Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 681 – 694
Supplier involvement in new product development in the food industry
Wendy van der Valk *, Finn Wynstra 1
Erasmus Research Institute of Management, RSM Erasmus University, Netherlands PO Box 1738 – 3000 DR Rotterdam, Netherlands
Received 30 April 2004; received in revised form 26 April 2005; accepted 11 May 2005
Abstract
Purchasing and supplier involvement as one possible explanatory factor of product development success has been gathering growing
attention from both managers and researchers. This paper presents the results of a Dutch benchmark study into supplier involvement in
product development, and discusses the topic more specifically in the context of the food industry. Regarding supplier involvement, this
industry has not been studied intensively, although its specific characteristics make continuous development of new products imperative and
the amount of outsourcing of production and development has increased substantially. The benchmark was conducted by means of an
existing framework which has not yet been applied to the food industry. The food company in the benchmark study performs consistently
better than companies from other industries. At the same time, the results of a similar case study carried out at a Scandinavian food company
show contradictory results. By comparing the Dutch and the Scandinavian case, we illustrate that our analytical framework can explain these
different results in terms of the underlying processes and pre-conditions, thereby validating its application to the food industry.
D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. A contingency-based approach to supplier
involvement in product development
In an ever-increasing competitive environment, suppliers
can contribute to product development in several ways.
Involving suppliers in product development is supposed to
have a positive effect on development time, development
and product cost and product quality (McGinnis & Vallopra,
1999; Ragatz, Handfield, & Petersen, 2002). However, this
turns out not to be true for all situations (Birou, 1994;
Hartley, Zirger, & Kamath, 1997). Therefore, some authors
argue that the way supplier involvement in product
development is managed is crucial in explaining the amount
of success of this involvement (Clark, 1989; Ragatz,
Handfield, & Scannell, 1997; Wynstra, 1998).
At the same time, literature in the area of product
innovation as well as supplier involvement demonstrates
that researchers increasingly adopt thoughts from contin* Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 0 10 408 16 36.
E-mail addresses: wvalk@rsm.nl (W. van der Valk), fwynstra@rsm.nl
(F. Wynstra).
1
Tel.: +31 0 10 408 19 90.
0019-8501/$ - see front matter D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.05.009
gency theory to address the topic (Souder, Sherman, &
Davies-Cooper, 1998). Contingency theory tries to understand and explain phenomena and organizational issues
from a situational point of view. Applying this to the topic
of supplier involvement in new product development, this
means that determining the way suppliers should be
involved in product development requires an analysis of
the specific contextual factors at hand.
For example, one of the contingencies studied in the
literature on supplier involvement in product development regards the degree of innovativeness—or the
technological and market uncertainty—of the overall
new product development project. Eisenhardt and Tabrizi
(1995), for example, found that supplier involvement
accelerated product development time, but only in
mature market segments and when the product development effort was well defined. Ragatz et al. (2002) finds
evidence that increased technological uncertainty has a
negative impact on cost results, but this effect is partly
mediated through the use of effective integrative strategies. In other words, higher degrees of technological
uncertainty increase the need for project-related supplier
management activities.
682
W. van der Valk, F. Wynstra / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 681 – 694
In line with this reasoning, a contingency-based framework for analyzing processes related to purchasing and
supplier involvement in product development has been
developed in prior research (Van Echtelt, Wynstra, Van
Weele & Duysters, 2004; Wynstra, van Weele, & Axelsson,
1999). This framework posits that in order to be successful,
the involvement of suppliers needs to be embedded in
the wider context of bringing a purchasing perspective to
the development process. Such a perspective looks at the
availability and suitability of external resources (i.e., the
knowledge and skills of suppliers) for integration in the
development process under conditions of timely availability
and appropriate or optimal costs and quality of the input
items (parts, materials etc.) embodying those resources. This
integration of purchasing and product development processes and considerations is sometimes referred to as
Integrated Product Development and Sourcing (IPDS) (Van
Echtelt, Wynstra, & van Weele, 2004; Wynstra, van Weele,
& Weggeman, 2001).
Traditionally, most research on supplier involvement in
product development has been situated in large-scale
assembly industries, like the electronics and automotive
sectors. Little is known about supplier involvement in the
food industry. Yet, this industry has increasingly been
relying on suppliers for carrying out production and
development activities. Hence, it would be interesting to
investigate to what extent an analysis framework for
studying supplier involvement—which originally is mainly
based on research in assembly industries—would also hold
for the food industry, and whether there are any particular
features and challenges in managing supplier involvement
in this sector. The results of such a study would help in
further strengthening the external validity of the analysis
framework.
In the remainder of this paper, we first discuss some
specific characteristics of the food industry and its product
development process, after which the analysis framework is
presented in more detail. Subsequently, we discuss the
results of a Dutch benchmark study where we compared
eight different development projects from four different
manufacturing companies, one of which is from the food
industry. This is followed by a detailed discussion of the two
Dutch food development projects and a comparison with
two projects at a Scandinavian food company. The paper
ends with a discussion of the conclusions and implications,
specifically focusing on the applicability of our analytical
framework to supplier involvement in product development
in the food industry.
2. Product development and supplier involvement in the
food industry
The food industry is composed of very diverse firms
processing various ingredients to in any way produce food
products in solid (crisps, quick meal solutions) or liquid
form (soup, beverages). The food industry is well known for
its large variety of products, which vary in size, packaging,
flavour, et cetera. Most of these products are sold through
retailers to large numbers of consumers throughout the
world, and margins are relatively low. For the larger part, the
industry in Europe exists of small to medium sized
enterprises, supplying local or specialist niche markets
(Hingley & Lindgreen, 2004; Traill & Grunert, 1997).
Large companies and multinational enterprises complete the
industry. Whereas large food companies supply a limited
range of national brands and processed foods and increasingly produce private-label products for national retailers
(Verhoef, Nijssen, & Sloot, 2002), multinationals are additionally engaged in exports or other multinational activities.
As a result of increased consumer awareness, consumers
impose more and more demands on food companies (Weston
& Chiu, 1996). Consumers have more money to spend, but
also expect higher product quality in terms of freshness,
storage life, et cetera. There is a growing interest in
convenience products due to changes in lifestyle (going out
more, working longer hours, women working in addition to
men or instead). The market situation is one of consumer
pull; consumer buying patterns direct product development.
In addition to that, retailers buy and assign shelf space based
on consumer buying patterns; since shelf space gives retailers
strong bargaining power when negotiating with food
companies, the power in the supply network is also largely
in hands of the retailers (Hingley & Hollingsworth, 2003).
Another trend is the continuous growth of retail chains,
whereby the retailers increase their power over food
companies even further. More and more retailers switch to
operating under the flag of an established brand name (e.g.,
ICA or Albert Heijn), and more and more chains go together
in consortiums like Ahold or Carrefour. Food companies
need to position their products well in relation to their
competitors in order to get in favour with the retailers and
with the consumer.
