A Multipath Development Framework for Inter-Organizational Relationships: A Metasynthesis of Qualitative Studies

Patrycja Klimas; Sylwia Stańczyk; Karina Sachpazidu

doi:10.2478/ijcm-2023-0001

Figures & Tables

A multipath development framework for inter-organizational relationships

The process of SLR

Phase I: Setting up assumptions
Metasynthesis aim: identification of an integrated model of interorganizational relationships development based on qualitative research.		Research questions: (1) How many and what kind of phases can/should be distinguished? (2) What factors/issues/phenomena trigger or impact changes in the IOR life cycle? (3) Is the development path linear? (4) Is the development path of RLC iterative or rather sequential? (5) What are the general features of RLC? (6) When and how does the life cycle of IOR begin? (7) When and how does the life cycle of IOR end?
Stage II: Literature collection
Data bases: EBSCO, Scopus, JSTOR
Search terms: 20 pairs of the following search terms: 10 pairs of search terms linking “interfirm” AND: “relation* life”, “relation* cycle”, “relation* phase”, “relation* stage”, “relation* process”, “relation* development”, “relation* features”, “relation* characteristics”, “relation* dynamics”, “relation* evolution” 10 pairs of searching terms linking “interorganizational” AND: “relation life”, “relation* cycle”, “relation* phase”, “relation* stage”, “relation* process”, “relation* development”, “relation* features”, “relation* characteristics”, “relation* dynamics”, “relation* evolution”
Inclusion criteria: Search in: title OR abstract OR keywords Publication date: 1998 or later* Publication type: articles published in scientific journals Reviewing procedure: peer reviewed or double peer reviewed Language: English Research areas: Business /Economics /Management		Exclusion criteria: Exclude conference papers, proceedings, book chapters, scientific announcements, etc. Exclude works not available in full text format.
Results obtained	Researcher 1 Scopus	Researcher 2 JSTOR	Researcher 3 EBSCO
Database obtained using searching criteria	6070	35	4892
Database obtained using both inclusion and exclusion criteria	467	6	156
Identified works in three academic databases	629
Duplicated works	82
Initial database	547
Phase III: Literature selection & evaluation
Selection of works was conducted by reading the titles, abstracts, key words (if available), and conclusion part of the papers gathered in the initial database.
Selection criteria used to evaluate collected papers** Selected articles – directly referring to our research aim or research questions, the work focuses on B2B relationships and adopts a management perspective. Inspiring articles – indirectly referring to our research aim or research questions, the work focuses on B2C relationships and adopts an interesting perspective on the considered issues (e.g., unknown or unusual for management studies). Not relevant articles – not referring to our research aim or research questions, the work considers issues outside our scope of interest (i.e., random terminology convergence).
Results obtained	Researcher 1	Researcher 2	Researcher 3	In total
Works marked as selected	35	34	32	101
Works marked as inspiring	16	42	30	88
Works marked as not relevant	126	9	115	340
Duplicated works	6	8	4	18
Added seminal papers ***	7
Screened database	108
Final database including ONLY works presenting results from qualitative field research processes****	18Batonda & Perry, 2003; Heffernan & Poole, 2004; Lau & Goh, 2005; Duanmu & Fai, 2007; Meng, 2010; Davis & Love, 2011; Ming-Huei & Wen-Chiung, 2011; Lee & Johnsen, 2012; Abosag & Lee, 2013; Baptista, 2013; Plewa et al., 2013; Akrout, 2014; Mandják et al., 2015; Hastings et al., 2016; Panda & Dash, 2016; de Almeida Moraes et al., 2017; Ferreira et al., 2017; Restuccia & Legoux, 2019
Phase IV: Literature analysis
Conceptual aspects analyzed		Definitions adopted, reference theories, main gaps filled, newly identified gaps, and future research directions.
Methodological aspects analyzed		Research methods and techniques, sample size, study context.
Criteria of comparative analysis		Number and specificity of phases of RLC, linearity of RLC, renewal (regression) of phases, inclusion of pre-relationship phase(-s), consideration of post-relationship phase(-s), time dependency, breaking/change events for phases and IOR, sources of heterogeneity of IOR, features of RLC.
Approach to data analysis		Qualitative, concept centric thematic synthesis.
Phase V: Reporting
Dissemination of findings		Dissemination of results.

