COOPERATING IN A STRATEGIC ALLIANCE, MAKE IT WORTH THE EFFORT More and more firms are engaging in alliances, but most of them are not able to be successful as an alliance. Hence, it is important to know what the determinants for a successful alliance are. A successful alliance starts with selecting the right partner(s). So what are the factors that a firm has to pay attention to when selecting an alliance partner?
A Research Paper for Pre-MSc
S3833739
2 1. Introduction
Since the 1980`s strategic alliances have been becoming an important matter for corporate
growth. Due to the growing globalization firms, struggle to maintain their competitive
advantages (Liu & Ye, 2018). A grand challenge that is related to this is the overthrowing of
small local firms by the large global firms due to the lack of competitive advantages (Rugraff
& Hansen, 2011). Amazon for example, with its wide range of products and fast delivery
worldwide, makes it difficult for small firms to compete (Kalt, 2018).
To overcome this issue, firms are cooperating in strategic alliances. In strategic
alliances resources are shared to gain competitive advantages, but firms keep their own
corporate identities (Baranov, 2013). Strategic alliances are seen as a strategic weapon for
competing within core markets and technologies (Liou, 2011). However, more than half of the
strategic alliances that are formed result in a failure (Witmann, 2017). For managers it is
important to know which factors ensure a successful alliance. Selecting the right strategic
partner(s) is the most critical factor for the success of a strategic alliance (Akhavan, Peyman
et al., 2015). Partnership selection is a difficult and complex process and several factors play a
role in it (Bierly & Gallagher, 2007; Liu & Ye, 2018), but as mentioned before it is a critical
step for obtaining success as a strategic alliance.
Prior research has focused on different partner selection factors for success. such as
trust, strategic fit and expediency (Bierly & Gallagher, 2007), resource complementary (Lin,
Yang and Arya, 2009) or learning and risk factors (Cummings & Holmberg, 2012). However,
so far we are lacking a comprehensive understanding of these factors combined. In other
words, how and if these factors influence each other in the partner selection process. As a
result, if factors that determine the selection of a partner are treated independently, there could
originate a misfit in the strategic alliance whereas looking at all the factors together could
3 factors determine the selection of a partner in a strategic alliance and what are the influences of these factors on each other?’
Since there has already been done a lot of research on this topic, the paper will be
conceptual of nature. This paper will review literature on factors that determine the choice of
a strategic partner in order to create new insights. If we look at the study of partner selection
in strategic alliances, there have already been several key findings. Looking at the hundreds of
articles related to this topic, it is not practicable to examine every aspect in detail. This paper
will only look at the factors that prior research considers most important. Furthermore, prior
research examines mostly the same factors, but use different synonyms. . Brouthers et al
(1995) for example, uses ‘compatible goals’ as a factor, whereas Bierly & Gallagher (2007) use ‘strategic fit’ as factor, while the two definitions are the same. To prevent this kind of overlap and to focus on the core factors according to the studies, the findings of this paper
will be divided between three core categories, which are stated as the most important factors
according to prior research (Bierly & Gallagher, 2007; Shah & Swaminathan, 2008; Spekman
& Hunt, 2002; Hitt et al. 2000; Cummings & Holmberg, 2012; Brouthers et al. 1995). These
factors/categories are: strategic fit, trust & expediency / resource complementary / learning-
and risk factors.
This research paper will contribute to managers who are interested in
forming/improving an alliance. The insights that this paper gives can help a firm with the
decision if it should form an alliance or not. Thus, this research paper contributes a lot on a
managerial perspective. Whereas on an academic perspective, it contributes to future research
on successive factors of forming/improving an alliance. This paper will give researchers
insights about how to take different factors into account to see if they are coherent.
4 2. Theoretical background
Strategic alliance
To be able to use the findings of this paper, it is important to understand the concepts
that are used. First of all what exactly is a strategic alliance? Tsang (1997) defines a strategic
alliance as a long-term cooperative arrangement between two or more independent firms that
engage in business activities for mutual economic gain. Gulati (1998) explains that the
arrangements that are mentioned above, involve exchange, sharing or co-development of
products, technologies or services. Additionally Mockler (1997) defines a strategic alliance as
agreements between partners to reach objectives of common interest. In this paper the
definition of Mockler will be used as it summarizes the other definitions.
