Impact of formal control mechanisms on the performance of international joint ventures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Joint ventures (JV) are often a key component of the internationalisation strategies of companies. However, such operations are successful less often than expected. Problems rooted in the management accounting systems (MAS) are mentioned as typical failure causes (Watson Wyatt, 2000). This paper contributes to the understanding of JVs control mechanisms, MAS in particular, by considering them as coordination and monitoring mechanisms (Davila and Foster, 2005). The evidence, from 65 surveyed JVs and three JVs studied in detail in the motor/auto parts industry, supports the theory that highly intensive use of control mechanisms reduces uncertainty (Davila, 2000). This study demonstrates that control mechanisms assume either a coordinating role (budgeting, transfer pricing and cost allocation) or a monitoring role (performance measurement and governance mechanism). Successful international JVs predominantly adopt a balanced use of MAS, but giving pre-eminence to the coordination role as a manner to reduce uncertainty in decision making without eroding trust. However, monitoring roles are also needed to avoid opportunistic behaviours.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.098 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".