Collaborators: Wendy van der Valk, Regien Sumo, Jan Dul, Roger Schroeder

Main stream research predominantly views contracts as being sufficient for (i.e., driving) performance. In contrast, necessity-thinking implies that contracts allow performance to exist: if the necessary condition is not in place (at the right level), the desired performance will not occur, irrespective of other drivers of performance. Statements implying necessity are common in supply management research; yet, to date, an appropriate tool for testing such statements has been lacking. This article makes the case for the newly developed Necessary Condition Analysis (NCA) method, and applies it to data on forty-eight buyer-supplier service outsourcing relationships to explore the necessity of contracts for a specific relationship outcome, i.e., supplier-led innovation. Also, the necessity of trust is explored, as contracts are implemented within a broader context that involves social characteristics of relationships. The results show that successful relationships, i.e., relationships that have high levels of innovation (as observed in the top ten percent of the relationships studied) must necessarily have contracts with at least medium levels of contractual detail, as well as the highest levels of trust. In relationships with low levels of innovation (i.e., innovation levels that can be achieved by about half of the relationships), neither of the conditions (i.e., contracts and trust) is necessary. As such, applying NCA results in a fundamentally different understanding of the relationship between innovation, and contracts and trust. The results indicate that managers should first ensure the right levels of these necessary conditions, before giving attention to other factors that (on average) produce innovation.

Publications:

Van der Valk, Sumo, R., Dul, J. & Schroeder, R. (2016). When are contracts and trust necessary for innovation in buyer-supplier relationships? A Necessary Condition Analysis. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management  (in press).

Collaborators: Wendy van der Valk and Finn Wynstra 

We empirically test a theory specifying distinct ideal interaction patterns for four business-to-business service types, which differ with regard to how they are used by the buying company. The ideal interaction patterns are conceptualised as configurations of five different interaction dimensions: the key objectives in the interaction, the critical capabilities on either side of the relationship, the type of functional involvement from the buying firm and the key issues in the buyer–seller dialogue. Using a combination of quantitative and qualitative data from 23 cases of service exchange at six buying organisations we test whether similarity between the ideal interaction pattern and an actual, observed interaction pattern is a continuous necessary condition for successful ongoing service exchange. The findings suggest for each of the four service types that, in order for a service exchange to be successful, buying companies should design their interactions with their service providers to closely resemble the specified ideal pattern for that specific service type. Besides contributing to the knowledge on how to effectively structure buyer–supplier interactions across the heterogeneous spectrum of services bought, a methodological contribution is made by showing how case research can be used for theory-testing purposes. As this study is the first real test of the typology, further replications with new data, preferably obtained from both sides of the buyer–supplier dyad, are necessary.

Publications: 

Van der Valk, W. & Wynstra, F. (2012) Buyer–supplier interaction in business-to-business services: A typology test using case research. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 18 (2012) 137–147