Fernando
Nascimento Zatta
Mackenzie
Presbyterian University, Brazil
E-mail: hmz@hmzconsulting.com.br
Elmo Tambosi
Filho
Federal
University of Santa Catarina, Brazil
E-mail: elmotf@hotmail.com
Rodrigo Randow
Freitas
Northern
University Center of Espírito Santo, Federal University of Espirito Santo-UFES, Brazil
E-mail: rodrigo.r.freitas@ufes.br
Wellington
Gonçalves
Northern
University Center of Espírito Santo, Federal University of Espirito Santo-UFES, Brazil
E-mail: wellington.goncalves@ufes.br
Rodrigo Ribeiro
Oliveira
Federal
Institute of Education, Science and Technology of São Paulo, Brazil
E-mail: rodrigoribeirosp@hotmail.com
Liliane Cristina
Segura
Mackenzie
Presbyterian University, Brazil
E-mail: lilianecristina.segura@mackenzie.br
Henrique
Formigoni
Mackenzie
Presbyterian University, Brazil
E-mail: henrique.formigoni@mackenzie.br
Renata
Schirrmeister
Pontifical
Catholic University of São Paulo, PUC/SP, Brazil
E-mail: rschirrmeister@gmail.com
Submission: 11/5/2019
Revision: 12/3/2019
Accept: 7/3/2020
ABSTRACT
This study discusses the influence of internal and relational resources
on the performance of purchasing companies in which strategic suppliers are
involved in their business processes, through interaction with operational
competencies. The discussion of competency development has followed an internal
focus on the company influenced by the resource-based view. In turn, the
relational view proposes strategies of interorganizational cooperation to
develop competitive relationships through short- and long-term collaborative
actions. This study fills an important gap in the field of resource theory in
Latin America. The results show that relational vision categories, when
integrated with operational competences, influence business performance.
Keywords: Supply chain management; Operational competences; Operations strategy; Resource-based view; Relational view
1.
INTRODUCTION
Developing an economy in markets that are
highly competitive, intensive volatility, and forced by competitive pressure
requires a dynamic of adapting traditional approaches to business strategy. In
the business environment, the strategy is about taking actions and allocating
resources to achieve business goals. Among the concepts of strategy is related
to the Operations Strategy that guides the search for competitiveness and
highlights the role of manufacturing as decisive for adapting strategic
resources and developing competencies to compete in competitive environments
(Paiva, 2017).
Since the 1960s, several studies have
promoted the development of business strategy concepts, for example, Chandler
(1962). Also, in this decade, in 1969 began research in the field of Operations
Strategy consolidating the studies of Skinner (1969), Swamidass and Newell
(1987), Wheelwright (1984), Hayes and Wheelwright (1984), among other
researchers, which highlighted the role of manufacturing as decisive for
competitiveness. Production has come to be recognized as strategically
important, and Operations Management has become more integrated with other
business areas (Gresswell, Childe & Maull, 1998).
Evolving from a vision of operational
decisions in line with the vision of strategic planning developed by, for
example, Skinner (1969) and Wheelwright (1984), discussions about operating
practices and competencies have recently emerged (Wu, Choi & Rungtsunatham,
2010, Wu, Melnyk & Swink, 2012), with origins in the resource-based view.
In a dynamic environment, sources of
competitive advantage span the entire organization at various levels of
business and operations, as well as between internal and external actors,
requiring more integrated attention. Studies that address the evolution of
business strategy (Vasconcelos & Cyrino, 2000; Peng, Schroeder & Shah,
2008) address this integration, recognizing the increasing complexity of the
environment and the potential impacts on organizations, which requires an
increasing focus on processes and resources (Teece, Pisano & Shuen, 1997;
Vasconcelos & Cyrino, 2000) and operational competencies (Wu, Choi &
Rungtsunatham, 2010).
In business practice, competency development
is important for resource use, as competencies constitute a set of skills,
processes, and routines that direct resource use. They are mechanisms by which
human skills are leveraged to effectively use internal and relational resources
that consequently reflect on process improvement and business performance (Voss,
1995; Narasimhan, Swink & Kim, 2005; Wu, Choi & Rungtsunatham, 2010).
Within the resource-based approach is the core
of operations strategy that is based on distinct and intertwined elements,
including tangible and intangible skills, practices, and resources. This
synergy forms a convergence that reinforces the ability to influence the
competitive environment (Wu, Melnyk & Swink, 2012).
In this context, it is relevant to understand
that operational competencies represent the ability to promote a set of
personal skills and tacit knowledge for the efficient use of resources, thus
determining the limits of what can and cannot be done, as resources alone
define potential use because they are passive and reactive, requiring them to
be targeted (Wu, Choi & Rungtsunatham, 2010).
The existing literature presents a few studies
with perspectives that associate resource and competency approaches.
Internationally, much progress has been made in research on operational
resources and process-oriented competencies in operations. In the early 1990s,
Leonard-Barton (1992) mentioned that competencies are traditionally treated as
groups of distinct techniques, skills, and management systems. However,
competencies are deeply rooted in values, which constitute a critical dimension
often overlooked by scholars.
In the Brazilian context, academia has evolved
with studies in the field of resources and competencies. However, there is a
gap in the literature (Grant, 1991; Barney, 1991; Peteraf, 1993; Wu, Choi &
Rungtsunatham, 2010, Wu, Melnyk & Swink, 2012). In this context, the main
objective of this study is to analyze which relational resources and
operational competencies developed and/or shared in the dyad buying companies
and strategic suppliers influence the operational performance of the supply
chain of the buying companies.
2.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1.
Operations Strategy
The Operations Strategy plays a decisive role
in competitiveness that occurs from the interactions of the environment with
this decision process and leads to superior performance. Performance
measurement occurs through competitive priorities and structural decisions and
infrastructures that develop operational competencies (Wheelwright, 1984;
Paiva, 2017).
In this process, the
production function and its operations also play a decisive role in adapting
companies' strategic resources to the competitive environment. In this context,
the production area is now recognized as strategically important, and
operations management has become more integrated with other business areas (Gresswell,
Childe & Maull, 1998).
The strategic role
that the production function obtained from Skinner's (1969) work determined a
hierarchical structure of strategies, most commonly practiced at decision
levels (Swamidass & Newell, 1987; Hill, 1997). Production involves
decisions in various areas of the company. Developing an operations strategy
involves making a set of decisions about the structure and infrastructure of
operations (Skinner, 1969; Hayes & Wheelwright, 1984).
2.2.
Competitive performance
Competitive performance is a field of study in
operations strategy research for competitive positioning - competitive success
stemming from the organization's managerial competence - through five industry
competitive strengths or priorities, as well as their differentiating
capabilities.
