Journal Search Engine
Search Advanced Search Adode Reader(link)
Download PDF Export Citaion korean bibliography PMC previewer
ISSN : 2233-4165(Print)
ISSN : 2233-5382(Online)
The International Journal of Industrial Distribution & Business Vol.9 No.4 pp.53-62

A Study on Supplier Involvement and Buyer Strategic Decisions

Sunil Hwang*, Eung-Kyo Suh**
* First Author, Visiting Professor, Dept. of Operations, Decisions and Information, Yonsei School of Business, Seoul, Korea. E-mail:
** Corresponding Author, Professor, Graduate School of Business, Dankook University, Gyeonggi, Korea. Tel: +82-31-8005-3981
March 5, 2018. March 15, 2018. April 15, 2018.


Purpose - In the development of new products, suppliers involvement and developing products jointly can be said to be strategic activities that utilize the lack of knowledge from external organizations. In this new product development, supplier involvement has been proven to have a positive impact on new product development performance for a long time by previous research. However, sufficient academic research has not been conducted on the influence of supplier involvement in various product strategies or sales strategies that buyers make in order to secure a competitive advantage in the market. This study argues that product strategy and sales strategy used by buyers in the development of new products will control the effect of supplier involvement on new product development performance in order to compensate the lack of these academic aspects.
Research design, data, and methodology – Specifically, we selected the modularization strategy of the product as the product strategy, which is considered as an important strategy in the new product development through the preceding research, and the mass customer satisfaction strategy was chosen as the sales strategy. In order to achieve these research objectives, regression analysis was conducted using data from manufacturing productivity panel collected jointly by the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Industry and the Korea Productivity Center.
Results - As a result, supplier involvement and new product development performances (development cost efficiency, customer satisfaction) were positively related. The product modularity strategy proved to have an interactive effect on the relationship between supplier involvement and new product development performances (development cost efficiency, customer satisfaction). However, it has not been confirmed that there is a statistically significant interaction effect between supplier involvement and new product development performances.
Conclusions - Supplier involvement has positive relationships with NPD performance. In addition, product modularity strategies have interaction effects with supplier involvement and affect new product development performance (development cost efficiency and customer satisfaction). The results of this study are of academic significance in the case of lack of empirical studies on the effect of supplier participation on the effect of buyer 's strategy when a supplier participates and develops new products jointly.

JEL Classifications: D22, D24, O32.

