- Email: [email protected]
Commentary on leveraging knowledge based resources: The role of contracts
Journal of Business Research 65 (2012) 162–163
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Business Research
Commentary on leveraging knowledge based resources: The role of contracts Carl Johan Hatteland ⁎ Oslo Havn KF, Postbok 230 Sentrum, N-0103 Oslo, Norway
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 1 July 2009 Received in revised form 1 June 2010 Accepted 1 November 2010 Keywords: Leverage Knowledge Contracts Models
a b s t r a c t The commentary first discusses the main argument of Mouzas and Ford. The commentary then addresses how contracts can be understood in business networks by relating the concept to the three main IMP models. The conclusion is that the article is an important step in linking ideas of business contracts and resource interaction in relational settings. Mouzas and Ford examine how contracts are used to leverage knowledge based resources through interaction with other idiosyncratically capable firms. In particular, they empirically investigate the use of umbrella contracts as manifestations of joint consent in manufacturer — retailer relationships as a specific form of contract for this purpose. The authors take an industrial networks perspective, making (forms of) contracts resources within a relational, interactive frame of exchange. This in itself is valuable, as contracts in an industrial networks perspective may easily be viewed as one out of many contextual parameters to transactions carried out within business relationships. There are three general models or frameworks in IMP that may be used to analyse the role of contracts within an interactive and relational frame of exchange. These are the interaction model (Håkansson, 1982), the actors–resources– activities (ARA) model (Håkansson & Snehota, 1995) and the 4 resource model (Håkansson & Håkansson and Waluszewski, 2002). © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Contracts are viewable as one out many contextual parameters in relation to the first IMP model — the interaction model. In relation to the second model, the ARA model, contracts could (and often would) remain in the context of interaction, providing an indirect impetus to interaction. Contracts could also, however, be studied in terms of the layers of substance; that is, how contracts influence interaction at the relationship and network level through changes in the actor, resource and activity layers on one or both sides of a business relationship. Finally, in relation to the third model, contracts may be studied as a resource in itself, where the combination and interaction with other resource elements shape the features of the resource. Mouzas and Ford, although not explicitly or specifically addressing any model in particular, makes a general contribution to the understanding of the role of contracts in business relationships, of how to study this role, and also of how to address contracts as resources in their own right with the capacity to enable and constrain interaction. However, they also encounter the challenge of underpinning how interaction changes as a result of (umbrella) contracts, or to show how introducing a new resource into existing resource combinations cause substantive organisational or technical changes in resource interfaces. The article largely makes umbrella contracts fall into the rather large and
⁎ Tel.: + 47 46 82 76 93. E-mail address: [email protected]. 0148-2963/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.05.016
unspecified category of contextual factors (external to the relationship) that influence business relationships; here by leveraging knowledge based resources. The authors do not feed on or contribute to any model in particular, but rather to the more general understanding of how knowledge as a resource is leveraged through contracts. It is more difficult to see, however, what is particularly relational about these contracts, or how the substance of business relationships is interactively shaped by umbrella contracts. The article also triggers many questions, such as: Are contracts required to set up the described resource interfaces, or can they be organised by more informal channels? Is the contractual form specific to this or a particular kind of industry, or do umbrella contracts apply across industries? Is it central that what is characteristic for both parties is that neither have relationships with an end user base (consumers in this case) that is shared, and not an industrial buyer/supplier which is not shared? Is there anything imbued in this contractual arrangement that makes the specific relationship increasingly exclusive and dedicated, or is it an industry standard? Furthermore, how can umbrella contracts facilitate and enable an actor to access and/or use the knowledge and expertise of counterparts, thereby acquiring value as a resource in itself? The authors argue “that inter-firm knowledge is not what companies learn cognitively, but the indeterminate outcome of complex interactions over recursive time based on an agreed set of rules and principles.” Umbrella contracts are one contract form by which some companies attempt to establish an explicit platform of joint relational understanding, consent, or even better, intent, over the access and use of counterparts' expertise and
C.J. Hatteland / Journal of Business Research 65 (2012) 162–163
knowledge. The extent and scope of mutuality in these contracts may, however, prevent counterparts from engaging in other relationships, acting as focal points that may contribute to set some boundaries to productively cope with the complexity of interaction in the business landscape. Whereas Mouzas and Ford do what they set out to and promise to do, what is less clear is whether umbrella contracts in reality are not primarily about expressing joint consent to share information about a range of products leading to the development of resource interfaces, but instead for swapping information in return for discounts. However, the authors provide new and valuable insight into the role of contracts in business relationships in general, and for leveraging knowledge based resources in particular. In that sense they raise new questions that
163
require new knowledge provided in new ways. Nevertheless, there is also a need to more specifically build and connect this knowledge to existing models in order to systematically and incrementally structure it. References Håkansson H. International marketing and purchasing of industrial goods: an interaction approach. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd; 1982. Håkansson H, Snehota I. Developing relationships in business networks. London: Routledge; 1995. Håkansson H, Waluszewski A. Managing technological development: IKEA, the environment and technology. London: Routledge; 2002.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Business Research
