Partnership versus Transactional Exchange Relationships: A Degrees of Freedom Analysis using Case Data
PARTNERSHIP VERSUS TRANSACTIONAL EXCHANGERELATIONSHIPS:
A DEGREES OF FREEDOM ANALYSIS USING CASE DATA
Elizabeth J. WilsonLouisiana State UniversityUnited States of America
Richard P. VloskyLouisiana State UniversityUnited States of America
Renee FontenotLouisiana State UniversityUnited States of America
ABSTRACT
There is growing realization that companies need to form cooperative relationships with other firms in order to assure their own competitiveness in an industry (e.g., Kalwani and Narayandas 1995; Morgan and Hunt 1994; Narus and Anderson 1987). Cooperation may be expressed in various ways (resource sharing, communication, flexibility, etc.) and the long-term outcome for a cooperative relationship is the endurance of a partnership or alliance between firms. Many firms (e.g., Xerox, Motorola, Ford) are realizing that partnerships with customers, suppliers, distributors, etc. are a means of establishing competitive advantage (Emshwiller 1991). An understanding of the specific activities associated with successful partnerships will advance our ability to cultivate, manage, and sustain these relationship forms and thus, to gain competitive advantage over the long-term.
Our purpose in this research is to explore specific elements and activities of successful partnerships. To accomplish this, we
12th IMP Conference 1505
Elizabeth J. Wilson, Richard P. Vlosky, and Renee Fontenot
explore, in-depth, both partnership and "traditional," or transactional, relationships for distributors and their manufacturing principals in the wood products industry. Using a "degrees of freedom" method (Campbell 1975), case data is examined to specify key partnership elements and contrast proactive partnering relationships with traditional relationships (which tend to be adversarial in nature).
The contributions of this research are twofold. First, we develop a grounded theory of partnership structure using case data. This theory is then empirically examined to determine commonalities and variances between partner and transactional relationships. Second, we offer detailed information about specific activities that contribute to successful partnerships between manufacturers and their distributors. An understanding of these activities may help practitioners facilitate the development and implementation of partnerships for competitive advantage.
At this time, data collection is completed; data analysis and manuscript preparation are in progress. In the remainder of this Abstract, details are provided on three topics: background information on partnerships from the literature; the "degrees of freedom" approach for developing a grounded theory of partnership structure; and our research method (sample, questionnaire development, validity, etc.).
BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS PARTNERSHIPS
Partnerships are defined as purposive strategic relationships between independent firms who share compatible goals, strive for mutual benefit, and acknowledge a high level of mutual interdependence. Firms join into partnerships for the purpose of achieving goals that individually firms could not attain easily. These alliances and partnerships are motivated primarily to gain competitive advantage in the marketplace (Mohr and Spekman 1994).
Effort and commitment to the relationship are prerequisites to partnership success. Communication and coordination are also
1506 University of Karlsruhe
Partnership versus Transactional Exchange Relationships: A Degrees of Freedom Analysis using Case Data
critical partnership elements. On the other side of the equation, alliance failure is often attributable to a partner's unconfirmed expectations of what the alliance was to accomplish or the requirements necessary to make the alliance work (Spekman and Sawhney 1990). Partnering requires flexibility and consideration must be given to both the form of the cooperative activities and the exchanges between firms (Stafford 1992). In addition, these activities are unique to each partnering experience.
Partnerships may be horizontal, i.e. between suppliers, or vertical (between suppliers and buyers). In this study, vertical partnerships between manufacturers and distributors, are examined. From the literature, we know that cooperative behaviors characteristic of partnerships include long-term purchasing agreements, joint marketing programs, shared research and development programs and equity-based relationships. The ultimate goal is to develop strategic advantage by pooling resources, gaining access to markets and/or technical information, leveraging of complementary strengths, and achieving economies of scale.
