Data-Induced Rationality and Unitary Spaces in Interfirm Collaboration

References

• Alexy O, George G, Salter AI (2013) Cui bono? The selective revealing of knowledge and its implications for innovative activity. Acad. Management Rev. 38(2):270–291.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andriopoulos C, Lewis MW (2009) Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organ. Sci. 20(4):696–717.Link, Google Scholar
• Aoki K, Wilhelm M (2017) The role of ambidexterity in managing buyer–supplier relationships: The Toyota case. Organ. Sci. 28(6):1080–1097.Link, Google Scholar
• Aral S, Bakos Y, Brynjolfsson E (2018) Information technology, repeated contracts, and the number of suppliers. Management Sci. 64(2):592–612.Link, Google Scholar
• Arjaliès DL, Bansal P (2018) Beyond numbers: How investment managers accommodate societal issues in financial decisions. Organ. Stud. 39(5–6):691–719.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bailey DE, Leonardi PM, Barley SR (2012) The lure of the virtual. Organ. Sci. 23(5):1485–1504.Google Scholar
• Bailey D, Faraj S, Hinds P, von Krogh G, Leonardi P (2019) Call for Papers—Special Issue of Organization Science: Emerging Technologies and Organizing. Organ. Sci. 30(3):642–646.Google Scholar
• Baker GP, Hubbard TN (2003) Make vs. buy in trucking: Asset ownership, job design, and information. Amer. Econom. Rev. 93(3):551–572.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baker GP, Hubbard TN (2004) Contractibility and asset ownership: On-board computers and governance in U.S. trucking. Quart. J. Econom. 119(4):1443–1479.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baskerville R, Myers M, Yoo Y (2020) Digital first: The ontological reversal and new challenges for IS research. MIS Quart. 44(2):509–523.Google Scholar
• Benner MJ, Tushman ML (2003) Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Acad. Management Rev. 28(2):238–256.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Birkinshaw J, Gupta K (2013) Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. Acad. Management Perspect. 27(4):287–298.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boland RJ, Tenkasi RV (1995) Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing. Organ. Sci. 6(4):350–372.Link, Google Scholar
• Boland RJ, Lyytinen K, Yoo Y (2007) Wakes of innovation in project networks: The case of digital 3-D representations in architecture, engineering, and construction. Organ. Sci. 18(4):631–647.Link, Google Scholar
• Boudreau K (2010) Open platform strategies and innovation: Granting access vs. devolving control. Management Sci. 56(10):1849–1872.Link, Google Scholar
• Boumgarden P, Nickerson J, Zenger TR (2012) Sailing into the wind: Exploring the relationships among ambidexterity, vacillation, and organizational performance. Strategic Management J. 33(6):587–610.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brattström A, Faems D (2019) Interorganizational relationships as political battlefields: How fragmentation within organizations shapes relational dynamics between organizations. Acad. Management J. 63(5):1591–1620.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brattström A, Richtnér A (2014) Good cop–bad cop: Trust, control, and the lure of integration. J. Product Innovation Management 31(3):584–598.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brattström A, Faems D, Mähring M (2019) From trust convergence to trust divergence: Trust development in conflictual interorganizational relationships. Organ. Stud. 40(11):1685–1711.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cabantous L, Gond JP (2010) Rational Decision Making as Performative Praxis: Explaining Rationality’s Éternel Retour. Organ. Sci. 22(3):573–586.Google Scholar
• Cabantous L, Gond JP, Johnson-Cramer M (2010) Decision theory as practice: Crafting rationality in organizations. Organ. Stud. 31(11):1531–1566.Google Scholar
• Carlile PR (2002) A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organ. Sci. 13(4):442–455.Link, Google Scholar
• Christiaanse E, Venkatraman N (2002) Beyond sabre: An empirical test of expertise exploitation in electronic channels. MIS Quart. 26(1):15–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chung CC, Beamish PW (2010) The trap of continual ownership change in international equity joint ventures. Organ. Sci. 21(5):995–1015.Link, Google Scholar
• Curchod C, Patriotta G, Cohen L, Neysen N (2020) Working for an algorithm: Power asymmetries and agency in online work settings. Admin. Sci. Quart. 65(3):644–676.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Das TK, Teng BS (2000) Instabilities of strategic alliances: An internal tensions perspective. Organ. Sci. 11(1):77–101.Link, Google Scholar
• Dekker HC (2004) Control of inter-organizational relationships: Evidence on appropriation concerns and coordination requirements. Accounting Organ. Soc. 29(1):27–49.Crossref, Google Scholar
• de Rond M, Bouchikhi H (2004) On the dialectics of strategic alliances. Organ. Sci. 15(1):56–69.Link, Google Scholar
• Duncan RB (1976) The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. Kilman RH, Pondy LR, Slevin D, eds. The Management of Organization Design (North Holland, New York), 167–188.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) Building theories from case study research. Acad. Management Rev. 14(4):532–550.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt KM, Graebner ME (2007) Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Acad. Management J. 50(1):25–32.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt KM, Graebner ME, Sonenshein S (2016) Grand challenges and inductive methods: Rigor without rigor mortis. Acad. Management J. 59(4):1113–1123.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Espeland WN, Sauder M (2007) Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. Amer. J. Sociol. 113(1):1–40.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Espeland WN, Stevens ML (2008) A sociology of quantification. Eur. J. Sociol. 49(3):401–436.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Faraj S, Pachidi S, Sayegh K (2018) Working and organizing in the age of the learning algorithm. Inform. Organ. 28(1):62–70.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Foucault M (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (Penguin, London).Google Scholar
