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.     

Free‐riding in multi‐party alliances: The role of perceived alliance effectiveness and peers' collaboration in a research consortium

Research summary : Multi‐party alliances rely on partners' willingness to commit and pool their efforts in joint endeavors. However, partners face the dilemma of how much to commit to the alliance. We shed light on this issue by analyzing the relationship between partners' free‐riding—defined as their effort‐withholding—and their perceptions of alliance effectiveness and peers' collaboration. Specifically, we posit a U‐shaped relationship between partners' subjective evaluations of alliance effectiveness and their free‐riding. We also hypothesize a negative relation between partners' perceptions of the collaboration of peer organizations and their free‐riding. Results from a mixed‐method study—combining regression analysis of primary data on a major inter‐organizational research consortium and evidence from two experimental designs—support our hypotheses, bearing implications for the multi‐party alliances literature. Managerial summary : Free‐riding is a major concern in multi‐party alliances such as large research consortia, since the performance of these governance forms hinges on the joint contribution of multiple partners that often operate according to different logics (e.g., universities, firms, and government agencies). We show that, in such alliances, partners' perceptions have relevant implications for their willingness to contribute to the consortium's shared goals. Specifically, we find that partners free‐ride more—that is, contribute less—when they perceive the effectiveness of the overall alliance to be either very low or very high. Partners also gauge their commitment to the alliance on the perception of the effort of their peers—that is, other organizations similar to them. These findings provide managers of multi‐party alliances with additional levers to motivate partners to contribute fairly to such joint endeavor. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Alliance form: a test of the contractual and competence perspectives

This paper analyzes factors that influence firms' choice of the organizational form of strategic alliances. I consider arguments suggested by both the contractual and the competence perspectives. In order to distinguish empirically between them, I devote special attention to the role played by the similarity of partner firms' technological specialization. In the empirical section I consider a sample composed of 271 equity joint ventures, non‐equity bilateral and unilateral agreements established between each other in the period 1983–86 by 67 North American, European, and Japanese enterprises from the world's largest firms in information technology industries. I examine the effects on the choice of alliance form of a measure of firms' technological proximity based on patents count, while controlling for other variables that are usually considered in the empirical literature. The estimates of binomial and multinomial logit models support the competence‐based argument that in technological alliances divergence in partners' technological specialization results in a higher propensity to use equity forms. Overall, the findings suggest that both the contractual and competence perspectives provide valuable complementary insights into the determinants of alliance form. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Learning to Reduce Interorganizational Learning: An Analysis of Architectural Product Innovation in Strategic Alliances*

There is wide agreement in analyses of strategic alliances that, regardless of the purpose of the alliance, members of the partner organizations should engage in intensive mutual learning to make the alliance a success. In contrast to this view, the present article shows that in strategic alliances aimed at product innovations by recombining partners' extant technologies, learning between specialists can be reduced considerably without jeopardizing success. This is made possible through four interconnected mechanisms integrated into the concept of transactive organizational learning (TOL): (1) modularization, which allows specialists of different domains to develop modules to a large extent independently of each other and to concentrate communication between themselves on the design of interfaces between modules; (2) storing of knowledge in artifacts instead of in organizational members' memories; (3) localization of knowledge not present in the project team but for which a need has arisen through transactive memory; and (4) knowledge integration by prototyping (i.e., by repeated testing of modules and of interactions between modules until a satisfactorily working end product is achieved). Although these four mechanisms reduce the need for cross‐learning between specialists of different domains, some common knowledge and some cross‐learning between the partners' specialists is still required. Case studies on four of SAP's strategic alliances for product innovation with different partners lend empirical support to this study's concept. The article concludes with implications for practice: Companies should find out whether the TOL mechanisms that reduce time to market are present, to what extent their potential is exploited, and how well they work together.     

Choice and performance of governance mechanisms: matching alliance governance to asset type

Formal and relational governance mechanisms are used in strategic alliances to coordinate resources and mitigate the risk of opportunistic behavior. While recent work has shown that these approaches are not mutually exclusive, we understand little about when one approach is superior to the other. Using data on the governance choices and subsequent performance of alliances in the German telecommunications industry, we find that the optimal configuration of formal and relational governance mechanisms depends on the assets involved in an alliance, with formal mechanisms best suited to property‐based assets and relational governance best suited to knowledge‐based assets. Furthermore, a mismatch between governance mechanisms and asset type can harm the performance of the alliance. Our findings contribute to transaction cost economics, the literature on relational governance, and recent work studying their interaction. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Agglomeration and the choice between acquisitions and alliances: An information economics perspective

