MIT Sloan Management Review

Operations Management and Research

Supplier Relations in Japan and the United States: Are They Converging?

By Susan R. Helper and Mari Sako

April 15, 1995

A FOLLOW-UP SURVEY TO ONE PUBLISHED IN OUR SUMMER 1991 ISSUE (“HOW MUCH HAS REALLY CHANGED BETWEEN U.S. AUTOMAKERS AND THEIR Suppliers?” by Susan Helper) shows that long-term, closely linked relationships have performance advantages for automakers and their suppliers in both the United States and Japan. Although such high-performance relationships with customers are still more prevalent in Japan than in the United States, the nature of supplier relations in the two countries is converging in some respects. The current survey includes more than 600 automotive suppliers in the United States and almost 500 suppliers in Japan.

Supplier-customer relationships in the United States are changing rapidly. Where once contracts were short-term, arm’s-length relationships, now contracts have increasingly become long term. More and more, suppliers must provide customers with detailed information about their processes, and customers talk of “partnerships” with their suppliers.

Such close relationships between customers and suppliers have had beneficial effects on performance in several areas. Clark found that early supplier involvement in product design was key to Japanese automakers’ edge in introducing new models both faster and with fewer total labor hours than their U.S. and European counterparts.1 Noordeweier, John, and Nevin found that more “relational” purchasing arrangements reduced acquisition costs during uncertainty.2 And Heide and John found that mutually dependent customers and suppliers invested more in specific assets.3

Despite the movement toward closer supplier relations in the United States and evidence that such relationships improve performance in a number of ways, there are contradictory trends. Helper’s 1989 survey of U.S. auto suppliers found that customers had increased the length of the contracts they offered, and suppliers were more likely to provide process information.4 However, suppliers still felt a lack of customer commitment, since their level of trust in the customer did not increase. Performance improvements often came at the suppliers’ expense. For example, JIT delivery was not matched... To read the complete article, login or sign-up using the form below.

From The Magazine

Fall 2009

Special Report: Sustainability

8 Reasons That Sustainability Will Change Management

Michael S. Hopkins

Transparency, accidental innovation, trust, collaboration — as sustainability affects how the world works, so will it affect how business works in the world.

Intelligence: Management

Debunking Management Myths

Martha E. Mangelsdorf

In this interview, Henry Mintzberg questions some of the conventional wisdom about managerial work.