Does peripheral knowledge complement control? An empirical test in technology outsourcing alliances

While the normative logic for forming technology outsourcing alliances is that such alliances allow outsourcing firms to specialize deeper in their domain of core competence without being distracted by noncore activities, recent empirical studies have reported the puzzling phenomenon of some firms continuing to invest in R&D in domains that are fully outsourced to specialized alliance partners. An underlying—and widely made—assertion that can potentially reconcile this contradiction is that ‘peripheral’ knowledge (specialized knowledge in the domain of outsourced activities) complements control in technology outsourcing alliances. However, this assertion is untested; and empirically testing it is the objective of this research study. Using data from 59 software services outsourcing alliances, we show that such peripheral knowledge and alliance control are imperfect complements: peripheral knowledge complements outcomes‐based formal control but not process‐based control. Thus, outsourcing firms might sometimes need knowledge outside their core domain because such knowledge facilitates effective alliance governance. Our theoretical elaboration and empirical testing of the assumed complementarities between peripheral knowledge and control in technology outsourcing alliances has significant implications for strategy theory and practice, which are also discussed. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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

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

Structural homophily or social asymmetry? The formation of alliances by poorly embedded firms

Recent research shows that preexisting network structure constrains the formation of new interorganizational alliances. Firms that are poorly embedded in a network structure are less likely than richly embedded firms to form alliances, because they lack informational and reputational benefits. This study examines the types of ties that poorly embedded firms can form to overcome the constraints that their structural positions impose, in turn helping to explain how firms' actions can transform existing network structures. We argue that poorly embedded firms are more likely to participate in ties characterized by social asymmetry than in ties characterized by structural homophily. We analyze the terms of trade that socially asymmetric partners negotiate for alliance governance and discuss how such alliances influence network dynamics. To test our arguments, we use longitudinal data on the alliance activities of 97 global chemical firms from 1979 to 1991. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Mitigating the Challenges of Partner Knowledge Diversity While Enhancing Research & Development (R&D) Alliance Performance: The Role of Alliance Governance Mechanisms

This article explores the answers to the following unresolved research question: How do firms mitigate the collaboration challenges associated with partner knowledge diversity and enhance alliance performance? The study provides an alliance performance enhancing framework by identifying two types of partner knowledge diversity: (1) technology base diversity and (2) R&D process experience diversity, and links them with R&D alliance performance. Additionally, the moderating effects of the two types of alliance governance mechanisms (i.e., interactive and contractual mechanisms) were examined to investigate which alliance governance mechanism is conducive to mitigate the collaboration challenges and enhance alliance performance. Using a data set of 316 alliances in the biopharmaceuticals industry, the study found that a moderate degree (not too low or high) of technology base diversity between alliance partners contributes more to R&D alliance performance. Similarly, there was also an inverted U-shaped relationship between R&D process experience diversity and alliance performance; too much diversity in R&D process experience may increase the likelihood of partner opportunism, and therefore negatively affect alliance performance. Additionally, the results showed that alliance governance mechanisms played different roles in alliance collaboration; while the contractual alliance mechanisms help reduce relational uncertainty (e.g., opportunism), the interactive mechanisms promoting a more intensive interaction between partners mitigates task difficulty and facilitates complex technology activities. These findings extend the knowledge-based view (KBV) of strategic alliance and advance research on alliance governance design.     

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.     

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.     

How Central Is Too Central? Organizing Interorganizational Collaboration Networks for Breakthrough Innovation

Firms increasingly look to collaboration with alliance partners in their quest for breakthrough innovation. But how does the position of a firm in its alliance network weighted by the centrality of its partners—a concept which we term “partner‐weighted alliance centrality”—and the heterogeneities in the types of partners that it cooperates with—in terms of its private‐public collaboration—influence this quest? Using longitudinal data from the U.S. pharmaceutical industry, we build alliance networks in the period 1985–2001 to investigate these questions. We show that, for breakthrough innovation, collaborating with more partners that are more central in alliance networks the better, but only to a point. Beyond that point, we find that the likelihood of achieving breakthrough innovation drops. Furthermore, and looking at the kinds of knowledge provided by the partners in each firm's alliances, we report that firms with a greater share of private partners, relative to public partners, suffer less from the diminishing benefits of collaboration with central partners when developing breakthrough innovation. Taken together, we make novel contributions about how to organize for breakthrough innovation, and provide actionable managerial advice in terms of selecting collaborative partners in alliance networks.     