Research summary : This research extends agglomeration theory by joining it with information economics research to better understand the determinants of firms' organizational governance choices. We argue that co‐location in a common geographic cluster fosters lower levels of information asymmetry between exchange partners and thus leads firms to employ acquisitions rather than alliances for their external corporate development activities. We further extend agglomeration theory by arguing that the impact of sharing a cluster location on acquisitions versus alliances strengthens with the level and dissimilarity of the exchange partners' knowledge‐based resources as well as with the intra‐cluster geographic proximity of the partners. Evidence from a sample of over 1,100 alliance and acquisition transactions in the U.S. semiconductor industry provides support for our hypotheses. Managerial summary : This paper investigates the role of geographical clustering for firms' external corporate development activities in acquisitions and alliances. We explain how better information is likely to be available among firms co‐located in the same cluster. This suggests that managers should have less need to use alliances over acquisitions as a means of reducing the risk of adverse selection (e.g., overpaying for acquisitions). Our investigation of over 1,100 transactions in the U.S. semiconductor industry shows that common cluster co‐location increases the probability of acquisition relative to alliance. Our arguments and evidence also indicate that the information‐related benefits of cluster co‐location are even more impactful when the parties have more divergent technology bases, possess larger stocks of knowledge‐based resources, or are located in closer geographic proximity. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Alliance portfolio diversity and firm performance

In this paper, we offer a comprehensive alliance portfolio diversity construct that includes partner, functional, and governance diversity. Grounding our work primarily with the resource‐ and dynamic capabilities‐based views, we argue that increased diversity in partners' industry, organizational, and national background will incur added complexity and coordination costs but will provide broadened resource and learning benefits. Increased functional diversity results in a more balanced portfolio of exploration and exploitation activities that expands the firm's knowledge base while increased governance diversity inhibits learning and routine building. Hypotheses were tested with alliance portfolio and performance data for 138 multinational firms in the global automobile industry during the twenty‐year period from 1985 to 2005. We found alliance portfolios with greater organizational and functional diversity and lower governance diversity were related to higher firm performance while industry diversity had a U‐shaped relationship with firm performance. We suggest firms manage their alliances with a portfolio perspective, seeking to maximize resource and learning benefits by collaborating with a variety of organizations in various value chain activities while minimizing managerial costs through a focused set of governance structures. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Alliance or Acquisition? A Mechanisms‐Based,Policy‐Capturing Analysis

Research summary : While alliance researchers view prior partner‐specific alliance experience as influencing firms' subsequent alliance or acquisition decisions, empirical evidence on the alliance versus acquisition decision is surprisingly mixed. We offer a reconciliation by proposing and testing an analytical framework that recognizes prior partner‐specific experiences as heterogeneous along three fundamental dimensions: partner‐specific trust, routines, and value certainty. This allows us to use a policy‐capturing methodology to rigorously operationalize and test our mechanism‐level predictions. We find that all three mechanisms can increase the likelihood of a subsequent alliance or acquisition, and in terms of the comparative choice between alliances versus acquisitions, partner‐specific trust pulls towards alliances, and value certainty pulls towards acquisitions. We conclude with a discussion of the theoretical and empirical implications of our approach and method . Managerial summary : This study focuses on an important corporate decision: When a firm has had an alliance with another firm, how would that experience affect the likelihood of a future alliance or acquisition with that same firm? We first suggest that it will depend on three factors: the level of trust that existed in that prior alliance, the extent to which specific work routines were developed, and the degree to which the firm was able to confidently assess the value of the partner firm's resources. We then find that trust is a particularly strong predictor of future alliances, while confidence regarding value more strongly predicts future acquisitions. In this way, we demonstrate more precisely how past corporate choices can affect (consciously or unconsciously) future ones . © 2017 The Authors. Strategic Management Journal Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.     

Boundary spanner relational behavior and inter-organizational control in supply chain relationships

Boundary spanner relational behavior is considered critical in the successful management of buyer–supplier relationships and may help avoiding high costs of more formal inter-organizational controls. Yet, the influence of partners' boundary spanners on effective supply chain collaboration has had much less inquiry than the influence of broader inter-organizational controls. We use survey data of 200 buyer–supplier relationships to examine how these individual and organizational control mechanisms influence the performance effects of interfirm collaborations that vary in scope of activities undertaken. Findings show that collaboration scope as well as boundary spanner relational behavior and inter-organizational controls are positively associated with performance. The effect of collaboration scope on firm performance, however, also depends on both mechanisms but in opposite directions: while its influence on performance is enhanced by inter-organizational controls, relational behavior of partners' boundary spanners has a negative moderating effect, indicating that such behavior contributes more to the effective management of collaborations of narrow scope than those of broader scope.     