As mentioned in the introduction there are several concepts that have to be taken in
consideration when engaging in a strategic alliance. The definitions of the concepts used in
this paper will be explained:
Strategic fit, expediency and trust
The strategic fit concept for choosing a partner basically consist of a rational way of
thinking whereby the firm evaluates different alternatives and chooses the most convenient
one. Hereby is it important that both firms` resources and capabilities produce synergies for
the alliance (Bierly & Gallagher, 2007).
Trust, uses the perception of a firm`s trustworthiness and the trustor’s willingness to trust
(Jha, Anand et al., 2019). The related strategic expediency concept is defined as the capability
to make important, rapid decisions within a framework that is bounded and simplified (Bierly
& Gallagher, 2007).
Resource complementary
According to Hunt and Morgan (1995) resources are available entities for the firm
produce a market offering with value for certain market segment(s). If partners firms have
5 (Hunt, Lambe & Wittmann, 2002). In other words, partner firms bring complementary
resources to an alliance to expand or complete their resource collection.
Learning- and risk factors
The learning and risk-factors that may influence a firm`s decision to engage in an
alliance. These consist of the learning issues to be addressed in an alliance and the risks which
6 3. Methods
To identify what factors determine the selection of partner in strategic alliance, a
systematic literature review will be conducted. A systematic literature review aims to provide
managers/academics with collective insights through theoretical synthesis in fields and
subfields (Tranfield et al., 2003). A systematic literature review can be conducted in several
ways. This paper will follow the structure of Meier (2011), as he goes through 6 stages to
provide a systematic and replicable literature review. However, the 6 stages that Meier
follows are not all relevant to this paper, in the 6th stage Meier assesses the search strategy. As
this not applicable for this paper for paper, because the search strategy is well-defined and
already assessed beforehand. This paper will only follow 5 out of 6 stages described by
Meier: (1) Key words, (2) Search strings (3) Journals, (4) Database and (5) Reviews of the
articles (Meier, 2011). The stages will be briefly explained:
(1) Key words: in this stage key words are used to find relevant information which may help
to answer the research question. 10 keywords have been identified to be useful: strategic fit,
strategic alliances, partner selection, trust, expediency, cooperation, determinants, learning-
and risk factors, resource complementary and commitment.
(2) Search strings: the keywords described in the previous stage have been combined to get
more specific and relevant information in order to answer the research question. Examples of
search strings are: ‘strategic alliance AND trust’, ‘strategic alliance AND expediency’, ‘partner selection AND resource complementary’.
(3) Journals: the search was limited to peer-reviewed journals, as these are considered to be
most reliable (Ayala, 2018). The articles that are reviewed are from a time period of 83 years,
7 the rationale of strategic technology partnering: Interorganizational modes of cooperation and
sectoral differences’ and Schoemaker (1933) – ‘Strategic decisions in organizations: Rational
and behavioral views’. These articles made it through the inclusion criteria of Tranfield et al. (2003), which will be briefly explained later, and are the articles with the oldest date that are
considered as useful.
(4) Database: Business Source Premier is used as main database. Information that could not
be found on BSP, was searched on Smartcat (provided by the university). These databases
lead to the mainly used JSTOR and Wiley.
(5) Reviews of the articles:
With the keywords, which are stated above, a lot of articles were found. Due the amount of
articles (76), only the abstract was quickly scanned. The, according to the abstract, useful
articles (40) were scanned more in depth by reading the introduction, theoretical section,
findings, discussion and conclusion. The methods sections of each paper has not been read
due to the irrelevant information and short timeframe. To see if articles were useful, the
exclusion method of Tranfield et al. (2003) was used. This exclusion method uses inclusion
and exclusion criteria to see if an article is useful. The inclusion criteria consists of that the
information in the article has to contribute to answering the research question and in that way
help to bring new insights in the study. Articles were excluded if the findings would not help
answering the research question. Besides, the findings that were considered as useful, were
divided between the categories mentioned in the introduction. They were put in the category
where they had the best fit with. In the process of reading these seemingly useful articles,
important findings, which could help with answering the research question, were coded with
8 expediency, fit and trust – yellow), (resource complementary – red) & (learning- and risk
factors – blue).
