Constructing useful models of firms' heterogeneities in implemented strategies and performance outcomes

This study advances the proposition that applying core tenets of complexity theory is useful for solving the “crucial problem” in strategic management—describing, explaining, and predicting firm heterogeneity. The study describes the core tenets (e.g., the necessity of constructing models for cases with relationship reversals to a significant main effect—cases occur whereby both high and low scores of an antecedent condition indicate high scores in an outcome condition; asymmetric models are necessary because the causes of successful outcomes are not the mirror opposite of the causes of unsuccessful outcomes). Constructing “somewhat precise outcomes models” (SPOM) rather than null hypothesis statistical testing (NHST) is the principal analytic tool. The study describes asymmetric models of implemented strategy and competitive advantage for ROE, negation of ROE, and complex outcome statements for agribusiness firms (n = 247) across seven Latin America national as well as tests the predictive validities of models across specific nations for the models of sampled firms within Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua. The findings support the propositions that constructing complex antecedent statements (i.e., algorithms/configurations/recipes/screens) are useful for indicating high performance or the negation of high performance consistently. Configural implemented strategy models have direct influences on both high and low performance outcomes, while competitive advantage models impact low, but not, high performance outcomes. Complex competitive advantage conditions contribute indirectly to high performance outcomes.     

Corporate Culture and Commitment: Impact on Performance of International New Product Development Programs

To achieve success in today's competitive environment, firms increasingly must develop new products for international markets. To this end, they must leverage and must coordinate broad creative capabilities and resources, which often are diffused across geographical and cultural boundaries. Recent writings in the globalization and in the new product development (NPD) literatures suggest that certain “softer” dimensions that define the behavioral environment of the firm—that is, the firm's organizational culture and management commitment—can have an important impact on the outcome of these complex and risky endeavors. But what comprises these dimensions and what type of behavioral environment scenario is linked to high performance in the international NPD effort of firms has not been articulated clearly. This research focuses on these softer dimensions, with the objective of understanding and idengifying their specific makeup as well as their relationship to the outcome of international NPD programs. Based on an integration of three literatures—organizational, new product development, and globalization—the present study develops a research instrument, comprising 18 behavioral environment measurement items as well as several outcome measures, that is administered to a broad empirical sample of goods and services firms active in NPD for international markets. Using empirical results from 252 international NPD programs, three key dimensions are idengified: (1) the innovation/globalization culture of the firm; (2) the commitment of sufficient resources to the NPD program; and (3) top management involvement in the international NPD effort. These dimensions are used to derive four clusters of firms, where each grouping represents a distinctly different behavioral environment scenario. In a preliminary analysis, it is ascertained that other aspects of the firm such as “degree of internationalization,” location of the respondent to the NPD center, and other company parameters do not form the basis of cluster membership. By linking measures of performance to the four behavioral clusters, findings are developed that clearly support this study's hypothesis that international NPD outcomes are associated with the softer behavioral environment dimensions. Scenario performance ranges from “very high” to “very low” and appears to be linked clearly to the dimensions studied. The lower‐performing firms tended to emphasize positively only one, or sometimes two, of the three dimensions. The “best performers” were found to be firms with a “positive balanced” approach to international NPD, where all three behavioral environment dimensions are supported strongly. In other words, firms in this scenario have an open and innovative global NPD culture, they ensure that sufficient resources are committed to the NPD program, and their senior managers play an active and involved role in the international NPD effort. Given this evidence of a direct link between behavioral environment and international NPD performance, the present study's findings suggest some important messages for managers charged with the development of new products for international markets.     

Why strategic factor markets matter: “New” multinationals' geographic diversification and firm profitability

This study examines firm profitability differences among “new” multinational enterprises (NMNEs) pursuing geographic diversification into two distinct types of geographic locations based on the development of strategic factor markets. Building on strategic factor markets theory, we propose that firm‐specific advantages of NMNEs contribute differentially to firm profitability because they evolve differently given strategic factor market differences in host compared to home countries. Using a sample of Korean manufacturing MNEs during the 1993–2003 period, we find that geographic diversification into resource‐poorer host countries has a positive relationship with firm profitability, whereas geographic diversification into resource‐richer host countries has a U‐shaped relationship with firm profitability. Our study demonstrates why strategic factor markets—an important and often overlooked contextual factor—matter in exploring rationales for geographic diversification. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Resolving a dilemma of signaling bankrupt‐firm emergence: A dynamic integrative view

