The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How Do Suppliers Benefit from Information Technology Use in Supply Chain Relationships?1
Abstract
Supply chain management systems (SCMS) championed by network leaders in their supplier networks are now ubiquitous. While prior studies have examined the benefits to network leaders from these systems, little attention has been paid to the benefits to supplier firms. This study draws from organizational theories of learning and action and transaction cost theory to propose a model relating suppliers’ use of SCMS to benefits. It proposes that two patterns of SCMS use by suppliers—exploitation and exploration—create contexts for suppliers to make relationship-specific investments in business processes and domain knowledge. These, in turn, enable suppliers to both create value and retain a portion of the value created by the use of these systems in interfirm relationships. Data from 131 suppliers using an SCMS implemented by one large retailer support hypotheses that relationship-specific intangible investments play a mediating role linking SCMS use to benefits. Evidence that patterns of information technology use are significant determinants of relationship-specific investments in business processes and domain expertise provides a finer-grained explanation of the logic of IT-enabled electronic integration. The results support the vendors-to-partners thesis that IT deployments in supply chains lead to closer buyer-supplier relationships (Bakos and Brynjyolfsson 1993). The results also suggest the complementarity of the transaction-cost and resource-based views, elaborating the logic by which specialized assets can also be strategic assets.
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
Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning
March, J. G. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71 · Cited by 21,942
Bharadwaj, A. S. (2000) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3250983 · Cited by 5,042
SAFEGUARDING INVESTMENTS IN ASYMMETRIC INTERORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS: THEORY AND EVIDENCE.
Subramani, M. R., & Venkatraman, N. (2003) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/30040675 · Cited by 377
Self-citation
Cited by
The qualitative interview in IS research: Examining the craft
Myers, M. D., & Newman, M. (2007) · Information and Organization · doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2006.11.001 · Cited by 1,941
Ma, M., & Agarwal, R. (2007) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1070.0113 · Cited by 1,143
Malhotra, A., Gosain, S., & El Sawy, O. A. (2005) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148671 · Cited by 994
Cocreation of Value in a Platform Ecosystem: The Case of Enterprise Software1
Ceccagnoli, M., Forman, C., Huang, P., & Wu, D. J. (2012) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/41410417 · Cited by 794
Antecedents of supply chain visibility in retail supply chains: A resource‐based theory perspective
Barratt, M., & Oke, A. (2007) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2007.01.003 · Cited by 702
Metadata
- Authors
- Subramani, M.
- Venue
- MIS Quarterly
- Publisher
- MIS Quarterly
- Published
- 2004-03-01
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 45-74
- ISSN
- 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-9730
- OpenAlex
- W2152630592
- Cited by
- 1,101
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 82.51
- 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
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.