DEVELOPMENT OF A GROUNDED THEORY OF PARTNERSHIP STRUCTURE
Our research purpose is to identify the specific activities that are inherent in successful partnerships as opposed to transactional exchanges between firms. Much has been written on the constructs that are associated with cooperative behavior and partnership development (e.g., commitment, trust, power, communication, etc.). However, there is a lack of research to document specific activities that will, over time, foster these latent conditions. Thus, our study is inductive in nature and positioned at the "workbench" level. We do not seek to develop the "grand theory" of relational partnerships but we do hope to offer a modest contribution about activities that contribute to the presence unobservable theoretical constructs over time.
Development of grounded theory calls for an inductive approach
12th IMP Conference 1507
Elizabeth J. Wilson, Richard P. Vlosky, and Renee Fontenot
where researchers study a phenomenon in-depth in order to make generalizations. We use case data to establish patterns from which our theory development proceeds.
A DEGREES OF FREEDOM APPROACH
In statistics, "degrees of freedom" are related to the number of parameters being estimated for a test of a model. Campbell (1975) maintains that a researcher can test hypotheses about some phenomenon using observational (case) data by matching expectations (parameters) to the observed outcome. In the context of the present study, partnering relationships are necessarily associated with different types of activities between firms compared to traditional transactional relationships. Thus, we can say that different patterns of events occur and are associated with partnerships compared to transactional encounters between firms. We can construct an "expected" pattern of activities for partnerships and a second expected pattern of activities for transactional relationships.
In a case study done by an alert social scientist who has thorough local acquaintance, the theory he uses to explain the focal difference also generates predictions or expectations on dozens of other aspects of the culture, and he does not retain the theory unless most of these are also confirmed. In some sense, he has tested the theory with degrees of freedom [emphasis added] coming from the multiple implications of any one theory. The process is a kind of pattern-matching in which there are many aspects of the pattern demanded by theory that are available for matching with his observations on the local setting. (Campbell 1979, pp. 181-182).
So, by developing patterns (a prediction matrix), we are building competing explanations/models of buyer-seller behavior. A crucial test (Carlsmith, Ellsworth, and Aronson 1976) can be made by noting the relative "fit" of competing models using a simple chi-square comparison of hits and misses.
Campbell's (1975) "degrees of freedom" approach has been used
1508 University of Karlsruhe
Partnership versus Transactional Exchange Relationships: A Degrees of Freedom Analysis using Case Data
by Dean (1986) and Wilson and Wilson (1987). In both of these studies, case data were used to note the relative fits of four competing theories of organizational decision-making (the Rational Model; Bounded Rationality Model; Political Process Model; Garbage Can Model). Both found that the bounded rationality model tended to have a better fit to the data compared to the other theories. These two field research applications of theory testing using degrees of freedom and case data represent important steps in development of an applied epistemology -- an integration of qualitative and quantitative knowing.
The prediction matrix for a model of a partnering relationship and a transactional relationship are shown in the exhibit. Questions for each element in the matrix were included in the questionnaire so that we could obtain a pattern of results for each activity. Our predictions are in terms of the presence or absence of supplier-distributor activities in most cases. For example, we expect partnering firms to engage in joint planning and marketing programs. Firms in a transactional relationship are not expected to conduct these activities. We do not expect the case data to be "clean" in that all predictions are confirmed for each type of pattern. Some partnership relationships may contain activities that would be expected in the transaction relationship and vice-versa. However, we expect the partnership activities to be confirmed by the partnership supplier in more cases that one would expect by chance alone. Similarly, we expect the transactional activities to be present for transactional suppliers in more cases than would be expected by chance.
12th IMP Conference 1509
EX
HIB
IT:
PR
ED
ICT
ION
MA
TR
IX F
OR
PA
RT
NE
RS
HIP
MO
DE
L A
ND
TR
AN
SAC
TIO
NA
L M
OD
EL
Maj
or I
ssue
Sup
plie
r C
hara
cter
istic
s
Pro
gram
s
Pric
ing
Logi
stic
s
Dea
ler
Pro
mot
ion
Indi
cato
r
Sup
plie
r na
me
Sup
plie
r si
ze
Sup
plie
r sh
are
Dev
elop
men
t of
new
pro
duct
or
serv
ice
prog
ram
s?
