EMBEDDED PARTNER SELECTION IN RELATIONS BETWEEN FIRMS

This chapter addresses how firms buying information technology (IT) products select their suppliers. We argue that social embeddedness, in the sense of own experiences with suppliers and information about experiences of third parties, influences these types of selection decisions. More specifically, we claim that social embeddedness is more important if: (1) the potential damage for the buyer from receiving an inferior product is larger and (2) if it is more difficult for the buyer to monitor the quality of the product. We use large-scale surveys of IT transactions in the Netherlands and Germany to test these hypotheses. In general, our hypotheses about the effects of social embeddedness on partner selection are supported. We find that buyers tend to assign greater weight to product quality if the potential damage for the buyer is larger. Negative third-party information is particularly important if the buyer has large problems to monitor the quality of a product.

[1]  Toby E. Stuart.  GOVERNING STRATEGIC ALLIANCES , 2003 .

[2]  Ranjay Gulati,et al.  SIZE OF THE PIE AND SHARE OF THE PIE: IMPLICATIONS OF NETWORK EMBEDDEDNESS AND BUSINESS RELATEDNESS FOR VALUE CREATION AND VALUE APPROPRIATION IN JOINT VENTURES , 2003 .

[3]  L. D. Boer,et al.  A review of methods supporting supplier selection , 2001 .

[4]  Madeleine E. Pullman,et al.  AN ANALYSIS OF THE SUPPLIER SELECTION PROCESS , 1998 .

[5]  F. Windmeijer.  A goodness-of-fit test in the multinomial legit model based on weighted squared residuals , 1994 .

[6]  David M. Kreps.  Corporate culture and economic theory , 1990 .

[7]  K. Arrow.  The limits of organization , 1974 .

[8]  W. Rogers.  Regression standard errors in clustered samples , 1994 .

[9]  P. Allison,et al.  Comparing Logit and Probit Coefficients Across Groups , 1999 .

[10]  R. Gulati.  Does Familiarity Breed Trust? The Implications of Repeated Ties for Contractual Choice in Alliances , 1995 .

[11]  W. Raub,et al.  Reputation and Efficiency in Social Interactions: An Example of Network Effects , 1990, American Journal of Sociology.

[12]  Kathryn M Neckerman,et al.  KEEPING A JOB: NETWORK HIRING AND TURNOVER IN A RETAIL BANK , 2003 .

[13]  B. Blumberg.  Efficient partner search: Embedded firms seeking co‐operative partners , 2001 .

[14]  V. Buskens,et al.  Embedded trust: Control and learning , 2002 .

[15]  Dhruv Grewal,et al.  Supply chain management in a networked economy , 2000 .

[16]  B. Lyons.  Contracts and Specific Investment: An Empirical Test of Transaction Cost Theory , 1994 .

[17]  G. Hofstede.  Culture′s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations , 2001 .

[18]  Mark S. Granovetter.  Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness , 1985, American Journal of Sociology.

[19]  B. Uzzi,et al.  Embeddedness in the Making of Financial Capital: How Social Relations and Networks Benefit Firms Seeking Financing , 1999, The New Economic Sociology.

[20]  Michael Essig,et al.  Purchasing consortia as symbiotic relationships: developing the concept of “consortium sourcing” , 2000 .

[21]  R. Duncan Luce,et al.  Individual Choice Behavior , 1959 .

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

[23]  Efraim Turban,et al.  Information Technology for Management: Making Connections for Strategic Advantage , 2000 .

[24]  W. C. Benton,et al.  Vendor selection criteria and methods , 1991 .

[25]  Beate Völker.  Should Auld Acquaintance Be Forgot--?: Institutions of Communism, the Transition to Capitalism and Personal Networks: The Case of East Germany , 2003 .

[26]  A. Hirschman,et al.  Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States , 1970 .

[27]  B. Uzzi,et al.  The Sources and Consequences of Embeddedness for the Economic Performance of Organizations: The Network Effect , 1996 .

[28]  W. Dugger.  The Economic Institutions of Capitalism , 1987 .

[29]  S. Helper,et al.  Determinants of trust in supplier relations: Evidence from the automotive industry in Japan and the United States , 1998 .

[30]  P. J. Huber.  The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates under nonstandard conditions , 1967 .

[31]  Vincent Buskens,et al.  THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE GOVERNANCE OF RELATIONS IN MARKETS AND ORGANIZATIONS , 2003 .

[32]  Ronald Batenburg,et al.  CONTACTS AND CONTRACTS: DYADIC EMBEDDEDNESS AND THE CONTRACTUAL BEHAVIOR OF FIRMS , 2003 .

[33]  Khalid M. Dubas,et al.  CHINESE PURCHASING MANAGERS' PREFERENCES AND TRADE-OFFS IN SUPPLIER SELECTION AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION , 1996 .

[34]  Joffre Swait,et al.  Stated Choice Methods: Relaxing the IID assumption – introducing variants of the MNL model , 2000 .

[35]  Joseph P. Cannon,et al.  An Examination of the Nature of Trust in Buyer–Seller Relationships: , 1997 .

[36]  J. Hanna,et al.  Supply chain consortia: the rise of transcendental buyer–supplier relationships , 1999 .

[37]  Stewart Macaulay.  Non-contractual relations in business: a preliminary study , 1963 .

[38]  Jeffrey L. Bradach,et al.  Price, Authority, and Trust: From Ideal Types to Plural Forms , 1989 .

[39]  Vincent Buskens,et al.  Social networks and trust , 1999 .

[40]  Rajiv D. Banker,et al.  Economics of operations management: A research perspective , 1995 .

[41]  Jeroen Weesie,et al.  Seemlingly unrelated estimation and the cluster-adjusted sandwich estimator , 2000 .

[42]  Gerrit Rooks,et al.  How Inter-firm Co-operation Depends on Social Embeddedness: A Vignette Study , 2000 .

[43]  Jeroen Weesie,et al.  AN EXPERIMENT ON THE EFFECTS OF EMBEDDEDNESS IN TRUST SITUATIONS , 2000 .

[44]  D. Hensher,et al.  Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications , 2000 .