PurposeDigitalization encourages the manufacturer to engage in inter-organizational technological activities (i.e. supplier IT integration and supply visibility) with its major supplier, which influences supply chain (SC) governance. This study tests a moderated mediation model that considers supplier IT integration and supply visibility as mediators between supply-side digitalization and supplier opportunism, and relational ties as a moderator in the relationship between inter-organizational technological activities and supplier opportunism.Design/methodology/approachOrdinary least square (OLS) regression is used to examine data from 200 firms in China describing their supply chain management (SCM) practices and perceived relationships with their major suppliers.FindingsSupply-side digitalization is positively related to supplier IT integration and supply visibility. Supply-side digitalization has a positive indirect effect on supplier opportunism through supplier IT integration but a negative indirect effect through supply visibility. Relational ties weaken the positive effect of supplier IT integration and the positive indirect effect of supply-side digitalization on supplier opportunism. Relational ties also weaken the negative effect of supply visibility and the negative indirect effect of supply-side digitalization on supplier opportunism.Originality/valueThis study enriches understanding of SC governance in the digital age by empirically confirming that digital transformation brings both challenges and opportunities to SC governance and by clarifying the interplay of relational governance and technological activities. In addition, this study contributes to the SC digitalization literature by empirically validating the role of digitalization in promoting inter-organizational technological activities, as well as by revealing its potential dark side.

No abstract

No abstract

While the concept of UDDI supports the automatic discovery of services implementing a common public tModel interface, there have been only few attempts to find a standardized form to describe the quality of service (QoS) properties of Web services.We introduce our approach "Web service QoS (WSQoS)" that enables an efficient, dynamic, and QoS-aware selection and monitoring of Web services. The prototype of our approach is implemented with the .NET technology, including the following components: a WSQoS Editor for the specification of QoS properties, a WSQoS Requirement Manager for retrieving QoS requirements specified by client applications, a Web service broker for an efficient and QoS-aware selection of Web service offers, and a WS-QoS Monitor for checking the compliance of the service offers.

Purpose Power is central to inter-organizational relationships. The literature distinguishes between structural power (i.e. dependence) and behavioral power (i.e. use of power), yet few studies considered them simultaneously. Opportunism is generally linked to use of power, but it remains unclear whether use of power deters or invites opportunism. In this study, the authors treat dependence as a driver of use of power and opportunism as its outcome, and empirically test relationships among dependence, power, and opportunism from both buyer and supplier perspectives. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach This study examines how buyer and supplier dependence influence the other’s and their own use of coercive and non-coercive power, which lead to opportunism of two parties, based on data from 240 companies in China on their perceived relationships with major suppliers. Findings Results show that buyer/supplier dependence is positively related to supplier’s/buyer’s use of coercive and non-coercive power. Buyer’s and supplier’s use of coercive power also positively influences their opportunism. Buyer’s use of non-coercive power is negatively related to both partners’ opportunism, whereas supplier’s use of non-coercive power is not significantly related to either partner’s opportunism. Originality/value This study contributes to literature in two ways. First, the authors distinguish the structural aspect of power from its behavioral aspect and demonstrate that dependence, which represents structural power, generates different patterns of influence on use of coercive and non-coercive power when considered from buyer’s and supplier’s perspectives. Second, the authors reexamine relationships between use of power and opportunism and show that buyers and suppliers react differently to use of different types of power.