These trends and specific characteristics of the food
industry bring growing pressure upon food companies. In
their struggle to obtain shelf space in supermarkets, food
companies must know which products to offer to the final
consumer, as to initiate a customer-pull situation at the
retailers. This means that much attention has to be given to
researching consumer wishes on the one hand and developments in supplier offerings on the other. The latter can bring
about ideas for new food products, after which the consumer
has to be convinced that he or she wants or needs that
product.
The continuing changes in consumer buying patterns also
require speedy development from food companies; what
consumers buy today will probably not be bought tomorrow.
Retailers practically force food companies to either innovate, or loose shelf space to the competitor that does. New
developments need to take place in rapid succession.
However, very few of the newly launched products are
successful in terms of acceptance by the market. Rudolph
W. van der Valk, F. Wynstra / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 681 – 694
(1995) estimates that during 1993, well over 8000 new
products were introduced to US retail markets, some 80% to
90% of which failed within one year, resulting in missed
sales targets, lost revenues and delayed profits in addition to
wasted development resources.
Few food companies are able to meet these increased
demands by themselves. Even though the industry’s
situation in terms of number of suppliers and complexity
of the product is different from that faced by automotive and
electronics assembly firms, the food industry still has to
cope with issues like for example capacity, functionality and
quality (hygiene aspects that are imposed by legislation) of
production equipment and the Finterfaces_ between combinations of ingredients that either Fmix_ or Fdon_t mix_. This
makes product innovation in this industry quite complex.
External resources are therefore necessary to keep up with
the high pace of innovation needed. Suppliers of ingredients,
machines and packaging materials can make a valuable
contribution to efficient and effective product development,
by bringing in expert knowledge in all kinds of relevant
areas. Increasingly, food companies make use for example of
‘‘co-packers’’, external suppliers that make a ready final
product, to satisfy their production – and sometimes even
product development –needs. In general, many food companies have become more reliant on external suppliers and this
has led to an increasing focus on purchasing and supply
management in general (Anderson & Woolley, 2002).
The IPDS framework may provide us with a tool to
analyse manufacturer – supplier collaboration in product
development in the food industry in a way that systematically combines attention to strategic and operational
processes, while explicitly studying the context of such
collaboration in terms of contingencies affecting the
appropriate extent and form of these processes and the
pre-conditions for carrying them out.
3. Results, processes and pre-conditions of supplier
involvement
The framework is an adaptation of two respective models
by Wynstra et al. (2000, 1999) and Monczka, Handfield,
and Scannell (2000) and is structured according to an
input – throughput –output logic. Fig. 1 provides a schematic
representation of the framework.
Inputs are the starting conditions in terms of the
organizational structure and capabilities of both the customer
and the supplier. A distinction is made between drivers and
enablers. Drivers are factors that drive a company towards a
specific form and extent of IPDS processes. These factors
can be internal as well as external to the company and may
exist on three different levels of analysis: the business unit
level, the project level and the level of the individual buyer –
supplier relationship. Enablers are the conditions, whose
presence can help a company to organize the required IPDS
processes. These enablers can be present internally or
683
externally to the buying organization or in the specific
relationship between buyer and supplier.
Throughputs are the project-related processes to set-up
and manage supplier involvement in product development
from a buying firm perspective. Strategic Management
Processes use a more long-term horizon of preparing and
developing a supply base in selected technological areas,
while Operational Management Processes are more shortterm focused, within the context of a specific project and
specific supplier involvement.
Outputs are the (potential) short-term and long-term
results of involving suppliers in product development.
Examples of short-term effects are reduced development
time and cost, reduced product cost and increased product
quality. The framework makes an explicit distinction
between overall project results and the results of the
collaboration with a specific supplier within that project,
as the two may not always be fully correlated due to external
influences. Examples of long-term effects are access to
critical supplier technologies, better/increased alignment of
technology roadmaps and more efficient and effective
collaboration (Wynstra et al., 2001).
The core of the framework consists of the strategic and
operational management processes (Van Echtelt, Wynstra,
van Weele, et al., 2004 and Van Echtelt, Wynstra, van
Weele, Duysters, et al., 2004). The Strategic Management
arena contains seven processes that together provide longterm, strategic direction and support for adopting supplier
involvement in individual development projects. These
processes also contribute to building up a willing and
capable supplier base to meet the current and future technology and capability needs. The Operational Management
arena contains nine processes that are aimed at planning,
managing and evaluating the actual collaborations in terms
of their intermediate and final development performance in
a development project.
The success of involving suppliers in product development as a strategy depends on the firm’s ability to capture
both short-term and long-term benefits. If companies spend
most of their time on operational management in development projects, they will fail to Fleverage_ the effect of
planning and preparing such involvement through strategic
management activities. Also, they will not be sufficiently
positioned to capture possible long-term technology and
learning benefits that may spin off from individual projects.
Long-term collaboration benefits can only be captured if a
company can build long-term relationships with key
suppliers, where it builds learning routines and ensures that
the capability sets of both parties are still aligned and are
still useful for new joint projects.
To obtain such benefits, companies need a set of strategic
decision-making processes that help to create this alignment. Having established explicit and extensive strategies, a
company obviously still needs a set of operational management processes to identify the right partners and the
appropriate level of supplier involvement for the various
684
Conditions
Management Processes
Strategic Business Unit Enablers
Enablers
Drivers
Strategic Business Unit Drivers
Periodically
evaluating guidelines
and supplier base
performance
Determining in outsourcing
technologies and NPD
activities
7
Motivating suppliers
to develop specific
knowledge or
products
6
Exploiting existing
supplier skills and
(technical) capabilities
1. BU Size
2. Supplier Dependence
3. R&D Dependence
4. Manufacturing Type
1
Strategic
Management
Arena
5
Formulating and
communicating
guidelines /procedures for
managing supplier involvement
2
Long-term collaboration results
•
3
Monitoring supplier
markets and current
suppliers for relevant
developments
4
Pre-selecting
suppliers for future
involvement in NPD
Short-term Project Results
•
Final Product Quality
•
Final Product Cost
•
Final Product Development Costs
•
Final Product Time-to-Market
Time
Operational Project Enablers
1.Cross-functional orientation
purchasing and R&D (Team
2. Human Resource Qualities
(Team)
Operational Project Drivers
1.Degree of Project Innovation
More efficient/effective future
collaboration
Access to suppliers’
Technology roadmap alignment
•
•
Evaluating/feeding
back supplier development
performance
9
Evaluating part
designs
Coordinating
development activities
with suppliers
1
Operational
Project
Management
Arena
7
6
Designing
communication
interface with suppliers
Short term collaboration results
Suggesting alternative
technologies,
components, and suppliers
2
8
-
Determining desired
Project-specific develop
or buy solutions
3
Selecting suppliers
for involvement in
development project
4
5
Determining extent
and moment of
supplier involvement
Determining
operational targets
and work package
Fig. 1. IPDS-framework (Van Echtelt, Wynstra, Van Weele, et al., 2004).
