مقاله انگلیسی رایگان در مورد ظرفیت حساس سازی، تفکر و جذب در خرید پیچیده – الزویر 2018

This study explores and describes i) the nature of knowledge exchange processes at the frontline employee (FLE) level and ii) how FLE sensemaking processes affect buyer firm knowledge management practices in complex procurement contexts. The study utilizes an in-depth case analysis in the mining industry to identify a taxonomy of four buyer sensemaking investment/supplier collaboration profiles, to describe three sensegiving supplier roles (“confidence builders”, “competent collaborators”, and “problem-solvers”) and to explore how these evolve during complex procurement implementation. The study concludes with a conceptual model of the apparent linkages between sensemaking, sensegiving and buyer firm absorptive capacity in complex procurements. This study shows how micro-level (FLE) interactions influence macro-level knowledge integration (absorptive capacity) in the buyer firm. For managers, the study shows how the allocation of time and resources affects FLElevel knowledge exchange, with ultimate effect on buyer firm absorptive capacity.

Introduction

Complex procurements involve the acquisition and integration of technically sophisticated products and services (Brown and Jones, 1998; Chen, Law, and Yang, 2009). Common in industries such as mining, construction, manufacturing, information technology and infrastructure, the buyer firm generally seeks overall improvements in their capabilities from complex procurements (Brady, Davies, and Gann, 2005; Flowers, 2004, 2007). Many of these outcomes rely on interactions between highly skilled frontline employees (FLEs) acting on behalf of exchange partners. These interactions aid in knowledge transmission and creation and, ultimately, produce the innovations, the creativity and the adaptability necessary to ensure successful outcomes (Andersen, Kragh, and Lettl, 2013; Levin, Thaichon, and Quach, 2016). In many cases, however, knowledge exchange processes are either unsuccessful or only partially successful (Reich, 2007; Shore, 2008). The persistence of these outcomes has led to speculation as to the causes of ineffective knowledge exchange in complex procurements (Reich, 2007; Shore, 2008). Previous studies suggest that FLEs are more likely to share knowledge if they have sufficient motivation, skills and experience (Cadwallader, Jarvis, Bitner, and Ostrom, 2010; Wang, Wang, Long, Hou, and Ching, 2015). However, it is necessary for the behaviors of FLEs on both sides of the buyer-supplier dyad to complement each another (Brach, Walsh, Hennig-Thurau, and Groth, 2015). This can be difficult if FLEs have strong psychological associations with their own firms (Korschun, 2015), and if the culture of the firm is not conducive to knowledge sharing (Grabher, 2004). Complementarity is also important at the inter-firm level. Resource and systems compatibilities are necessary for productive inter-firm knowledge exchange (Ho and Ganesan, 2013; Vanpoucke, Vereecke, and Boyer, 2014; Vargo, Maglio, and Akaka, 2008). Despite acknowledgement that both micro and macro level dynamics are important, few studies consider the interactions between these levels of analysis, particularly for complex procurement scenarios (Lewin, Massini, and Peeters, 2011; Mattsson, Corsaro, and Ramos, 2015; Robertson, Scarbrough, Swan, and Scarbrough, 2003). The central purpose of this study is to understand how FLE cognition affects task-related learning in complex procurement contexts and, as such, the study responds to calls for research in this area (Henneberg, Naudé, and Mouzas, 2010; Mattsson et al., 2015). The findings begin with a taxonomy of FLE profiles according to buyer firm sensemaking investment (i.e. allocations of time, effort and resources towards interpreting supplier information) and supplier collaboration approach. In this, we argue that complexity affects sensemaking activities relative to the degree of buyer-supplier engagement at the dyadic level. These findings extend the view that social integration mechanisms allow development of shared meanings (Peters, Pressey, and Johnston, 2016) by identifying two sorts of “levers” available to partner firms – buyer sensemaking investments and supplier collaboration approach – and by describing the implications of four different combinations of these mechanisms.