Industrial Marketing Management 58 (2016) 162–171
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Industrial Marketing Management
Supplier involvement in NPD: A quasi-experiment at Unilever
Linda Nhu Laursen a,⁎, Poul Houman Andersen a,b
a
b
Department of Business and Management, Aalborg University, Fibigerstræde 10, DK-9220 Aalborg E, Denmark
Department of Operation Management, NTNU, Gløshaugen 2, 7865 Trondheim, Norway
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 27 October 2015
Received in revised form 27 April 2016
Accepted 1 May 2016
Available online 26 May 2016
Keywords:
Supplier involvement
New product development
Causal ambiguity
Interaction
Quasi-experiments
a b s t r a c t
Growing technological complexity makes it impossible for individual firms to be updated on all technologies relevant to new product development (NPD). Involving suppliers, who have knowledge of complementary technologies, in the early phases of NPD is therefore quite a common practice. However, the timing of involvement
presents a management challenge. We explore how task ambiguity pertaining to NPD affects buyer-supplier interaction. We set up a quasi-experimental study, manipulating causal ambiguity to observe how this impacts
buyer-supplier interactions over time. Our findings reveal that causal ambiguity influences the role expectations
and resource mobilisation of the suppliers before interaction, the actors' mobilisation and their pattern of interaction, and the transformation of outcome and mobilisation of resources ex post interaction. We discuss the implications for managers and researchers in a buyer-supplier context.
© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Firms in many industries realise the importance of involving external parties such as suppliers in new product development (NPD) activities (Song & Di Benedetto, 2008; Van Echtelt, Wynstra, Van Weele, &
Duysters, 2008). In fact, a study suggests that innovation is not possible
without the involvement of heterogeneous actors in the business network (such as suppliers), of which the firms are a part (Corsaro &
Cantù, 2015). Overall, supplier involvement is linked to a number of development advantages, such as increased innovation ability, better
product quality, reduced development costs and shorter development
time (Johnsen, 2009; Petersen, Handfield, & Ragatz, 2003; Van Echtelt
et al., 2008). However, the inclusion of suppliers is a means that should
be employed selectively (King & Penleskey, 1992; Wagner & Hoegl,
2006). Possible detriments include increased costs, longer development
time (Littler, Leverick, & Wilson, 1998) and a decline in product innovation capabilities (Koufteros, Vonderembse, & Jayaram, 2005). The mixed
results of early supplier involvement suggest that despite its high potential value, knowledge about involvement processes is limited
(Kopecká, 2013; Wagner, 2012). More insight is needed on when and
how to involve suppliers in the early phases of NPD (Johnsen, 2009).
One distinctive characteristic of supplier involvement in the early
phases of NPD is that it unfolds as ‘a very uncertain path through foggy
and shifting markets and technologies’ (cf. Eisenhardt & Tabrizi, 1995,
p.88). An important question in this context is how to manage supplier
involvement to support ideation (Johnsen, 2009). Studies suggest a
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: lindal@business.aau.dk (L.N. Laursen), poa@business.aau.dk
(P.H. Andersen).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.05.023
0019-8501/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
trade-off between not pre-specifying solutions to allow for supplier inputs and quickly establishing a manageable development process in an
inter-organisational team (Hansen, 1999; Knudsen & Srikanth, 2015). In
this study, we explore how buyers and suppliers interact, when suppliers are involved in the early phases of NPD. We examine earliness
characterised by various degrees of causal ambiguity. Specifically, we
are interested in determining the following: How do varying degrees
of causal ambiguity in NPD tasks influence supplier interaction?
Supplier collaboration in highly uncertain NPD projects is a challenging governance task (Melander & Lakemond, 2015). Articulating the
precise nature of connections between knowledge, technology and outcome is often difficult (Bstieler & Hemmert, 2010). Causal ambiguity is a
concept frequently used to characterise this difficulty in NPD processes.
It concerns unclear or multiple conceptualisations of the relationship
between actions and results (Daft & Macintosh, 1981; Lippman &
Rumelt, 1982). Early on, new product developers typically experience
great causal ambiguity. A broad range of decisions need to be made
with little information to base them upon (Ulrich & Eppinger, 2005).
However, as development progresses and more options are interlocked,
causal ambiguity decreases (Tidd, Pavitt, & Bessant, 2001). On the one
hand, having multiple possible interpretations of the same phenomenon creates ambiguity about the causality of relations and interrelations
(Daft & Macintosh, 1981; Weick & Roberts, 1993). On the other, a high
degree of causal ambiguity provides greater opportunities for applying
supplier knowledge. Causal ambiguity may lead to non-routine exploration and the discovery of radically new innovation possibilities.
Little is known about the interaction processes associated with supplier involvement in NPD (Wagner, 2012). In order to study this, we use
a comparative quasi-experimental setup, where the causal ambiguity in
the projects differs. Quasi-experiments are a non-intrusive intervention
L.N. Laursen, P.H. Andersen / Industrial Marketing Management 58 (2016) 162–171
in the field, which makes it possible to focus on and manipulate a specific aspect in order to observe and better understand it (Shadish, Cook, &
Campbell, 2002). In the experiments, we collaborate with the case company, Unilever, for designing three different supplier tasks, where the
degree of causal ambiguity differs.
2. Supplier involvement and interaction
We conceptualise interaction in order to better understand suppliers' involvement under different degrees of causal ambiguity. From
an IMP perspective, interfirm interaction in NPD relates to exchange, coordination and adaptation processes (Johanson & Mattsson, 1987;
Miettilä & Möller, 1990). IMP researchers interpret interaction as a process, which both changes and transforms resources and activities for the
actors involved (Håkansson, Ford, Gadde, Snehota, & Waluszewski,
2009). It occurs in the in between – as actors link activities and combine
resources. Repeated interaction shapes the context of the interacting
parties. It is manifested through the formation of operational bonds
and mutual expectations, which act on the mobilised resources and activities – permitting certain interactions but also precluding others.
Several researchers within the IMP domain have used role theory to
further examine how interaction constitutes activity patterns and resource flows (Anderson, Havila, Andersen, & Halinen, 1998; Wynstra,
Spring, & Schoenherr, 2015). A role is a set of behaviours that others expect an individual in a certain position to take in a social context such as
a group or a team (Floyd & Lane, 2000). Roles exist in the minds of those
involved and prescribe how they evaluate interaction (Katz & Kahn,
1978). Members of a role communicate their role expectations by
externalising them in a role sent to the role taker. However, the role received may correspond more or less, depending on the clarity of communication, the content of what was sent and the cognitive faculties
of the sender and receiver. In the interplay between role expectations,
role sent and role received, ‘the taking of roles may be aided by the nature
of the task and the previous experience of the individual with respect to
similar tasks’ (Katz & Kahn, 1978: 193).
