Honeymoons and Liabilities: The Relationship between Age and Performance in Research and Development Alliances

The use of strategic alliances by technology ventures has increased dramatically over the last 20 years. During this period companies not only have increased the use of alliances but also have used them in more strategically important areas, particularly in research and development (R&D) and new product development. Thus, successful management of strategic alliances in high‐technology industries has become critical to a firm's new product development and ultimately to firm performance. Yet little is known about what determines the performance of individual alliances. This article examines the relationship between the age of an alliance and the performance of the alliance. Two competing hypotheses regarding the form of the functional relationship between alliance age and alliance performance are developed and are tested. First, a liability of newness hypothesis, which posits that alliance performance increases in a linear fashion over time, is tested. Then a honeymoon hypothesis, which posits that the relationship between age and alliance performance is nonlinear with alliance performance decreasing initially but increasing over time, is tested. It is proposed further here that alliances that are more important to the focal firm exhibit longer honeymoon periods. A measure of individual alliance performance is developed based on our field study in the biotechnology industry. The competing hypotheses are tested using regression analysis on the sample of 115 R&D alliances. Then the analysis is extended by splitting the sample into high‐ and low‐importance alliances to enhance the robustness of the findings. Further, such a split‐sample approach enables testing for a potential moderating effect of alliance importance on the hypothesized relationship between alliance age and alliance performance. The results suggest that the relationship between age and alliance performance seems to be U‐shaped curvilinear rather than linear, with the minimum point of alliance performance occurring after approximately four and one‐half years. Thus, the results indicate that strategic alliances appear to face a liability of adolescence rather than a liability of newness. Contrary to expectations, it also is found that important alliances exhibit generally shorter honeymoons.     

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.     

Partner-based opportunism,interface structure,and performance efficiency in upstream and downstream alliance activities contexts

Few alliance studies have theorized that opportunisms effect on performance efficiency is contingent on other factors. Our study posits that alliance partner size and no end-point serve as interface structure mechanisms that condition the efficiency outcomes of partner-based opportunism in alliances. We argue that the direct effect of partner-based opportunism, and the moderation effects of alliance partner size and no end-point, differ according to the alliance activities context (i.e., upstream vs. downstream). Our hypotheses were tested using a survey of 361 alliances. We observe that partner-based opportunism is indeed associated with performance inefficiencies. Further, while alliance partner size has a nonsignificant moderating effect, no end-point has a positive moderating effect, on the relationship between partner-based opportunism and efficiency; that is, the negative link becomes less negative for no end-point alliances. We find that the negative performance relevance of partner-based opportunism remains significant among upstream alliances, but drops to nonsignificance for downstream ones. We show that alliance partner size has a negative moderating effect on the link partner-based opportunism to performance efficiency among downstream, but not upstream, alliances. Lastly, we find that the positive moderating effect of no end-point is significant among upstream, but not downstream, alliances. Our results generate important implications for managers' efforts to design and govern alliances.     

Alliance capability,stock market response,and long‐term alliance success: the role of the alliance function

This paper addresses two key questions: (1) what factors influence firms' ability to build alliance capability and enjoy greater alliance success, where firm‐level alliance success is measured in two ways: (a) abnormal stock market gains following alliance announcements and (b) managerial assessments of long term alliance performance; and (2) are the two alternate ways of assessing alliance success correlated? We find that firms with greater alliance experience and, more importantly, those that create a dedicated alliance function (with the intent of strategically coordinating alliance activity and capturing/disseminating alliance‐related knowledge) realize greater success with alliances. More specifically, firms with a dedicated alliance function achieve greater abnormal stock market gains (average of 1.35%) and report that 63 percent of alliances are successful whereas firms without an alliance function achieve much lower stock market gains (average of 0.18%) and only a 50 percent long‐term success rate. We also find a positive correlation between stock market‐based measures of alliance success and alliance success measured through managerial assessments. In addition to providing insights into the development of alliance capability among firms, this paper is one of the first to provide empirical support for the efficient markets argument by demonstrating that the initial stock market response to a key event positively correlates to the long‐term performance and value of the event. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Stepping in and stepping out: Strategic alliance partner reconfiguration and the unplanned termination of complex projects

Research summary : I add to work that emphasizes the stability of strategic alliances by considering the consequences of alliance partner reconfiguration. I offer two contrasting perspectives: (1) alliance partner reconfiguration leads to disruption, hence increases the risk of subsequent project termination; (2) partner reconfiguration leads to adaptation, hence decreases this risk. Data on 1,025 interfirm Australian mining alliances (2002–2011) shows that on average alliance partner reconfiguration increases the risk of project termination. For firm exit from an alliance, the effect is contingent on a firm's resource base, but not for firm entry. Surprisingly, I do not find that alliance partner reconfiguration is beneficial in a dynamic environment. I discuss the implications of these findings for the literature on strategic alliance dynamics and that on strategic alliance outcomes. Managerial summary : This paper studies what happens when over time strategic alliances change their original membership. The research shows that both entry in and exit from an alliance increase the risk of project termination. Hence, weathering difficult times and managing conflict by keeping teams stable should be a prime directive if project survival is the alliance partners' overriding concern. In addition, I find that the exit of a firm with a comparatively large resource base increases the hazard of termination more than if the departing firm has a relatively small resource base. Therefore, one cannot underestimate the importance of trying to keep on board those alliance partners who bring a critical resource to the table. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Alliance Concentration in Multinational Companies: Examining Alliance Portfolios,Firm Structure,and Firm Performance

