Old technology meets new technology: complementarities,similarities, and alliance formation

Alliance formation is commonplace in many high‐technology industries experiencing radical technological change, where established firms use alliances with new entrants to adapt to technological change, while new entrants benefit from the ability of established players to commercialize the new technology. Despite the prevalence of these alliances, we know little about how these firms choose to ally with specific firms given the range of possible partners they may choose from. This study explores factors that lead to alliance formation between pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. We focus on the alliance tie as the unit of analysis and argue that dyadic complementarities and similarities directly influence alliance formation. We then introduce a contingency model in which the positive effect of complementarities and similarities on alliance formation is moderated by the age of the new technology firm. We draw theoretical attention to the intersection between levels of analysis, in particular, the intersection between dyadic and firm‐level constructs. We find that a pharmaceutical and a biotechnology firm are more likely to enter an alliance based on complementarities when the biotechnology firm is younger. Another noteworthy finding is that proxies for broad capabilities appear to be at least as effective, if not more so, in predicting alliance formation compared to fine‐grained science and technology‐related indicators, like patent cross‐citations or patent common citations. We conclude by suggesting that future studies on alliance formation need to take into account interactions across levels; for example, how dyadic capabilities interact with firm‐level factors, and the advantages and disadvantages of more or less fine‐grained measures of organizational capabilities. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Network structure and innovation: The leveraging of a dual network as a distinctive relational capability

This paper employs comparative longitudinal case study research to investigate why and how strong dyadic interfirm ties and two alternative network architectures (a ‘strong ties network’ and a ‘dual network’) impact the innovative capability of the lead firm in an alliance network. I answer these intrinsically cross‐level research questions by examining how three design‐intensive furnishings manufacturers managed their networks of joint‐design alliances with consulting industrial design firms over more than 30 years. Initially, in order to explore the sample lead firms' alliance behavior, I advance an operationalization of interorganizational tie strength. Next, I unveil the strengths of strong ties and the weaknesses of a strong ties network. Finally, I show that the ability to integrate a large periphery of heterogeneous weak ties and a core of strong ties is a distinctive lead firm's relational capability, one that provides fertile ground for leading firms in knowledge‐intensive alliance networks to gain competitive advantages whose sustainability is primarily based on the dynamic innovative capability resulting from leveraging a dual network architecture. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Interorganizational alliances and the performance of firms: a study of growth and innovation rates in a high‐technology industry

This paper investigates the relationship between intercorporate technology alliances and firm performance. It argues that alliances are access relationships, and therefore that the advantages which a focal firm derives from a portfolio of strategic coalitions depend upon the resource profiles of its alliance partners. In particular, large firms and those that possess leading‐edge technological resources are posited to be the most valuable associates. The paper also argues that alliances are both pathways for the exchange of resources and signals that convey social status and recognition. Particularly when one of the firms in an alliance is a young or small organization or, more generally, an organization of equivocal quality, alliances can act as endorsements: they build public confidence in the value of an organization's products and services and thereby facilitate the firm's efforts to attract customers and other corporate partners. The findings from models of sales growth and innovation rates in a large sample of semiconductor producers confirm that organizations with large and innovative alliance partners perform better than otherwise comparable firms that lack such partners. Consistent with the status‐transfer arguments, the findings also demonstrate that young and small firms benefit more from large and innovative strategic alliance partners than do old and large organizations. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Strategic action and customer mobility: Antecedents and consequences of strategic actions in the Korean mobile telecommunication service industry

This paper investigates the sources and consequences of strategic actions in the Korean mobile telecommunication service industry. Based on competitive dynamics research and an organizational learning perspective, it suggests hypotheses and tests them with monthly data on service providers’ competitive and alliance actions, as well as statistics on monthly subscribers during 2002–2007. We show the positive effects of a firm’s own experience, other firms’ strategic actions, and firms’ alliance tendencies on the likelihood of firm-level competitive action and alliance. We also find that negative performance feedback accelerates the mimetic influence of rival firms’ competitive actions and that positive performance feedback strengthens the momentum effect of a firm’s own alliance experience on the likelihood of alliance. Both competitive actions and alliances appear to influence customer mobility across firms in a complex manner. Based on customer mobility data, this study finds that alliances increase market dynamism, that is, customer mobility. It also shows that competitive actions, in general, serve to effectively attract switching customers from rivals. This study partially answers questions regarding the triggers of competitive actions and alliance activities among mobile telecommunication service providers and their performance consequences.     

