25-08-2016
Msc Marketing thesis
The influence of dynamic capabilites on the
relation between uncertainty and learning
performances in a buyer-supplier relationship
Correction
›
Page 17
›
Hypothesis 4
•
The overall effect of uncertainty is stronger for
Exploratory performance than for Exploitative
performance
•
The overall effect of uncertainty is stronger for
›
Page 26
›
Results VIF scores formative scales
•
All the first variables of the formative scales are not
showed due to overlap with scale name.
•
The results of all the first variables are satisfactory,
below the threshold of 3.3
Topics
›
Literature
›
Hypotheses
›
Conceptual model
›
Methodology
›
Results and analysis
›
Conclusions
›
Implications
1. Literature relationship performance
› Relationship performance consists of two constructs
• Exploratory performance (Berger, 2015)
• Exploitative performance (Berger, 2015)
1. Literature uncertainty
› Uncertainty consists of two constructs
• Market dynamics
“The perceived favorableness-unfavorableness of economic and demand conditions characterizing the output market’s capacity to absorb resources of the focal
dyad” (Achrol & Stern, 1988: 37)
• Customer heterogeneity
1. Literature Absorptive capacity
› Absorptive capacity is a dynamic capability that can be conceptualized as a set of
organizational routines and processes.
• PACAP, Acquisition and Assimilation (Zahra and George, 2002)
• RACAP, Transformation and Exploitation (Zahra and George, 2002)
2. Hypotheses, different perceptions
› Different perception of buyers and suppliers
• A buyer perceives the performance of a relationship different than a supplier in
a buyer-supplier relationship
• A buyer perceives RACAP different than a supplier in a buyer-supplier
relationship
• A buyer perceives PACAP different than a supplier in a buyer-supplier
2.
Hypotheses, effects of uncertainty on performance
› The more dynamic the market, the lower the perceived exploitative performance of
the relationship
› The more dynamic the market, the lower the perceived exploratory performance of
the relationship
› More heterogeneity of the customer base lowers the perceived exploitative
performance of the relationship
› More heterogeneity of the customer base lowers the perceived exploratory
performance of the relationship
› The overall effect of uncertainty is stronger for exploitative performance than for
2. Hypotheses, moderating effects PACAP and RACAP
› Effects of Customer Heterogeneity
› H5a: RACAP can reduce the influence of customer heterogeneity on the perceived Exploitative performance of the relationship
› H5b: RACAP can reduce the influence of customer heterogeneity on the perceived Exploratory performance of the relationship
› H5c: PACAP can reduce the influence of customer heterogeneity on the perceived Exploitative performance of the relationship
› H5d: PACAP can reduce the influence of customer heterogeneity on the perceived Exploratory performance of the relationship
› Effects of Market dynamics
› H6a: RACAP can reduce the influence of market dynamics on the perceived Exploitative performance of the relationship
› H6b: RACAP can reduce the influence of market dynamics on the perceived Exploratory performance of the relationship
› H6c: PACAP can reduce the influence of market dynamics on the perceived Exploitative performance of the relationship
› H6d: PACAP can reduce the influence of market dynamics on the perceived Exploratory performance of the relationship
› Different effects PACAP and RACAP
› H7: The overall effect of PACAP is stronger than the overall effect of RACAP on the relation between uncertainty and perceived
4. Methodology
› Method
• Data is from the research of Berger (2015)
• Dyadic data from key informants
• 2x2 design, duration more or less than 2 years and average importance of product/components • Buyers from the netherlands and suppliers from all over the world
› Measures
• Scales are developed by Berger (2015)
• Measurement scales and its sources can be found in appendix A › Statistical procedures
• SPSS
• Variance inflation factors and Cronbach’s alpha
• Multiple regression analysis
5. Results and analysis
› Validity and reliability
• Formative scales, VIF score >3.3
• Reflective scales, Cronbach’s alpha >0.7
› Independent Samples T-Test • Exploitative not significant • Explorative p=0.06
• PACAP p=0.006
• RACAP p=0.003
› Supplier data, explorative performance • Significant (F=6.251; p=0.000)
• R-square 0.231
› Supplier data, exploitative performance
• Significant (F=6.320; p=0.000)
• R-square 0.276
› Buyer data, explorative
• Significant (F=3.414; p=0.001) • R-square 0.168
› Buyer data, exploitative
6. Conclusions
› Buyers perceive the relationship different than suppliers.
› Higher market dynamics means a higher explorative and exploitative performance.
› Customer heterogeneity only significant for buyers and this effect was negative.
› RACAP has a significant positive effect in all cases. In case of the suppliers, RACAP has a
negative effect on the relation between market dynamics and both performance dimensions. In case of the buyers, RACAP enhances the positive effect of market dynamics on explorative performance.
› PACAP does not have any direct effects. PACAP makes the positive effect of market dynamics
7. Implications
›
Manager should evaluate if the market is dynamic
enough.
›
Buying managers should consider the heterogeneity
of their customer base.
›
Managers focusing on RACAP can enhance their
exploitative and explorative performance.
›
Buyers perceive the relationship differently than
8. Limitations and future research
› Limitations
• Focus on two dimensions of uncertainty
• Focus on “soft measures”
• Size of the data sample
› Future research
• Other dimensions of uncertainty with negative influence
• Focus on “hard measures”, such as ROI, ROA, Sales
