Network orchestration in a large inter‐organizational project

Abstract

Multiple organizations working jointly on shared activities in inter‐organizational projects for a defined period of time are used increasingly to coordinate the supply of complex products, subsystems, and services across many industries. Despite the growth in inter‐organizational networks as an organizational form, scholars have only recently begun to identify how lead organizations orchestrate the coordination of multiple parties with disparate goals, responsibilities, and capabilities. Prior work offers limited insights into the choice of network governance forms, and how coordination is undertaken by the network orchestrator to govern these networks. We conducted a longitudinal study of four networks to deliver vital services into a large project. We identified how the choice of network governance form was based on task complexity. A shared governance form was chosen for networks developed to deliver routine services, whereas a lead organization governance form was chosen for networks set up to deliver complex services. However, findings showed that the selection of an appropriate governance form was not sufficient for ensuring high performance. The network orchestrator's mode of coordination (formal or informal), the intensity of coordination (active or passive), and fit with the form of governance form (shared or lead organization governed) was important in driving performance.

Co‐evolution of governance mechanisms and coopetition in public‐private projects

“…As coopetitive tensions remained and had disrupted the project, centralization in the public sector (i.e., lead organization) helped regained stability and coordinate activities. This finding aligns with recent research showing that lead‐organization governance helps attain efficiency and stability in orchestrating networks for complex services (Roehrich et al, 2023). Finally, we identified coopetition‐oriented goals in project governance, as the project members sought to act upon both cooperative and competitive behaviors.…”

Large interorganizational projects (LIPs): Toward an integrative perspective and research agenda on interorganizational governance

“…Contracts are legally enforceable and used primarily to control and coordinate exchange relationships (Ring & Van de Ven, 1992; Williamson, 1985) which includes the delegation of authority, power, decision rights, formal rules and regulations, roles and responsibilities, and standard operating procedures (Cao & Lumineau, 2015; Poppo & Zenger, 2002; Roehrich et al, 2021). While a contract's control clauses (e.g., termination, monitoring, incentives, and disincentives) focus on ensuring that the other party in a relationship will perform in accordance with one's expectations, coordination clauses (e.g., frequency and nature of meetings, specifying roles) support the management of a myriad of interdependent tasks and activities between organizations (Caniëls et al, 2012; Roehrich et al, 2023). Various organizational structures and roles (e.g., lead organizations, hierarchical authority, integrated project teams, advisory boards, and relationship managers) are established as additional governance structures to better support LIPs.…”

“…Integrators (lead organizations) and contracts are two distinct governance mechanisms (and structures) that have been found to actively coordinate interdependent tasks in projects (Oliveira & Lumineau, 2017; Roehrich et al, 2023). Coordination (and cooperation) is particularly challenging in LIPs where tasks are reciprocally dependent and require mutual adjustment to address unforeseen and (rapidly) changing conditions (Eriksson et al, 2019; Morris, 2013).…”

“…Example papers Provan and Kenis (2008), Zheng et al (2008), Kreye et al (2015), Manning (2017), Oliveira and Lumineau (2017), Roehrich et al (2023), Fang et al (2023) more suited for complex services. Previous research in PM has also focused on a design structure matrix (DSM) which is used to list all constituent subsystems/activities and the corresponding information exchange, interactions, and dependency patterns (Tripathy & Eppinger, 2013;Yang et al, 2015).…”

Platform evolution in large inter‐organizational collaborative research programs

“…Compared to individual projects, programs have less-specific objectives and a longer-term perspective; hence, their implementation is more difficult to measure and timeline (Davies & Mackenzie, 2014). The success of large inter-organizational programs depends upon multiple organizations committing to collaboration over a long period of time, despite having particular interests, occupying separate positions in the supply network, and having bounded knowledge of each other (Kobarg et al, 2019;Mishra et al, 2015;Roehrich et al, 2020Roehrich et al, , 2023von Danwitz, 2018). Collaboration entails coordination in designing common goals, cooperation in implementing them, and willingness to help partners achieve both common and private goals (Castañer & Oliveira, 2020;Gulati et al, 2012).…”