Strategische Zusammenarbeit mit industriellen Zulieferern

Living reference work entry
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:
Part of the Springer Reference Technik book series (SRT)

Zusammenfassung

Um ihre Organisation konkurrenzfähiger zu machen, schenken Unternehmer strategischen Allianzen immer mehr Beachtung. Damit sie dieses Ziel durch das Eingehen von Allianzen auch erreichen und mit dieser strategischen Zusammenarbeit richtig umgehen, sollten Unternehmer die Vor- und Nachteile strategischer Allianzen sowie ihre internen Kapazitäten kennen. Diese Kenntnis ist besonders wichtig für industrielle Zulieferer in der ersten Linie, die den Netzwerkansatz nutzen müssen, um den wachsenden Anforderungen an die Produktionskette standhalten zu können.

Schlüsselwörter

Strategischer Allianzen Zusammenarbeit Industrielle Zulieferer Systemintegratoren Produktionskette Netzwerkansatz 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Baum, J.A.C., Cowan, R., Jonard, N.: Network-independent partner selection and the evolution of innovation networks. Manag. Sci. 56(11), 2094–2110 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Belderbos, R., Gilsing, V., Lokshin, B.: Persistence of, and interrelation between, horizontal and vertical technology alliances. J. Manag. Stud. 38(6), 1812–1834 (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Day, M., Magnan, G.M., Moeller, M.M.: Evaluating the bases of supplier segmentation: A review and taxonomy. Ind. Mark. Manag. 39(4), 625–639 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Man, A.-P.: Alliances: An Executive Guide to Designing Successful Strategic Partnerships. Wiley Publishers, Chichester (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moerman, P.A., Commandeur, H.R., Langerak, F.: Strategische Zusammenarbeit mit Industriellen Zulieferern. In: Bullinger, H.J., Spath, D., Warnecke, H.J., Westkämper, E. (Hrsg.) Handbuch Unternehmensorganisation: Strategien, Planung, Umsetzung, 3. Aufl., S. 373–383. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Smets, L.P.M., van Oorschot, K.E., Langerak, F.: Don’t trust trust: a dynamic approach to controlling supplier involvement in new product development. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 30(6), 1145–1158 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Verwaal, E., Commandeur, H., Verbeke, W.: Value creation and value claiming in strategic outsourcing decisions: a resource contingency perspective. J. Manag. 35(2), 420–444 (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vesalainen, J., Kohtamaki, M.: Toward a typological view of buyer-supplier relationships: challenging the unidimensional relationship continuum. Ind. Mark. Manag. 49(8), 105–115 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wildemann, H.: Entwicklungspartnerschaften in der Automobil- und Zulieferindustrie. TWC-Verlag, München (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Williamson, O.E.: Transaction cost economics: the natural progression. Am. Econ. Rev. 100(3), 673–690 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Weiterführende Literatur

  1. Azadegan, A., Dooley, K.J.: Supplier innovativeness, organizational learning styles and manufacturer performance: an empirical assessment. J. Oper. Manag. 28(6), 488–505 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bastl, M., Johnson, M., Choi, T.Y.: Who’s seeking whom? Coalition behavior of a weaker player in buyer-supplier relationships. J. Supply Chain Manag. 49(1), 8–28 (2013). Learn moreCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carey, S., Lawson, B., Krause, D.R.: Social capital configuration, legal bonds and performance in buyer-supplier relationships. J. Oper. Manag. 29(4), 277–288 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clauss, T.: The influence of the type of relationship on the generation of innovations in buyer-supplier collaborations. Creativity Innovat. Manag. 21(4), 388–411 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Daugherty, P.: Review of logistics and supply chain relationship literature and suggested research agenda. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 41(1), 16–31 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dekker, H.C., Van den Abbeele, A.: Organizational learning and interfirm control: The effects of partner search and prior exchange experiences. Organ. Sci. 21(6), 1233–1250 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Delbufalo, E.: Subjective trust and perceived risk influences on exchange performance in supplier-manufacturer relationships. Scand. J. Manag. 31(1), 84–101 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ding, L., Mahbubani, J.: The two-stage decision model of vertical integration. Manag. Decis. 51(1/2), 306–320 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dyer, J.H., Singh, H., Kale, P.: Splitting the pie: rent distribution in alliances and networks. Manag. Decis. Econ. 29(2-3), 137–148 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elfenbein, D.W., Zenger, T.R.: what is a relationship worth? Repeated exchange and the development and deployment of relational capital. Organ. Sci. 25(1), 222–244 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hagedoorn, J., Letterie, W., Palm, F.: The information value of R&D alliances: the preference for local or distant ties. Strat. Organ. 9(4), 283–309 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ho, H., Ganesan, S.: Does knowledge base compatibility help or hurt knowledge sharing between suppliers in coopetition? The role of customer participation. J. Mar. 77(6), 91–107 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jean, R.-J.B., Sinkovics, R.R., Hiebaum, T.P.: The effects of supplier involvement and knowledge protection on product innovation in customer-supplier relationships: a study of global automotive suppliers in China. J. Prod. Innovat. Manag. 31(1), 98–113 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kim, H., Hur, D., Schoenherr, T.: when buyer-driven knowledge transfer activities really work: a motivation-opportunity-ability perspective. J. Supply Chain Manag. 51(3), 33–60 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lui, S.S., Ngo, H.-y.: Drivers and outcomes of long-term orientation in cooperative relationships. Br. J. Manag. 23(1), 80–95 (2012)Google Scholar
  16. Luo, Y.: How important are shared perceptions of procedural justice in cooperative alliances? Acad. Manage. J. 48(4), 695–709 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mahapatra, S.K., Narasimhan, R., Barbieri, P.: Strategic interdependence, governance effectiveness and supplier performance: a dyadic case study investigation and theory development. J. Oper. Manag. 28(6), 537–552 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mahmood, I.P., Zhu, H., Zajac, E.J.: Where can capabilities come from? Network ties and capability acquisition in business groups. Strat. Manag. J. 32(8), 820–848 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mesquita, L.F., Anand, J., Brush, T.H.: Comparing the resource-based and relational views: knowledge transfer and spillover in vertical alliances. Strat. Manag. J. 29(9), 914–941 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Noordhoff, C.S., Kyriakopoulos, K., Moorman, C., et al.: The bright side and dark side of embedded ties in business-to-business innovation. J. Mar. Sci. 75(5), 34–52 (2011)Google Scholar
  21. Poppo, L., Zhou, K.Z.: Managing contracts for fairness in buyer-supplier exchanges. Strat. Manag. J. 35(10), 1508–1527 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rindfleisch, A.: Organizational trust and interfirm cooperation: an examination of horizontal versus vertical alliances. Mark. Lett. 11(1), 81–95 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rothaermel, F.T., Boeker, W.: Old technology meets new technology: complementarities, similarities, and alliance formation. Strat. Manag. J. 29(1), 47–77 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Srinivasan, R., Brush, T.H.: Supplier performance in vertical alliances: the effects of self-enforcing agreements and enforceable contracts. Organ. Sci. 17(4), 436–452 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wagner, S.M.: Supplier traits for better customer firm innovation performance. Ind. Mark. Manag. 39(7), 1139–1149 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Erasmus Universiteit RotterdamRotterdamNiederlande
  2. 2.School of Industrial EngineeringEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenNiederlande

Personalised recommendations