Relationship-specific investment, value creation, and value appropriation in cooperative innovation | Information Technology and Management Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Relationship-specific investment, value creation, and value appropriation in cooperative innovation

  • Published:
Information Technology and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The rapid development of information technology (IT) makes it possible for different organizations to ally with each other for cooperative innovation. In this paper, two critical issues involved in enterprise cooperation are addressed: (1) how organization value is added via cooperative business and how the profit from the cooperation is appropriated among the cooperators; and (2) how the cooperative innovation can be implemented effectively. The resource-based view is combined with the transaction cost theory, the equity theory, and the risk-return theory to analyze the influence of the relationship-specific investment (RSI) on the value creation and appropriation in cooperation. Based on our theoretical analysis, a number of hypotheses are made to measure the influence and these hypotheses are tested using empirical data collected from 187 high-tech enterprises in the Northeast region of China. The verification has shown that RSI allows information sharing among collaborators for effective coordination and thus improves the performance of cooperative innovation. RSI positively affects the value appropriation based on investors’ contributions and the risk level involved in the cooperation. RSI increases the value appropriation through the performance promotion effect in cooperation. Minor adverse impact is identified on investor’s dependence. In addition, value creation positively affects value appropriation. The drawn conclusion is significant for developing cooperative innovations under the circumstance in which IT is widely applied to enterprises’ business environment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Adams JS (1965) Inequity in social exchange. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 2:267–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alejandro TB, Souza DV, Boles JS, Ribeiro ÁHP, Monteiro PRR (2011) The outcome of company and account manager relationship quality on loyalty, relationship value and performance. Ind Mark Manag 40(1):36–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Amit R, Zott C (2001) Value creation in e-business. Strategic manage J 22(6–7):493–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Anderson E, Weitz B (1992) The use of pledges to build and sustain commitment in distribution channel. J Market Res 29(1):18–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Anderson J, Narus J (1990) A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working partnerships. J Market 54(1):42–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Anderson R, Tatham R, Hair J, Babin B, Black B (2006) Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bell DE (1995) Risk, return, and utility. Manage Sci 41(1):23–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Claro DP, Claro PBO, Hagelaar G (2006) Coordinating collaborative joint efforts with suppliers: the effects of trust, transaction specific investments and information network in the Dutch flower industry. Supply Chain Manage 11(3):216–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cummings JN (2004) Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Manage Sci 50(3):352–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dai Q, Kauffman RJ (2001) Business models for internet-based e-procurement systems and B2B electronic markets: an exploratory assessment. Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science, Jan 3-6, 2001

  11. Dyer JH (1996) Specialized supplier networks as a source of competitive advantage: evidence from auto industry. Strategic Manage J 17(4):271–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dyer JH (1997) Effective interfirm collaboration: how transactors minimize transaction costs and maximize transaction value. Strategic Manage J 18(7):535–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dyer JH, Singh H (1998) The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Acad Manage Rev 23(4):660–679

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fang E, Palmatier W, Evans K (2008) Influence of customer participation on creating and sharing of new product value. J Acad Market Sci 36:322–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Frazier GL (1983) On the measurement of interfirm power in channels of distribution. J Market Res 20(2):158–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fritzsche M, Kittel K, Blankenburg A, Vajna S (2012) Multidisciplinary design optimization of a recurve bow based on applications of the autogenetic design theory and distributed computing. Enterp Inf Sys 6(3):329–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ganesan S (1994) Determinants of long-term orientation of buyer–seller relationships. J Market 58(2):1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gundlach GT, Achrol R, Mentzer J (1995) The structure of commitment in exchange. J Market 59(1):78–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Guo J, Xu L, Gong Z, Che C, Chaudhry S (2012) Semantic inference on heterogeneous e-marketplace activities. IEEE Trans SMC Part A 42(2):316–330

