Relational capabilities in Thai buyer-supplier relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper uses the relational capabilities perspective to provide new insights into the mediating role of relational capabilities and their performance implications. Specially, this paper aims to explain how characteristics of a partnership influence relational capabilities that in turn enhance firm performance. Design/methodology/approach Using data from an original survey of 156 partnership projects between buyers and suppliers in the Thai manufacturing sector, the authors use a structural model to test their hypotheses. Findings The empirical analysis shows that the impact of relational and economic attributes of a partnership on firm performance is mediated by knowledge sharing routines and complementary capability. However, the impact varies between operational and strategic performance, as relational capabilities are strongly associated with operational performance but only indirectly associated with strategic performance. Practical implications The need to coordinate and mobilize complementary resources not only increases the interdependence between buyers and suppliers but also contributes to firm performance. Specifically, operations can be enhanced by knowledge sharing routines and complementary capability. At a strategic level, operational effectiveness enables firms to benefit from inter-organizational relationships. Originality/value The authors contribute to industrial marketing knowledge by shedding light on mediation of relational capabilities between inter-organizational attributes and firm performance. The findings demonstrate the value of the relationship between a firm’s supply chain and its relational capabilities which in turn drive project performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".