[go: up one dir, main page]

IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orisre/v33y2022i3p1072-1092.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Dark Side of Technological Modularity: Opportunistic Information Hiding During Interorganizational System Adoption

Author

Listed:
  • Sanjith Gopalakrishnan

    (Desautels Faculty of Management, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 1G5, Canada)

  • Moksh Matta

    (Beedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby BC V5A 1S6, Canada)

  • Hasan Cavusoglu

    (Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2, Canada)

Abstract
The successful adoption of interorganizational systems (IOSs), such as blockchains or electronic data interchanges, in interfirm networks requires timely and accurate sharing of information about these roll-outs. In reality, however, the early stages of IOS adoption are characterized by information asymmetries that can arise due to a separation between firms that select and develop the IOS, and firms that implement it. This often results in staggered and asymmetric flows of information that can engender strategic information withholding behaviors. Drawing upon resource and network-based views, we study how the technological modularity of networked firms can affect these behaviors. Interestingly, we find that high levels of technological modularity can render firms more susceptible to opportunistic information withholding by network partners. Our findings run counter to the traditional view of modularity as a capability that can improve the efficiency of IOS adoption, or as a governance mechanism that reduces risks associated with IOS adoption. We find that network density and embeddedness can mitigate the opportunistic risks of technological modularity, whereas network topology can have diverging effects. In a rapidly changing and interconnected business environment where flexibility is key, modularity is often hailed as a foundational pillar of information technology systems of the future. As optimism and investments toward modularity grow, by identifying associated risks, our work cautions managers to adopt a more qualified view of this capability during technological transitions.

