The Dark Side of Technological Modularity: Opportunistic Information Hiding During Interorganizational System Adoption

References

• Autry CW, Grawe SJ, Daugherty PJ, Richey RG (2010) The effects of technological turbulence and breadth on supply chain technology acceptance and adoption. J. Oper. Management 28(6):522–536.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bala H, Venkatesh V (2007) Assimilation of interorganizational business process standards. Inform. Systems Res. 18(3):340–362.Link, Google Scholar
• Baldwin CY, Clark KB (2000) Design Rules: The Power of Modularity, vol. 1 (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA). Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barney JB, Hansen MH (1994) Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage. Strategic Management J. 15(1):175–190.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blind K, Mangelsdorf A (2016) Motives to standardize: Empirical evidence from Germany. Technovation 48:13–24.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carlsson H, van Damme E (1993) Global games and equilibrium selection. Econometrica 61(5):989–1018.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carson SJ, Madhok A, Wu T (2006) Uncertainty, opportunism, and governance: The effects of volatility and ambiguity on formal and relational contracting. Acad. Management J. 49(5):1058–1077.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chang HL, Shaw MJ (2009) The business value of process sharing in supply chains: A study of RosettaNet. Internat. J. Electronic Commerce 14(1):115–146.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cisco (2004) Renault and Nissan: Forging a global alliance that is greater than the sum of its parts, https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en_us/about/ac79/docs/wp/Renault_CS_09222.pdf.Google Scholar
• Cooper RB, Zmud RW (1990) Information technology implementation research: A technological diffusion approach. Management Sci. 36(2):123–139.Link, Google Scholar
• Das TK (2004) Time-span and risk of partner opportunism in strategic alliances. J. Management Psych. 19(8):744–759.Google Scholar
• Das TK, Teng BS (2001) Trust, control, and risk in strategic alliances: An integrated framework. Organ. Stud. 22(2):251–283.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Du K, Yu G, Li G, Zhang W (2019) Applying modular design in architecting interorganizational information systems. MIS Quart. Executive 18(3):175–189.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dunn G (2006) Star sees wide member interest in common IT platform. Accessed July 13, 2019, Air Transportation Intelligence News. Google Scholar
• Dyer JH (1997) Effective interim collaboration: How firms minimize transaction costs and maximise transaction value. Strategic Management J. 18(7):535–556.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dyer JH, Singh H (1998) The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Acad. Management Rev. 23(4):660–679.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt KM (1989) Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Acad. Management J. 32(3):543–576.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ethiraj SK, Levinthal D, Roy RR (2008) The dual role of modularity: Innovation and imitation. Management Sci. 54(5):939–955.Link, Google Scholar
• Fichman RG (2001) The role of aggregation in the measurement of IT-related organizational innovation. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 25(4):427–455.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Galeotti A, Goyal S, Jackson MO, Vega-Redondo F, Yariv L (2010) Network games. Rev. Econom. Stud. 77(1):218–244.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gartner (2020) Gartner says organizations should strive for composability to be resilient and agile during uncertainty. Press release, Gartner, Stamford, CT. https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2020-10-19-gartner-says-organizations-should-strive-for-composability-to-be-resilient-and-agile-during-uncertainty. Google Scholar
• Gnyawali DR, Madhavan R (2001) Cooperative networks and competitive dynamics: A structural embeddedness perspective. Acad. Management Rev. 26(3):431–445.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grover V, Goslar MD (1993) The initiation, adoption, and implementation of telecommunications technologies in U.S. organizations. J. Management Inform. Systems 10(1):141–164.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gulati R, Gargiulo M (1999) Where do interorganizational networks come from? Amer. J. Sociol. 104(5):1439–1493.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gulati R, Singh H (1998) The architecture of cooperation: Managing coordination costs and appropriation concerns in strategic alliances. Admin. Sci. Quart. 43(4):781–814.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gulati R, Khanna T, Nohria N (1994) Unilateral commitments and the importance of process in alliances. MIT Sloan Management Rev. 35(3):61–69.Google Scholar
• Gulati R, Nohria N, Zaheer A (2000) Strategic networks. Strategic Management J. 21(3):203–215.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hamel G (1991) Competition for competence and interpartner learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic Management J. 12(S1):83–103.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hart P, Saunders C (1997) Power and trust: Critical factors in the adoption and use of electronic data interchange. Organ. Sci. 8(1):23–42.Link, Google Scholar
• Heide JB, John G (1988) The role of dependence balancing in safeguarding transaction-specific assets in conventional channels. J. Marketing 52(1):20–35.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heide JB, Miner AS (1992) The shadow of the future: Effects of anticipated interaction and frequency of contact on buyer-seller cooperation. Acad. Management J. 35(2):265–291.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hjartar K, Krishnakanthan K, Prieto-Munoz P, Shenai G, Van Kuiken S (2019) The CEO’s new technology agenda. McKinsey (November 20), https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/the-ceos-new-technology-agenda#.Google Scholar