By using these codes it was easier to recognize patterns and to assess the different findings.
4. Findings
The findings of the 40 reviewed papers have been categorized, as mentioned in the
introduction, in three sections: (1) strategic fit, trust and expediency, (2) resource
complementary and (3) learning- and risk factors.
Strategic fit, trust and expediency (1)
According to Das & Rahman (2010) strategic fit in alliance is aligned with the goals of
both partners and Bierly & Gallagher (2007) state that strategic fit is a critical factor. If the
goals are incompatible, self-interest seeking may occur. Goals have to be compatible to ensure
that both partners can pursue them without hindering each other. Conflict is likely to happen
when the goals are incompatible. Cullen et al. (1995) observe, "Conflict erodes trust, increases
the potential for opportunistic behaviour, and reduces the likelihood of partners dedicating
necessary idiosyncratic assets to the relationship.” In addition, goal setting emphasizes the importance of establishing challenging and specific goals (Locke, 1996). Partners in strategic
firms would either prefer long-term or short-term goals. Aligning these is important for the
viability of the alliance (Das & Bing-Sheng, 1998). The starting point is to ensure that one`s
own interests are reflected in the official goals of the alliance (Geringer & Hebert, 1989).
Bierly & Gallagher (2007) mention that these goals may exist of gaining quick access to new
geographical- or product markets.
According to various scholars (Whipple & Frankel, 2000; Doz, 1996; Gulati, 1995;
Bierly & Gallagher, 2007) trust is seen as a key factor in the partner selection process. Trust
9 (Shah & Swaminathan, 2008). Therefore trust has been acknowledged as an important pillar
for governing and aligning an alliance (Anand & Khanna, 2000). Barney & Hansen (1994)
mention that, when there is trust between partners, it can reduce transaction costs and
uncertainties involved in information sharing and transfer. It is especially valuable, because
firms have to rely on their partners` performance, so they remain vulnerable to their partners’
actions (Geyskens et al., 1996). So the more the firm, the trustor, believes in the goodwill and
reliability of the other firm, the trustee, the more confidence and success in cooperation they
will have (Das & Bing-Sheng, 1998). Cullen et., al. (2000, p226) believe that trust is central for strategic alliances. They state: “no contract or other agreement, no matter how complete or detailed, can account for every issue or every contingency that might arise”. Secondly they
mention that firms differ in cultures, understandings and philosophies which makes trust an
important factor to rely on.
Bierly & Gallagher (2007) describe the importance of strategic expediency in the
partner selection process as: “the external time constraints associated with many industry
environments and the ability of managers to make high-quality, effective partner selection
decisions under these time pressure”. This bounded and rational way of decision making
however, increases the pursuing of own personal goals of managers, which may be
contradictory with the goals of the alliance (Schoemaker, 1933) and could cause mistrust.
When complete rationality is possible, trust is however not necessary (Krishnan, Martin &
Noorderhaven, 2006).
According to Walter et., al. (2010) information in alliances are mostly ambiguous, due
to both firms have different ways of thinking. Alliance managers have to make sense out of
10 Resource Complementary (2)
According to Achrol & Stern (1988) partners with complementary resources will have
better coordination within the alliance. Partners will also gain collaborative know-how and are
able to achieve higher value than either can achieve alone (Wu & Cavusgil, 2006). As
Brouthers, Brouthers & Wilkinson (1995) add that in the partner selection process,
complementarity is a critical element. Complementarity affects the extent to which the
abilities, activities and image orientations can be integrated successfully within the alliance.
