Tight versus Loose Organizational Coupling within Inter-Firm Networks in the Enterprise Software Industry - The Perspective of Complementors

Facilitated by new standards and middleware technologies, enterprise application software is increasingly characterized by a high degree of modularity. On an organizational level, this is reflected by the goal of dominant system vendors (hubs) to form loosely-coupled hub-and-spoke networks with smaller niche players (spokes) that complement their solutions. This paper aims at explaining differences regarding the extent to which spokes strive for loosely-coupled partnerships as opposed to closely-tied relationships with a particular hub. The type of coupling is indicated by the level of hub-specific investments and the application of informal governance mechanisms. Following existing theory, the synergistic specificity between the partners’ technological, commercial, and social capital is suggested to determine the aspired type of coupling. Moreover, it is argued that a tighter coupling leads to an increased threat of opportunism. However, instead of loosening the partnership, spokes tie themselves even closer to the hub.

[1]  B. Loasby.  The External Control of Organizations. A Resource Dependence Perspective , 1979 .

[2]  A. Prencipe.  Corporate Strategy and Systems Integration Capabilities: Managing Networks in Complex Systems Industries , 2003 .

[3]  E. Autio,et al.  SOCIAL CAPITAL, KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION, AND KNOWLEDGE EXPLOITATION IN YOUNG TECHNOLOGY-BASED FIRMS , 2001 .

[4]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  Coordination in software development , 1995, CACM.

[5]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Assimilation of Interorganizational Business Process Standards , 2007, Inf. Syst. Res..

[6]  Tiziana Casciaro,et al.  Power Imbalance, Mutual Dependence, and Constraint Absorption: A Closer Look at Resource Dependence Theory , 2005 .

[7]  Jeffrey H. Dyer,et al.  The Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Interorganizational Competitive Advantage , 1998 .

[8]  Bala Iyer,et al.  Partnerships between Software Firms: Is There Value from Complementarities? , 2008, Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2008).

[9]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  Resource-based View of Strategic Alliance Formation: Strategic and Social Effects in Entrepreneurial Firms , 1996 .

[10]  K. Weick,et al.  Loosely Coupled Systems: A Reconceptualization , 1990 .

[11]  M. Campbell-Kelly.  From Airline Reservations to Sonic the Hedgehog , 2003 .

[12]  Michael Stal,et al.  Web services: beyond component-based computing , 2002, CACM.

[13]  Dovev Lavie.  The Competitive Advantage of Interconnected Firms: An Extension of the Resource-Based View , 2006 .

[14]  Paul S. Adler,et al.  Interdepartmental Interdependence and Coordination: The Case of the Design/Manufacturing Interface , 1995 .

[15]  Timothy F. Bresnahan,et al.  Technological Competition and the Structure of the Computer Industry , 2003 .

[16]  R. E. Miles,et al.  Managing 21st century network organizations , 1992 .

[17]  G. Ahuja.  The duality of collaboration : Inducements and opportunities in the formation of interfirm linkages , 2000 .

[18]  M. E. Conway.  HOW DO COMMITTEES INVENT , 1967 .

[19]  David G. Messerschmitt,et al.  Software Ecosystem: Understanding an Indispensable Technology and Industry , 2003 .

[20]  Carla Simone,et al.  Coordination mechanisms: Towards a conceptual foundation of CSCW systems design , 1996, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[21]  Pierre N. Robillard,et al.  The role of knowledge in software development , 1999, CACM.

[22]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[23]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of , 1990 .

[24]  Mark J. Safferstone.  Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy , 1999 .

[25]  O. Williamson.  The Economics of Organization: The Transaction Cost Approach , 1981, American Journal of Sociology.

[26]  Jeffrey H. Dyer.  EFFECTIVE INTERFIRM COLLABORATION : HOW FIRMS MINIMIZE TRANSACTION COSTS AND MAXIMIZE TRANSACTION VALUE r , 1998 .

[27]  Michael Barnett.  The Keystone Advantage: What the New Dynamics of Business Ecosystems Mean for Strategy, Innovation, and Sustainability , 2006 .

[28]  Ilyoo B. Hong,et al.  A new framework for interorganizational systems based on the linkage of participants' roles , 2002, Inf. Manag..

[29]  Melissa A. Schilling.  Toward a General Modular Systems Theory and Its Application to Interfirm Product Modularity , 2000 .

[30]  K. Weick,et al.  Loosely Coupled Systems: A Reconceptualization , 1990 .

[31]  Mosad Zineldin,et al.  Managing in the @ age: Banking service quality and strategic positioning , 2002 .

[32]  Joseph Farrell,et al.  The Vertical Organization of Industry: Systems Competition versus Component Competition , 1998 .

[33]  E. Zajac,et al.  FROM TRANSACTION COST TO TRANSACTIONAL VALUE ANALYSIS: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE STUDY OF INTERORGANIZATIONAL STRATEGIES* , 1993 .

[34]  D. Teece,et al.  DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES AND STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT , 1997 .

[35]  Carliss Y. Baldwin,et al.  Managing in an age of modularity. , 1997, Harvard business review.

[36]  J. Barney.  Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage , 1991 .

[37]  Melissa A. Schilling,et al.  The Use of Modular Organizational Forms: An Industry-Level Analysis , 2001 .

[38]  B. Uzzi,et al.  Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of Embeddedness , 1997 .

[39]  Paul Milgrom,et al.  Complementarities and fit strategy, structure, and organizational change in manufacturing , 1995 .