In this article, we develop a game model and examine two types of tactics for a common supplier in buyer-supplier-buyer relations: (a) to remain as a pure supplier and execute private knowledge exploitation by advantage of its structural hole position, or (b) to enter into the product market, so as to increase its revenue. The results of our study reveal that: (1) it will be more beneficial for focal supplier to stay in upstream if the entry barrier is high, which is determined by entry cost (the capital to spend for purchasing equipment) and invisible obstacles, e.g. the proprietary product knowledge privately owned by incumbent players, and the collaborative defense by partner buyers. (2) Focal supplier could create positive economic performance if it enters the product market successfully by overcoming various entry barriers. (3) Consumer’s welfare could be improved if the focal supplier enters product market.
SubramaniM., How do suppliers benefit from information technology use in supply chain relationships?Mis Quarterly28(1) (2004), 45–73.
2.
BurtR.S., Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992.
3.
BurtR.S., Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology110(2) (2004), 349–399.
4.
UzziB., Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly42(1) (1997), 35–67.
5.
GulatiR., Network location and learning: The influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal20(5) (1999), 397–420.
6.
TerpendR., TylerB.B. and KrauseD.R., Buyer–supplier relationships: Derived value over two decades. Journal of Supply Chain Management44(2) (2008), 28–55.
7.
EisenhardtK.M., Control: Organizational and economic approaches. Management Science31(2) (1985), 134–149.
8.
StumpR.L. and HeideJ.B., Controlling supplier opportunism in industrial relationships. Journal of Marketing Research33(3) (1996), 431–441.
9.
ZhaoY. and TamerS.C., The effect of supplier’s market orientation on manufacturer’s trust. Industrial Marketing Management35(4) (2006), 405–414.
10.
AryaA., MittendorfB. and SappingtonD.E.M., The make-or-buy decision in the presence of a rival: Strategic outsourcing to a common supplier. Management Science54(10) (2008), 1747–1758.
11.
Langfield-SmithK. and GreenwoodM.R., Developing Co-operative Buyer-Supplier Relationships: A Case Study of Toyota. Journal of Management Studies35(3) (1998), 331–353.
12.
DyerJ.H. and NobeokaK., Creating and managing a high performance knowledge-sharing network: The Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal21(3) (2000), 345–367.
13.
DyerJ.H. and HatchN., Using supplier networks to learn faster. MIT Sloan Management Review45(3) (2004), 57–63.
14.
PortesA., Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology24(4) (1998), 1–24.
ReagansR. and ZuckermanE.W., Networks, diversity, and productivity: The social capital of R&D teams. Organization Science12(4) (2001), 502–517.
17.
TsaiW., Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal44(5) (2001), 996–1004.
18.
MillsJ., SchmitzJ. and FrizelleG., A strategic review of supply networks. International Journal of Operations & Production Management24(10) (2004), 1012–1036.
19.
ChoiT.Y. and KimY., Structural Embeddedness and Supplier Management: A Network Perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management44(4) (2008), 5–13.
20.
Smith-DoerrL. and PowellW.W., Networks and economic life. The Handbook of Economic Sociology2(3) (2005), 379–402.
21.
UzziB., The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review61(4) (1996), 674–698.
22.
AhujaG., Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly45(3) (2000), 425–455.
23.
GulatiR., Social structure and alliance formation patterns: A longitudinal analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly12(3) (1995), 619–652.
24.
ZaheerA. and BellG.G., Benefiting from network position: Firm capabilities, structural holes, and performance. Strategic Management Journal26(9) (2005), 809–825.
25.
ChoiT.Y. and WuZ., Triads in supply networks: Theorizing buyer–supplier–supplier relationships. Journal of Supply Chain Management45(1) (2009), 8–25.
26.
ChoiT.Y. and WuZ., Taking the leap from dyads to triads: Buyer–supplier relationships in supply networks. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management15(4) (2009), 263–266.
27.
WuZ., ChoiT.Y. and RungtusanathamM.J., Supplier–supplier relationships in buyer–supplier–supplier triads: Implications for supplier performance. Journal of Operations Management28(2) (2010), 115–123.
28.
ProvanK.G., Embeddedness, interdependence, and opportunism in organizational supplier-buyer networks. Journal of Management19(4) (1994), 841–856.
29.
HeideJ.B., WathneK.H. and RokkanA.I., Interfirm monitoring, social contracts, and relationship outcomes. Journal of Marketing Research44(3) (2007), 425–433.
30.
VillenaV.H., RevillaE. and ChoiT.Y., The dark side of buyer–supplier relationships: A social capital perspective. Journal of Operations Management29(6) (2011), 561–576.
31.
MorganN.A., KalekaA. and GoonerR.A., Focal supplier opportunism in supermarket retailer category management. Journal of Operations Management25(2) (2007), 512–527.
32.
LiL., Information sharing in a supply chain with horizontal competition. Management Science48(9) (2002), 1196–1212.
33.
ZhangH., Vertical information exchange in a supply chain with duopoly retailers. Production and Operations Management11(4) (2002), 531–546.
34.
BaccaraM., Outsourcing, information leakage, and consulting firms. The Rand Journal of Economics38(1) (2007), 269–289.
35.
BönteW. and WiethausL., Knowledge disclosure and transmission in buyer–supplier relationships. Review of Industrial Organization31(4) (2007), 275–288.
36.
HopenhaynH.A., Entry, exit, and firm dynamics in long run equilibrium. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society36(3) (1992), 1127–1150.
37.
GuptaB., Sequential entry and deterrence with competitive spatial price discrimination. Economics Letters38(4) (1992), 487–490.
38.
BayeM.R. and MorganJ., Information gatekeepers on the internet and the competitiveness of homogeneous product markets. American Economic Review20(6) (2001), 454–474.
39.
BayeM.R., MorganJ. and ScholtenP., Price dispersion in the small and in the large: Evidence from an internet price comparison site. The Journal of Industrial Economics52(4) (2004), 463–496.
40.
MentionA.L., Co-operation and co-opetition as open innovation practices in the service sector: Which influence on innovation novelty?Technovation31(1) (2011), 44–53.
