UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN
Conditions determining the failure of
strategic alliances.
Joint master thesis
Lisa Holtjer, S2348330
l.j.e.holtjer@student.rug.nl
prof. dr. J. van der Meer-Kooistra
dr. K.J. McCarthy
MSc. Strategic Innovation and Management MSc. Organization and Management Control
Faculty of Economics and Business University of Groningen
1. ABSTRACT
In the literature, several reasons underlying alliance failure have been discussed. Often these reasons consist of alliance characteristics or are strongly related to them. This thesis aims to provide insight into which alliance characteristics can lead to the failure of a strategic alliance. A case study was done to uncover the reasons why the alliance observed failed. The alliance observed consisted of five companies in the construction sector, that aimed to introduce innovation in their sector, enhance the region of North-East Groningen and provide solutions for buildings to withstand the earthquakes in this region. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were held with representatives of all companies involved as well as with the two project leaders. Subsequently, a within-case analysis was performed. In doing so, this thesis contributes to literature by providing a clear overview of several characteristics that could lead to alliance failure. This research finds that governance, partner selection, risks of opportunism and interfirm rivalry can all play a role in the success or failure of alliances. However, a lack of commitment is identified as the crucial reason. It is interesting for managers to know what the underlying reasons of alliance failure are, such that they can manage alliances in a way that gives it the best chance of succeeding, thereby avoiding the negative consequences of failure.
2. INTRODUCTION
Companies are increasingly cooperating with each other as cooperative strategies become a trend in global markets (Russo & Cesarani, 2017). One way in which they do this is through establishing strategic alliances, which have become a more important source of growth and competitive advantage (Kale & Singh, 2009). A strategic alliance can be defined as a relationship between two or more firms, which involves exchange, sharing or co-development of resources, competences and capabilities, while the partner firms involved remain legally independent at the same time (Gulati, 1995). By establishing a strategic alliance, the companies involved become more or less interdependent of each other. This implies that they have to collaborate to achieve shared goals. It is widely known that this collaboration can be quite difficult. This also leads to that a substantial amount of alliances fail (Das & Bing-Sheng Teng, 2000).
There is much research stating that alliances are often instable and there are many theories that try to provide reasoning for this. However, there is still limited research available that provides clear, comprehensive reasons that determine the failure of alliances. A paper by Park and Ungson (2001) poses a theoretical framework that integrates multiple explanations of alliance failure determined in previous research. This framework is focused on interfirm rivalry and managerial complexity. Interfirm rivalry refers to the risk of opportunistic behaviour by partners, which can undermine the spirit of collaboration (Varma et al, 2015). However, it appears that there is still a need to develop theory regarding the failure of alliance further. There is a lack of a clear overview of the underlying causes of alliance failure (Russo & Cesarani, 2017). Thus, there is a gap in literature surrounding the investigation of characteristics that could possibly lead to alliance failure.
that dissolution may not be the best measure for alliance failure. Because this research considers the partner level in the alliance using a case study, dissolution will not be chosen as the measure for alliance failure. Rather this paper opts for a definition considering the achievement of individual goals of partners (Koot, 1988; Hamel et al., 1989; Hamel, 1991;). In this, the term alliance failure is very closely related to the definition of alliance instabilities which refers to major changes or dissolutions of alliances that are unplanned from the perspective of one or more partners (Inkpen and Beamish, 1997).
From a managerial standpoint being knowledgeable of characteristics that can lead to success, and failure of an alliance is imperative. It is shown by several researchers that more than half of all strategic alliances fail (Kale & Singh, 2009; Madhok et al., 2015; Linwei et al., 2015). Furthermore, it is also found that only few firms understand how to successfully manage alliances (Saebi, 2011; Duysters et al., 2011). However, if the characteristics that influence alliance failure are better understood by firms, this can contribute to the performance of the alliance. Alliance failure can have devastating effects to the partners involved. Several adverse effects to participants can occur. Research indicates that an involuntary loss of potential revenue and uncompensated transfer of rent-generating resources can be incurred (Hamel et al., 1989). Also, other unfavourable effects comprise operation difficulties and problems, disagreements, and loss of information. Furthermore, alliance failure is related to intangible negative results such as the loss of reputation (Park & Ungson, 2001). In this, it is thus very useful for managers to be aware of the characteristics that affect success and failure. By being aware of the characteristics that affect failure, they can manage their alliance in a way that will give it the highest chance of succeeding, thereby avoiding potential negative effects of failure.