In accordance with role theory, supplier involvement in NPD is
characterised by the responsibility suppliers assume, the activities they
perform and the resources they supply, all of which are influenced by
the task they are asked to carry out. Activities are standardised procedures of operation carried out in an organisational context and typically
belonging to a larger faculty of possible procedures. Resources are entities, providing a value (rendering a service for the user) not free in supply (Håkansson & Snehota, 1995). In this sense, the value of resource
entities depends on the knowledge of the user, and a resource may
come into existence or transform as a consequence of a change in the
user's knowledge. Likewise, new combinations of resources and activities are both sources of innovation and value creation.
The perceived task is an articulation of the problem, which serves as
a critical component in guiding suppliers' role expectations. Setting the
task communicates assumptions about relevant issues, priorities and
evaluation criteria. The task structure sets the rules of the game,
which influence the subsequent interaction (Abdel-Halim, 1983). Accordingly, we propose a conceptual model of interaction where the
causal ambiguity of the task can evoke more or less explicit role expectations among suppliers and other actors in the NPD team. Then we examine how these influence the activity of mobilisation and transformation of
resources in the process. We observe how the role suppliers expect to
fulfil affect interactions: which resources they mobilise in advance and
what activities they carry out as well as how their interaction pattern
unfolds and resources are transformed.
3. Methodology
We use a quasi-experimental research design to understand how
specific interpretations of the role expectations may influence interaction patterns and resource mobilisation. A quasi-experiment has been
163
defined as a form of observation study that takes place in a field setting
and involves changing a key independent variable (Grant & Wall, 2009).
One particular and poignant benefit is that it sheds light on interaction
in a systematic and controlled way that rarely is available for research
scrutiny. Since it calls for an extended willingness to collaborate from
the firms involved, it is only seldom possible.
Organisational researchers have for some time shown an interest in
constructing experimental research designs that involve careful manipulation of independent variables in order to observe the effect on dependent variables (Luthans & Davis, 1982; Salancick, 1979). Quasiexperiments aim to identify and use manipulanda that (presumably)
can make a difference to outcomes and/or the processes investigated,
and thus provide learning possibilities. In this sense, business researchers, who otherwise acknowledge that the complex social reality
under study cannot be subjected to a set of laws, use a quasiexperiment to focus on and observe a small slice of that reality. Quasiexperiments may enhance the researchers' ability to scrutinise and explore the explanatory power of theoretically derived assumptions. By
not only observing but also manipulating the reality under study,
more of its secrets may be learned (Shadish et al., 2002).
A quasi-experiment differs from the conventional scientific notion of
experiments on a number of aspects. They do not take place in the controlled environment of a laboratory nor do they involve random assignments to control groups. Sometimes they include naturally occurring
changes (such as an event impacting an organisation) rather than deliberately introduced stimulations (Grant & Wall, 2009). For this reason,
quasi-experiments are not ideal for rigorous testing of causality (Cook,
1983).
3.1. Experiment setup in Unilever
Unilever was considered an appropriate setting for the quasiexperiments, as their size and innovation activities allowed for simulations in different branches of the company. Furthermore, as an industry
leader, it is a company whose managerial practices inspire many other
firms. Thus, the case company was chosen for its accessibility and probability to offer interesting insights, rather than for its ability to represent
a broader population (Stake, 2006).
To study how varying degrees of causal ambiguity influence interaction with suppliers, three quasi-experiments were designed. Suppliers
within different areas – namely, formulation, ingredients, processing
and packaging – were invited to participate. All of them were identified
as strategic suppliers and their relationship with the company was described as mutually close (across several levels) and mutually important
(involving a significant size of business). Some suppliers participated in
all three experiments. This increased the comparability in terms of context characteristics, including industry, supplier base, relational characteristics, reputation etc., which have been previously identified as
important for buyer-supplier knowledge exchange (Lawson & Potter,
2012). The study was designed in collaboration with the director of
open innovation at Unilever and his team of four managers. Through
their global support function, they serve as knowledgeable and important boundary spanners and partners for identifying and influencing relevant projects. In terms of their internal outlook, they possessed a rare
overview of ‘…what was happening with individual projects, what learning we could take from it. What was going on that might fit our experiments
model so we could learn on behalf of Unilever from someone else's activity’
(Unilever, senior manager).
The interventions involved three real-life projects implemented at
different Unilever branches. The degrees of causal ambiguity of the
tasks were specified by the clarity in the target and path (Robillard,
1999). Clarity of target refers to awareness of the end state to be
achieved. Clarity of path refers to awareness of the direction to achieve
the target. To further scrutinise this, we developed three different types
of supplier briefs (Fig. 1): (i) an open-ended task with considerable level
of causal ambiguity (open target, open path), (ii) a next generation task
164
L.N. Laursen, P.H. Andersen / Industrial Marketing Management 58 (2016) 162–171
Fig. 1. Overview of supplier involvement points: three degrees of causal ambiguity in the tasks presented to the suppliers.
with a moderate level of causal ambiguity (specified target, open path)
and (iii) a decomposed task with low level of causal ambiguity (specified
target, specified path).
The default supplier involvement task within Unilever can be
characterised as decomposed tasks. Thus to setup experiments that
vary in the degree of causal ambiguity (considerable, moderate and
low), the intervention primarily focused on manipulating two of the
three projects. The open innovation team was deeply involved in developing and setting up the open-ended task from scratch. The team was
also involved in setting up the next generation task, but had a more
guiding role. For the decomposed task, the team was only involved at
a later stage and to a lesser degree, providing comments, advice and
facilitation.