Thus, as Shah & Swaminathan, (2008) state: “it can be argued that complementary skills and
resources are required under all alliance project contexts and therefore are a minimum
requirement for partnering.” Mainly due of the fact that firms can gain synergy advantages
from fusing complementary resources, which in their way help reach new markets and fill
gaps (Cummings & Holmberg, 2012). King, Covin & Hegarty (2003) complement the
advantage mentioned by Cummings & Holmberg (2012) with the statement that
complementary resources give the ability to firms to achieve greater specialization than when
acting by itself. Additionally, resource complementarity is categorized by the literature as the
‘resource-based view’ motivation for engaging in a strategic alliance (Linn & Darnall, 2015). The resource-based view focuses especially on the development or access to idiosyncratic
resources (Barney, 1991). Idiosyncratic resources are put together to develop competitive
advantages in the alliance (Prahalad & Hamel, 1990). Lambe, Spekman & Hunt (2002) state
that competitive advantages from idiosyncratic resources more likely will happen if the
degree of resource complementary is high. The results of their paper support the view that
complementary and idiosyncratic resources affect alliance success. Witmann et al. (2009)
complement this view as well by mentioning that the existence of complementary resources
alone is not enough, idiosyncratic resources have to be created to develop competitive
11 According to Linn & Darnall (2015) the resource-based view can be divided in two
notable motivations: (1) combining of complementary idiosyncratic resources (Hagedoorn,
1933) and (2) the ability to create organizational learning (Kogut, 1988). The purpose of the
first motivation, as already mentioned, is the creation of competitive advantages through
combining idiosyncratic resources. Both partners pool their resources, to develop valuable
organizational competencies (Das & Teng, 2000). The second motivation, ability to create
organizational learning, refers to the development of knowledge and insights (Fiol & Lyles,
1985). Sharma & Vredenburg (1998) mention that such learning involves that the firm
develops different interpretations of new and existing information, which in their way create
value for both partners in the alliance. This can also be seen as a learning factor.
Learning- and risk factors (3)
Das & Teng (1996) mention that risk and risk taking is associated with trust. Trust and
risk can be considered “mirror images” of each other (Das & Teng, 1998). Lewicki,
Tomlinson & Gillespie (2006) came up with the conclusion that risk taking leads to trust, and
trust leads to risk taking. So risk factors and trust are interrelated. Risk factors include the
willingness of a firm to make short-term sacrifices for the long-term goals, even when there is
uncertainty about whether the sacrifices will contribute to long-term success of the alliance
(Prashant & Harbir, 2009). Lewis & Weigert (1985) also mention that in order for trust to
occur, risk must exist.
According to Kale, Dyer & Singh (2002) learning factors are dependent on the firms`
ability to absorb and transfer knowledge within the alliance. Firms with high ability to absorb
and transfer knowledge within an alliance are more likely to learn and capture value from the
partner firm. Another factor that is involved is the degree of tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge
is more difficult to transfer or absorb (Kogut & Zander, 1993). Zollo (1998) mentions that
12 less ‘tacit’. A dedicated alliance function can play an important role in informing the market of new alliances (Kale, Dyer & Singh, 2002). According to Cullen et., al. (2000) tacit
knowledge is of frequent occurrence in alliances which are about technology. Sharing of
sensitive information is necessary to be able to learn from one another. Trust is involved in
this matter, as it ensures if a firm wants to share sensitive knowledge or not. For the alliance
to work smoothly and to enable learning, firms must de-emphasize formal contracts and
should build upon trust (Peterson & Shimada, 1978). Dodgson (1993) agrees and mentions
that trust allows firms to exchange technical and commercial information, which in their way
facilitate learning within the alliance. This learning factor, or knowledge content, impacts the
opportunistic behaviour in the alliance. If the learning factor grows within an alliance,
opportunistic behaviour is likely to decline (Mody, 1993). On top of that, Cummings &
Holmberg (2012) state that this learning factor and the risk factor have to be taken in
consideration when selecting an alliance partner, without a fit in these factors the alliance is
doomed to fail.
5. Discussion
The results of the findings show different factors which play a role in the partner
selection process of an alliance. At first, the results may look incoherent, but according to the
literature some factors do influence each other one way or another. In order to show which
factors are interrelated and how, the following framework has been created:
Figure 1: Conceptual framework
Strategic fit Risk factors
Strategic expediency Learning factors
13 As shown in the framework, strategic expediency influences both strategic fit and trust. The
bounded rationality of strategic expediency impacts the strategic fit. The bounded and rational
time pressure ensures that pursuing own goals, the self-interest, is more likely to happen
instead of pursuing the compatible goals between partners, the strategic fit. So the higher the
level of expediency in an alliance, the worse the overall fit will be between the partners.