• Ho T-H, Su X (2013) A dynamic level-k model in sequential games. Management Sci. 59(2):452–469.Link, Google Scholar
• Hwang P, Burgers WP (1997) The many faces of multi-firm alliances: Lessons for managers. Calif. Management Rev. 39(3):101–117.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Iatrou K, Oretti M (2016) Airline Choices for the Future: From Alliances to Mergers (Routledge, New York). Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnston WJ, Peters LD, Gassenheimer J (2006) Questions about network dynamics: Characteristics, structures, and interactions. J. Bus. Res. 59(8):945–954.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jones C, Hesterly WS, Borgatti SP (1997) A general theory of network governance: Exchange conditions and social mechanisms. Acad. Management Rev. 22(4):911–945.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kauffman RJ, McAndrews J, Wang YM (2000) Opening the “black box” of network externalities in network adoption. Inform. Systems Res. 11(1):61–82.Link, Google Scholar
• Krishnan R, Geyskens I, Steenkamp JEBM (2016) The effectiveness of contractual and trust-based governance in strategic alliances under behavioral and environmental uncertainty. Strategic Management J. 37(12):2521–2542.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lazzarini SG (2008) The transition from alliance networks to multilateral alliances in the global airline industry. Brazilian Administration Rev. 5(1):19–36.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lewis JD (2002) Partnerships for Profit: Structuring and Managing Strategic Alliances (The Free Press, New York). Google Scholar
• Liu Y, Guo H, Nault BR (2017) Organization of public safety networks: Spillovers, interoperability, and participation. Production Oper. Management 26(4):704–723.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liu H, Ke W, Wei KK, Hua Z (2013) The impact of IT capabilities on firm performance: The mediating roles of absorptive capacity and supply chain agility. Decision Support Systems 54(3):1452–1462.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luo Y (2008) Procedural fairness and interfirm cooperation in strategic alliances. Strategic Management J. 29(1):27–46.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Malhotra A, Gosain S, El Sawy OA (2005) Absorptive capacity configurations in supply chains: Gearing for partner-enabled market knowledge creation. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 29(1):145–187.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Malhotra A, Gosain S, El Sawy OA (2007) Leveraging standard electronic business interfaces to enable adaptive supply chain partnerships. Inform. Systems Res. 18(3):260–279.Link, Google Scholar
• Markus ML, Loebbecke C (2013) Commoditized digital processes and business community platforms: New opportunities and challenges for digital business strategies. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 37(2):649–653.Google Scholar
• Markus ML, Steinfield CW, Wigand RT (2006) Industry-wide information systems standardization as collective action: The case of the U.S. residential mortgage industry. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 30(3):439–465.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mazzola E, Perrone G, Kamuriwo DS (2016) The interaction between inter-firm and interlocking directorate networks on firm’s new product development outcomes. J. Bus. Res. 69(2):672–682.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McEvily B, Marcus A (2005) Embedded ties and the acquisition of competitive capabilities. Strategic Management J. 26(11):1033–1055.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meuleman M, Lockett A, Manigart S, Wright M (2010) Partner selection decisions in interfirm collaborations: The paradox of relational embeddedness. J. Management Stud. 47(6):995–1019.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Morris S, Shin HS (2003) Global games: Theory and applications. Dewatripont M, Hansen LP, Turnovsky SJ, eds. Adv. Econom. Econometrics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 56–114. Google Scholar
• Nagel R (1995) Unraveling in guessing games: An experimental study. Amer. Econom. Rev. 85(5):1313–1326.Google Scholar
• Neumann K, Bachmann R (2011) The containment of opportunism in the post formation period of inter-organizational relationships. Das TK, ed. Strategic Alliances in a Globalizing World (Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC), 159–184. Google Scholar
• Nicolaou AI, McKnight DH (2006) Perceived information quality in data exchanges: Effects on risk, trust, and intention to use. Inform. Systems Res. 17(4):332–351.Link, Google Scholar
• Nooteboom B (1996) Trust, opportunism and governance: A process and control model. Organ. Stud. 17(6):985–1010.Crossref, Google Scholar
• O’Donnell SW (2000) Managing foreign subsidiaries: Agents of headquarters, or an interdependent network? Strategic Management J. 21(5):525–548.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Park SH, Ungson GR (2001) Interfirm rivalry and managerial complexity: A conceptual framework of alliance failure. Organ. Sci. 12(1):37–53.Link, Google Scholar
• Parkhe A (1993) Strategic alliance structuring: A game theoretic and transaction cost examination of interfirm cooperation. Acad. Management J. 36(4):794–829.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Peng G, Dey D, Lahiri A (2014) Healthcare IT adoption: An analysis of knowledge transfer in socioeconomic networks. J. Management Inform. Systems 31(3):7–34.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pil FK, Cohen SK (2006) Modularity: Implications for imitation, innovation, and sustained advantage. Acad. Management Rev. 31(4):995–1011.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Premkumar G, Ramamurthy K, Nilakanta S (1994) Implementation of electronic data interchange: An innovation diffusion perspective. J. Management Inform. Systems 11(2):157–186.Google Scholar
