IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ers/journl/vxxiiiy2020ispecial2p1086-1117.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Organisational Routines and Interfirm Collaboration: Measurement Dilemmas and Recommendations for Further Research Steps

Author

Listed:
  • Stanczyk-Hugiet E.
  • Kozyra C.
  • Piorkowska K.
  • Stanczyk S.

Abstract

Purpose: The paper aims mainly to present the results and consequences of measurement inaccuracies and to make recommendations for further research. Design/Methodology/Approach: We began our research by providing studies on the theoretical origins of constructs in survey questions. Specifically, we studied the theorems and related constructs. We then reviewed the measurement of the constructs, selecting reliable scales. We conducted an initial study on 101 firms in Poland randomly selected from the high-technology sector, specifically the IT sector. We selected an industry in which inter-firm relationships are common. They are distinguished by high innovation, short product and process life cycles and therefor require many relationships to meet customer expectations. The respondents were top managers. The inclusive criterion was their employment of at least five employees. Collected data were analysed with Statistica 13 software (TIBCO Software Inc. (2017). Findings: After solving measurement dilemmas we made methodological recommendations regarding population structure and scales revealing particular constructs. Originality/Value: The implementation of the recommendations aforementioned would allow to formulate and verify hypotheses resulting from the propositions we have formulated while proposing our research framework. Additionally, we obtained a new Propensity to Collaborate scale as the questions referred to particular dimensions joined in quite different groups. Hence, one item has been deleted and the dimensions have been combined. We propose to check the new scale (without dimensions) in the future research.