•
•
•
•
Part technical performance
Part cost
Part development cost
Part development lead time
W. van der Valk, F. Wynstra / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 681 – 694
1.Cross-functional orientation
purchasing and R&D (Org.)
2. Human Resource Qualities
(Org.)
Results
W. van der Valk, F. Wynstra / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 681 – 694
suppliers in a specific project, using the support from the
strategic directions and guidelines. The two arenas are both
distinct and interrelated, as the interplay between short-term
project interests and long-term strategic interests are
managed in these arenas. For a more detailed discussion
of the respective processes, we refer to Van Echtelt,
Wynstra, van Weele, et al. (2004 and Van Echtelt, Wynstra,
Van Weele, Duysters, et al., 2004).
The ability for and necessity of carrying out these
different processes—and the most effective way of carrying
them out—depends on the enabling and driving factors. As
for the managerial processes, the framework distinguishes
between a strategic, organizational level and an operational,
project level. The most important enablers, both at the
organizational and project level, are the quality of the
human resources and cross-functional orientation of the
purchasing and R & D functions, two of the functions most
closely involved in supplier involvement in product development (Van Echtelt, Wynstra, Van Weele, Duysters, et al.,
2004; Wynstra, Axelsson, & Van Weele, 2000).
The driving factors for the two levels differ. At the
strategic, organizational level, they include firm size,
supplier and R & D dependence, and the type of
manufacturing process used (Wynstra et al., 2000). The
larger the firm, the more it relies on suppliers (high degree
of deverticalisation), the more it relies on R & D and
product innovation for creating competitive advantage, and
when it uses (large-scale) assembly production, the more
important managing supplier involvement in product development becomes. At the project level, the main driving
factor is the degree of project innovation, as discussed
earlier (Van Echtelt, Wynstra, Van Weele, Duysters, et al.,
2004).
4. Benchmarking supplier involvement practices
While the previous versions of the model have been
developed on the basis of case studies at more than 20 firms,
across 6 different industries (Wynstra, 1998), the IPDS
framework in its current form has not yet been broadly
applied beyond the context of an office automation
manufacturer, where the framework was used to analyze
several case studies in terms of the way suppliers have been
involved in product development and the amount of success
associated with the involvement (Van Echtelt, Wynstra, Van
Weele, et al., 2004). Since the development of the framework took place within the context of a technically complex
firm (e.g., high number of components, different technologies, and/or interactions between components/technologies),
it is interesting to investigate the applicability of this
framework in other companies and other industries.
Hence, a benchmark study was set-up in order to
investigate the applicability of the framework in contexts
different from the one in which it was developed. This
benchmark study should provide us with insights into the
685
usefulness of the framework for understanding and explaining new product development success or failure in relation
to the various contingency factors. Furthermore, the results
of the benchmark study should distinguish high-performing
companies from low-performing ones.
As it turned out, the food company in the sample
performed better than did the other companies. An additional case study was carried out in Scandinavia, showing
contradictory results. The framework will be used for
explaining differences between these two companies.
4.1. The benchmark study
Eight product development projects submitted by four
Dutch companies were studied by means of the IPDS
framework (Van der Valk, 2003; Van Echtelt, Wynstra, Van
Weele, Duysters, et al., 2004). The methodological approach
used in this benchmark study can be found in Appendix A.
Because of confidentiality, the names of all companies
involved in this study have been disguised.
AIS is a large Analytical Instrumentation and Software
supplier offering X-ray analytical equipment for both
industrial and scientific applications and for the semiconductor market. The first project concerned the development of a novel system for analyzing samples using a newly
developed detection technology. Four key suppliers were
involved developing the detector system, a high voltage
generator, a metal casing and mechatronics assembly, and an
embedded software board. The second project involved
increasing the capacity of an existing system for sample
analyses. The key supplier in this project was involved in
the development of the Fchanger_ module (a mechanical
construction combined with operating software).
ETS (Entrance Technology Specialist), the world market
leader in the area of revolving doors and security products for
the high-end market (e.g., shopping centers, airports),
contributed a development project for a high-speed safetygate. One of the two key suppliers supplied a sensor system
with control box; the other provided the steel construction.
The second project concerned the development of two types
of a high-capacity glass revolving door (one with a stainlesssteel center column and three compartments in the revolving
door, the other with a steel center column and four compartments). Both center columns were developed by one supplier.
FPC (Food Producing Company) is a large multi-national
producer of food products. The first project concerned a
carbonated soda beverage that was developed and filled in
collaboration with a Spanish subsidiary of a Dutch filling
firm. The second project concerned a new flavor for fruitflavored sprinkles, in which a co-pack supplier was involved
for development of the flavor and production of the sprinkles.
Finally, MHA is a developer and Manufacturer of
personal care products and Home Appliances (e.g., shavers,
coffee machines and vacuum cleaners). The first project
concerned the development of a fragrance module for a
vacuum cleaner for the high-end market. A consultancy
686
W. van der Valk, F. Wynstra / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 681 – 694
Table 1
Overall scores in the benchmark study on drivers*, enablers*, processes** and results***
Companies Projects
Operational Strategic Operational
business project
project
unit
enablers^
drivers^
drivers^^
Strategic Operational Strategic
Short-term Long-term
Short-term
business
collaboration
management management collaboration project
results
results
results
processes
processes^
unit
enablers^^
AIS
3.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
2.3
ETS
FPC
MHA
Spectrometer (SM)
Sample-changer (SC)
Speed gate (SG)
Revolving door (RD)
Carbonated soda drink
(SD)
fruit sprinkles (FS)
Vacuum cleaner (VC)
Coffee machine (CM)
1.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
1.6
3.0
2.3
2.3
2.0
2.0
1.5
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
1.5
2.6
2.3
2.9
2.7
2.1
2.0
3.8
4.0
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.1
4.3
3.6
1.6
2.0
2.1
2.0
2.3
1.3
2.3
2.0
1.8
2.3
1.7
1.3
1.8
1.3
2.3
2.0
2.3
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.3
*: Scale: 1—low; 2—medium; 3—high.
**: Scale: 1—Absent: the process is not carried out; 2—Reactive: the process is carried out in an ad hoc way, as a result of occurring events; 3—Pro-active: the
process is carried out following an implicit structure or set of activities; 4—Systematic: as in Fpro-active_, but supported by systems, procedures and guidelines;
5—Intelligent: as in Fsystematic_, but able to critically review the processes in the light of the situation and to adapt (incidentally or more permanently) when
necessary.
