在半刚性范围内治理:在基于区块链的平台中导航中心化-去中心化悖论

IF 10.4 2区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT
Marvin Hanisch, Curtis Goldsby, Mélissa Fortin, Michael Rogerson
{"title":"在半刚性范围内治理:在基于区块链的平台中导航中心化-去中心化悖论","authors":"Marvin Hanisch,&nbsp;Curtis Goldsby,&nbsp;Mélissa Fortin,&nbsp;Michael Rogerson","doi":"10.1002/joom.70001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Blockchain-based platforms can facilitate data sharing and coordination in interorganizational ecosystems by enabling secure, tamper-evident recordkeeping and streamlined, trust-minimized transactions across organizational boundaries. However, their decentralized architecture may conflict with the centralized control exercised by platform sponsors, giving rise to a centralization–decentralization paradox. This study explores how this paradox unfolds in a large, blockchain-based logistics platform that was ultimately discontinued. Through an in-depth, longitudinal case study, we identify three interrelated governance contradictions—regarding ownership, trust, and growth—that triggered destabilizing oscillations between centralized and decentralized governance modes. We introduce the concept of <i>semirigid limits</i> to capture the bounded flexibility within which governance can be made and adapted under such paradoxical conditions. Our findings show that the centralization–decentralization paradox is especially difficult to navigate when strategic boundary conditions—here, industry competition, fragmented coordination, and high interdependencies—are present. Our study contributes to the paradox and governance literature by theorizing how governance contradictions emerge and persist and by identifying the mechanisms that constrain alignment and adaptation. We also offer guidance for managers in regard to addressing the competing demands of centralization and decentralization in interorganizational platforms.</p>","PeriodicalId":51097,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Operations Management","volume":"71 7","pages":"917-938"},"PeriodicalIF":10.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joom.70001","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Governing Within Semirigid Limits: Navigating the Centralization–Decentralization Paradox in Blockchain-Based Platforms\",\"authors\":\"Marvin Hanisch,&nbsp;Curtis Goldsby,&nbsp;Mélissa Fortin,&nbsp;Michael Rogerson\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/joom.70001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Blockchain-based platforms can facilitate data sharing and coordination in interorganizational ecosystems by enabling secure, tamper-evident recordkeeping and streamlined, trust-minimized transactions across organizational boundaries. However, their decentralized architecture may conflict with the centralized control exercised by platform sponsors, giving rise to a centralization–decentralization paradox. This study explores how this paradox unfolds in a large, blockchain-based logistics platform that was ultimately discontinued. Through an in-depth, longitudinal case study, we identify three interrelated governance contradictions—regarding ownership, trust, and growth—that triggered destabilizing oscillations between centralized and decentralized governance modes. We introduce the concept of <i>semirigid limits</i> to capture the bounded flexibility within which governance can be made and adapted under such paradoxical conditions. Our findings show that the centralization–decentralization paradox is especially difficult to navigate when strategic boundary conditions—here, industry competition, fragmented coordination, and high interdependencies—are present. Our study contributes to the paradox and governance literature by theorizing how governance contradictions emerge and persist and by identifying the mechanisms that constrain alignment and adaptation. We also offer guidance for managers in regard to addressing the competing demands of centralization and decentralization in interorganizational platforms.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51097,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Operations Management\",\"volume\":\"71 7\",\"pages\":\"917-938\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joom.70001\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Operations Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joom.70001\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Operations Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joom.70001","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

基于区块链的平台可以通过实现安全、防篡改的记录保存和跨组织边界的精简、信任最小化的交易,促进组织间生态系统中的数据共享和协调。然而,它们的去中心化架构可能与平台发起人的中心化控制发生冲突,从而产生中心化-去中心化悖论。这项研究探讨了这种悖论是如何在一个最终停产的大型区块链物流平台中展开的。通过深入的纵向案例研究,我们确定了三个相互关联的治理矛盾——关于所有权、信任和增长——它们引发了集中式和分散式治理模式之间不稳定的波动。我们引入半刚性限制的概念,以捕获有限的灵活性,在这种矛盾的条件下,可以在此范围内制定和调整治理。我们的研究结果表明,当战略边界条件——这里是行业竞争、碎片化协调和高度相互依赖——存在时,集中-分散悖论尤其难以驾驭。我们的研究通过理论化治理矛盾是如何出现和持续的,以及通过确定约束对齐和适应的机制,为悖论和治理文献做出了贡献。我们还为管理人员提供了关于解决组织间平台中集中和分散的竞争需求的指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Governing Within Semirigid Limits: Navigating the Centralization–Decentralization Paradox in Blockchain-Based Platforms

Governing Within Semirigid Limits: Navigating the Centralization–Decentralization Paradox in Blockchain-Based Platforms

Blockchain-based platforms can facilitate data sharing and coordination in interorganizational ecosystems by enabling secure, tamper-evident recordkeeping and streamlined, trust-minimized transactions across organizational boundaries. However, their decentralized architecture may conflict with the centralized control exercised by platform sponsors, giving rise to a centralization–decentralization paradox. This study explores how this paradox unfolds in a large, blockchain-based logistics platform that was ultimately discontinued. Through an in-depth, longitudinal case study, we identify three interrelated governance contradictions—regarding ownership, trust, and growth—that triggered destabilizing oscillations between centralized and decentralized governance modes. We introduce the concept of semirigid limits to capture the bounded flexibility within which governance can be made and adapted under such paradoxical conditions. Our findings show that the centralization–decentralization paradox is especially difficult to navigate when strategic boundary conditions—here, industry competition, fragmented coordination, and high interdependencies—are present. Our study contributes to the paradox and governance literature by theorizing how governance contradictions emerge and persist and by identifying the mechanisms that constrain alignment and adaptation. We also offer guidance for managers in regard to addressing the competing demands of centralization and decentralization in interorganizational platforms.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Operations Management
Journal of Operations Management 管理科学-运筹学与管理科学
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
15.40%
发文量
62
审稿时长
24 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Operations Management (JOM) is a leading academic publication dedicated to advancing the field of operations management (OM) through rigorous and original research. The journal's primary audience is the academic community, although it also values contributions that attract the interest of practitioners. However, it does not publish articles that are primarily aimed at practitioners, as academic relevance is a fundamental requirement. JOM focuses on the management aspects of various types of operations, including manufacturing, service, and supply chain operations. The journal's scope is broad, covering both profit-oriented and non-profit organizations. The core criterion for publication is that the research question must be centered around operations management, rather than merely using operations as a context. For instance, a study on charismatic leadership in a manufacturing setting would only be within JOM's scope if it directly relates to the management of operations; the mere setting of the study is not enough. Published papers in JOM are expected to address real-world operational questions and challenges. While not all research must be driven by practical concerns, there must be a credible link to practice that is considered from the outset of the research, not as an afterthought. Authors are cautioned against assuming that academic knowledge can be easily translated into practical applications without proper justification. JOM's articles are abstracted and indexed by several prestigious databases and services, including Engineering Information, Inc.; Executive Sciences Institute; INSPEC; International Abstracts in Operations Research; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; SciSearch/Science Citation Index; CompuMath Citation Index; Current Contents/Engineering, Computing & Technology; Information Access Company; and Social Sciences Citation Index. This ensures that the journal's research is widely accessible and recognized within the academic and professional communities.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信