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.     

Strategies for managing a portfolio of alliances

Interorganizational relationships are recognized as an increasingly important source of competitive advantage. Hence, goal‐oriented management of the alliance portfolio—all the alliances of the focal firm—plays a decisive role in company performance. Consequently, the configuration and development of the alliance portfolio become important strategic issues. In light of that, this article develops theoretical propositions that seek to clarify what determines the configuration and evolution of an alliance portfolio, and then presents the results of a longitudinal study to illustrate the developed theoretical framework. Building on contingency theory and a coevolutionary framework, we were able to identify three distinctive types of portfolio strategies at business level and to illustrate how they interact with the development of the business strategy and the business environment. Encompassing all this, the study illustrates and explains developmental paths and patterns in the evolution of an alliance portfolio. The developmental course typically evolves from adapting to shaping and to exploiting (stabilizing), according to the state of strategic uncertainty and the firm's resource endowment. A sudden increase in exogenous strategic uncertainty, however, can lead to a strategic shift back to an exploration or hybrid strategy. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Network location and learning: the influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation

This paper presents a dynamic, firm‐level study of the role of network resources in determining alliance formation. Such resources inhere not so much within the firm but reside in the interfirm networks in which firms are placed. Data from extensive fieldwork show that by influencing the extent to which firms have access to information about potential partners, such resources are an important catalyst for new alliances, especially because alliances entail considerable hazards. This study also assesses the importance of firms’ capabilities with alliance formation and material resources as determinants of their alliance decisions. I test this dynamic framework and its hypotheses about the role of time‐varying network resources and firm capabilities with comprehensive longitudinal multi‐industry data on the formation of strategic alliances by a panel of firms between 1970 and 1989. The results confirm field observations that accumulated network resources arising from firm participation in the network of accumulated prior alliances are influential in firms’ decisions to enter into new alliances. This study highlights the importance of network resources that firms derive from their embeddedness in networks for explaining their strategic behavior. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Managing alliance relationships: Key challenges in the early stages of collaboration

Recent surveys indicate that executives of technology companies consider strategic alliances to be central to their competitive strategies. Yet the barriers to successful alliances are formidable. In many instances, these barriers develop in the early stages of an alliance. This study identifies and analyzes the types of challenges that companies face in the start–up phase of their alliances. It is based on a survey and interviews with executives in the Canadian high technology industry. The study finds that the principal challenges in the first year of an alliance relate to relationship issues between the partners. It suggests stronger attention to these issues in the design and implementation of an alliance. The paper concludes with guidelines to build and sustain effective working relationships between partners.     

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.     

Biotechnology Commercialization Strategies: Risk and Return in Interfirm Cooperation

The management and exploitation of biotechnological product innovation have proven to be more difficult than initially expected because the number of currently marketed biotechnological products is far from sufficient to counter deficits in pharmaceutical innovation. This study provides insight into the role of governance structures in interfirm cooperation and their effects on biotechnological product innovation and company success. Most of the existing literature regarding alliances and mergers and acquisitions (M&A) examines their effects on technology recipients' innovation performance. Here, the effects of alliances and M&A on both the innovation success and financial performance of technology suppliers (i.e., sources) are examined. Drawing from a sample of 220 human therapeutic biotechnology and biopharmaceutical firms over a period of 32 years (1980–2011), an analysis of the effects of biotechnology clusters, strategic alliances, and acquisitions is provided. This study reveals the existence of a risk‐return trade‐off for strategic alliances between biotech companies and larger, more established firms. Increased biotech company involvement in product development alliances decreases risk by increasing the likelihood of future product introductions. The trade‐off, however, is that biotech companies earn lower returns when their products are developed through such alliances. A similar risk‐return trade‐off effect is found for clusters. However, acquisitions generally affect both product introductions and product returns in a negative way. These findings have strategic implications not only for managing the development of biotechnological product innovations and technology platforms but also for commercialization strategies with respect to interfirm cooperation and risk reduction.     

Learning to collaborate through collaboration: How allying with expert firms influences collaborative innovation within novice firms

Research summary : Strategic alliances have been recognized as a means for firms to learn their partners' proprietary knowledge; such alliances are also valuable opportunities for partner firms to learn tacit organizational routines from their counterparts. We consider how relatively novice technology firms can learn intraorganizational collaborative routines from more experienced alliance partners and then deploy them independently for their own innovative pursuits. We examine the alliance relationships between Eli Lilly & Co. (Lilly), a recognized expert in collaborative innovation, and 55 small biotech partner firms. Using three levels of analysis (firm, patent, and inventor dyad), we find that greater social interaction between the partner firm and Lilly subsequently increases internal collaboration among the partner firm's inventors. Managerial summary : Can collaborating externally advance internal collaboration? Yes. Our research found that collaboration among scientists at small, early‐stage biotechnology firms significantly increased after these firms formed highly interactive R&D alliances with a large pharmaceutical company known for its expertise in such collaboration. It is well known that alliances help new firms learn specific new technologies and commercialize innovations. Our study broadens the scope of potential benefits of alliances. New firms can also learn collaboration techniques, deploying them internally to enhance their own abilities in collaborative innovation. Managers should take this additional benefit into consideration in developing their alliance strategies. Pursuing alliance partners with expertise in collaboration and keeping a high level of mutual interactions with partner firm personnel should be important considerations to extract this value. Copyright © 2015 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.     

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.     

