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.
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
76
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 13
Variables of level and ability of
risk perception .767 .767 8
Variables of
relational risk .837 .838 6
Figure 2. Relationship between the main variables of the model.

Current Distortion Evaluation in Traction 4Q Constant Switching Frequency Converters 78
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.