Next to being relevant for managers, this thesis also aims to contribute to literature regarding the failure of alliances. As stated before, there still is a need to investigate the characteristics that influence alliance failure, as there is no clear overview of underlying reasons for alliance failure (Russo & Cesarani, 2017). This paper will investigate characteristics that can have an influence on alliance failure by investigating the case of an alliance in Groningen that has failed. Hereby, it contributes to literature in providing more clarity on characteristics that can lead to alliance failure.
This thesis will pursue a theory development approach and use a case study in order to answer the research question. In the next section, an overview of the available literature on the subject of strategic alliances is provided, as well as reasons for failure or success. Then, the methodology of this thesis is presented in a clear manner. Following this, results from the case study are discussed. Concluding the paper, a discussion and conclusion is given, after which limitations and future research are identified.
3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
In this section of the paper, literature that exists on the topic of strategic alliances, alliance failure, and characteristics that can lead to alliance failure or success are reviewed. First, strategic alliances and alliance failure are discussed. Following this section, the specific characteristics that can lead to alliance failure are reviewed.
3.1 Strategic alliances
While there are thus a lot of reasons and advantages related to forming strategic alliances, literature also shows that there are several issues and risks involved that can lead to the failure of an alliance. Even though alliances have become an increasingly popular way of doing business, also the failure rate of alliances has increased excessively (Das & Bing-Sheng Teng, 2000). Alliance failure can have detrimental effects to partner firms, such as loss of potential revenue and reputation (Hamel et al., 1989; Park & Ungson, 2001). Therefore, multiple studies have tried to identify characteristics that could influence the failure or success of an alliance (Park & Ungson, 2001). Below, several characteristics that can lead to alliance failure are discussed.
3.1.1 Opportunism
al., 2014). By specifying in contracts what is allowed, with sanctions for the violation of this allowed behaviour, complex contracts reduce the ability as well as the willingness of partners to act opportunistically (Parkhe, 1993). Besides formal control mechanisms, trust can be used as an informal way to control an alliance. It is found by many authors that trust is crucial for the success of an alliance, as it prevents opportunism by partners (Cullen, Johnson & Sakano, 2000; Varma et al., 2015; Madhok & van Looy, 2008). Trust can be seen as the soft side of strategic alliance management that is imperative for the success of alliances (Cullen, Johnson & Sakano, 2000). Kale et al. (2000) find that when firms build relation capital based on mutual trust between partners and an interaction at the individual level, not only alliance success in general is enhanced, but also organizational learning is encouraged, and opportunistic behaviour of partners can be restricted. The development of social capital enhances alliance success likelihood; it supports and fosters an effective alliance operation day-to-day, allows firms to increase productivity, lower costs and promote a sense of belonging among partners (Varma et al., 2015). There is a necessity for trust between partners in order to overcome opportunism and have smooth communications and exchange relationships. Researchers generally agree on the fact that relational governance is strongly associated with trust, and that this building of trust positively affects the performance of alliances (Zaheer and Venkatraman, 1995). Following the relational perspective, trust is an important informal governance mechanism to use in managing an alliance (Dyer & Singh, 1998; Faems, Janssens, Madhok & van Looy, 2008). When trust is present, there is likely to be a smaller perception of opportunistic hazards, which results in less need for costly and inflexible formal safeguarding mechanisms such as complex contracts as discussed above (Dyer & Singh, 1998). This is due to that trust provides alliance partners with a believe that knowledge and information shared in the alliance will be used for the greater good (Jones & George, 1998). Thus, a shortage of interfirm trust can lead to complexity, and it can seriously challenge the basis for successful alliances.