The legitimacy of strategic alliances: an institutional perspective

Drawing on an institutional perspective, this paper suggests that strategic alliances serve an important legitimating function for firms and that this role, mediated by alliance governance structure and partner selection preferences, has a significant influence on firm and alliance performance. A theoretical framework is proposed that identifies five types of legitimacy associated with strategic alliances and the specific conditions under which legitimation may be an important outcome of strategic alliances. Propositions are developed to explain when firms are most likely to enter into alliances for legitimacy purposes and how the legitimating role of strategic alliances contributes to firm and alliance performance. The paper concludes with a summary and implications of a legitimacy‐based view of alliances. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Learning: The interface of quality management and strategic alliances

In this paper, we investigate the practice of quality management in strategic alliances. By employing a relational view of inter-organizational competitive advantage, the paper addresses the concept of quality management in strategic alliances and networks. We argue that institutional/network relationships influence the practice of quality within a network. In that regard, firms that have adopted quality management practices are more effective in managing and coordinating their interactions with other firms in the network, which results in their enhanced learning capability within the alliance.The proposed framework recognizes the role of trust and cooperative learning as critical factors that affect the success of strategic alliances. It has been argued that firms within an alliance need to achieve the paradox of control and learning. We examine the role of trust as a control mechanism in strategic alliances and address the importance of cooperative learning within alliances. Several hypotheses have been proposed and future research has been outlined.     

Stock Market Response to Strategic Technical Alliances between Drug and Biotechnology Firms

Traditionally, firms in the pharmaceutical industry have depended on their internal research and development (R&D) capabilities to maintain a productive new product pipeline. During the past two decades, however, the industry's pipeline productivity has decreased compromising the industry's ability to meet shareholder expectations. As a strategy to invigorate pipeline productivity, and impact financial performance, pharmaceutical firms have increased utilization of strategic technical alliances. Earlier research shows that the degree of financial impact resulting from strategic technical alliances varies in terms of partnership type and differences between client and partner firms. This research studies strategic technical alliances between pharmaceutical and biotechnology firms from 1985 to 2012. Event study methodology is used to determine the relationship between stock market response to alliance announcements, measured as cumulative abnormal returns, and factors representing the absorptive capacity of the pharmaceutical firms in the sample. Then, variables indicating the development stage of the drugs included in the alliances are added to assess the effect of project risk on the market response. The study finds that, in general, the stock market responds in a positive manner to strategic technical alliances in the pharmaceutical industry reflecting the market's immediate response, and expectations of future firm value, resulting from the alliance. The degree of the market's response varies in terms of the client firms’ absorptive capacity with new product introductions being the strongest driver. The market responds similarly to alliances across different drug development stages, however, a stronger response is observed in preclinical and extension stages.     

Standardization Alliance Networks,Standard-Setting Influence,and New Product Outcomes*

Standardization alliances evolve through collaborations among firms for developing and implementing industry technical standards. Cooperative standard setting can help allied firms to gain access to external knowledge and technologies, but it is unclear how the configuration of a standardization alliance can result in improving a firm’s performance in new product development. This study examines how standardization alliance network-based resource advantages vary across a firm’s network position and the firm’s ability to influence industry standard setting and new product outcomes. Empirical analyses, based on archival data from 170 Chinese automobile manufacturers from 1999 to 2013, indicate that firms that span structural holes in standardization alliance networks gain an advantage when focusing on early new product introductions but suffer a disadvantage when aiming at more innovative products. In contrast, taking a central position in standardization alliance networks is negatively related to a firm’s speed in bringing new products to market but positively related to the firm’s new product introduction rate. Further, standard-setting influence significantly mediates the effect of network position on a firm’s new product speed to market. Increasing centrality and structural holes can lead to the improvement of a firm’s standard-setting influence, and this, in turn, positively affects speed to market.     