Research summary: This article explores the distribution of alliances across firms' internal structure. Focusing on multinational companies, we examine the impact of alliance portfolio concentration—i.e., the extent to which alliances are concentrated within a limited number of geographic units—on focal firms' performance. Relying on Knowledge‐Based View (KBV) insights, we hypothesize that an increase in alliance portfolio concentration positively influences firm performance and that alliance portfolio size negatively moderates this relationship. Our empirical results enrich the emerging capability perspective on alliance portfolios, point to the relevance of conceptualizing focal firms in alliance portfolio research as polylithic entities instead of monolithic ones, and provide new insights into how firms create value by potentially recombining externally accessed knowledge. Managerial summary: In the setting of multinational companies, we examine whether alliance activities are concentrated in a limited number of subsidiaries or are highly dispersed across multiple subsidiaries. We find that, over time, firms exhibit different patterns in terms of alliance portfolio concentration. In addition, the results show that, for MNCs with a relatively small alliance portfolio, an increase in alliance portfolio concentration is positively related to their financial performance. However, when MNCs' alliance portfolios are relatively large, the relationship between alliance portfolio concentration and firm performance becomes negative. Jointly, these findings suggest that the distribution of alliances across firms' internal structure is an important factor in shaping potential knowledge recombination benefits from alliance portfolios. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Alliance portfolio reconfiguration following a technological discontinuity

Research summary : We study how technological discontinuities generate first‐ and second‐order effects on alliance formation and termination, leading to reconfiguration of firms' alliance portfolios. Following technological shocks, we argue that firms often seek alliances that provide new resources while also having incentives to form alliances for reinforced and challenged resources that complement the new resources. In parallel, alliance terminations, even involving resources otherwise unaffected by the discontinuity, increase due to limits in firms' alliance carrying capacity. We study biopharmaceutical firms between 1990 and 2000, which faced a technological discontinuity in 1995 in the form of combinatorial chemistry and high‐throughput screening. We improve understanding of how technological discontinuities affect the value of resources and how firms reconfigure alliance portfolios in response. Managerial summary : When firms form alliances to gain new resources during technological discontinuities that disrupt their industry, they cannot consider only the focal new partnerships. Instead, new alliances create complementarity and substitution pressures that lead to broader reconfiguration of the firms' alliance portfolios: (1) complementarity creates incentives to also form alliances for resources that the technological discontinuity reinforces or challenges in order to improve the collective value of co‐specialized assets; (2) substitution creates incentives to terminate existing alliances, even if their value is otherwise unaffected by the discontinuity, in order to create carrying capacity for new alliances. Thus, one new alliance can generate a cascade of reconfiguration that challenges the balance between the benefits of stability and the need for change in an alliance portfolio. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Competition and termination of the alliances between asymmetric partners: The case of Japanese department stores

To enrich the literature on alliance termination, we recognize that the dynamics of individual alliances are subject to the structural characteristics of the alliance portfolios in which they are embedded. We anchor our study in the context of large industry leaders partnering with multiple small partners, the latter of which can be viewed as competing for access to the formers’ resources. We expect that a small partner’s relative capability in relation to peer partners within a leader’s alliance portfolio is negatively related to the likelihood of alliance termination, since the leader acknowledges that partners with inferior capability do not deserve to be supported. Furthermore, this relationship would be moderated by alliance portfolio size, market overlap with peer partners, and with industry leaders. Using a unique dataset of 145 alliances between leading and small department stores in Japan in the period 1977-93, we found general support for the hypothesized relationships.     

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.     

Unveiling the temporally contingent role of codification in alliance success

While prior research highlights the importance of codifying alliance experience to achieve alliance success, it is unclear whether codification is equally useful in the different phases of an alliance. Based on a sample of 192 technology firms that report on over 3,400 strategic alliances, we find that in the partner selection and termination phases, reliance on codified knowledge is useful. However, in the partner management phase, reliance on codified knowledge is less beneficial and can be even negatively related to performance. Our findings have implications for the tension between flexibility and efficiency and the relationship between structure and performance. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

The intra‐alliance division of value created through collaboration

The differential benefits reaped by individual partners are a major determinant of the impact of strategic alliances on firm performance and an important (dis)incentive for alliance partners to collaborate in value creation. Theoretically, we lack an explicit theory of intra‐alliance value division; empirically, previous analysis has been hampered by methodological challenges. We propose a bargaining framework for intra‐alliance value appropriation, as well as a measure for capturing its variation. We test our hypotheses on a sample of 200 biotechnology R&D alliances, and are able to explain variation in value appropriation across alliance partners, partner types, and individual firms of each type. Copyright © 2010 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.     

