Management of Technology and Innovation in Japan

Exploiting “Interface Capabilities” in Overseas Markets 161
based on the advanced technologies accumulated in the Japanese market. Sanyo
has a similarly close relationship with providers in both the US and Japan, which
enhance customized handset designs and specifications according to specific requirements
from the providers.
The handset development strategy would not rely on any specific providers, but
would be facilitated by the routinized interface activities to collaborate with providers.
In the close relationship with the customer providers in the Japanese market,
Sanyo as well as other Japanese manufacturers has experienced in assimilating
provider-specific requirements, proposing distinguished/novel handsets in
accordance with the requirements, and developing the requirements into the handset
specifications, designs, and software.
We could suggest that Sanyo takes advantage of the experiences in the Japanese
market for a US provider. Beyond the specific manufacturer-provider relationship
in Japan, Sanyo have exploited the interface activities reflecting the specific
knowledge from the offshore provider on the handset models. �
Discussion
In contrast to major international manufacturers, Sanyo as well as other Japanese
manufacturers have developed customized handsets for specific customer providers
without well-defined hardware designs and platforms. The technologies and
product development capabilities have been nurtured in the local providermanufacturer
relationship in Japan.
As described in the cases of the automobile and computer/electronic device industries
(e.g., Chesbrough 1999a; Nishiguchi 1994), the technologies and product
development capabilities of the firms in a local interfirm relationship may be idiosyncratic.
Nevertheless, Sanyo has successfully made use of accumulated technologies
and product development capabilities even for the handset development
projects for the US market.
The case of Sanyo witnesses that the interface capabilities should be distinguished
from customer/partner specific knowledge even though nurtured in the
close relationship with specific local providers in Japan. The interface capabilities
would not rely on specific customer/partner firms, but would be routinized as the
firm-specific capabilities of a manufacture so that the manufacturer could cope
with prospective customers/partners.
Due to the interdependencies between handsets and mobile telecommunication
systems, high-specification handset development depends upon the collaboration
between manufacturers and providers. The case would demonstrate that, in spite
of the increasing necessity of closer collaborative manufacturer-provider relationship,
the internal technologies and capabilities of a firm could be distinguished
from the knowledge on specific customer/partner firms. With the interface capabilities,
a firm could cope with customer/partner firms’ requirements without
adapting internal technologies and capabilities to each of the customer/partner
firms.