Do ongoing networks block out new friends? Reconciling the embeddedness constraint dilemma on new alliance partner addition

Research Summary: This study addresses a theoretical dilemma regarding how alliance network constraint (reflected by network cohesion) affects a firm’s alliance formation with new partners. Using a network pluralism approach, we separate a firm’s ego alliance network into two activity‐based networks—an exploratory network and an exploitative network—based on the primary value chain activity involved in each alliance. We argue that the cohesion of exploratory or exploitative networks has an inverted U‐shaped effect on the addition of new partners in the same activity‐based network, and a positive effect on the addition of new partners in the other network. Results based on data from the biotechnology industry largely support our predictions with one exception. Our study contributes to both scholarly understanding of network embeddedness and alliance practice. Managerial Summary: The structure of firms’ ongoing alliance networks may have paradoxical implications for their efforts to search for and form alliance with new partners. That is, when a firm’s alliance partners are tightly connected with each other, the cohesive network tends to both encourage and impede the focal firm to add new partners. We resolve this dilemma by showing that when a firm is deeply entrenched in a cohesive alliance network conducting a certain type of activities (e.g., R&D activities), it may not easily add new R&D alliance partners. However, it may still be able to escape from the cohesive R&D alliance network by seeking new partners conducting other activities (e.g., manufacturing activities).     

The Effects of Knowledge Depth and Scope on the Relationship between R&D Alliances and New Product Development

In this study, we extend the new product development (NPD) literature that proposes that firms' knowledge depth, defined as the reuse of well understood technical knowledge, and scope, defined as the use of newly acquired technical knowledge, and new knowledge accessed from R&D alliances all positively impact NPD. Building on the knowledge‐based view of the firm, we posit that the impact of firms' R&D alliances is limited when their internal knowledge depth and scope are adequate for NPD needs. We suggest that although firms form R&D alliances to gain the right to access external knowledge of R&D alliance partners, they are not obligated to invest in resources to integrate external knowledge from R&D alliances. We propose that they wait to see if their internal knowledge depth and scope prove sufficient for NPD. If the external knowledge proves to be unnecessary, firms choose not to invest the resources required to integrate this knowledge with their internal knowledge. Alternatively, we suggest an increased impact of R&D alliances on NPD when firms are more limited in their internal knowledge depth and scope. We propose that when knowledge depth and scope prove insufficient, firms make the additional investments required to integrate external knowledge from R&D alliances with their internal knowledge stock. This reasoning is consistent with real options theory as it has been applied in alliance research, where strategic alliances are characterized as real options. We find support for our hypotheses using panel data of 738 firm year observations for 143 U.S. biopharmaceutical firms operating in 2007. Our study contributes to the NPD literature and suggests new directions for future research.     

Resource ambidexterity through alliance portfolios and firm performance

Research summary : Partner resources can be an important alternative to internal firm resources for attaining dual and seemingly incompatible strategic objectives. We extend arguments about managing conflicting objectives typically made at the firm level to the level of a firm's alliance portfolio. Specifically, will a balance between revenue enhancement and cost reduction attained collectively through partner resources accessed via a firm's various alliances be similarly beneficial for firm performance? Additionally, how do strategic attributes of alliance portfolio configuration, specifically alliance portfolio size and partner resource scope, condition the balance‐performance relationship? Based on data from the global airline industry, we find support for the balance‐performance relationship, though such balance is less beneficial for firms in the case of access to a broader resource scope per partner . Managerial summary : Increasing revenue and reducing costs simultaneously can potentially enhance firm competitiveness. We highlight that an alliance strategy can be an important alternative to internal resources for attaining such dual strategic objectives, particularly when partner resources accessed through alliances are treated collectively as portfolios. We examine the importance of balancing product‐market extending and efficiency‐improving partner resources in the global airline industry as well as the impact of two alternate strategies for accessing resources through alliances: fewer partners with more resources per partner or more partners with fewer resources per partner. We find that resource balance at the portfolio level helps airlines improve performance. Our results also suggest that managers should be cautious of accessing too many resources through just a few partners . Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

How does the partner type in R&D alliances impact technological innovation performance? A study on the Korean biotechnology industry

The number of strategic alliances for R&D activities in the biotechnology industry is sharply increasing. Some studies show that each alliance partner type has different alliance motives, resources and capabilities, organizational structures and cultures, and degrees of competition with partners, which can lead to different performances of strategic alliances. In this regard, this study conducts an empirical analysis of the different impact of each type of alliance partner on technological innovation performance and finds the moderating effect of absorptive capacity and potential competition by categorizing strategic alliances for R&D activities in the biotechnology industry into three types: vertical-downstream alliances, vertical-upstream alliances, and horizontal alliances. This study analyzed 206 Korean biotechnology firms and their strategic alliances for a total of 292 R&D activities. The results of the analysis showed that vertical alliances have a positive impact on technological innovation performance, while horizontal alliances have an inverted U-shaped relationship with technological innovation performance caused by the effect of competition. Additionally, it was confirmed that the R&D intensity of biotechnology firms has a moderating effect of increasing the impact of vertical-upstream alliances on technological innovation performance.     