Competitive priorities are criteria that
manufacturing systems can adopt as a consistent set of performance dimensions
to meet manufacturing (Skinner, 1969), thereby enhancing and maintaining the competitiveness
of business and corporate units and structural and infrastructural decisions (Wheelwright,
1984; Paiva, 2017).
Notably, some authors have defined some competitive
performances: Frohlich and Dixon (2001), Frohlich and Westbrook (2002): quality,
cost, delivery, and flexibility; Jiménez and Lorente (2001): cost, time,
quality and after-sales, and report the need to include environmental
performance as a new competitive performance; Dangayach and Deshmukh (2001):
cost, quality, delivery reliability, and flexibility.
The studies of Swamidass and Newell (1987),
Cleveland, Murphy and Williamset (1989), Ferdows and De Meyer (1990), Roth and
Miller (1992), Vickery, Droge and Markland (1993), Vickery, Droge, and
Markland, (1997), Ward, Leong and Boyer (1994), Bozarth and Edwards (1997),
Flynn, Schroeder, and Flynn (1999) and Rosenzweig, Roth, and Dean (2003) all
refer to competitive performance as quality, cost, delivery, and flexibility,
most present in the operations strategy literature.
The consolidation of environmental practices as a
competitive performance is still a hotly debated topic (Pagell, Wu &
Wasserman, 2010; Parmigiani, Klassen & Russo, 2011; Paulraj, 2011). The
choice of the company's competitive performance varies according to the
different competitive strategies determined, and there is no universal
consensus on which performances, alone or together, should be adopted.
Therefore, Ferdows and De Meyer (1990) argue that
the most competitive companies can achieve higher performance standards than
the competitors in which they adopt all competitive priorities, compared to
those who adopt an optimal sequence of competency development simultaneously
cumulative. For example, adopting priority sequencing: first develops quality,
then delivery reliability, flexibility, and finally cost. According to Flynn
and Flynn (2004), this sequence of accumulation of competencies may change due
to external factors related to the competitive environment as factors inherent
to the company's country of operation
2.3.
Structural and infrastructural decision areas
Developing an operations strategy involves making a
set of decisions about the structure and infrastructure of operations (Skinner,
1969; Hayes & Wheelwright, 1984). Manufacturing structural decision areas
relate to capacity, facilities, technology and equipment, processes, and
vertical integration. The more tactical infrastructural decision areas
encompass a set of continuous decision support policies, procedures, and
practices, such as human resource management, quality management, production
control, and physical arrangement (Hayes & Wheelwright, 1984) and influence
workforce (Hayes et al., 2008), supplier relationships, and new product
development (Fine & Hax, 1985; Paiva, Carvalho Jr. & Fensterseifer,
2009), and environmental management (Angel & Klassen, 1999).
2.4.
Supply Chain Management Business Processes
According to Davenport (1994), business processes
are defined as a set of structured activities, designed to produce a specific
result, constituting a structure of activities designed to perform an action
focused on end customers and the dynamic management of flows involving
products, money, knowledge and/or ideas (Lambert, Cooper & Pagh, 1998).
In the supply chain, a process can be understood as
a structure of activities designed to perform an action focused on end
customers and the dynamic management of flows involving products, money, and
knowledge (Lambert, Cooper & Pagh, 1998).
Lambert and Cooper's (2000) supply chain management
model considers three interrelated elements as critical antecedents for
managing a supply chain: (i) the supply chain structure, which consists of the
set of member companies and the links between these companies; (ii) business
processes, which are the set of structured activities that produce a certain
value output for customers; and (iii) management components that are the
management variables by which business processes are integrated and managed
throughout the chain (Lambert & Cooper, 2000).
Following the key definitions of implementing key
supply chain processes that require integration, Lambert and Cooper (2000)
present eight business processes as determined by the Global Supply Chain Forum
(GSCF): (i) customer relationship management; (ii) customer service management;
(iii) demand management; (iv) order fulfillment; (v) production flow
management; (vi) relationship management with the supplier; (vii) product
development and marketing; and (viii) return management.
The customer relationship management and supplier
relationship management processes constitute the critical links in the supply
chain and each of the other six processes is coordinated through them. Each of
the eight processes is multifunctional, being used within the company and
inter-organizationally between members of a supply chain (Lambert,
García-Dastugue & Croxton, 2005).
2.5.
Resource-based view
The resource-based view seeks to understand
how heterogeneous resources and competencies differentiate high performers from
underperformers and sustain a competitive advantage, and consider competitors'
above-average performance as a phenomenon primarily due to characteristics
peculiar internal aspects of the organization (Vasconcelos & Cyrino, 2000).
Resources are defined as tangible and intangible assets controlled by a
company. Resources are used to implement strategies, meaning a company's
ability to employ them dynamically (Barney & Clark, 2007; Barney &
Hesterly, 2011).
From this perspective, dynamic aspects of
competition, accentuating phenomena such as innovation, discontinuity, and
economic imbalance can determine whether competitive advantage can be sustained
for a given time. This means that the company must continually control its
strategic resources so that if current resources become obsolete, new
arrangements ensure superior performance and competitive advantage (Barney,
1991; Prajogo & Mcdermott; Goh, 2008).
According to classical theory, resources
classified as rare, imperfectly mobile, imitable and irreplaceable are apt to
exploit opportunities or neutralize threats and have the potential to generate
competitive advantages when they combine the understanding of strengths and
weaknesses through the VRIO (Value, Rarity, Imitability, and Organization) (Barney
& Clark, 2007; Barney & Hesterly, 2011) which offers four issues that
should be considered in this analysis, i.e. the resource must have value to
enable the company to exploit an environmental opportunity and/or neutralize
it. an environmental threat, must be Rare, that is, controlled only by a small
number of competing companies, must be Impersonal, as companies without the
resource face a cost disadvantage to obtain or develop and must be Organized,
that is, endowed with policies and procedures to support the exploitation of
valuable, rare and costly resources to imitate.
2.6.
Relational View and Chain Relationship Structure
While the resource-based view develops the
idea that a company's competitive position is defined by an internally
accumulated resource bundle (Rumelt, 1984; Barney, 1991), the relational view
presents a view that a company's competitive position or the creation of Value
in relationships can be defined by resources and strategic competencies
combined in interorganizational relationships.
The relational view advocates that a
company's critical resources can be shared in inter-organizational
relationships to achieve higher than average returns on competition and create
a sustainable competitive advantage (Ingham & Thompson, 1994; Dyer &
Singh, 1998; Combs & Ketchen 1999; Das & Teng, 2000; Mosque, Anand
& Brush, 2008).
