Time to learn? Assignment duration in global value chain organization

Abstract

ReuseThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND) licence. This licence only allows you to download this work and share it with others as long as you credit the authors, but you can't change the article in any way or use it commercially. More information and the full terms of the licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ TakedownIf you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing eprints@whiterose.ac.uk including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. ABSTRACTIn the examination of outsourcing and offshoring strategies to establish and orchestrate global value chains (GVCs), scholars have focused almost exclusively on two key decision dimensionscontrol and locationas the primary determinants of these complex organizational structures. However, the dynamic, temporal nature of GVCs can be further explained via a third organizing decision dimension that has received surprisingly little attention in this literature: time. This relates to the length of time that control and location settings are chosen ex ante to remain in effect. We explore this issue and assert that assignment durations are linked to activity type, and that mismatched durations can destroy value in even the most logically controlled and located GVC activities. We argue that while control and location are essential decisions for GVC orchestrators, how long these settings are in put into effect also plays a critical but overlooked role in efficient value chain organization.

Knowledge Connectivity in an Adverse Context: Global Value Chains and Pakistani Offshore Service Providers

“…The findings from this macro-and meso-level pattern match seem to be in line with the explanation supplied by Jensen and Petersen's (2013) process model about the importance of managers' comfort zone to global sourcing decisions, as well as the more direct influences of project duration on organisational form (Buckley et al 2018). In the next section, we turn to the investigation of how these OSPs addressed these meso-and macro-level issues that heightened clients' risk perceptions and thus reduced their comfort zone.…”

“…3, we propose a moderating effect of the comfort zone of lead firm decision makers, in line with Jensen and Petersen (2013). In doing so, we provide a more detailed list of constructs shaping lead-firm managers' comfort zone in an adverse context, namely the four dimensions of the practice framework (Jones and Murphy 2011, also see Tables 6 and 7 for more detailed insights), assignment duration (Buckley et al 2018), and whether or not ICT can be used to coordinate and control the relationship with the supplier. This latter dimension seems to be particularly important in an adverse environment, where physical face-to-face interactions are difficult.…”

“…The higher the complexity of the transactions and the lower the capabilities of the suppliers, the more actively lead firms are predicted to coordinate and control the value chains and the larger the power asymmetry between lead firms and their suppliers (Gereffi et al 2005). Additionally, these predictions are expected to be moderated by managers' comfort zone (Jensen and Petersen 2013) as well as other strategic considerations (McDermott et al 2013) such as assignment duration (Buckley et al 2018). However, even without considering possible moderating effects, the different configurations of control and coordination predicted by the GVC governance framework and the ensuing level of power asymmetry can serve as indications of the extent to which inter-firm connectivity is necessary (Kawakami and Sturgeon 2011;Sturgeon 2009).…”

“…This in turn involves continuous two-way interaction with clients in order to facilitate the understanding of user needs and the design of the software in accordance with those needs (Currie The difference between the two value chain configurations in our study arises from the complexity and duration of the projects (cf. Buckley et al 2018). We labelled the first value chain, depicted in Fig.…”

Looking for the sectoral interdependence: evidence from the Visegrad countries and China

“…The global economy is increasingly determined by GVCs characterized by growing shares of international trade, global GDP and employment (Bair 2008;Crang et al 2013;Pomfert and Sourdin 2017;Buckley 2018). Because a 'value chain' is generally understood as trade involving internationally organized production processes (Stöllinger et al 2018), it naturally encompasses a wide array of activities undertaken by firms and workers to bring a product from its conception to end use and beyond, such as research and development (R&D), design, production, marketing, distribution and support to the final consumer.…”