Suggested Citation

  • Sanjith Gopalakrishnan & Moksh Matta & Hasan Cavusoglu, 2022. "The Dark Side of Technological Modularity: Opportunistic Information Hiding During Interorganizational System Adoption," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(3), pages 1072-1092, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:33:y:2022:i:3:p:1072-1092
    DOI: 10.1287/isre.2022.1100
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.2022.1100
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/isre.2022.1100?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arun Rai & Xinlin Tang, 2010. "Leveraging IT Capabilities and Competitive Process Capabilities for the Management of Interorganizational Relationship Portfolios," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 516-542, September.
    2. Stahl Dale O. & Wilson Paul W., 1995. "On Players' Models of Other Players: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 218-254, July.
    3. Stephen Ryan & Catherine Tucker, 2012. "Heterogeneity and the dynamics of technology adoption," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 63-109, March.
    4. Carlsson, Hans & van Damme, Eric, 1993. "Global Games and Equilibrium Selection," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 61(5), pages 989-1018, September.
    5. Mazzola, Erica & Perrone, Giovanni & Kamuriwo, Dzidziso Samuel, 2016. "The interaction between inter-firm and interlocking directorate networks on firm's new product development outcomes," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 672-682.
    6. Paul Hart & Carol Saunders, 1997. "Power and Trust: Critical Factors in the Adoption and Use of Electronic Data Interchange," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 8(1), pages 23-42, February.
    7. Arvind Malhotra & Sanjay Gosain & Omar A. El Sawy, 2007. "Leveraging Standard Electronic Business Interfaces to Enable Adaptive Supply Chain Partnerships," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 260-279, September.
    8. Frederick J. Riggins & Charles H. Kriebel & Tridas Mukhopadhyay, 1994. "The Growth of Interorganizational Systems in the Presence of Network Externalities," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(8), pages 984-998, August.
    9. Viswanath Venkatesh & Hillol Bala, 2012. "Adoption and Impacts of Interorganizational Business Process Standards: Role of Partnering Synergy," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 1131-1157, December.
    10. Arun Rai & Xinlin Tang, 2014. "Research Commentary ---Information Technology-Enabled Business Models: A Conceptual Framework and a Coevolution Perspective for Future Research," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(1), pages 1-14, March.
    11. Akbar Zaheer & N. Venkatraman, 1994. "Determinants of Electronic Integration in the Insurance Industry: An Empirical Test," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(5), pages 549-566, May.
    12. Nagel, Rosemarie, 1995. "Unraveling in Guessing Games: An Experimental Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1313-1326, December.
    13. Rekha Krishnan & Inge Geyskens & Jan-Benedict E. M. Steenkamp, 2016. "The effectiveness of contractual and trust-based governance in strategic alliances under behavioral and environmental uncertainty," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(12), pages 2521-2542, December.
    14. Kevin Zhu & Kenneth Kraemer & Sean Xu, 2003. "Electronic business adoption by European firms: a cross-country assessment of the facilitators and inhibitors," European Journal of Information Systems, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(4), pages 251-268, December.
    15. Jeffrey H. Dyer, 1997. "Effective interim collaboration: how firms minimize transaction costs and maximise transaction value," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(7), pages 535-556, August.
    16. Birger Wernerfelt, 1984. "A resource‐based view of the firm," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(2), pages 171-180, April.
    17. Sendil K. Ethiraj & Daniel Levinthal & Rishi R. Roy, 2008. "The Dual Role of Modularity: Innovation and Imitation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(5), pages 939-955, May.
    18. Johnston, Wesley J. & Peters, Linda D. & Gassenheimer, Jule, 2006. "Questions about network dynamics: Characteristics, structures, and interactions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(8), pages 945-954, August.
    19. Oliver Schilke & Karen S. Cook, 2015. "Sources of alliance partner trustworthiness: Integrating calculative and relational perspectives," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(2), pages 276-297, February.
    20. Miguel Meuleman & Andy Lockett & Sophie Manigart & Mike Wright, 2010. "Partner Selection Decisions in Interfirm Collaborations: The Paradox of Relational Embeddedness," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(6), pages 995-1019, September.
    21. Teck-Hua Ho & Xuanming Su, 2013. "A Dynamic Level-k Model in Sequential Games," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(2), pages 452-469, March.
    22. Yipeng Liu & Hong Guo & Barrie R. Nault, 2017. "Organization of Public Safety Networks: Spillovers, Interoperability, and Participation," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 26(4), pages 704-723, April.
    23. Edward J. Zajac & Cyrus P. Olsen, 1993. "From Transaction Cost To Transactional Value Analysis: Implications For The Study Of Interorganizational Strategies," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 131-145, January.
    24. Blind, Knut & Mangelsdorf, Axel, 2016. "Motives to standardize: Empirical evidence from Germany," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 48, pages 13-24.
    25. Akbar Zaheer & Geoffrey G. Bell, 2005. "Benefiting from network position: firm capabilities, structural holes, and performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(9), pages 809-825, September.
    26. Jay B. Barney & Mark H. Hansen, 1994. "Trustworthiness as a Source of Competitive Advantage," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(S1), pages 175-190, December.