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hamel G (1991) Competition for competence and interpartner learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic Manage J 12(S1):83–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Handley SM, Benton WC (2012) The influence of exchange hazards and power on opportunism in outsourcing relationships. J Opera Manag 30(1–2):55–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Heide J, John G (1988) The role of dependence balancing in safeguarding transaction- specific assets in conventional channels. J Market 52(1):20–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Heide J, John G (1990) Alliances in industrial purchasing: the determinants of joint action in buyer–supplier relationships. J Market Res 27(1):24–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hong W, Zhu K (2006) Migrating to internet-based e-commerce: factors affecting e-commerce adoption and migration at the firm level. Inform Manage 43(2):204–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Jap SD (1999) Pie expansion efforts: collaboration processes in buyer–supplier relationships. J Market Res 36(4):461–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Jap SD (2001) “Pie sharing” in complex collaboration contexts. J Market Res 38(1):86–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Jiang H, Zhao S, Zhang Y, Chen Y (2012) The cooperative effect between technology standardization and industrial technology innovation based on Newtonian mechanics. Inf Technol Manage 13(4):251–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Jiang H, Zhao S, Qiu S, Chen Y (2012) Strategy for technology standardization based on the theory of entropy. Inf Technol Manage 13(4):311–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Jiang H, Zhao S, Wang X, Bi Z (2013) Applying electromagnetic field theory to study the synergistic relationships between technology standardization and technology development. Sys Res Behav Sci 30(3):272–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ketchen DJ, Hult GTM, Slater SF (2007) Toward greater understanding of market orientation and the resource-based view. Strategic Manage J 28(9):961–964

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kitamura H, Miyaoka A, Sato M (2011) Relationship-specific investment as a barrier to entry. Available at SSRN 1948073

  32. Kumar N, Scheer L, Steenkamp JB (1995) The effects of perceived interdependence on dealer attitudes. J Market Res 32(3):348–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kwon YC (2011) Relationship-specific investments, social capital, and performance: the case of Korean exporter foreign buyer relations. Asia Pacific J Manag 28(4):761–773

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. LeBreton JM, Senter JL (2008) Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Org Res Methods 11(4):815–852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Levi M, Kleindorfer PR, Wu DJ (2003) Codifiability, relationship-specific information technology investment, and optimal contracting. J Manag Inf Syst 20(2):77–98

    Google Scholar 

  36. Li L (2012) Effects of enterprise technology on supply chain collaboration: analysis of China-linked supply chain. Enterp Inf Sys 6(1):55–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Li S, Xu L, Wang X, Wang J (2012) Integration of hybrid wireless networks in cloud services oriented enterprise information systems. Enterp Inf Sys 6(2):165–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lui SS (2009) The roles of competence trust, formal contract, time horizon in interorganizational learning. Organ Stud 30(4):333–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Markus ML, Christiaanse E (2003) Adoption and impact of collaboration electronic marketplaces. Inform Syst e-Bus Manag 1(2):139–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Mauricio SF, Paul AP (2003) Predicting e-services adoption: a perceived risk facets perspective. Int J Hum-Comput St 59(4):451–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Merton RK (1968) Social theory and social structure. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  42. Mitchell VW (1995) Organisational risk perception and reduction: a literature review. Brit J Manage 6(2):115–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Palmatier RW, Dant RP, Grewal D (2007) A comparative longitudinal analysis of theoretical perspectives of interorganizational relationship performance. J Market 71(4):172–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Selnes F, Sallis J (2003) Promoting relationship learning. J Market 67(3):80–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Tan W, Xu W, Yang F, Xu L, Jiang C (2013) A framework for service enterprise workflow simulation with multi-agents cooperation. Enterp Inf Sys 7(4):523–542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Thatcher S M, Foster W (2003). B2B e-commerce adoption decisions in Taiwan: The interaction of organizational, industrial, governmental and cultural factors. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Jan 6-9, 2003

  47. Tingvall PT, Poldahl A (2011) Determinants of firm R&D: the role of relationship-specific interactions for R&D spillovers. J Ind Compet Trade 12:395–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Wang C (2012) Advances in information integration infrastructures supporting multidisciplinary design optimization. Enterp Inf Sys 6(3):265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Wang CL, Siu NYM, Barnes BR (2008) The significance of trust and renqing in the long-term orientation of Chinese business-to-business relationships. Ind Market Manag 37(7):819–824

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Wang GC, Liu D, Wang XF (2011) The role of bilateral specific investments on co-innovational performance in marketing channel. Nankai Bus Rev 14(6):85–94