Suggested Citation

  • Stanczyk-Hugiet E. & Kozyra C. & Piorkowska K. & Stanczyk S., 2020. "Organisational Routines and Interfirm Collaboration: Measurement Dilemmas and Recommendations for Further Research Steps," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(Special 2), pages 1086-1117.
    • Handle: RePEc:ers:journl:v:xxiii:y:2020:i:special2:p:1086-1117
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ersj.eu/journal/1927/download
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brian T. Pentland & Martha S. Feldman & Markus C. Becker & Peng Liu, 2012. "Dynamics of Organizational Routines: A Generative Model," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(8), pages 1484-1508, December.
    2. Massimo Warglien & Alessandro Narduzzo & Elena Rocco, 1997. "Talking about routines in the field: the emergence of organizational capabiliies in a new cellular phone network company," CEEL Working Papers 9706, Cognitive and Experimental Economics Laboratory, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
    3. John Cantwell & John H Dunning & Sarianna M Lundan, 2010. "An evolutionary approach to understanding international business activity: The co-evolution of MNEs and the institutional environment," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 41(4), pages 567-586, May.
    4. Abosag, Ibrahim & Lee, Joong-Woo, 2013. "The formation of trust and commitment in business relationships in the Middle East: Understanding Et-Moone relationships," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 602-614.
    5. Zhou, Kevin Zheng & Brown, James R. & Dev, Chekitan S., 2009. "Market orientation, competitive advantage, and performance: A demand-based perspective," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(11), pages 1063-1070, November.
    6. Akbar Zaheer & Bill McEvily & Vincenzo Perrone, 1998. "Does Trust Matter? Exploring the Effects of Interorganizational and Interpersonal Trust on Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(2), pages 141-159, April.
    7. Sangyoon Yi & Thorbjørn Knudsen & Markus C. Becker, 2016. "Inertia in Routines: A Hidden Source of Organizational Variation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 782-800, June.
    8. Czernek, Katarzyna & Czakon, Wojciech, 2016. "Trust-building processes in tourist coopetition: The case of a Polish region," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 380-394.
    9. John Hagedoorn, 1993. "Understanding the rationale of strategic technology partnering: Interorganizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(5), pages 371-385, July.
    10. Anoop Madhok, 2006. "Revisiting multinational firms' tolerance for joint ventures: a trust-based approach," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 37(1), pages 30-43, January.
    11. Frank T. Rothaermel & David L. Deeds, 2004. "Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: a system of new product development," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(3), pages 201-221, March.
    12. Al-Tabbaa, Omar & Leach, Desmond & Khan, Zaheer, 2019. "Examining alliance management capabilities in cross-sector collaborative partnerships," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 268-284.
    13. John A. Mathews, 2001. "Competitive Interfirm Dynamics within an Industrial Market System," DRUID Working Papers 01-01, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    14. Jeremy Aroles & Christine McLean, 2016. "Rethinking Stability and Change in the Study of Organizational Routines: Difference and Repetition in a Newspaper-Printing Factory," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 535-550, June.
    15. Gnyawali, Devi R. & Park, Byung-Jin (Robert), 2011. "Co-opetition between giants: Collaboration with competitors for technological innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 650-663, June.
    16. Maurizio Zollo & Sidney G. Winter, 2002. "Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 339-351, June.
    17. Michael D. Cohen & Paul Bacdayan, 1994. "Organizational Routines Are Stored as Procedural Memory: Evidence from a Laboratory Study," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 554-568, November.
    18. Lee Cronbach & W. Warrington, 1951. "Time-limit tests: Estimating their reliability and degree of speeding," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 16(2), pages 167-188, June.
    19. Kam, Booi H. & Lai, Manh Khang, 2018. "Buyer-supplier exchange relationship: How do exchange partners behave across the relationship life-cycle?," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 239-257.
    20. John, George & Weitz, Barton A, 1988. "Forward Integration into Distribution: An Empirical Test of Transaction Cost Analysis," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(2), pages 337-355, Fall.
    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. 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.
    2. Giada Baldessarelli & Nathalie Lazaric & Michele Pezzoni, 2022. "Organizational routines: Evolution in the research landscape of two core communities," Post-Print halshs-03718851, HAL.
    3. Davies, Andrew & Frederiksen, Lars & Cacciatori, Eugenia & Hartmann, Andreas, 2018. "The long and winding road: Routine creation and replication in multi-site organizations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8), pages 1403-1417.
    4. Kavusan, K., 2015. "Essays on capability development through alliances," Other publications TiSEM 8eb736a5-b217-4718-ac13-d, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    5. Paul Peigné, 2013. "Routines during an organizational change: a study on dynamics and its effects," Post-Print hal-00876163, HAL.
    6. Martha S. Feldman & Brian T. Pentland & Luciana D’Adderio & Nathalie Lazaric, 2016. "Beyond Routines as Things: Introduction to the Special Issue on Routine Dynamics," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 505-513, June.
    7. Frank T. Rothaermel & Andrew M. Hess, 2007. "Building Dynamic Capabilities: Innovation Driven by Individual-, Firm-, and Network-Level Effects," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(6), pages 898-921, December.
    8. Sascha Kraus & Fabian Meier & Thomas Niemand & Ricarda B. Bouncken & Paavo Ritala, 2018. "In search for the ideal coopetition partner: an experimental study," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 1025-1053, October.
    9. Lokshin, Boris & Hagedoorn, John & Letterie, Wilko, 2011. "The bumpy road of technology partnerships: Understanding causes and consequences of partnership mal-functioning," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 297-308, March.
    10. Jennifer A. Howard-Grenville, 2005. "The Persistence of Flexible Organizational Routines: The Role of Agency and Organizational Context," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(6), pages 618-636, December.
    11. Markus C. Becker & Thorbjørn Knudsen, 2017. "Heterogeneity of habits as a foundation for Schumpeterian economic policy," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 43-62, January.
    12. Krammer, Sorin M.S., 2016. "The role of diversification profiles and dyadic characteristics in the formation of technological alliances: Differences between exploitation and exploration in a low-tech industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 517-532.
    13. Dovev Lavie & Randi Lunnan & Binh Minh T. Truong, 2022. "How does a partner's acquisition affect the value of the firm's alliance with that partner?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(9), pages 1897-1926, September.
    14. Kathleen M. Eisenhardt & Nathan R. Furr & Christopher B. Bingham, 2010. "CROSSROADS---Microfoundations of Performance: Balancing Efficiency and Flexibility in Dynamic Environments," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(6), pages 1263-1273, December.
    15. Jaideep Anand & Raffaele Oriani & Roberto S. Vassolo, 2010. "Alliance Activity as a Dynamic Capability in the Face of a Discontinuous Technological Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(6), pages 1213-1232, December.
    16. Dehua Gao & Aliakbar Akbaritabar, 2022. "Using agent-based modeling in routine dynamics research: a quantitative and content analysis of literature," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 521-550, February.
    17. Fleur Deken & Paul R. Carlile & Hans Berends & Kristina Lauche, 2016. "Generating Novelty Through Interdependent Routines: A Process Model of Routine Work," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 659-677, June.
    18. Giada Baldessarelli & Nathalie Lazaric & Michele Pezzoni, 2022. "Organizational routines: Evolution in the research landscape of two core communities," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 1119-1154, September.
    19. Dehua Gao & Flaminio Squazzoni & Xiuquan Deng, 2018. "The Intertwining Impact of Intraorganizational and Routine Networks on Routine Replication Dynamics: An Agent-Based Model," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-23, November.
    20. Jaideep Anand & Gerald McDermott & Ram Mudambi & Rajneesh Narula, 2021. "Innovation in and from emerging economies: New insights and lessons for international business research," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 52(4), pages 545-559, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Organisational routines; interfirm collaboration; measurement scales.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L1 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance
    • L2 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ers:journl:v:xxiii:y:2020:i:special2:p:1086-1117. 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: Marios Agiomavritis (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://ersj.eu/ .

    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.