“We provide a solution that allows saving 15 to 20 euros per invoice.It is very important in a strategy of service and cost reductions for our customers and for us.”<p><p>“For us, it is very important as we generally reduce our inventories by 30%, thus we recover cash flow. It is not negligible.”<p><p>These quotes out of my case studies show that the primary goal of the implementation of Web-based applications is the achievement of transaction cost efficiencies: cost cutting, time saving, and information integration. But do they achieve such results? Sometimes they do sometime they don’t. In order to understand why, I consider it is necessary to take a different perspective from the one taken until now. <p><p>Indeed, existing studies on interorganizational information systems focus on economical and strategic issues and consider organizations as opaque entities. First, issues at hand may not be economic or strategic but social or legal. Next, they neglect that inter-organizational relationships imply a number of long-standing social interactions between individuals of each organization. Moreover, these individuals interpret the mediation project and act taking decision, implementing, or using the mediating technology – that these individuals make sense of the IT mediation project. In the present research, I propose to open the black box of organizations and explore how people sensemaking conditions the achievement of transaction cost benefits and is conditioned by the interorganizational context. My overarching research question is: How do people make sense of the Internet mediation of long-standing interorganizational relationships?<p> / Doctorat en sciences de gestion / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / In 2008, grassroots NGOs formed 13 alliances in response to the need for emergency relief and post-disaster recovery after the Sichuan Earthquake that occurred in West China and killed approximately 87,000 people. These alliances served to raise and deliver relief materials, train and supervise volunteers, promote information sharing, and assist victims with mental health and livelihood recovery. However, all alliances were terminated within less than four years. Although plenty of scholarship discusses how corporate alliances evolve or fail, few studies focus on interorganizational collaboration among nonprofits. To explore how NGOs developed collective actions in China’s adverse sociopolitical environment, the author performed three years of observation in four coalitions and interviewed 60 alliance leaders, employees, and volunteers. This paper identifies four types of termination these NGO alliances experienced: three of them failed at their very births, five self-disbanded shortly after the end of emergency aid, three dissolved due to failed institutionalization, and the remaining two evolved into independent organizations. Tracking their life cycles, this study finds four main factors accountable for their terminations: political pressure, funding shortage, short-term orientation, and leadership failure. In particular, the repressive NGO regulation regime and limited funding sources fundamentally restricted all alliances’ capacity and sustainability. Further, the transient nature of disaster relief efforts and the conflict between disaster management and planned work areas contributed to the short-term orientation among alliance members and, thus, led to the closure of some alliances shortly after they provided emergency relief. In addition, though generally exempt from internal rivalry that often undermines inter-firm partnerships, NGO alliances of all types were confronted with leadership challenges—partner misfits concerning resources, strategy, and mission; flawed governing structures, and undesired individual leadership. The four factors interplayed and led to alliance dissolution through different combinations. The paper points out that, in addition to environmental uncertainty, leadership failure has become a major challenge for nonprofit collaborations.

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / This research explores what roles nonprofits play in political representation by applying the concept of the representational role to nonprofits. The representational role consists of representational focus and style. Representational focus shows those whom nonprofits aim to serve: members, constituents, or the general public. Representational style denotes the ways nonprofits advocate for their focal groups: the delegation, trusteeship, and educational styles. The survey and regression analysis results demonstrate that nonprofits serving their members are most likely to convey their members’ voices directly to policy makers: the delegation style. In contrast, nonprofits advocating for their constituents are likely to pursue what they independently identify as the interests of their constituents: the trusteeship style. Finally, nonprofits speaking for the general public are most likely to work toward educating the general public: the educational style. These results suggest that nonprofits play different roles in political representation, depending on the types of their focal groups.