Network patterns and competitive advantage before the emergence of a dominant design

This study examines the performance implications of the alliance networks of 49 firms that competed for two technology standards in the U.S. local area network industry from 1989 to 1996. During the race to define a dominant design, individual firms attract the suppliers of complements by building alliance networks to favor the firms' preferred technology standard. Controlling for the number of suppliers in each technology standard community and the extent of technical progress achieved by individual firms, the panel data analysis shows that central firms with high ego network density, coupled with a strategic intent to acquire and share knowledge broadly within the technological community, achieve better innovation performance. The size of the technological community and some random events in the early formation of the industry do not provide a sufficient explanation of how these firms gain the diverse support of suppliers or enhance their competitive advantage. By demonstrating the independent and contingent effects of alliance network properties, this study explains how network patterns might enhance or limit the benefits of alliance networks when focal firms embrace different innovation strategies. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Why and How Combining Strong and Weak Ties within a Single Interorganizational R&D Collaboration Outperforms Other Collaboration Structures

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate why and how an ambidextrous interorganizational R&D collaboration outperforms other collaboration structures in the creation of innovation. This research effort contributes to a growing stream of research in social network theory suggesting that the contradictory theories of the strength of weak ties and weak network structures on the one hand and the theory of strong ties and closed network structures on the other have a mutually reinforcing effect on innovation outcomes if combined rather than considered separately. An in‐depth exploratory single case study approach within an innovatively organized national R&D collaboration allowed giving further evidence for such a superior innovation performance and for this research to contribute to theory by demonstrating why and how such a combination may lead to higher innovation output and how this effect can be actively reinforced. It is suggested that the combination of strong and weak ties should occur at the individual rather than at the project or firm level. The authors distinguish between the additive effects of the respective innovation benefits of strong and weak ties, a positive interaction effect in the portfolio of dyadic ties of an individual and a second multilevel interaction effect of weak ties embedded in the ambidextrous network structure. Referring to previous empirical findings, intellectual property regulation and structural interdependency between network members showed a higher impact than trust with regard to leveraging weak ties and are important sources for achieving the multilevel interaction effect. Managerial implications of this research are that a large network will outperform several smaller, independent networks given that the right structure and processes are in place. Direct implications for the architecture of an ambidextrous R&D collaboration are discussed, and a framework for a new form of technology R&D collaboration called “semi‐open organization” is presented, which places itself between the extremes of traditional R&D in closed organizations and completely “open innovation” approaches.     

Strategic Value Assessment and Explorative Learning Opportunities with Customers

This study recognizes that collaboration with customers for new product development may bring important financial benefits to firms, but at the same time may seriously hamper explorative learning. Many firms are approached by customers with requests to develop new products for them. While such requests may strengthen customer relationships and result in short‐term financial gains, it may force a firm in technologically undesirable directions. As a result, many firms struggle with the dilemma of, on the one hand, responding to customer requests, and on the other hand, safeguarding the long‐term competitive position of the firm. Firms with strong customer ties are particularly prone to this dilemma. Drawing on opportunity recognition literature, capability monitoring literature as well as goal setting theory, the authors have developed a framework arguing that Strategic Value Assessment (SVA) can help resolve this. SVA is defined as an a priori business evaluation of the value of a particular innovation collaboration, based on anticipated long‐term strategic benefits. It helps innovative firms to focus on collaboration with customers with lead user status and to develop intense relationships, allowing for more effective knowledge transfer and learning. The framework is tested using data collected from a sample of 136 business‐to‐business firms in the Netherlands. The sampling frame was a panel of small and medium‐sized high‐tech enterprises. The study finds positive direct and indirect effects of SVA on explorative learning. In addition, the findings show that the intense collaboration/learning relationship is positively moderated by customer lead user status, and negatively moderated by customer dependence. The findings suggest that SVA is a useful heuristic for managers to utilize opportunities for innovation involving collaboration with customers.     