    Google Scholar 

  51. Wang S, Li L, Wang K, Jones J (2012) e-business systems integration: a systems perspective. Inf Technol Manage 13(4):233–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Wang S, Zheng S, Xu L, Li D, Meng H (2008) A literature review of electronic marketplace research: themes, theories and an integrative framework. Inf Sys Front 10(5):555–571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Wanger SM, Eggert A, Lindermamm E (2010) Creating and appropriating value in collaborative relationships. J Bus Res 63(8):840–848

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Williamson OE (1975) Markets and hierarchies: analysis and antitrust implication. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  55. Williamson OE (1985) The economic institutions of capitalism. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  56. Wu ZW, Chen Y (2008) Relationship asset specific investment. Relationship quality and cooperative performance. Forecasting 27(5):33–37

    Google Scholar 

  57. Xie YH, Suh T, Kwon I (2010) Do the magnitude and asymmetry of specific asset investments matter in the supplier-buyer relationship? J Market Manage 26(9–10):858–877

    Google Scholar 

  58. Xu L (2011) Enterprise systems: state-of-the-art and future trends. IEEE Trans Industr Inf 7(4):630–640

    Google Scholar 

  59. Xu L, Liu H, Wang S, Wang K (2009) Modeling and analysis techniques for cross-organizational workflow systems. Sys Res Behav Sci 26(3):367–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Yeong LY (1994) Profit sharing and standard setting in production and procurement management. Appl Econ 26(2):95–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Zhao Y, Wang G (2011) The impact of relation-specific investment on channel relationship performance: evidence from China. J Strategic Market 19(1):57–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under the Grant 71273113 and 71273003. This work was also supported by ‘‘985 Project’’ of Jilin University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management, Jilin University, Changchun, 130022, Jilin, China

    Shukuan Zhao, Haiqing Yu & Yancheng Xu

  2. Department of Engineering, Indiana University Purdue University Fort Wayne, Fort Wayne, IN, 46805, USA

    Zhuming Bi

Authors
  1. Shukuan Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Haiqing Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yancheng Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zhuming Bi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Haiqing Yu.

Appendix: Measurement items

Appendix: Measurement items

Relationship-specific investment

 RSI1

We have made a substantial investment in facilities dedicated to the relationship of our company.

 RSI2

We have made a substantial investment in personnel dedicated to the relationship of our company.

 RSI3

If we stop working with this company, we would have a lot of trouble redeploying our employees and facilities presently with this relationship.

 RSI4

If we switch to another company, we would lose a lot of investment we have made with this relationship.

Information sharing

 ISH1

Exchange of information between partners take place frequently during the cooperation process.

 ISH2

It is expected that both partners will share proprietary information if it can enhances the quality of cooperation process and our relationship during cooperation process.

Coordination effectiveness

 CEF1

Both companies are always looking for synergistic ways to do business together.

 CEF2

We work effectively on joint projects tailored to our common needs.

 CEF3

We coordinate our business activities very effectively.

Investor contribution

 INC1

We have contributed more resources to this project than to those in our company.

 INC2

We have made greater effort to finish this project than to those in our company.

 INC3

Our organization has made greater contributions to complete the task than to those in our company.

Investor risk

 INR1

The sub-project we take in charge of is more likely to fail than those in our company.

 INR2

We would suffer greater loss than those in our company if the project fail.

 INR3

We have taken greater risk than those in our company in this partnership.

Investor dependence

 IND1

It would be difficult to replace this partner.

 IND2

If this relationship end, we would suffer a serious loss.

 IND3

We are quite dependent on our company.

Value creation

 VC1

The expected goal of this project has achieved successfully.

 VC2

The economic returns of this project are considerable.

 VC3

A large number of new products have been developed in this project.

 VC4

A huge amount of patents have been applied in this project.

 VC5

This project has sped up the rate of new product development.

Value appropriation

 VA1

We have achieved a great deal of innovative performance (i.e. economic profit, new product, new process, patents) from the project.

 VA2

We are very satisfied with the returns gained from the project.

 VA3

For the involvements and efforts we put in the project, we received high pay back from this project.

 VA4

We have achieved a larger proportion of innovative performance than those in our company.

  1. All items measured on five-point Likert scales: 1 = fully disagree and 5 = fully agree

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zhao, S., Yu, H., Xu, Y. et al. Relationship-specific investment, value creation, and value appropriation in cooperative innovation. Inf Technol Manag 15, 119–130 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-014-0174-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-014-0174-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation