IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jbrese/v108y2020icp62-73.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Zhong, Qi
  • Sun, Yaowu

Abstract

This paper explores the mechanism by which relational governance affects product innovation and the moderating role of legal and technological appropriability mechanisms. An empirical study of questionnaire survey data on 121 high-tech platform leading firms in China found that the two dimensions of relational governance have different impacts on product innovation. Joint planning positively affects product innovation, while joint problem solving exhibits an inverted U-shaped relationship with product innovation. Second, while the appropriability mechanism plays a moderating role in the above process, there are differences in the moderating roles played by different appropriability mechanisms. Intellectual property rights strengthen the impact of joint planning on product innovation, while contracts and interface standardization weaken the inverted U-shaped relationship between joint problem solving and product innovation.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhong, Qi & Sun, Yaowu, 2020. "The more the better? Relational governance in platforms and the role of appropriability mechanisms," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 62-73.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:108:y:2020:i:c:p:62-73
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.021
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296319306095
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.021?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Amrit Tiwana & Benn Konsynski & Ashley A. Bush, 2010. "Research Commentary ---Platform Evolution: Coevolution of Platform Architecture, Governance, and Environmental Dynamics," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 675-687, December.
    3. Stefan, Ioana & Bengtsson, Lars, 2017. "Unravelling appropriability mechanisms and openness depth effects on firm performance across stages in the innovation process," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 252-260.
    4. Hertzfeld, Henry R. & Link, Albert N. & Vonortas, Nicholas S., 2006. "Intellectual property protection mechanisms in research partnerships," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 825-838, July.
    5. Yan Zhang & Haiyang Li, 2010. "Innovation search of new ventures in a technology cluster: the role of ties with service intermediaries," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(1), pages 88-109, January.
    6. Navarro-García, Antonio & Sánchez-Franco, Manuel J. & Rey-Moreno, Manuel, 2016. "Relational governance mechanisms in export activities: Their determinants and consequences," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 4750-4756.
    7. Saïd Yami & André Nemeh, 2014. "Organizing coopetition for innovation: The case of wireless telecommunication sector in Europe," Post-Print hal-02049456, HAL.
    8. Grossman, Sanford J & Hart, Oliver D, 1986. "The Costs and Benefits of Ownership: A Theory of Vertical and Lateral Integration," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(4), pages 691-719, August.
    9. Thomä, Jörg & Bizer, Kilian, 2013. "To protect or not to protect? Modes of appropriability in the small enterprise sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 35-49.
    10. Amara, Nabil & Landry, Réjean & Traoré, Namatié, 2008. "Managing the protection of innovations in knowledge-intensive business services," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 1530-1547, October.
    11. M. Bensaou & N. Venkatraman, 1995. "Configurations of Interorganizational Relationships: A Comparison Between U.S. and Japanese Automakers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(9), pages 1471-1492, September.
    12. Carliss Y. Baldwin & Joachim Henkel, 2015. "Modularity and intellectual property protection," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(11), pages 1637-1655, November.
    13. Kyläheiko, Kalevi & Jantunen, Ari & Puumalainen, Kaisu & Saarenketo, Sami & Tuppura, Anni, 2011. "Innovation and internationalization as growth strategies: The role of technological capabilities and appropriability," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 20(5), pages 508-520, October.
    14. Amrit Tiwana, 2015. "Evolutionary Competition in Platform Ecosystems," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 266-281, June.
    15. Christine M. Chan & Shige Makino & Takehiko Isobe, 2010. "Does subnational region matter? Foreign affiliate performance in the United states and China," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(11), pages 1226-1243, November.
    16. Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia & Olander, Heidi & Blomqvist, Kirsimarja & Panfilii, Victoria, 2012. "Orchestrating R&D networks: Absorptive capacity, network stability, and innovation appropriability," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 552-563.
    17. Lee, Yikuan & Cavusgil, S. Tamer, 2006. "Enhancing alliance performance: The effects of contractual-based versus relational-based governance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(8), pages 896-905, August.
    18. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Carliss Y. Baldwin & C. Jason Woodard, 2009. "The Architecture of Platforms: A Unified View," Chapters, in: Annabelle Gawer (ed.), Platforms, Markets and Innovation, chapter 2, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. 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, December.
    21. de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & Palangkaraya, Alfons & Webster, Elizabeth, 2016. "Why do patents facilitate trade in technology? Testing the disclosure and appropriation effects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1326-1336.
    22. Luiz F. Mesquita & Jaideep Anand & Thomas H. Brush, 2008. "Comparing the resource‐based and relational views: knowledge transfer and spillover in vertical alliances," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(9), pages 913-941, September.
    23. Peng Huang & Marco Ceccagnoli & Chris Forman & D. J. Wu, 2013. "Appropriability Mechanisms and the Platform Partnership Decision: Evidence from Enterprise Software," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(1), pages 102-121, July.
    24. Seo, Hangyeol & Chung, Yanghon & Yoon, Hyungseok (David), 2017. "R&D cooperation and unintended innovation performance: Role of appropriability regimes and sectoral characteristics," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 66, pages 28-42.
    25. Miozzo, Marcela & Desyllas, Panos & Lee, Hsing-fen & Miles, Ian, 2016. "Innovation collaboration and appropriability by knowledge-intensive business services firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1337-1351.
    26. Prashant Kale & Harbir Singh & Howard Perlmutter, 2000. "Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: building relational capital," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 217-237, March.
    27. Udo Zander & Bruce Kogut, 1995. "Knowledge and the Speed of the Transfer and Imitation of Organizational Capabilities: An Empirical Test," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 76-92, February.
    28. Ness, Havard & Haugland, Sven A., 2005. "The evolution of governance mechanisms and negotiation strategies in fixed-duration interfirm relationships," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 58(9), pages 1226-1239, September.
    29. Augustine A. Lado & Rajiv R. Dant & Amanuel G. Tekleab, 2008. "Trust‐opportunism paradox, relationalism, and performance in interfirm relationships: evidence from the retail industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(4), pages 401-423, April.
    30. Laursen, Keld & Salter, Ammon J., 2014. "The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 867-878.
    31. Laura Poppo & Kevin Zheng Zhou & Todd R. Zenger, 2008. "Examining the Conditional Limits of Relational Governance: Specialized Assets, Performance Ambiguity, and Long‐Standing Ties," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(7), pages 1195-1216, November.
    32. Anna Cabigiosu & Arnaldo Camuffo, 2012. "Beyond the “Mirroring” Hypothesis: Product Modularity and Interorganizational Relations in the Air Conditioning Industry," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 686-703, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jääskeläinen, Aki, 2021. "The relational outcomes of performance management in buyer-supplier relationships," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 232(C).
    2. Kapoor, Kawaljeet & Ziaee Bigdeli, Ali & Dwivedi, Yogesh K. & Schroeder, Andreas & Beltagui, Ahmad & Baines, Tim, 2021. "A socio-technical view of platform ecosystems: Systematic review and research agenda," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 94-108.
    3. Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia & Yang, Jialei, 2022. "Distinguishing between appropriability and appropriation: A systematic review and a renewed conceptual framing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    4. Yang, Jialei & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia, 2022. "Evolving appropriability – Variation in the relevance of appropriability mechanisms across industries," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    5. Andreeva, Tatiana & Garanina, Tatiana & Sáenz, Josune & Aramburu, Nekane & Kianto, Aino, 2021. "Does country environment matter in the relationship between intellectual capital and innovation performance?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 263-273.
    6. Sun, Xinbo & Zhang, Qingqiang, 2021. "Building digital incentives for digital customer orientation in platform ecosystems," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 555-566.
    7. Stefan, Ioana & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia & Vanhaverbeke, Wim & Oikarinen, Eeva-Liisa, 2022. "The dark side of open innovation: Individual affective responses as hidden tolls of the paradox of openness," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 360-373.
    8. Grimaldi, Michele & Greco, Marco & Cricelli, Livio, 2021. "A framework of intellectual property protection strategies and open innovation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 156-164.
    9. Fanshun Zhang & Congdong Li & Cejun Cao & Zhiwei Zhang, 2022. "Random or preferential? Evolutionary mechanism of user behavior in co-creation community," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 141-177, June.