• Friedland R, Alford R (1991) Bringing society back: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. Powell WW, DiMaggio PJ, eds. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (University of Chicago Press, Chicago), 232–263.Google Scholar
• Gibson CB, Birkinshaw J (2004) The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Acad. Management J. 47(2):209–226.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gnyawali DR, Ryan Charleton T (2018) Nuances in the interplay of competition and cooperation: Toward a theory of coopetition. J. Management 44(7):2511–2534.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Graebner ME, Martin JA, Roundy PT (2012) Qualitative data: Cooking without a recipe. Strategic Organ. 10(3):276–284.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greenwood R, Raynard M, Kodeih F, Micelotta ER, Lounsbury M (2011) Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Acad. Management Ann. 5(1):317–371.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grodal S, Anteby M, Holm AL (2021) Achieving rigor in qualitative analysis: The role of active categorization in theory building. Acad. Management Rev. 46(3):591–612.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gulati R, Puranam P (2009) Renewal through reorganization: The value of inconsistencies between formal and informal organization. Organ. Sci. 20(2):422–440.Link, Google Scholar
• Harris SG (1994) Organizational culture and individual sensemaking: A schema-based perspective. Organ. Sci. 5(3):309–321.Link, Google Scholar
• Henkel J (2006) Selective revealing in open innovation processes: The case of embedded Linux. Res. Policy 35(7):953–969.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hitt LM (1999) Information technology and firm boundaries: Evidence from panel data. Inform. Systems Res. 10(2):134–149.Link, Google Scholar
• Holland C (1995) Cooperative supply chain management: The impact of interorganizational information systems. J. Strategic Inform. Systems 4(2):117–133.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Im G, Rai A (2008) Knowledge sharing ambidexterity in long-term interorganizational relationships. Management Sci. 54(7):1281–1296.Link, Google Scholar
• Im G, Rai A (2014) IT-enabled coordination for ambidextrous interorganizational relationships. Inform. Systems Res. 25(1):72–92.Link, Google Scholar
• Jarvenpaa SL, Majchrzak A (2016) Interactive self-regulatory theory for sharing and protecting in interorganizational collaborations. Acad. Management Rev. 41(1):9–27.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jonsson K, Holmström J, Lyytinen K (2009) Turn to the material: Remote diagnostics systems and new forms of boundary-spanning. Inform. Organ. 19(4):233–252.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jonsson K, Mathiassen L, Holmström J (2018) Representation and mediation in digitalized work: Evidence from maintenance of mining machinery. J. Inform. Tech. 33(3):216–232.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kagermann H, Wahlster W, Helbig J (2013) Umsetzungsempfehlungen für das Zukunftsprojekt Industrie 4.0. Report, Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung, Bonn, Germany.Google Scholar
• Kaplan S (2008) Framing contests: Strategy making under uncertainty. Organ. Sci. 19(5):729–752.Link, Google Scholar
• Kellogg KC, Valentine MA, Angele C (2020) Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control. Acad. Management Ann. 14(1):366–410.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klarner P, Raisch S (2013) Move to the beat-rhythms of change and firm performance. Acad. Management J. 56(1):160–184.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kraatz MS, Block ES (2008) Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. Greenwood R, Oliver C, Suddaby R, Sahlin-Andersson K, eds. The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (Sage), 243–274.Google Scholar
• Lee J, Berente N (2012) Digital innovation and the division of innovative labor: Digital controls in the automotive industry. Organ. Sci. 23(5):1428–1447.Link, Google Scholar
• Lumineau F, Oliveira N (2018) A pluralistic perspective to overcome major blind spots in research on interorganizational relationships. Acad. Management Ann. 12(1):440–465.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lyytinen K, Yoo Y, Boland RJ Jr (2016) Digital product innovation within four classes of innovation networks. Inform. Systems J. 26(1):47–75.Crossref, Google Scholar
• MacKenzie D, Millo Y (2003) Constructing a market, performing theory: The historical sociology of a financial derivatives exchange. Amer. J. Sociol. 109(1):107–145.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
• Malone TW, Yates J, Benjamin RI (1987) Electronic markets and electronic hierarchies. Comm. ACM 30(6):484–497.Crossref, Google Scholar
• March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 2(1):71–87.Link, Google Scholar
• Mazmanian M, Beckman CM (2018) “Making” your numbers: Engendering organizational control through a ritual of quantification. Organ. Sci. 29(3):357–379.Link, Google Scholar
• McPherson CM, Sauder M (2013) Logics in action: Managing institutional complexity in a drug court. Admin. Sci. Quart. 58(2):165–196.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miller P, Power M (2013) Accounting, organizing, and economizing: Connecting accounting research and organization theory. Acad. Management Ann. 7(1):557–605.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oliveira N, Lumineau F (2017) How coordination trajectories influence the performance of interorganizational project networks. Organ. Sci. 28(6):1029–1060.Link, Google Scholar