3.1.2 Partner characteristics
3.1.3 Commitment
Next to the characteristics of partners involved, also the level of commitment that the partners have is crucial to the success of a strategic alliance. Commitment in a strategic alliance concerns the intention of partners to continue in the relationship. It refers to the willingness of a firm to stay in the relationship and to put effort and resources in the relationship in order for it to succeed (Cullen, Johnson & Sakano, 2000). Commitment can be seen as either instrumental or attitudinal (Becker, 1960). Commitment to strategic alliances should have both the instrumental as the attitudinal bases present. Instrumental commitment is driven by evaluations and expectations about the potential of gaining rewards from the alliance. In this, there should be a positive benefit analysis involved. Next to this, partners should internalize the alliance and assume the alliance to be important. They should be willing to care for the alliance, leading to attitudinal commitment. Committed partners should be willing to dedicate resources and effort to the alliance to make it work. Moreover, there should be a match in the level of commitment between partners in order to make an alliance succeed (Swaminathan, 2008). If partners involved in an alliance demonstrate mutual commitment, the alliance will be based on a principle of fair exchange (Lane & Beamish, 1990). This principle of fair exchange refers to that all partners are convinced that they receive benefits from the alliance that are fair regarding their contribution. Mutual commitment can be seen as a sense of duty towards partners. It creates a sense of loyalty and cooperation and offers a basis for communication amongst partners (Muthusamy & White, 2005). Mutual commitment and the resulting norm of fair exchange and reciprocity can hold a relationship together and are thus crucial for the stability of an alliance. Besides this, as discussed before, trust is important in providing stability. Without feelings of trust and commitment, the risk of opportunistic behaviour is present, as partners could hold back important information or gain unfair advantages on the others (Gulati, 1995). The combination of the relational factors of mutual trust and commitment can help partner firms decrease the risk of opportunistic behaviour, as it leads partners to work together towards shared goals (Yang et al., 2011).
4. METHODOLOGY
The approach I would like to pursue in this thesis is theory development. The literature review shows that research presenting a comprehensive overview of characteristics that lead to alliance failure is still limited. Therefore, theory development will be an appropriate method to explore characteristics that may lead to alliance failure. This paper will investigate which characteristics may be underlying reasons for alliance failure by doing a case study.
4.1 Method data collection
Following a theory development approach, data will be collected by performing a case study. According to Eisenhardt (1989) selecting cases is a crucial step in building theory from cases. In this, it is important to select cases for specific reasons, not at random. In this research, a single case study will be done. This is done in order to ensure this case receives full attention and can be thoroughly understood (Yin, 2004). For my case study I will make use of one case of a strategic alliance, that was still in the formation stage when the alliance failed. This strategic alliance is formed by a group of small and big construction companies located in the Northern part of the Netherlands. This alliance is chosen for several reasons. First of all, this alliance is part of a project that I have been involved in since September 2016. This provides the benefit of extending the limited time span of half a year to a time period of almost a year. Secondly, the group of companies is very open to the involvement of students in the setting up of the alliance. Thus, this provides benefits in the form of open information and the ability to observing every step.
4.1.1 Case description
This section has been left out due to confidentiality agreements.
4.1.2 Data Collection
representatives from all companies, the project leaders, and RUG and Hanze teachers. The high potential group is composed of appointed employees from all companies and is supervised by the project leaders. By sitting in on meetings of both groups, more valuable data will be collected. The use of several sources of data will result in a stronger substantiation of constructs and propositions (Eisenhardt, 1989).
Data collection
Observations Role: Participants: Date of observation: High potential
meeting
High potentials, project leaders
February 1st, 2017
Managing group meeting
Company representatives, project leaders, Killian
McCarthy, Hanze
Representative
February 1st, 2017
High potential meeting
High potentials, project leaders
February 8th, 2017
Semi-structured interviews
Role: Background: Date of interview:
Alliance partner Former Director A May 10th, 2017 Alliance partner Director B May 10th, 2017 Alliance partner Director C May 18th, 2017 Alliance partner Director D May 15th, 2017 Alliance partner Director E May 22nd, 2017 Project leaders Project leaders May 30th, 2017 Table 2: Data collection
as possible. Reliability in research projects implies that the results of the study are independent of the specific characteristics of the study and they can therefore be replicated in another study (Swanborn, 1996). This means that potential biases relating to the researcher, the instruments, and the respondents should be controlled (Aken, Berend & Bij, 2012). Researcher bias will be controlled for by recording all the interviews held. This gives the researcher to possibility to listen to the interview several times and find all the relevant elements of the interview, and not just the ones that seem interesting in the first instance. To control for instruments biases, the research will make use of several research instruments, specifically in-depth interviews and several observation points. This triangulation can remedy the specific shortcomings and biases of these instruments by complementing and correcting each other (Aken, Berend & Bij, 2012). Controlling for respondents means that the research results should be independent of the respondents included in the study (Aken, Berend & Bij, 2012). This will be controlled for by interviewing at least one employee of every company involved in the alliance, as well as interviewing the external persons responsible for coordinating the alliance. Finally, construct validity, external validity and internal validity have to be guaranteed. Construct validity is the extent to which a measuring instrument actually measures what it is intended to measure and will be guaranteed by regularly evaluating measuring instruments and data collection techniques, as well as asking experts such as my supervisor for evaluation. Internal validity concerns conclusions about the relationships between phenomena that should be justified and complete (Aken, Berend & Bij, 2012). This will be assured through viewing the topic from different theoretical angles using theoretical triangulation. External validity refers to the generalizability of the study and will be enlarged by interviewing every company involved separately.
