Case description

The case company, ABB Group operates in the high-technology industry, more specifically in the area of electrical and electronic devices and systems. ABB Group is divided into four divisions based on the customers and industries it serves. Moreover, the company currently employs approximately 140 thousand individuals globally, from which about five thousand work in Finland. ABB Group invests significant amount of resources into R&D, which makes it one of the most innovative companies in the world.

As a country Finland can be seen as one of the key R&D centres for ABB, because of its high education level and ability to contribute significant amount of engineering talent.

(ABB 2017.)

This case study examines two internal ABB units, which both operate in Finland. These companies manufacture different products, thus aim to fulfil the needs of different customers segments. For example, buyer A provides electrification products, compared to buyer B who manufactures robotics and motion related products. In 2015, buyer A employed 300 people vs. buyer B, which employed approximately 1600 people. In terms of revenue generation to the whole ABB Group, buyer B contributes greater revenues. As mentioned, both business units operate in the high-technology B2B markets in which innovative solutions are constantly demanded, therefore in order to create competitive advantages close R&D supplier relationships are necessary.

Table 5 summarises the central facts about the buyer-supplier R&D collaborations examined in this particular study. In particular, it depicts that buyer A collaborated with supplier A & B and buyer B with supplier C & D. Categorizing is also done to facilitate data analysis between the buyer organizations. In the next section each of the supplier relationships will be discussed and analysed in more detail.

Table 5. Buyer A´s and B´s relation to their mechanical component suppliers

Supplier A is a first-tier supplier for buyer A. Supplier A is responsible for case assembly, which are tailored and designed to buyer’s product portfolio. In addition, supplier A is responsible for prototype development and technical support. This partnership can be viewed as strategic relationship for buyer A according to Kraljic`s matrix. In this type of relationship there is limited access to the items traded in the relationship through market mechanisms and the relationship has high impact on profit through cost of revenue generation (Kraljic 1983). Supplier A´s production sites are spread globally, but the final assembly for this specific part is done in Finland. The partners have over ten year’s history

of collaboration. Over the years buyer A has made significant investments into machinery and tools placed at supplier premises. As a consequence most of the material supplied are controlled by ABB. In addition, the total spend and annual order volume of these parts is high, therefore also has high impact on buyer’s revenue. From suppliers A`s perspective buyer A is viewed as important buyer but medium in terms of total revenue generation.

Supplier B is mainly a second-tier supplier for buyer A and is located in China. The collaboration began ten years ago in attempt to diminish material expenses. Over the years, buyer A has made investments into supplier’s machinery and tools. These parts are tailored and designed by buyer´s R&D unit and shipped to another supplier for assembly.

There are also few other components, which are sent directly to buyers premises. In terms of R&D this supplier is only responsible for prototypes and collaboration. This relationship can be viewed as noncritical according to Kraljic´s matrix. The reason being that there are other suppliers available through market mechanisms and the impact on profit through cost or revenue generation is low.

Supplier C is a first-tier supplier for buyer B. Supplier C manufactures plastic frames, which are tailored to buyers product portfolio by the buyers R&D team. In terms of R&D, supplier C is responsible for manufacturing a preliminary model and providing technical support. This partnership can be viewed as bottleneck relationship according to Kraljic´s matrix. Supplier C´s production site is located in China and the partners have over ten years history of collaboration. Over the years buyer B has made significant investments into supplier’s moulding tools. In terms of total spend and order volume buyer B is a medium size customer for the supplier. In contrast, supplier C can be seen as important partner in mechanical parts. Despite, the large size of the supplier, buyer B aims to remain as interesting customer, but still less than 50% share of supplier C´s total revenue generation to reduce risk of increased fixed cost.

Supplier D is first-tier supplier for buyer B. Partneuyerrs collaboration began in the means of a specific R&D project. In addition, some previous contact has also taken place.

Supplier D manufactures die castings to one of buyers products. These mechanical parts are tailored and designed in cooperation with supplier D. In term of R&D this supplier is responsible for technical support, prototypes and second-tier network management.

Considering the total revenue of ABB Group this supplier has low impact, but on business unit level the importance of this supplier increases. On contrary, buyer B contributes approximately 15% of supplier’s revenue. With that said, buyer B can be seen as a large customer for supplier D. From purchasing management perspective, this relationship can

be seen as noncritical relationship according to Kraljic´s matrix. However, from R&D perspective this partnership can be viewed as relatively important, because of suppliers technical and innovation competence.