Knowledge sharing and safeguarding in R&D collaborations: The role of steering committees in biotechnology alliances

Research Summary: This research contributes to alliance governance research by demonstrating how partners' administrative controls in nonequity collaborations regulate knowledge transfers across partners. These administrative controls can take the form of board‐like joint committees having explicitly delineated authority over certain alliance activities. We illuminate governing committees as an important, albeit neglected, instrument for administrative control in the governance of non‐equity alliances, and we demonstrate that these organizational mechanisms facilitate knowledge flows within the scope of an alliance. We also show that governing committees safeguard against misappropriation hazards, particularly when a partner possesses the incentive and ability to engage in such behavior. This study extends alliance governance research beyond the implications of the equity‐nonequity dichotomy to consider a wider and richer gamut of governance instruments available to address the challenges associated with knowledge transfers in alliances. Managerial Summary: Non‐equity alliances are important vehicles to collaborate with external partners, particularly in the biopharmaceutical industry and other high‐tech sectors. To guide these collaborations effectively, partners can use the contract to custom‐build jointly‐staffed managerial units with clearly demarcated decision‐making responsibilities. We demonstrate that these organizational mechanisms facilitate knowledge flows within the scope of an alliance. We also show that governing committees also safeguard against misappropriation hazards, particularly when a partner values a firm's knowledge highly, or it possesses the required ability to absorb and assimilate a firm's knowledge. Our results imply that contractually‐defined managerial interfaces provide a channel to regulate knowledge‐sharing in collaborative alliances.     

Does technological modularity substitute for control? A study of alliance performance in software outsourcing

Although control is presumed to be necessary to curb opportunism, its implementation in alliances can be costly and challenging. Paradoxically, some contemporary firms have counterintuitively developed successful alliances without extensive formal control. A widespread but untested assertion that might help reconcile this contradiction is that technological modularity reduces the need for alliance control. The objective of this study is to develop and test this assertion. Using data from 120 software outsourcing alliances, we show that, process control, outcome control, and modularity independently enhance alliance performance. However modularity and control are imperfect substitutes: modularity lowers the influence of process control but not of outcome control on alliance performance. Our theoretical development and empirical testing of the interactions of alliance control with modularity has significant implications for strategy theory and practice, which are also discussed. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Post‐formation dynamics in strategic alliances

This paper investigates the occurrence and determinants of post‐formation governance changes in strategic alliances, including alterations in alliances' contracts, boards or oversight committees, and monitoring mechanisms. We examine alliances in the biotechnology industry and find that firms' unique alliance experience trajectories affect the likelihood of such ex post adjustments in these partnerships. Transactional features such as the alliance's scope, its division of labor, and the relevance of the collaboration to the parent firm also bear upon alliances' dynamics. We discuss the implications of these findings and how they complement prior research focusing on alliance design or termination at opposite ends of the alliance life cycle. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Performance of alliances: formative stages and changing organizational and environmental influences

There is near unanimous agreement that the performance of alliances usually falls short of expectations. Studies have identified several generic reasons for poor performance: inadequate communication, lack of trust, insufficient complementarity of resources, inappropriate organizational structures and processes, and so on. While we broadly agree with these, knowledge of these self-evident reasons does not seem to have turned the tide of bad news in any way. We show in this paper that it is important to unpack a broad set of antecedent variables, including the ones identified above, and to track them over the crucial formative stages of an alliance. Based on our interviews with 24 senior and middle level managers and professionals of a focal company about 10 of its major alliances, we identify the following four formative stages of an alliance: (1) Recognition , (2) Research , (3) Relationship Set-up , and (4) Ramp up . We show that the primary predictors of success across these stages are not identical, nor their effect uniform. Further, proper completion of all the preceding stages is essential for the success of subsequent stages. We finally show that the compaction of the various successful stages, in particular of the Ramp-Up stage, is one of the best predictors of overall success of an alliance.     

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.     

How does trust affect alliance performance? The mediating role of resource sharing

Although the direct impact of trust on alliance performance is well documented, little is known about how trust affects alliance performance. Based on the resource-based view, this study develops a model that employs resource sharing as a critical mediating mechanism through which trust affects alliance performance. Using survey data from 205 Chinese firms that were engaged in alliances, we find broad support for the mediated effects of trust. Interestingly, we also find that goodwill trust matters more to tangible than to intangible resource sharing, whereas competence trust matters more to intangible than to tangible resource sharing. Overall, our research provides important implications for firms seeking to translate their trust into superior alliance performance.