Interorganizational relationships are
important units of analysis because they provide an understanding of
competitive advantage, whose impacts are determined by the combination of
resources, which involve physical assets, knowledge and learning, and
complementary resources that can contribute to related income creation and
operational performance. of the supply chain (Dyer & Singh, 1998).
Relational income is obtained through four potential sources (Dyer & Singh,
1998; Combs & Ketchen, 1999; Lavie, 2006): (i) investments in
relationship-specific assets; (ii) substantial exchange of knowledge that
results in learning; (iii) combination of complementary resources; and (iv)
lower transaction costs introduced by effective governance mechanisms (Dyer
& Singh, 1998).
The relational view also focuses on sharing
high levels of trust and formal reporting, and monitoring relational control
actions achieved (Dyer & Singh, 1998; Zacharia, Nix & Lusch, 2011).
Because of this, in the supply chain theme, the relational view can complement
the other theoretical approaches, such as the collaborative relationship,
highlighting the possibility of sharing relational resources in favor of high
performance to obtain a sustainable competitive advantage.
2.7.
Operational Skills
Recent studies have analyzed aspects of
Operations Strategy from a perspective that shows more consistency in strategic
decisions in operations, based on resources owned or controlled by a company (Paiva,
2017). This category includes studies by Wu, Choi, and Rungtsunatham (2010,
2012). The Operations Strategy is centered on three closely related concepts to
establish its strategies, and there is a tendency to confuse them. These
concepts are: (i) operational skills; (ii) operating practices; (ii) and the
resources.
Regarding that, the Operations Strategy has
as its origin the result of operational skills developed from interaction with
resources (Hayes & Pisano, 1996; Tracey, Vonderembse & Lim, 1999) and
unique operating practices (Peng, Schroeder & Shah, 2008; Wu, Choi &
Rungtsunatham, 2010).
Based on the resource-based view, operational
competencies are paramount for developing the company's competitive advantage
individually and relationally, thus developing what might be called relational
operational competencies (Zatta, 2015). Organizational skills represent a
superior and distinctive way of deploying and allocating resources. Without
organizational skills, a resource may lose its value over time because it could
not be put to use.
While organizational competencies focus on
the ability to manage a process or intellectual property, resources are the
actual factory, brand, or patent (Coates & Mcdermott, 2002; Wu, Choi &
Rungtsunatham, 2010). Organizational skills can be purposely built and
accumulated (Skinner 1969) by focusing on the complex interactions between a
company's resources that are not easily imitated, duplicated, acquired, or replaced
(Dierickx & Cool, 1989; Amit & Schoemaker, 1993), deeply rooted in
their unique social structure (Schreyogg & Kliesch-Eberl, 2007).
Operational skills are a subset of
organizational skills, the purpose of which is to enable the company to make
full use of the resources it owns or controls. That is, competencies alone do
not allow a company to implement its strategies, but allow it to use its
resources to implement its strategies. Wu, Choi, and Rungtsunatham (2010)
define operational competencies as company-specific skill sets, processes, and
routines developed within the operations management system, which are regularly
used for problem solving through operational resource configuration, and
constitute the “secret ingredient” to explain the development of competitive
advantage.
Competencies are distinctive in that they
create a barrier to imitation, a potential source of competitive advantage, and
can provide an explanation of variations in operating performance (Grant, 1991;
Barney, 1991; Peteraf, 1993). Operational competencies have high validity in
predicting operational performance results based on the competitive performance
of cost, quality, delivery, and flexibility manufacturing (Wu, Choi &
Rungtsunatham, 2010).
Based on the Operations Management literature,
based on the initial study by Swink and Hegarty (1998), Wu, Choi, and
Rungtsunatham (2010) developed a taxonomy of six operational competencies
within the context of product differentiation aimed at providing a theoretical
framework to guide their operationalization to solve business problems (Table
1).
Table 1:
Taxonomic Synthesis
|
Operational
skills |
Authors |
|
|
Operational Improvements |
They occur to incrementally enhance
and enhance current operational processes and can contribute to the organization's
innovation process. |
Swink and Hegarty (1998); Peng,
Schroeder and Shah (2008) |
|
Operational Innovations |
They occur through radical
improvements to existing operational processes or the creation of new unique
processes. |
Swink and Hegarty (1998); Peng,
Schroeder and Shah (2008) |
|
Operational customizations |
Designed for knowledge creation and
customization of operational processes. |
Wheelwright and Hayes (1985);
Schroeder, Bates and Junttila, (2002) |
|
Operational Cooperation |
Refers to the ability to develop
stable relationships with internal functional areas and supply chain
partners. |
Swink and Hegarty (1998); Droge,
Jayaram and Vickery (2004); Escrig-Tena and Bou-Llusar (2005) |
|
Operational responsiveness |
Refers to the ability to react quickly
and easily to internal and external changes. |
Upton (1994); Swink and Hegarty
(1998) |
|
Operational Reconfiguration |
Refers to the ability to perform
the transformation necessary to restore the fit between operations strategy
arising from environmental contingencies. |
Teece; Pisano; Shuen (1997); Swink and Hegarty (1998); Pandza,
Polajnar, Buchmeister and Thorpe (2003) |
Source: Authors.
2.8.
Supply Chain Collaboration
Cao and Zhang (2011) point that collaboration
between companies that are part of the chain improves the performance and
competitive advantage of the participants in a positive gain situation, which
allows competition with other chains. The advantage of collaboration and the
benefits achieved are directly related to knowledge exchange, resource sharing,
and competencies with unique characteristics related to long term
relationships. In addition, chain collaboration is viewed as a business process
in which partners share information, resources, and risks to achieve common
long-term goals.
Collaboration is a key factor where the
various links in the supply chain depend on the integration of key business
processes with multifunctional activities, ranging from raw material sourcing,
processing, and distribution, in a continuous process throughout the network (Cooper,
Lambert & Pagh, 1997).
Within an advanced business concept,
collaboration provides a boundless cultural environment, with the primary
objective of achieving competitive advantage through business process
excellence and market expansion (Kumar & Banerjee, 2012). Thus,
collaboration enables companies to achieve differential performance, such as
accessing resources and routines that reside among the various supply chain
members, enabling them to develop new products faster, with better quality and
lower costs throughout the supply chain supplies, as well as meeting faster
deadlines and better customer service (Kumar & Banerjee, 2012; Fawcett, et
al., 2012; Vaidya & Hudnurkar, 2013).
2.9.