Qualitative studies on the relationship life cycle

Authors	Year	Research subject	Followed approach to RLC	Research method (data collection and analysis)	Sample size	Industry	Relationship research focus / type	Country	Phases	Linearity	RLC process descriptions	Renewal	Pre-relationship phase (-s)	Post-relationship phase (-s)	Time importance	Points of change	Cultural context
Batonda & Perry	2003	Inter-firm network development phases – RLC	Adopted from literature review (e.g., Ford, 1980; Dwyer et al., 1987; Kanter, 1994; Wilson, 1995)	Multiple, in-depth case study (semi-structured interviews)	12D (24)	Manufacturing & services industries	D /manufacturer – service	Australia-Asia	Searching Starting Development On-going maintenance Termination Dormant and re-activation ^a	non-L	PR	yes	yes		yes		yes
Heffernan & Poole	2004	Critical prevention factors of relationship deterioration and termination	Adopted from literature review (e.g., Ford, 1982; Dwyer et al., 1987; Wilson, 1995; Ford et al., 1998)	Multiple case study (indepth interviews)	10D (38)	Universities	D /university – offshore partner	Australia-Asia	Pre-relationship Early interaction Relationship growth Partnership Relationship end		STG		yes			yes
Lau & Goh	2005	Factors that influence relational change	Based on (Ford, 1980)	Comparative case study (in-depth interviews and unstructured discussions)	3D (6)	Printed circuit board (PCB) industry	D/buyer – seller	Singapore-German / Taiwan	Pre-relationship Early Development Long-term		STG		yes		yes	yes	yes
Duanmu & Fai	2007	Factors that accelerate or prolong RDP at each phase (according to knowledge transfer)	A priori stated	Multiple, processual case study (semi-structured interviews)	‘ 16D (32)	Electrical and electronics industry	D /multinational enterprise (MNE) – supplier	China	Initiating Developing Intensifying		STG						yes
Meng	2010	Key relationship indicators	Adopted from literature review (Li et al., 2000; SFfC, 2003; Humphreys et al., 2003; Jones & Saad, 2003).	Case study (focus on interview, expert interviews, scoring, Analytic Hierarchy Process)	2	Construction	D /supply chain relationship, customer supplier	UK	Level 1 (adversarialism or arm’s length) Level 2 (limited cooperation) Level 3 (short-term collaboration) Level 4 (long-term collaboration)		STG
Davis & Love	2011	Key factors of successful relationship development in alliances	Based on (Ford et al., 1998; Wilson, 1995; Pascale, 1997; Thompson & Sanders, 1998; Donaldson et al., 2001; Dwyer et al., 1987; Body et al., 2000) and modified	Multiple case study (indepth interviews)	(49)	Construction	I /supply chain, vary industry practitioners	Australia	Assessment Commitment Enduring	non-L	STG/PH		yes				yes
Ming-Huei & Wen-Chiung	2011	Factors of key account relationships that differ alignment patterns and drive alignment transitions over time	Based on (Dwyer et al., 1987; Jap & Ganesan, 2000) and modified	Multiple case study (indepth interviews)	4D (11)	TFT-LCD, gas production, legal service, steel and iron production	D /key account relationships, buyer – seller	Global context	Exploration Build-up Maturity		PH /PR
Lee & Johnsen	2012	Characteristics of asymmetric relationships and relationship development stages	Adopted from literature review (e.g., Dwyer et al., 1987; Ford, 1980; Frazier, 1983; Wilson, 1995; Jap & Ganesan, 2000)	Multiple, in-depth case study (semi-structured interviews)	5 (50)	Electronic	D /customer – supplier relationship	Taiwan	Exploratory Developing Stable		STG				yes		yes