***: Scale 1—below target; 2—on target; 3—above target.
^: Informants: project leader and project purchaser. ^^: Informants: R & D manager/director and Purchasing manager/director.
agency specialized in the fragrance market was involved in
the development of the fragrance and of the cylinder
containing the fragrance. The second project involves the
redesign of a boiler for a follow-up version of a highly
successful and innovative crème coffee machine. A European supplier of heating elements for kettles and coffee
machines worked on the redesign of the boiler. Table 1
contains the overall results for all companies participating in
this benchmark research project.
4.2. Results
Below, we provide a more detailed analysis of the two food
development projects of FPC, but at this point we first make a
comparison between the four companies and their projects.
Regarding the short-term project results, the MHA’s Vacuum
Cleaner project performs best, closely followed by FPC’s Soda
Drink project and AIS_ Sample Changer project. The Spectrometer project (AIS) has the lowest score in terms of shortterm project results, and also the Revolving Door project (ETS)
scores below the targets set by the companies in advance of the
project.2
Taking into account the collaboration results (both short-and
long-term), again the Vacuum Cleaner project (MHA) and the Soda
Drink project (FPC) score high (above target), whereas the other
two projects submitted by these firms score on target overall. AIS’
Sample Changer project scores low in terms of long-term
collaboration results.
Both high-performing projects show high scores on the both the
strategic and the operational management processes. MHA’s
strategic management processes are considered to be pro-active
to systematic; their operational management processes are charac2
Informants were asked to give their opinion on whether the targets
originally set by the companies were not met, met or exceeded, with respect
to the various short-term project and collaboration results and long-term
collaboration results (see Fig. 1).
terized as being proactive/reactive. FPC’s strategic management
processes are considered to be systematic/intelligent, whereas their
operational management processes are characterized as being proactive to systematic.
Finally, the drivers for MHA are medium/high, whereas for
FPC they are high. This would imply that FPC has to put
somewhat more effort into the management processes than MHA,
to achieve the same results — which they do. On the other hand,
both types of management processes are facilitated because of the
presence of medium/high enablers in both companies, both at the
strategic and at the project level. We now take a closer look at these
enablers and drivers, also for the other projects, to illustrate the
general logic of our framework.
4.3. Drivers and enablers
Looking in more detail at the development projects
submitted by FPC and MHA, we can see in the table that the
drivers for the two second projects are considered to be low/
medium. In that sense, the second projects can be
considered to be less complex than the first projects,
particularly because they are considered to be less innovative. Interestingly enough, this does not result in lower
scores on the management processes; neither did it bring
about better results.
For the management processes, the explanation lies in the
fact that these companies do not distinguish between more
complex and less complex projects. At FPC, the fact that no
distinction is made with regard to variation in product
complexity is in fact a conscious decision. They prefer to
adopt a uniform approach to all product development
projects, in order to ensure that everyone involved in the
project knows what is expected from him/her and works in a
consistent manner towards project success.
This finding seems somewhat contradictory to some of
the previous research on the impact of project innovative-
W. van der Valk, F. Wynstra / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 681 – 694
ness, which states that more innovative projects require
more intensive supplier management in order to succeed
(Ragatz et al., 2002). However, this does not imply that
our analysis framework is wrong: although the framework
allows for segmentation of highly and less innovative
projects, the case results reflect the companies’ approaches to these different types of projects. Possibly, the
distinction between highly and less innovative projects is
not that important when it comes to product development
in the food industry. This would imply that the framework looks somewhat different for this industry. The
efficiency of development projects might be further
increased if food companies would distinguish between
these two types of projects. More research is necessary to
clarify this observation.
The projects submitted by AIS differ in terms of project
results: results are on or above target for the Sample
Changer project (except for the long-term collaboration
results), but below target for the Spectrometer project. The
management processes, however, score nearly the same for
AIS as for MHA.
An explanation for the remaining differences in project
results can be found in the scores on drivers and enablers.
The strategic drivers at AIS, and thus the context of the
Spectrometer project, score higher than at MHA. At the
operational level, the enablers in the Spectrometer project
score lower than in the Vacuum Cleaner and the Coffee
Machine project. Thus, the driving conditions under which
the Spectrometer project was carried out were more
challenging than the conditions for the Vacuum Cleaner
and Coffee Machine projects, whereas the enabling
conditions were less facilitating/supportive for the Spectrometer project than for the Vacuum Cleaner and Coffee
Machine projects. As a result, the management processes
in the Spectrometer project would have required more
attention than in the Vacuum Cleaner/Coffee Machine
projects in order to achieve the same results as in those
projects.
Vice versa, if the driving conditions are less challenging,
companies could decide to spend less energy on creating the
right enabling conditions, or create very supportive enabling
conditions and focus less attention on the management
processes. In conclusion: companies need to understand the
driving conditions, as to design the enabling factors and the
processes in a way that mitigates the risks associated with
the drivers.
Overall, we could conclude that particularly the food
company excels in their approach to product development
projects. In the following section, we will elaborate more
on product development in the food company. Furthermore, we will contrast the results of the Dutch food
company with the results of two development projects
submitted by a Scandinavian food company. The results of
the Scandinavian food development projects differ from
those of the Dutch food development projects. By
contrasting the four projects, we will demonstrate how
687
the framework can be used to understand which elements
are critical for successful supplier involvement and how
these are interrelated.
5. Comparing four food development projects
Parallel to the benchmark study carried out in the
Netherlands, an additional case study according to a similar
format 3 was carried out at BCG, a leading supplier of
Branded Consumer Goods to the Nordic grocery market
(beverages, chemicals, detergents, food, and apparel) (Fällene, 2003). BCG’s food business is leading in the development, manufacturing and marketing of various product
groups, including pizzas/pies, pickled vegetables, seafood
and processed potatoes.
Two divisions of BCG each submitted one project for the
study: division A (seafood) submitted the development of a
fish spread in combination with a new packaging. Two
packaging suppliers were involved for design and production of the packaging, respectively. Furthermore, a number
of ingredient suppliers were involved.
Division B (pizza, pickled vegetables, potato products, et
cetera) submitted a newly developed concept in the area of
take-away sandwiches, involving a machine that can put
together a sandwich at a customer’s order. One supplier was
involved in the development of the machine: during the
project, this supplier was replaced by a new supplier.
Furthermore, a spice expert company was involved to
develop a new meat flavor.
An overview of the interviewees for these two case
studies can be found in Appendix B. An overview of the
overall results for the two Scandinavian and the two Dutch
food projects can be found in Table 2.
5.1. Results of the Dutch development projects
The first project concerned a slightly carbonated readyto-drink soda in PET bottles of 33 cl. The drink was
developed and filled in collaboration with a Spanish
subsidiary of a Dutch filling company. The project was
highly innovative, since the method of preparation in
combination with the packaging material and the manufacturing technology was new for FPC. The project was
realized from scratch within a time period of five months,
and is now sold through retail outlets at gas stations.
