What motivates firms to contribute to consortium-based E-business standardization?

Journal of Management Information Systems

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 305-334

  Zhao, Kexin ^a   Xia, Mu ^b   Shaw, Michael J ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHARLOTTE   (United States)

^b SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

collective action theory; e business standards; IT vendors; motivations to contribute; standard consortia; user organizations

Indexed keywords

COLLECTIVE ACTION; DATA SETS; EBUSINESS; IT VENDORS; MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS; PROCESS BENEFITS; RESEARCH MODELS; RESOURCE AVAILABILITY; STANDARD DEVELOPMENT;

ELECTRONIC COMMERCE; INDUSTRY; INVESTMENTS; STATISTICAL TESTS;

STANDARDIZATION;

EID: 81255166784     PISSN: 07421222     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2753/MIS0742-1222280211     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Ahuja, G. The duality of collaboration: Inducements and opportunities in the formation of inter-firm linkages. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 3 (2000), 317-343.
2. Armstrong, J.S., and Overton, T. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 3 (1977), 396-402.
3. Arthur, W.B. Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. Economic Journal, 99, 394 (1989), 116-131.
4. Bowman, C., and Ambrosini, V. Using single respondents in strategic research. British Journal of Management, 8, 2 (1997), 119-131.
5. Brynjolfsson, E.; McAfee, A.; Sorell, M.; and Zhu, F. Scale without mass: Business process replication and industry dynamics. Working Paper 07-016, Harvard Business School, Boston, 2008.
6. Cargill, C.F. Information Technology Standardization: Theory, Process, and Organizations. Bedford, MA: Digital Press, 1989.
7. Chatterjee, D.; Grewal, R.; and Sambamurthy, V. Shaping up for e-commerce: Institutional enablers of the organizational assimilation of web technologies. MIS Quarterly, 26, 2 (2002), 65-89.
8. Chen, P., and Forman, C. Can vendors influence switching costs and compatibility in an environment with open standards? MIS Quarterly, 30, Special Issue (2006), 541-562.
9. Chin, W.W. Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly, 22, 1 (1998), vii-xvi.
10. Chin, W.W. Partial least squares for researchers: An overview and presentation for recent advances using the PLS approach. Paper presented at the Twenty-First International Conference on Information Systems, Brisbane, Australia, December 10-13, 2000.
11. Cornes, R., and Sandler, T. The Theory of Externalities, Public Goods, and Club Goods. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
12. Crampton, S.M., and Wagner, J.A. Percept inflation in microorganizational research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. Applied Psychology, 79, 1 (1994), 67-76.
13. David, P.A. Clio and the economics of QWERTY. American Economic Review, 75, 2 (1985), 332-337.
14. David, P.A., and Greenstein, S. The economics of compatibility standards: An introduction to recent research. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 1 (1990), 3-41.
15. Dedrick, J.; Xu, S.; and Zhu, K. How does information technology shape supply-chain structure? Evidence on the number of suppliers. Journal of Management Information Systems, 25, 2 (Fall 2008), 41-72.
16. De Wever, S.; Martens, R.; and Vandenbempt, K. The impact of trust on strategic resource acquisition through interorganizational networks: Towards a conceptual model. Human Relations, 58, 12 (2005), 1523-1543.
17. Farrell, J. Choosing the rules for formal standardization. Working paper, Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley, 1996.
18. Farrell, J., and Saloner, G. Coordination through committees and markets. RAND Journal of Economics, 19, 2 (1988), 235-252.
19. Foray, D. Users, standards and the economics of coalitions and committees. Information Economics and Policy, 6, 3-4 (1994), 269-293.
20. Fowler, F.J. Survey Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2002.
21. Gefen, D., and Straub, D.W. A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-Graph: Tutorial and annotated example. Communications of Association for Information Systems, 16 (2005), 91-109.
22. Gefen, D.; Straub, D.W.; and Boudreau, M. Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of Association for Information Systems, 4 (2000), Article 7.