The development of capabilities in new firms

This research explores evidence of corporate capabilities for conducting acquisition and alliance deals in young firms. We hypothesize that investors conjecture about the future based on information about a firm's capabilities. Each successive deal carries intrinsic value, creates experience, generates feedback, and yields information about the firm's underlying capabilities. We evaluate whether stock prices impute expectations that firms will capably pursue particular programs of acquisitions and alliances. The analysis covers how investor responses change across successive deals on the theory that firms with a concentrated program of deals may develop capabilities more intensively than those with programs that involve both acquisitions and alliances. The dataset covers the population of firms that went through an initial public offering (IPO) in the United States between 1988 and 1999. It contains information on all of their post‐IPO acquisitions and alliances, and on how their stock prices changed in response to the announcement of each deal. The results suggest that within the first year after IPO, investors expect firms to execute particular streams of alliances and acquisitions that reflect their unique histories of demonstrated capabilities. We also find evidence that investors cannot fully anticipate deal programs. The findings support a capabilities‐based view of the firm and also show that accurate inference using event‐study methods may require digging deep into the early histories of firms. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Whether and when do alliance terminations pay off?

Engaging in multiple strategic alliances, a firm forms an alliance portfolio. While a larger alliance portfolio signals investors a firm's ability to exploit new opportunities and improve financial performance, having multiple alliances may also undermine financial performance due to a firm's limited ability to effectively manage these alliances. Announcing an alliance termination, a firm signals an intention to increase the effectiveness of a larger alliance portfolio. This article examines the extent to which alliance termination announcements create value for firms with multiple alliances. Building on the resource-based view of the firm and organizational learning literature, the paper hypothesizes a U-shaped relationship between alliance portfolio size and a firm's cumulative abnormal stock return following an alliance termination announcement. This effect is moderated by the amount of a firm's alternative resources and partner-specific experience that affect its ability to effectively manage multiple alliances. The results show that alliance termination announcements create firm value when an alliance portfolio is large.     

Building firm capabilities through learning: the role of the alliance learning process in alliance capability and firm‐level alliance success

In recent years, academics and managers have been very interested in understanding how firms develop alliance capability and have greater alliance success. In this paper, we show that an alliance learning process that involves articulation, codification, sharing, and internalization of alliance management know‐how is positively related to a firm's overall alliance success. Prior research has found that firms with a dedicated alliance function, which oversees and coordinates a firm's overall alliance activity, have greater alliance success. In this paper we suggest that such an alliance function is also positively related to a firm's alliance learning process, and that process partly mediates the relationship between the alliance function and alliance success observed in prior work. This implies that the alliance learning process acts as one of the main mechanisms through which the alliance function leads to greater alliance success. Our paper extends prior alliance research by taking a first step in opening up the ‘black box’ between the alliance function and a firm's alliance success. We use survey data from a large sample of U.S.‐based firms and their alliances to test our theoretical arguments. Although we only examine the alliance learning process and its relationship with firm‐level alliance success, we also make an important contribution to research on the knowledge‐based view of the firm and dynamic capabilities of firms in general by conceptualizing this learning process and its key aspects, and by empirically validating its impact on performance. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Alliance portfolios and firm performance: A study of value creation and appropriation in the U.S. software industry

This study reveals the multifaceted contribution of alliance portfolios to firms' market performance. Extending prior research that has stressed the value‐creation effect of network resources, it uncovers how prominent partners may undermine a firm's capacity to appropriate value from its alliance portfolio. Analysis of a comprehensive panel dataset of 367 software firms and their 20,779 alliances suggests that the contribution of network resources to value creation varies with the complementarity of those resources. Furthermore, the relative bargaining power of partners in the alliance portfolio constrains the firm's appropriation capacity, especially when many of these partners compete in the focal firm's industry. In turn, the firm's market performance improves with the intensity of competition among partners in its alliance portfolio. These findings advance network research by highlighting the trade‐offs that alliance portfolios impose on firms that seek to manage and leverage their alliances. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The impact of R&D‐specific factors on the attractiveness of small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises as partners vis‐à‐vis alliance formation in large emerging economies

