Study on the Affecting Mechanism between Relational Risk Perception and Cooperation Innovation Project Performance

doi:10.4236/ib.2013.53B016

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

iBusiness, 2013, 5, 74-79

http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ib.2013.53B016 Published Online September 2013 (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ib)

Study on the Affecting Mechanism between Relational

Risk Perception and Cooperation Innovation Project

Performance*

Zhizhi Huang, Yue Zhuang, Chao Kong

School of Management, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan, China.

Email: [email protected]

Received June, 2013

ABSTRACT

Nowadays, the rapid development of technology research and the trend of increasingly fierce competition change the

market economy organization form of enterprise. In order to survive and develop, many companies have started to co-

operate with each other. As the enterprise developing at a high speed, the high failure rate is also worthy of our attention.

Many risks will emerge in the process of cooperative innovation and the relation risk is one of them. In this paper,

through the empirical analysis, the effect of relation risk for team perfor mance will be illustrated. In addition, this paper

also gives some suggestions through the analysis of the results.

Keywords: Cooperative Innovation; Relational Risk; Team Performance

1. Introduction

As a new model of innovation, operative innovation has

been widely applied in practice. As globalization and

information technology developing, cooperative innovation

has brought new vitality for technology innovation. For

example, in order to make a difference in the smart

phone market which is in the current fierce competition,

360 launched the Huawei shine, AK47 through

successively cooperating with Huawei, Alcatel [1]. It is

cooperation that helps 360 quickly open the mobile

phone market, obtain high reputation in customers;

Apple, one of the most famous companies in the world,

also continuously collaborates with other makers and

keeps on product innovating so that it can occupy a large

market share in the world market.

Although cooperative innovation brought many

benefits, such as accelerating the development of

research, sharing the costs and risks of R&D, winning the

market future opportunities and so on, but for different

subjects of units there is still great uncertainty in the

process of cooperative innovation[2]. This uncertainty

will sometimes bring huge risk to both two sides of the

cooperation. Among many risks of cooperative

innovation, a unique risk in the project team is defined as

relational risk. The main source of relational risk is from

the opportunistic behavior between cooperative partners.

Therefore, in the cooperative innovation project team,

relational risk is the primary factor to be considered. In

addition, if the relation al risk is out of control, it is likely

to lead to project failure. What’s more, the later the coo-

perative innovation project end the m ore sunk cost will be.

As the relational risk may bring many disadvantages in

the process of cooperative innovation, people are more

and more conscious that manager has to perceive

relational risk constantly in the process of cooperatio n so

that it can effectively reduce the influence causing by the

relational risk to cooperative innovation project.Therefor

e, the relational risk has become an important type of risk

in the course of cooperative innovation[3]. The purpose

of this study is to explore the relationship between

influence factors, such as: the attitud e, beh avior, the lev el

and ability of risk perception and relational risk. Then

confirm the above hypothesis by empirical analysis.

2. Review of the Literature

After the 80s of the last century, western scholars began

to study the various factors which influence the social

life of people by the method of risk perception so that

they could understand people’s attitude towards these

risk factors. Such as Xie Xiaofei (1995 ) in the CAS

Institute of psychology found that there is a direct

relation al between the resear ch of risk perc eption and th e

overall national economic situation. In other words, the

*Fund project: China Ministry of Education, Humanities and Social

Sciences Research Fund (11YJA630226)

Study on the Affecting Mechanism between Relational Risk Perception and Cooperation

Innovation Project Performance 75

more wealthy the country is, the more of the relevant

research it would be. After nearly thirty years of develop-

ment, research on risk perception has been widely used in

various countries and regions, such as the United States,

Britain, Germany, Canada etc. It also covers a wide range of

topics, including health, security, environment, ecology and

technology etc[4]. The domestic research on risk p erception

is mainly in the following points:

Firstly, the dispute of the name. As “risk perception” is an

import, domestic studies on it is mainly by the foreign

literature, and then combined with its own research in the

related discussion[5]. Therefore, there are different

understandings on “risk perception” or “perception of risk”.

The translations of these words are also different. However,

no matter what the translation is, for the use of the concept,

domestic scholars are referring to the expression of foreign

scholars.

Secondly, research form and approach. In the international

academic community, the research of risk perception mainly

has four methods: the r ational actor model, the psycho metric

paradigm, culture theory and the social amplification of

risk[6]. But in our country, the scholars mainly use the

psychometric paradigm and cultural theory. When study the

public perception of risk, we often use the psychometric

paradigm to reveal the influencing factors of risk perception.

And we also do some social research, for example the

questionnaire and interview, to collect the related data so that

we can do some further analysis. In addition, the reason why

social culture theory is more frequently used is mainly

because the risk is not an objective entity, but a social,

cultural building. It cannot be measured independently

ignorin g the e nviro nment[ 7].

