Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Product Quality Impact of Aligning Buyer-Supplier Network Structure and Product Architecture: an Empirical Investigation in the Automobile Industry

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Customer Needs and Solutions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There has been a trend, in the last decade, of buyers outsourcing new product development (NPD) activities to suppliers. This study examines the impact of (mis) alignment between buyer-supplier network structure and product architecture on two product development outcomes: product quality and product recalls. The hypotheses are tested on a uniquely assembled database of supplier networks of automakers for 12 vehicle systems. The results suggest that while dense supplier network are associated with higher future product quality and lower future recall magnitude, structural holes are associated with lower future product quality and higher future recall magnitude. Further, the results suggest that product quality partially mediates the relationship between supplier network characteristics and recall magnitude. Interestingly, these effects are significantly moderated by the product architecture. While network density is positively related to product quality of weak design interfaces (i.e., modular systems), structural holes in the supplier network are positively related to product quality of strong design interfaces (integral systems). The results offer valuable insights to managers about the appropriate supplier network structure for superior quality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ahuja G (2000) Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: a longitudinal study. Adm Sci Q 45:425–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Amabile TM (1997) Motivating creativity in organizations: on doing what you love and loving what you do. Calif Manag Rev 40:39–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson JC, Hakansson H, Johanson J (1994) Dyadic business relationships within a business network context. J Mark 58:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Andrews J, Smith DC (1996) In search of the marketing imagination: factors affecting the creativity of marketing programs for mature products. J Mark Res 33:174–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Baldwin CY, Clark KB (2000) Design rules, vol Vol. 1: the power of modularity. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  6. Barber BM, Darrough MN (1996) Product quality and firm value: the experience of American and Japanese automakers. J Polit Econ 104:1084–1099

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bayus B (2013) Crowdsourcing new product ideas over time: an analysis of the Dell IdeaStorm community. Manag Sci 59:226–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Brown SL, Eisenhardt KM (1995) Product development: past research, present findings, and future directions. Acad Manag Rev 20:343–373

    Google Scholar 

  9. Browning TR (2001) Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: a review and new directions. IEEE Transactions Eng Manag 48:292–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Burt RS (1992) Structural holes: the social structure of competition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  11. Carson SJ (2007) When to give up control of outsourced new product development. J Mark 71:49–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cataldo M, Mockus A, Roberts JA, Herbsleb JD (2009) Software dependencies, work dependencies and their impact on failures. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 35:864–878

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chao GH, Iravani RMR, Savaskan CR (2009) Quality improvement incentives and product recall cost sharing contracts. Manag Sci 55:1122–1138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Choi TY, Wu Z (2009) Taking the leap from dyads to triads: buyer-supplier relationships in supplier networks. J Purch Supply Manag 15:263–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Coleman JS (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am J Sociol 94:S95–S120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cross R, Cummings JN (2004) Tie and network correlates of individual performance in knowledge-intensive work. Acad Manag J 47:928–937

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Davidson WN, Worrell DL (1992) Research notes and communications: the effects of product recall announcements on shareholder wealth. Strateg Manag J 3:467–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Desai P, Kekre S, Radhakrishnan S, Srinivasan K (2001) Product differentiation and commonality in design: balancing revenues and cost drivers. Manag Sci 47:37–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Drazin R, Van de Ven AH (1985) Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. Adm Sci Q 30:514–539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Dyer JH (1996) Specialized supplier networks as a source of competitive advantage. Strateg Manag J 17:271–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dyer JH, Nobeoka K (2000) Creating and managing a high performance knowledge sharing network: the case of Toyota. Strateg Manag J 21:345–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ethiraj SK, Levinthal D, Roy RR (2010) The dual role of modularity: innovation and imitation. Manag Sci 54:939–955

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Feitzinger E, Lee HL (1997) Mass customization at Hewlett Packard: the power of postponement. Harv Bus Rev 75:116–121

