The improvisation-efficiency paradox in inter-firm electronic networks: governance and architecture considerations

The need to simultaneously achieve operational efficiency, while accommodating a continuous morphing of alliances and network arrangements, is a key challenge in the modern enterprise and market. Inter-firm interdependence and unpredictable market shifts heighten the need to establish an architecture and governance arrangement that permits rapid adaptation. Fully integrated firms have increasingly morphed into networks of collaborators. The demand for efficient and effective inter-firm coordination is no longer a desired condition, but essential for competitive position. Historically, the cost of this efficiency has been loss of flexibility, yet volatile markets reward efficiency and flexibility. Market trends demand an ability to improvise in the marketplace – converge execution with planning – while being simultaneously efficient. In this paper, we explore this improvisation-efficiency paradox. The architecture and governance issues are considered that seek the strengths of both effects. Efficiency need not come at a high cost in attaining the ability to be adaptive and spontaneous. We explore the key considerations of both network architecture and governance structures that characterize improvisational networks. Trade communities and trading partners establish a discipline of processes and decision rights that serve the community of collaborators.

[1]  Rita Gunther McGrath.  A Real Options Logic for Initiating Technology Positioning Investments , 1997 .

[2]  W. Powell,et al.  Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology. , 1996 .

[3]  F. McFarlan,et al.  Information partnerships--shared data, shared scale. , 1990, Harvard business review.

[4]  Amrit Tiwana,et al.  Knowledge Partitioning in Outsourced Software Development: A Field Study , 2003, ICIS.

[5]  L. Trigeorgis.  The Nature of Option Interactions and the Valuation of Investments with Multiple Real Options , 1993, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis.

[6]  Edward H. Bowman,et al.  Real Options Analysis and Strategic Decision Making , 2001 .

[7]  Frank Blackler,et al.  Organizing Processes in Complex Activity Networks , 2000 .

[8]  M. Bensaou,et al.  Interorganizational Cooperation: The Role of Information Technology an Empirical Comparison of U.S. and Japanese Supplier Relations , 1997, Inf. Syst. Res..

[9]  Richard A. D'Aveni,et al.  New Organizational Forms and Strategies for Managing in Hypercompetitive Environments , 1996 .

[10]  R. Acevedo,et al.  Research report , 1967, Revista odontologica de Puerto Rico.

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

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

[13]  C. Ciborra.  The Platform Organization: Recombining Strategies, Structures, and Surprises , 1996 .

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

[15]  Harbir Singh,et al.  Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: building relational capital , 2000 .

[16]  Akira Takeishi,et al.  Special Issue: Knowledge, Knowing, and Organizations: Knowledge Partitioning in the Interfirm Division of Labor: The Case of Automotive Product Development , 2002, Organ. Sci..

[17]  Barbara W. Keats,et al.  Navigating in the new competitive landscape: Building strategic flexibility and competitive advantage in the 21st century , 1998 .

[18]  M. C. Jensen,et al.  Specific and General Knowledge and Organizational Structure , 1995 .

[19]  E Bonabeau,et al.  Swarm Intelligence: A Whole New Way to Think about Business , 2001 .

[20]  Henk W. Volberda,et al.  Towards The Flexible Form: How To Remain Vital in Hypercompetitive Environments , 1996 .

[21]  H. Raghav Rao,et al.  The impact of EDI implementation commitment and implementation success on competitive advantage and firm performance , 1995, Inf. Syst. J..

[22]  B. R. Nault.  Information Technology and Organizational Design: Locating Decisions and Information , 1997 .

[23]  TakeishiAkira.  Knowledge Partitioning in the Interfirm Division of Labor , 2002 .

[24]  Steven Postrel,et al.  Shared knowledge, “glitches,” and product development performance , 1999 .

[25]  B. Kogut,et al.  Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology , 1992 .

[26]  M. W. Shields,et al.  Loosely Coupled Systems , 1997 .

[27]  M. Bensaou,et al.  Buyer-Supplier Relations in Industrial Markets: When Do Buyers Risk Making Idiosyncratic Investments? , 1999 .

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

[29]  R. Grant.  Chapter 8 – Prospering in Dynamically-Competitive Environments: Organizational Capability as Knowledge Integration , 1999 .

[30]  Kenneth E. Aupperle.  Crossroads—Spontaneous Organizational Reconfiguration: A Historical Example Based on Xenophon's Anabasis , 1996 .

[31]  E F Fama,et al.  SEPARATION OF OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL & AGENCY PROBLEM AND RESIDUAL CLAIMS , 1983 .

[32]  Krishnan S. Anand,et al.  Information and organization for horizontal multimarket coordination , 1997 .

[33]  B. Kogut.  The network as knowledge : Generative rules and the emergence of structure , 2000 .

[34]  Lenos Trigeorgis,et al.  Multi-stage real options: The cases of information technology infrastructure and international bank expansion , 1998 .

[35]  E. Fama,et al.  Separation of Ownership and Control , 1983, The Journal of Law and Economics.

[36]  Ho Geun Lee,et al.  Research Report. Can EDI Benefit Adopters? , 1999, Inf. Syst. Res..

[37]  S. Zahra,et al.  Absorptive Capacity: A Review, Reconceptualization, and Extension , 2002 .