Does technological modularity substitute for control? A study of alliance performance in software outsourcing

Strategic Management Journal

Volumn 29, Issue 7, 2008, Pages 769-780

  Tiwana, Amrit ^a  

^a IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Alliance governance; Control; Knowledge intensive alliances; Modularity; Outsourcing alliances; Software

Indexed keywords

CONCURRENCY CONTROL; CONTROL THEORY; MILITARY DATA PROCESSING; OUTSOURCING; PLANNING; PRODUCTION CONTROL; QUALITY CONTROL; STRATEGIC PLANNING;

(E ,2E) THEORY; (E ,3E) PROCESS; ALLIANCE (CO); ALLIANCE PERFORMANCE; EMPIRICAL TESTING; SOFTWARE OUTSOURCING;

PROCESS CONTROL;

EID: 45849132750     PISSN: 01432095     EISSN: 10970266     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/smj.673     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Bagozzi RP, Yi Y, Phillips LW. 1991. Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly 36(3): 421-458.
2. Barki H, Rivard S, Talbot J. 2001. An integrative contingency model of software project risk management. Journal of Management Information Systems 17(4): 37-69.
3. Brusoni S, Prencipe A. 2006. Making design rules: a multidomain perspective. Organization Science 17(2): 179-189.
4. Choudhury V, Sabherwal R. 2003. Portfolios of control in outsourced software development projects. Information Systems Research 14(3): 291-314.
5. Ethiraj S, Kale P, Krishnan M, Singh J. 2005. Where do capabilities come from and how do they matter? A study in the software services industry. Strategic Management Journal 26(1): 25-45.
6. Faraj S, Sproull L. 2000. Coordinating expertise in software development teams. Management Science 46(12): 1554-1568.
7. Hansen M. 2002. Knowledge networks: explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organization Science 13(3): 232-248.
8. Hoetker G. 2006. Do modular products lead to modular organizations? Strategic Management Journal 27(6): 501-518.
9. Hoetker G, Swaminathan A, Mitchell W. 2007. Modularity and the impact of buyer-supplier relationships on the survival of suppliers. Management Science 53(2): 171-191.
10. Jaccard J, Turrisi R. 2003. Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression (2 edn). Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.
11. Karim S. 2006. Modularity in organizational structure: the reconfiguration of internally developed and acquired business units. Strategic Management Journal 27(9): 799-823.
12. Kirsch L, Sambamurthy V, Ko D, Purvis R. 2002. Controlling information systems development projects: the view from the client. Management Science 48(4): 484-498.
13. Lance C. 1988. Residual centering, exploratory and confirmatory moderator analysis, and decomposition of effects in path models containing interactions. Applied Psychological Measurement 12(2): 163-175.
14. Lindell M, Whitney D. 2001. Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology 86(1): 114-121.
15. Malhotra N, Kim S, Patil A. 2006. Common method variance in IS research: a comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Management Science 52(12): 1865-1883.
16. Mjoen H, Tallman S. 1997. Control and performance in international joint ventures. Organization Science 8(3): 257-274.
17. Nambisan S. 2002. Complementary product integration by high technology new ventures: the role of initial technology strategy. Management Science 48(3): 382-398.
18. Nunally J. 1978. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill: New York.
19. Ouchi W, Maguire M. 1975. Organizational control: two functions. Administrative Science Quarterly 20: 559-569.
20. Oxley JE, Sampson RC. 2004. The scope and governance of international R&D alliances. Strategic Management Journal, August-September Special Issue 25: 723-749.
21. Parnas D. 1972. On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Communications of the ACM 15(9): 1053-1058.
22. Podsakoff P, MacKenzie S, Lee J, Podsakoff N. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(5): 879-903.
23. Poppo L, Zenger T. 2002. Do formal contracts and relational governance function as substitutes or complements? Strategic Management Journal 23(8): 707-725.
24. Sanchez R. 1995. Strategic flexiblity in product competition. Strategic Management Journal, Summer Special Issue 16: 135-159.
25. Sanchez R, Mahoney JT. 1996. Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product organization and design. Strategic Management Journal, Winter Special Issue 17: 63-76.
26. Schilling M. 2000. Toward a general modular systems theory and its application to interfirm product modularity. Academy of Management Review 25(2): 312-334.
27. Schonfeld E. 2005. The Great Giveaway. Business 2.0 April: 81-86.
28. Siggelkow N. 2002. Misperceiving interactions among complements and substitutes: organizational consequences. Management Science 48(7): 900-916.
29. Smith R, Eppinger S. 1997. Identifying controlling features of engineering design iteration. Management Science 43(3): 276-293.
30. Sosa M, Eppinger S, Rowles C. 2004. The misalignment of product architecture and organizational structure in complex product development. Management Science 50(12): 1674-1689.
31. Tiwana A, Keil M. 2007. Does peripheral knowledge complement control? An empirical test in technology outsourcing alliances. Strategic Management Journal 28(6): 623-634.
32. Worren N, Moore K, Cardona P. 2002. Modularity, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: a study of the home appliance industry. Strategic Management Journal 23(12): 1123-1140.