Research summary : Predicting the emergence of bankrupt firms relying on firm signals involves a stigma‐related dilemma. On the one hand, bankrupt firms tend to send positive signals through restructuring to decouple themselves from the stigma of bankruptcy. On the other hand, the preexistence of the bankruptcy stigma may reduce the signaling effectiveness of firms' restructuring efforts, making the outcome prediction difficult. We address this dilemma by developing a dynamic integrative view to extend signaling theory, arguing that subsequent signals from key external stakeholders can effectively help evaluate bankrupt firms' quality and reduce the ambiguity in interpreting firms' restructuring signals. Using a sample of U.S. public bankrupt firms under Chapter 11 reorganization, we find evidence supporting the argument. Managerial summary : Applications of signaling theory to predict reorganization outcomes are in their infancy. The dynamic integrative framework developed in this study is useful in identifying different types of signals and predicting outcomes of firms in crisis. The results of this study can be useful for various decision makers to predict the turnaround potential of bankrupt firms. Our results show that an increase in alliance partners, institutional investors, and securities analysts following a bankrupt firm predicts the firm's reorganization outcome. Moreover, firms that are able to gain positive attention from key stakeholders will also gain positive interpretations of their strategic efforts. Signals from alliance partners and institutional investors amplify the signaling effect of a firm's de‐diversification effort in predicting its reorganization outcome. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Exploring proactive market strategies

Proactivity is an important driver of firm performance and for the creation of customer value on business-to-business markets. It is however not entirely clear what it is proactive firms actually do to achieve success. By investigating proactive firms' market strategies, i.e. the sets of activities they perform in order to create superior customer value, a holistic overview of the activities involved in proactive market strategies is provided. Through a case study of five proactive firms, proactive activities are identified. Using three strategic orientations—customer, competition, and innovation orientation—unique proactivity profiles are created, reflecting the patterns in the identified proactive activities. Through these profiles, three overarching proactive market strategies are forwarded: market shaping, customer engagement, and innovation leadership. These are proposed to act as generic proactive market strategies, representing coordinated proactive activities driven by multiple strategic orientations and aimed at creating customer value. These generic strategies help us understand of the role of proactivity in crafting high-performing market strategies by representing different routes to success.     

Success in Global New Product Development: Impact of Strategy and the Behavioral Environment of the Firm

Product innovation and the trend toward globalization are two important dimensions driving business today, and a firm's global new product development (NPD) strategy is a primary determinant of performance. Succeeding in this competitive and complex market arena calls for corporate resources and strategies by which firms can effectively tackle the challenges and opportunities associated with international NPD. Based on the resource‐based view (RBV) and the entrepreneurial strategic posture (ESP) literature, the present study develops and tests a model that emphasizes the resources of the firm as primary determinants of competitive advantage and, thus, of superior performance through the strategic initiatives that these enable. In the study, global NPD programs are assessed in terms of three dimensions: (1) the organizational resources or behavioral environment of the firm relevant for international NPD—specifically, the global innovation culture of the firm and senior management involvement in the global NPD effort; (2) the global NPD strategies (i.e., global presence strategy and global product harmonization strategy) chosen for expanding and exploiting opportunities in international markets; and (3) global NPD program performance in terms of shorter‐ and longer‐term outcome measures. These are modeled in antecedent terms, where the impact of the resources on performance is mediated by the NPD strategy of the firm. Based on data from 432 corporate global new product programs (North America and Europe, business‐to‐business, services and goods), a structural model testing for the hypothesized mediation effects was substantially supported. Specifically, having an organizational posture that, at once, values innovation plus globalization, as well as a senior management that is active in and supports the international NPD effort leads to strategic choices that are focused on making the firm truly global in terms of both market coverage and product offering. Further, the two strategies—global presence and global product harmonization—were found to be significant mediators of the firm's behavioral environment in terms of impact on performance of global NPD programs.     

Understanding the Antecedents,Contingencies, and Performance Implications of Process Innovation: A Dynamic Capabilities Perspective

This paper examines one of the most important sources of competitiveness in dynamic industries—the capability of firms to introduce process innovations. While the management of product innovation has received considerable theoretical and empirical attention in the literature, our knowledge about how firms become process innovators—and why many firms fail to do so—remains underdeveloped. In order to provide novel insights into the configuration of firms' process innovation activities and their performance implications, this paper draws on the dynamic capabilities approach. More specifically, this study aims to shed light on the antecedents, contingencies, and performance consequences of interfirm differences in process innovation success, that is, firms' propensity and effectiveness of implementing new production, supply chain, or administrative processes. Particular emphasis is placed upon the analysis of potential complementarities or substitution effects between innovation activities such as internal and external research and development, prototyping, external knowledge acquisition, and employee training. Cross‐sectional data from a large‐scale survey of German manufacturing and service firms serves as the basis for testing the hypotheses advanced in this paper. Findings suggest that by engaging in a broad range of different innovation activities, firms can indeed increase the likelihood of achieving process innovation success, which is in turn positively related to firm financial performance. Yet decreasing marginal returns to innovation activities have to be considered as process innovation propensity was found to increase with the number of activities pursued simultaneously only up to a point, after which negative marginal returns set in (inverted U‐shaped relationship). Furthermore, while environmental turbulence was found to have surprisingly little influence when it comes to translating process innovation success into firms' subsequent financial performance, industry membership as well as the nature of the innovation process (i.e., internal generation, external adoption, or cocreation of an innovation) emerged as key contingency factors. These findings have important theoretical as well as practical implications for managing new process introductions.     

Strategy in emerging economies and the theory of the firm

Indigenous emerging economy (EE) firms are increasingly competing in global markets or against multinational corporations (MNCs) in their home markets. But their institutional context at the national and local levels often suffers from what has been termed “institutional weakness” which is believed to put them at a competitive disadvantage on the global playing field. Yet little is known about how EE institutional weakness at the national level translates into competitive disadvantage at the firm level. In this perspectives paper, we examine this shortcoming in the literature. We utilize three popular theories of the firm—neoclassical economics, the resource-based view, and the nexus of contracts view—to examine how EE institutional weakness at the national level affects strategic choices at the firm level. We then explain how these strategic choices affect firm boundaries, internal organization, and the nature of competitive advantage for firms in EEs.     

Market-shaping strategies: A conceptual framework for generating market outcomes

We identify four market-shaping strategies and their related activities that enable a focal market actor to work towards specific market outcomes. The conceptual framework provides firms with a tool for choosing specific market-shaping strategies depending on their market-shaping intention (offensive/defensive) and perception of a market's stability (stable/unstable). Accordingly, and in line with market-shaping literature, the four market-shaping strategies enable a firm to widen, reduce, maintain, or disrupt a market. Whereas previous market-strategy conceptualizations emphasized firm-level outcomes, the four identified market-shaping strategies focus on market outcomes and encompass a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of a firm's strategic actions on a market. Thereby, this study offers new perspectives on the implementation of market strategies in the context of markets as complex adaptive systems. By exemplifying the four market-shaping strategies using four industry cases, we illustrate how market-shaping strategies can appear in practice and demonstrate how firms can strategically leverage and steer market processes to their advantage.     

The Impact of Product Portfolio Strategy on Financial Performance: The Roles of Product Development and Market Entry Decisions

Innovation is one of the most important issues facing business today. The major difficulty in managing innovation is that managers must do so against a constantly shifting backdrop as technologies, competitors, and markets constantly evolve. Managers determine the product portfolio through key decisions about product development and market entry. Key strategic questions are what portfolio strategies provide the greatest reward. The purpose of this study is to understand the relative financial values of each component of a product portfolio. Specifically, the paper examines the short‐term and long‐term financial impacts of product development strategy and market entry strategy. These strategies reflect two critical tensions that must be balanced in product portfolio decision making and essentially determine a firm's product portfolio. In doing so, the paper also investigates how a firm's capabilities drive each component of a product portfolio. From the empirical analyses in the context of the biomedical device industry, the paper found important insights regarding product portfolio strategies. First, a large product portfolio helps a firm's financial performance. In particular, the pioneering new products have strongest impacts on short‐term performances, and nonpioneering mature products do not provide significant contribution. Second, the results indicate a persistent first‐mover advantage. The first‐to‐market new products yield not only an immediate effect, but also persistent long‐term effects, suggesting that it is important to be first in the market even though there may be short‐term losses. Third, the results suggest the need to balance between “mature” and “new” products. Also, firms need to balance “first‐to‐market” and “late‐entered” products. Because a new or pioneering product requires more resource, it may hurt other products in the portfolio. Thus, without support from mature or follower products, new products and pioneering products alone may not increase firm sales or profit. Fourth, from a long‐term perspective, the paper found that the financial market only rewards a firm's overall capability to deliver new products first in the marketplace. Thus, short‐term performance is mainly driven by product‐level innovativeness, whereas firm‐level innovativeness enhances forward‐looking long‐term performance. Fifth, the paper also found that pioneering new products are driven by integrating both primary and complementary technological capabilities. And nonpioneering new products are mainly driven by the capabilities in primary technology domain. These results provide important insight into the relative value and timing of return on investment in radical versus incremental innovation and alternative market entry strategies. By understanding the performance trade‐offs of these different factors in the short and long term, one can develop better guidelines for optimizing innovation strategies, and their dependence on both external and internal environmental conditions.     