23. Grover, V. An empirical derived model for the adoption of customer-based interorganizational systems. Decision Sciences, 24, 3 (1993), 603-640.
24. Hardin, R. Collective Action. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982.
25. Heckman, J.J. Sample section bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47, 1 (1979), 153-161.
26. Hsieh, J.J.; Rai, A.; and Keil, M. Understanding digital inequality: Comparing continued user behavioral models of the socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged. MIS Quarterly, 32, 1 (2008), 97-126.
27. Huber, G.P., and Power, D.J. Retrospective reports of strategic-level managers: Guidelines for increasing their accuracy. Strategic Management Journal, 6, 2 (1985), 171-180.
28. Iacovou, C.L.; Benbasat, I.; and Dexter, A.S. Electronic data interchange and small organizations: Adoption and impact of technology. MIS Quarterly, 19, 4 (1995), 465-485.
29. ICT and e-business for an innovative and sustainable economy. Seventh Synthesis Report of the Sectoral E-Business Watch, 2010 (available at www.empirica.com/themen/ebusiness/ documents/EBR09-10.pdf).
30. Inkpen, A.C., and Tsang, E.W.K. Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Review, 30, 1 (2005), 146-165.
31. Jakobs, K.; Procter, R.; and Williams, R. User participation in standard setting-The panacea? Standard View, 6, 2 (1998), 85-89.
32. Jones, S.; Wilikens, M.; Morris, P.; and Masera, M. Trust requirements in e-business: A conceptual framework for understanding the needs and concerns of different stakeholders. Communications of the ACM, 43, 12 (2000), 81-87.
33. Kauffman, R.J., and Mohtadi, H. Proprietary and open systems adoption in e-procurement: A risk-augmented transaction cost perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 21, 1 (Summer 2004), 137-166.
34. Knoke, D. Incentives in collective action organizations. American Sociological Review, 53 (June 1988), 311-329.
35. Kogut, B. Joint ventures: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 4 (1998), 319-332.
36. Latane, B., and Nida, S. Ten years of research on group size and helping. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 2 (1981), 308-24.
37. Lyytinen, K., and King, J.L. Standard making: A critical research frontier for information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 30, Special Issue (2006), 405-411.
38. Malhotra, N.K.; Kim, S.S.; and Patil, A. Common method variance in IS research: A comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Management Science, 52, 12 (2006), 1865-1883.
39. Markus, M.L.; Steinfield, C.W.; Wigand, R.T.; and Minton, G. Industry-wide information systems standardization as collective action: The case of the U.S. residential mortgage industry. MIS Quarterly, 30, Special Issue (2006), 439-465.
40. Marwell, G., and Oliver, P. The Critical Mass in Collective Action. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
41. Mas-Colell, A.; Whinston, M.D.; and Green, J.R. Microeconomic Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
42. Mendoza, R.A., and Ravichandran, T. Organizational assimilation of vertical standards: An integrated model. In R.H. Sprague (ed.), Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA : IEEE Computer Society Press, 2007.
43. Monge, P.R.; Fulk, J.; Kalman, M.E.; Flanagin, A.J.; Parnassa, C.; and Rumsey, S. Production of collective action in alliance-based interorganizational commutation and information systems. Organization Science, 9, 3 (May-June 1998), 411-433.
44. Moran, P. Structural versus relational embeddedness: Social capital and managerial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 12 (2005), 1129-1151.
45. Mothe, C., and Quelin, B. Creating competencies through collaboration: The case of Eureka R&D consortia. European Management Journal, 18, 6 (2000), 590-604.
46. Nahapiet, J., and Ghoshal, S. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 2 (1998), 242-266.
47. Nelson, H.J.; Armstrong, D.J.; and Nelson, K.M. Patterns of transition: The shift from traditional to object-oriented development. Journal of Management Information Systems, 25, 4 (Spring 2009), 271-297.
48. Nelson, M.; Shaw, M.J.; and Qualls, W. Interorganizational system standards development in vertical industries. Electronic Markets, 15, 4 (2005), 378-392.
49. Nunnally, J.C., and Bernstein, I. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.
50. Oliver, P.E., and Marwell, G. The paradox of group size in collective action: A theory of the critical mass II. American Sociological Review, 53, 1 (1988), 1-18.
