MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390404710 · doi:10.18280/ijsdp.181230

The Interplay of Relational Capital and the Ease of Monitoring Systems as BPO Safeguards: Evidence from the Large Banking Industry in Indonesia

2023· article· en· W4390404710 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wulan Permatasari, Dila Maghrifani

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessUsabilityRelational capitalCapital (architecture)Industrial organizationNatural resource economicsEnvironmental economicsCommerceEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental planningFinanceEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceEconomicsGeographyIntellectual capitalHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tier-two suppliers may engage in opportunistic behavior due to the preference of large buyers for short-term contracts or volatile demand patterns.This lack of long-term commitment may lead tier-two suppliers to prioritize short-term gains and engage in opportunistic behavior to maximize the current situation, particularly in the Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) setting between banks and their tier-two suppliers.In this setting, buyers wield greater influence due to their size, market dominance, or distinctive capabilities over suppliers.This power disparity might create an environment where tier-two suppliers feel obligated to engage in opportunistic behavior to protect their interests or acquire an advantage.The ease of a monitoring system plays a crucial role in ensuring the safety of buyers and establishing a more secure buyersupplier relationship.However, relying solely on a monitoring system is not reliable.Supplementing the monitoring system with other safeguards, such as relational capital, is necessary to address supplier opportunistic behavior effectively.This can be achieved through the cultivation of trust, norms of reciprocity, and fostering a sense of friendship between the buyer and supplier.Nevertheless, a high level of easiness in monitoring systems, on the other hand, may foster distrust and destroy relational capital between buyers and suppliers, making suppliers more likely to engage in opportunistic behavior.Drawing on insights from transaction cost economics, social capital, and agency theory, it is argued that the interplay between relational capital and the ease of monitoring systems serves as an essential safeguard against supplier opportunistic behavior, especially when the tier-two supplier has made substantial investments in specific assets with its primary buyer.Data was gathered from 103 business process outsourcing dyads involved in BPO within the banking industry in Indonesia.These dyads consisted of four primary process suppliers: telemarketing, cash-in-transit, security, and contact center.The study revealed that relational capital is an important safeguard, particularly in situations where buyers have challenges effectively managing the BPO relationship.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning→Same topicCorporate Finance and Governance→French-language works237,207→