For trust however, more expediency means that a lower level of trust is needed. According to
the literature, high rationality ensures that no trust is needed, because firms have enough time
to think about their decisions. This is somehow surprising, as one expects that trust is always
an important pillar in every situation. If we look at the other influences on factors, trust does
have an influence on learning- and risk factors. As mentioned in the findings, trust and risk can be considered ‘mirror-images’ of each other. An alliance build on trust would encourage both firms to take risk, which also means sharing sensitive information. This sharing of
sensitive information may help increasing the learning factor in an alliance. In other words,
trust is the start from which on risk taking is encouraged and as a result it may help increase
the learning factor in the alliance. This learning factor has a positive effect on the strategic fit
of an alliance, because it ensures that opportunistic behaviour is less attractive (Mody, 1993).
So far, learning factors influence almost all factors directly or indirectly. Complementary
resources however, are not influenced by learning factors, but influence learning factors
themselves. The pooling of complementary resources ensure that both partners are enabled to
learn from each other. Furthermore, a direct influence from a factor on strategic expediency
has, surprisingly, not been found. As mentioned before, the factors are all connected in one
14 6. Conclusion
This paper consists of a systematic literature review, which reviews 40 papers in order
to answer the following research question: Which factors determine the selection of a partner
in a strategic alliance and what are the influences of these factors on each other?’ A set of 6 key factors were found which determine the selection of a partner in a strategic alliance.
These were: strategic fit, expediency, trust, learning- & and risk factors and resource
complementary. Furthermore, connections between these factors were sought. Learning
factors is connected with strategic fit and trust. Whereas trust is also influenced by risk factors
and strategic expediency. Expediency is negatively connected with strategic fit. Resource
complementary on the other hand, has only a connection with learning factors. At the end we
can state that every factor is interrelated with another factor, directly or indirectly. A firm,
who wants to engage in an alliance, should consider this beforehand.
The results of this study suggest that managers/firms who want to engage in alliance,
have to consider the set of 6 key factors to examine if an alliance partner is attractive enough
to cooperate with. They should consider to which extend they focus on one factor instead of
another, as focussing on one factor (e.g.: trust) may influence the other (risk factors) and so
on. In other words, this study contributes to managers/firms considering to engage in or to
improve an alliance.
This study also contributes to the research focussing on partner selection in alliances,
as this study summarizes the core factors of prior research and the linkages between them.
This paper shows that the core factors are interrelated with each other and that future research
15 7. Limitations / Future research
As this paper only focusses on the 6 key factors for partner selection, it should be taken into
account that other minor factors, which are not considered as core factors according to prior
research, can influence the selection process as well. Equity for example, has not be taken into
account in this study, because prior research has not considered this as core factor. However,
equity can surely influence a firm`s decision in the partner selection process (Das & Teng,
1996). Which in their way, could influence the key factors as well. In this study, firms are
considered as equally large. While the size of the firm, may influence one`s perspective of a
factor. Smaller firms for example, value trust more than larger firms (Yang, Zheng & Zhao,
2013).
For future research, it would be interesting to find out which of the key factors are more
valued by small firms and which factors by larger firms. That information could provide an
addition to the framework created in this paper, because linkages between a small and large
firm may differ from two equally sized firms. Besides, it would help managers to decide
which factors they should pay more attention to and which not.
16 REFERENCES
*Achrol RS, Stern LW. (1988). Environmental determinants of decision making uncertainty in marketing channels. Journal of Marketing Research 25(1), 36-5
Akhavan, P., Barak, S., Maghsoudlou, H., Antuchevičienė, J. (2015). FQSPM-SWOT for strategic alliance planning and partner selection; case study in a holding car manufacturer company. Journal of Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 21(2), 165-185
*Anand BN, Khanna T. (2000). Do firms learn to create value? The case of alliances.