4.2 Method data analysis
5. RESULTS
In this result section, interesting insights from the data will be given from the within-case analysis. Additionally, patterns that are detected from the semi-structured interviews will be discussed. The reasons for the failure of the alliance are presented using illustrative evidence from the case interviews.
5.1 Opportunism
The risk of opportunism is a common hazard in strategic alliances (Williamson, 1973). In the alliance observed the results regarding opportunism are ambiguous. On one hand all partners emphasized that trust was clearly present and that all information was shared openly together.
“Things were discussed openly in the managing group” – Alliance partner C
“I felt like we all shared information openly in the group. And in my view that is also necessary in a project regarding innovation.” – Alliance partner D
As discussed before, control mechanisms are established based upon the perceived hazards by partners (Williamson, 1973). When trust is present, there is likely to be a smaller perception of opportunistic hazards, which results in less need for formal control mechanism (Dyer & Singh, 1998). The fact that in this alliance the partners stated that they trusted each other highly led to the fact that no contracts were established, as this was viewed unnecessary.
“What do I need with a contract? In the end it is all about the collaboration you have together.” – Alliance partner A
“In this industry, we don’t need to put everything down on paper. Once you promise someone something, it is agreed and you have to stick to your agreement.” – Alliance partner B
The only arrangements that were made by the group were agreed upon collectively. In the managing groups meetings, it was also discussed if partners did not stick to arrangements:
“If you dare to talk about issues openly and dare to put things up for discussion, then that will always work in your advantage. And of course that is not always nice, but we are all grown-ups, so we should be able to deal with it.” – Alliance partner A
“Yes as we say: a man is a man and a given word is a given word.” – Alliance partner A
Functional governance is critical in order to decrease opportunism and make an alliance a success. As discussed before, the group did not use formal mechanisms, but relied on the trust between partners. However, in the case at hand, the managing group was dysfunctional, as they failed in managing the group clearly. The project leaders did not know what was expected of them and were not given proper directions by the managing group that they could use in directing the high potential group.
“We have asked ourselves sometimes what our role exactly was.” – Project leader A
“It has been a struggle throughout the process to define our role.” – Project leader B
This dysfunctionality in governance led to less clarity for the project leaders as well as the high potentials, and it hampered progress. A better chosen governance structure could have structured the project in a clearer way.
“We needed much more support from the managing group.” – Project leader B
“We should have changed our governance model early on.” – Alliance partner A
“The difficult thing in this group was also that there wasn’t a real leader. Of course, someone was appointed as chairman, but there was no one that really dared to make decisions on how to proceed.” – Project leader B
This lack of good governance made the project leaders feel insecure about the role they had to fulfil. Also, it could be noticed that it was hard to make decisions, as there was no real leader in the group. Good governance is necessary in order to have a functional alliance that controls progress.
The project leaders also shared that they did not think there was trust present in the group. According to them, it was a big mistake that no contracts were made. They stated that the representatives did not trust each other enough, and expectations were not shared openly at all. Established contracts would have resulted in more clarity for the project leaders and the companies involved.
