Abstract

This article summarizes the scientific approaches to improving the quality of relations between the enterprise and business partners in preparation for the release and production of new products in today’s economic realities. The study’s main purpose is to substantiate and develop a methodological approach for determining effective relationship models between enterprises and business partners to prepare and produce new products. The article presents a developed four-stage methodological approach. The first stage of the study presents an analysis of existing approaches to forming relationships between the enterprise and business-business partners to prepare and produce new products. In the second stage, factual data on machine-building industry enterprises’ functioning were collected to determine the effectiveness of cooperation and success, which are the key components that improve the quality of relations between the enterprise and business partners in preparing new products. At the third stage, partners’ priority was determined to characterize the quality of the relationship between machine-building enterprises and business-business partners. The fourth stage determined the relationship between the qualitative levels of business partners’ priority and appropriate relationship models to prepare and produce new products. The study used expert methods, multidimensional factor analysis, additive convolution method, structural-logical method, graphical method. A survey of enterprise representatives was conducted to assess the effectiveness of cooperation on 12 surveyed machine-building enterprises. Partial indicators were identified and substantiated by multidimensional factor analysis, generalized for making decisions about business partner enterprises’ existing opportunities to prepare and produce new products. Based on the calculation of the integrated indicator, partners’ priority was determined. That characterized the quality of relations between machine-building enterprises and business-business partners in preparing and producing new products. According to the Harrington scale specified for the economic conditions of Ukraine, the qualitative levels of partner companies’ priority were determined. The proposed effective models of relationships for preparing and producing new products are put in line with them. The study results could improve the quality and validity of the formation and maintenance of relationships between enterprises and business partners in preparing and producing new products.

Keywords: new products, effectiveness, cooperation, success, functioning, business partner, relationship.

JEL Classification: C13, L61, L62, L64, M21.

Cite as: Iastremska, O., Strokovych, H., Iastremska, O., Kalantaridis, C., Nagy, S., & Somosi Veresne, M. (2021). Formation of mutual relations between enterprises and business partners in the process of preparation and production of new products. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 1, 196-211. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2021.1-15

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References

1. Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative science quarterly, 45(3), 425-455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
2. Allen, T. J. (1977). Managing the flow of technology transfer and the dissemination of technological information within the R&D organization. 
3. Anand, B. N., & Khanna, T. (2000). Do firms learn to create value? The case of alliances. Strategic management journal, 21(3), 295-315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
4. Ariño, A., & De La Torre, J. (1998). Learning from failure: Towards an evolutionary model of collaborative ventures. Organization science, 9(3), 306-325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
5. Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative science quarterly, 1-34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
6. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business Press. [Google Scholar]
7. Clark, K. B. (1991). Product Development Performance: Strategy. Organization, and Management in the World Auto Industry. [Google Scholar]
8. Davis, J. P. (2011). ‘Network agency problems. MIT Sloan School of Management.
9. Davis, J. P., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2011). Rotating leadership and collaborative innovation: Recombination processes in symbiotic relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(2), 159-201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
10. Davis, J. P., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bingham, C. B. (2007). Developing theory through simulation methods. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 480-499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
11. Davis, J. P., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bingham, C. B. (2009). Optimal structure, market dynamism, and the strategy of simple rules. Administrative science quarterly, 54(3), 413-452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
12. Doz, Y. L. (1996). The evolution of cooperation in strategic alliances: initial conditions or learning processes?. Strategic management journal, 17(S1), 55-83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
13. Gans, J. S., Hsu, D. H., & Stern, S. (2002). When does start-up innovation spur the gale of creative destruction?. The Rand Journal of Economics, 33(4), 571. [Google Scholar]
14. Gulati, R. (1995). Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Academy of management journal, 38(1), 85-112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
15. Hagedoorn, J. (1993). Understanding the rationale of strategic technology partnering: Interorganizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences. Strategic management journal, 14(5), 371-385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
16. Iastremska, O. & Sihaieva, T. (2009).The main types of models of interaction of market participants in the investment process. Lieberman readings: economic heritage and modern problems, (pp. 188–199). Kharkiv: VD «INZhEK».
17. Iastremska, O. (2006). Application of fuzzy set theory for qualitative differentiation of enterprise characteristics (on the example of machine-building, food and light industry enterprises). Development economics, 3(39), 95 – 101.
18. Kale, P., Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (2002). Alliance capability, stock market response, and long‐term alliance success: the role of the alliance function. Strategic management journal, 23(8), 747-767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
19. Katila, R. (2002). New product search over time: past ideas in their prime?. Academy of Management journal, 45(5), 995-1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
20. Katila, R., Rosenberger, J. D., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2008). Swimming with sharks: Technology ventures, defense mechanisms and corporate relationships. Administrative science quarterly, 53(2), 295-332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
21. Kulikov, P., & Sihaieva, T. (2009). Features of the company’s interaction with the external environment in the investment process. International Scientific and Practical Conference (pp. 190–193). Kharkiv: VD «INZhEK». 
22. Mayer, K. J., & Argyres, N. S. (2004). Learning to contract: Evidence from the personal computer industry. Organization science, 15(4), 394-410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
23. O’Mahony, S., & Ferraro, F. (2007). The emergence of governance in an open source community. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1079-1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
24. Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative science quarterly, 116-145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
25. Stuart, T. E. (2000). Interorganizational alliances and the performance of firms: a study of growth and innovation rates in a high‐technology industry. Strategic management journal, 21(8), 791-811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
26. Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American sociological review, 674-698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]