The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Learning to Contract: Evidence from the Personal Computer Industry
Abstract
Organizational forms involving more detailed contracts than are found in traditional spot market exchanges appear to be increasingly prevalent. There has been relatively little analysis, however, of the extent to which firms learn how to use contracts to manage their interfirm relationships over time. In this paper, we conduct a detailed case study of a time series of 11 contracts concluded during 1989–1997 between the same two partners, both of whom participate in the personal computer industry, to explore whether and how firms learn to contract. We find many changes to the structure of the contracts that cannot be fully explained by changes in the assets at risk in the relationship, and evidence that these changes are largely the result of processes in which the firms were learning how to work together, including learning how to contract with each other. The nature of this learning appears to have been quite incremental and local, that is, not very far sighted. We suggest how and when contracts might serve as repositories for knowledge about how to govern collaborations, and suggest some boundary conditions for this phenomenon. Our findings also provide implications for the debate about whether contracts have a positive or negative effect on interorganizational trust. We conclude with suggestions for future research.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1997) · Reis · doi:10.2307/40183951 · Cited by 11,113 · cited 1×
“…literature, this importance is because agents' rationality is quite limited, and learning tends to occur through a relatively slow process of environmental selection of faster learners (Alchian 1950), or error detection and correction in " theories-in-use " (Argyris and Schon 1978, p. 10), or both.”
BackgroundComparative Economic Organization: The Analysis of Discrete Structural Alternatives
Williamson, O. E. (1991) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393356 · Cited by 7,151
Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action.
Jick, T. D. (1979) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392366 · Cited by 7,103 · cited 1×
“We also triangulated these descriptions with other interviewees (Jick 1979).”
On Coase, Competence, and the Corporation
(1988) · The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jleo.a036942 · Cited by 422
Cited by
The Two Facets of Collaboration: Cooperation and Coordination in Strategic Alliances
Gulati, R., Wohlgezogen, F., & Zhelyazkov, P. (2012) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2012.691646 · Cited by 768
What really is alliance management capability and how does it impact alliance outcomes and success?
Schreiner, M., Kale, P., & Corsten, D. (2009) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.790 · Cited by 507
Capron, L., & Mitchell, W. (2009) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1070.0328 · Cited by 430
Vlaar, P. W. L., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2006) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840606068338 · Cited by 219
Vlaar, P. W. L., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2007) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840607078003 · Cited by 136
Metadata
- Authors
- Mayer, K. J., & Argyres, N. S.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2004-08
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 394-410
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2140614071
- Cited by
- 915
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 45.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Learning to Contract: Evidence from the Personal Computer Industry. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/orsc.1040.0074
- The paper
- Mayer, K. J., & Argyres, N. S. (2004). Learning to Contract: Evidence from the Personal Computer Industry. Organization Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0074
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.