“I think everybody in the managing group has completely different expectations.” – Project leader A
“I think it would be good to put things on paper. The representatives talk a lot with each other, but they don’t really say what they mean, or you can see that they are not really listening to each other.” – Project leader B
“The managing group should have clearly made agreements on what they wanted and what they did not want.” – Project leader B
“Everybody just said what the others expected them to say, they didn’t dare to say everything they wanted face to face.” – Project leader A
From the interviews with partners also some comments were made that point in the direction of a risk of opportunism.
The partners emphasized clearly in their interviews that they trusted each other and were willing to talk openly and share information within the group. However, some also mentioned that they did see some risk within the collaboration. The project leaders felt like the men in the managing group were holding back and did not dare to say everything they wanted. Thus, an ambiguity in the presence of opportunism is observed.
5.2 Partners
As is frequently described in existing literature, fit between partners is crucial for the success of an alliance (Saxtion, 1997; Das & Teng, 2002; Park & Ungson, 2001; Russo & Cesarani, 2017). This fit between partners should be ensured in the partner selection process. As could be read in the theory section, several characteristics are important in this partner selection process. In the alliance observed there was virtually no partner selection, as it was at random that few people stayed behind and this formed the group. In this case, there were no characteristics taken into account in forming the alliance.
“At the end of the meeting some representatives of companies stayed behind. They all agreed that this project should actually be continued in some way. They formed the group and there were definitely no hard criteria to be part of the group.” - Alliance partner A
“The formation did not happen in a structured manner. It happened very spontaneous, out of the need to work with this initiative.” – Alliance partner C
While the partners did know each other and worked together before, which should have a positive effect in the short-term (Saxton, 1997).
“I knew every company already from previous collaborations. We have worked with every partner in several manners.” – Alliance partner E
the interviews it showed that the partners involved did not view the fact that they were competitors of each other as a problem.
“Apparently it is not even necessary to put arrangements on paper, even though you are working with competitors. Because everybody conformed and behaved reasonable, so I think that is pretty impressive.” – Alliance partner D
Thus, while interfirm rivalry can be detrimental to the success of an alliance, in the case observed this was not mentioned as a reason for failure. It showed from interviews and observations that competition between firms did not play a role. This was emphasized by all partners and subsequently confirmed by the project leaders.
The connection that the partners had beforehand was not enough to make the alliance a success. However, the partners in the group did not mention that the composition of the group was a problem for the alliance, and neither did the project leaders. In observations it also did not appear as though there were problems relating to partner characteristics in the collaboration. So, while the composition of the group could have been improved, the random formation was not mentioned as a key problem for the alliance. A possible explanation for this may be that the companies involved are quite similar in culture, size and procedures, which could have resulted in a good partner fit as discussed by Russo & Cesarani (2017).
5.3 Commitment
As can be read in the theory section, commitment can lead to the stability of an alliance through norms of fair exchange and reciprocity (Cullen, Johnson & Sakano, 2000). In this alliance, commitment was not present enough. This lack of commitment was clearly identified by the project leaders.
“I have been wondering, if it is already hard to put in a fairly small amount of money, what the commitment of the companies actually was.” – Project leader A
“I think the chairman should have forced more commitment from the other partners. He should have stated: these are the terms of the arrangements; you either stick to them or you are out.” – Project leader B
“We need way more commitment than there is now in order to be able to make the next step.” – Alliance partner A
Besides this, they stated that partners often did not stick to agreements made.
“Often partners did not do what they agreed upon in the last meeting.” – Project leader A
“We often noticed there were tensions within the managing group regarding partners not doing what they promised, but this was never talked about openly.” – Project leader B
Furthermore, the partners themselves also made statements that confirmed the commitment of the involved partners was fairly low.
“We only contributed some money and one person, so that is not a very big commitment.” – Alliance partner B
Besides this, it also showed in the meetings were observations were done that the commitment was low. Lengthy discussions were held about the input of small amounts of money, as well as about the input of hours by the high potentials who were assigned to the project. The fact that these discussions already existed regarding such small amounts of money indicates the low commitment of the partners.
furthermore contributed two high potentials to the project, while the other companies only provided one or even none. So, here a big difference in commitment between this company in specific and the other companies can already be observed. Next to this, a difference in commitment also appeared in the interviews held.