Alliance or acquisition? a dyadic perspective on interfirm resource combinations

For firms seeking to strategically combine their resources with those of other firms, two popular alternative governance structures emerge: alliance or acquisition. In this paper, we propose a dyadic perspective to examine how and why configurations of two firms' resources and capabilities affect the costs and benefits associated with each governance structure. More specifically, we posit that factors such as (1) the resource similarity and complementarity between a pair of firms, (2) the combined relational capabilities of a pair of firms, and (3) the partner‐specific knowledge between a pair of firms will affect the likelihood of observing that pair of firms forming an alliance vs. engaging in an acquisition. We test and find support for our hypotheses using extensive longitudinal data from a sample of the largest firms in the United States from 1991 to 2000. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

How to manage strategic alliances in OEM-based industrial clusters: Network embeddedness and formal governance mechanisms

The rapidly growing original equipment manufacturer (OEM)-based industrial clusters have been a prominent form of economic organization in several emerging Asian markets. Characterized by close interdependence and intertwined personal linkages, firms of Asian OEM-based industrial clusters participate in the phenomenon of strategic alliances. However, how these alliances can be effectively managed through formal governance mechanisms within embedded networks requires further investigation. This study uses social network analysis to identify personal, ownership, and technology networks in 141 semiconductor firms in an OEM-based industrial cluster in Taiwan that feature different types of OEM-led alliances and the prevalence of Guanxi. We find that relational embeddedness based on personal ties and structural embeddedness based on ownership ties support the employment of formal governance mechanisms. We also pay particular attention to the moderating role of network embeddedness in diminishing the relationship between transaction hazards and formal governance mechanisms. By identifying the embeddedness context in the governance of alliances, our research contributes to a better understanding of the ways in which formal governance mechanisms are contingent on the network embeddedness of OEM-based industrial clusters in Taiwan and other similar Asian economies.     

Stepping across for social approval: Ties to independent foundations' boards after financial restatement

Research Summary: Integrating research on independent philanthropy and organizational misconduct, we argue that affiliations with independent foundations provide social approval benefits for firms that restate their financials. We use a panel of S&P 500 companies from 2004 to 2011 to investigate the addition of foundation board ties by restating firms. CEOs of restating firms add more new foundation board ties than CEOs of non‐restating firms, while existing corporate philanthropy and greater corporate reputation diminish this effect. We also find that new ties to foundations boards influences media tenor for restating firms more than it does for non‐restating peers. Our study offers a nuanced analysis of the post‐crisis actions of restating firms relative to non‐restating peers and highlights the relevance of ties to nonprofit boards for corporate governance. Managerial Summary: Firms oftentimes fire their top executives in the aftermath of misconduct, but such response is itself disruptive for the firm's operations. Instead, we suggest that forging ties to independent foundations can help firms in such contexts without unsettling effects. Our results show that, after a restatement event, CEOs of misconduct firms are especially likely to join new foundation boards as trustees and thus seem to be aware of the benefits of these associations. CEOs from firms with existing in‐house philanthropy or a high reputation do not join as many new foundations' boards of trustees. We also find that new firm‐foundation links are promptly and positively evaluated by the media, thus helping misconduct firms regain social approval.     

Designing alliance networks: the influence of network position,environmental change,and strategy on firm performance

Alliance networks are strategic decisions involving trade‐offs between two stylized structural design choices: prominent and entrepreneurial. Prominent alliance networks emphasize benefits arising out of multiple access and affiliation to other prominent firms in the network. An entrepreneurial position, on the other hand, emphasizes brokerage and diversity benefits arising out of access to nonredundant and diverse information. We demonstrate that the performance benefits of each type of alliance network are contingent on environmental change and strategy, and are thus time dependent. Following an environmental change event in the steel industry, alliance networks that were more entrepreneurial performed better, while those that were more prominent suffered performance decline. However, when the change was radical, both types of alliance networks were negatively related to performance. We suggest that following a radical change, industry alliance networks may not have the requisite information necessary for quick and effective strategic responses. Firms pursuing an analyzer strategy performed better when emphasizing a prominent, and to a lesser extent, entrepreneurial alliance network. However, firms that develop an alliance network high on both prominent and entrepreneurial structural positions had lower relative performance. Our results indicate the need for managers to assess their alliance portfolio over time and redesign it based on environmental and strategic contingencies. Copyright © 2008 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.     