The fruit-flavored sprinkles project concerns a line
extension. The project was conducted with the assistance
of a former sister organization of FPC and is considered to
be less innovative than FPC’s other project. FPC regarded
this project as an outsourcing project (more arm’s length)
and thus dealt with it accordingly. The former sister
3
In the Scandinavian studies, the analysis was carried out from the
buying firm’s perspective only.
688
W. van der Valk, F. Wynstra / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 681 – 694
Table 2
Overall scores of the Scandinavian and the Dutch food development projects on drivers*, enablers*, processes** and results***
Companies Projects
Operational Strategic Operational Strategic
Operational Strategic
Short-term
Short-term Long-term
business project
business unit management management collaboration project
project
collaboration
unit
enablers^
drivers^
enablers^^
processes^ processes
results
results^
results^^
drivers ^^
BCG
3.0
2.8
2.0
2.0
2.8
2.6
1.8
1.5
1.5
3.0
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.9
2.9
2.0
1.5
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.8
4.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.0
2.0
2.0
FPC
Fish spread (FS)
(division A)
Take-away sandwich
(TS) (division B)
Carbonated soda
drink (SD)
Fruit sprinkles (FS)
1.0
3.0
4.0
*: Scale: 1—low; 2—medium; 3—high.
**: Scale: 1—Absent: the process is not carried out; 2—Reactive: the process is carried out in an ad hoc way, as a result of occurring events; 3—Pro-active: the
process is carried out following an implicit structure or set of activities; 4—Systematic: as in Fpro-active_, but supported by systems, procedures and guidelines;
5—Intelligent: as in Fsystematic_, but able to critically review the processes in the light of the situation and to adapt (incidentally or more permanently) when
necessary.
***: Scale 1—below target; 2—on target; 3—above target.
^: Informants: project leader and project purchaser. ^^: Informants: R & D manager/director and Purchasing manager/director.
organization owns the production line for the original
version of the fruit-flavored sprinkles.
The detailed results of the two development projects of
FPC, and those of BCG, can be found in Table 3. These
results will be discussed in detail hereafter.
We can conclude that for both projects, results are on
target. The Soda Drink project even exceeded the desired
time-to-market. The collaboration results with the individual
suppliers are directly in line with the project results.
Furthermore, the long-term collaboration results are on
target, and even exceed target with regard to roadmap
alignment in the area of technology for drinks for the Soda
Drink project.
Looking back on the benchmark study, we can see that,
in comparison to the other companies, both the strategic and
the operational processes are well developed at FPC. Not
only were they the only company in the sample to have
developed and communicated guidelines and policies with
regard to supplier involvement (SMP2); also they are the
only company to pay attention to evaluation processes, both
within the project and at the strategic level. Every project is
concluded with an eye-opener meeting, in which FPC and
the suppliers can mirror their own and each other’s
performance. These meetings are fostered by the fact that
FPC tries to create a very open relationship with their
suppliers, thereby cultivating a learning environment. This
has resulted in a lot of relevant insights, which can be used
to further improve the processes. Where necessary and
useful, these insights are fed back to strategic management,
who can then decide whether and how to adapt the existing
guidelines and policies. Through this step, the loops are
closed. Getting these processes right has taken FPC years
and this is continuing still. Clearly, this pays off.
Additionally, the project and business unit enablers score
high. Particularly at FPC, the position that the purchasing
discipline has obtained in the organization is an important
organizational enabler. Furthermore, FPC has a company
culture in which employees feel it is a privilege to work on a
development project. The atmosphere within the project
team and the company as a whole is very positive and
enthusiastic, which results in more effective collaboration—
also externally.
When comparing the two projects, the scores on the
processes, enablers and drivers are not very different for the
two projects, except for the degree of project innovation.
The Soda Drink project is highly innovative, whereas the
Fruit Sprinkles project is less innovative. However, FPC
employs the same approach when it comes to creating
conditions (operational project enablers) and carrying out
the management processes. FPC deliberately chooses not to
differentiate between different types of products, as to
obtain standardization in the way of working and in the
mindsets of people.
Finally, one could argue that all the efforts put into the
enablers and the processes in fact do not fully pay off,
considering the fact that the project and collaboration results
are all on target. This of course depends on the way targets
are set. FPC themselves claim that they do generally set high
expectations, and thus that an Fon target_ score actually
represents high performance from the side of the suppliers.4
We conclude that the efforts invested in obtaining the
right inputs and in carrying out the processes to the right
extent have resulted in high supplier performance in product
development. This contributes to successful project out-
4
One could argue that, given this observation, measuring performance
Fcompared to target_ is not a reliable method for comparing projects across
different companies. However, as this is a very common method for
measuring results, even in quantitative (survey) studies, we decide to use
the measurement anyway, and account for any possible differences in the
Fstringency_ of target setting as we do here, to further explain possible
variances, based on the in-depth interviews (see also Appendix A). Note
also that we use two informants for assessing each result dimension, further
contributing to our construct validity.
689
W. van der Valk, F. Wynstra / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 681 – 694
Table 3
Detailed results of the Scandinavian and Dutch food development projects on drivers*, enablers*, processes** and results***
Project
Company
FPC
BCG
Soda
Fruit
Fish
Take-away
drink (SD) sprinkles (FS) spread (FS) sandwich (TS)
Product quality
Product cost
Development cost
Time-to-market
Short-term collaboration
Part technical performance
Part cost
results^
Part development cost
Part development time
Long-term collaboration
Alignment of technology roadmaps
Improved access to supplier’s knowledge
results^^
More effective and efficient future collaboration
Strategic management
Determining technology in-outsourcing policy
Formulating and communicating guidelines for managing
processes^^
supplier involvement
Monitoring markets and current suppliers for
relevant developments
Pre-selecting suppliers for involvement in future NPD
Exploiting existing suppliers’ skills and (technical) capabilities
Motivating suppliers for developing skills or products
Periodically evaluating guidelines and supplier base performance
Operational management
Determining desired develop and buy solutions
processes^
Suggesting alternative technologies/components/suppliers
Selecting suppliers for involvement in a project
Determining extent and timing of involvement
Determining development operational targets and work package
Designing communication interface
Coordinating suppliers’ development activities
Evaluating part designs
Evaluating supplier development performance
Strategic BU enablers^^
Cross-functional organization
Human resource quality organization
Operational project
Cross-functional orientation team
enablers^
Human resource quality team
Strategic BU drivers^^
BU Size
Supplier dependence
R & D dependence
Manufacturing complexity
Technological uncertainty
Operational project drivers^ Degree of project innovation
Short-term project
results^
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
5.0
5.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
5.0
5.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
2.0+
2.0+
1.5+
1.5+
1.0+
2.0+
1.5+
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
2.0+
2.0+
2.0+
2.0+
2.0+
2.0+
2.0+
2.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
5.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Note: The scores for strategic management processes, strategic enablers and strategic drivers are the same for the two projects at FPC, as they are carried out
within the same business unit. As the two projects at BCG occurred in different divisions, also the strategic processes etc. differ for the two projects.