Join
t pr
ogra
ms
to m
arke
t m
fgrs
pro
duct
s?
Invo
lvem
ent
In p
rodu
ct d
elet
ion
deci
sion
s?
Offe
r tra
de d
isco
unts
?
Spe
cial
pric
ing
prob
lem
s?
Cla
im
polic
y?
Pay
men
t te
rms?
Typi
cal
ship
men
t si
ze?
JIT
Inve
ntor
y m
anag
emen
t?
Met
hod
of t
rans
porta
tion
FOB
mill
or
FOB
del
iver
ed?
Sup
plie
r fe
atur
ed i
n pr
omot
iona
l lit
erat
ure?
Que
stio
n
7 8 9 1a 1b 1c 2a 2b 2c 2d 3a 3b 3c 3d 4a
Par
tner
ship
S
uppl
ier Y
es Yes
Yes
Mor
e ge
nero
us
than
nor
mal
No
Bet
ter
than
ind
ustry
no
rm
Bet
ter
than
ind
ustry
no
rm
LTL
acco
mm
odat
ed
Yes
Truc
k or
oth
er
optio
ns
FOB
Mill
Yes
tran
sact
ions
! S
uppl
ier N
o
No No
Indu
stry
nor
m o
nly
Yes
Indu
stry
nor
m
Indu
stry
nor
m
Full
truck
loa
d re
quire
d
No
Truc
k on
ly
FOB
Del
iver
ed
No
Maj
or I
ssue
Dea
ler
pro
mo
tion
Ad
vert
isin
g
Sal
es F
orce
Act
iviti
es
Mar
ketin
g P
lann
ing
Per
form
ance
Rev
iew
s
Man
ufac
turin
g
Com
mun
icat
ion
Indic
ato
r
Sha
ring
of c
usto
mer
lis
ts w
ith s
uppl
ier?
Sal
es v
olum
e in
cent
ives
offe
red
by s
uppl
ier?
Co-
op a
dver
tisin
g?
Join
t sa
les
trai
ning
?
Join
t sa
les
calls
to
dist
ribut
ors
cust
omer
s?
Join
t pe
rfor
man
ce r
evie
ws
of s
uppl
iers
sal
es
forc
e?
Join
t pe
rfor
man
ce r
evie
ws
of d
istr
ibut
ors
sale
s fo
rce?
Join
t cu
stom
er l
ead
deve
lopm
ent
for
dist
ribut
or?
Con
duct
joi
nt m
arke
ting
plan
ning
with
sup
plie
r?
Doe
s su
pplie
r re
ques
t a
writ
ten
mar
ketin
g pl
an?
Con
duct
ann
ual
perf
orm
ance
rev
iew
s w
ith t
he
supp
lier?
Doe
s su
pplie
r co
nfig
ure
ship
men
ts t
o yo
ur s
pecs
?
Doe
s su
pplie
r us
e/of
fer
UP
C
Bar
cod
ing?
Doe
s su
pplie
r m
anuf
actu
re p
rodu
cts
to y
our
spec
s?
Doe
s su
pplie
r of
fer
spec
ial
pack
agin
g se
rvic
es?
Doe
s di
strib
utor
vis
it su
pplie
r?
Que
stio
n
4b 4c 5a 6a 6b 6c
6d 6e 7a 7b 8a 9a 9b 9c 9d 10a
Pa
rtn
ers
hip
S
up
plie
r Yes
Bet
ter
than
ind
ustr
y no
rm
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Tra
nsa
ctio
nal
Su
pp
lier N
o
Indu
stry
nor
m
No
Littl
e to
non
e
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Maj
or I
ssue
Com
mun
icat
ion
Info
rmat
ion
Exc
hang
e
Indi
cato
r
Doe
s su
pplie
r vi
sit
dist
ribut
or?
See
k ou
t su
pplie
r at t
rade
show
s or
ass
ocia
tion
mee
tings
?