3.2. Brief description of the experiments
Beyond the task definition, the initial organisational and temporal
setting of the three projects were identical. All the workshops were conducted on the same day. The three tasks chosen were within Unilever's
core business area; hence, the final market need and the potential business case, which may affect suppliers' interaction, can be considered as
relevant and comparable in all three cases. The tasks were sent out
around 2 months prior to the introductory supplier innovation workshop. The setting of the workshop was identical in terms of time
frame (4 h), location (Wembley Stadium, UK) and type of Unilever
attendees. Internal specialists from different departments and divisions
(R&D, open innovation, procurement and in some instances marketing
and supply chain) together with a mix of top management and
senior operational people (VPs, Directors, Project Leaders and Senior
Managers) participated in all three cases. In total 105 people participated in the workshops: 33 of the participants were from within Unilever
and 72 participants were from 27 different strategic supplier companies. In all of the experiments, suppliers were divided into groups of
non-competitors, and all the participating supplier organisations were
from Unilever's top strategic suppliers, except in two cases.
In the description of the experiments, the topics of the projects have
been disguised to prevent the sharing of confidential information with
respect to Unilever's currently running innovation projects. They still
represent the nature and characteristics of the original tasks (Table 1).
3.2.1. Experiment: project natural cleaners*
Project natural cleaners concerned the development of cleaners
(soap, cleaning agents, etc.) containing only natural ingredients.
Unilever R&D developed an open-ended supplier task to mobilise supplier knowledge in developing the content of the project. The aim was
simply to devise a natural way of cleaning, without any further details
as to the market, product, technology, etc. The target and the path to
achieving the target were open-ended in the framing of the task. The
brief was sent out to selected strategic suppliers, and they were asked
to indicate their interest in participating in an initial buyer-supplier
workshop. At the workshop, representatives from 15 strategic suppliers
participated. The top management from R&D conducted a plenary presentation, outlining the vision and strategic content of the natural
cleaners, without detailing commercial or technical issues. Subsequently, the suppliers were divided into 4 groups of non-competitors for further discussions.
3.2.2. Experiment: project shampoo*
The aim of the project was to develop a dramatically cost-reduced
product to capture a specific emerging market – a next generation
task. The intention was to utilise supplier knowledge to define novel
ways of reaching the goal. The task was developed cross-functionally
Table 1
The three experimental setups included a total of 8 workshops.
Project brief
Content of
presentation
Number of
workshops +
suppliers
Open-ended task
Project natural cleaners⁎
Next generation task
Project shampoo⁎
Decomposed task
Project shaving cream⁎
Develop natural cleaners, which contain
only natural clean label materials.
Natural cleaners of the future.
Theme and vision focused presentation.
Develop a shampoo to capture emerging
markets through radical cost reduction.
Shampoo for women in emerging markets.
Market and target group understanding.
Overview of product in its supply chain.
3 workshops
3–4 supplier companies in each workshop
Develop a shaving cream product with increased foam
stability, which enhances the experienced foam thickness.
Technology and features of a shaving cream foam product.
Dissemination of technological components and their systemic
interrelation. Overview of technological challenges.
1 workshop
6 supplier companies
4 workshops
3–4 supplier companies in each
workshop
⁎ For reasons of confidentiality, the exact focus of the projects has been replaced by a fictional example.
L.N. Laursen, P.H. Andersen / Industrial Marketing Management 58 (2016) 162–171
within Unilever, and the product supply chain was divided into parts
and strategic suppliers from each part were invited to participate in an
initial workshop. The workshop began with a briefing which included
two main elements: a strategic presentation and a marketing presentation. The aim was to outline a target and provide market understanding
about this target, while showing top management support and crossfunctional alignment around the innovation challenge. After the plenary
presentations, the 11 suppliers were divided into 3 groups for discussions, according to their position in the supply chain.
3.2.3. Experiment: project shaving cream*
The project shaving cream foam stability pertained to foam technology. A core business unit within Unilever R&D developed a decomposed
project task. The aim of the project was to utilise supplier knowledge in
order to understand important technological elements. As with the two
other projects, an initial supplier innovation workshop was set up for a
supplier innovation summit. Prior to the workshop, a selected group of
strategic suppliers received a detailed project task. The decomposed
task aimed to improve different technological aspects related to how
shaving cream foam technologies work. To elicit specific supplier
knowledge at the workshop, the briefing presentation was equally
decomposed in terms of technology. It contained systemic knowledge
of how different technological components influence each other, detailed information on how the different components work and challenges they still present. Six strategic suppliers attended.
165
Table 2
Interview overview.
Dataset overview — 26 interviews
Interview # Task
Workshop (group #) Company Duration (min)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
5
8
4
2
6
7
1
1
2
8
1
4
8
4
5
8
1
2
6
8
3
5
2
2
2
3
Next generation
Decomposed
Open-ended
Open-ended
Next generation
Next generation
Open-ended
Open-ended
Open-ended
Decomposed
Open-ended
Open-ended
Decomposed
Open-ended
Next generation
Decomposed
Open-ended
Open-ended
Next generation
Decomposed
Open-ended
Next generation
Open-ended
Open-ended
Open-ended
Open-ended
Unilever
Unilever
Unilever
Unilever
Unilever
Unilever
Unilever
Supplier
Supplier
Supplier
Supplier
Supplier
Supplier
Supplier
Supplier
Supplier
Supplier
Supplier
Supplier
Supplier
Supplier
Supplier
Supplier
Supplier
Supplier
Supplier
52
74
48
54
74
55
48
35
27
42
25
31
45
42
48
38
37
60
36
41
49
48
34
41
49
48
3.3. Data collection
To increase the validity of insights, we collected data from several
workshops within each project (with the exception of project shaving
cream) through semi-structured interviews with key people within
Unilever and participating suppliers. For each experiment, we
interviewed key people within Unilever, who acted as participant observers at the workshops and managed the inter-organisational
knowledge-sharing process. The respondents all had 15+ years of experience at Unilever. All interviewees acted as facilitators at their respective workshop session. They had an overview of the knowledgesharing process, apart from their own reflections on the matter, as
they were responsible for facilitation and takeaways.
In each of the experiments different suppliers were interviewed to
enhance the reliability of the study. Unilever project leaders were
asked to indicate key individuals from different supplier organisations,
who were relevant to the project. This enabled us to avoid peripherally
involved participants, who for example had not read the brief beforehand. The supplier participants were selected from different firms and
held different positions, but all were engaged in and responsible for
the interaction.
All the interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide, which contained three parts that reflected the facilitation
process: questions on preparation and expectations before the workshop,
questions about their experience of the actual interaction during the
workshop and questions on their understanding and process ex post
the workshop. The interviews were recorded and transcribed. New and
surprising insights were validated against the previous interviews. In
total 26 interviews were conducted in 2014 and 2015, with an average
duration of 45 min (for details see Table 2).
