Is experience valuable in international strategic alliances?

This study investigates whether firms benefit from prior alliance experiences as they undertake international strategic alliances. Different from previous studies that mostly focus on equity joint ventures, this study investigates non-equity alliances. This specific investigation is essential, because the complexity and uncertainty associated with such alliances potentially magnify the benefits of experiential learning. With a sample of 629 international, non-equity alliances formed by US firms, our results confirm the contribution of ISA experience in general, as well as that of experience specific to partner's country of origin and alliance activity type. The results also reveal a contingent benefit of ISA experiences, where experience of technological cooperation and experience with alliance partners from emerging countries both add more to firm value. We derive consistent evidence, as performance is assessed either by the market's perception of ISA value creation, or by the post announcement operating earnings in practice.     

Centrality Asymmetry and Partner Complementarity as Influences on Alliance Dissolution

Research on interfirm alliances indicates that partner firms’ asymmetry in network centrality increases the likelihood of alliance dissolution because it gives rise to a power imbalance and opportunism in the partnership. We contend that this view of centrality asymmetry does not consider the binding force that network resource complementarity can provide in an alliance, which motivates partners to ally for the long term. We propose that centrality asymmetry can have both divisive and cohesive forces in an alliance, which – when considered together – lead to a prediction that centrality asymmetry has a U‐shaped relationship with alliance dissolution. Moderate levels of asymmetry lead to lower rates of dissolution than high and low levels of asymmetry. The degree of cooperation between partners and the degree of external competition reduce the effects of centrality asymmetry on alliance dissolution because they mitigate power imbalances while encouraging partners to strengthen the alliance to withstand competitive challenges.     

The Dynamics of Research Alliances: Examining the Effect of Alliance Experience and Partner Characteristics on the Speed of Alliance Entry in the Biotech Industry

Few studies have moved beyond the dyadic level of an ongoing alliance and examined factors contributing to the success of entering a series of alliances. In this paper we expect biotechnology firms over time to learn from their alliance experience and to develop general alliance capabilities. Specifically, we expect the speed with which they enter into new research alliances, e.g. their alliance formation rate, to be affected by capabilities built up in prior alliances as well as by characteristics of their partners. We use longitudinal event history data for the complete population of US biotechnology firms for 1973–1999 to test four hypotheses about factors affecting the rate of new alliance formation. Our analysis suggests that the speed of entering research alliances is affected by prior experience of the focal firm, but not by partner characteristics. Our findings provide evidence that biotech firms learn how to learn more effectively from multiple research alliances; however, this effect is generalized and not tied to specific characteristics of the alliance partner.     

Improving the Progress of Research & Development (R&D) Projects by Selecting an Optimal Alliance Structure and Partner Type

This paper extends the study of alliance governance structure by examining what alliance structure, coordination mechanisms and partner type best enhance the likelihood of Research and Development (R&D) progress or performance. We specially focus on the coordination and interaction mechanism of alliances, through which we classify the alliance governance structures in order to reflect the more complex alliance types and contracts used in today's R&D. Using data from 255 biopharmaceuticals between the years 2000 and 2004, we found that, ceteris paribus, a moderate degree of inter‐partner interaction and a moderately complex (non‐equity‐based) alliance contract contributes more to a better R&D alliance performance than those structures that are too simple or too organizationally embedded (e.g. equity joint ventures), which possibly increase the risk of misalignment and miscommunication between allies. In addition, due to the reduced opportunism and the diverse resource (e.g. technology) pooled in the alliance, allying with diverse organizational partners such as non‐profit research institutes and universities is more likely to enhance the R&D performance. Our findings provide insightful strategic implications to practitioners in designing an appropriate alliance governance structure and choosing the right partner type for a successful R&D collaboration.     

International alliance formation and stock market responses:: Industry globalization as an environmental contingency

This study examines the effects of the degree of industry globalization on international alliance formation in terms of the type of alliance chosen by partner firms and stock market responses to the chosen type of alliance. Using a sample of 244 international alliances formed between U.S. and non-U.S. firms for the 1992–97 period, we find that nonjoint venture (joint venture) alliances take place relatively more frequently in global (multidomestic) industries than in multidomestic (global) industries. We also find that in global industries, abnormal returns to nonjoint venture partners are relatively greater than those to joint venture partners, whereas in multidomestic industries, abnormal returns to nonjoint venture partners are relatively smaller, though insignificant, than those to joint venture partners. Our findings suggest that the degree of industry globalization plays an important role in explaining which type of international alliance is likely to be chosen by partner firms when entering an alliance and how stock markets tend to respond to the chosen type of alliance.     

