Does technological modularity substitute for control? A study of alliance performance in software outsourcing

Although control is presumed to be necessary to curb opportunism, its implementation in alliances can be costly and challenging. Paradoxically, some contemporary firms have counterintuitively developed successful alliances without extensive formal control. A widespread but untested assertion that might help reconcile this contradiction is that technological modularity reduces the need for alliance control. The objective of this study is to develop and test this assertion. Using data from 120 software outsourcing alliances, we show that, process control, outcome control, and modularity independently enhance alliance performance. However modularity and control are imperfect substitutes: modularity lowers the influence of process control but not of outcome control on alliance performance. Our theoretical development and empirical testing of the interactions of alliance control with modularity has significant implications for strategy theory and practice, which are also discussed. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  D. L. Parnas,et al.  On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules , 1972, Software Pioneers.

[2]  W. Ouchi,et al.  Organizational Control: Two Functions. , 1975 .

[3]  C. Lance.  Residual Centering, Exploratory and Confirmatory Moderator Analysis, and Decomposition of Effects in Path Models Containing Interactions , 1988 .

[4]  J. Jaccard,et al.  Interaction effects in multiple regression , 1992 .

[5]  Richard P. Bagozzi,et al.  Assessing Construct Validity in Organizational Research , 1991 .

[6]  R. Sanchez.  Strategic flexibility in product competition , 1995 .

[7]  Ron Sanchez,et al.  Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design , 1996 .

[8]  Stephen Tallman,et al.  Control and Performance in International Joint Ventures , 1997 .

[9]  L. Sproull,et al.  Coordinating Expertise in Software Development Teams , 2000 .

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

[11]  Suzanne Rivard,et al.  An Integrative Contingency Model of Software Project Risk Management , 2001, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[12]  M. Lindell,et al.  Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. , 2001, The Journal of applied psychology.

[13]  Morten T. Hansen,et al.  Knowledge Networks: Explaining Effective Knowledge Sharing in Multiunit Companies , 2002 .

[14]  Nicolaj Siggelkow,et al.  Misperceiving Interactions Among Complements and Substitutes: Organizational Consequences , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[15]  P. Cardona,et al.  Modularity, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: A study of the home appliance industry , 2002 .

[16]  Todd R. Zenger,et al.  Do Formal Contracts and Relational Governance Function as Substitutes or Complements , 2002 .

[17]  Russell L. Purvis,et al.  Controlling Information Systems Development Projects: The View from the Client , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[18]  Satish Nambisan,et al.  Complementary Product Integration by High-Technology New Ventures: The Role of Initial Technology Strategy , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[19]  Joanne E. Oxley,et al.  The Scope and Governance of International R&D Alliances , 2003 .

[20]  Rajiv Sabherwal,et al.  Portfolios of Control in Outsourced Software Development Projects , 2003, Inf. Syst. Res..

[21]  Scott B. MacKenzie,et al.  Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[22]  Steven D. Eppinger,et al.  The Misalignment of Product Architecture and Organizational Structure in Complex Product Development , 2004, Manag. Sci..

[23]  Sendil K. Ethiraj,et al.  Where Do Capabilities Come from and How Do They Matter? A Study in the Software Services Industry , 2005 .

[24]  Franco Zambonelli,et al.  Knowledge Networks , 2005, WAC.

[25]  Stefano Brusoni,et al.  Making Design Rules: A Multi-Domain Perspective , 2005 .

[26]  Naresh K. Malhotra,et al.  Common Method Variance in IS Research: A Comparison of Alternative Approaches and a Reanalysis of Past Research , 2006, Manag. Sci..

[27]  G. Hoetker.  Do Modular Products Lead to Modular Organizations , 2006 .

[28]  S. Karim.  Modularity in Organizational Structure: The Reconfiguration of Internally Developed and Acquired Business Units , 2006 .

[29]  A. Tiwana,et al.  Does peripheral knowledge complement control? An empirical test in technology outsourcing alliances , 2007 .

[30]  Anand Swaminathan,et al.  Modularity and the Impact of Buyer - Supplier Relationships on the Survival of Suppliers , 2007, Manag. Sci..