Research Colloquium

The Barry Hall Research Colloquium Series provides a forum in Barry Hall to present research, discuss ideas, and share feedback. The Colloquium is open to researchers, practitioners, and students from within the NDSU Community and beyond.  The presented projects can be at any stage - from early stage to final stage (and anything in between). The Colloquium series is administered by the AIS Dept. Research Committee.

You are invited to participate in the Barry Hall Colloquium Series which will be held on select Fridays from 12:30-1:20pm in BH 126. We have the following presentation slots, which will be allocated on a first-come, first-serve bases.

Scheduled Colloquiums:

Spring 2019

March 29

De-risking DB Pension or Not? Facts from U.S. Empirical Data. 

Ruilin Tian, Jeffrey (Jun) Chen and Limin Zhang.  

This paper investigates de-risking activities of U.S. defined benefit (DB) pension plans using empirical data from 1993 to 2018. We identify multiple avenues for pension risk reduction by expanding the scope of de-risking to shift, freeze, termination, buyout, buyin, and longevity hedge. We find heterogeneity in de-risking behaviors across different industries. Our empirical results indicate that active management of pension risk contributes to the firm value. In addition, the firms with smaller size, less tangible assets, higher return volatility, or lower profitability are more likely to de-risk their pension plans. Furthermore, we propose two theoretical models to verify the soundness of plans’ empirical de-risking activities. The theoretical models can provide ex ante strategic suggestions to the DB firms that plan to conduct de-risking.


May 3

A Double-Edged Sword Role of Vertical Coopetition on Efficiency Process Innovation

Linlin Chai, Assistant Professor of Marketing

Research on coopetition in business-to-business relationships has suggested the complex roles of coopetition on firm performance. Some scholars argue that coopetition can bring advantages of both cooperation and competition to firms, leading to a win-win situation. The others explain that coopetition is also full of tensions, leading to a lose-lose result. This study aims to empirically explore a double-edged sword role of coopetition in the context of process innovation, which aims to promote cost efficiency in the relationships (i.e., efficiency process innovation). To the best of our knowledge, this study represents the first attempt to reveal the mechanisms through which coopetition may simultaneously enhance and hurt a firm’s efficiency process innovation. Specifically, we find a direct positive effect of coopetition and indirect effects through two types of conflict-based mechanisms: affective conflicts and cognitive conflicts on efficiency process innovation. Our results show that affective conflicts negatively mediate the relationship between coopetition and efficiency process innovation regardless of the level of trust; however, the mediating roles of cognitive conflicts depend on the level of trust. When the trust level is low, coopetition is positively associated with cognitive conflict, which in turn promotes efficiency process innovation. However, when the trust level is high, increasing coopetition is associated with decreasing cognitive conflicts, which in turn limit efficiency process innovation.



If you have questions about the colloquia please contact Dr. Bonnie Klamm, bonnie.klamm@ndsu.edu