Assimilation of Interorganizational Business Process Standards

TLDR

Organizations have not fully realized the benefits of interorganizational relationships due to a lack of cross‑enterprise process integration, and interorganizational business process standards enabled by IT are proposed as a solution. The study proposes relational, influence, and inertial mechanisms to explain IBPS assimilation and theorizes that these mechanisms will have differential effects on dominant versus nondominant firms. Using a cross‑case analysis of 11 high‑tech firms, the authors test that relational depth, extendability, and normative pressure drive IBPS assimilation in dominant firms, whereas relational specificity and influence mechanisms drive it in nondominant firms. The findings show that relational depth, extendability, and normative pressure are key for dominant firms; relational specificity and influence mechanisms are key for nondominant firms; and inertial mechanisms are important for both.

Abstract

Organizations have not fully realized the benefits of interorganizational relationships (IORs) due to the lack of cross-enterprise process integration capabilities. Recently, interorganizational business process standards (IBPS) enabled by information technology (IT) have been suggested as a solution to help organizations overcome this problem. Drawing on three theoretical perspectives, i.e., the relational view of the firm, institutional theory, and organizational inertia theory, we propose three mechanisms—relational, influence, and inertial—to explain the assimilation of IBPS in organizations. We theorize that these mechanisms will have differential effects on the assimilation of IBPS in dominant and nondominant firms. Using a cross-case analysis based on data from 11 firms in the high-tech industry, we found evidence to support our propositions that relational depth, relationship extendability, and normative pressure were important for dominant firms while relational specificity and influence mechanisms (coercive, mimetic, and normative pressures) were important for nondominant firms. Inertial mechanisms, i.e., ability and willingness to overcome resource and routine rigidities, were important for both dominant and nondominant firms.