Abosag & Lee	2013	Variability of key, culturally conditioned relationship factors	Based on (Ford, 1980; Dwyer et al., 1987; Wilson, 1995; Batonda & Perry, 2003)	Longitudinal, multiple case study (in-depth interviews, data collected twice)	33	Manufacturing industry	I /only manufacturing industry managers point of view	Saudi Arabia	Pre-relationship Early integration Growth Maintenance Dissolution phase ^d	non-L	STG / PH		yes				yes
Baptista	2013	Significant driving forces for long-term relationship development – RDP	Based on (Johanson & Mattsson, 1987; Möller & Wilson, 1988, 1995; Ruekert & Walker, 1987)	Longitudinal, multiple case study (in-depth interviews)	4D (35)	Mining industry	D/buyer – seller	Portugal	Exchange Adaptation Coordination		PR					yes
Plewa et al.	2013	Key success factors of the different relationship phases	Based on (Dwyer et al., 1987; Ford, 1982; Christopher et al., 1991; Tikkanen & Tuominen, 2000; Grayson & Ambler, 1999; Voss & Voss, 1997; Rao & Perry, 2002)	Multiple case study (in-depth semi-structured interviews)	15D (30)	University – industry (various)	D /university – industry relationship	Australia-German / Holland	Pre-linkage Establishment Engagement Advancement Latent phase	non-L	PH	yes	yes		yes	yes	yes
Akrout	2014	How relationship quality dimensions develop in each phase of buyer-seller relationship	Based on (Dwyer et al., 1987)	Multiple case study (in-depth semi-structured interviews)	39	Various B2B sectors	I /only French buyers point of view	France	Exploration Expansion Maintenance	L	STG/PH				yes		yes
Mandják et al.	2015	A role of trust in the birth of business relationships	Based on (Ford, 1980; Dwyer et al. 1987; Levinger, 1980; Huston & Levinger, 1978)	Case study (in-depth interviews)	1 (25)	Electronic	D /buyer – supplier	Hungary	NA		STG		yes			yes
Hastings et al.	2016	Critical success criteria for pre-relationships state /early relationships state	Adopted from literature review (e.g., Dwyer et al., 1987; Ford, 2002; Wilson, 1995)	Multiple case study (semi-structured interviews, summative assessment approach)	4	Prawn fisheries	D /fishery value chain (assessment)	Australia	NA	non-L	STT/STG	yes	yes		yes
Panda & Dash	2016	The role of control and trust for developing a cooperative VC-entrepreneur relationship	A priori stated	Multiple case study (semi-structured interviews)	10D (28+20)	Diverse	D /VC-entrepreneur relationships	India	Early phase, Growth phase		STG				yes		yes
de Almeida Moraes et al.	2017	How firms access and use international partner networks over time in their internationalization processes – RLC	A posteriori – emerges from the research	Longitudinal, multiple case study (interviews)	4D (16)	IT software	I /only software service firms point of view	Brasil	Pre-relationship Trigger Initial contact Formalization Building personal relationships Local expansion Internationalization ^b		STG		yes	yes		yes	yes
Ferreira et al.	2017	A phase model for solution relationship development – RLC	Based on (Ford, 1980; Dwyer et al. 1987; Sawhney, 2006; Tuli et al., 2007)	Multiple case study (in-depth interviews)	9D /4T	Aerospace	D-T /manufacturer – supplier – customer	Global context	Matching Combining Mixing Sharing ^c	non-L	PH	yes			yes	yes
Restuccia & Legoux	2019	The contingency role of the relationship life-cycle in driving future customer outcomes – RLC	Based on (Dwyer et al., 1987; Jap & Anderson, 2007)	Longitudinal case study (archival sales data, in-depth interviews, longitudinal analysis)	1	Printing company	I /only supplier point of view	North America	Exploration Buildup Maturity Decline		STG						yes

A Multipath Development Framework for Inter-Organizational Relationships: A Metasynthesis of Qualitative Studies

Figures & Tables

Table 2.

The process of SLR

Qualitative studies on the relationship life cycle

Paradigm

My account