Dynamic evolution of alliance portfolios

This research advances in the conceptualization and the operationalization of the factors or microdynamics that determine the choice of partners. Most of the literature in this area of research has centered on the individual alliance without taking into account the set of alliances that a firm makes. This research applies a holistic approach, analyzing the set of alliances as a whole and points to the factors related to alliance portfolios that affect the choice of partners. The authors propose a longitudinal model that allows us to analyze the evolution of interorganizational networks. A Simulation Investigation for Empirical Network Analysis (SIENA) has been applied to a sample of 229 firms, analyzing 10,556 strategic alliances established between them over a 12 year period. The results show that certain factors over which managers exercise a degree of control (deliberate endogenous microdynamics) exert significant influences on the choice of partners by the focal actor and thereby on the dynamic configuration of alliance portfolios.     

Survival during a Crisis: Alliances by Singapore Firms

In this study, we focus on the under‐researched issue of how environmental shocks impact alliance survival. We draw from several different theoretical perspectives such as industrial organization economics, managerial theories of the firm (such as agency theory) and institutional theories. We argue that the relationship between the occurrence of environmental shock and alliance survival is a contingent one. Specifically, we hypothesize that the following types of alliances will exhibit better likelihood of survival: alliances that yield a balance of short‐term and long‐term benefits (scale alliances) rather than purely long‐term benefits (link alliances); alliances that lead to either cost reduction or near‐term improvement in revenue realization (marketing alliances); and alliances that bring together partners from different economic regions (those involving Western and Asian partners). Based on an analysis of 348 alliances formed by Singapore firms, we find that marketing alliances and those involving at least one Western partner indeed exhibit a better likelihood of survival during the Asian economic crisis. We conclude that alliances that can enhance revenue potential in the short‐term are more robust to environmental shocks and that alliances can benefit from an effect similar to risk reduction through international diversification.     

How Japanese partners help US manufacturers to raise productivity

Cross-border alliances are useful strategies for technological innovation and as a basis for the adaptation of foreign technologies. This study provides evidence that through strategic alliances US automotive firms are effectively adopting manufacturing technologies from Japan, and are adapting them to the US industrial context.

The results show that US firms without foreign affiliations use fewer modern manufacturing technologies than US firms with Japanese strategic alliance partners. Furthermore, US firms with Japanese strategic alliance partners believe that manufacturing cycle times for product introduction are more efficient that US firms without foreign affiliations.     

Technological alliance portfolio configuration and firm performance

Firms pursuing technological alliances to gain competitive advantages have become a ubiquitous phenomenon in today’s business environment. This article examines which technological alliance portfolio configuration is better for focal firm performance using a portfolio rather than a dyadic perspective. To assess technological alliance portfolio effects on Korean pharmaceutical and biotechnology firms, we adopted three explanatory variables—number of alliances, number of partners, and spanning structural holes. The growth rate of revenue and the growth rate of profit are used as dependent variables. We identify two characteristics of technological alliance portfolios from the two-step generalized method of moments estimates. First, we find that between two firms with the same number of alliances, the firm with the larger number of partners would have a better performance. This result is unlike those in previous studies because it distinguishes between the number of alliances and number of partners based on the network theory. Second, we find that spanning structural holes affects firm performance rather like a double-edge sword—it positively affects the growth rate of profit but negatively affects the growth rate of revenue of firms. In short, spanning structural holes is simultaneously beneficial for firm profitability and unfavorable for firm growth. This result differs from those of earlier studies because it shows that a firm spanning structural holes among alliance partners produces either a positive or a negative effect, suggesting that a firm should vary its strategy depending on whether it prioritizes profitability or growth.     

Coping with Diversity in Alliances for Innovation: The Role of Relational Social Capital and Knowledge Codifiability

Alliances are increasingly considered a key element for innovation, especially in knowledge‐intensive firms. While this is true, the mere membership to alliances does not explain innovation performance, and thus the alliance's characteristics that determine high performance must be examined. This research address the question of how the diversity of partners in a certain alliance for innovation affects innovation performance, and how this influence can be moderated by certain characteristics, such as the relational dimension of social capital and the type of knowledge shared among partners. The empirical analysis of a sample of 90 biotech companies shows that there is an inverted U‐shaped relationship between alliance partner diversity and innovation performance and confirms the positive moderating effects of relational social capital and knowledge codifiability. These findings contribute to the current research on alliances for innovation by providing empirical evidence on why some alliances perform better than others. Also, the results suggest that the study of alliance partner diversity, as a determinant of alliance performance, should not be addressed in isolation.     

Alliance governance choices: Disentangling the effects of uncertainty and alliance experience

This article analyses the interaction between alliance experience and behavioural uncertainty to improve our understanding of alliance governance. We investigate the extent to which the effect of alliance experience on governance choices is explained by a reduction in “mundane” transaction costs or by a reduction in “opportunistic” transaction costs. Based on more than 12,000 firm experiences with equity and non-equity alliances, we demonstrate a reduction in mundane transaction costs over time by firms reusing the same governance structure in successive alliances. We also find that in high behavioural uncertainty alliances, firms rely on their experience as a substitute for equity governance to reduce opportunistic transaction costs.     

Heterogeneity,diversity and complementarity in alliance portfolios

The divergence that a firm manages to achieve because of its partners is a fundamental question in an alliance portfolio configuration. Diversity can refer not only to the differences between the focal firm and its partners or between the partners themselves but also to the differences arising from various resource endowments in the alliance portfolio. Understanding the significance of these different sources, how they interrelate, and how they affect the firm performance is an unresolved question as unclear definitions and opposing arguments are proposed. This paper expounds the concepts of partner heterogeneity, alliance portfolio diversity, and network resource complementarity to gain a deeper comprehension of the alliance portfolio configuration and how it affects performance. Our analysis of airline alliances at a global level reveals the central role of resource complementarity in the focal firm performance.     

Managing Multiple Facets of Risk in New Product Alliances*

The trend of forming alliances to develop new products continues; however, many of these new product alliances fail. As such we explore how key risk types intrinsic in new product alliances, performance, relational, and knowledge appropriation risks, influence alliance success. Further, we theorize that different alliance governance mechanisms can reduce the negative impact of risks on alliance success. To disentangle possible heterogeneous factors across firms that may affect the interplay of risk assessments and the use of governance mechanisms, we employ latent class regression analysis on survey data collected from 128 new product alliance firms and find support for a two‐regime solution. Longer alliance relationships and lower technological turbulence are factors for some firms (regime one), while the opposite are factors for other firms (regime two). These two regimes show different patterns in the interplay of risk assessments and governance for alliance success. Our theory and results support viewing risk as a multiple‐factor concept and by understanding the different impacts of the risk types in new product alliances and how governance mechanisms mitigate such effects, we aid managers' decision making regarding the balance of contractual versus normative governance in new product alliances. Understanding the heterogeneous factors inherent in these complex relationships enables managers to understand the conditions in which various governance mechanisms promote new product alliance success.     

Competition,formal governance and trust in alliances: An experimental study

We study the role of alliance governance in the behavior of partners in alliances with different degrees of competition. Using data from a lab experiment on 1,009 alliances and 31,662 partners' choices, we explore whether and how alliances succeed in different competitive scenarios, contingent on the use of formal governance mechanisms (termination clauses) and the number of partners in the alliance. We find that trust, an informal governance mechanism, emerges as a complement to formal governance in order to establish success in our experimental alliances, especially when competition is high. In particular, we document the significance of “trust-building” in initial stages and “trust repair” in later stages of our experimental alliances.     

The Impacts of Alliance Purpose and Partner Similarity on Alliance Governance

It is generally recognized that the governance structure of an alliance has an impact on its probability of success. In this study, we examine the choice between two alternative alliance governance structures: equity and non-equity. Drawing from transaction cost economics, two sets of factors, namely alliance purpose (R&D or marketing) and cultural distance between partners, are hypothesized to influence the above choice. We further hypothesize that collaborative R&D alliances, where both parties contribute technical knowledge, are more likely to lead to the formation of equity alliances than non-collaborative research agreements, where only one partner may be doing the research work. Based on a sample of 2407 alliances formed in the global biotechnology industry, we find partial support for the hypothesized relationships. Specifically, we find that collaborative R&D alliances are more likely to be equity alliances, whereas non-collaborative R&D alliances do not have any impact on the choice of the governance form. We also find that alliances formed with a marketing purpose are less likely to be equity alliances. We did not find any relationship between cultural distance and the choice of equity alliances.     

研发型战略联盟风险预警机制研究

研发型联盟对风险的识别和预警直接决定了研发活动的成败。本文针对研发型联盟面临的风险进行了风险预警设计,首先依据风险的来源划分了联盟可能面临的风险种类,其次明确了联盟风险识别程序;在此基础上,构建了包含六元素(目标、文化、方法、组织、信息、过程)的研发型战略联盟风险预警模式,六个元素构成了风险预警的有机整体,运用管理熵理论对研发联盟风险预警度量进行了量化处理,以熵权从内外两个来源确定联盟的风险度量,并以传递熵概念来明确预警信号指标的准确性,给出了一个较为完整和准确的量化预警模型,以期利于联盟决策者的风险防范应对策略制定。     

An empirical study of the impact of firm resources on alliance governance structures

Alliances between smaller biotechnology firms and larger pharmaceutical firms are the backbone of new product development strategies within the pharmaceutical industry. While pharmaceutical firms seek access to new technologies and products, small biotechnology firms depend on these alliance relationships to access key resources such as financing and downstream capabilities because they typically do not have the resources needed in-house to successfully commercialize their products. In this study, we investigate the governance structure of these alliance relationships arguing that the more resource rich a biotechnology firm is, in terms of technical, commercial, and social capital, the less likely it is to give up equity to an alliance partner. Results suggest that greater biotech patent quality, cash position, and alliance credibility impact the type of governance structure that is chosen by the alliance partners and therefore the extent of control that the biotechnology firm is willing to give up in the relationship.     

Motivations for Environmental Alliances: Generating and Internalizing Environmental and Knowledge Value

Environmental alliances are a common response to societal sustainability demands. In environmental alliances, firms collaboratively exploit and explore environmental technologies to address market opportunities while simultaneously generating positive environmental impacts. A striking idiosyncrasy is that in addition to economic value, environmental alliances generate two types of external value: environmental value from positive effects on air, water, land and biodiversity, and knowledge value from innovations in environmental technologies. Research on motivations for environmental alliances is dispersed and underdeveloped compared to the well‐established literature on motivations for strategic alliances that emphasize economic value. This study therefore develops a classification of motivations for environmental alliances by combining the literature on strategic alliances and that on environmental and knowledge value. The resulting classification includes motivations for environmental alliances to generate environmental and knowledge value as well as motivations to create economic value by internalizing environmental and knowledge value. A systematic review of 123 articles on environmental inter‐firm alliances identifies specific motivations to populate the new classification. We show that alliance partners are motivated to share sustainable resources, reduce sustainability risk, respond to stakeholders or invest in specific sustainable assets to generate external value. They collaborate to reduce costs or enhance competitive advantage, reputation or legitimacy to internalize external value. The resource‐based view, resource‐dependence view, institutional theory and transaction cost economics have not previously distinguished between motivations to generate and internalize external value. We extend their area of application from strategic alliances to environmental alliances, and thus beyond the exclusive pursuit of economic value.     

资源互补对机会主义和战略联盟绩效的影响研究

20世纪80年代以来,全球战略联盟的数量激增,逐步成为企业的快速成长方式,但其失败率也非常高。本文以资源依赖理论和交易成本理论为基础,以中国企业为样本,从资源互补和机会主义的角度分析了合作与竞争对联盟绩效的影响。实证研究的结果表明,联盟中的资源互补能够提高联盟的财务绩效与创新,而机会主义则会负向影响财务绩效和创新。同时,适度的资源互补是有效遏制机会主义的手段,过高或过低的资源互补都会使联盟企业处于机会主义的风险之中,即资源互补和机会主义之间的关系呈倒U型的关系。     

Strategic Alliance Temporalities and Partner Opportunism*

The troubling potential for opportunistic behaviour in strategic alliances is acknowledged in both research and practice, and yet the antecedents of such opportunism remain largely unexplored in the literature. In this article we suggest that the inherent temporalities of alliances play significant roles in partner opportunism. We propose a model of potential partner opportunism that assigns antecedent and contingent roles to the temporal horizons of alliances and the temporal orientations of the member firms. We introduce the notion of alliance horizons and suggest that they are constituted by the temporal orientations of the member firms and a number of common alliance formation factors. We also discuss how these alliance horizons in conjunction with the temporal orientations of member firms result in different levels of potential opportunism. Lastly, we develop a number of propositions to facilitate empirical research on the temporal contingencies of partner opportunism and indicate directions for further studies.