*: Scale: 1—low; 2—medium; 3—high. **: Scale: 1—Absent: the process is not carried out; 2—Reactive: the process is carried out in an ad hoc way, as a
result of occurring events; 3—Pro-active: the process is carried out following an implicit structure or set of activities; 4—Systematic: as in Fpro-active_, but
supported by systems, procedures and guidelines; 5—Intelligent: as in Fsystematic_, but able to critically review the processes in the light of the situation and to
adapt (incidentally or more permanently) when necessary.***: Scale 1—below target; 2—on target; 3—above target.
^: Informants: project leader and project purchaser. ^^: Informants: R & D manager/director and Purchasing manager/director.
+: This project included more than one supplier, and the scores refer to averages for these suppliers.
comes in the form of products that conform to the predefined targets.
5.2. Results of the Scandinavian development projects
In the first project submitted by division A (hereafter
referred to as BCGA), a fish-spread was developed in
combination with a new packaging. The development of the
fish-spread was new to the firm, since its durability (shelflife) was much shorter than for their other products. This
short durability at the same time caused the need for the new
packaging. The product was released in 2003 (some six
months later than planned) and is selling better than
expected. Two suppliers were involved for the design and
the production of the packaging, respectively. Additionally,
some ingredient suppliers were involved.
690
W. van der Valk, F. Wynstra / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 681 – 694
The second project, submitted by division B (BCGB),
concerns the development of a machine that can put together
and serve a food product (for example: a sandwich) on
customer-order. The project was not yet finished at the time
of the study. This was the division’s first experience with
closely involving suppliers in product development. Starting
out with a supplier that was technically highly skilled, but
not too experienced in the food industry, they had to replace
the supplier by a known supplier that was experienced in the
food industry. A spice expert company developed a new
meat taste, to be put on the sandwich.
Regarding Table 2, we can see that in both projects the
desired product quality and product cost were achieved
eventually, but that the development cost was much higher
than targeted and the time-to-market was much longer.
These project results cannot be directly traced back to the
supplier results, since the suppliers have scored better with
regard to development cost and development time than the
project as a whole.
It is important to notice though, that the scores for the
short-term and long-term collaboration results are averages
for the various suppliers involved in each project. Thus,
some of the suppliers will have scored on target, whereas
some others will have scored below target. For example, in
the Take-away Sandwich project, the first machine supplier
has contributed to the low scores on development time and
development cost. The fact that the supplier had to be
replaced caused a delay and brought about additional costs.
Furthermore, the fact that the targets in the Fish Spread
project were set quite low due to the level of perceived risk
marginalizes the collaboration results.
However, in the Take-away Sandwich project, the
development of the machine has provided BCG with
knowledge they did not have access to before (long-term
collaboration effect). The division even discussed future
developments and market trends with some of the involved
suppliers. As this is the first project with intensive supplier
involvement, the division has had some valuable learning
experiences with regard to collaboration.
Moreover, also BCG contributed to low performance with
regard to the results. The scores on the management processes
also demonstrate this. Both the strategic and the operational
management processes are carried out reactively to proactively, with a few exceptions for some operational management processes that are considered to be intelligent. For
example, in the Fish Spread project, the development of the
packaging was complicated due to frequent changes at
BCGA. This can be traced back to low scores on management
processes. For example, the fact that ‘‘determining the desired
develop-or-buy solutions’’ has not been carried out properly
will have contributed to the frequent changes at BCG.
The drivers score relatively high, thereby putting higher
demands on the extent to which the processes are carried
out. The lack of high-scoring enablers makes it all the more
necessary to perform well on the processes. For example,
the interfaces between the different suppliers complicated
the development project: the collaboration between the two
packaging suppliers sometimes was difficult due to the
differences in company culture and working methods.
We conclude that there seems to be room for improvement in both of BCG’s divisions. BCG does not have a predetermined frame for supplier involvement present in the
organization; as a result, many of the activities that would
normally be carried out in advance of projects now have to
be carried out within projects. This ad hoc behavior causes
various problems, which eventually result in deviations
from the targets.
When comparing the two companies with regard to how
they approach and conduct product development activities,
the differences are striking.
FPC has invested a lot of effort into its management
processes (both strategic and operational) and in the creation
of proper development conditions, paying off in good
project results. BCG on the other hand, seems to perform
much more ad hoc, lacking a clear structure for involving
supplier involvement in product development. The absence
of a strategic perspective on supplier involvement in product
development results in problems (delays, misunderstandings, mistakes, et cetera) within the individual development
projects. It is interesting to note that the difference between
BCG and FPC in terms of managing supplier involvement is
especially large regarding the strategic processes.
Consequently, BCG’s project results are not as good as
those of FPC. It seems that creating suitable product
development conditions and actively carrying out the
relevant management processes is a requirement for
successful product development.5
6. Conclusions and implications
The case studies and their analyses demonstrate that the
previously developed IPDS framework can usefully be
applied for describing, analyzing and partly explaining
failures and successes in product development in various
industries; also in the food industry. Our studies find that
both strategic and operational processes have an impact on
development results. We also find that enablers at the
business unit and project level have an impact on the
possibilities of effectively and efficiently carrying out these
processes. Finally, the case studies support the notion that
strategic driving factors, such as company size, have an
impact on the required form and extent of the strategic and
operational management processes. The case studies provide little support, however, for the received notion that the
degree of project innovation has an impact on the necessary
5
Bear in mind that by successful product development we mean projects
of which the outputs meet or exceed pre-determined targets. Whether the
project is also successful in terms of market variables as sales, market share
and profitability is outside the scope of the framework.
W. van der Valk, F. Wynstra / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 681 – 694
691
intensity of supplier management. This issue seems to
require further research.
There is a tendency among food companies to outsource
the development of products as a whole to one contractor
(co-packer), which subcontracts other parties when necessary. This may be compared to the use of Electronic
Manufacturing Service contractors in the electronics industry. One could question whether food companies have to
manage suppliers differently in order to be successful. The
results of the case studies so far demonstrate that food
companies go through the same cycle, as do companies in
other industries.
In this study, particularly the food development projects
of FPC scored very well. Often, product development in the
food industry is thought to be less complex, since the final
product is often less complex in terms of the number of
Fbuilding blocks’, as a result of which the number of
suppliers is relatively small. The contribution of the
individual suppliers and the coordination of these suppliers
are therefore less substantial in the food than in the
traditional manufacturing industry. However, this does not
mean that product development in the food industry is easier
than in other industries. From the case studies we can
conclude that also in the food industry, complex projects
come about: FPC had to make quite a lot of efforts to obtain
the desired results.
divide them into several sections. They also take into
account the particular activities and skills required for each
project. This Fstage-gate_-like model is comprehensive and
deals with food in an informative way.