Predicting and measuring alliance performance: a multidimensional analysis

The strategic alliance literature demonstrates that alliances create value for the partners, but also that many alliances fall short of expectations. This study addresses the complex issue of alliance performance. We follow 100 contractual alliances over a 5-year period, and study their performance in terms of abrupt termination, short-term performance, and long-term performance. The results indicate that alliances that are considered strategically important are less likely to be abruptly terminated. We also find that newly established alliances have a higher termination rate than older alliances. Short-term performance is primarily affected by access to complementary and strategically important resources, whereas long-term performance is related to specific investments in human capital combined with the partners' ability to develop and expand alliance activities over time. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Ties' repeatedness,partners' social value,and alliance portfolio performance in emerging economy: The moderating roles of firm-government linkages

Repeatedly collaborating with previous partners or following peers' decisions are two primary strategies employed by emerging economy firms in selecting their alliance partners. As a result, the alliance portfolios of firms often feature a high level of ties' repeatedness and partners' social value—the extensiveness of a firm's partners being selected by other players in the industry. However, few studies examine whether these two features can result in superior alliance portfolio performance. Leveraging data collected from 566 fund product distribution alliances initiated by 62 fund companies in a 5-year period (2007–2011), we find that ties' repeatedness does not significantly improve alliance portfolio performance. In fact, a high level of social value of the current partners produces a negative effect. However, firms' linkages to governments can change the performance consequences of these two features. As a category of formal government–firm linkages, state ownership improves the positive effect of ties' repeatedness on alliance portfolio performance, while it strengthens the negative effect of partners' social value. As a category of informal linkages, political ties weaken the positive effect of ties' repeatedness on alliance portfolio performance but cannot significantly alleviate the negative effect of the social value of current partners.     

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.     

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.     

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

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

R&D Cooperation,Partner Diversity,and Innovation Performance: An Empirical Analysis

Existing literature on research and development (R&D) alliances focuses on formation motives and performance impacts of these alliances but hardly on diversity of the partners' portfolio. Cooperation with a diverse set of partners leads to learning opportunities with regard to both cooperation and innovation skills and hence is expected to enhance the firm's innovation performance. This paper examines two research questions: (1) the impact of functional and geographical diversity of R&D partners on radical and incremental innovation performance of product innovating firms, and (2) the organizational determinants of partner diversity in R&D alliances. The empirical analysis is based on data from the Dutch Community Innovation Survey, R&D and Information and Communication Technology Surveys, and Production Statistics, which lead to a representative sample of 12,811 innovating firms in the period 1994–2006. Through random‐effects panel Tobit estimates, econometric models for both research questions are estimated. The results indicate that functional and geographical diversity act through different channels. Functional diversity leads to a variety of knowledge intake and synergetic effects necessary to develop and commercialize novel products. Geographical diversity results in successful adaption of existing products to different local requirements such as technical standards, market regulations, and customer preferences. The organizational determinants of both kinds of partner diversity are prior experience, patenting, and information technology infrastructure.     

Comparing the resource‐based and relational views: knowledge transfer and spillover in vertical alliances

We compare resource‐based and relational perspectives to examine competitive advantages within the context of vertical learning alliances. Previous research has shown that through such alliances suppliers acquire knowledge to forge new capabilities and attain performance improvements. We ask whether such improvements are exclusive to the learning partnership, or are available in other average partnerships of this supplier. We posit that the extent to which such performance improvements are partnership exclusive depends on whether the newly forged capabilities lie entirely within the supplier firm's boundaries, or at the learning dyad level. As such, we untie two forms of performance improvements arising from learning dyads. While the resource‐based view helps explain the performance gains learning suppliers deploy across average partners, the relational view reveals the additional performance edge that remains exclusive to the learning partnership. Based on empirical evidence from a survey of 253 suppliers to the equipment industry, we find that partnership exclusive performance (i.e., ‘relational performance’), the true source of learning dyads' competitive advantage, is a function of suppliers acquiring know‐how within the dyad, developing dyad‐specific assets and capabilities, and structuring buyer‐supplier relational governance mechanisms. We discuss implications for research and practice. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Strategic alliance contracts: dimensions and determinants of contractual complexity

In contrast to prior studies examining strategic alliances as discrete governance structures (e.g., alliances vs. M&A, equity vs. non‐equity agreements), we investigate their particular contractual features. The analysis examines the dimensionality of the contractual complexity construct and investigates the determinants of firms' adoption of various contractual provisions. We find two underlying dimensions of contractual complexity, based upon the enforcement and coordination functions of different contractual provisions. The evidence reveals that firms' usage of particular contractual provisions is a function of asset specificity as well as whether the alliance's duration is pre‐specified or open‐ended. The findings also speak to the debate surrounding the roles of prior ties and trust for alliance governance. Firms that have collaborated with each other in the past are not less likely to negotiate enforcement provisions; rather, repeat collaborators are less likely to adopt contractual provisions that are informational in nature and are geared to the coordination of the alliance. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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

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

Building capabilities to manage strategic alliances

Recently, academics have attributed a large part of alliance success to a firm's ability to successfully manage its alliances, also called its level of alliance management capability. We contribute to this growing body of literature by (1) verifying the impact of alliance management capability on alliance performance and (2) analyzing the drivers of alliance management capability. We measure this capability through four types of alliance learning processes and study how each of these processes affects alliance outcome. Furthermore, we take into account several possible drivers of alliance management capability such as organizational culture, commitment of the top team, alliance experience and the alliance function. We refine the results by examining how these factors affect each of the four learning processes underpinning alliance management capability. Our research model will be tested on a sample of 189 Belgian companies using PLS. We find that the commitment of the top management team is the most critical factor in explaining success with alliances.