Testing a model of reasoned risk‐taking: governance,the experience of principals and agents,and global strategy in high‐technology IPO firms

Research on the governance of risky ventures, like the initial public offerings (IPOs) of high‐technology firms, has focused primarily on the relationship between governance mechanisms and firm performance. While such an emphasis is clearly important, it does little to shed light on potential relationships between governance and the strategies pursued by risky firms, nor does it take into account the complementary role of key stakeholders in affecting those strategies. To partially remedy this deficit we integrate agency and behavioral perspectives to develop a theory of ‘reasoned risk‐taking,’ whereby the nature of risks undertaken is a consequence of the interaction of governance mechanisms and stakeholder characteristics. We demonstrate our theory by predicting when corporate governance should be associated with strategic risk‐seeking beyond a firm's technical core—as seen in the degree to which it has expanded internationally. Surprisingly, even though venture capitalists (VC) are risk specialists, we find that technology‐based IPO firms are less likely (i.e., a negative relationship) to have extensive global sales when they are backed by a VC. In support of our reasoned risk‐taking theoretical framework, we find that VCs are indeed risk‐seeking when VC backing is complemented by the international experience of their board appointees, top management team (TMT) members, or both. IPO firms with significant insider ownership are similarly global risk‐seekers, and those effects are strongest with an internationally seasoned board and TMT at the helm. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

核心能力的构成维度及其特性

核心能力由文化、制度、技术、管理等四个维度构成，其中绝大部分具有“方法性”特征的隐性知识，具有难于仿制的、暗默的、集体共有的、深植的以及整合的特点。核心能力的技术、文化、制度、管理等构成维度的双重潜在性决定了核心能力同时也可能是核心刚性，核心刚性以范式刚性与能力惰性形式表现出来。中国企业核心能力的培育应从四个方面切入：在企业制度维度层面构建有效、科学的企业治理结构，是企业形成核心能力的前提；加强技术维度创新，致力于建立自主技术开发能力，并适时地变换渐进性创新及突破性创新两种模式以完成核心能力的培育与再造；塑造以创新、变革为基本内核的企业文化，并不断进行企业文化的创新与变革；加强管理维度的创新，对企业内外部的资源、知识、能力进行整合和协同，实现制度、技术、文化维度之间的相辅相成。     

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

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

Managerial Ties and Firm Innovation: Is Knowledge Creation a Missing Link?

Managerial ties, the personal networks of senior managers, have been found to be facilitators of firm performance because of their network benefits. However, social network theory suggests that managerial ties only play a “conduit” role by providing possibilities and opportunities to approach external resources. How can firms turn these possibilities and opportunities into internal knowledge assets and further transform them into firm innovation? Extant research constructs a direct mechanism for the managerial ties–firm innovation link. The research reported here, however, provides and investigates an indirect ties‐innovation argument where organizational knowledge creation processes, including knowledge exchange and knowledge combination, are mediators. And managerial ties are examined through two traditional dimensions, business ties and political ties. This study employs empirical data from 270 firms in China and uses structural equation modeling techniques to reveal interesting findings. First, the results support the key argument that the influence of managerial ties on firm innovation is indirect. Second, knowledge exchange and knowledge combination are different constructs and the former positively influences the latter. More interestingly, business ties can exert a significant direct impact on both knowledge exchange and knowledge combination, while political ties can only influence knowledge exchange directly. Although both knowledge exchange and knowledge combination impact product innovation directly, only knowledge combination can directly influence process innovation. These findings indicate that the role of political ties is declining, but business ties still have substantial influence on firm innovation in transitional China. Different processes of organizational knowledge creation, such as knowledge exchange and knowledge combination, make distinct contributions to firm innovation. Product innovation, as opposed to process innovation, is more externally oriented and needs more organizational level knowledge creation activities. This article extends the understanding of the ties–innovation link, organizational knowledge creation theory, and firm innovation in a transitional economy by providing a more complete understanding of how firms can access and internalize external resources and then transform them into product innovation and process innovation.