Supply chain relationships as a context for learning leading to innovation

• Published date: 09 November 2015
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-09-2012-0089
• Pages: 543-567
• Date: 09 November 2015
• Author: Desirée Knoppen,David Johnston,María Jesús Sáenz
• Subject Matter: Management science & operations,Logistics

Supply chain relationships

as a context for learning

leading to innovation

Desirée Knoppen

Department of Operations Management and Information Systems,

EADA Business School, Barcelona, Spain

David Johnston

Schulich School of Business, York University, Toronto, Canada, and

María Jesús Sáenz

MIT-Zaragoza International Logistics Program,

Zaragoza Logistics Center, Zaragoza, Spain

Abstract

Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to integrate the literature on learning in the context of

boundary spanning innovation in supply chains. A two-dimensional framework is proposed: the

learning stage (exploration, assimilation, exploitation) and the learning facet (structural, cultural,

psychological and policy). Supply chain management (SCM) practices are examined in light of this

framework and propositions for further empirical research are developed.

Design/methodology/approach –In total, 60 empirical papers from the major journals on supply

chain relationships published over an 11-year time span (2000-2010) were systematically analyzed.

Findings –The paper reveals a comprehensive set of best practices and identifies four gaps for future

research. First, assimilation and exploitation are largely ignored as mediating learning stages between

exploration and performance. Second, knowledge brokers and reputation management are key

mechanisms that foster assimilation. Third, the iteration from exploitation back to exploration is

critical though underdeveloped in efficiency seeking supply chains. Fourth, the literature stresses

structural mechanisms of learning, at the expense of a more holistic view of structural, cultural,

psychological and policy mechanisms.

Research limitations/implications –The search could be extended to other journals that report

on joint learning and innovation.

Practical implications –The framework provides guidelines for practitioners to develop learning

capabilities and leverage the knowledge from supply chain partners in order to continuously or

radically improve boundary spanning processes and products.

Originality/value –The study is multi-disciplinary; it applies a model developed by learning scholars

to the field of SCM.

Keywords Learning, Literature review, Supplier relations, Innovation, Absorptive capacity

Paper type Literature review

Introduction

Scholars and practitioners alike increasingly acknowledge that learning with and from

supply chain partners is a key determinant of innovation and ultimately performance

(Dyer and Hatch, 2004; Flint et al., 2008; Hult et al., 2003). A lack of attention to the

connection between inter-organizational learning processes and intra-organizational

learning processes, however, makes it difficult for a firm to profit from external

knowledge (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008a; Holmqvist, 2004; Volberda et al., 2010) and

understand the often counterproductive outcomes the firm experiences when working

with supply chain partners. For example, Swink et al. (2007) surprisingly found that

The International Journal of

Logistics Management

Vol. 26 No. 3, 2015

pp. 543-567

©Emerald Group Publis hing Limited

0957-4093

DOI 10.1108/IJLM-09-2012-0089

Received 6 September 2012

Revised 1 February 2013

7 January 2014

13 February 2014

28 July 2014

10 October 2014

Accepted 10 October 2014

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

www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-4093.htm

543

Learning

leading to

innovation

obtaining strategic knowledge from customers decreased customer satisfaction

and that obtaining strategic knowledge from suppliers decreased manufacturing

quality. A closer look at the connection between inter- and intra-organizational learning

processes thus seems in place in respect to the latter study. In general, personnel in

boundary spanning roles such as purchasing, operations, sales and customer service

frequently obtain novel ideas and insights from customers or suppliers, but encounter

difficulties in effectively integrating and applying this knowledge in their own firm

(Fawcett and Magnan, 2002).

The connection between inter-organizational and intra-organizational learning

is extensively dealt with by theory on Absorptive Capacity (ACAP; i.e. “the ability of a

firm to recognize the value of new, external information, assimilate it, and apply it to

commercial ends,”Cohen and Levinthal, 1990, p. 128) and especially by recent

process-based conceptualizations of ACAP. More precisely, there are three learning

stages that convert external knowledge into innovation: the inter-organizational

exploration stage, the intra-organizational assimilation stage and the exploitation

stage which may be both inter-and intra-organizational (Lane et al., 2006). In other

words, knowledge acquired from or created with external sources at the exploratory

stage but unassimilated by the focal organization is not exploited fully to achieve

innovation (Sun and Anderson, 2010). In this line of reasoning, innovation is the

outcome of learning and is defined as “any idea, practice, or material artifact perceived

to be new by the relevant unit of adoption”(Zaltman et al., 1973), involving small-step

innovations (Fang et al., 2008) as well as radical innovations (Von Hippel, 1976).

Learning outcomes can refer to process innovations (Volberda et al., 2010), for instance,

the introduction of collaborative forecasting models that eliminate inventories and

increase product availability; as well as to product innovations (Im and Rai, 2008)

or service innovations (Hipp and Grupp, 2005), when customers learn to incorporate

new product/service features from the supplier and suppliers learn to design and

produce for new markets. But more importantly, a focus on underlying learning

processes, rather than a focus on learning outcomes (i.e. type of innovation) is vital to

increase the competitiveness of organizations (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008b).

In contrast to horizontal relationships such as joint ventures and strategic alliances,

which are often founded with the explicit aim of learning and innovation, supply

chain relationships are traditionally focussed on the efficient exchange of known goods

and services. Consequently, theory on how external knowledge is converted into novel

ideas, practices or material artifacts that are then fully implemented into use is

still underdeveloped and fragmented. For example, Burkink (2002) found exploration

between wholesalers and retailers to be important for retail performance, but did

not address assimilation and exploitation as subsequent learning stages required to

convert new knowledge obtained from wholesalers into improved processes of the

retailer. Cassivi (2006) on the other hand argued that exploitation of collaboration

planning tools optimizes performance, but did not address prior exploration and

assimilation issues. An integral approach to learning processes would deepen our

understanding of the outcomes of these two studies.

Examination of the process dimension of learning alone does not suffice to

explain particular outcomes of learning. It is rather the acknowledgement of the

multi-dimensional nature of learning that furthers our understanding (Meier, 2011).

Additional dimensions that matter in that regard are the type of knowledge involved

(Nonaka, 1994), the level of learning (Crossan et al., 1999) and the organizational

mechanism behind the learning (Lipshitz et al., 2002; Naot et al., 2004). Acknowledgement

544

IJLM

26,3