Human capital and learning as a source of
sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic management journal
25(12): 1155–1178.
References (2/3)
Kale P, Singh H, Perlmutter H. 2000. Learning and protection of proprietary
assets in strategic alliances: building relational capital. Strategic
Management Journal March Special Issue 31: 217–237.
Mowery DC, Oxley JE, Silverman BS. 1996. Strategic alliances and
interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal,
Winter Special Issue 17: 77–91.
Mowery DC, Oxley JE, Silverman BS. 1998. Technological overlap and
interfirm cooperation: implications for the resource-based view
of the firm. Research Policy 27(5): 507–523.
Simonin BL. 1999. Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in
strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal 20(7): 595–
623.
Simonin BL. 2004. An empirical investigation of the processes of
knowledge transfer in international strategic alliances. Journal
of International Business Studies 35(5): 407–427.
References (3/3)
Spender J-C. 1996. Competitive advantage from tacit knowledge?
Unpacking the concept and its strategic implications. In
Organizational learning and competitive advantage, Moingeon
B, Edmondson A (eds). Sage: Newbury Park, CA; 56–73.
Von Hippel E. 1988. The Sources of Innovation. Oxford University
Press: New York.
Thanks for your attention.