IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v34y2023i1p129-155.html

Data-Induced Rationality and Unitary Spaces in Interfirm Collaboration

Author

Listed:
  • Katharina Cepa

    (Department of Entrepreneurship and Strategy, Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster LA14YX, United Kingdom)

  • Henri Schildt

    (Department of Management Studies, Aalto University School of Business, 00076 Aalto, Finland; Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Aalto University School of Science, 00076 Aalto, Finland)

Abstract

The real-time data transfer between collaborating companies allows them to represent and control activities across firm boundaries, providing new ways to organize collaborative efforts. We conducted an inductive multiple case study of five long-term relationships to examine the effects of data-intensive technologies on the organization and management of collaborative relationships in industrial companies. Our analysis shows how the delegation of digital activities into specialized digital units fostered data-driven mindsets and data-driven interactions that jointly formed a holistic data-induced rationality for managing the relationship. Together, the compartmentalization of digital collaboration and the data-induced rationalities turned these units into “unitary spaces,” organizational enclosures where structural tensions and competing demands were temporarily suspended to foster single-minded pursuit of collaborative short-term benefits for the partner company.

Suggested Citation

  • Katharina Cepa & Henri Schildt, 2023. "Data-Induced Rationality and Unitary Spaces in Interfirm Collaboration," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 129-155, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:34:y:2023:i:1:p:129-155
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2021.1566
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1566
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.2021.1566?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. Anne Parmigiani, 2007. "Why do firms both make and buy? An investigation of concurrent sourcing," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(3), pages 285-311, March.
    2. Markus Perkmann & Maureen McKelvey & Nelson Phillips, 2019. "Protecting Scientists from Gordon Gekko: How Organizations Use Hybrid Spaces to Engage with Multiple Institutional Logics," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 298-318, March.
    3. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    4. Constantine Andriopoulos & Marianne W. Lewis, 2009. "Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 696-717, August.
    5. Diane E. Bailey & Paul M. Leonardi & Stephen R. Barley, 2012. "The Lure of the Virtual," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(5), pages 1485-1504, October.
    6. Ranjay Gulati & Phanish Puranam, 2009. "Renewal Through Reorganization: The Value of Inconsistencies Between Formal and Informal Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 422-440, April.
    7. Qrunfleh, Sufian & Tarafdar, Monideepa, 2014. "Supply chain information systems strategy: Impacts on supply chain performance and firm performance," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(PB), pages 340-350.
    8. Richard J. Boland & Kalle Lyytinen & Youngjin Yoo, 2007. "Wakes of Innovation in Project Networks: The Case of Digital 3-D Representations in Architecture, Engineering, and Construction," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 631-647, August.
    9. Kevin Boudreau, 2010. "Open Platform Strategies and Innovation: Granting Access vs. Devolving Control," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(10), pages 1849-1872, October.
    10. Natalie Slawinski & Pratima Bansal, 2015. "Short on Time: Intertemporal Tensions in Business Sustainability," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 531-549, April.
    11. Lorin M. Hitt, 1999. "Information Technology and Firm Boundaries: Evidence from Panel Data," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 134-149, June.
    12. Richard J. Boland & Ramkrishnan V. Tenkasi, 1995. "Perspective Making and Perspective Taking in Communities of Knowing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(4), pages 350-372, August.
    13. Orlikowski, W. J. & Scott, Susan V., 2015. "Exploring material-discursive practices," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 57600, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Sarah Kaplan, 2008. "Framing Contests: Strategy Making Under Uncertainty," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(5), pages 729-752, October.
    15. Nuno Oliveira & Fabrice Lumineau, 2017. "How Coordination Trajectories Influence the Performance of Interorganizational Project Networks," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(6), pages 1029-1060, December.
    16. T. K. Das & Bing-Sheng Teng, 2000. "Instabilities of Strategic Alliances: An Internal Tensions Perspective," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(1), pages 77-101, February.
    17. Dekker, Henri C., 2004. "Control of inter-organizational relationships: evidence on appropriation concerns and coordination requirements," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 27-49, January.
    18. Mark de Rond & Hamid Bouchikhi, 2004. "On the Dialectics of Strategic Alliances," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(1), pages 56-69, February.
    19. Stanley G. Harris, 1994. "Organizational Culture and Individual Sensemaking: A Schema-Based Perspective," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(3), pages 309-321, August.
    20. Raymond F. Zammuto & Terri L. Griffith & Ann Majchrzak & Deborah J. Dougherty & Samer Faraj, 2007. "Information Technology and the Changing Fabric of Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(5), pages 749-762, October.
    21. Peter Boumgarden & Jackson Nickerson & Todd R. Zenger, 2012. "Sailing into the wind: Exploring the relationships among ambidexterity, vacillation, and organizational performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(6), pages 587-610, June.
    22. N Reekers & S Smithson, 1996. "The role of EDI in inter-organizational coordination in the European automotive industry," European Journal of Information Systems, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(2), pages 120-130, June.
    23. Zeki Simsek, 2009. "Organizational Ambidexterity: Towards a Multilevel Understanding," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(4), pages 597-624, June.
    24. Sebastian Raisch & Julian Birkinshaw & Gilbert Probst & Michael L. Tushman, 2009. "Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 685-695, August.
    25. George P. Baker & Thomas N. Hubbard, 2004. "Contractibility and Asset Ownership: On-Board Computers and Governance in U. S. Trucking," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(4), pages 1443-1479.
    26. Katsuki Aoki & Miriam Wilhelm, 2017. "The Role of Ambidexterity in Managing Buyer–Supplier Relationships: The Toyota Case," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(6), pages 1080-1097, December.
    27. Wanda J. Orlikowski & Susan V. Scott, 2014. "What Happens When Evaluation Goes Online? Exploring Apparatuses of Valuation in the Travel Sector," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 868-891, June.
    28. Chris Changwha Chung & Paul W. Beamish, 2010. "The Trap of Continual Ownership Change in International Equity Joint Ventures," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(5), pages 995-1015, October.
    29. Henkel, Joachim, 2006. "Selective revealing in open innovation processes: The case of embedded Linux," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 953-969, September.
    30. Orlikowski, Wanda J. & Scott, Susan V., 2014. "What happens when evaluation goes online? Exploring apparatuses of valuation in the travel sector," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 57602, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    31. Wanda J. Orlikowski, 1992. "The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 398-427, August.
    32. Jaegul Lee & Nicholas Berente, 2012. "Digital Innovation and the Division of Innovative Labor: Digital Controls in the Automotive Industry," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(5), pages 1428-1447, October.
    33. Wanda J. Orlikowski & Susan V. Scott, 2015. "Exploring Material-Discursive Practices," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(5), pages 697-705, July.
    34. Paul R. Carlile, 2002. "A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 442-455, August.
    35. Youngjin Yoo & Ola Henfridsson & Kalle Lyytinen, 2010. "Research Commentary ---The New Organizing Logic of Digital Innovation: An Agenda for Information Systems Research," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 724-735, December.
    36. Alexander Zimmermann & Sebastian Raisch & Julian Birkinshaw, 2015. "How Is Ambidexterity Initiated? The Emergent Charter Definition Process," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 1119-1139, August.
    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. Huynh, Minh-Tay & Veglio, Valerio & Gunkel, Marjaana, 2025. "Conceptualizing the data-driven mindset: An application of the mindset theory of action phases," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).