Thirdly，the object of study of risk perception. Foreign

countries started earlier for the study of risk perception.

The scholars also put a greater interest in risk perception

nowadays. Risk perception is a noun derived from

psychology[8]. In the beginning of the study, the object

of risk perception is most in the field of psychology. The

cross-cultural comparative research is rarely carried

on[9]. With the passage of time, the thought of risk

perception is applied in all “risk” situations and a large

number of research results have been achieved. Among

these achievements, the economic field gets the most

proportion, emergencies in sociology and public health

research for more[10]. In addition, in the medicine and

health field also has a certain proportion.

3. Model Development and Hypotheses

3.1. Model Development

According to the related research, we put forward the

basic research model, as the Figure 1 below:

In this study, the suppositional relational is mainly

composed of four major variables. They are attitude and

behavior of risk perception, level and ability of risk

perception, the relational risk and innovation project

team performance.

As to the definition of relational risk, different scholars

have defined it from different point of view. In this paper,

for the need of research, the author continues to use the

mature theory of relational risk, defining the relational

risk from opportunism and moral hazard.

Figure 1. The framework of the study.

Study on the Affecting Mechanism between Relational Risk Perception and Cooperation

Innovation Project Performance

About the relational risk perception: the definition of

the relational risk perception in this study is different

from the mainstream one. Previous scholars, including

the risk perception study's sponsor Slovic, did the risk

perception to specific objects. This research method will

help to find the perception condition of the public to a

certain perception object. However the real aim of this

study is to know each employee’s true attitudes and

subjective feeling to the relational risk problem.

Therefore, dividing the risk perception into the attitude

and behavior of relational risk perception and the level of

risk perception, respectively study the public's subjective

cognition, attitude and psychological expectations, is

more in line with the research idea.

About innovation projects team performance: Accord-

ing to the research of project team performance, in this

section, we will measure the definition of team perfor-

mance mainly from three aspects: the innovative

behavior, innovatio n ability, innovation achievements.

3.2. The Hypotheses

3.2.1. The Relationship Hypothesis between the

Attitude, Behavior of Risk Perception and the

Relational Risk

In this study, the attitude, behavior of risk perception is

measured by conflict, trust and communication mechanism.

As is well known, in the process of cooperative innovation,

intra-team conflict is inevitable. Conflict within the team,

especially the relational conflict will affect the relation-

ship between team members. But the happening of the

conflict will make the perception of relational risk more

obvious. The conflict has its positive side if handled

properly. It can help to fully expose the problem within

the project team and to get attention in time. What’s

more it can also provoke discussion within the team,

clarify the different concerns among team members.

Finally, the relational risk within the team will reduce.

Excepted from the conflict, in the cooperative

innovation project team, trust also makes a difference.

When the project team is full of confidence, cooperation

relationship the probability o f relational risk will be very

low; on the contrary, the probability will b e high.

It is undeniable, whether individuals, or the team, or

large organizations, various kinds of problems mostly

boil down to the lack of communication. In a team, apart

from the exchange of work content, the existence of the

problem will be clear by internal communication. It will

be helpful to solve the problem.

H1: the relationship between the attitude, behavior of

risk perception and relational risk is negatively related.

3.2.2. The Relationship Hypothesis between the Level,

Ability of Risk Perception and the Relational

Risk

In this study, the level, ability of risk perception is

measured by the risk awareness, the level of risk control

and the degree of risk exposure. The risk awareness level

refers to the level of understanding for the relational risk

within the project team. Good risk awareness can make

team members perceive potential threats easily.

Therefore, risk perception level is conducive to the

perception of r e l at i onal ris k.

What’s more, the relational risk control level refers to

the processing capacity of relational risk factors within

the team. For a variety of opportunism and moral

behavior, the control level stands for the handing ability

for these behaviors. One can imagine, for the control of

these induction factors can effectively prevent the

relational risk.

As we know, if a significant casualty occurred in a

system which is familiar to the public, it may only cause

a small social unrest. However, if in a strange system, it

would bring great social influence. The emergence of

these huge differences is mainly due to the different

degree of exposure to risk factors. The more exposure to

these factors, the awareness will be more clearly.

H2: the relationship between the level, ability of risk

perception and relatio nal risk is positively related.

3.2.3. The Relationship Hypothesis between the

Attitude, Behavior of Risk Perception and the

Team Performance

When conflict within the team occurs, if both sides have

a good attitude or there is a good way to resolve the

conflict, the happ ening of the co nflict will let the internal

problems expose clearly so that the organization's

manager can deal with the problem properly, which is

beneficial to the realization o f performa nce.