    Google Scholar 

  24. Fisher ML (1997) What is the right supply chain for your product. Harvard Bus Rev 75:105–116

    Google Scholar 

  25. Fisher ML, Ramdas K, Ulrich K (1999) Component sharing in the management of product variety: a study of automotive braking systems. Manag Sci 45:297–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Fixson SK (2007) Modularity and commonality research: past developments and future opportunities. Concurrent Eng Res Appl 15:85–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Freeman LC (1979) Centrality in social network: conceptual clarifications. Soc Netw 1:215–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Fynes B, Voss C (2001) A path analytic model of quality practices, quality performance and business performance. Prod Oper Manag 10:494–513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gargiulo M, Benassi M (2000) Trapped in your own net? Network cohesion structural holes and the adaptation of social capital. Organ Sci 11:83–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Gilsing V, Nooteboom B, Vanhaverbeke W, Duysters G, van den Oord A (2008) Network embeddedness and the exploration of novel technologies: technological distance, betweenness centrality and density. Res Policy 37:1717–1731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gnyawali DR, Madhavan R (2001) Cooperative networks and competitive dynamics: a structural embeddedness perspective. Acad Manag Rev 26:431–445

    Google Scholar 

  32. Gokpinar B, Hopp WJ, Iravani SR (2010) The impact of misalignment of organizational structure and product architecture on quality in complex product development. Manag Sci 56:468–484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Greene W (2000) Econometric analysis. Prentice–Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  34. Grewal R, Lilien G, Mallapragada G (2006) Location, location, location: how network embeddedness affects project success in open source systems. Manag Sci 52:1043–1056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hanssens DM, Parsons LJ, Schultz RL (2003) Market response models: econometric and time series analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell

    Google Scholar 

  36. Hargadon A, Sutton RI (1997) Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Adm Sci Q 42:716–749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Haunschild PR, Rhee M (2004) The role of volition in organizational learning: the case of automotive product recalls. Manag Sci 50:1545–1560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Helper SR (1991) How much has really changed between U.S. automakers and their suppliers? Sloan Manag Rev 32:15–28

    Google Scholar 

  39. Heese HS, Swaminathan J (2006) Product line design with component commonality and cost-reduction effort. Manuf Serv Oper Manag 8:206–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. John G, Weiss A, Dutta S (1999) Mark in technology-intensive markets: toward a conceptual framework. J Mark 63:78–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kalaignanam K, Kushwaha T, Eilert M (2013) The impact of product recalls on future product quality and future accidents: evidence from automobile industry. J Mark 77:41–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Kalaignanam K, Kushwaha T, Swartz T (2017) The differential impact of NPD make/buy choices on immediate and future product quality: insights from the automobile industry. J Mark Forthcoming

    Google Scholar 

  43. Langlois RN (2002) Modularity in technology and organization. J Econ Behav Organ 49:19–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Leeflang P (2011) Paving the way for distinguished marketing. Int J of Res Mark 28:76–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Lilien GL, Morrison PD, Searls K, Sonnack M, von Hippel E (2002) Performance assessment of the lead user idea-generation process for new product development. Manag Sci 48:1042–1059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Martin X, Mitchell W, Swaminathan A (1995) Recreating and extending Japanese buyer-supplier links in north America. Strateg Manag J 16:589–619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Mallapragada G, Grewal R, Lilien G (2012) User-generated open source products: founder’s social capital and time to product release. Mark Sci 31:474–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Moorman C, Swaminathan V (2009) Mark alliances, firm networks and firm value creation. J Mark 73:52–69

    Google Scholar 

  49. Moorman C, Day GS (2016) Organizing for marketing excellence. J Mark 80(6):1–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Novak S, Eppinger SD (2001) Sourcing by design: product complexity and the supply chain. Manag Sci 47:189–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Obstfeld D (2005) Social networks, the tertius lungens orientation and involvement in innovation. Adm Sci Q 50:100–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Parmigiani A, Mitchell W (2010) The hollow corporation revisited: can governance mechanisms substitute for technical expertise in managing buyer-supplier relationships? Eur Manag Rev 7:46–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Pimmler TU, Eppinger SD (1994) Integration analysis of product decompositions. Des Eng 68:343–351

