Cited by 368Outsourcing and Supply Chain ManagementSupply Chain and Inventory ManagementQuality and Supply Management

Information Technology, Incentives, and the Optimal Number of Suppliers

Bakos, J. Yannis, Brynjolfsson, Erik·1993·Journal of Management Information Systems

Abstract

:Buyers are transfonning their relationships with suppliers. For example, instead of playing off dozens or even hundreds of competing suppliers against one another, many finns are finding it more profitable to work closely with only a small number of “partners.” In this paper we explore some causes and consequences of this transfonnation. We apply the economic theory of incomplete contracts to detetmine the optimal strategy for a buyer. We find that the buyer finn will often maximize profits by limiting its options and reducing its own bargaining power. This may seem paradoxical in an age of cheap communications costs and aggressive competition. However, unlike earlier models that focused on coordination costs, we focus on the critical importance of providing incentives for suppliers. Our results spring from the need to make it worthwhile for suppliers to invest in “noncontractibles” such as innovation, responsiveness, and information sharing. Such incentives will often be stronger when the number of competing suppliers is small. The findings of the theoretical models appear to be consistent with observations from empirical research which highlight the key role of information technology in enabling this transformation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/07421222.1993.11517999

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Given the inherent tradeoff between contribution volume and the coordination effort required to manage them, it is not yet clear how AI pair programmers shape the overall project-level timely merge of code contributions in OSS development.

    “Given the inherent tradeoff between contribution volume and the coordination effort required to manage them (Bakos and Brynjolfsson 1993), it is not yet clear how AI pair programmers shape the overall project-level timely merge of code contributions in OSS development.”
  • During our analysis period, only a limited number of IDEs supported Copilot: Visual Studio Code, the JetBrains suite of IDEs, Neovim, and Visual Studio.

    “During our analysis period, only a limited number of IDEs supported Copilot: Visual Studio Code, the JetBrains suite of IDEs, Neovim, and Visual Studio. 5”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bakos, J. Y., & Brynjolfsson, E.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
Journal of Management Information Systems
Published
1993-09
Volume
10
Issue
2
Pages
37-53
ISSN
  • 0742-1222 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-928X
OpenAlex
W1566310586
Cited by
368
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 15
FWCI
11.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Management Information Systems (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Outsourcing and Supply Chain Management
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Supply Chain and Inventory Management
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Quality and Supply Management
Keywords
buyer-supplier relationships, incomplete contracts, supplier incentives, bargaining power, information technology, innovation, information sharing, supply chain management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review