• Oliver C (1990) Determinants of interorganizational relationships: Integration and future directions. Acad. Management Rev. 15(2):241–265.Google Scholar
• Orlikowski WJ (1992) The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organ. Sci. 3(3):398–427.Google Scholar
• Orlikowski WJ, Scott SV (2014) What happens when evaluation goes online? Exploring apparatuses of valuation in the travel sector. Organ. Sci. 25(3):868–891.Link, Google Scholar
• Orlikowski WJ, Scott SV (2015) Exploring material-discursive practices. J. Management Stud. 52(5):697–705.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pache AC, Santos F (2012) Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Acad. Management J. 56(4):972–1001.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Parmigiani A (2007) Why do firms both make and buy? An investigation of concurrent sourcing. Strategic Management J. 28(3):285–311.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Patton MQ (1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd ed. (Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
• Perkmann M, Spicer A (2014) How emerging organizations take form: The role of imprinting and values in organizational bricolage. Organ. Sci. 25(6):1785–1806.Link, Google Scholar
• Perkmann M, McKelvey M, Phillips N (2019) Protecting scientists from Gordon Gekko: How organizations use hybrid spaces to engage with multiple institutional logics. Organ. Sci. 30(2):298–318.Link, Google Scholar
• Pfeffer J, Salancik GR (2003) The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA).Google Scholar
• Putnam LL, Fairhurst GT, Banghart S (2016) Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. Acad. Management Ann. 10(1):65–171.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Qrunfleh S, Tarafdar M (2014) Supply chain information systems strategy: Impacts on supply chain performance and firm performance. Internat. J. Production Econom. 147(B):340–350.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rai A, Patnayakuni R, Seth N (2006) Firm performance impacts of digitally enabled supply chain integration capabilities. MIS Quart. 30(2):225–246.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rai A, Pavlou PA, Im G, Du S (2012) Interfirm IT capability profiles and communications for cocreating relational value: Evidence from the logistics industry. MIS Quart. 36(1):233–262.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Raisch S, Birkinshaw J (2008) Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. J. Management 34(3):375–409.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Raisch S, Birkinshaw J, Probst G, Tushman ML (2009) Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organ. Sci. 20(4):685–695.Link, Google Scholar
• Reekers N, Smithson S (1996) The role of EDI in inter-organizational coordination in the European automotive industry. Eur. J. Inform. Systems 5(2):120–130.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schad J, Lewis MW, Raisch S, Smith WK (2016) Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Acad. Management Ann. 10(1):5–64.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simon HA (1962) The architecture of complexity. Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc. 106(6):467–482.Google Scholar
• Simsek Z (2009) Organizational ambidexterity: Toward a multilevel understanding. J. Management Stud. 46(4):597–624.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Slawinski N, Bansal P (2015) Short on time: Intertemporal tensions in business sustainability. Organ. Sci. 26(2):531–549.Link, Google Scholar
• Smith WK, Besharov ML (2019) Bowing before dual gods: How structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Admin. Sci. Quart. 64(1):1–44.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith WK, Lewis MW (2011) Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Acad. Management Rev. 36(2):381–403.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stadtler L, Van Wassenhove LN (2016) Coopetition as a paradox: Integrative approaches in a multi-company, cross-sector partnership. Organ. Stud. 37(5):655–685.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Strauss A, Corbin JM (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques (Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
• Thompson JD (1967) Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory, 1st ed. (Routledge, New Brunswick, NJ).Google Scholar
• Townley B (2002) The role of competing rationalities in institutional change. Acad. Management J. 45(1):163–179.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Townley B (2008) Reason’s Neglect: Rationality and Organizing (Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tushman ML, O’Reilly CA (1996) Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. Calif. Management Rev. 38(4):8–29.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Uzzi B (1997) Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Admin. Sci. Quart. 42(1):35–67.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vijayasarathy L, Robey D (1997) The effect of EDI on market channel relationships in retailing. Inform. Management 33(2):73–86.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yin R (2014) Case Study Research: Design and Methods (SAGE Publications, Los Angeles).Google Scholar
• Yoo Y, Henfridsson O, Lyytinen K (2010) Research Commentary–The new organizing logic of digital innovation: An agenda for Information Systems Research. Inform. Systems Res. 21(4):724–735.Google Scholar
• Zammuto RF, Griffith TL, Majchrzak A, Dougherty DJ, Faraj S (2007) Information technology and the changing fabric of organization. Organ. Sci. 18(5):749–762.Link, Google Scholar
• Zimmermann A, Raisch S, Birkinshaw J (2015) How is ambidexterity initiated? The emergent charter definition process. Organ. Sci. 26(4):1119–1139.Link, Google Scholar
• Zuboff S (1988) In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power (Basic Books, New York).Google Scholar