    Google Scholar 

  54. Powell WW, Koput KW, Smith-Doerr L (1996) Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Adm Sci Q 41:116–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Preacher KJ, Rucker DD, Hayes AF (2007) Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivar Behav Res 42:185–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Ramdas K (2003) Managing product variety: an integrative review and research directions. Prod Oper Manag 12:79–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Ramdas K, Randall T (2008) Does component sharing help or hurt quality? An empirical study in the automotive industry. Manag Sci 54:922–938

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Randall T, Ulrich K (2001) Product variety, supply chain structure, and firm performance: analysis of the US bicycle industry. Manag Sci 47:1588–1604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Rodan S, Galunic C (2004) More than network structure: how knowledge heterogeneity influences managerial performance and innovativeness. Strateg Manag J 25:541–562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Rowley T, Behrens D, Krackhardt D (2000) Redundant governance structures: an analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries. Strateg Manag J 21:369–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Sanchez R (1999) Modular architectures in the marketing process. J Mark 63:92–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Sanchez R, Mahoney JT (1996) Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organizational design. Strateg Manag J 17:63–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Sako M (1992) Price, quality, and trust: inter-firm relations in Britain and Japan. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  64. Schilling MA, Phelps CC (2007) Interfirm collaboration networks: the impact of large-scale network structure on firm innovation. Manag Sci 53:1113–1126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Scott J (1991) Social network analysis: a handbook. Sage, Newbury Park

    Google Scholar 

  66. Shipilov AV, Li SX (2008) Can you have your cake and eat it too? Structural holes influence on status accumulation and market performance in collaboration networks. Adm Sci Q 53:73–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Simon HA (1962) The architecture of complexity. Proc Am Philos Soc 106:467–482

    Google Scholar 

  68. Sosa ME, Eppinger SD, Rowles CM (2003) Identifying modular and integrative systems and their impact on design team interactions. ASME J Mech Des 125:240–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Sosa ME, Eppinger SD, Rowles CM (2004) The misalignment of product architecture and organizational structure in complex product development. Manag Sci 50:1674–1689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Spekman RE (1985) Competitive procurement strategies: building strength and reducing vulnerability. Long Range Plan 18:94–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Steward DV (1981) The design structure system: a method for managing the design of complex systems. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 28:71–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Thirumalai S, Sinha KK (2011) Product recalls in the medical device industry: an empirical exploration of the sources and financial consequences. Manag Sci 57:376–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Ulku S, Schmidt GM (2011) Matching product architecture and supply chain configuration. Prod Oper Manag 20:16–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Ulrich KT (1995) The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Res Policy 24:19–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Van Heerde HJ, Helsen K, Dekimpe MG (2007) The impact of a product-harm crisis on marketing effectiveness. Mark Sci 26:230–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Venkatraman N (1989) The concept of fit in strategy research: toward verbal and statistical correspondence. Acad Manag Rev 14(3):423–444

    Google Scholar 

  77. Wagner SM, Bode C (2006) An empirical investigation into supply chain vulnerability. J Purch Supply Manag 12:301–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Warren N, Moore K, Cardona P (2002) Modularity, strategic flexibility and firm performance: a study of the home appliance industry. Strateg Manag J 23:1123–1140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social network analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  80. Xiao Z, Tsui AS (2007) When brokers may not work: the cultural contingency of social capital in Chinese high-tech firms. Adm Sci Q 52:1–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank ELM Analytics for providing the data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina, 1014 Greene Street, Columbia, SC, 29208, USA

    Kartik Kalaignanam

  2. Kenan-Flagler School of Business, University of North Carolina, McColl Building, Suite 4500, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-3490, USA

    Tarun Kushwaha

  3. Broad College of Business, Michigan State University, 632 Bogue Street, N359, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA

    Anand Nair

Authors
  1. Kartik Kalaignanam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tarun Kushwaha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anand Nair
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kartik Kalaignanam.

Electronic Supplementary Material

ESM 1

(DOCX 27.8 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kalaignanam, K., Kushwaha, T. & Nair, A. The Product Quality Impact of Aligning Buyer-Supplier Network Structure and Product Architecture: an Empirical Investigation in the Automobile Industry. Cust. Need. and Solut. 4, 1–17 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40547-017-0074-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40547-017-0074-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation