Advertisement

Information Systems Frontiers

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 225–239 | Cite as

The rise and fall of the competitive local exchange carriers in the U.S.: An institutional perspective

  • Qing Hu
  • C. Derrick Huang
Article

Abstract

The debacle of the telecommunications industry at the turn of the millennium resulted in significant consequences for investors, workers, financial institutions, telecom companies, and the economy in general worldwide. In the midst of the telecom bubble, the CLECs (competitive local exchange carriers) adopted similar or identical business plans and saturated the market, which resulted in destructive competition. In this study, we investigate the isomorphic business models of the CLECs from the perspectives of the new institutional theory. We argue that the combined coercive, mimetic, and normative institutional forces exerted on the companies by the actors who controlled the funding, managed the business, and provided the information fashioned the isomorphic CLEC business models, which in turn contributed to the demise of these companies and thus the burst of the telecom bubble. Evidence of the institutional influences on CLECs and the actors exerted the influences are presented and their consequences are discussed.

Keywords

Telecom industry Competitive local exchange carriers Institutional isomorphism Business models Institutional theory 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aldrich HE, Fiol CM. Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review 1994;19(4):645–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. AT&T Corp. Form 8-K, Current Report, January 8. 1998.Google Scholar
  3. Bada AQ, Aniebonam MC, Owei V. Institutional pressures as sources of improvisations: A case study from a developing country context. Journal of Global Information Technology Management 2004;7(3):27–44.Google Scholar
  4. Boyle M. It’s only when you look closely at the inner working of this $270 billion industry that you begin to understand why telecom crashed. Fortune 2000;142(13):124.Google Scholar
  5. DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW. Iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 1983;48:147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW. Introduction. In Powell WW, DiMaggio PJ, IL Chicago (eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1991, pp. 1–38.Google Scholar
  7. Elstrom P. Telecom meltdown. BusinessWeek. April 23, 2001:100.Google Scholar
  8. Faulhaber GR. Policy-induced competition: The telecommunications experiments. Information Economics and Policy 2003;15:73–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Foreman RD. A logistic analysis of bankruptcy within the US local telecommunications industry. Journal of Economics & Business 2003;55(2):135–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Galaskiewicz J. Professional networks and the institutionalization of a single mind set. American Sociological Review 1990;50(5):639–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gosain S. Enterprise information systems as objects and carriers of institutional forces: The new iron cage? Journal of the Association of Information Systems 2004;5(4):151–182.Google Scholar
  12. Gove A. Busy signal: VCs are fielding calls from wire-line startups. Redherring, November 1997, p. 64.Google Scholar
  13. Greenstein S, Mazzeo M. Differentiation strategy and market deregulation: Local telecommunication entry in the late 1990s. NBER Working Paper, No. W9761, 2003.Google Scholar
  14. Haveman HA. Following the leader: Mimetic isomorphism and entry into new markets. Administrative Science Quarterly 1993;38(4):593–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hedman J, Kalling T. The business model concept: Theoretical underpinnings and empirical illustrations. European Journal of Information Systems 2003;12(1):49–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Honig B, Karlsson T. Institutional forces and the written business plan. Journal of Management 2004;30(1):29–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hu Q, Hart P, Cooke D. The role of external influences on organizational information security practices: An institutional perspective. In: Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science (HICSS 39). Hawaii, USA. IEEE Press, 2006.Google Scholar
  18. Hu Q, Quan J. The institutionalization of IT budgeting: Evidence from the financial sector. Information Resources Management Journal 2006;19(1):84–97.Google Scholar
  19. Huang DC. Size, growth, and trends of the information industries, 1987–1996. In: Compaine BM, Read WH (eds.), The Information Resources Policy Handbook. Cambridge, MA The MIT Press, 1999, pp. 347–361.Google Scholar
  20. Huber PW, Kellog MK, Thorn J. The Geodesic Network II, 1993 Report on Competition in the Telephone Industry. The Geodesic Company, Washington DC. 1992.Google Scholar