Performance in the focus firm and supplier link
Performance appraisal is important because it
allows managers to diagnose and understand the causes of problems and monitor
the performance of areas and processes to verify that the parties have
performed their responsibilities satisfactorily. Aragon, Scavarda, Hamacher,
and Pires (2004) mention that there is no clear evidence that there are
significant performance measures that span the entire supply chain, but
measures that span part of the chain, such as some of their links (Lee &
Billington, 1992; Mentzer et al., 2001; Pires, 2004).
Since performance measures are adopted
considering several approaches. For example, Barney and Hesterly (2011) suggest
an approach focused on economic and financial performance. Neely (1999) argues
that financial measures have a short-term view, and thus lose relevance to
underpin a global supply chain strategy (Green, Mcgaughey & Casey, 2006).
According to Wu, Choi, and Rungtsunatham (2010), performance is measured
through operational and financial indicators.
Supply chain performance measurement systems
use metrics that encompass qualitative and quantitative criteria listed in
different assessment categories to quantify the efficiency and the efficacy of
an action (Neely, Gregory & Platts, 2005). Measures and metrics are not
only limited to objectively measuring performance, as they are also related to
policies, emotions, and various other behavioral issues (Gunasekaran & Kobu,
2007).
More recently, research has focused efforts
presenting studies related to business collaboration and supply chain
management operations based on the assumptions of the resource-based view (Charan,
2012). Other research has attached importance to collaboration and the chain's
competitive advantage considering the relevance of adopting performance appraisal
multicriteria (Vaidya & Hudnurkar, 2013), and the relevance of cultural
alignment between buyers and suppliers to maintain collaborative relationships
(Cadden, Marshall & Cao, 2013).
3.
METHODOLOGY
An advantage
of using mixed research methods is that it avoids the weaknesses of a
particular method (Mangan, Lalwani & Gardner, 2004; Boyer & Swink,
2008; Carter, Sanders & Dong, 2008). Thus, in the qualitative research
stage, we have conducted four exploratory and interpretative case studies (Godoy
&; Balsini, 2006; Yin, 2010; Barratt, Choi & Li, 2011). The companies
studied in the qualitative stage are part of the manufacturing industry. We
have used variables validated by the theory of relationship concepts,
collaboration, resources, operational competencies, and supply chain
performance were collected.
The
qualitative research encompasses four distinct sectors: the steel industry,
manufacturing of automotive and industrial application products, pulp
manufacturing, manufacturing, and application of flexible tubes for the power
industry. And these sectors have economic relevance and employ a large
contingent of labor. The choice of sectors and industrial companies from
different sectors is due to the interest in identifying complexity issues of
the phenomenon investigated in each case (Eisenhardt, 1989), as well as making
comparisons in order to identify convergences and divergences between the cases
in view of the specificities of each segment (Eisenhardt, 1989, Meredith,
1998). At this stage, a survey was conducted using the chemical sector survey,
which, in addition to exploring concepts of relationships, collaboration,
resources, operational competencies, and supply chain performance, investigated
the contribution of two operational practices to competency building.
The use of
mixed methods involved semi-structured interviews and also the collection of
quantitative data through the adoption of the survey. The use of different
procedures offers the possibility to explore more broadly textual and
statistical analysis to answer research questions by analyzing different
questions or levels of analysis units (Creswell, 2007). The treatment of
qualitative research data was done through content analysis according to Bardin
(2007) and Collis and Hussey (2005). Content analysis is a general analytical
procedure that includes the use of data interpretation and coding techniques to
transform texts into numerical variables that enable quantitative data
analysis.
In the
qualitative stage, it was decided to work with the strategy of study of
multiple cases, in order to obtain answers deemed more appropriate in alignment
with the research questions and thesis objectives. Barratt, Choi, and Li (2011)
report that, in operations management, qualitative case studies increase external
validity and protect against possible biases of the researcher, and in
particular, favor the effects of theory building, as multiple cases are likely
to create more robust and testable theories against single case research (Eisenhardt,
1989; Yin, 2010).
From content
analysis, three key categories of analysis were defined according to the
characteristics studied. These categories are: (i) Characteristics of the
relationship with the strategic supplier; (ii) Relational resources and
predominant operational competencies; and (iii) Improved competitive
performance in the target company.
In the
quantitative phase, the methodological procedure adopted was a cross-sectional
analytical survey, performed at a single moment in time, whose cause and effect
are investigated simultaneously. The deductive scientific method was adopted (Hair
et al., 2009). In this type of survey, data collection is performed in order to
test the adequacy of constructs and variables extracted from the literature
related to the studied phenomenon, to test hypotheses of a causal relationship
between variables (Malhotra; & Grover,
1998; Miguel, 2010).
To measure
the constructs, the seven-point Likert scale was adopted, with extreme
meanings, to indicate the extent to which respondents agree or disagree with
each question. The main vehicle for administering the survey was Google Docs
provider's online questionnaire administration software and tool.
For data
analysis, an association was first made between the specific objectives with
the sections of the applied questionnaire and the research hypotheses presented
in the previous section. Secondly, statistical tests were performed by
descriptive analysis. For categorical variables, the interval estimation for
the sample proportions was a confidence interval for the maximum
likelihood estimator of p, by the F-distribution to detect the groups that differed (Leemis
& Trivedi, 1996).
The study of
the relationships between the sections of interest of the questionnaire was
performed by calculating Spearman's correlation, and the null hypothesis was
tested by correlations at a 5% significance level (p <0.05). Such test is
recommended for variables that do not follow a normal distribution and for
those categorical variables, as in the case of this study, where the variables
were arranged on a Likert scale because they represent attributes.
Finally,
aiming at a joint analysis of the results (Yin, 2010), we sought to understand
which resources and operational competencies developed and / or shared between
focus companies and strategic suppliers influence the operational performance
of the supply chain on the enterprise-side. focus, based on the collaborative
relationship. Overall, respondents defined strategic suppliers as those who are
the primary source of supply for strategic, high-impact, highly complex, and
poorly available market raw materials. These suppliers are, concerning the
supply of raw materials, in most companies (3/4), the only source of supply.
When it comes to high turnover and strategic materials and inputs, they can be
a second source or multiple sources of supplies.
4.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF THE
QUANTITATIVE STAGE
Survey results provided evidence of
significant relationships between investment in specific assets and flexibility
performance. There are associations between making investments in equipment and
production capacities made by strategic suppliers and items related to
companies 'ability to adjust production volumes to meet market-imposed changes
and companies' ability to effect large-scale radical changes. These assets are
realized when there is a guarantee of a high return on the investments made.
