Control systems and interorganizational identification in technology parks cooperation

Abstract

The aim of this study was to analyze the influence of the design of management control systems (MCSs) on interorganizational cooperation and the moderating role of companies’ identification with their technology park. The conditions that promote the emergence of interorganizational cooperation are indicated in the literature as an important research gap, as well as the little evidence about how MCS design influences cooperation, especially in relationships based on innovation. MCSs in interorganizational partnerships have been shown to be relevant for the coordination and maintenance of the relationship, and this study reveals that MCSs promotes cooperative behaviors among the companies associated with the technology parks. The interorganizational identification of the companies with their park was moderately present, thus prompting the inclusion of social and relational aspects in interorganizational studies, which remain scarcely explored in the literature. The MCSs of the parks are focused on stimulating the companies’ cooperation, which is one purpose of this partnership. By not confirming the moderating effect of identification, it was verified that this construct drives cooperation in a way that is dissociated from the MCSs. A survey was conducted in organizations associated with Porto Digital and with the São José dos Campos Technology Park, and it had the participation of 187 managers. To analyze the data the partial least squares structural equation modeling technique was applied and the differences between the two parks were further analyzed. The MCSs design and interorganizational identification act as antecedents of the companies’ cooperation with their technology park. On the other hand, the direct and positive effect of the MCS design on cooperation is not moderated by how much these companies identify with the interorganizational relationship established. The paper contributes by identifying ways of fostering cooperation, one of the purposes of interorganizational agreements, as well as by providing evidence in a context that is scarcely addressed in the literature.

Does enabling control systems and relational capabilities foster conflict management in innovation ecosystems?

“…Under this premise, by outlining plans to achieve interorganizational goals (Beuren and Dal Vesco, 2022), the enabling formalization of MCSs is allied with coding and standardization mechanisms (coordination) to delineate acceptable behaviors, which enhances joint and partner-directed actions (Janka, 2021). These characteristics are facilitated by the MCSs of STPs, which, because they are embedded in the structure of the interorganizational relationship, favor collaborative behaviors (Pazetto and Beuren, 2022), such as conflict management. When considering that MCSs of innovation ecosystems are used to maintain the viability of interorganizational relationships through coordination, which stimulate collective beneficial outcomes (Kherrazi, 2021), it is assumed that interorganizational coordination plays a mediating role in the relationship between enabling MCSs and conflict management.…”

“…Recognizing this limitation, some studies (Bernd and Beuren, 2022; Coyte, 2019; Yakimova et al , 2019) have used Adler and Borys (1996) proposition to examine how enabling formalization of MCSs can be useful in promoting innovative activities (Janka, 2021). Although the applicability of these precepts in innovation-oriented relationships is still limited (Pazetto and Beuren, 2022), the empirical results of these studies have broadened discussions about the need for specific control systems that ensure firm survival in dynamic environments.…”

“…One possible explanation for these inconclusive evidence is that the literature on MCS (Kherrazi, 2021; Pazetto and Beuren, 2022) and interorganizational conflict management (Perrigot et al , 2021; Shahzad et al , 2020) do not converge and are inconsistent on how different types of relational capabilities help explain their relationships in innovation ecosystems. Khurana and Dutta (2021) alluded that these studies address capabilities from an economic perspective and disregard how the relational view and their relational benefits are able to explain how these dynamic processes occur within innovation ecosystems.…”

“…To answer these questions, we carried a survey with 164 Brazilian firms associated with STPs. The choice of STPs to study innovation ecosystems is because it is a collaborative environment (Pazetto and Beuren, 2022), where social exchanges are frequent and needed (Ng et al , 2020). Firms associated with STPs are subject to an organization (the STP itself) responsible for managing the joint innovation areas and activities (Balle et al , 2019), and the interactions between those two parties constitute a type of interorganizational relationship (Pazetto and Beuren, 2022).…”

“…The choice of STPs to study innovation ecosystems is because it is a collaborative environment (Pazetto and Beuren, 2022), where social exchanges are frequent and needed (Ng et al , 2020). Firms associated with STPs are subject to an organization (the STP itself) responsible for managing the joint innovation areas and activities (Balle et al , 2019), and the interactions between those two parties constitute a type of interorganizational relationship (Pazetto and Beuren, 2022). Due to the complexity inherent in the relational environment of STPs (Balle et al , 2019) and to identify possible complementarities between enabling MCSs and relational capabilities, a mixed method approach were applied to the data: partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) and fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA).…”