To enhance the validity of the study, the interviews were supplemented by direct participant observations. One of the researchers
attended a workshop as a fly-on-the-wall observer, in order to unobtrusively gather information. The insights were gathered in detailed field
notes, and the information from the observation was compared with
the insights from the interviews. The researcher additionally participated in an internal Unilever de-brief meeting, where the progress, procedure, and takeaways of all the three cases were discussed and evaluated.
This made it possible to compare how the insights altered the internal
Unilever perception and evaluation. Other data sources included
external and internal documentation in the form of project briefs,
PowerPoint presentations, daily programmes, facilitation guidelines,
minutes, internal summaries of takeaways and communication with
suppliers. All accessible project documentations from 3 months before
and 6 months after the workshop, were collected.
For an accurate understanding of the meanings communicated in
the interviews, we listened to the recordings and read the transcripts
several times, while noting and coding emerging insights. Through an
iterative process of studying concrete detailed quotes to deriving general theoretical topics, we continuously developed and sharpened our insights (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). We compared and contrasted the
interaction of the three situations before, during and after the workshop. Contrasting and comparing cases enhance the identification of
patterns and dimensions that are common or unique to each case,
while relating them to the context (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Moreover, in order to follow our line of reasoning, we opened up the analytical process, making it as transparent as possible through the tabular
display of the entire dataset, quotes from the interviews and narrative
description of the three experiments researched (Miles & Huberman,
1994). Accordingly, our findings are presented in a tabular format, as
quotes and as categorised discussions in the subsequent section.
4. Analysing the experiments
In the following section we compare and contrast the interactions
before, during, and ex post the workshop in the three field experiments.
We determine how varying degrees of causal ambiguity in a task influence the role expectations and resource mobilisation of the suppliers before the workshop, the actors' mobilisation and their interaction pattern
during the workshop, and the transformation of outcome and resources
mobilisation ex post the workshop.
4.1. Before the workshop: role expectations and resource mobilisation
When a problem is posed to a supplier, it triggers a reaction within
the supplier organisation, regardless of the nature of the problem. The
166
L.N. Laursen, P.H. Andersen / Industrial Marketing Management 58 (2016) 162–171
And you superimpose that or compare that to internal briefs about different products, there are many commonalities. So that is why we
thought, that brief was very well written. It was as we wrote it ourselves. It described the challenge or product at hand, and as a close
match we thought it was an excellent opportunity.’
[(Supplier, project shaving cream)]
following quote provides an illustration of the typical response in the
interviewed supplier firms:
‘Suppliers or at least we did, when we get this kind of invitation, you really, you do a lot of thinking and quite some preparation for this behind
the scenes, and even if what you do, is turn up on the day, and you speak
to your very nice Unilever colleagues, behind all of this are quite a few
email exchanges and idea sharing things.’
[(Supplier, project natural cleaners)]
The contact persons in the supplier organisations are typically able
to initiate organisation-wide preparations and search activities,
reflecting their understanding of the task at hand, and bringing relevant
people within their organisation in contact with Unilever prior to the
workshop. This also concerns how and to what extent suppliers have
mobilised their own network of relationships. The nature of these conversations depended on the degree of causal ambiguity, from simple
confirmation of expectations to struggling to grasp the task (Table 3).
We elaborate this further below, in relation to the three different experimental setups.
4.1.1. Open-ended task
In the project on natural cleaners, the high degree of flexibility with
respect to the goal and path, affected the suppliers' preparation efforts
prior to the workshop. The suppliers were generally unsure of their
task, and their communication with Unilever revolved around this.
The high degree of causal ambiguity made the suppliers unsure of the
role they were expected to play, as illustrated in the following supplier
quote:
‘Our expectations… I didn't quite know what to expect. […] So there
was a lot of internal discussion along the lines of: What is going on
and what is this? And how do we do it? And how do we need to respond? And what do they want us to do? Do we want to engage in that?
Can we engage with that? […] There was not enough detail in the brief
to build our response on. So in a sense it opens more questions than it
answers.’
[(Supplier, natural cleaners project)]
The open-ended task presented a vague role script and suppliers
struggled with selecting the manager to participate in the workshop
and the mandate for the person. For similar reasons, suppliers had little
direction with respect to identifying and engaging relevant actors, resources and activities in their network.
4.1.2. Decomposed task
On the other end of the spectrum, the shaving cream project
presented the suppliers with the most detailed briefing. The content
was clear and unambiguous and easily linked to the suppliers' respective technical knowledge domains. This made it easy for the suppliers
to recognise and interpret role expectations.
‘When we read the brief, we felt that it was almost written for us […]. If
you took all of the components of the brief and you compared the wording, the statements, the theories, the goals or targets and you take that.
In this task, prior experience guided suppliers in framing and preparing for the workshop. Preparation revolved around gathering state-ofthe-art knowledge within their organisation, e.g. through discussion
with different technical experts and reviews of documents from similar
R&D projects. Suppliers typically prepared by identifying the right experts and equipping them with the necessary knowledge to fill the expected role. The clarity of role script, defined as the alignment
between the role sent and the role received, triggered internal
mobilisation of explicit technical knowledge. The clarity of the task
also meant that the role was seen as an issue of applying a technology,
developed for other purposes. Including the technology in this case
would change its status and reduce the possibilities for engaging it in
other relationships in its current form. For this reason, interaction
with Unilever for resource development was not considered. Rather, it
was seen as a deployment of an already ‘back-boxed’ technological resource. In one of the interviews, the suppliers explained that they simply browsed previous sales pitches on the application of this
technology to find the pitch with the strongest technological similarity
to the one sought by Unilever.
4.1.3. Next generation task
In terms of task ambiguity, the shampoo project falls between the
other two, with a specified goal and an unclear path. The task triggered
a focused knowledge mobilisation of possible paths to reach the goal.
Suppliers offered suggestions based on their capabilities of how they
could contribute to reaching the goal:
‘They had the information available, Even if it was just on a basic level.
They had thoughts on ideas or they brought concepts or products they
could share with the group.’
[(Unilever, project shampoo)]
Overall, the suppliers understood the target of the project, but were
unsure of their role in it. There was an incentive to influence the other
actors in the project by presenting development paths that matched
the suppliers' capabilities and competences. The suppliers started with
a broad search for ideas, which had some degree of similarity with the
task given by Unilever. This led to the identification of similar customer
problems in the suppliers' network and how these problems linked to
specific contexts. In one particular case, a supplier identified a conceptual solution, in which they had radically reduced costs by changing production, distribution and packaging rather than the actual product.