As for the sharing of information and
knowledge that generate learning, the result of the correlations evidenced
significant relationships with the quality and flexibility performances. As for
the development and/or sharing of resources, capabilities, or complementary
skills, the result of the correlations showed significant relationships with
cost and quality performance. These relationships relate to the influence of
resource mix, such as logistics skills to jointly develop and distribute
products.
Through interviews, it was found that the
partnership provides companies with benefits that go beyond providing, for
example, knowledge absorption, product co-development, and process improvement.
The interviews also showed that companies establish predominantly long
relationships with their strategic suppliers, with relational characteristics.
However, it was found that the adoption of transactional mechanisms governed
through contracts to guarantee, mainly, the supply of raw materials, and this
occurs primarily when there is only one supplier.
In the qualitative stage, it was also
possible to verify that, in the companies of the studied sectors, the strategic
suppliers are involved in value activities in the business processes of the
focus companies, besides the supply. The most common value activities
identified in the qualitative interviews were process improvement in
manufacturing, engineering and process development, production planning, cost
reduction processes, order tracking, time management, new product development,
inventories, and product manufacturing.
The interviews also showed that in the
sectors studied, strategic suppliers have greater bargaining power than focus
companies, mainly due to the power of supplying scarce resources in the market.
In addition, there were investments in specific assets made by some suppliers,
non-strategic from the point of view of raw material supply, expanding
production capacities, equipment, industrial facilities, and power supply
systems.
The qualitative stage of the research also
revealed that the most common determining factors identified in the interviews
that warrant investments in specific assets are the volume of production and
the long-term relationship in which trust and reputation are vital. Also, as
far as knowledge exchange is concerned, it only occurs on the supplier side for
companies in troubleshooting operational problems, training for new operations
and maintenance, process improvement, and product and material development.
Concerning the transfer of personnel between the companies and their suppliers,
the interviews revealed that 75% of the companies corroborated the
prescriptions of the model proposed by the relational view, with the exchange
between both partners, from the supplier to the client company and from the
client company to the supplier.
In qualitative and quantitative research, the
taxonomy of operational competences proposed by Wu, Choi, and Rungtsunatham
(2010) involved five indicators: continuous improvement, innovation,
customization, cooperation and integration, and rapid market response was
confirmed. It was evidenced that the companies of the studied sectors differ in
operational competences, considering their application to the specific problems
of each company.
These competencies developed and/or shared
between companies and strategic suppliers have been found to play an important
role in competitive performance as they establish an empirical link between
resources and operational performance of the supply chain. In the qualitative
stage, it was evident that companies in the sectors studied differ in
operational competencies, considering their application to the specific
problems of each company.
Another finding of qualitative research
relates to the gain arising from tax benefits from special regimes granted by
the federal and state governments. Thus, it is understood that a tax benefit,
indirectly, can be conceptualized as a relational physical resource, as it
maintains similarity with a capital resource, being this resource constituted
by an external source of capital that are the government entities (Zatta,
2015).
5.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF THE
QUANTITATIVE STAGE
In the quantitative stage, the result of the
correlations showed significant relationships between the operational
improvement competency and the cost, quality, delivery, and flexibility
performances.
The following relationships were obtained:
(i) performance of strategic suppliers in our corporate production process by
training employees to develop new forms of production and improvements in
operational processes involving equipment, machinery, and tools with cost
performance items; (ii) development by strategic suppliers of new forms of
production, acting in the production process of the focus companies with the
item indirect production costs including operational supervision of cost
performance; (iii) making continuous improvements in the production processes
of the focus companies through cross-functional teams of the companies and the
teams of strategic suppliers with the item indirect production costs including
operational supervision of cost performance; and (iv) knowledge sharing among
teams of focus companies and strategic suppliers to reduce waste and eliminate
unnecessary activities in the processes was confirmed with the quality item
related to the durability or resistance of the products according to expected
service life.
Knowledge sharing was also related to quality
performance, delivery time, and the ability of manufacturing to strategize to
adapt and apply technology so that there is product differentiation with new
opportunities to drive radical change on a large scale, if ever using employee skills
to use different resources and competencies to develop new products.
Regarding operational customization
competence, it was observed that most companies develop proprietary products,
materials, and processes in their technology centers. Nevertheless, interviews
on the complementarity of resources showed that most companies develop their
own technologies and innovations, and some with strategic suppliers, with
emphasis on automation processes, equipment configuration in lines, cells,
modularization, and maintenance policies.
It was noticed, by analyzing the intersection
between the information reported by the interviewees and the literature, that
the aspects related to the development of proprietary technologies give
companies advantages competitions with suppliers that depend on the accumulated
knowledge of their collaborators during the customization process.
The development of competencies and skills of
employees plays a major role in maintaining and improving equipment and
processes considered unique, especially for those that are fundamental to the
business, assessed as a source of sustainable competitive advantage.
Operational customization competency showed
significant correlations with cost and flexibility performance. In the
correlation analysis, it was found that relationships occurred when focus firms
encourage teamwork to facilitate knowledge sharing and transfer between
enterprise teams and strategic supplier teams, which influenced the performance
cost, and total cost of production (includes the acquisition of raw materials,
inputs, installation, maintenance, services, and others) of the focus
companies.
In the analysis of cooperative operational
competence, it was found that, in addition to the ability of companies to share
data and information across functional areas, it was found that companies have
shared competencies with suppliers and customers in their supply chains to
leverage resources and knowledge from these external actors, including
competitors on operational and strategic matters. It was found that in the
companies studied, the existence of good relationships, both among internal
multidisciplinary teams, as well as with strategic supplier teams, results in
specific forms of supply chain management more effectively. Another finding of
the research was regarding the relationship with competitors.
The interviews revealed that various
strategic and operational information is exchanged, such as the exchange of
product-related information, new entrants, pricing, and concerns about possible
changes in the external environment. Respondents revealed that cooperation
enables the coordination of production processes and promotes the expansion of
operational capacity. Sharing information with suppliers to address
inaccuracies and uncertainties through face-to-face meetings and technology
channels on sharing information about products, volumes, and markets.
Regarding labor, this was in all cases
considered a strategic issue as it constitutes a large portion of the fixed
cost. It was realized that the value chain of companies is involved in
complexity factors that can interfere in the delivery processes of products to
customers. Thus, hierarchical levels must update and execute their action plans
with immediate communication of what has been planned to managers of higher
levels, to control the achievement of goals.
In the analysis of operational responsiveness
to market responsiveness, it was found that responsiveness is a relational
competence that companies seek to share with their suppliers and customers to
manage unforeseen issues considered crucial for supply chain performance. By
the correlation test, no significant relationships were observed between the
fast response operational competency and the evaluation of operational
performances.