51. Oliver, P.E., and Marwell, G. Mobilizing technologies for collective action. In A. Morris and C. Mueller (eds.), Frontiers of Social Movement Theory. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992, pp. 251-272.
52. Oliver, P.E.; Marwell, G.; and Teixeira, R. A theory of critical mass I: Interdependence, group heterogeneity, and the production of collective action. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 3 (1985), 522-556.
53. Olson, M. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965.
54. Ostrom, E. Collective action and the evolution of social norms. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14, 3 (2000), 137-158.
55. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; and Podsakoff, N. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 5 (2003), 879-903.
56. Quinn, J.B. Intelligent Enterprise: A Knowledge and Service Based Paradigm for Industry. New York: Macmillan, 1992.
57. Rosenkopf, L.; Metiu, A.; and George, V.P. From the bottom up? Technical committee activity and alliance formation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 4 (2001), 748-772.
58. Sakakibara, M. Formation of R&D consortia: Industry and company effects. Strategy Management Journal, 23, 11 (2002), 1033-1050.
59. Simcoe, T. Committees and the creation of technical standards. Working paper, Hass School of Business, University of California, Berkeley, 2004.
60. Simonin, B.L. The importance of collaborative know-how: An empirical test of the learning organization. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 5 (1997), 1150-1174.
61. Spring, M.B., and Weiss, M.B.H. Financing the standards development process. In B. Kahin and J. Abbate (eds.), Standards Development and Information Infrastructure. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1994, pp. 289-320.
62. Updegrove, A. What makes the technical process work. Consortium Standard Bulletin, 3, 11 (2004).
63. Updegrove, A. Participating in standard setting organizations: Value propositions, roles, and strategies. Consortium Standards Bulletin, 5, 9 (2006).
64. van Zomeren, M.; Spears, R.; Fischer, A.; and Leach, C.W. Put your money where your mouth is! Explaining collective action tendencies through group-based anger and group efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 5 (2004), 649-664.
65. Venkatesh, V., and Morris, M.G. Why don't men even stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly, 24, 1 (2000), 115-139.
66. Weiss, M.B. The standards development process: A view from political theory. Standard View, 1, 2 (1993), 35-41.
67. Weiss, M.B., and Sirbu, M. Technological choice in voluntary standards committees: An empirical analysis. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 1 (1990), 111-134.
68. Weiss, M.B., and Toyokuku, R. Free-ridership in the standards-setting process: The case of 10BaseT. StandardView, 4, 4 (1996), 205-212.
69. Whipple, J.M., and Frankel, R. Strategic alliance success factors. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 36, 3 (2000), 21-28.
70. Wigand, R.T.; Steinfield, C.W.; and Markus, M.L. IT standards choices and industry structure outcomes: The case of U.S. home mortgage industry. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22, 2 (Fall 2005), 165-191.
71. Willingmyre, G.T. International standards at the crossroads. Standard View, 5, 4 (1997), 190-194.
72. Zhao, K.; Khan, S.; and Xia, M. Sustainability of vertical standard consortia as communities of practice: A multi-level framework. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 16, 1 (Fall 2011), 11-40.
73. Zhao, K.; Xia, M.; and Shaw, M. Vertical e-business standards and standards developing organizations: A conceptual framework. Electronic Markets, 15, 4 (2005), 289-300.
74. Zhao, K.; Xia, M.; and Shaw, M. An integrated model of consortium-based e-business standardization: Collaborative development and adoption with network externalities. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23, 4 (Spring 2007), 247-271.
75. Zhu, K., and Kraemer, K.L. Post-adoption variations in usage and value of e-business by organizations: Cross-country evidence from the retail industry. Information Systems Research, 16, 1 (2005), 61-84.
76. Zhu, K.; Kraemer, K.L.; Gurbaxani, V.; and Xu, S.X. Migration to open-standard interorganizational systems: Network effects, switching costs, and path dependency. MIS Quarterly, 30, Special Issue (2006), 515-539.