Strategic Management Journal, 21, 295-31
Anand, J., YoungJun, K., Gutierrez-Wirsching, S. (2019). Formation of cross-border corporate strategic alliances: The roles of trust and cultural, institutional, and geographical distances. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 21, 22-38
Ayala, Erin E. (2018). Invited Editorial: How to Prepare Theses and Dissertations for Publication in Peer-Reviewed Journals. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 23(4), 268-273
Baranov, E. (2013). Importance of Strategic Alliances in Company’s Activity. Management,
Economic Engineering in Agriculture & Rural Development, 13(1), 29–35
*Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
Management, 17, 99-120
*Barney, J. B., & Hansen, M. (1994). Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage.
Strategic Management Journal, 15, 175-190
*Bierly, P. E., Gallagher, S. (2007) Explaining Alliance Partner Selection: Fit, Trust and Strategic Expediency. Long Range Planning, 40(2), 134-153
*Brouthers, K. D., Brouthers, L. E., & Wilkinson, T. J. (1995). Strategic alliances: Choose your partners. Long Range Planning, 28(3), 2–25
*Cullen, J. B., Johnson, J. J., & Sakano, T. (1995). Japanese and local partner commitment to IJVs: Psychological consequences of outcomes and investments in the IJV relationship.
17 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. doi:10.1016/s1090-9516(00)00036-5
*Cummings, J. L., Holmberg, S. L. (2012) Best-fit Alliance Partners: The Use of Critical Success Factors in a Comprehensive Partner Selection Process. Long Range Planning, 45, 136-159.
*Das, T.K., Rahman, N. (2010). Determinants of Partner Opportunism in Strategic Alliances: A Conceptual Framework. Journal of Business & Psychology, 25(1), 55-74
*Das, T., & Teng, B. (1998). Between Trust and Control: Developing Confidence in Partner Cooperation in Alliances. The Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 491-512
*Das, T. K., & Teng, B.-S. (1996). RISK TYPES AND INTER-FIRM ALLIANCE STRUCTURES. Journal of Management Studies, 33(6), 827–843
*Das, T. K., & Teng, B. (2000). A resource-based theory of strategic alliances. Journal of
Management, 26, 31-6
*Dodgson M. (1993). Learning, trust, and technological collaboration. Human Relations, 46(1), 77 – 95
*Doz, Y. L. 1996. The evolution of cooperation in strategic alliances: Initial conditions or learning processes? Strategic Management Journal, 17: 55-83.
*Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational Learning. Academy of Management
Review, 10(4), 803–813.
*Geringer, J. M., & Hebert, L. (1989). Control and performance of international joint ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 20, 235-254
*Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., Scheer, L. K., & Kumar, N. (1996). The effects of trust and interdependence on relationship commitment: A trans-Atlantic study. International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(4), 303–317
*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
*Hagedoorn, J. (1993). Understanding the rationale of strategic technology partnering: Interorganizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences. Strategic Management
Journal, 14(5), 371-385
Hunt, S. D., Lambe, C. J., & Wittmann, C. M. (2002). A Theory and Model of Business Alliance Success. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 1(1), 17–35
18 Kalt, D. How Small Businesses Can Compete With Amazon This Holiday Season. (2018, August 27). Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkalt/2018/08/27/how-small-businesses-can-compete-with-amazon-this-holiday-season/#73cba85c5c30
*Kale, P., Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (2002). Alliance capability, stock market response, and long-term alliance success: the role of the alliance function. Strategic Management Journal, 23(8), 747–767
*King, D. R., Covin, J. G., & Hegarty, W. H. (2003). Complementary Resources and the Exploitation of Technological Innovations. Journal of Management, 29(4), 589–606
*Kogut, B. (1988). Joint ventures: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Strategic
Management Journal, 9(4), 319-332
*Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1993) ‘Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation’, Journal of International Business Studies 24(4): 625–646 *Krishnan, R., Martin, X., & Noorderhaven, N. G. (2006). When Does Trust Matter to Alliance Performance? Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 894–917
*Lewicki, R. J., Tomlinson, E. C., & Gillespie, N. (2006). Models of Interpersonal Trust Development: Theoretical Approaches, Empirical Evidence, and Future Directions. Journal
of Management, 32(6), 991–1022
*Lewis, D., and A. Weigert. (1985). “Trust a Social Reality.” Social Forces, 63(4): 967–85
*Lambe, C. J., Spekman, R. E., & Hunt, S. D. (2002). Alliance Competence, Resources, and Alliance Success: Conceptualization, Measurement, and Initial Test. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 30(2), 141–158
Long-Term Alliance Success: The Role of the Alliance Function. Strategic Management
Journal, 23(8), 747-767
*Locke, E. (1996). Motivation through conscious goal setting. Applied & Preventive
Psychology 5:117-124
*Lin, H., & Darnall, N. (2015). Strategic Alliance Formation and Structural Configuration.