Additionally, in qualitative research, we
sought to analyze the contribution of quality operational practices and product
development to the formation of operational skills for improvement,
customization, cooperation, and rapid response. The result of the correlations
showed significant relationships between the variables.
Regarding product development practice, the
result of the correlations showed significant relationships between this
practice with items of operational improvement competencies to reduce waste,
product customization, and with all items of rapid market response operational
competency and operational cooperation.
Regarding the competitive delivery
performance, in the qualitative stage, it was possible to identify that in the
studied sectors, the focus companies attach greater importance to this
performance with their strategic suppliers. In the maximum value scale of seven
points, the value of six points was attributed, being the competitive
performance that most contributes to the positioning of companies in relation
to competitors.
As for the quality of competitive
performance, this was the second competitive performance that most contributes
to companies' positioning in relation to competitors. The company in the pulp
sector was the one that attributed importance to this performance, followed by
companies in the steel, flexible tubes, and automotive applications sectors.
As for cost competitive performance, this was
the third competitive performance that contributes to companies' positioning in
relation to competitors. The company in the steel industry attributed greater
importance, followed by companies in the automotive and flexible pipe
applications and pulp sectors.
When observed the competitive performance of
flexibility, was the fourth competitive performance that contributes to the
positioning of companies in relation to competitors.
Identifying performances with values
above four points on the scale supported companies' positioning
against competitors, ranking them as excellent or much better than competitors.
Therefore, these results corroborate the works Dyer and Singh
(1998), by Wu, Choi and Rungtsunatham (2010) and Cao and Zhangh
(2011), who report that relational resources and operational competencies
developed and/or shared in collaborative relationships play an important role
in influencing supply chain operational performance.
6.
CONCLUSIONS
From a theoretical point of view, this study
contributes to filling an important gap related to the understanding of the
influence of operational process-oriented competencies on operations, on supply
chain performance. With regard to operational competencies, we present a
contribution to operations strategy researchers, who focus on points involving
operational practices and tangible resources. Thus, an important contribution
is in providing insight into which resources and which operational competencies
influence supply chain operational performance, as well as providing support
for examining the types of operational competencies that support the use of a
specific resource.
The survey applied in the chemical sector,
which aimed to verify causal relationships between relational resources and
operational competences on the operational performance of the supply chain,
allowed to evaluate the proposed research model and to test the research
hypotheses proposed in the quantitative phase, which identified the influence
of relational resource constructs and operational competencies on the
operational performance of operations management.
The investigations presented some limitations
and future opportunities. The limitations of the research relate to the
following aspects: In relation to case studies, the research was conducted in
four companies. And for this reason, even with the deepening of the knowledge
obtained, it is not possible to generalize the research to the investigated
sectors, as well as to other companies within these sectors.
Another limitation refers to the
cross-sectional character, in which the research was conducted in a single
moment in time, not allowing to verify possible changes and/or evolutions of
the companies, as a result of the evolution of their physical and non-physical
resources, operational skills and competences. Thus, given that supply chain
relationships are dynamic, further research can be conducted by adopting the
longitudinal approach. Thus, new research can apply the research instrument to
larger samples seeking greater consistency for the generalization of results.
REFERENCES
Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1993).
Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic
Management Journal, 14(1), 33-46.
Angell, L. C., & Klassen, R. D. (1999).
Integrating Environmental Issues into the Mainstream: An Agenda for Research in
Operations Management, Journal of
Operations Management, 17(5), 575-598.
Aragão, A. B., Scavarda, L. F., Hamacher, S., & Pires, S. R. I. (2004). Modelo de análise de cadeias de suprimentos: fundamentos e aplicação às cadeias de cilindros de GNV. Gestão e Produção, 11(3), 299-311.
Bardin, L. (1977). Análise de conteúdo. Lisboa: Edições 70.
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and
sustained competitive advantage. Journal
of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
Barney, J. B., & Clark, D. N. (2007). Resource-Based Theory: Creating and
Sustaining Competitive Advantage. Nova York: Oxford University Press.
Barney, J. B., & Hesterly, W. S. (2011). Administração Estratégica e
Vantagem Competitiva. 3. ed. São Paulo: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Barratt, M., Choi, T. Y., & Li, M. (2011).
Qualitative case studies in operations management: Trends, research outcomes,
and future research implications. Journal
of Operations Management, 29, 329–342.
Boyer, K. K., & Swink, M. L. (2008).
Empirical elephants—why multiple methods are essential to quality research in
operations and supply chain management. Journal
of Operations Management, 26(3), 338-344.
Bozarth, C., & Edwards, S. (1997). The
impact of market requirements focus and manufacturing characteristics focus on
plan performance. Journal of Operations
Management, 15(3), 161-80.
Cadden, T., Marshall, D., & Cao, G. (2013). Opposites attract: organizational culture
and supply chain performance. Supply Chain Management, 18(1).
Cao, M., & Zhang, Q. (2011). Supply Chain
Collaboration: Impact on Collaborative Advantage and Firm Performance. Journal of Operations Management, 29(3),
163-180.
Carter, C. R., Sanders, N. R., & Dong, Y.
(2008). Paradigms, revolutions, and tipping points: The need for using multiple
methodologies within the field of supply chain management. Journal of Operations Management, 26(6), 693-696.
Chandler, A. (1962). Strategy and Structure. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Charan, P. (2012). Supply chain performance
issues in an automobile company: a SAP-LAP analysis. Measuring Business Excellence, 16(1), 67-86.
Cleveland, J. N., Murphy, K. R., & Williams,
R. E. (1989). Multiple uses of performance appraisal: Prevalence and
correlates. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 74(1), 130-135.
Coates, T. T., & Mcdermott, C. M. (2002).
An exploratory analysis of new competencies: a resource-based view perspective.
Journal of Operations Management, 20(5), 435-450.
Collis, D. J., & Hussey, R. (2005). Pesquisa em administração: um guia prático para alunos de graduação e pós-graduação. 2. ed. Porto Alegre. Bookman.
Combs, J. G., & Ketchen Jr, D. J. (1999). Explaining interfirm cooperation and
performance: toward a reconciliation of predictions from the resource-based
view and organizational economics. Strategic
Management Journal, 20(9), 867-888.
Cooper, M. C., Lambert, D. M., & Pagh, J.
D. (1997). Supply Chain Management: More than a new name for Logistics. The
International Journal of Logistics Management, 8(1), 1-14.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Projeto de Pesquisa: Métodos Qualitativo,
Quantitativo e Misto. 2.
ed. Porto Alegre: Artmed.
Dangayach, G., & Deshmukh, S. (2001).
Manufacturing strategy: literature review and some issues. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(7),
884-932.
Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (2000). A Resource-Based Theory of Strategic Alliances. Journal of Management, 26(1), 31-61.
Davenport, T. H.
(1994). Reengenharia de Processos:
como inovar na empresa através da tecnologia de informação. 5. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Campus.
Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset
stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35(12), 1504-1511.
Droge, C., Jayaram, J., & Vickery, S. K.
(2004).: The effects of internal versus external integration practices on
time-based performance and overall firm performance. Journal of Operations Management, 22(6), 557-573.
Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The
relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of inter-organizational
competitive advantage. Academy of
Management Review, 23(4), 660-679.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories
from Case Study Research. Academy of
Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
Escrig‐Tena, A. B., & Bou‐Llusar, J. C. (2005). A model for evaluating
organizational competencies: An application in the context of a quality
management initiative. Decision Sciences,
36(2), 221-257.
Fawcett, S. E., Fawcett, A. M., Watson, B. J., &
Magnan, G. (2012). Peeking Inside the Black Box: Toward an Understanding of
Supply Chain Collaboration Dynamics. Journal
of Supply Chain Management, 48(1), 44-72.
Ferdows, K., & De Meyer, A. (1990). Lasting improvements in manufacturing
performance: in search of a new theory. Journal
of Operations Management, 9(2), 169-84.
Fine, C. H., & Hax, A. C. (1985).
Manufacturing strategy: a methodology and an illustration. Interfaces, Linthicum, 15(6), 28-46.
Flynn, B. B., Schroeder, R. G., & Flynn, E.
J. (1999). World class manufacturing: an investigation of Hayes and
Wheelwright's foundation. Journal of
Operations Management, 17(3), 249-69.
Flynn, B. B., & Flynn, E. J. (2004). An
exploratory study of the nature of cumulative capabilities. Journal of Operations Management, 22(5),
439-457.
Frohlich, M. T., & Dixon, J. R. (2001). A
Taxonomy of Manufacturing Strategies Revisited. Journal of Operations Management, 19(5), 541-558.
Frohlich, M. T., & Westbrook, R. (2002).
Demand chain management in manufacturing and services: web-based drives and
performances. Journal of Operations
Management, 20(62), 729-745.
Godoy, C. K., & Balsini, C. P. V. (2006). A pesquisa qualitativa nos estudos organizacionais brasileiros: uma análise bibliométrica. In: GODOY, C. K., BANDEIRA-De-Mello, R., Silva, A. B. (Orgs.). Pesquisa qualitativa em estudos organizacionais: paradigmas, estratégias e métodos. São Paulo: Saraiva, 89-112.
Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory
of competitive advantage: implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33(3), 114-135.
Green, J. R., Kenneth, W., Mcgaughey, R., &
Casey, K. M. (2006). Does supply chain management strategy mediate the
association between market orientation and organizational performance? Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, 11(5), 407-414.
Gresswell, T., Childe, S., & Maull, R.
(1998). Three manufacturing strategy archetypes – a framework for the aerospace
industry, In: Bititci, U., & Carrie, A (Eds). Strategic Manufacturing of the Maning Value Chain, Kluwer,
Dordrecht, 53-61.
Gunasekaran, A., & Kobu, B. (2007).
Performance measures and metrics in logistics and supply chain management: a
review of recent literature (1995-2004). for research and applications. International Journal of Production
Research, 45(12), 2819-2840.
Hair Jr. J. F., William, B., Babin, B., & Anderson,
R. E. (2009). Análise
multivariada de dados. 6. ed. Porto Alegre: Bookman.
Hayes, R. H., Pisano, G. P., Upton, D. M., &
Wheelwright, S. C. (2008). Produção, Estratégia e Tecnologia: em busca da
vantagem competitiva. 2. ed. Porto Alegre: Bookman.
Hayes, R., & Pisano, G. P. (1996). Manufacturing
strategy: at the intersection of two paradigm shifts. Production and Operations Management, 5(1), 25-41.
Hayes, R. H., & Wheelwright, S. C. (1984). Restoring our Competitive Edge:
Competing through Manufacturing. New York: Wiley.
Hill, T. J. (1997). Manufacturing strategy –
keeping it relevant by addressing the needs of the market. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 8(5), 257-264.
Ingham, H., & Thompson, S. (1994).
Wholly-owned versus collaborative ventures for diversifying financial services.
Strategic Management Journal, 15(4),
325-334.
Jiménez, J. B., & Lorente, J. J. C. (2001). Environmental performance as an operations
objective. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, 21(12), 1553-1572.
Kumar, G., & Baberjee, R. N. (2012). An
implementation strategy for collaboration in supply chain: an investigation and
suggestions. International Journal of
Services and Operations Management, 11(4), 407-27.
Lambert, D. M., García-Dastugue, S. J., &
Croxton, K. L. (2005). An evaluation of process-oriented supply chain
management frameworks. Journal of
Business Logistics, 26(1), 25-51.
Lambert, D. M., & Cooper, M. C. (2000).
Issues in supply chain management. Industrial
marketing management, 29(1), 65-83.
Lambert, D. M., Cooper, M. C., & Pagh, J.
D. (1998). Supply chain management: implementation issues and research
opportunities. The International Journal
of Logistics Management, 9(8), 1-19.
Lavie, D. (2006). The competitive advantage of
interconnected firms: an extension of the resource-based view. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 638-658.
Lee, H. L., & Billington, C. (1992). Managing
supply chain inventory - pitfalls and opportunities. Sloan Management Review, 33(3), 65-73.
Leemis, L. M., & Trivedi, K. S. (1996). A
comparison of approximate interval estimators for the Bernoulli parameter. The American Statistician, 50(1), 63-68.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core Capabilities
and Core Rigidities: A Paradox in Managing New Product Development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 111-125.
Malhotra, M. K., & Grover, V. (1998). An assessment of survey research in POM: from
constructs to theory. Journal of
operations management, 16(4), 407-425.
Mangan, J., Lalwani, C., & Gardner, B.
(2004). Combining quantitative and qualitative methodologies in logistics
research. International journal of
physical distribution & logistics management, 34(7), 565-578.
Mentzer, J. T., Dewitt, W., Keebler, J. S.,
Min, S., Nix, N. W., & Smith, C. D. (2001). Defining Supply Chain
Management. Journal of Business
Logistics, 22(2), 2-25.
Meredith, J. (1998). Building Operations
Management Theory Through Case and Field Research. Journal of Operations Management, 16(4), 441-54.
Mesquita, L. F., Anand, J., & Brush, T. H.
(2008). Comparing the resource-based and relational views: knowledge transfer
and spillover in vertical alliances. Strategic
Management Journal, 29(9), 913-941.