Project Suspensions and Failures in New Product Development: Returns for Entrepreneurial Firms in Co‐Development Alliances

Entrepreneurial biotech and large pharmaceutical firms often form alliances to co‐develop new products. Yet, new product development (NPD) is fraught with challenges that often result in project suspensions and failures. Considering this, how can firms increase the chances that their co‐development alliances will create value? To answer this question, the authors build on insights from signaling theory to argue that prior project suspensions provide positive signals leading to an increase in value creation, while project failures have the opposite effect. In addition, drawing on insights from temporal construal theory, this research predicts that the strength of these effects is contingent on the stage along the exploration–exploitation continuum at which the alliance is formed. The authors undertook event study analyses of 248 alliances formed by 104 biotechnology firms from the United States and Europe listed on eight stock exchanges over an 8‐year period between 1996 and 2003. The results confirm that prior NPD project suspensions have a stronger value creation effect (or prior failures have a weaker value destruction effect) in the case of exploration alliances in the upstream of NPD processes than in the case of moderate‐scale exploitation alliances in the downstream of NPD. This study is among the first to examine how both prior NPD project suspensions and failures of firms affect the abnormal returns achieved from co‐development alliances. This research therefore contributes to the innovation literature by honing a better understanding of setbacks and failures in NPD. Moreover, the findings contribute to the literature on strategic alliances by identifying new conditions under which firms can create or preserve value. This research also contributes to signaling theory by providing evidence of the moderation effect caused by the signaling environment. Finally, this study contributes to the entrepreneurial literature on value creation for entrepreneurial firms in alliances following adverse events.     

Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: a system of new product development

We link the exploration–exploitation framework of organizational learning to a technology venture's strategic alliances and argue that the causal relationship between the venture's alliances and its new product development depends on the type of the alliance. In particular, we propose a product development path beginning with exploration alliances predicting products in development, which in turn predict exploitation alliances, and that concludes with exploitation alliances leading to products on the market. Moreover, we argue that this integrated product development path is moderated negatively by firm size. As a technology venture grows, it tends to withdraw from this product development path to discover, develop, and commercialize promising projects through vertical integration. We test our model on a sample of 325 biotechnology firms that entered 2565 alliances over a 25‐year period. We find broad support for the hypothesized product development system and the moderating effect of firm size. Copyright © 2004 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.     

Do bridging ties complement strong ties? An empirical examination of alliance ambidexterity

This study examines the underexplored tensions and complementarities between bridging ties and strong ties in innovation-seeking alliances. Bridging ties span structural holes to provide innovation potential but lack integration capacity, and strong ties provide integration capacity but lack innovation potential. We theoretically develop the idea that—notwithstanding their tensions—strong ties complement bridging ties in enhancing alliance ambidexterity at the project level. While bridging ties provide access to diverse, structural hole-spanning perspectives and capabilities, strong ties help integrate them to realize an innovation. We also propose that their effects and complementarities influence alliance ambidexterity because they facilitate knowledge integration at the project level. Tests using data on 42 innovation-seeking project alliances involving a major American services conglomerate and its alliance partners support the majority of the proposed ideas. Implications for interfirm network configuration, strategic alliances, and the broader strategy literature are also discussed. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Alliances, External Technology Acquisition, and Discontinuous Technological Change

A new paradigm, a radical innovation, the next killer application–the terms differ, but they all point to the same thing: a major change in the technology base for a mature industry. A discontinuous technological change (DTC) poses a significant challenge for the companies operating in the affected industry. The technology at the foundation of their products and markets has changed, and they must find a way to adapt to that change. To maintain their competitive standing, they must master the new technology and ensure that their products and processes fully exploit it. Noting that alliances offer an increasingly popular means for meeting the challenges that a DTC presents, C. Jay Lambe and Robert E. Spekman explore two issues related to alliances and DTC. First, why does DTC motivate companies to use alliances as a means for acquiring technology? And second, how do these motivations change during the various stages of the DTC life-cycle? By understanding the relationship between DTC and technology sourcing alliances, a firm can increase the likelihood of success for its alliances and thus improve the effectiveness of its product development efforts. When faced with a DTC, an established firm has three options for obtaining the new technology: merging with or acquiring a company that already possesses the technology; developing the required capabilities by using existing resources; or entering into some form of alliance. Because of time-to-market pressures and industry uncertainty, alliances often take precedence over the other two options for acquiring the new technology. However, the attractiveness of alliances also varies as a result of changes in the levels of urgency and uncertainty throughout the DTC life-cycle. The advent of a radical innovation is marked by a relatively low sense of urgency and high levels of industry uncertainty. Firms are not yet certain how the new technology will affect the industry, and they may not feel compelled to enter into technology sourcing alliances. As the new technology takes hold–and the levels of urgency and uncertainty peak–the motivation for entering into a technology sourcing alliance also reaches its highest level. Firms must move quickly to secure a position of market leadership, and the right alliance can jump-start those efforts. During the latter stages in the DTC life-cycle, the technology and the market requirements become more stable, the levels of urgency and industry uncertainty decrease, and firms often shift their focus from alliances to internal development and acquisitions.     

The effect of board human capital on the performance of technical alliance investments

Despite boards of directors’ prominent involvement in strategic alliance (SA) decisions in practice and reports from news media, there is relatively little academic research exploring the board's value for a firm's technical SA investments involving a technical transfer or R&D, which are characterized by a high level of uncertainty, information asymmetry, and extreme complexity. Anchored in the resource dependence theory, this study aims to address this important issue by examining how board of directors contribute their human capital, in the form of relevant strategic experience, may mitigate the core challenges managers face when pursuing technical SAs and thereby influencing their outcomes. Our empirical results show that when outside directors hold more extensive alliance experience, they can better execute their consulting function and improve the firm's technical alliance performance. In addition, directors with experience specifically related to technical alliances also have a positive effect on performance. Last, we find that the impact of alliance experience on technical alliance performance is positively moderated by the size of directors’ prior affiliated companies and their share ownership in the focal firm.