4.2. During the workshop: actors mobilisation and pattern of interaction
Different types of attendees at the workshops echoed the differences
in the role interpretations. In the most open-ended workshops,
Table 3
Role expectations and resource mobilisation before the workshop.
Before
Open-ended task
Project natural cleaners
Role
Low clarity of role:
expectations Suppliers struggled to grasp the task and role
expectations in order to properly prepare for the
meeting.
Little, if any, mobilisation of external resources and
Resource
mobilisation activities because of perceived task ambiguity.
Next generation task
Project shampoo
Decomposed problem
Project shaving cream
High clarity of role:
Medium clarity of role:
Supplier preparation varied from attempts to interpret Suppliers prepared by gathering
state-of-the-art technological know-how.
their role to more focused resource deployment.
Mobilising internal resources as well as drawing on
activities and solutions from the supplier network.
Activating knowledge assets and specialists
close to the core activities of the supplier.
L.N. Laursen, P.H. Andersen / Industrial Marketing Management 58 (2016) 162–171
167
generalists and senior managers participated, seconded by commercial
and technical specialists. In the shaving cream task, the role expectations were clearer, and participants were leading technical specialists,
who saw the workshop as an opportunity to discuss and clarify technical issues as well as showcase their core capabilities. In the shampoo
project, suppliers' participants typically performed business and commercial functions rather than technical. Below, we further explain the
different motives for participation and how this influenced the content
and pattern of the interaction (Table 4).
4.2.2. Decomposed task
The decomposed task elicited clear and directional role expectations.
The interaction between the participants was open, confident and immediate, reflecting a shared assumption of the purpose and direction of the
meeting. The clarity of the role script ensured that the people attending
had great certainty regarding role sets: ‘We did an introduction and it
was pretty clear to us, what roles the others would play in that type of product development’ (Supplier, project shaving cream). The transparency on
roles resulted in a focused session, where suppliers were ‘trying to do the
bits about solving the technical aspects’ (Unilever, project shaving cream).
A supplier participant describes his experience of the interaction:
4.2.1. Open-ended task
Interactions during the open-ended task mainly consisted of clarifying questions and answers towards the brief between the individual
suppliers and Unilever. Whether the interaction was able to transform
from a bilateral question-and-answer session to knowledge sharing
seemingly depended on the actors' understanding of the role sent and
their confidence and experience in taking it on.
‘Well, I say it is open only compared to how we felt. […] there is a certain
amount of information we are willing to share. Then there are topics,
which we will absolutely not discuss, because we know it is trade secrets.
So most of the discussions were clearly within the grey area, where you
could say common knowledge or anticipated knowledge within the industry, but just to the edge of where people would get into confidential
information. […] I think it was really due to how the Unilever staff handled did it, they were upfront and transparent, so that openness, openminded and honest approach set the tone for everybody.’
[(Supplier, project shaving cream)]
‘You could see some people taking the space trying to lead the conversation by doing that. And others were kind of I don't know what is going
on here […]. So I listen and started by making comments here and there
a bit, because they didn't want to look stupid. You could almost map
them from reactive to proactive.’
[(Unilever, project natural cleaners)]
The suppliers' confidence in their role and in their understanding of
the task at hand influenced their knowledge contribution strategy. Their
reading and interpretation of roles may be dependent on their previous
experience with the prevailing situation. Since most of the discussion
centred on understanding the role and the task, Unilever gained knowledge on the suppliers' readiness to partake in such a role. A Unilever
participant elaborates on his experience:
‘I came out of the meeting, knowing exactly from those four suppliers,
who could be in the team and who couldn't. Based on what they said,
based on the interaction level and my gut feel. […] So based on this
we then had an alignment session, on where do we move next?’
[(Unilever, project natural cleaners)]
The open-ended task thus revealed the suppliers' ability to handle
such a task. Because of the different viewpoints, an interaction that
the suppliers deemed confusing proved to be quite informative for
Unilever.
Unilever exemplified the role script they wanted participants to follow at the beginning of the meeting. They ‘set the tone’ by openly
presenting and revealing how they decomposed the problem and in
which areas they lacked knowledge. Thus, they tacitly established the
rules of interaction through their enactment.
4.2.3. Next generation task
In the next generation experiment, suppliers took turns to suggest
solutions, based on their own experiences and those of their network.
However, they did not spend much time commenting on each other's
solutions. Suppliers saw a defined opportunity for business without
the certainty of getting a share in it and typically directed the focus of
the suppliers towards value appropriation.
‘Some of them gave verbal feedback, in terms of: we can work in this
type of way or that type of way. We got that type of activities. […]
And others have brought samples, to say we can make this type of product, of this type of shape or format. […] It was definitely an opportunity
to showcase themselves. To demonstrate they are positive and proactive
in participating, but also to demonstrate their capabilities.’
[(Unilever, project shampoo)]
Table 4
Participants attending and interaction observed during the workshop.
During
Attending actors
Content of interaction
(resource
transformation)
Pattern of interaction
(mobilisation)
Open-ended task
Project natural cleaners
Next generation task
Project shampoo
Decomposed task
Project shaving cream
Key senior decision makers,
seconded by commercial and
technical roles.
Clarification of the task and
organisational arrangement.
Cautious stance.
Dominantly bilateral conversation
between buyer and supplier.
Business and commercial functions with a broad
overview of opportunities for business and application of
technology.
Suggestions and discussions based on activities and
solutions from the suppliers' network. Pitching approach.
Technical experts ‘…somebody who has their finger
on the technical pulse…’ (Supplier, project shaving
cream).
Open sharing of suppliers' core technical knowledge
to advance product development.
Plenum dialogue based on suggestions from suppliers on
the possible ways in which the goal could be reached.
Joint multi-way development with open sharing
and discussion of suppliers' technological
knowledge.
168
L.N. Laursen, P.H. Andersen / Industrial Marketing Management 58 (2016) 162–171
The Unilever management acknowledged the suppliers' unclear position in the project: ‘They were all getting the same brief, they would all
understand it from a different angle or a different perspective, but the
final solution might not include all’ (Unilever, project shampoo). Whether
the discussion was able to transform from a demonstration of capabilities to an open interaction and multi-way knowledge-sharing session
depended on whether such role expectations were facilitated during
the meeting. A Unilever facilitator describes such facilitation:
‘…then again, we actively looked to the entire group engaged in a discussion about that sample or that approach. Do you think it would
be useful, could it be something to engage in? How would they see it
themselves?’
