The more the better? Relational governance in platforms and the role of appropriability mechanisms

Zhong, Qi; Sun, Yajing

doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.021

Cited by 25 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Reflecting the relevance of this issue, the volume of appropriability research has grown notably since Teece's seminal work in 1986 (James et al, 2013;Sun and Zhai, 2018). A special issue in Research Policy in 2006 revisited how innovative firms profit from their innovation in the twenty-first century (Chesbrough et al, 2006) and researchers have recently begun to re-examine the topic (e.g., Alnuaimi and George, 2016;Chesbrough et al, 2018;Ching et al 2019;Gambardella et al, 2021;Helfat and Raubitschek, 2018;Zhong and Sun, 2020). This newly awakened interest is a product of changes in the operations environment and in forms of organizing (Arora et al, 2016;Hoffmann et al, 2018;Miric et al, 2019;Teece, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distinguishing between appropriability and appropriation: A systematic review and a renewed conceptual framing

Hurmelinna‐Laukkanen

Yang

2022

Research Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study systematically reviews 200 articles published over the past three decades to reveal how appropriability and appropriation have been explained and how those perspectives resonate with developments in the innovation environment. Our results show that despite the extensive stream of literature, little effort has been made to systematically advance theory on appropriability and appropriation. Based on and extending prior literature, we propose a conceptual framing that distinguishes appropriability and appropriation, and that explains how innovating organizations build their readiness to benefit from innovation and how they realize that potential. We outline appropriability as the potential to benefit from an innovation, which accrues through instruments of appropriability: isolating appropriability mechanisms and complementary assets; and appropriation as the realization of that potential, which manifests in private and social benefits when the instruments are employed in processes for exclusion, leverage, or disclosure. We highlight the strategic importance of aligning these elements and appropriability conditions in realizing appropriation outcomes. The paper closes with a discussion on the framework's applications and relevant future research avenues.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distinguishing between appropriability and appropriation: A systematic review and a renewed conceptual framing

Hurmelinna‐Laukkanen

Yang

2022

Research Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As depicted in Table 1, governance is effective in promoting performance (Rai et al, 2012;Haq et al, 2019;Chi et al, 2017); conversely, other scholars have found that this relationship is only partially significant or even insignificant (Ke et al, 2015;Oshri et al, 2015;Shamim et al, 2020). In some cases, either relational or contractual governance serves as a focal point rather than two governance modes being investigated simultaneously (Zhong and Sun, 2020;Malhotra and Lumineau, 2011). Furthermore, the effectiveness of the two governance mechanisms in improving performance changes in different contexts (Haq et al, 2019;Ke et al, 2015;Lu et al, 2015).…”

Section: Governance and Performancementioning

confidence: 95%

“…, 2020). In some cases, either relational or contractual governance serves as a focal point rather than two governance modes being investigated simultaneously (Zhong and Sun, 2020; Malhotra and Lumineau, 2011). Furthermore, the effectiveness of the two governance mechanisms in improving performance changes in different contexts (Haq et al.…”

Section: Theoretical Development Research Model and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the effectiveness of contractual and relational governance on performance is context-based, resulting in contradictory findings (Bstieler and Hemmert, 2015;Lu et al, 2015;Tang et al, 2010). For example, several studies have revealed that the two governance mechanisms are efficient in promoting performance (Chi et al, 2017;Haq et al, 2019;Zhong and Sun, 2020), whereas others have suggested that the effectiveness of governance mechanisms is partially significant or even insignificant (Ke et al, 2015;Oshri et al, 2015;Shamim et al, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of governance on crowdsourcer satisfaction in crowdsourcing: moderating roles of task and environment complexities

Liu

Guan

Zhu

et al. 2022

IMDS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis study aims to explore how relational and contractual governance affect crowdsourcer satisfaction under boundary conditions, including internal (i.e. task complexity) or external (i.e. environmental complexity) factors.Design/methodology/approachWe empirically validate the hypotheses using survey data collected from 255 crowdsourcers on a leading platform (i.e. Zhubajie.com). Partial least squares technique and hierarchical regression analysis are used to test the research model.FindingsBoth forms of governance mechanisms positively affect crowdsourcer satisfaction. Task complexity negatively moderates the linkage of relational governance and crowdsourcer satisfaction. However, environmental complexity weakens the positive effect of contractual governance but enhances the effect of relational governance on satisfaction.Originality/valueThis study deepens the current understanding of governance mechanism in crowdsourcing by discovering the effectiveness of contractual and relational governance. We also contribute to the governance and crowdsourcing literature by revealing the mechanisms of how governance takes effect under task and environmental complexities.

show abstract

“…2.1 The importance and challenge of control in digital platforms Digital platforms generally operate as two-sided markets and aim to attract end users and participants (Facin et al, 2016). With technological architectures, they provide platforms on which participants can offer innovative products or services to meet the diverse demands of end users, and in turn promote the development of the platform ecosystem (Helfat and Raubitschek, 2018;Zhong and Sun, 2020). However, participants are not subsidiaries of the platform; rather, they are independent companies specializing in niche domains.…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does information technology governance strengthen or weaken contract control in digital platform relationships?

Yang

Qian

Zhao

2021

IMDS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis study investigates both direct and moderation effects of two dimensions of contract control and information technology governance on platform participants' financial performance.Design/methodology/approachUsing data collected from 384 platform participants from China's two largest digital platforms, hierarchical regression is used to validate the conceptual model and hypotheses.FindingsThe empirical results show that contract completeness and information technology governance independently improved financial performance, while contract enforcement had an inverted U-shaped effect on financial performance. Furthermore, information technology governance amplified the positive effect of contract completeness, but not of contract enforcement, on financial performance.Originality/valueThis study advances the literature on partnership control by showing the interactive role of information technology governance and contract control. It also enriches research on information technology usage by revealing how information technology governance benefits business partnerships. Finally, it extends transaction cost theory by demonstrating that different dimensions of contracts have different effects on governing interfirm relationships.

show abstract

The more the better? Relational governance in platforms and the role of appropriability mechanisms

Cited by 25 publications

References 63 publications

Distinguishing between appropriability and appropriation: A systematic review and a renewed conceptual framing

Distinguishing between appropriability and appropriation: A systematic review and a renewed conceptual framing

Effects of governance on crowdsourcer satisfaction in crowdsourcing: moderating roles of task and environment complexities

Does information technology governance strengthen or weaken contract control in digital platform relationships?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About