fbpx
Skip to Content Skip to Footer

Press Release From the Journal of Marketing: Dynamic Governance Matching in Solution Development

Matt Weingarden

Chicago, October 16, 2019 — Researchers from the University of Stuttgart, Bocconi University, and Goethe University Frankfurt published a new paper in the Journal of Marketing that examines how solution actors can implement governance mechanisms to address the tensions that emerge in solution development.  

The study, forthcoming in the January issue of the Journal of Marketing, is titled “Dynamic Governance Matching in Solution Development” and is authored by Laura Colm, Andrea Ordanini, and Torsten Bornemann. 

Advertisement

When faced with competitive and commoditization threats, many business-to-business companies increase the service component of their offerings, such that they integrate product and service content to satisfy customer needs—an offering commonly referred to as a solution. With its inherent service shift, solution development exposes solution actors to evolving tensions (such as the potential for opportunistic behavior by one of the actors) that, if not addressed properly, reduce their willingness to engage in value-creation initiatives. For instance, to achieve the full potential of a solution, customers must share key resources with the supplier and the supplier must take responsibility for tasks that the customer previously performed. But under such circumstances, how can actors avoid opportunism threats that emerge from responsibility sharing? And how can they prevent information leakage during the exchange of critical resources?  

The researchers identify various governance tensions associated with solution development and how actors might match specific governance mechanisms to those tensions. They also describe how the tensions vary over the course of solution development. The proposed dynamic framework consists of three phases (experimentation, integration, evolution), separated by two decision points (mutual commitment and balanced power). 

In the first phase of solution development, actors engage in small-scale experimentation where governance matching aims to safeguard them from opportunistic behaviors by their counterpart as well as from competitive threats that may result from shifting roles and responsibilities. Asset colocation and network closure are two key mechanisms in this phase. If the match works, actors develop mutual commitment and engage in tacit knowledge integration practices. Governance matching in the second phase involves the coordination of goals and intangible assets, along with safeguarding assets from potential knowledge appropriation by the counterpart. Boundary objects and rights allocation agreements ensure governance matching in this phase. If this integration evolves in a context of balanced power, actors proceed to the third phase of solution development, in which governance matching aims to coordinate the interplay of adaptation and proactivity to deal with unforeseen contingencies. If any matching attempts fail, the process may stall, revert to spot market exchanges, or evolve as vertical integration. As further analysis reveals, governance matching in solutions entails a careful blending of contractual and relational mechanisms to address the complex, evolving tensions that actors face over the course of solution development.

Colm explains that “At the managerial level, the core insight of our study is that solutions do not ‘naturally’ evolve, and without ensuring a complex activity of governance matching, actors do not have the proper incentives to engage in the bilateral value creation activities that are at the very heart of solution development.” The research provides practical guidelines to properly execute the governance matching activity, which consists of a series of “governance engineering” tasks. The first of these tasks is monitoring the exchange conditions, which means systematically checking the status of the relation with the solution counterpart. Vigilance is important, but results indicate that when tensions inevitably emerge, actors need to succeed at a second governance engineering task—designing a coherent set of mechanisms. This reflects the capability to design proper combinations of contractual and relational mechanisms to handle the complex and evolving tensions that characterize solutions development. Executing design tasks requires actors to mobilize, and sometimes combine, the various types of knowledge (technical, managerial, and legal) necessary to ensure governance matching across the various phases of solution development. These tasks of being vigilant and designing mechanisms should be put in a dynamic perspective: Solution developers need to periodically assess the development process, evaluate its progress, and take actions accordingly.  

In addition to the development of governance engineering tasks, a second practical implication of the study regards the role of existing ties in implementing governance matching. Solution actors face radical changes in their relational habits because the start of the development process forces them to reframe the relational approaches that they have used with business partners. Bornemann explains, “Contrary to the majority of cases in business relations, to succeed in solutions development, actors cannot rely on existing ties or capitalize on prior relationships—they even could act as obstacles to change. Rather, they must reestablish mechanisms to manage their relations from scratch.”

Read the full article.

From: Laura Colm, Andrea Ordanini, and Torsten Bornemann, “Dynamic Governance Matching in Solution Development,” Journal of Marketing, 84 (January).

About the Journal of Marketing 

The Journal of Marketing develops and disseminates knowledge about real-world marketing questions useful to scholars, educators, managers, policy makers, consumers, and other societal stakeholders around the world. Published by the American Marketing Association since its founding in 1936, JM has played a significant role in shaping the content and boundaries of the marketing discipline. Christine Moorman (T. Austin Finch, Sr. Professor of Business Administration at the Fuqua School of Business, Duke University) serves as the current Editor in Chief. 
https://www.ama.org/jm

About the American Marketing Association (AMA) 

As the largest chapter-based marketing association in the world, the AMA is trusted by marketing and sales professionals to help them discover what’s coming next in the industry. The AMA has a community of local chapters in more than 70 cities and 350 college campuses throughout North America. The AMA is home to award-winning content, PCM® professional certification, premiere academic journals, and industry-leading training events and conferences.  
https://www.ama.org

Matt Weingarden serves as Director, Integrated Academic Content, a role which includes management of AMA's four scholarly journals, academic conferences, and academic community initiatives including the 17 Academic Special Interest Groups