This study examines the impact of research and development (R&D)‐specific factors in determining the likelihood of small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) from developed countries to be attractive partners vis‐à‐vis forming alliances with SMEs from large emerging economies (LEEs). This study is founded on the knowledge‐accessing theory of alliance formation, which emphasises the higher efficiency gains of knowledge application as opposed to knowledge generation. We extend this theory to SMEs on the basis that smaller firms, because of their resources constraints and drive to survive, are likely to use alliances to access external knowledge bases leading to new product development (NPD) opportunities because of the low feasibility of acquiring knowledge. As a mix of complex knowledge is necessary to develop most modern products and services, SMEs are also likely to adopt a more flexible operational approach and to accept compromises to forge knowledge‐accessing alliances. We illustrate this theoretical development using primary data collected from British and German biotechnology SMEs, declaring the intention prospectively to form alliances with their counterparts in Brazil. Binary logistic regression was used to identify the factors influencing the likelihood of a firm as an attractive alliance partner. Our results indicate that R&D‐specific factors influence the likelihood of firms to be attractive alliance partners. In particular, firms showing an in‐house innovation history focused on one or few products are more likely to be attractive alliance partners with LEE firms than those that do not. Another R&D‐specific predictor that enhances the chances of alliance partner attractiveness with LEE firms is the firm's focused searching and identifying capability relative to technology or equipment that demonstrates good prospects to improve the firm's line of products. A third predictor refers to the firm's awareness regarding non‐cost obstacles for its own technological development. Implications for policy makers and practitioners are also discussed.     

An examination of the effects of venture capitalists on the alliance formation activity of entrepreneurial firms

Research Summary : Alliances offer benefits such as access to capital, knowledge, and markets. Yet, due to their lack of legitimacy, entrepreneurial firms find it challenging to engage in alliances. Thus, it is important to examine which factors may drive alliance formation for entrepreneurial firms. We examine whether the presence of venture capitalists (VCs) is such a factor. Whereas current research suffers from endogeneity concerns that make the comparison of VC- and non-VC-backed firms problematic, our empirical design reduces this problem. Overall, we find that the presence of a VC and a VC's experience with taking firms public are positively associated with entrepreneurial firms’ alliance formation, and that VCs are more active in forming an alliance when the exit outcome is an acquisition, rather than going public. Managerial Summary : Alliances can be of fundamental importance to the growth of entrepreneurial firms. However, because entrepreneurial firms hold limited resources, their access to alliances may be limited. We study whether entrepreneurial firms backed by venture capitalists (VCs) are more likely to enter into alliances than firms without VC backing. A major problem with this sort of analysis is that VCs may cherry pick the best firms, which in turn are more likely to engage in alliances to begin with, irrespective of VCs. Accordingly, we control for the quality of funded firms, and therefore, isolate the VCs’ contribution to alliance formation. In doing so, we find support for the importance of the role VCs play in entrepreneurial firms’ alliance formations.     

Learning from competing partners: outcomes and durations of scale and link alliances in Europe,North America and Asia

This paper investigates the outcomes and durations of strategic alliances among competing firms, using alliance outcomes as indicators of learning by partner firms. We show that alliance outcomes vary systematically across link and scale alliances. Link alliances are interfirm partnerships to which partners contribute different capabilities, while scale alliances are partnerships to which partners contribute similar capabilities. We find that partners are more likely to reorganize or take over link alliances than scale alliances. By contrast, scale alliances are more likely to continue without material changes. The two types of alliances are equally likely to shut down, at similar ages. These results support the view that link alliances lead to greater levels of learning and capability acquisition between the partners than do scale alliances. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Leveraging micro‐ and macro‐structures of embeddedness in alliance networks for exploratory innovation in biotechnology

Researchers agree that alliance networks can be an important instrument in a firm's innovation process, but there is limited empirical evidence on actually how they facilitate the creation of new knowledge for exploratory innovation. The research question is what alliance network configuration is optimal for exploratory innovation. The present study investigated the interaction between a firm's alliance portfolio structure (the micro‐level) and the industry alliance network structure (the macro‐level), and it empirically tested how their interaction may be affecting the exploratory innovation outcome of network participating firms in the biotechnology industry. The paper uses data from exploratory patents filed by 455 dedicated biotechnology firms in 1986–1999 and an overall network comprising 2,933 technological alliances over the same period. The results indicate that, in the case of biotechnology, firms with high exploratory innovation output have short path indirect access to many other firms (micro‐level), and operate in dense industry alliance networks centralized around a few key firms (macro‐level), and that these effects are curvilinear.