Doe
s su
pplie
r ha
ve a
cces
s to
dis
tribu
tor's
co
mpu
ter
files
Doe
s di
strib
utor
hav
e ac
cess
to
supp
lier's
co
mpu
ter
files
Face
-to-fa
ce
com
mun
icat
ion
frequ
ency
Tele
phon
e co
mm
unic
atio
n fre
quen
cy
Ele
ctro
nic
com
mun
icat
ion
freq
uenc
y
Whi
ch d
epar
tmen
t m
ostly
com
mun
icat
es w
ith
supp
lier?
Oth
er d
epar
tmen
ts t
hat
com
mun
icat
e w
ith
supp
lier?
Use
of
EDI
betw
een
supp
lier
and
dist
ribut
or?
Que
stio
n
10b
10c
11a
11b
11c
11d
11e
11f
119
11h
Par
tner
ship
S
uppl
ier Y
es
Yes
Yes Ye
s
Mul
tiple
tim
es p
er
wee
k
Mul
tiple
tim
es p
er
day
Mul
tiple
tim
es p
er
day
Mul
tiple
de
partm
ents
Mul
tiple
de
partm
ents
Yes
Tra
nsac
tiona
l S
uppl
ier
No
No No
No
Less
tha
n on
ce p
er
wee
k
Onc
e pe
r da
y or
less
Onc
e pe
r da
y or
less
Pur
chas
ing
Sen
ior
man
agem
ent
No
Partnership versus Transactional Exchange Relationships: A Degrees of Freedom Analysis using Case Data
METHOD
We examine both "partnership" and "transactional" relationships between distributors and manufacturing principals in the wood products industry. In this marketplace, the distribution intermediary has been often vilified as an unnecessary step in marketing channels that reduces profitability for manufacturers and retailers alike. One often hears of a corporate goal to "cut out the middleman" (Vlosky 1995). Thus, one source of competitive advantage for distribution intermediaries is the development of value-added partnerships with suppliers and customers (Vlosky 1995). A listing of the top 126 (by sales) building materials distributors in North America was used to recruit distributors for participation in the study.
Questionnaire Development. Based on the literature, an extensive list of topics and questions were generated by the authors. This list was reviewed and revised by the authors and a senior executive at a large wood products manufacturing firm. From this we developed the prediction matrix shown in the Exhibit. Questionnaire items to capture each element of the prediction matrix were formulated. Initial drafts of the questionnaire were reviewed by the authors and colleagues at the authors' university. The questionnaire was pretested by a group of wood products distributors attending a management development seminar given by the second author.
The final questionnaire booklet contained open-ended and scaled questions in two parts. First, distributor respondents were asked questions about a supplier they considered a partner. In the second section, the same questions were asked regarding a transactional/traditional supplier.
Data Collection. To collect the case data, six research teams were employed. All researchers are faculty members in Marketing or Forest Products Marketing Departments at universities in the United States. Each team was mailed a packet containing questionnaire booklets and a list of potential
12th IMP Conference 1513
Elizabeth J. Wilson, Richard P. Vlosky, and Renee Fontenot
distributor respondents in their local area. Researcher responsibilities included contacting particular wood products distributors, identifying the key informants (usually senior executives within the distributor firm), and visiting those individuals to conduct the interviews.
Each team transcribed the interviews and provided relevant data back to us, the project coordinators. Each team provided their interview data in return for publication of a case written based on their particular distributor-supplier interview information. Data for our degrees-of-freedom analysis is in the form of the prediction matrices (see the Exhibit) completed by all of the teams for their particular distributor respondent(s).
Each team was charged with developing a case study to address partnering activities. Although our standard questionnaire was administered, and guidelines for case structure and development were provided to research teams by the project coordinators, teams had some latitude in how their case was developed. For example, in some cases multiple respondents from one distributor were interviewed, while in one case four separate distributor companies were interviewed. Researchers may have also needed to contact and interview the other channel partner, i.e. the manufacturer (via telephone) to gain their perspective on the partnership.