Commentary on leveraging knowledge based resources: The role of contracts Carl Johan Hatteland ⁎ Oslo Havn KF, Postbok 230 Sentrum, N-0103 Oslo, Norway
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 1 July 2009 Received in revised form 1 June 2010 Accepted 1 November 2010 Keywords: Leverage Knowledge Contracts Models
a b s t r a c t The commentary first discusses the main argument of Mouzas and Ford. The commentary then addresses how contracts can be understood in business networks by relating the concept to the three main IMP models. The conclusion is that the article is an important step in linking ideas of business contracts and resource interaction in relational settings. Mouzas and Ford examine how contracts are used to leverage knowledge based resources through interaction with other idiosyncratically capable firms. In particular, they empirically investigate the use of umbrella contracts as manifestations of joint consent in manufacturer — retailer relationships as a specific form of contract for this purpose. The authors take an industrial networks perspective, making (forms of) contracts resources within a relational, interactive frame of exchange. This in itself is valuable, as contracts in an industrial networks perspective may easily be viewed as one out of many contextual parameters to transactions carried out within business relationships. There are three general models or frameworks in IMP that may be used to analyse the role of contracts within an interactive and relational frame of exchange. These are the interaction model (Håkansson, 1982), the actors–resources– activities (ARA) model (Håkansson & Snehota, 1995) and the 4 resource model (Håkansson & Håkansson and Waluszewski, 2002). © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Contracts are viewable as one out many contextual parameters in relation to the first IMP model — the interaction model. In relation to the second model, the ARA model, contracts could (and often would) remain in the context of interaction, providing an indirect impetus to interaction. Contracts could also, however, be studied in terms of the layers of substance; that is, how contracts influence interaction at the relationship and network level through changes in the actor, resource and activity layers on one or both sides of a business relationship. Finally, in relation to the third model, contracts may be studied as a resource in itself, where the combination and interaction with other resource elements shape the features of the resource. Mouzas and Ford, although not explicitly or specifically addressing any model in particular, makes a general contribution to the understanding of the role of contracts in business relationships, of how to study this role, and also of how to address contracts as resources in their own right with the capacity to enable and constrain interaction. However, they also encounter the challenge of underpinning how interaction changes as a result of (umbrella) contracts, or to show how introducing a new resource into existing resource combinations cause substantive organisational or technical changes in resource interfaces. The article largely makes umbrella contracts fall into the rather large and
⁎ Tel.: + 47 46 82 76 93. E-mail address: [email protected]. 0148-2963/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.05.016
unspecified category of contextual factors (external to the relationship) that influence business relationships; here by leveraging knowledge based resources. The authors do not feed on or contribute to any model in particular, but rather to the more general understanding of how knowledge as a resource is leveraged through contracts. It is more difficult to see, however, what is particularly relational about these contracts, or how the substance of business relationships is interactively shaped by umbrella contracts. The article also triggers many questions, such as: Are contracts required to set up the described resource interfaces, or can they be organised by more informal channels? Is the contractual form specific to this or a particular kind of industry, or do umbrella contracts apply across industries? Is it central that what is characteristic for both parties is that neither have relationships with an end user base (consumers in this case) that is shared, and not an industrial buyer/supplier which is not shared? Is there anything imbued in this contractual arrangement that makes the specific relationship increasingly exclusive and dedicated, or is it an industry standard? Furthermore, how can umbrella contracts facilitate and enable an actor to access and/or use the knowledge and expertise of counterparts, thereby acquiring value as a resource in itself? The authors argue “that inter-firm knowledge is not what companies learn cognitively, but the indeterminate outcome of complex interactions over recursive time based on an agreed set of rules and principles.” Umbrella contracts are one contract form by which some companies attempt to establish an explicit platform of joint relational understanding, consent, or even better, intent, over the access and use of counterparts' expertise and
C.J. Hatteland / Journal of Business Research 65 (2012) 162–163
knowledge. The extent and scope of mutuality in these contracts may, however, prevent counterparts from engaging in other relationships, acting as focal points that may contribute to set some boundaries to productively cope with the complexity of interaction in the business landscape. Whereas Mouzas and Ford do what they set out to and promise to do, what is less clear is whether umbrella contracts in reality are not primarily about expressing joint consent to share information about a range of products leading to the development of resource interfaces, but instead for swapping information in return for discounts. However, the authors provide new and valuable insight into the role of contracts in business relationships in general, and for leveraging knowledge based resources in particular. In that sense they raise new questions that
163
require new knowledge provided in new ways. Nevertheless, there is also a need to more specifically build and connect this knowledge to existing models in order to systematically and incrementally structure it. References Håkansson H. International marketing and purchasing of industrial goods: an interaction approach. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd; 1982. Håkansson H, Snehota I. Developing relationships in business networks. London: Routledge; 1995. Håkansson H, Waluszewski A. Managing technological development: IKEA, the environment and technology. London: Routledge; 2002.