Accounting for the alignment of interest and commitment in interfirm transactional relationships

Control in interfirm transactional relationships has, inter alia, the purpose of mitigating potential opportunistic behaviour. For an individual actor the power-base to exercise control over the (output of) the behaviour of another actor in the relationship is a contractual arrangement. From a contractual perspective control systems are designed, thus providing contractual instruments to align interests and to prevent future opportunistic behaviour from occurring. Transaction cost economics proves to be a powerful tool for designing these instruments, which from this theoretical perspective are based on 'credible commitments' and 'credible exit threats'. The paper argues that the design and potential use of these instruments are efficient in the presence of the legitimate mistrust for which they have to compensate. However, given fundamental uncertainty, these designs do not suffice in attenuating opportunism and have to be complemented by trust building. Drawing on insights from cognitive social psychology and sociology, the paper clarifies that in self-regulating processes of rational interaction guided by a principle of enlightened self-interest, trust is built via mutual relational signalling. Partners voluntarily and deliberately signal to each other that they are trustworthy. The paper argues and gives evidence that instrumental control system design embedded in an institutional environment and atmosphere is a necessary flank for a trust building process to work properly. The (interrelated) roles of accounting in a contractual realm as well as in self-regulating processes of relational signalling are examined

Accounting for the alignment of interest and commitment in interfirm transactional relationships

Control in interfirm transactional relationships has, inter alia, the purpose of mitigating potential opportunistic behaviour. For an individual actor the power-base to exercise control over the (output of) the behaviour of another actor in the relationship is a contractual arrangement. From a contractual perspective control systems are designed, thus providing contractual instruments to align interests and to prevent future opportunistic behaviour from occurring. Transaction cost economics proves to be a powerful tool for designing these instruments, which from this theoretical perspective are based on 'credible commitments' and 'credible exit threats'. The paper argues that the design and potential use of these instruments are efficient in the presence of the legitimate mistrust for which they have to compensate. However, given fundamental uncertainty, these designs do not suffice in attenuating opportunism and have to be complemented by trust building. Drawing on insights from cognitive social psychology and sociology, the paper clarifies that in self-regulating processes of rational interaction guided by a principle of enlightened self-interest, trust is built via mutual relational signalling. Partners voluntarily and deliberately signal to each other that they are trustworthy. The paper argues and gives evidence that instrumental control system design embedded in an institutional environment and atmosphere is a necessary flank for a trust building process to work properly. The (interrelated) roles of accounting in a contractual realm as well as in self-regulating processes of relational signalling are examined

What is the optimal timing for implant placement in oral cancer patients? A scoping literature review:A scoping literature review

Background Oral cancer patients can benefit from dental implant placement. Traditionally, implants are placed after completing oncologic treatment (secondary implant placement). Implant placement during ablative surgery (primary placement) in oral cancer patients seems beneficial in terms of early start of oral rehabilitation and limiting additional surgical interventions. Guidelines on the ideal timing of implant placement in oral cancer patients are missing. Objective To perform a scoping literature review on studies examining the timing of dental implant placement in oral cancer patients and propose a clinical practice recommendations guideline. Methods A literature search for studies dealing with primary and/or secondary implant placement in MEDLINE was conducted (last search December 27, 2019). The primary outcome was 5-year implant survival. Results Sixteen out of 808 studies were considered eligible. Both primary and secondary implant placement showed acceptable overall implant survival ratios with a higher pooled 5-year implant survival rate for primary implant placement 92.8% (95% CI: 87.1%-98.5%) than secondary placed implants (86.4%, 95% CI: 77.0%-95.8%). Primary implant placement is accompanied by earlier prosthetic rehabilitation after tumor surgery. Conclusion Patients with oral cancer greatly benefit from, preferably primary placed, dental implants in their prosthetic rehabilitation. The combination of tumor surgery with implant placement in native mandibular bone should be provided as standard care