[(Unilever, project shampoo)]
This highlights that tasks with a moderate level of causal ambiguity
call for facilitation and support of roles during the workshops. In
the groups where facilitators provided guidance and clues to role
scripts during the meeting, openness and multi-way interaction were
observed.
4.3. After the workshop: outcome transmission and resource mobilisation
As the projects are still in progress, these aspects are still taking
shape. However, considerable differences in the interactions have
been observed following the workshops. Comparing the outcome and
learning passed on after the project meeting also showed a significant
difference with respect to the outcome transmission, the suppliers' resource mobilisation and the resource transformation (Table 5).
4.3.1. Open-ended task
The open-ended ambiguous task seemed confusing to the supplier
participants prior to and during the workshop. Consequently, the role
scripts for the succeeding process were discussed in the workshop.
This however, made the succeeding process somewhat straightforward.
A Unilever project leader explained in the following words:
‘Because in Wembley we co-invented the next step. The follow-up that
we just did last week, is actually extremely easy, because we had Wembley. If there hadn't been Wembley and we needed to start from scratch,
just to explain and make sure everyone understands it. The good thing
about Wembley was the senior leaders were there or they knew they
were there, so by having that we immediately get basically, a go by everyone to move on to the next step.’
[(Unilever, director natural cleaners)]
The open-ended task led the participants to jointly conceptualise the
next step. This resulted in an alignment around the project and the roles
with buy-in from the suppliers' decision makers. In short, this made the
subsequent process straightforward. The workshop was followed by an
immediate scoping and supplier selection. First, Unilever internally
narrowed down the task to a particular product. Second, they sent out
the specified task to interested suppliers. On the basis of the task, the
suppliers mobilised core specialists within their organisation to develop
a proposal that they could pitch for Unilever.
‘We have got the pitch mid February. Where they told us their solution.
Is there a new approach they can take? What capabilities are needed?
What capability can they bring? What experience do they have? And also are there specific partners they want to work with?’
[(Unilever, director natural cleaners)]
For each of the suppliers, preparation efforts focused on applying
core knowledge and activating their primary experience, gathered
from prior projects with other customers or partners. The activation of
core knowledge assets also meant that the subsequent process was
governed by proper confidentiality agreements. On the basis of the suppliers' ability to develop a proposal for the project, Unilever effectively
narrowed down and selected two suppliers to continue working with.
The project is currently iterating between the ideation and assessment
stage in the NPD model.
4.3.2. Decomposed task
In the shaving cream project, the clear role scripts enabled an open
interaction during the workshop. Concrete and multiple components
of technical knowledge were shared among the participants.
‘Out of the presentation and the flow of conversation, there were probably… let us say 20 or 25 bullet points of what one might call ideas or
capabilities or things to be looked at.’
[(Unilever, manager project shaving cream)]
Unilever gained technical knowledge through the workshop. However, compared to the natural cleaners project, less time was spent on
discussing the next steps of the collaboration. This meant that, after
the workshop, the suppliers were uncertain of which role to assume,
what kind of knowledge to mobilise, and accordingly how to progress. As a result, there was no direct input on how the next steps
should be configured. Because of the character of the buyer-supplier
relationship, everyone involved saw it as Unilever's responsibility to
make a meaningful transformation of the outcome. A Unilever manager elaborates on how the project was left to Unilever to develop
afterwards:
‘So we told the partners this, we need time to pull this all together […]
The main point is to say, in terms of the construct of how we work together, to give Unilever's proposal and see if that would fit with the business needs of all our partners.’
[(Unilever, manager project shaving cream)]
Table 5
Outcome passed ex post the workshop.
Ex post
Outcome
transmission
Resource
mobilisation
Open-ended task
Project natural cleaners
Next generation task
Project shampoo
Decomposed task
Project shaving cream
The workshop fostered alignment around the project
and role expectations, which led to fast selection of
both scope and supplier partners in the succeeding
process.
Activating specialists and core knowledge assets close
to the central activities of the suppliers.
Sharing of suppliers' basic capabilities did not
support a subsequent supplier selection. However,
it was a prelude to a subsequent
knowledge-sharing session.
Awaiting - No mobilisation of external resources
and activities
One group - Activating specialists and knowledge
assets close to the central activities of the suppliers
Practice provided several exploration opportunities
with the potential of resource transformation
Despite open knowledge sharing during the
workshop, the project was subsequently put
on hold due to uncertainty in the inter-firm
alignment.
Awaiting - No mobilisation of external
resources and activities.
Resource
Lack of recognisable procedures for supplier
transformation behaviour led to joint exploration and learning
Drawing suppliers strongly on existing routines
led to initial learning but lack of long- term
progression
L.N. Laursen, P.H. Andersen / Industrial Marketing Management 58 (2016) 162–171
Taking the shaving cream project to the next stage accordingly did
not involve any resources from the suppliers. The limited input from
suppliers on the next steps and their subsequent role expectations
made it challenging for Unilever to further project collaboration.
Unilever had little direction with respect to identifying and engaging
relevant actors, resources and activities from their supplier network.
Currently, the project is still in the process of ‘constructing how we
work together’.
4.3.3. Next generation task
While the open-ended experiment facilitated a co-invention of the
next steps by senior decision makers and the decomposed experiment
identified 20–25 ideas or capabilities by technical experts, the outcome
from the next generation experiments with the commercial participants
was perceived as limited: ‘I don't think there was a lot added in terms of
knowledge or in terms of know-how’ (Unilever, manager shampoo
project).
Since the suppliers selected were Unilever's core strategic suppliers,
the showcase of basic capabilities did not add any new knowledge to
Unilever. Consequently, the learning was limited and the Unilever project team has not yet been able to select suppliers or define the scope of
the project. There was apparently no direct progress of the project as a
result of the workshop. The suppliers have not made any further resource contribution.
‘Unilever is still thinking about what it wants to do, and how it wants to
do it.’
[(Unilever, manager shampoo project)]
However, in one of the three groups, a second workshop has been
recently conducted. The second workshop revealed the first workshop
to be a prelude, influencing the role expectations of the suppliers:
‘We found the ones [suppliers] that brought people who had been on the
initial event [first workshop], were immediately involved in the process.
Because they had understood where we were and what was happening.’
