Collaborative process design. A dynamic capabilities view of mitigating the barriers to working together

• Pages: 571-599
• Published date: 08 May 2017
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-02-2016-0044
• Date: 08 May 2017
• Author: David Swanson,Yao Henry Jin,Amydee M. Fawcett,Stanley E. Fawcett
• Subject Matter: Management science & operations,Logistics

Collaborative process design

A dynamic capabilities view of mitigating the

barriers to working together

David Swanson

Department of Marketing and Logistics,

University of North Florida, Jacksonville, Florida, USA

Yao Henry Jin

Department of Management, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, USA

Amydee M. Fawcett

Department of Business Administration, Goddard School of Business,

Weber State University, Ogden, Utah, USA, and

Stanley E. Fawcett

Department of Business Administration,

Weber State University, Ogden, Utah, USA

Abstract

Purpose –Over the past two decades, technological advances have spurred companies to design

collaborative processes. Yet most such efforts are difficult to implement, with only a few resulting in

sustained competitive advantages. The purpose of this paper is to leverage the tenets of socio-technical theory

to examine how collaborative process design may lead to improved collaborative performance.

Design/methodology/approach –The authors employ a multi-method –survey and interview –approach

to examine the roles of technical and social initiatives in mitigating resistors to collaborative performance,

and identify both the short-term appeals of technology investments and long-term social resistors that inhibit

additional performance gains.

Findings –While initial investments in information technology yield alluring gains, performance benefits

diminish as social resistors create limiting conditions. The dynamic capability for firms to recognize and

respond to the dual and integrative nature of technical and social systems is required for firms to overcome

powerful limiting conditions and change resistors through collaborative process design in order to cultivate

new value-creation processes.

Originality/value –This study is the first in the discipline to utilize socio-technical systems theory to

examine an issue in supply chain process redesign. The multi-method approach elaborates the difficulty

inherent in cultivating new value-creation processes. The results collectively illustrate a need for recognizing

the influence of both the reinforcing and limiting processes. Whereas, technical initiatives enable new

capabilities, social initiatives remove fear, create vision, and inculcate skills, enabling technology adoption

and process change.

Keywords Collaboration, Supply chain integration, Adaptive process redesign,

Socio-technical systems theory

Paper type Research paper

Since “supply chainmanagement”(SCM) and “reengineering”entered the managerial lexicon

over 25 years ago, companies have sought to redesign value-added processes to create

distinctive customer value (Oliver and Webber, 1982; Hammer, 1990; Ivan Su et al., 2011).

The commongoal among diverse process redesigninitiatives was to findnew and better ways

of working together (Dyer and Singh, 1998; Gulati et al., 2000; Daugherty et al., 2006;

Allred et al., 2011). For instance, throughout the 1980s, intense Japanese competition

threatened American competitiveness, spurring companies to implement Lean processes and

tighter buyer/supplier integration (Schonberger, 1982; Hayes and Wheelwright, 1984;

Fawcett and Birou, 1993). By the 1990s, advances in information technology (IT)-enabled

The International Journal of

Logistics Management

Vol. 28 No. 2, 2017

pp. 571-599

© Emerald PublishingLimited

0957-4093

DOI 10.1108/IJLM-02-2016-0044

Received 17 February 2016

Revised 22 February 2016

29 June 2016

Accepted 4 August 2016

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-4093.htm

571

Collaborative

process design

firms to reimagine how work was done, empowering cross-functional teams to manage

end-to-end, customer-focused processes (Hammer, 1990). Implicit to the success of these

process redesign efforts is the firm’s ability to establish the organizational routines and

shape the operating environment in a way that effectively co-mingles and reconfigures

complementary resources (Barney, 1991; Teece et al., 1997).

Yet, despite its intuitive appeal –and the competitive success of exemplars like

Honda and IKEA –co-mingling and reconfiguring resources via collaborative process

redesign is hard to do (Sabbath and Fontanella, 2002; Barratt, 2003; Jin et al., 2013;

Fawcett et al., 2015). As Table I shows, empirical evidence positively links the co-mingling of

cross-function al and inter-organi zational resources to improved firm performance

(Cachon and Fisher, 2000; Frohlich and Westbrook, 2001; Ketchen et al.,2007;

Bruque-Camara et al., 2015; Alam et al., 2014). But, counterbalancing findings show

non-significant or negative relationships between resource integration and performance

(Villena et al., 2009;Thun, 2010). Still other research shows a complex inverted-U relationship

between resourcereconfiguration and firm performance(Das et al., 2006; Terjesen et al., 2012;

Mellat-Parast and Spillan, 2014). These mixed findings denote that working together to

co-mingle resources and co-create value is neither perfunctory nor routine.

Indeed, despite the popularity and purported benefits of cross-functional integration,

there are very few studies that attempt to comprehensively explicate why some resource

integration strategies succeed and others fail (e.g. Fawcett et al., 2012). By contrast,

explanations for why cross-functional integration is so difficult abound: lack of top

management commitment, lack of trust, poor connectivity, territoriality, etc. These reasons

are intuitive and credible. Yet, the theory is fragmented and underdeveloped. Like many

cross-functional integration initiatives, the themes have not been systematically integrated.

As suggested by the empirics described above, the lack of a comprehensive framework has

led to empirical fragmentation and has encouraged static representations of cross-functional

integration. The result: the dynamics of cross-functional integration –including process

redesign –remain poorly understood. Deeper exploration of key boundary conditions –e.g.

the enabling role of technological and socio-structural investments –is needed to promote

more effective resource reconfiguration and value co-creation as well as to enable future

empirical tests to tell a complete and compelling story.

Our objective is, therefore, to explore how companies can redesign processes to achieve

higher levels of collaboration and more effective resource reconfiguration across firm

functions. Because research shows that internal resource reconfiguration antecedes effective

inter-organizational process redesign (Das et al., 2006; Schoenherr and Swink, 2012;

Jacobs et al., 2016), we focus our exploration on the influence of intra-firm resource-commitment

decisions. We use a multi-method approach (i.e. survey and interview methods) to elaborate the

dynamics of collaborative process redesign. We demonstrate that a holistic approach is needed

to overcome resistance to collaboration and enable resource reconfiguration.

Our research is relevant and timely as it responds to Frankel and Mollenkopf’s (2015) call

for research into the nature and mechanics of cross-functional integration as well as to

Fawcett and Waller’s (2014) call for empirical research into purposive supply chain design.

Our findings highlight key do’s and do not’s to help mangers cope with the next wave of

process redesign, which will be ushered in by technologies such as autonomous vehicles,

additive manufacturing, and predictive analytics.

Theoretical background: resource reconfiguration

The need to rethink how resources are reconfigured to co-create value emerged as a

response to globalization’s twin disruptive forces: intensified competition and enhanced

access to global consumer markets (Hayes and Wheelwright, 1984; Ohmae, 1989). Consistent

with systems-design (Scott and Davis, 2006) and dynamic capabilities (Barreto, 2010)

572

IJLM

28,2