Journal of Business Ethics, 127(3), 549-564
19 Liou, J. (2011). Developing an integrated model for the selection of strategic alliance partners in the airline industry. Knowledge Based Systems, 28, 59-67
Liu, G. & Ye, J. (2018). Intelligent selection of strategic alliance partners in automobile manufacturing industry based on DEA and grey system theory. Journal of Intelligent &
Fuzzy Systems, 35(3), 2685-2696
Meier, M. (2011). Knowledge Management in Strategic Alliances: A Review of Empirical
Evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 1-23
Mockler, R. J. (1997). Multinational strategic alliances: a manager`s perspective. Strategic
Change, 6(7), 391-405
*Mody, A. (1993). Learning through alliances. Journal of Economic Behavior &
Organization, 20(2), 151–170
Morgan, R. M., and Hunt S.D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58, 20-38
*Peterson, R. B. & Shimada, J. Y. (1978). Sources of management problems in Japanese-American joint ventures. Academy of Management Review, 2(3): 796– 804
*Prashant, K., & Harbir, S. (2009). Managing Strategic Alliances: What Do We Know Now,
and Where Do We Go From Here? Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(3), 45–62
Rugraff, E., & Hansen, M. (2011). Multinational corporations and local firms in emerging economies: An introduction. In Rugraff E. & Hansen M. (Eds.), Multinational Corporations and Local Firms in Emerging Economies (pp. 13-48). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt46n0w0.4
*Schoemaker, P. J. H. 1993. Strategic decisions in organizations: Rational and behavioral views. Journal of Management Studies, 30: 107-129
*Sharma, S., & Vredenburg, H. (1998). Proactive corporate environ mental strategy and the development of competitively valuable organizational capabilities. Strategic Management
Journal, 19, 729-753
20 Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing
evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic literature review. British
Journal of Management, 207-222.
Tsang, E. W. K. (1997). Motives for strategic alliance a resource-based perspective.
Scandinavian Journal of History. 14(3), 207-221
*Walter, J., Kellermanns, F. W., & Lechner, C. (2010). Decision Making Within and Between Organizations. Journal of Management, 38(5), 1582–1610
*Witmann, C. M. (2001). Business alliance success: the influence of alliance competence, idiosyncratic resources, and relational factors. Business Administration. Texas Tech University
Witmann, C.M. (2007). Strategic Alliances: What can we learn when they fail? Journal of
Business-to-Business Marketing, 14(3), 1-19
Witmann, C. M., Hunt, S. D., Arnett, D.B., (2009). Explaining alliance success: Competences, resources, relational factors, and resource-advantage theory. Industrial
Marketing Management, 38(7), 743-756
*Whipple, J. M., & Frankel, R. (2000). Strategic Alliance Success Factors. The Journal of
Supply Chain Management, 36(3), 21–28.
*Wu, F., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2006). Organizational learning, commitment, and joint value creation in interfirm relationships. Journal of Business Research, 59(1), 81–89
Yang, H., Zheng, Y., & Zhao, X. (2013). Exploration or exploitation? Small firms’ alliance strategies with large firms. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 146–157
Yongrea, C. & Youngwoo, L. (2016). The Use of IP Profiles in Selecting and Structuring R&D Alliances. Journal of Research-Technology Management, 59(2), 18-27