    27. Amrit Tiwana, 2008. "Does technological modularity substitute for control? A study of alliance performance in software outsourcing," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(7), pages 769-780, July.
    28. Carliss Y. Baldwin & Kim B. Clark, 2000. "Design Rules, Volume 1: The Power of Modularity," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262024667, April.
    29. Stahl, Dale II & Wilson, Paul W., 1994. "Experimental evidence on players' models of other players," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 309-327, December.
    30. Hillol Bala & Viswanath Venkatesh, 2007. "Assimilation of Interorganizational Business Process Standards," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 340-362, September.
    31. Ali Tafti & Sunil Mithas & M. S. Krishnan, 2013. "The Effect of Information Technology-Enabled Flexibility on Formation and Market Value of Alliances," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(1), pages 207-225, June.
    32. Andreas I. Nicolaou & D. Harrison McKnight, 2006. "Perceived Information Quality in Data Exchanges: Effects on Risk, Trust, and Intention to Use," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 332-351, December.
    33. Randolph B. Cooper & Robert W. Zmud, 1990. "Information Technology Implementation Research: A Technological Diffusion Approach," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(2), pages 123-139, February.
    34. Yadong Luo, 2008. "Procedural fairness and interfirm cooperation in strategic alliances," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 27-46, January.
    35. Gary Hamel, 1991. "Competition for competence and interpartner learning within international strategic alliances," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(S1), pages 83-103, June.
    36. Seung Ho Park & Gerardo R. Ungson, 2001. "Interfirm Rivalry and Managerial Complexity: A Conceptual Framework of Alliance Failure," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(1), pages 37-53, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Büttgen, Marion & al.,, 2021. "Blockchain in Service Management and Service Research - Developing a Research Agenda and Managerial Implications," SMR - Journal of Service Management Research, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 5(2), pages 71-102.
    2. Maggie Chuoyan Dong & Yulin Fang & Detmar W. Straub, 2017. "The Impact of Institutional Distance on the Joint Performance of Collaborating Firms: The Role of Adaptive Interorganizational Systems," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 309-331, June.
    3. Müller, Dirk, 2010. "Alliance Coordination, Dysfunctions, and the Protection of Idiosyncratic Knowledge in Strategic Learning Alliances," EconStor Preprints 41039, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    4. Strzalecki, Tomasz, 2014. "Depth of reasoning and higher order beliefs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 108-122.
    5. Stienstra, Miranda, 2020. "The determinants and performance implications of alliance partner acquisition," Other publications TiSEM 7fdee0c2-d4d2-4f5b-95e3-2, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    6. Choi, Young Rok & Phan, Phillip H. & Choi, Jaepil, 2020. "Formal governance, interfirm coordination, and performance in partnerships: An empirical investigation of a mediation model," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 413-424.
    7. Yu Liu & T. Ravichandran, 2015. "Alliance Experience, IT-Enabled Knowledge Integration, and Ex Ante Value Gains," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 511-530, April.
    8. Nagel, Rosemarie & Bühren, Christoph & Frank, Björn, 2017. "Inspired and inspiring: Hervé Moulin and the discovery of the beauty contest game," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 191-207.
    9. Breitmoser, Yves & Tan, Jonathan H.W. & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2014. "On the beliefs off the path: Equilibrium refinement due to quantal response and level-k," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 102-125.
    10. Burkhard C. Schipper & Hang Zhou, 2022. "Level-k Thinking in the Extensive Form," Working Papers 352, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    11. Kota Murayama, 2015. "Robust Predictions under Finite Depth of Reasoning," Discussion Paper Series DP2015-28, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University.
    12. Zhou, Hang, 2022. "Informed speculation with k-level reasoning," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    13. James Tremewan & Chloé Le Coq & Alexander D. Wagner, 2013. "Social Centipedes: the Impact of Group Identity on Preferences and Reasoning," Vienna Economics Papers 1305, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.
    14. Le Coq, Chloé & Tremewan, James & Wagner, Alexander K., 2015. "On the effects of group identity in strategic environments," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 239-252.
    15. Heinemann, Frank, 2024. "An experimental test of the global-game selection in coordination games with asymmetric players," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 218(C), pages 632-656.
    16. Wanqun Zhao, 2020. "Cost of Reasoning and Strategic Sophistication," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-27, September.
    17. García-Pola, Bernardo & Iriberri, Nagore & Kovářík, Jaromír, 2020. "Non-equilibrium play in centipede games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 391-433.
    18. Kneeland, Terri, 2016. "Coordination under limited depth of reasoning," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 49-64.
    19. Stephan Duschek, 2004. "Inter-Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage," management revue - Socio-Economic Studies, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 15(1), pages 53-73.
    20. Ghiyoung Im & Arun Rai, 2014. "IT-Enabled Coordination for Ambidextrous Interorganizational Relationships," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(1), pages 72-92, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:33:y:2022:i:3:p:1072-1092. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.