[(Unilever, manager shampoo project)]
From the supplier perspective, the initial workshop was clarifying in
terms of role expectations. Clarified roles resulted in the suppliers'
employing technical specialists and core knowledge to develop suggestions for solutions. The mobilisation of resources in the second workshop is thus comparable to the shaving cream project, which involved
technical knowledge sharing.
‘We had a 120 ideas in October. So it was quite many. So as part of the
session, half way through the session, we changed our tackle a little bit
and discussed with them, how we might orientate the samples into
groupings. […] So we actually, on the day, modified what we got, because of the real pro-activeness they had taken in preparing.’
[(Unilever, manager shampoo project)]
Currently, this subgroup has advanced further in the process from
ideation to assessment than the other next generation groups.
5. Discussion
The quasi-experiments at Unilever contribute to the theoretical discussions on managing buyer-supplier interaction in NPD. By connecting
NPD, IMP and supplier involvement literature, we propose that causal
ambiguity is an important characteristic to consider for buyer-supplier
interaction in early stages of NPD. Extant literature has already shown
that casual ambiguity creates significant management challenges.
Moreover, it is shown to influence the performance of supplier involvement in NPD (Potter & Lawson, 2013). By setting up experiments with
different degrees of causal ambiguity, the study explores the influence
169
of causal ambiguities on buyer-supplier interaction and offers several
important insights into the different stages of this process.
First, these experiments demonstrate that variation in causal ambiguity creates different role expectations among the suppliers. High
causal ambiguity creates low clarity of role and vice versa. Therefore,
the relation between causal ambiguity and clarity of role expectations
is an important issue for understanding the subsequent interaction process. Causal ambiguity is an important driver of joint search and exploration in innovation activities. Our study shows that high causal
ambiguity may initially lead to low clarity of role and low mobilisation
of resources and activities. It also leads to inter-firm clarification and
alignment, prompting fast joint action. What may seem confusing and
ineffective at first actually enables quick establishment of a manageable
development process in an inter-organisational team. In contrast, clarity
of task may provide clear role expectations, which initially leads to the
mobilisation of core knowledge assets by the suppliers. However,
these do not necessarily foster inter-firm alignment, which may be
vital to the foundation of the project. The lack of this may subsequently
slow down the project.
Second, the study sheds light on the interaction processes following
from early supplier involvement. A majority of extant literature on early
supplier involvement has focused on performance, measuring the positive or negative effects of involving suppliers early in the process; our
study complements these by exploring what expectations, acts and interactions actually constitute this process. The study reveals that the relationship between causal ambiguity and clarity of role expectations
influences suppliers' focus during interactions. We find that low clarity
of role and high causal ambiguity leads suppliers to focus on clarifying
and advancing the project, so the project may reach a stage of maturity
where the suppliers have a role to play. Contrary to this, when the level
of causal ambiguity and clarity of role reach a moderate level, as in the
next generation task, suppliers gauge what the project could concern
and what value they could gain from it. However, since their role is
still unclear, their main concern during interactions is appropriating
value. Ideation manifests as suggesting (or selling) paths that favour
the supplier's own capabilities and competences. On the other hand,
in the decomposed task, where the level of causal ambiguity is low
and clarity of role is high, suppliers are confident of their role in the project, and accordingly their focus is on advancing the project through
knowledge contributions.
Third, our experiments interestingly reveal that there is little correspondence between the suppliers' and the focal firms' perception of
contribution – the two only correspond in the decomposed experiment
(project shaving cream). This can be attributed to the finding that suppliers' perception of how much they can contribute to the project resembles the level of clarity of role expectations. Clarity in role
expectations makes it easier for the suppliers to know how to contribute
and their perception is accordingly aligned. Whereas the focal firms'
evaluation of supplier contribution is linked to the supplier's focus on
advancing the project in the interaction: when they contribute new
knowledge gained, e.g. when new technical knowledge is shared (as
in the decomposed experiment) or when suppliers' ability to handle
such tasks is revealed (as in the open-ended experiment). Thus, when
the suppliers have a large focus on value appropriation (e.g. displaying
basic capabilities), the focal firm evaluates the suppliers' contribution
as very low.
In all, our analysis of the quasi-experiments at Unilever supports the
notion that earliness of supplier involvement influences the role of suppliers in NPD and their interaction in NPD teams. The different degrees
of causal ambiguity and its management impact suppliers' readiness to
be involved in NPD activities and their subsequent interaction with the
client firm and other suppliers. This interaction affects the project's continued development. From an IMP perspective, the experiments must
also be seen as a critical event in the wider context of forming the course
of a relationship. An interesting issue in this regard, is how participating
in the different framings of interaction may impact future relationships
170
L.N. Laursen, P.H. Andersen / Industrial Marketing Management 58 (2016) 162–171
between the supplier and Unilever. This topic serves as an interesting
avenue of future research.
6. Implications
These findings have significant implications for both management
and research.
For managers of inter-organisational development activities, the
findings provide an important lesson. We find that causal ambiguity of
a task significantly influences how suppliers prepare, which participants
attend, the content and character of the interaction and the flow of the
subsequent process. The supplier's confidence in role expectations during the interaction is an important issue for understanding what will
happen; thus, workshop leaders should not focus on the task alone. In
the decomposed experiment, the details of the task generated some
ideas from the participants. This highlights the role of the facilitators:
it is not enough for facilitators to specify needs, they must also differentiate between role expectations and communicate those to the participants, in order to facilitate interactive knowledge sharing in early
supplier involvement processes.
For academics, we believe this study acts a starting point for a valuable discussion on the interaction process of early supplier involvement.
The contribution of this study is that it is among one of the first to explore the black box of early supplier involvement (Wagner, 2012). Further, the study explicitly links the different forms of task ambiguity to
resource mobilisation in the supplier network.
Future research can expand our findings. Studies could examine the
interesting dynamics of interaction in the early stages of supplier involvement in terms of the suppliers' focus (knowledge sharing vs.
value appropriation) and project progress in relation to perceived contribution (buyer vs. supplier perspective) and relate this to the effect
of involving suppliers early on. This can fuel a more in-depth discussion
on project target (exploration vs. exploitation) and whether early supplier involvement is more effective for sourcing improvements
(decomposed task) or for ambitious innovation (open-ended task).
The study supports that designing causal ambiguity is a relevant
means of managing supplier involvement in innovation. In order to
reap its resource mobilisation and transformation benefits is necessary
to understand further how it influences ideation processes.