• Provan KG (1993) Embeddedness, interdependence, and opportunism in organizational supplier-buyer networks. J. Management 19(4):841–856.Google Scholar
• Rai A, Tang X (2014) Research commentary—Information technology-enabled business models: A conceptual framework and a coevolution perspective for future research. Inform. Systems Res. 25(1):1–14.Link, Google Scholar
• Rai A, Tang X (2010) Leveraging IT capabilities and competitive process capabilities for the management of interorganizational relationship portfolios. Inform. Systems Res. 21(3):516–542.Link, Google Scholar
• Riggins FJ, Mukhopadhyay T (1994) Interdependent benefits from interorganizational systems: Opportunities for business partner reengineering. J. Management Inform. Systems 11(2):37–57.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Riggins FJ, Kriebel CH, Mukhopadhyay T (1994) The growth of interorganizational systems in the presence of network externalities. Management Sci. 40(8):984–998.Link, Google Scholar
• Robertson TS, Gatignon H (1986) Competitive effects on technology diffusion. J. Marketing 50(3):1–12.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rogers EM, Beal G (1957) The importance of personal influence in the adoption of technological changes. Soc. Forces 36:329–335.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rogers EM, Shoemaker F (1971) Communication of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural Approach (Free Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Ryan SP, Tucker C (2012) Heterogeneity and the dynamics of technology adoption. Quant. Marketing Econom. 10(1):63–109.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schermann M, Dongus K, Yetton P, Krcmar H (2016) The role of transaction cost economics in information technology outsourcing research: A meta-analysis of the choice of contract type. J. Strategic Inform. Systems 25(1):32–48.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schilke O, Cook KS (2015) Sources of alliance partner trustworthiness: Integrating calculative and relational perspectives. Strategic Management J. 36(2):276–297.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schilling MA (2000) Toward a general modular systems theory and its application to interfirm product modularity. Acad. Management Rev. 25(2):312–334.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simon HA (1962) The architecture of complexity. Proc. Amer. Philosophical Soc. 106(6):467–482. Google Scholar
• Stahl DO, Wilson PW (1994) Experimental evidence on players’ models of other players. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 25(3):309–327.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stahl DO, Wilson PW (1995) On players’ models of other players: Theory and experimental evidence. Games Econom. Behav. 10(1):218–254.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tafti A, Mithas S, Krishnan MS (2013) The effect of information technology-enabled flexibility on formation and market value of alliances. Management Sci. 59(1):207–225.Link, Google Scholar
• Tiwana A (2008) Does technological modularity substitute for control? A study of alliance performance in software outsourcing. Strategic Management J. 29(7):769–780.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Topkis DM (1998) Supermodularity and Complementarity (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tornatzky L, Fleischer M (1990) The Processes of Technology Innovation (DC Heath & Company, Lexington, MA). Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V, Bala H (2012) Adoption and impacts of interorganizational business process standards. Inform. Systems Res. 23(4):1131–1157.Link, Google Scholar
• Wang X, Cho SH, Scheller-Wolf A (2021) Green technology development and adoption: Competition, regulation, and uncertainty-a global game approach. Management Sci. 67(1):201–219.Link, Google Scholar
• Weitzel T, Beimborn D, Konig W (2006) A unified economic model of standard diffusion: The impact of standardization cost, network effects, and network topology. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 30:489–514.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wernerfelt B (1984) A resource based view of the firm. Strategic Management J. 5(2):171–180.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williamson OE (1991) Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Admin. Sci. Quart. 36(2):269–296.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Worren N, Moore K, Cardona P (2002) Modularity, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: A study of the home appliance industry. Strategic Management J. 23(12):1123–1140.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Xue L, Zhang C, Ling H, Zhao X (2013) Risk mitigation in supply chain digitization: System modularity and information technology governance. J. Management Inform. Systems 30(1):325–352.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zaheer A, Bell GG (2005) Benefiting from network position: Firm capabilities, structural holes, and performance. Strategic Management J. 26(9):809–825.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zaheer A, Venkatraman N (1994) Determinants of electronic integration in the insurance industry: An empirical test. Management Sci. 40(5):549–566.Link, Google Scholar
• Zajac EJ, Olsen CP (1993) From transaction cost to transactional value analysis: Implications for the study of interorganizational strategies. J. Management Stud. 30(1):131–145.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhao K, Xia M, Shaw MJ (2011) What motivates firms to contribute to consortium-based e-business standardization? J. Management Inform. Systems 28(2):305–334.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhu K, Kraemer K, Xu S (2003) Electronic business adoption by European firms: A cross-country assessment of the facilitators and inhibitors. Eur. J. Inform. Systems 12(4):251–268.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhu K, Kraemer K, Gurbaxani V, Xu S (2006) Migration to open-standard interorganizational systems: Network effects, switching costs, and path dependency. MIS Quart. 30:515–539.Google Scholar