    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. Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia & Yang, Jialei, 2022. "Distinguishing between appropriability and appropriation: A systematic review and a renewed conceptual framing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    2. Yaowu Sun & Yi Zhai, 2018. "Mapping the knowledge domain and the theme evolution of appropriability research between 1986 and 2016: a scientometric review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 203-230, July.
    3. Yang, Jialei & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia, 2022. "Evolving appropriability – Variation in the relevance of appropriability mechanisms across industries," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    4. Stefan, Ioana & Bengtsson, Lars, 2017. "Unravelling appropriability mechanisms and openness depth effects on firm performance across stages in the innovation process," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 252-260.
    5. Scaringella, Laurent & Burtschell, François, 2017. "The challenges of radical innovation in Iran: Knowledge transfer and absorptive capacity highlights — Evidence from a joint venture in the construction sector," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 151-169.
    6. Panos Constantinides & Ola Henfridsson & Geoffrey G. Parker, 2018. "Introduction—Platforms and Infrastructures in the Digital Age," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 381-400, June.
    7. Chigu Kim & Chul Lee & Jina Kang, 2018. "Determinants Of Firm’S Innovation-Related External Knowledge Search Strategy: The Role Of Potential Absorptive Capacity And Appropriability Regime," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 22(06), pages 1-33, August.
    8. Fábio De Oliveira Paula & Jorge Ferreira Da Silva, 2019. "The Role Of The Appropriability Mechanisms For The Innovative Success Of Portuguese Small And Medium Enterprises," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 23(04), pages 1-23, May.
    9. Shi, Xianwei & Liang, Xingkun & Luo, Yining, 2023. "Unpacking the intellectual structure of ecosystem research in innovation studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    10. Foege, J. Nils & Lauritzen, Ghita Dragsdahl & Tietze, Frank & Salge, Torsten Oliver, 2019. "Reconceptualizing the paradox of openness: How solvers navigate sharing-protecting tensions in crowdsourcing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1323-1339.
    11. Graciela Corral de Zubielqui & Janice Jones & David Audretsch, 2019. "The influence of trust and collaboration with external partners on appropriability in open service firms," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 540-558, April.
    12. Joanita Kataike & Xavier Gellynck, 2018. "22 Years of Governance Structures and Performance: What Has Been Achieved in Agrifood Chains and Beyond? A Review," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-32, March.
    13. Langlois, Jonathan & BenMahmoud-Jouini, Sihem & Servajean-Hilst, Romaric, 2023. "Practicing secrecy in open innovation – The case of a military firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    14. Buss, Philipp & Peukert, Christian, 2015. "R&D outsourcing and intellectual property infringement," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(4), pages 977-989.
    15. Milan Miric & Hakan Ozalp & Erdem Dogukan Yilmaz, 2023. "Trade‐offs to using standardized tools: Innovation enablers or creativity constraints?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(4), pages 909-942, April.
    16. Brunswicker, Sabine & Schecter, Aaron, 2019. "Coherence or flexibility? The paradox of change for developers’ digital innovation trajectory on open platforms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(8), pages 1-1.
    17. Jiatao Li & Zhenzhen Xie, 2016. "Governance Structure and the Creation and Protection of Technological Competencies: International R&D Joint Ventures in China," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 123-148, February.
    18. Hofman, Erwin & Halman, Johannes I.M. & Looy, Bart van, 2016. "Do design rules facilitate or complicate architectural innovation in innovation alliance networks?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1436-1448.
    19. Suma Athreye & Claudio Fassio, 2020. "Why do innovators not apply for trademarks? The role of information asymmetries and collaborative innovation," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(1-2), pages 134-154, February.
    20. Astrid Heidemann Lassen & Daniel Ljungberg & Maureen McKelvey, 2020. "Promoting Future Sustainable Transition by Overcoming the Openness Paradox in KIE Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-14, December.

    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:eee:jbrese:v:108:y:2020:i:c:p:62-73. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres .

    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.