Conceptual Framework and Research Propositions

This study contributes to the capabilities strand of the resource-based view of the firm. The investigation conceptually has uncovered that collaboration (in the context of the NZ wine sector) is typically something firms need to engage in to compete within the industry and thus, survive within the market – a threshold capability. The literature review has identified that conceptually, collaboration on its own is not a dynamic capability within the NZ wine sector. When combined with other competitive strategies/capabilities, collaboration can become a dynamic capability. Factors such as first-mover advantages can allow some organisations to use the knowledge and/or resources they have gained from their collaboration strategies as a competitive advantage. This is usually something that only the larger wineries can do meaning that the larger firms in the sector are the ones that have a stronger chance of developing competitive advantages from collaboration. The study (using business-level strategy theory) aims to investigate if collaboration is most effective at the business-level or the other levels within the field of strategy. This thesis presents a set of research propositions it aims to explore within the parameters of this study.

Propositions were presented using Orr & Scott’s (2008) formatting style; this allowed a clear/succinct design to gauge how the propositions tie in with the conceptual model. Propositions allow qualitative researchers to explore a theory (investigating their conceptual findings) without the dependency on hypothesis testing (Zikmund et al., 2013). The propositions were described opposed the likes of Johnson et al.’s (2002) study by not stating them as qualitative hypotheses (though it is noted that some authors use them in this capacity) within the conceptual model (Appendix 9). Instead, the study described them more similarly to Bonoma (1985) who suggests that propositions can be used as statement-phrased versions of research questions.

 P1: Collaboration strategies act as a dynamic capability by giving wineries an

ability to gain a competitive advantage

This proposition aims to find out if collaboration is a dynamic capability. It questions: if it is a dynamic capability, what competitive advantage does it acquire? This proposition aims to explore this question by asking interviewees about whether collaboration has resulted in a competitive advantage/success – if so how and why? This was beyond cause and effect style of measurement that one might see in a quantitative study; instead

32

it measure the ‘how and why’ style questions in a subjective format that quantitative research is far weaker at measuring than qualitative research (Buchanan & Bryman, 2007). It was decided that competitive success could include different factors. Success was operationalised by the following factors: perceived customer satisfaction and market share. The reasoning for selecting these measures is explained below; interviewees should be free to discuss further competitive success measures. Customer satisfaction was selected based on Miles et al. (2012) who found that there is an association between having a competitive strategy and customer satisfaction. Market share and customer satisfaction are strongly correlated but nevertheless, it paid to input measures to check such data (Rego et al., 2013) in an exploratory context.

 P2: Collaboration strategies occur at multiple levels from the owner/manager(s)

through to operational-level staff members

Collaboration occurs at the corporate, business and operational-levels of strategy. This proposition aims to measure how/why collaboration operates at each of the above levels. Exploring the answer(s) to this proposition involves asking the interviewees alongside participant observation about how and why they collaborate across the different levels of their organisations. These levels are crucial in their own way to create and sustain competitive advantages (Barney, 2012); thus, interviewees and observed employees were sourced from various organisational levels to explore this proposition. This proposition also enquires into the scope of the collaboration strategy at each of these levels of strategy and investigates if any particular level has a greater dependency on collaboration than the others.

 P3: Collaboration strategies improve the overall strength of a winery’s business-

level strategy to secure a competitive advantage

Building on similar issues to proposition 1, this proposition investigates a more specific form of collaboration than the generic measures in the prior-mentioned component of the conceptual model. This proposition explores if the business-level strategy is key to influencing collaboration’s effect on securing a competitive advantage. It questions: does the collaboration strategy generate long-term success at the business-level? It has been argued throughout the strategy literature that business-level strategies are the key driving force behind the notion of the competitive advantage (McWilliams & Siegel, 2011); it is assumed that the strength of the business-level strategy is the primary factor

33

in determining the competitive advantage of the firm. Collaboration is seen as a competitive strategy whereby managers decide to cooperate with rivals for a common goal and increase the odds of a competitive advantage (Yarbrough et al., 2011). This proposition aims to investigate if this is a fair assertion by operationalising competitive advantages through the measures in proposition 1.

 P4: Collaboration strategies developed at the business-level act as dynamic

capabilities

This proposition specifically examines the business-level form of collaboration. This proposition will continue to answer a key research objective namely: is collaboration a dynamic or threshold capability? Competitive advantages (via capabilities) are often intangible as they are strategic assets that organisations employ to be competitive against their rivals in their industry (Slotegraaf et al., 2003). This proposition focuses on the business-level and explores if this is the strategic area that develops and secures competitive advantages through dynamic capabilities. The firm, management and industry will vary the strategic level that depicts competitive advantages (Zollo & Winter, 2002). The literature indicated that competitive advantages through dynamic capabilities are developed primarily at the business-level for which the other strategic levels simply feed into this area (Teece, 2007). This proposition investigates if this is a fair assertion in applying this theory to the wine sector.

17. Chapter Summary

This literature review has explored existing studies involving collaboration to show that the theory of collaboration is a multi-level construct whereby various aspects of the phenomenon are occurring (in the wine sector and beyond) at the different levels of strategy. Capabilities have been examined to reveal that there are two main groups: threshold and dynamic capabilities. Collaboration appears to be something wineries have to do to survive in the industry (threshold capabilities); more resourced wineries have the ability to turn this into a dynamic capability to exploit competitive advantages through networks. The chapter ends by developing a set of propositions for further exploration. The methodological approach undertaken in the study is discussed in the next chapter.

34