MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142333951 · doi:10.1287/isre.1070.0133

IS Application Capabilities and Relational Value in Interfirm Partnerships

2007· article· en· W2142333951 on OpenAlexaff
Nilesh Saraf, Christoph Schlueter Langdon, Sanjay Gosain

Bibliographic record

VenueInformation Systems Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersUniversity of MichiganUniversity of Southern California
KeywordsBusinessRelational viewKnowledge managementLeverage (statistics)Flexibility (engineering)Context (archaeology)Asset (computer security)Channel (broadcasting)Business valueInformation sharingSurvey data collectionIndustrial organizationMarketingComputer scienceTelecommunicationsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines how capabilities of information systems (IS) applications deployed in the context of interfirm relationships contribute to business performance. We propose that these capabilities augment the relational value that a firm derives from its business partners—channel partners and customer enterprises—in the context of the distribution channel. Two cospecialized relational assets are considered as key to realization of relational value—knowledge sharing and process coupling. Hypotheses linking two IS capabilities (IS flexibility and IS integration) to the relational asset dimensions, and ultimately to firm performance, are proposed. The research model is tested based on data collected through a survey of business units of enterprises embedded in customer and channel partner ties in the high-tech and financial services industries. We find that IS integration with channel partners and customers contributes to both knowledge sharing and process coupling with both types of enterprise partners, whereas IS flexibility is a foundational capability that indirectly contributes to value creation in interfirm relationships by enabling greater IS integration with partner firms. We find that two types of relational assets are significantly associated with business performance—knowledge sharing with channel partners and process coupling with customers—pointing to underlying mechanisms that differentially leverage resources of different types of channel partners. Implications for theory development and practice based on these findings are proposed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.137
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations425
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInformation Systems ResearchSame topicInnovation and Knowledge ManagementFrench-language works237,207