PROJECT STATUS
Nine complete prediction matrices for both partnership and transactional relationships were obtained. This represents the work of five research teams; four completed the interviews with one focal distributor while the fifth research team obtained multiple observations(n = 5 different "data points"). The sixth team only discussed the partnership relationship with their focal distributor.
In our data analysis, currently in-progress, we use Campbell's (1975) pattern-matching techniques in order to note the structure of partnerships and transactional relationships based on the reported activities of the participating organizations. We
1514 University of Karlsruhe
Partnership versus Transactional Exchange Relationships: A Degrees of Freedom Analysis using Case Data
expect the partnership relationship to be comprised of more proactive marketing activities (joint programs for planning, training, evaluation, promotion, etc.) and a higher level of communication (by phone, fax, electronically, access to computers, and EDI). Conversely, in transactional relationships firms may engage in some of these activities, but probably not to the same extent as the in the partnering relationship.
In conclusion, on the completion of this research, we will have a grounded, inductive model of partnering relationships. Using Campbell's (1975) degrees-of-freedom approach, we can empirically examine our model to note overall patterns of activities for partnering relationships compared to traditional transactional relationships. While this research thesis may seem intuitively simple, findings on specific defining activities of partnerships is scant. Our grounded approach allows us to address the gap between the deductive models (e.g., Anderson and Narus 1990; Dwyer, Schurr, and Oh 1987; Morgan and Hunt 1994) and buyer-seller relationships in practice.
REFERENCES
Anderson, James C. and James A. Narus (1990), "A Model of Distributor Firm and Manufacturer Firm Working Partnerships," Journal of Marketing, 54 (January), 42-58.
Campbell, Donald W. (1975), " 'Degrees of Freedom' and the Case Study," Comparative Political Studies, 8 (July), 178- 193.
Carlsmith, J. P. Ellsworth, and Elliott Aronson (1976), Methods of Research in Social Psychology, Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley.
Dean, James W. (1986), "Decision Processes in the Adoption of Advanced Technology," unpublished manuscript, Pennsylvania State University, Department of Management.
Dwyer, F. Robert, Paull H. Schurr, and Sejo Oh (1987), "Developing Buyer-Seller Relationships," Journal of
12th IMP Conference 1515
Elizabeth J. Wilson, Richard P. Vlosky, and Renee Fontenot
Marketing, 51 (April), 11-27.
Emshwiller, John R. (1991), "Suppliers Struggle to Improve Quality as Big Firms Slash Their Vendor Rolls," Wall Street Journal, (August 16), B1-B2.
Kalwani, Manohar U. and Narakesari Narayandas (1995), "Long- Term Manufacturer-Supplier Relationships: Do They Pay Off for Supplier Firms?" Journal of Marketing, 59 (January), 1-16.
Mohr, Jakki and Robert Spekman (1994), "Characteristics of Partnership Success: Partnership Attributes, Communication Behavior, and Conflict Resolution Techniques," Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15, 135- 152.
Morgan, Robert M. and Shelby D. Hunt, (1994), "The Commitment - Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing," Journal of Marketing. Vol. 58 (July), 20-38.
Narus, James A. and James C. Anderson (1987), "Distributor Contributions to Partnerships with Manufacturers," Business Horizons, (September-October), 34-42.
Spekman, Robert E. and Kirti Sawhney, (1990), "Toward a Conceptual Understanding of the Antecedents of Strategic Alliances," Report 90-114. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
Stafford, Edwin R., (1992), "Implications of Strategic Alliance Structure: A Cooperative Strategy/Relational Exchange Framework," American Marketing Association, Summer, 101-107.
Vlosky, Richard P. (1995), "Sources of Competitive Advantage for Wood Products Distribution Suppliers." Louisiana Forest Products Laboratory Working Paper 12, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA.
Wilson, Elizabeth J. and David T. Wilson (1988), '"Degrees of Freedom' in Case Research of Behavioral Theories of Group Buying," in Advances in Consumer Research, 15, 587-594.
1516 University of Karlsruhe