    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. Youngjin Yoo & Richard J. Boland & Kalle Lyytinen & Ann Majchrzak, 2012. "Organizing for Innovation in the Digitized World," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(5), pages 1398-1408, October.
    2. Olga Kassotaki, 2022. "Review of Organizational Ambidexterity Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(1), pages 21582440221, March.
    3. Jan Ossenbrink & Joern Hoppmann & Volker H. Hoffmann, 2019. "Hybrid Ambidexterity: How the Environment Shapes Incumbents’ Use of Structural and Contextual Approaches," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 1319-1348, November.
    4. Jan Ossenbrink & Joern Hoppmann, 2019. "Polytope Conditioning and Linear Convergence of the Frank–Wolfe Algorithm," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 44(1), pages 1319-1348, February.
    5. Alaimo, Cristina & Kallinikos, Jannis, 2022. "Organizations decentered: data objects, technology and knowledge," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112470, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Orlikowski, Wanda J. & Scott, Susan V., 2023. "The digital undertow and institutional displacement: a sociomaterial approach," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 119271, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Brian T. Pentland & Youngjin Yoo & Jan Recker & Inkyu Kim, 2022. "From Lock-In to Transformation: A Path-Centric Theory of Emerging Technology and Organizing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(1), pages 194-211, January.
    8. Jingoo Kang & Sang‐Joon Kim, 2020. "Performance implications of incremental transition and discontinuous jump between exploration and exploitation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(6), pages 1083-1111, June.
    9. Johannes Luger & Sebastian Raisch & Markus Schimmer, 2018. "Dynamic Balancing of Exploration and Exploitation: The Contingent Benefits of Ambidexterity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 449-470, June.
    10. Carolina Rojas-Córdova & Amanda J. Williamson & Julio A. Pertuze & Gustavo Calvo, 2023. "Why one strategy does not fit all: a systematic review on exploration–exploitation in different organizational archetypes," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 17(7), pages 2251-2295, October.
    11. David B. Audretsch & Maribel Guerrero, 2023. "Is ambidexterity the missing link between entrepreneurship, management, and innovation?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 1891-1918, December.
    12. Matt Beane & Wanda J. Orlikowski, 2015. "What Difference Does a Robot Make? The Material Enactment of Distributed Coordination," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 1553-1573, December.
    13. Becker, Markus C. & Rullani, Francesco & Zirpoli, Francesco, 2021. "The role of digital artefacts in early stages of distributed innovation processes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(10).
    14. Michael Yao-Ping Peng & Ku-Ho Lin, 2019. "Impact of Ambidexterity and Environmental Dynamism on Dynamic Capability Development Trade-Offs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-18, April.
    15. Sebastian Raisch & Michael L. Tushman, 2016. "Growing New Corporate Businesses: From Initiation to Graduation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(5), pages 1237-1257, October.
    16. Katherine C. Kellogg, 2022. "Local Adaptation Without Work Intensification: Experimentalist Governance of Digital Technology for Mutually Beneficial Role Reconfiguration in Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(2), pages 571-599, March.
    17. Alexander Zimmermann & Sebastian Raisch & Julian Birkinshaw, 2015. "How Is Ambidexterity Initiated? The Emergent Charter Definition Process," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 1119-1139, August.
    18. YoungKi Park & Paul A. Pavlou & Nilesh Saraf, 2020. "Configurations for Achieving Organizational Ambidexterity with Digitization," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 1376-1397, December.
    19. Gianzina, Olga & Paroutis, Sotirios, 2025. "Ambidextrous leadership: A systematic review and roadmap for future research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    20. Moshe Farjoun & Peer C. Fiss, 2022. "Thriving on contradiction: Toward a dialectical alternative to fit‐based models in strategy (and beyond)," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(2), pages 340-369, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:inm:ororsc:v:34:y:2023:i:1:p:129-155. 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.