The IPDS framework is also a generic framework, which
can be adjusted as to fit the characteristics of food
companies. Given the fact that the framework deals
specifically with supplier involvement, we believe that our
framework is a useful enhancement to the existing body of
knowledge. The IPDS framework provides a comprehensive
approach to product development issues in the Fextended
firm_, which can definitely be transferred to the specifics of
the food industry. The framework puts special emphasis on
work in advance of any specific project, e.g., creating the
right conditions to foster idea generation and realization
(enablers) and doing thorough preliminary work on a more
strategic level (developing guidelines, making the make-orbuy decision explicit, (supply) market research, et cetera).
Our framework ultimately provides a kind of improvement
model, enabling organizations to pinpoint the weaknesses in
their product development projects and to in advance
identify potential risks and improvement actions to mitigate
these risks. This can make the difference between failure
and success.
6.1. Contributions
Thusfar, we have limited ourselves to identifying critical
decision-making activities and conditions primarily from a
customer perspective. However, supplier involvement is not
a process that can be unilaterally managed by the customer.
Additional and complementary perspectives have not
explicitly been used in this study such as network and
interaction approaches (Håkansson, 1987; Von Corswant &
Tunälv, 2002). Still, the framework – and in particular, the
processes it encompasses – are originally based on four basic
underlying processes that signal a Fmeaningful_ managerial
involvement of the customer (Wynstra, Weggeman, & van
Weele, 2003). These processes (prioritization, mobilization,
co-ordination and timing) are derived from a resource-based
view of product development, and are in particular based on
the work of Bonaccorsi (1992) and Håkansson and Eriksson
(1993). Nevertheless, a useful extension of our framework
would be to consider a set of analogous processes, enablers
and drivers, but then from the perspective of the supplier.
Combined with the current, customer-focused framework
this could result in a more complete, dyadic framework.
Furthermore, we have not focused in-depth on the change
processes in these companies that allow buyer and supplier
to improve their collaboration in product development. This
means that defining and examining the change processes
could be a next possible extension. Further investigation is
also needed into the appropriate informal and formal
mechanisms that enable effective learning across different
departments and with suppliers in the context of stronger
supplier involvement in product development. In the current
Apart from its relevance per se, it may be useful to
consider the framework’s relations to other product development related models developed and/or applied to the food
industry.
Traill and Grunert (1997) have evaluated the ideas of six
new product development (NPD) theorists and their
associates. Some of these theories have been developed
with particular reference to the food industry and the
development of new food products. These ideas are
contrasted with non-food specific theorists, who are
interested in the management of new products and who
have recognized the important role that NPD plays in any
business.
Traill and Grunert (1997) found that there is little
consensus as to the right and wrong way to manage the
process of product development. They therefore advocate
that an organization should not be tied to one particular
model, but should take on board the basic fundamentals of a
food-based model (theory) and adapt and amend it to their
particular situations as and when they develop new food
products. Existing models for product development in the
food industry are quite similar to the traditional stage-gate
models used in the context of manufacturing companies;
these models are slightly adapted to enhance the fit of the
model to the specifics of the food industry. For example,
Graf and Saguy (1991) propose, somewhat arbitrarily, to
divide a typical project into five steps and then proceed to
6.2. Limitations
692
W. van der Valk, F. Wynstra / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 681 – 694
study we observed that one of the potential benefits of
starting to involve suppliers in product development is the
potential for learning, making future collaborations less
resource-consuming and more effective. Still, many companies make the same mistakes over and over again. We
therefore argue that visible evaluation processes need to be in
place at different organizational levels to allow learning
experiences to be passed on.
The main finding of the current study, however, is that
there is initial support for the claim that our analytical
framework regarding the results, processes and pre-conditions of supplier involvement in product development is
also applicable in the food industry. As such, our study,
which we believe to be the first one to explicitly address
supplier involvement in this industry, suggests that potentially useful lessons may be learned not only from, but also
by this industry by comparing its practices with those
applied in other industries. The differences between
industries in this respect are usually smaller than expected.
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to acknowledge the support from Sara
Fällene and Ferrie van Echtelt in executing the field work,
and the useful comments by the reviewers and participants
at the 2004 Annual IMP Conference.
Appendix A. Methodology
In the benchmark study, data was collected by means of
questionnaires and extensive semi-structured interviews.
Based on preliminary research, two complementary questionnaires were designed and extensively pre-tested. The
first, strategic questionnaire, dealt with long-term collaboration results, strategic management processes and strategic/
business unit drivers and enablers, and was sent to the
companies’ purchasing managers and R & D/development
managers. The second, operational questionnaire dealt with
the short-term project and collaboration results, operational
processes and project drivers and enablers, and was sent to
the people directly involved in the product development
project under study, e.g., the project leader and the project
purchaser.
At the same time, a case protocol was developed for
carrying out face-to-face interviews with all people that
answered the questionnaire. During the interview, the project
history, the management processes and project’s conditions
were discussed in more detail. Additionally, representatives
of the suppliers involved were interviewed. The person
representing the commercial interface and the person
involved in the technical development were interviewed, to
add to our understanding of the project and its results.
The interviews were recorded and were transcribed, after
which they were returned to the interviewees for verifica-
tion. The transcripts were also discussed within the research
team, as to enhance the validity of the findings.
The questionnaires’ scores were used as a starting point
for assigning scores to the project’s processes, enablers and
drivers; in case of discrepancies between different informants, the follow-up interviews were used for clarification. In
case the data from the questionnaires was inconsistent with
the data from the interviews, a follow-up took place with the
case company, after which a final decision was made after
carefully considering all data.
Likert scales were used to score the processes, enablers
and drivers, which enabled cross-case comparison. For the
management processes, a five-point Likert scale, adapted
from an existing scale for assessing organizational
maturity of suppliers (Praat & Krebbekx, 2000), was used
to assess the degree of active and systematic execution of
the processes. The scale has the following labels: 1—
Absent: the process is not carried out; 2—Reactive: the
process is carried out in an ad hoc way, as a result of
occurring events; 3—Pro-active: the process is carried out
following an implicit structure or set of activities; 4—
Systematic: as in ‘‘pro-active’’, but supported by systems,
procedures and guidelines; 5—Intelligent: as in ‘‘systematic’’ but able to critically review the processes in the light
of the project and to adapt (incidentally or more
permanently) when necessary.
The drivers and enablers were scored on a three-point
Likert scale. For both inputs, the labels were defined as: 1—
Low; 2—Medium; and 3—High. Finally, the outputs were
also scored on a three-point Likert scale: 1—Below target;
2—On target; and 3—Above target.