“I really do not think everyone had the same commitment to the project.” – Alliance partner C
“I think it is very strange some partners expected from us (the project leaders) and the rest of the partners to contribute more, while contributing little themselves.” – Project leader A
Logically, commitment is needed in projects like in this case in order to make the project a success. This is also posed in literature, as partners should be willing to dedicate resources and effort to an alliance in order to make the alliance succeed (Cullen, Johnson & Sakano, 2000). In the alliance observed there was an enormous lack of commitment, as most partners did not prioritize the project and were not willing to commit sufficient resources to it. This lack of commitment is thus a serious issue and it can be identified as the main reason for the failure of the alliance.
6. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION
In this section the research question will be answered. Furthermore, managerial implications as well as implications for research will be given.
The main research question of this paper was:
“Which alliance characteristics can lead to failure of a strategic alliance?”
between partners. As stated before, good governance is necessary such that the alliance is controlled and managed properly. In the case observed the governance was not optimal. Not only were the agreements made unclear, the project leaders felt unsure about their task, had the impression that they were not supported, and there was a lack of a clear leader in the group. Partly due to these governance problems, the group experienced trouble making progress. The project leaders also stated that according to them the trust within the managing group was not optimal. They mentioned that there were a lot of different expectations within the group, and the partners did not share them freely. Therefore, the effect of opportunism in this case is ambiguous, as the partners emphasized the presence of trust, but the project leaders did not share this view. To decrease opportunism also the governance of the alliance is imperative. In the case at hand, big problems were identified in the governance area.
Second, it is emphasized in current literature that partner selection is crucial for success (Lambe & Spekman, 1997; Swaminathan, 2008; Park and Ungson, 2001). In this alliance there was no partner selection, as the group was composed at random. The partners in the alliance did already know each other and some had worked together before. According to literature, this should at least have an initial positive effect. However, in this alliance, there was no positive or negative effect observed. The group could have benefitted from an improved composition, but according to the representatives from the companies involved the current formation of the group was not a crucial reason for failure of the alliance. A possible explanation for this may be that the partner fit, as defined by Russo & Cesarani (2017), was good, since most companies were similar to each other. Moreover, literature states that interfirm rivalry can play a role, as most alliances between competitors fail (Park & Russo, 1996). However, in the alliance observed interfirm rivalry was not the reason for failure. Partners emphasized that the competition between firms was completely irrelevant. The project leaders as well as observations done by the researcher confirmed this.
In conclusion, several characteristics can contribute to the failure of an alliance. As appeared from literature governance, partner selection, risks of opportunism and interfirm rivalry can all play a role in the success or failure of alliances. In the case observed the partner selection was at random, but this did not appear to be a problem. Also the presence of competitors within the group did not seem to be a key reason for failure. Problems were recognized mainly in the poorly chosen governance, and the enormous lack of commitment. However, the lack of commitment can be identified as truly being the detrimental characteristic. Problems were present in other elements as well, and they probably contributed to the failure. But, if partners were willing to put resources and effort into the alliance, the other problems that the group faced might have been solved.
6.1 Managerial implications
6.2 Theoretical implications
In current literature, several papers identify different reasons that can lead to the failure of alliances. Some authors have also tried to create integrative framework that combine multiple characteristics (Park and Ungson, 2001). However, there is still a need to develop literature regarding the failure of alliances further (Russo & Cesarani, 2017). This research tries to fill this gap in literature by doing a case study of a failed alliance. This thesis shows that several characteristics can be present in an alliance at the same time, that can all contribute to the failure of an alliance. However, some characteristics may be more detrimental then others. This research gives insights into the characteristics that can lead to alliance failure and provides evidence for the presence or lack of presence in the case at hand. The effect of these characteristics is subsequently analysed. The most important characteristic identified was the lack of commitment, which is a characteristic that has not been investigated extensively in literature. Therefore, this paper contributes to theory in putting the focus on an element that has not been examined extensively yet.
7. LIMITATIONS & FUTURE RESEARCH
This research has some limitations that provide opportunities for future research. In this research only one alliance case was analysed, which makes the generalizability of this paper rather limited. Research could benefit from examining multiple cases. This would be interesting because of the cross-case analysis that would then be possible. In my view, this cross-case analysis would be most interesting if the cases examined are similar in their failure, but also possess some differences. Differences that would be interesting are for example the amount of partners involved, or the initial goals set. Because of the investigation of multiple cases, it would be possible to generalize the findings of the research to more alliances.
