Investigating the role of knowledge transfer in supply chain collaboration

• Pages: 284-302
• Published date: 11 February 2019
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-07-2017-0184
• Date: 11 February 2019
• Author: Kimberly Whitehead,Zach Zacharia,Edmund Prater
• Subject Matter: Management science & operations,Logistics

Investigating the role of

knowledge transfer in supply

chain collaboration

Kimberly Whitehead

College of Business, Anderson University, Anderson, South Carolina, USA

Zach Zacharia

College of Business and Economics, Lehigh University, Bethlehem,

Pennsylvania, USA, and

Edmund Prater

College of Business, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, USA

Abstract

Purpose –Despite the large literature base associated with dyadic collaboration, its knowledge-based

antecedents are still not well understood. The purpose of this paper is to better understand those antecedents

and to explore why the supply chain (SC) literature has found mixed results regarding knowledge transfer

and absorptive capacity in dyadic collaboration research.

Design/methodology/approach –The critical incident technique (CIT) was utilized, using qualitative

semi-structured interviews to refine a proposed research model. In total, 43 executives were interviewed each

providing a description of both a successful and an unsuccessful SC dyadic collaboration. The interviews

were analyzed to better understand the knowledge-based antecedents of buyer–supplier collaboration.

Findings –This study suggests that dyadic collaboration and subsequent outcomes are improved by

successful knowledge transfer. Additionally, knowledge transfer requires both distributive and absorptive

capacities in each participant. The research also uncovered new evidence to support the need for a

collaborative orientation to support successful knowledge transfer.

Research limitations/implications –The interviews conducted using the CIT provided a wealth of

information and executive experiences in SC collaboration. However, the interviews only provide a single

perspective of collaborative engagements. Multiple perspectives of each collaboration would add value to

this research.

Originality/value –SC collaboration and knowledge transfer have been well studied across disciplines.

This research introduces new knowledge-related variables that can contribute to successful collaboration:

distributive capability and SC collaborative orientation.

Keywords North America, Supply chain integration, Buyer-supplier relationships, Supplier management,

Qualitative interviews

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

Supply chain (SC) collaboration is the cooperative effort of companies within an SC to

leverage their individual abilities into a combined competitive advantage (Soosay and

Hyland, 2015). Because of its ability to create synergy across the SC, this topic continues to

draw management and academic interest (Nix and Zacharia, 2014). SC collaboration is also

described as a business philosophy (Ralston et al., 2017), allowing companies to combine

tangible and intangible assets to meet or exceed their customers’expectations

(Simatupang and Sridharan, 2002) and, as such, becoming a core capability of the SC

(Min et al., 2005). These capabilities and synergy are accomplished, in part through

knowledge-based skills such as sharing information, making joint decisions and sharing

knowledge-based benefits.

However, these knowledge-based skills are not well understood by management

(Fawcett, Fawcett, Watson, and Magnan, 2012; Whitehead et al., 2016) which has led to

mixed results within SC collaboration literature as it relates to absorptive capacity (AC)

The International Journal of

Logistics Management

Vol. 30 No. 1, 2019

pp. 284-302

© Emerald PublishingLimited

0957-4093

DOI 10.1108/IJLM-07-2017-0184

Received 16 July 2017

Revised 22 January 2018

2July2018

20 October 2018

Accepted 24 October 2018

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

www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-4093.htm

284

IJLM

30,1

(e.g. Hult et al., 2004; Zacharia et al., 2011; Wagner, 2012; Kauppi et al., 2013; Lee and Song,

2015). Each of these papers used AC as a key knowledge transfer mechanism in their

collaboration models. Yet in each case AC was statistically insignificant and the models

were not fully supported. Further, Roldán Bravo et al. (2016) also found confusing results

when studying AC and innovation. They concluded that AC seems to be used to compensate

for the impact of “desorptive capacity”(knowledge source ability to share knowledge) on

knowledge transfer and the authors call for the development of scales for desorptive

capacity in future research.

These results are surprising because AC is a well-established construct across disciplines

representing knowledge transfer (Barringer and Harrison, 2000; Zahra and George, 2002).

Clearly there are some researchers who have found AC significant in buyer–supplier

relationships such as Azadegan (2011) and Sáenz et al. (2014). However, some questions still

remain as to why other researchers have found problems with AC as a significant construct

in knowledge transfer which will be the focus of the rest of this paper.

This research seeks to understand more about the knowledge-based antecedents of

dyadic SC collaboration and why researchers: (Hult et al., 2004; Zacharia et al., 2011; Wagner,

2012; Kauppi et al., 2013; Lee and Song, 2015), found AC insignificant in their models of SC

collaboration. It is theorized that AC was found insignificant because the models considered

the knowledge-based abilities of only the receiving side of a dyad (Roldán Bravo et al., 2016).

Instead, this research proposes that the knowledge-based abilities in both organizations

should be considered simultaneously in dyadic SC collaboration models. This paper, in

response to prior research mixed results and call for future research (Roldán Bravo et al.,

2016), presents a model of collaboration that incorporates both the abilities of the source of

knowledge, distributive capability (DC) and the recipient of knowledge, AC and proposes

that both of these capacities are necessary requirements for successful knowledge transfer

in SC collaboration.

While knowledge transfer and AC are well studiedintheliterature(Barringerand

Harrison, 2000; Zahra and George, 2002), it is important to acknowledge the potentiality of

information symmetry. It has been shown that beyond knowledge transfer, information

symmetry is important to the successful implementation and use of relational

governmental mechanisms (Eckerd and Sweeney, 2018). If asymmetry is even perceived

it may cause non-reciprocal information exchange (Eckerd and Sweeney, 2018). This may

bepartiallybehindthemixedresultsintheapplicationofabsorptivecapacityinSC

collaboration research.

A qualitative research method, the critical incident technique (CIT) (Flanagan, 1954), was

chosen to explore this phenomena, a proposed new construct (DC) and conceptual model.

Executives from different industries and backgrounds were interviewed using CIT in order

to give new insights into the role of knowledge transfer in SC collaboration. The method

yielded insights into the examined phenomena. Surprisingly the results also include the

identification of a component of SC collaboration not previously theorized: supply chain

collaboration orientation (SCCO) or the recipient’s preparedness for collaboration. The

outcomes of this research will equip researchers with new constructs which provide a better

understanding into SC collaboration and offers managers new insights into how to plan,

manage and partner for more positive collaborative outcomes.

This paper is organized as follows. A conceptual framework and related propositions are

developed based on a review of the literature. Empirical evidence is then offered to support

the model and propositions from the data gathered through 43 semistructured executive

interviews contributing 86 unique collaboration incidents for analysis. Based on the results

of the interviews, the model is further refined and is presented with a discussion of the

implications of these findings to managers. The paper concludes with a description of

the limitations of this research and suggestions for future research.

285

Role of

knowledge

transfer