  21. Huber PW. Local Exchange Competition under the 1996 Telecom Act: Red-Lining the Local Residential Customer. Telecom Policy Analysis Group, Washington, DC. 1997.Google Scholar
  22. Koski HA, Majumdar SK. Paragon of virtue? Competitor entry and the strategies of incumbents in the U.S. local telecommunications industry. Information Economics and Policy 2002;14:453–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krouse CG, Park J. Local exchange competition and the telecommunications act of 1996. Information Economics and Policy 2003;15:223–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lehman Brothers. Implications for Overcapitalization: Telecom Industry Update. New York, NY. 2000.Google Scholar
  25. Margretta J. Why business models matter. Harvard Business Review 2002;80(5):86–92.Google Scholar
  26. Martinez J, Dacin MT. Efficiency motives and normative forces: Combining transaction costs and institutional logic. Journal of Management 1999;25(1):75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Meyer JW, Rowan B. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 1977;83:340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mezias SJ. An institutional model of organizational practice: Financial reporting at the Fortune 200. Administrative Science Quarterly 1990;35(3):431–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. MFS Communications. Form 8-K, Current Report, August 24. 1996.Google Scholar
  30. Mizruchi MS, Fein LC. The social construction of organizational knowledge: A study of the uses of coercive, mimetic, and normative isomorphism. Administrative Science Quarterly 1999;44:653–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. New Paradigm Research Group (NPRM). CLEC Report 2000. Chicago, IL, 2001.Google Scholar
  32. Osterwalder A, Pigneur Y. An e-business model ontology for modeling e-business. 15th Bled Electronic Commerce Conference. Bled, Slovenia June 17–19, 2002.Google Scholar
  33. Porter ME. What is strategy? Harvard Business Review 1996;74(6):61–79.Google Scholar
  34. Rohlfs J. Bandwagon Effects in High-Technology Industries. Cambridge, MA:. MIT Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  35. Rosenbush S, Timmons H. Telecom lenders: Standing in line for what? BusinessWeek. February 11, 2002:62.Google Scholar
  36. Rosenbush S, Timmons H, Crokett RO, Palmeri C, Haddad C. Inside the telecom game. BusinessWeek. August 5, 2002:34.Google Scholar
  37. Scott WR. The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly 1987;32(4):493–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Selznick P. TVA and the grassroots. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1949.Google Scholar
  39. Selznick P. Leadership in Administration. Harper & Row, 1957. New York:, NY.Google Scholar
  40. Sharpe WF. Investments, 3rd edn. Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1985.Google Scholar
  41. Staw BM, Epstein LD. What bandwagons bring: Effect of popular management techniques on corporate performance, reputation, and CEO pay. Administrative Quarterly 2000;45(3):523–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stuck B, Weingarten M. The unfashionable service provider. Business Communications Review 2001;31(2):32–37.Google Scholar
  43. Suchman MC. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review 1995;20(3):571–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Teo HH, Wei KK, Benbasat I. Predicting intention to adopt interorganizational linkages: An institutional perspective. MIS Quarterly 2003;27(1):19–49.Google Scholar
  45. Timmers P. Business models for electronic markets. Electronic Markets 1998;8(2):3–8.Google Scholar
  46. Timmons H. Feeling the telecom’s pain: Insurers and banks. BusinessWeek April 2001;23:110.Google Scholar
  47. Tingling P, Parent M. Mimetic Isomorphism and technology evaluation: Does imitation transcend judgment? Journal of the Association for Information Systems 2002;3:113–143.Google Scholar
  48. Tolbert PS, Zucker LG. Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reform, 1880–1935. Administrative Science Quarterly 1983;28(1):22–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Weinberg S, Shobrook C, Mycio G, Singleton L. Appraising the CLEC landscape: Traversing the telecommunications gallery for the best view. X-Change. June 2000. Accessed on 3/31/2006 at http://www.xchangemag.com/articles/061feat1.html.
  50. Williamson OE. Market and hierarchies: Analysis and anti-Trust Implications. New York: Free Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  51. Williamson OE. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York Free Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  52. Yankee Group (The). Bundling and Stumbling: Voice CLECs in the SMB Market. November 2000a.Google Scholar
  53. Yankee Group (The). Voice/Data Bundles for the SMB Market. August 2000b.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information Technology & Operations Management, College of BusinessFlorida Atlantic UniversityBoca RatonUSA

Personalised recommendations