On the strategic value of risk management

This article examines how firms facing volatile input prices and holding some degree of market power in their product market link their risk management and their production or pricing strategies. This issue is relevant in many industries ranging from manufacturing to energy retailing, where firms that are rendered “risk averse” by financial frictions decide on and commit to their hedging strategies before their product market strategies. We find that commitment to hedging modifies the pricing and production strategies of firms. This strategic effect is channeled through the risk-adjusted expected cost, i.e., the expected marginal cost under the probability measure induced by shareholders' “risk aversion”. It has opposite effects depending on the nature of product market competition: commitment to hedging toughens quantity competition while it softens price competition. Finally, not committing to the hedging position can never be an equilibrium outcome: committing is always a best response to non-committing. In the Hotelling model, committing is a dominant strategy for all firms.     

A sociological view on why firms differ

Much theory and research that apparently seeks to explain why firms differ actually addresses the question of why successful firms differ. This article explains why the two questions are different and explores some of the implications of this difference for the field of strategic management. A wide variety of organizational and economic theories are reviewed in this context, including contingency theory, resource dependence theory, process models, dispositional models, transaction cost economics, organizational ecology and institutional theory. Further discussion considers why heterogeneity persists at the firm level when it becomes apparent that only certain types of firms will succeed.     

Real options reasoning and a new look at the R&D investment strategies of pharmaceutical firms

Real options reasoning (ROR) is a conceptual approach to strategic investment that takes into account the value of preserving the right to make future choices under uncertain conditions. In this study, we explore firms' motivations to invest in a new option. We find, based on an analysis of a large sample of patents by firms active in the pharmaceutical industry, that their investments in R&D are consistent with the logic of ROR. We identify three constructs—scope of opportunity, prior experience, and competitive effects—which have an influence on firms' propensity to invest in new R&D options and which could usefully be incorporated in a strategic theory of investment. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Impact of Strategic Type on Success Measures for Product Development Projects*

Does the strategic type of firm affect which success measures should be used for product development (PD) projects? This paper theorizes that it should and finds that it does because the PD projects undertaken are usually an expression of the strategic type of the firm. The purpose of this research is to affirm a 1996 survey of members of the Product Development & Management Association (PDMA) that proposes that firms' PD performance measures should vary by their strategic type. Thus, for example, prospectors, the strategic type most likely to introduce new products to new markets, should place greater importance on PD success measures consistent with their characteristic strategies of changing product lines and early market entry. In contrast, defenders, the strategic type most likely to maintain stable product lines for existing markets, should place greater importance on PD success measures consistent with their characteristic strategies of stable product lines and market penetration. Analyzers, a hybrid type between prospectors and defenders, should prefer measures consistent with their characteristic strategies for improving products and being early followers in newer markets. To relate strategic types to specific success measures for PD projects, this paper proposes a model of the relationship based on the degree of project newness to the firm and then catalogs measures of PD project success and groups them according to degree of project newness. The research findings are based on survey responses from 222 individuals who are employed by financial service providers, who identified their firms by strategic type and rated the importance of PD success measures to their firms. The importance of 21 performance measures is compared by strategic type to find significant differences among prospectors, analyzers, and defenders. This research finds several significant relationships. prospectors, for example, attach greater importance to customer satisfaction, launch timeliness, and product return on investment, all of which may be characterized as relating to a higher degree of project newness to the firm. defenders and analyzers, on the other hand, attach more importance than prospectors to measures of unit volume, cost reduction, and margin goals, all of which relate to a lower degree of project newness to the firm. In short, because prospectors seek to introduce new products to new markets, they consider important those measures, which accord with greater product and market newness. The major conclusion of this paper is that strategic type affects the importance of project performance measures and that all firms should not use the same success measures. Firms should contextualize their success in PD projects based on their strategic type. This conclusion resonates with previous findings that strategy is a key determinant of PD success, though it is infrequently included in PD success studies. This paper, therefore, challenges the implicit assumption in the mainstream of PD success literature that success can be determined without regard to firm strategy.     

Firms' heterogeneity,relationship embeddedness,and innovation development in competitive alliances

Few studies have investigated the effects of firms' heterogeneity in the context of competitive alliances' innovation development efforts. Prior research has mainly focused on how relationship embeddedness facilitates innovation development, with little attention to heterogeneity among firms and the role it might play. We addressed this gap by examining the relationships among firms' heterogeneity, relationship embeddedness, and innovation development in competitive alliances. We distinguished three dimensions of firms' heterogeneity and collected data from 481 surveys. We demonstrated that heterogeneity with regard to operational routines and organizational responsiveness, heterogeneity was found to have positive direct effects on innovation development while also undermining relationship embeddedness. By contrast, technological heterogeneity had a positive effect on both innovation development and relationship embeddedness. Competitive-alliance firms are more sensitive to heterogeneity regarding operational routines than to organizational responsiveness. These findings highlight the importance of overcoming the adverse effects of firms' heterogeneity through several means, such as full interpretation, observation, and offsetting incongruence through intermediaries or brokers. This study contributes to the strategic management and embeddedness literature by examining the implications of firms' heterogeneity and identifying how these effects influence relationship embeddedness as antecedent factors.     

Experience matters: The role of academic scientist mobility for industrial innovation

Research Summary: A learning‐by‐hiring approach is used to scrutinize scientists' mobility in relation to the recruiting firms' subsequent innovation output. Our starting point is that among firm hires, individuals with university research experience—hired from universities or firms—can be particularly valuable. However, conflicting institutional logics between academia and industry makes working with academic scientists challenging at times for firms. We suggest two solutions to this difficulty: hiring “ambidextrous” individuals with a mix of experience of university research and working for a technologically advanced firm, and a strong organizational research culture in the recruiting firm reflected by the presence of a scientist on the top management team. We track the mobility of R&D workers empirically using patent and linked employer‐employee data. Managerial Summary: An important way to make organizations more innovative is hiring individual researchers with the right types of skills and experience. We show that individuals with university research experience beyond their final degree are particularly likely to help boost firm‐level innovation output after hiring compared to R&D workers with other types of skills and experience. However, to obtain good returns to innovation from hiring such individuals, firms need a university research–friendly organizational culture when hiring individuals with university research experience, from either firms or academia.     

The trade-off between institutionally proximal and distal markets: The impact of home market pressures on firms’ export market selection

This study uses an organizational change perspective to analyze firms' export market selection (EMS) to adapt to home country market pressures. We argue that firms' strategic objectives influence whether they will enter institutionally proximal or distal markets. A model with two curvilinear (U-shaped and inverted U-shaped) relationships is found by testing 1940 Taiwanese export firms based on two official datasets. The model shows that firms are more likely to increase their exports to institutionally proximal markets and to decrease their exports to institutionally distal markets if they have an increasing but still controllable degree of competitive and marketing pressures in the home country. This response represents an incremental change by exporting firms. However, firms increase their exports to institutionally distal markets while decreasing their exports to institutionally proximal markets if they have an excessively increasing degree of competitive and marketing pressures in the home country. This response represents a radical change by exporting firms. We find that export firms' strategic objectives in choosing different organizational change styles (incremental or radical) are highly related to this trade-off in their EMS decision making.     

How New Product Strategies Impact on Performance

What is involved in a successful new product program? Is it high spending on risky R&D? Is it close contact with customers? Is it the overall competitive strength of the firm? Well, it might be any of these things, and more, according to Robert G. Cooper, depending on your definition of success. In an exhaustive examination of the new product strategies and performances of 122 industrial products firms, Cooper found that the strategy that a firm elects for its new product program is closely linked to the performance results that firm achieves. But what's performance? Cooper's analysis uncovered three different and independent ways of viewing new product performance. He brings some clarity to the meaning of a “high-performance” product innovation program, but there's a catch—the strategies leading to high performance in one direction are quite different from the strategies leading to positive results by other measures. In his summing up, Professor Cooper proposes sets of generalized strategies—guides to action—that product innovation managers should consider.     

