Transaction costs, technology, and the scope of human resource outsourcing relationships
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation develops and tests a theoretical framework designed to provide a better understanding of the way that interfirm relationships are managed. To that end, two streams of literature are brought together: transaction cost economics (TCE) and that related to interfirm relationships. TCE has been widely used to explore the make-or-buy decision for individual services, but until now has been confined to the single service context. On the other hand, research in the area of interfirm relationships has tended to focus on the antecedents of relationship formation (and, to some extent, dissolution), while paying much less attention to the ongoing management of there relationships. This study takes an in depth look at the management and performance of multi-service relationships where respondent firms have one or more services outsourced to the same vendor. In particular, the study looks at two key choices in the management of the relationship: level of outsourcing, and scope of the relationship, as well as their performance implications. In addition to the typical use of asset specificity to explain governance choice, the study looks at the influence of the use of information technology in service provision and interorganizational trust on these two choices. A survey of 80 Canadian firms reveals that there is endogeneity of choice in the two governance decisions. As well, it appears that excessive reliance on information technology for service provision can harm both the performance of an individual service, perhaps even harming the relationship as a whole.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it