The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Complementarity and Evolution of Contractual Provisions: An Empirical Study of IT Services Contracts
Abstract
An increasing volume of business activity appears to be occurring via alliances or other interfirm arrangements in which complex contracts are featured, yet there has been relatively little study of contract design in the strategy or management literatures. The economics literature on contracting has been extensive, but it has been less concerned with learning and evolution—phenomena in which strategy and organization scholars are deeply interested. In this paper, we investigate the relationship between two types of contractual provisions that are important in high-technology contracts, or contracts for which environmental uncertainty or technological complexity are significant, namely, contingency planning and task description. Previous research suggests that contracts can vary significantly in the degree of detail with which such key provisions are written, and that they are each subject to learning. In this paper, we find evidence from a sample of 386 contracts that contingency planning and task description behave as complements in contractual design. We argue that this complementarity reflects patterns of learning to contract. We also find that repeated exchange between two firms leads to greater effort at contingency planning in subsequent contracts, a finding that is also consistent with learning effects, but not with frequently made claims that contracts and trust are substitutes.
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
Teece, D. J. (1986) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/0048-7333(86)90027-2 · Cited by 7,842
Comparative Economic Organization: The Analysis of Discrete Structural Alternatives
Williamson, O. E. (1991) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393356 · Cited by 7,151
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
Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2009) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1353582 · Cited by 334
Shadow of the contract: how contract structure shapes interfirm dispute resolution
Lumineau, F., & Malhotra, D. (2011) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.890 · Cited by 277
Performance-based contracting: a literature review and future research directions
Selviaridis, K., & Wynstra, F. (2015) · International Journal of Production Research · doi:10.1080/00207543.2014.978031 · Cited by 255
Lazzarini, S. G., Miller, G. J., & Zenger, T. R. (2008) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1070.0336 · Cited by 141
Metadata
- Authors
- Argyres, N. S., Bercovitz, J., & Mayer, K. J.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2007-02
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-19
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2124213872
- Cited by
- 363
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 39.39
- 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: Complementarity and Evolution of Contractual Provisions: An Empirical Study of IT Services Contracts. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/orsc.1060.0220
- The paper
- Argyres, N. S., Bercovitz, J., & Mayer, K. J. (2007). Complementarity and Evolution of Contractual Provisions: An Empirical Study of IT Services Contracts. Organization Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1060.0220
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.