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful for financial support from the Danish Industry Foundation (Industriens Fond). Moreover, we would like to thank
Dr. Graham Cross at Unilever for enabling the research process. Without
his dedication and open innovation mind-set these quasi-experimental
studies would not have been a possibility. Also, we wish to thank two
anonymous reviewers of this journal for helpful comments.
References
Abdel-Halim, A. A. (1983). Effects of task and personality characteristics on subordinate
responses to participative decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 26(3),
477–484.
Anderson, H., Havila, V., Andersen, P., & Halinen, A. (1998). Position and roleconceptualizing dynamics in business networks. Scandinavian Journal of
Management, 14(3), 167–186.
Bstieler, L., & Hemmert, M. (2010). Increasing learning and time efficiency in interorganizational new product development teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
27(4), 485–499.
Cook, T. D. (1983). Quasi-experimentation: Its ontology, epistemology, and methodology.
Beyond Method: Strategies for Social Research, 74–94.
Corsaro, D., & Cantù, C. (2015). Actors' heterogeneity and the context of interaction in affecting innovation networks. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 30(3/4),
246–258.
Daft, R. L., & Macintosh, N. B. (1981). A tentative exploration into the amount and equivocality of information processing in organizational work units. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 26(2), 207–224.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Tabrizi, B. N. (1995). Accelerating adaptive processes: Product
innovation in the global computer industry. Administrative Science Quarterly,
84–110.
Floyd, S. W., & Lane, P. J. (2000). Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing
role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of Management Review, 25(1),
154–177.
Grant, A. M., & Wall, T. D. (2009). The neglected science and art of quasi-experimentation:
Why-to, when-to, and how-to advice for organizational researchers. Organizational
Research Methods, 12(4), 653–686.
Håkansson, H., & Snehota, I. (1995). Developing relationships in business networks.
Routledge.
Håkansson, H., Ford, D., Gadde, L. E., Snehota, I., & Waluszewski, A. (2009). Business in networks. John Wiley & Sons.
Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing
knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1),
82–111.
Johanson, J., & Mattsson, L. G. (1987). Interorganizational relations in industrial systems:
A network approach compared with the transaction-cost approach. International
Studies of Management & Organization, 17(1), 34–48.
Johnsen, T. E. (2009). Supplier involvement in new product development and innovation:
Taking stock and looking to the future. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management,
15(3), 187–197.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). John Wiley
& Sons: Canada.
King, B. E., & Penleskey, R. J. (1992). Impediments to timely delivery of new products at an
industrial product firm. International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, 12, 56–65.
Knudsen, T., & Srikanth, K. (2015). Coordinated exploration organizing joint search by
multiple specialists to overcome mutual confusion and joint myopia. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 59(3), 409–441.
Kopecká, J. A. (2013). Why didn't they ask the supplier? The utilisation of supplier information and knowledge in the fuzzy front end of new product development. PhD Dissertation Technische Universiteit, Delft.
Koufteros, X., Vonderembse, M., & Jayaram, J. (2005). Internal and external integration for
product development: The contingency effects of uncertainty, equivocality, and platform strategy. Decision Sciences, 36(1), 97–133.
Lawson, B., & Potter, A. (2012). Determinants of knowledge transfer in inter-firm new
product development projects. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 32(10), 1228–1247.
Lippman, S. A., & Rumelt, R. P. (1982). Uncertain imitability: An analysis of interfirm
differences in efficiency under competition. Bell Journal of Economics, 13,
418–453.
Littler, D., Leverick, F., & Wilson, D. (1998). Collaboration in new technology based
product markets. International Journal of Technology Management, 15(1/2),
139–159.
Luthans, F., & Davis, T. R. (1982). An idiographic approach to organizational behavior research: The use of single case experimental designs and direct measures. Academy of
Management Review, 7(3), 380–391.
Melander, L., & Lakemond, N. (2015). Governance of supplier collaboration in technologically uncertain NPD projects. Industrial Marketing Management, 49,
116–127.
Miettilä, A., & Möller, K. (1990). Interaction perspective into professional business services: A conceptual analysis. IMP conference (6th). IMP.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.
Sage.
Petersen, K. J., Handfield, R. B., & Ragatz, G. L. (2003). A model of supplier integration into
new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 20(4),
284–299.
Potter, A., & Lawson, B. (2013). Help or hindrance? Causal ambiguity and supplier involvement in new product development teams. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 30(4), 794–808.
Robillard, P. N. (1999). The role of knowledge in software development. Communications
of the ACM, 42(1), 87–92.
Salancick, G. R. (1979). Field stimulations for organizational behavior research.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 638–649.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental
designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Song, M., & Di Benedetto, C. A. (2008). Supplier's involvement and success of radical new
product development in new ventures. Journal of Operations Management, 26(1),
1–22.
Stake, R. E. (2006). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures
and techniques. Sage Publications.
Tidd, J., Pavitt, K., & Bessant, J. (2001). Managing innovation, Vol. 3, Chichester: Wiley.
Ulrich, K. T., & Eppinger, S. D. (2005). Product design and development. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Van Echtelt, F. E. A., Wynstra, F., Van Weele, A. J., & Duysters, G. (2008). Managing supplier
involvement in new product development: A multiple-case study. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 25, 180–201.
Wagner, S. M. (2012). Tapping supplier innovation. Journal of Supply Chain Management,
48(2), 37–52.
Wagner, S. M., & Hoegl, M. (2006). Involving suppliers in product development: Insights
from R&D directors and project managers. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(8),
936–943.
Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful
interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 357–381.
L.N. Laursen, P.H. Andersen / Industrial Marketing Management 58 (2016) 162–171
Wynstra, F., Spring, M., & Schoenherr, T. (2015). Service triads: A research agenda
for buyer–supplier–customer triads in business services. Journal of Operations
Management, 35, 1–20.
Linda Nhu Laursen is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Business and Management at Aalborg University in Denmark. Her current research focuses on innovation management, NPD and buyer-supplier relations. She has practical experience from design
consulting and as an entrepreneur.
171
Poul Houman Andersen is B2B marketing Professor at Aalborg University, Denmark and
Professor II in supply chain management at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. His research interest covers the organising of market exchange processes as seen
from buyers and sellers' perspective. He has published several journals, including Research
Policy, Journal of Business Research, California Management Review and Journal of
Purchasing and Supply Management.