Overall, we adopted the following methods to ensure the
validity of the case studies (based on Yin, 2003):
n Construct validity (‘‘establishment of correct operational measures for the concepts being studied’’):
: Triangulation of questionnaire and interview data
: Triangulation of multiple informants: different internal
representatives, supplier representatives
: All informants received draft versions of the interview report
for comments
: Draft versions of the complete case report were verified with
at least one key informant from each buying firm
: Three research team members gave input during data
collection and analysis
n Internal validity (‘‘establishing causal relationships whereby
certain conditions are shown to lead to other conditions, as
distinguished from spurious relationships’’):
: Use of theoretical model / analysis framework
n External validity (‘‘establishing a domain in which the study’s
findings can be generalized’’):
: Theoretical sampling of cases at two levels of analysis:
strategic (firm) and operational (project) level
n Reliability (‘‘demonstrating that the operations of a study can be
repeated with the same results’’):
: Development of questionnaire
: Development of case protocol
W. van der Valk, F. Wynstra / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 681 – 694
693
Appendix B . Overview of interviewees
BCG
Project
Both
Functions
Internal interviews
Project leader
Project purchaser
R & D director
Purchasing director
FPC
Project
Carbonated
soda drink
Both
Internal
interviews
Supplier
interviews
Internal
interviews
Functions
Project
Marketing/project leader
Project purchaser
Technical engineer
Fruit-flavoured
sprinkles
Functions
Internal
interviews
Supplier
interviews
Development/project leader
Project purchaser
Product developer
New business development manager Europe
European purchasing manager co-pack
References
Anderson, J., & Woolley, M. (2002). Towards strategic sourcing: The
Unilever experience. Business Strategy Review, 13(2), 65 – 73.
Birou, L. M. (1994). The role of the buyer – supplier linkage in an
integrated product development environment. Unpublished doctoral
thesis. Michigan State University.
Bonaccorsi, A. (1992). A framework for integrating technology and
procurement strategy. Conference proceedings of the 8th IMP conference (pp. 33 – 41). Lyon.
Clark, K. B. (1989). Project scope and project performance: The effects of
parts strategy and supplier involvement on product development.
Management Science, 35(10), 1247 – 1263.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Tabrizi, B. N. (1995). Accelerating adaptive
processes: Product innovation in the global computer industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 84 – 110.
Fällene, S. A. (2003). Supplier involvement in product development.
Unpublished Master thesis Linköping University (research carried out
at Department of Technology Management Technische Universiteit
Eindhoven).
Graf, E., & Saguy, I. (Eds.) (1991). New product development: From
concept to the market place. New York, NY’ Van Nostrand Reinhold
(AVI).
Håkansson H. (Ed.) (1987). Industrial technological development.
London’ Croom Helm.
Håkansson, H., & Eriksson, A. K. (1993). Getting innovations out of
supplier networks. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 1(3),
3 – 34.
Hartley, J. L., Zirger, B. J., & Kamath, R. R. (1997). Managing the buyer –
supplier interface for on-time performance in product development.
Journal of Operations Management, 15(1), 57 – 70.
Hingley, M., & Hollingsworth, A. (2003). Competitiveness and power
relationships: Where now for the UK food supply chain? Conference proceedings of the 19th Annual IMP Conference Lugano,
Switzerland.
Hingley, M., & Lindgreen, M. (2004). Supplier – Retailer relationships in
the UK fresh produce supply chain. Conference proceedings of the 20th
Annual IMP Conference Copenhagen, Denmark.
McGinnis, M. A., & Vallopra, R. (1999). Purchasing and supplier
involvement: Issues and insights regarding new products success.
Journal of Supply Chain Management, 35(3), 4 – 15.
Monczka, R. M., Handfield, R. B., & Scannell, T. V. (2000). Product
development: Strategies for supplier integration. Milwaukee’ ASQ
Quality Press.
Praat, H., & Krebbekx, J. (2000). De nationale t and u agenda: Branche
roadmaps voor de toeleveringsindustrie. Berenschot Press Conference
ESEF (in Dutch).
Ragatz, G. L., Handfield, R. B., & Petersen, K. J. (2002). Benefits
associated with supplier integration into product development under
conditions of technology uncertainty. Journal of Business Research,
55(5), 389 – 400.
Ragatz, G. L., Handfield, R. B., & Scanell, T. V. (1997). Success factors
for integrating suppliers into product development. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 14(3), 190 – 203.
Rudolph, M. (1995). The food production development process. British
Food Journal, 97(3), 3 – 11.
Souder, W. E., Sherman, J. D., & Davies-Cooper, R. (1998). Environmental uncertainty, organisational integration and product development
effectiveness: A test of contingency theory. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 15, 520 – 533.
Traill, B., & Grunert, K. G. (1997). Product and process innovation in the
food industry. Netherlands’ Blackie Academic and Professional.
Van der Valk, W. (2003). Diagnosing supplier involvement in product
development: Study on how to identify opportunities for improving
supplier involvement. Unpublished Master thesis. Department of
Technology Management, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.
Van Echtelt, F., Wynstra, F., & van Weele, A. J. (2004). Critical processes
and conditions for managing supplier involvement in new product
development. Internal working paper, Eindhoven Centre for Innovation
Studies, Department of Technology Management. Netherlands’ Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.
Van Echtelt, F., Wynstra, F., Van Weele, A. J., & Duysters, G. M. (2004,
April). Critical processes for managing supplier involvement in new product development: An in-depth multiple-case study. ECIS working paper
04.07, Eindhoven Centre for Innovation Studies, Department of Technology Management. Netherlands’ Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.
694
W. van der Valk, F. Wynstra / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 681 – 694
Verhoef, P. C., Nijssen, E. J., & Sloot, L. M. (2002). Strategic reactions of
national brand manufacturers towards private labels: An empirical study
in the Netherlands. European Journal of Marketing, 36(11/12), 1309.
Von Corswant, F., & Tunälv, C. (2002). Coordinating customers and
proactive suppliers: A case study of supplier collaboration in product
development. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,
19(3/4), 249 – 261.
Weston, J. F., & Chiu, S. (1996). Growth strategies in the food industry.
Business Economics, 31(1), 21.
Wynstra, F., 1998. Purchasing Involvement in Product Development,
doctoral thesis. Eindhoven University of Technology Eindhoven Centre
for Innovation Studies Eindhoven. 320 pp.
Wynstra, F., Weggeman, M., & van Weele, A. J. (2003). Exploring
purchasing integration in product development. Industrial Marketing
Management, 32(1), 69 – 83.
Wynstra, J. Y. F., Axelsson, B., & Van Weele, A. J. (2000). Driving
and enabling factors for purchasing involvement in product development. European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 6(2),
129 – 141.
Wynstra, J. Y. F., van Weele, A. J., & Axelsson, B. (1999). Purchasing
involvement in product development: A framework. European Journal
of Purchasing and Supply Management, 5(3 – 4), 129 – 141.
Wynstra, J. Y. F., van Weele, A. J., & Weggeman, M. (2001). Managing
supplier involvement in product development: Three critical issues.
European Management Journal, 19(2), 157 – 167.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd edition).
Thousand Oaks’ Sage Publications.