IS Application Capabilities and Relational Value in Interfirm Partnerships
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 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.
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 | 0.006 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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