Additionally, future research could benefit from having multiple researchers on the project. These researchers could then analyse the data independently and later revaluate their opinions on the data collected. This way, the data will be interpreted in an objective manner.
Lastly, as mentioned in the previous section, research regarding commitment of partners could be expanded. In this research the lack of commitment has been identified as detrimental, so further research could look into this further.
8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
REFERENCES
Aken, J., Berends, H., & Van der Bij, H. (2012). Problem solving in organizations: A methodological handbook for business and management students. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Anderson, S.W., Christ, M.H., Dekker, H.C., Sedatole, K.L. (2014). The Use of Management Controls to Mitigate Risk in Strategic Alliances: Field and Survey Evidence. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 26(1), 1-32.
Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. Basic books, New York.
Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology 66: 32–40.
Child, J., Faulkner, D., & Tallman, S. B. (2005). Cooperative strategy. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Cullen, J. B., Johnson, J. L., & Sakano, T. (2000). Success through commitment and trust: The soft side of strategic alliance management. Journal of World Business, 35(3), 223-240.
Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (2000). Instabilities of strategic alliances: An internal tensions perspective. Organization science, 11(1), 77-101.
Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (2002). The dynamics of alliance conditions in the alliance development process. Journal of management studies, 39(5), 725-746.
Dussauge, P., & Garrette, B. (1999). Cooperative strategy- Competing successfully through strategic alliances (p. 254). John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Dyer, J. H. and Nobeoka, K. (2000). ‘Creating and managing a high performance knowledge-sharing network: The Toyota case’. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 345–67
Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of management review, 23(4), 660-679.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of management review, 14(4), 532-550.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Schoonhoven, C. B. (1996). Resource-based view of strategic alliance formation: Strategic and social effects in entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science, 7(2), 136-150.
Ernst, D. (1993). Collaborating to compete: Using strategic alliances and acquisitions in the
global marketplace. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Faems, D., Janssens, M., Madhok, A. & van Looy, B. (2008). Toward an integrative perspective on alliance governance: connecting contract design, trust, dynamics, and contract application. Academy of Management Journal, 51(6), 1053-1078.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic management Journal, 17(2), 109-122.
Gulati, R. (1995). Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 85-112.
Hamel, G., Doz, Y. L., & Prahalad, C. K. (1989). Collaborate with your competitors and win. Harvard business review, 67(1), 133-139.
Hamel, G. (1991). Competition for competence and interpartner learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic management journal, 12(S1), 83-103.
Inkpen, A. C., & Beamish, P. W. (1997). Knowledge, bargaining power, and the instability of international joint ventures. Academy of management review, 22(1), 177-202.
Jiang, X., Bao, Y., Xie, Y., & Gao, S. (2016). Partner trustworthiness, knowledge flow in strategic
alliances, and firm competitiveness: A contingency perspective. Journal of Business Research, 69(2),
804-814.
Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 23, 531–546.
Kale, P., Singh, H., & Perlmutter, H. (2000). Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: Building relational capital. Strategic management journal, 21, 217-237.
Kale, P., & Singh, H. (2009). Managing strategic alliances: What do we know now, and where do we go from here. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(3), 45-62.
Kogut, B. (1988). Joint ventures: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Strategic
Management Journal 9, 319-332.
Koot, W. T. (1988). Underlying dilemmas in the management of international joint ventures. Cooperative strategies in international business, 347, 367.
Kumar, R. (2014). Managing ambiguity in strategic alliances. California Management review,
56 (4), 82-102.
Lambe CJ, Spekman RE. (1997). The bases of alliance- derived sustainable advantage: relationship and resources. American Marketing Association Winter Conference Proceedings 119–125.
Linwei, L., Feifei, J., Yunlong, P., & Nengqian J. (2017). Entrepreneurial orientation and strategic alliance success: The contingency role of relational factors. Journal of Business Research, 72, 46-56
Madhok, A., Keyhani, M., & Bossink, B. (2015). Understanding alliance: Adjustment costs and the economics of resource value. Strategic Organization, 13(2), 91-116.