Learning from the transaction cost theory, when the

team is full of trust, the whole team will not use a lot of

resources engaging in supervision and management so

that the team could focus on cooperative innovation[11];

on the contrary, the team will spend more energy,

material resources on the manag ement, thus reducing the

whole team performance.

From a certain extent, communication is productivity.

Efficient internal communication not only can effectively

prevent the occurrence of various risks from the source,

may also be beneficial to prop ose and solve problems. In

a team, the internal communication can communicate

problems in cooperation, accurate understand manage-

ment decisions of the project team, improve the work

efficiency, resolve contradictions. All of these can guarantee

or improve the performance level of the project team.

Study on the Affecting Mechanism between Relational Risk Perception and Cooperation

Innovation Project Performance 77

According to the conclusions above, we put forward

another hypothesis:

H3: the relationship between the attitude, behavior of

risk perception and team performance is positively

related.

3.2.4. The Relationship Hypothesis between the Level,

Ability of Risk Perception and the Team

Performance

If team members get high awareness of relational risk,

they will continuously pay attention to the prevention of

relational risk from their own, which makes the relational

risk occurrence probability greatly reduced, so as to

ensure the realization of project team performance[12].

The level of risk control is the ability to deal with the

opportunistic or morally corrupt behavior. When the

inducing factors of relational risk can be controlled

effectively, it can greatly reduce the probability of risk

occurrence of the relationship and promote the

performances of the team.

When the risk factors are exposed to a great extent, the

understanding of the risk factors will be profoun d and th e

perception will be clear[13]. In addition, the risk factors

which are exposed frequently will make the management

team to raise vigilance, and try to manage and control, so

as to guarantee the perfor mance of the project team

According to the three conclusions above, we put

forward another hyp othesi s below.

H4: the relationship between the level, ability of risk

perception and team performance is positively related.

4. The Process and Results of the Empirical

Analysis

4.1. The Process of Investigation and Analysis of

Samples

The number of valid questionnaire is not very ideal. A

total of 90 questionnaires issued, of which 48 valid

questionnaires and the effective recovery rate is 53.3%.

According to the simple ru les proposed by Bobby (2000):

“In ord er to ge t a sc ien tif ic anal ys is, th e r ate of th e ef fe ctiv e

questionnaires should be at least 50%”. According to

Bobby’s research, the collected data can be used to do a

scientific analysis and research.

We measure the questionnaire survey by Cronbach’s

Alpha coefficient. For the following three variables:

attitude and behavior of risk perception, the level and

ability of risk perception, relational risk, we take the

reliability analysis of 48 enterprises. The results are as

follows Table 1.

From the table, the reliability values were more than

0.7. It meets the reliability requirements.

4.2. The Result of Structural Equation Model

From the analysis above, we know the reliability and

validity of the sample data are good. The main variables

of the model fit well. So in this section, each variable’s

secondary index is classified as observation variables in

structural equation model. Thus we establish the following

Figure 2.

Table 1. The results of the reliability analysis.

Reliability statistics

Cronbach's Alpha Standard Cronbach's Alpha Number of terms

Variables of attitude and

behavior of risk pe rception

.843

.846

Variables of level and ability of

risk perception

.767

Variables of

relational risk

.837

.838

Figure 2. Relationship between the main variables of the model.

Current Distortion Evaluation in Traction 4Q Constant Switching Frequency Converters

The double-headed arrow in the model stands for the

covariance of the two variables. The figures at the top

right of the variable are the variance of each variable. As

can be seen in the figure, no variance is negative value. It

shows that there is no unreasonable parameter in the

model estimation. In addition, taking the fit test for the

model, the results are as follows Table 2.

As the results can be seen, although the IFI, TLI< 0.9,

but they are in the vicinity of 0.9. The other indexes are

in line with the requirements.

So the fitness of the model is good overall. Specific

output data in Amos statements are as follows Table 3.

In the Table 4, the first column shows the regression

coefficients which are not standardized; the second

column shows the standard errors of the estimated

parameters; the third column shows the test statistic. If

this value is greater than 1.96, then it gets the significant

level of 0.05; the fourth column shows the significance

of the P value. If the P<.001, it will be indicated by a

symbol “* * *”; if the P<.01, it will be shown as “* *”; if

the P<.05, it will be shown as “*”; if P>.05, the P value

will be shown directly.

The table above is for the covariance and covariance

exogenous variables of the significance test. As P for the

“* * *” indicates, covariance exogenous variables were

significant at 0.05 level.

After the data testing, the assumptions mentioned

above will be checked b elow. Here, we mainly verify the

path relationship between the variables and the results

are shown in Table 5.