공급자 참여와 전략적 선택에 대한 실증적 연구

황선일*, 서응교**





  1. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  2. Baldwin, C., & Clark, K. (2000). Design Rules: The Power of Modularity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  3. Bayliss, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. (1997). Managing in an age of modularity. Harvard Business Review, (September- October), 84.
  4. Blecker T., & Friedrich, G. (2007). Guest Editorial: Mass Customization Manufacturing Systems. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 54(1), 4-11.
  5. Camerer, C., George, L., & Martin, W. (1989). The Curse of Knowledge in Economic Settings: An Experimental Analysis. Journal of Political Economy. 97(5), 1232- 1254.
  6. Carr, A. S., Kaynak, H., & Hartley, J. L. (2008). Supplier dependence: Impact on supplier’s participation and performance. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 28(9), 899-916.
  7. Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy And Structure: Chapters In The History Of The American Enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  8. Chen I. J., & Paulraj, A. (2004). Understanding supply chain management: Critical research and a theoretical framework. International Journal of Production Research, 42(1), 131-163.
  9. Chiesa, V., & Manzini, R. (1998). Organizing for technological collaborations: A managerial perspective. R&D Management, 28(3), 199-212.
  10. Cho, Y. (2016). The Moderating Effects of Specificity of Technology in the Knowledge Transfer of Distributive Manufacturing MNEs. Journal of Distribution Science, 14(9), 121-132.
  11. Clark, K. B. (1989). Project scope and project performance: The effect of parts strategy and supplier involvement on product development. Management Science, 35(10), 1247-1263.
  12. Clark, K. B., & Fujimoto, T. (1991). Product Development Performance: Strategy, Organization, and Management in the World Auto Industry. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press,
  13. Cooper, R. G., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1995). Performance Typologies of New Product Projects. Journal of Industrial Marketing Management, 24(2), 439-456.
  14. Davis, S. M. (1989). From “future perfect”: Mass customizing. Strategy & Leadership, 17(2), 16-21.
  15. Dyer, J. H., & Ouchi, W. G. (1993). Japanese style business partnerships: Giving companies a competitive edge. Sloan Management Review, 35(1), 51-63.
  16. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Tabrizi, B. N. (1995). Accelerating adaptive processes: Product innovation in the global computer industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 84-110.
  17. Fixson, S. K., Khachatryan, D., & Lee, W. (2017). Technological Uncertainty and Firm Boundaries: The Moderating Effect of Knowledge Modularity. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 64(1), 16-28.
  18. Fliess, S., & Becker, U. (2006), Supplier integration: Controlling of co-development processes. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(1), 28-44.
  19. Flynn, B. B., Huo, B., & Zhao, X. (2010). The impact of supply chain integration on performance: A contingency and configuration approach. Journal of Operations Management, 28(1), 58-71.
  20. Fornell, C., & Larker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
  21. Forza, C., & Salvador, F. (2002). Managing for variety in the order acquisition and fulfillment process: The contribution of product configuration systems. International Journal of Production Economics, 76(1), 87-98.
  22. Galbraith, J. (1973). Designing Complex Organizations. Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
  23. Grant, R. M., & Baden-Fuller, C. (2004). A knowledge accessing theory of strategic alliances. Journal of Management Studies, 41(1), 61-84.
  24. Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19(4), 293-317.
  25. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
  26. Hart, C. (1995). Mass Customization: Conceptual Underpinnings, Opportunities and Limits. International Journal of Service Industry, 6(2), 36–45.
  27. Hartley, J. L., Zirger, B. J., & Kamath, R. R. (1997). Managing the buyer-supplier interface for on-time performance in product development. Journal of Operations Management, 15(1), 57-70.
  28. Holcomb, T. R., & Hitt, M. A. (2007). Toward a model of strategic outsourcing. Journal of Operations Management, 25(2), 464–481.
  29. Holweg M., & Pil, F. K. (2004). The Second Century- Reconnecting Customer and Value Chain through Build-to-Order. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  30. Hsuan, J. (1999). Impacts of supplier-buyer relationships on modularization in new product development. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 5(3-4),197-209.
  31. Hwang, S. I., & Suh, E. G. (2017). A Study on the Effect of Supplier’s Strategy on New Product Development Performance. Journal of Distribution Science, 15(9), 95-107
  32. Kamath, R. R., & Liker, J. K. (1994). A second look at Japanese product development. Harvard Business Review, 72(6), 154-165.
  33. Kay, M. J. (1993). Making mass customization happen: Lessons for implementation. Planning Review, 21(4), 14-18.
  34. Kennedy, J. (1995). Debiasing the Curse of Knowledge in Audit Judgment. The Accounting Review, 70(2), 249-273.
  35. Kessler, E. H., Bierly, P. E., & Gopalakrishnan, S. (2000). Internal vs. external learning in new product development: Effects on speed, costs and competitive advantage. R&D Management, 30(3), 213-224.
  36. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(1), 383-397.
  37. Kotabe, M., Martin, X., & Domoto, H. (2003). Gaining from vertical partnerships: Knowledge transfer, relationship duration, and supplier performance improvement in the US and Japanese automotive industries. Strategic Management Journal, 24(4), 293-316.
  38. Kotha, S. (1995). Mass customization: Implementing the emerging paradigm for competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 16(S1), 21-42.
  39. Kotha, S. (1996). Mass-customization: A strategy for knowledge creation and organizational learning. International Journal of Technology Management, 11(7-8), 846-858.
  40. Koufteros, X., Vondermbse, M., & Jayaram, J. (2005). Internal and external integration for product development: The contingency effect of uncertainty, equivocality, and platform strategy. Decision Sciences, 36(1), 97-133.
  41. Koufteros, X. A., Cheng, T. C. E., & Lai, K. (2007). ”Black-box” and “gray-box” supplier integration in product development: Antecedents, consequences and the moderating role of firm size. Journal of Operations Management, 25(4), 847-870.
  42. Leuschner, R., Rogers, D. S., & Charvet, F. F. (2013). A meta-analysis of supply chain integration and firm performance. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 49(1), 34-57.
  43. Mackelprang, A. W., Robinson, J. L., Bernardes, E., & Webb, G. S. (2014). The relationship between strategic supply chain integration and performance: A meta-analytic evaluation and implications for supply chain management research. Journal of Business Logistics, 35(1), 71-96.
  44. McGinnis, M. A., & Vallopra, R. M. (1999). Purchasing and supplier involvement: Issues and insights regarding new product success. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 35(2), 4-15.
  45. Petersen, K. J., Handfield, R. B., & Ragatz, G. L. (2003). A model of Supplier integration into new product development. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 20(2), 284-299.
  46. Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
  47. Primo, M. A., & Amundson, S. D. (2002). An exploratory study of the effects of supplier relationships on new product development outcomes. Journal of Operations Management, 20(1), 33-52.
  48. Ragatz, G. L., Handfield, R. B., & Scannell, T. V. (1997). Success factors for integrating suppliers into new product development. Journal of product innovation management. 14(3), 190-202.
  49. Ralston, P. M., Blackhurst, J., Cantor, D. E., & Crum, M. R. (2014). A Structure-Conduct-Performance Perspective of How Strategic Supply Chain Integration Affects Firm Performance. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 51(2), 47-64.
  50. Sanchez, R., & Mahoney, J. T. (1996). Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue), 63-76.
  51. Schmidt, J. B. (1995). New Product Myopia. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Winter Ed., 10(1), 23-34.
  52. Shin, H., Collier, D. A., & Wilson, D. D. (2000). Supply management orientation and supplier/buyer performance. Journal of Operations Management, 18(3), 317-333.
  53. Song, M., & Benedetto, C. A. (2008). Supplier's involvement and success of radical new product development in new ventures. Journal of Operations Management, 26(1),1-22.
  54. Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(special issue), 27-44.
  55. Takeishi, A. (2001). Bridging inter-and intra-firm boundaries: Management of supplier involvement in automobile product development. Strategic Management Journal, 22(5), 403-433.
  56. Tu, Q., Vonderembse, M. A., & Ragu-Nathan, T. S. (2001). The impact of time-based manufacturing practices on mass customization and value to customer. Journal of Operations Management, 19(2), 201-217.
  57. Tu, Q., Vonderembse, M. A., Ragu-Nathan, T. S., & Ragu-Nathan, B. (2004). Measuring modularity-based manufacturing practices and their impact on mass customization capability: A customer-driven perspective. Decision Sciences, 35(2),147-168.
  58. Vickery, S. K., Jayaram, J., Droge, C., & Calantone, R. (2003). The effects of an integrative supply chain strategy on customer service and financial performance: An analysis of direct versus indirect relationships. Journal of Operations Management, 21(3), 523-539.
  59. Yoon, K. (2016). The Effects of Management Consulting Quality and Consultant Capability on Entrepreneurial Firms’ Performance. Journal of Distribution Science, 14(5), 81-89.