Miguel, P. A. C., & Ho, L. L. (2010). Levantamento Tipo Survey. In: Metodologia de pesquisa em engenharia de produção e gestão de operações. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier.
Narasimhan, R.,
Swink, M., & Kim, S. W. (2005). An exploratory study of manufacturing practice and performance
interrelationships: Implications for capability progression. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 25(9/10), 1013-1033.
Neely, A. D. (1999). The performance
measurement revolution: why now and where next. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 19(2),
205-28.
Neely, A., Gregory, M., & Platts, K. (2005).
Performance measurement system design. A literature review and research agenda.
International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, 25(12), 1228-1263.
Pagell, M., Wu, Z., & Wasserman, M. E.
(2010). Thinking differently about purchasing portfolios: An assessment of
sustainable sourcing. Journal of Supply
Chain Management, 46(1), 57-73.
Paiva, E. L., Carvalho Jr., J. M., & Fensterseifer, J. E. (2009). Estratégia de Produção e Operações: conceitos, melhores práticas, visão de futuro. 2. ed. Porto Alegre: Bookman.
Paiva, E. L. (2017). Coevolução e competências operacionais: visão presente e oportunidades de pesquisas futuras. Revista Alcance, 24(2), 164-174.
Pandza, K., Polajnar, A., Buchmeister, B.,
& Thorpe, R. (2003). Evolutionary perspectives on the capabilities
accumulation process. International
Journal of Operations and Production Management, 23(7/8), 822-849.
Parmigiani, A., Klassen, R. D., & Russo, M.
V. (2011). Efficiency meets accountability: Performance implications of supply
chain configuration, control, and capabilities. Journal of Operations Management, 29, n 3), 212-223.
Paulraj, A. (2011). Understanding the
relationships between internal resources and capabilities, sustainable supply
management and organizational sustainability. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 47(1), 71-89.
Peng, D. X., Schroeder, R. G., & Shah, R.
(2008). Linking routines to operations
capabilities: a new perspective. Journal
of Operations Management, 26(6), 730-748.
Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The Cornerstones of
Competitive Advantage: A Resource-based View. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179-191.
Pires, S. R. I. (2004). Gestão da cadeia de suprimentos: conceitos, estratégias, práticas e casos. 1. ed. São Paulo: Atlas.
Prajogo, D. I.,
Mcdermott, P., & Goh, M. (2008). Impact of value chain activities on quality and innovation. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 28(7), 615-35.
Rosenzweig, E. D., Roth, A. V., & Dean, J.
W. J. (2003). The influence of an integration strategy on competitive
capabilities and business performance: an exploratory study of consumer
products manufacturers. Journal of
Operations Management, 21(4), 437-456.
Roth, A. V., & Miller, J. G. (1992).
Success Factors in Manufacturing. Business
Horizons, 35(4), 73-81.
Rumelt, D. P. (1984). Towards a Strategic
Theory of the Firm. Alternative theories of the firm. In: LAMB, R. (Ed.). Competitive Strategic Management.
Englewood Cliffs. New Jersey; Prentice-Hall.
Schreyogg, G., & Kliesch-Eberl, M. (2007).
How Dynamic Can Organizational Capabilities Be? Towards a Dual-Process Model of
Capability Dynamization. Strategic
Management Journal, 28(9), 913-933.
Schroeder, R. G., Bates, K. A., & Junttila,
M. A. (2002). A Resource-Based View of Manufacturing Strategy and the
Relationship to Manufacturing Performance. Strategic
Management Journal, 23(2), 105-117.
Skinner, W. (1969). Manufacturing - Missing
link in corporate strategy. Harvard
Business Review, 47(3), 136-145.
Swamidass, P. M., & Newell, W. T. (1987).
Manufacturing strategy, environmental uncertainty and performance: a path
analytic model. Management Science, 33(4),
509-524.
Swink, M., & Hegarty, W. H. (1998). Core
manufacturing capabilities and their links to product differentiation.
International. Journal of Operations and
Production Management, 18(4), 374-396.
Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.
Tracey, M., Vonderembse, M. A., & Lim, J-S. (1999). Manufacturing technology and strategy
formulation: Keys to enhancing competitiveness and improving performance. Journal of Operations Management, 17(4),
411-428.
Upton, D. M. (1994). The management of
manufacturing flexibility. California
Management Review, 36(2), 72-89.
Vaidya, O., & Hudnurkar, M. (2013).
Multi-criteria supply chain performance evaluation: An Indian chemical industry
case study. International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, 62(3), 293-316.
Vasconcelos, F. C. A., & Cyrino, A. B. (2000). Vantagem Competitiva: os modelos teóricos atuais e a convergência entre estratégia e teoria organizacional. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 40(4), 20-37.
Vickery, S. K., Droge, C., & Markland, R.
R. (1993). Production competence and business strategy: Do they affect business
performance? Decision Sciences, 24(2),
435-456.
Vickery, S., Droge, C., & Markland, R. E.
(1997). Dimensions of manufacturing: strength in the furniture industry. Journal of Operations Management, 15(4),
317-330.
Voss, A. C. (1995). Alternative paradigms for
manufacturing strategy. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 15(4), 5-16.
Ward, P. T., Leong, G. K., & Boyer, K. K.
(1994). Manufacturing proactiveness and performance. Decision Sciences, 25(3), 337-58.
Wheelwright, S. C. (1984). Manufacturing
strategy: defining the missing link. Strategic
Management Journal, 5(1), 77-91.
Wheelwright, S. C., & Hayes, R. H. (1985).
Competing through manufacturing. Harvard
Business Review, 63(1), 99-109.
Wu, S. J., Melnyk, S. A., & Swink, M. (2012).
An empirical investigation of the combinatorial nature of operational practices
and operational capabilities: Compensatory or additive? International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 32(2),
121-155.
Wu, Z., Choi, T. Y., & Rungtsunatham, M. J.
(2010). Supplier-supplier relationships in buyer-supplier-supplier triads:
implications for supplier performance. Journal of Operations Management, 28(2), 87-176.
Yin, R. K. (2010). Estudo de Caso: planejamento e métodos. 4. ed. Porto Alegre: Bookman.
Zacharia, Z. G.,
Nix, N. W., & Lusch, R. F. (2011). Capabilities that enhance outcomes
of an episodic supply chain collaboration. Journal of Operations Management, 29(6), 591-603.
Zatta, F. N. (2015). Uma análise da influência dos Recursos Relacionais sobre as
Competências Operacionais: estudo multicasos. Tese de
doutorado, Universidade Metodista de Piracicaba, Santa Bárbara d´Oeste, SP,
Brasil.