Muthusamy, S. K., & White, M. A. (2005). Learning and knowledge transfer in strategic alliances: a social exchange view. Organization Studies, 26(3), 415-441
Park, S. H., M. Russo. (1996). When competition eclipses cooperation: An event history analysis of alliance failure. Management Science, 42, 875-890.
Park, S. H., & Ungson, G. R. (1997). The effect of national culture, organizational complementarity, and economic motivation on joint venture dissolution. Academy of Management Journal, 40(2), 279-307.
Park, S. H., & Ungson, G. R. (2001). Interfirm rivalry and managerial complexity: A conceptual framework of alliance failure. Organization science, 12(1), 37-53.
Parkhe, A. (1993). Strategic alliances structuring: A game theoretic and transaction cost examination of interfirm cooperation. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 794 – 829.
Pisano, G. P. (1989). Using equity participation to support exchange: Evidence from the biotechnology industry. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 5(1), 109-126.
Porter, M. (1987). From competitive advantage to corporate strategy. Harvard Business Review, 65, 43-59.
Ring, P. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1992). Structuring cooperative relationships between organizations. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 483–498.
Saebi, T. (2011). Succesfully managing alliance portfolios: An alliance capability view. Doctoral dissertation: Maastricht University.
Saxton, T. (1997). The effects of partner and relationship characteristics on alliance outcomes. Academy of management journal, 40(2), 443-461.
Shah, R. H., & Swaminathan, V. (2008). Factors influencing partner selection in strategic alliances: The moderating role of alliance context. Strategic Management Journal, 29(5), 471-494.
Swanborn, P. G. (1996). A common base for quality control criteria in quantitative and qualitative research. Quality and Quantity, 30(1), 19-35.
Teece, D. J. (1992). Competition, cooperation, and innovation: Organizational arrangements for regimes of rapid technological progress. Journal of economic behavior & organization, 18(1), 1-25.
Varma, S., Awasthy, R., Narain, K., & Nayyar, R. (2015). Cultural determinants of alliance management capability – an analysis of Japanese MNCs in India. Asia Pacific Business Review, 21(3), 424-448.
Vosselman, & Meer-Kooistra, v. d. (2009). Accounting for control and trust building in interfirm transactional relationships. Accounting, Organizations, and society, 267-283.
Williamson, O. E. (1973). Markets and hierarchies. American Economic Review 63(2), 316-325.
Williamson, O. E. (1991). Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 269–296.
Zaheer, A., & Venkatraman, N. (1995). Relational governance as an interorganizational strategy: An empirical test of the role of trust in economic exchange. Strategic management journal, 16(5), 373-392.
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Initial interview questions alliance partners
- How was the group formed? - Where there any selection criteria?
- Which information was used for the selection? - Are you satisfied with the formation of the group? - What is your opinion about adding partners?
- Do you think there are certain parties missing in the group?
- Do you think the fact that there are competing companies within the group had an effect? - How did you select the High Potentials?
- Were there certain criteria every company had when selecting the High potentials? - What is your opinion of the collaboration between the managing group?
- What is your impression of the collaboration between the High potentials? - Did you already know the partners involved?
- Had you already worked together with the partners involved before? - Were there any problems within the managing group?
- Where problems discussed openly in the managing group? - Did you feel like information was shared honestly?
- To what extent do you think expectations were shared in the group?
- To what extent do you think other partners actually did what they promise to do? - Which agreements were made?
- Why did you never create a contract?
- Do you think the fact that you never created a contract had an effect on the collaboration?
- Did the uncertain environment affect the project? - Which uncertainties are present in the project?
- What difficulties have you encountered in the collaboration?
- What do you think is the main reason for the stagnation in the project? - Are you satisfied with the progress that was made?
Appendix B: Initial interview questions project leaders
- How did you become involved in the project? - What was your role within the project? - Was your role clear from the start?
- Did you have any say in what your role would be? - Did you feel like your tasks were clear?
- What was your impression of the collaboration between the High potentials? - Why did the weekly meetings stop?
- What did you think of the partners that were in the managing group?
- What was your impression of the collaboration within the managing group?
- How was the relationship between you as project leaders and the managing group? - What do you think of the commitment of the partners?
- What do you think of the fact that there were no contracts made? - Do you think the next step will be taken?