Does Strategic Planning Enhance or Impede Innovation and Firm Performance?*

Does strategic planning enhance or impede innovation and firm performance? The current literature provides contradictory views. This study extends the resource‐advantage theory to examine the conditions in which strategic planning increases or decreases the number of new product development projects and firm performance. The authors test the theoretical model by collecting data from 227 firms. The empirical evidence suggests that more strategic planning and more new product development (NPD) projects lead to better firm performance. Firms with organizational redundancy benefit more from strategic planning than firms with less organizational redundancy. Increasing R&D intensity boosts both the number of NPD projects and firm performance. Strategic planning is more effective in larger firms with higher R&D intensity for increasing the number of NPD projects. The results reported in this study also consist of several findings that challenge the traditional views of strategic planning. The evidence suggests that strategic planning impedes, not enhances, the number of NPD projects. Larger firms benefit less, not more, from strategic planning for improving firm performance. Larger firms do not necessarily create more NPD projects. Increasing organizational redundancy has no effect on the number of NPD projects. These empirical results provide important strategic implications. First, managers should be aware that, in general, formal strategic planning decreases the number of NPD projects for innovation management. Improvised rather than planned activities are more conducive to creating NPD project ideas. Moreover, innovations tend to emerge from improvisational processes, during which the impromptu execution of NPD activities without planning spurs “thinking outside the box,” which enhances the process of creating NPD project ideas. Therefore, more flexible strategic plans that accommodate potential improvisation may be needed in NPD management since innovation‐related activities cannot be planned precisely due to the unexpected jolts and contingencies of the NPD process. Second, large firms with high levels of R&D intensity can overcome the negative effect of strategic planning on the number of NPD projects. Specifically, a firm's abundant resources, when allocated and deployed for NPD activities, signal the high priority and importance of the NPD activities and thus motivate employees to acquire, collect, and gather customer and technical knowledge, which leads to creating more NPD projects. Finally, managers must understand that managing strategic planning and generating NPD project ideas are beneficial to the ultimate outcome of firm performance despite the adverse relationship between strategic planning and the number of NPD projects.     

Growing with the market: How changing conditions during market growth affect formation and evolution of interfirm ties

Research Summary: Market conditions are known to matter for firm performance and growth. This study explores how changing levels of uncertainty and competition affect interfirm ties of entrepreneurial firms as markets transition from nascent to growth stage. Tracing six entrepreneurial game publishers during the growth stage of the U.S. wireless gaming market, the findings reveal that in a growth stage market, as uncertainty decreases, certain ties of entrepreneurial firms are terminated. First, existing partners may cut ties and become competitors after entering the market directly. This is a “winner's curse” as more successful firms are more likely to entice their partners to enter the market directly. Second, ties may be terminated as prominent firms that are “overwhelmed” with too many partners cut ties with low to mediocre performance, while their remaining partners enter a positive spiral of tie strength and performance. Finally, as uncertainty decreases, new firms may enter the market as competitors to prominent firms. While entrepreneurial firms with high‐ and low‐performing ties to prominent partners may find ties with these new entrants attractive, those with mediocre ties to few prominent partners find this move too risky and wait for a first mover to legitimate it. Overall, the findings show that changing levels of uncertainty and competition in growth stage markets can have different consequences for firms due to heterogeneity in their ties and power relative to partners. The findings provide several contributions to literature regarding the relationship among interfirm ties, firm performance, and market evolution. Managerial Summary: Based on interviews at six entrepreneurial game publishers in the United States and their partners, this study shows how changing levels of uncertainty and competition in growing markets can have different consequences for firms based on the different types of alliances in their portfolio and their power relative to partners. The findings highlight the importance of managing partners differently based on alliance type and goal of the partner. They advocate remaining flexible in alliance management as information asymmetries, intentions and bargaining power of partners can change and lead to abrupt alliance dissolution. They show that alliance portfolio management goes beyond a firm's capability of managing individual alliances, and provide a tool for managers to evaluate their alliance portfolios and take the necessary precautions.