The manifestation of coordination failures in service triads

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to investigate governance in service triads, specifically studying significant steering and connecting coordination failures, to reveal typically hidden characteristics and consequences. Design/methodology/approach This study focuses on coordination functions and activities between a buyer (a government department), a customer (a military service) and two service providers. Rich data on these normally confidential service ties are drawn from an official report into the causes of a fatal accident involving a UK reconnaissance aircraft and specifically from the evidence presented regarding the earlier development of its complex safety case. The authors also analysed a range of additional secondary data sources. Findings The authors examine the sources, drivers and manifestation of coordination failures. The authors uncover a series of coordination failures driven from the bridge position, revealing that while bounded rationality and opportunism influenced steering coordination failures, connecting coordination failures were associated with knowledge asymmetry, dyadic inertia and unethical practices. Practical implications Organisations and governments delivering complex projects and knowledge-intensive professional services should guard against outsourcing the “coordination” activity to a third party, thereby relinquishing the bridge position. Handing over the bridge position to an integrator would leave the client vulnerable to coordination dysfunctions such as bounded rationality, opportunism, knowledge asymmetry, dyadic inertia and unethical practices. Originality/value The study links the previously separate research streams of service triads and inter-organizational coordination. While extant research pays attention to mainly positive control functions, this study focuses on all three actors in two (failed) service triads – and highlights the impact of coordination activities and failures.

Managing information asymmetry in public–private relationships undergoing a digital transformation: the role of contractual and relational governance

“…It is vital to avoid coordination failures in these relationships which may stem from, for instance, cognitive limitations (bounded rationality) of those who design and implement coordination mechanisms (e.g. failure to recognise interdependencies, attention constraints which may limit monitoring effectiveness) and from underlying cultural differences (as presented by private and public organisation's goals and values) (Gulati et al , 2012; Kalra et al , 2021). Thus, adopting optimal governance mechanisms is crucial in such relationships to align incentives, allocate decision rights and ensure information flows for maximising underlying partners' commitment (Cabral et al , 2019; Klein et al , 2019) and may address a central tension in terms of how to coordinate across public and private organisations.…”

Collective insights of public-private partnership impacts and sustainability: A qualitative analysis

“…Research regarding global health PPP implementation practice improvements would also benefit from advanced assessment into 'the bridge position' which essentially refers to role of lead partner in a service-based PPP, and oversight of relationship management and coordinating of interactions among network partners. The extent to which a private partner assumes this role may threaten the vitality of a PPP due to power imbalances, greater potential for improprieties, or a shift in operational values that can upend equitable, balanced collaborative engagement [69]. While these occurrences may not have been disclosed by respondents, framing future studies to capture leadership oversight should be a priority.…”

Reconciling and reconceptualising servitization research: drawing on modularity, platforms, ecosystems, risk and governance to develop mid-range theory

“…Similarly, Jacobides et al (2018) argue that an important but neglected characteristic of ecosystems is that they help coordinate interrelated organisations that have significant autonomy. The importance of coordination is confirmed by the fact that coordination failures could result in inefficiencies and possible relationship breakdown (e.g., Kalra, et al, 2021), thereby delaying or preventing partners from achieving their joint goals.…”

“…The importance of coordination is confirmed by the fact that coordination failures could result in inefficiencies and possible relationship breakdown (e.g. Kalra et al, 2021), thereby delaying or preventing partners from achieving their joint goals. Therefore, the ability to coordinate effectively the activities in a relationship, network and/or ecosystem would determine the effectiveness of PSS or IS providers.…”