5. Conclusions and Implications

According to the empirical analysis above, we get 4

conclusions:

1) The attitudes and behaviors of risk perception can

effectively perceive relational risk may occur. It contains

three observation variables: conflict, trust, internal

communication. As data obtained from our analysis can

be seen, attitude and behavior of risk perception has an

important effect on relational risk (P < 0.05). It indicates

that the attitude and b ehavior of risk perception is a vital

factor in the process of risk perception.

2) The level and ability of risk perception can

effectively perceive relational risk may occur. It includes

three observed variables: the und erstanding level, control

level, degree of risk exposure. As the data shows, the

level and ability of risk perception also has a remarkable

effect on relational risk (P < 0.05). It indicates that the

level and ability of risk perception is also an important

factor in the process of risk perception.

Table 2. The goodness-of-fit of the main variables.

The index 2/df GFI AGFI IFI TLI RMSEA

Result of fitting 1.553 .901 .917 .899 .875 .0408

Table 3. Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model).

EstimateS.E. C.R. P Label

Relational risk <---The attitude and ability of perception -.611 .251 2.434* par_2

Relational risk <---The level and ability of perception .454 .216 2.101*** par_4

Team performance <---The attitude and ability of perception .755 .143 5.281** par_1

Team performance <---The level and ability of perception -.032 .121 4.267*** par_3

Table 4. Covariance: (Group number 1 - Default model).

EstimateS.E. C.R. P Label

The attitude and ability of perception <--> The level and ability of perception.388 .126 3.073 *** par_6

Table 5. Hypothesis verification results.

Hypothesis Path relationship Estimate Correlation Valid or not

1 Relational risk<--- The attitude an d be havio r of perception -0.611* negative correlational Valid

2 Relational risk<--- The level and ability of perception 0.454*** positive correlation Valid

3 Team performance<--- The attitude and behavior of perception0.755** positive correlation Valid

4 Team performance<--- The level and ability of perception -0.032*** negative correlation Invalid

Study on the Affecting Mechanism between Relational Risk Perception and Cooperation

Innovation Project Performance 79

(3) Both the attitude, behavior of risk perception and

the level, ability of risk perception have effects on

relational risk. Moreover, these two variables interact

with each other. In other words, if a team gets a positive

attitude towards relational risk, it is likely to enhance

their ability of risk identification. However, if a team

only gets a positive attitude but in lack of relevant

abilities, it may also fails in the relational risk id entifica-

tion.

REFERENCES

[1] J. Hagdoorn, “Research partnerships,” Research Policy,

2000, Vol. 29, No. 4-5, pp. 567-586.

[2] Fritsch, Micheal, Lukas and W. Rolf, “Cooperates on

R&D,” Research Policy, Vol. 30, 2001, pp. 297-312.

[3] T. K. Das, Teng and B. Risk, “Types and Inter-firm

Alliance Structures,” Journal of Management Studies,

Vol. 33, 1996, pp. 827-843.

[4] Nooteboom, B. Berger, N. G. H and Noorderhaven,

“Effects of Trust and Governance on Relational Risk,”

Academy Management Journal, Vol. 40, No. 2, 1997, pp.

308-338.

[5] Helene delerue, “Relational Risks Perception in European

Biotechnology Alliances: The Effect of Contextual

Factors,” European Management Journal, Vol. 22, No. 5,

2004, pp. 546-556.

[6] Inkpen, “Learning and Knowledge Acquisition through

International Strategic Alliance,” Academy of Manage-

ment Executive, 1998, pp. 69-80.

[7] Williamson, The Economic Institutions of Capitalism,

NewYork Free Press, 1985, pp. 203-213.

[8] T. K. Das and B. S. Teng, “A Risk Perception Model of

Alliance Structuring,” Journal of International Manage-

ment, 2001, Vol. 7, pp. 1-29.

[9] T. K. Das and B. Teng, “Governance Structure Choice in

Strategic Alliances Objectives: Alliance Management

Experience and International Partners,” Management

Decision, 2008, pp. 1-33.

[10] S. White, “Cooperation Costs and Governance Choice

and Alliance Evolution,” Journal of Management Studies,

Vol. 42, 2005, pp. 1383-1412.

[11] A. Parkhe, “Strategic Alliances Structuring: a Game

Theoretic and Transaction Cost Examination of Interfirm

Cooperation,” Academy Management Journal, Vol. 36,

No. 4, 1993, pp. 794-829.

[12] M. Granovetter, “Economic Action and Social Structure

Embedness,” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 91, No.

3, 1985, pp. 481-510.

[13] Homin Chena and Tain-Jychen, “Asymmetric Strategic

Alliances: A Network View,” Journal of Business

Research, Vol. 55, 2002, pp. 1007-1013.