If you want to beat them,
(how to) join them?
A masterthesis on how to
manage interorganizational
relationships and the changes
Masterthesis MscBA, specialization Change Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Management and Organization1
November 1st, 2008 MARTIJN REINDERS Studentnummer 1385216 Wortmanstraat 312 8265 AM Kampen Tel: +31 (0) 628408879 Email: reindersmartijn@hotmail.com Supervisor/ university Drs. L. de Waal2 Supervisor/ field of study
Mr. M. Vencken2 GC Solutions, Nijmegen
1
Acknowledgments: I would like to thank all respondents of various organizations for cooperating and providing all the information necessary for writing this Master Thesis.
2
ABSTRACT
High failure rates illustrate that it is unclear how to manage interorganizational relationship. We know very little about how to manage these interorganizational relationships. In order to shed new light on the topic of managing IOR s I conducted a survey, in order of GC Solutions3, among 190 firms which have more than 50 employees. Furthermore I conducted 10 in-depth interviews with organizations that have an interorganizational relationship. The rationale for forming an IOR was analyzed, but this thesis did not find a relationship between the rationale for forming an interorganizational relationship and the effectiveness of the relationship. With regard to managing the interorganizational relationship this thesis provides useful insights in how this is usually done, but I was not able to find a significant relationship between the structure, systems, strategy, style, shared values, staff and skills of effective and ineffective interorganizational relationships. The way in which an interorganizational relationship manages changes was analyzed by assessing the colour perspective of the relationships as they are described by De Caluwé. The green perspective is most popular among IOR, but the cooperating firms of an IOR do not need to have the same change perspective in order to be effective.
KEY WORDS: INTERORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS;
MANAGING CHANGES; RATIONALE FOR IOR FORMATION; McKINSEY 7S MODEL
3
A consulting company in Nijmegen where I have had an internship from February untill November 2008. Gc Solutions is specialized in organizational and management development.
Martijn Reinders
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: THEORY ...6
1.2 Problems in Interorganizational Relationships...7
1.3 The rationale for forming an Interorganizational Relationship: ...7
1.3.1 Transaction cost economics...8
1.3.2 Resource based theory...8
1.3.3 Social exchange theory ...8
1.3.4 Relationship between the perspectives ...9
1.2 Managing Interorganizational Relationships...11
1.2.1 Structure ...11 1.2.2 Design of Systems ...12 1.2.3 Strategy ...13 1.2.4 Style/Shared Values ...13 1.2.5 Staff/Skills ...15 1.3 Managing Change...15 1.3.1 Yellow perspective ...16 1.3.2 Blue perspective...16 1.3.3 Red perspective...16 1.3.4 Green perspective ...16 1.3.5 White perspective...17 CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY ...18 CHAPTER 3: RESULTS ...19
3.1 Problems in Interorganizational relationships ...19
3.2 The rationale for forming an Interorganizational Relationship ...21
3.3 Managing interorganizational relationships. ...23
The rapid technological developments, increasing international competition and the globalisation of markets lead to companies that concentrate on those activities in which they are good at in order to survive in this environment, this requires interorganizational relationships(IOR s) among organizations. (Nooteboom, 1998:19) These relationships can exist in many different forms; strategic alliances, inter-firm networks and joint ventures are just a few examples of different forms of cooperation. Interorganizational relationships often fail however, according to Bamford, Ernst and Fubini (2004) only 53% of the interorganizational relationships have a result that exceeds the costs of capital. Barringer & Harrison (2002) come to similar failure rates, although they do not take the costs of capital to determine the effectiveness of a relationship, they take the extent to which the expectations that the participants had of the interorganizational relationships, to determine the effectiveness of a relationship. A recent three-year study interviewing over 150 experienced alliance managers across a broad set of industries confirm "an inability of partners to work effectively" as the most important cause of alliance failure. (Ertel, 2001) These high failure rates illustrate that it is unclear how to manage the cooperation of firms. We know very little about how to manage these interorganizational relationships. (Goerzen, 2005) While interorganizational relationships have the potential to enhance a firm s performance, doing so is challenging because of the difficulty in managing these changes for the organization. Ireland, Hitt and Vaidyanath (2002) state that for various reasons, managing interorganizational relationships to achieve or maintain a competitive advantage and enhance the firm s performance is an important issue warranting further research. This master thesis will satisfy in the demand for further research on managing interorganizational relationships. It will provide an insight in how to manage IOR s effectively. This will be done with the help of Waterman Peters & Phillips (1980) who have created a framework for organizational thought. Their 7S framework is well known in the field of change management because it is used by senior managers to have a better understanding of the forces at work in their firms and to be more in command of the levers of organizational change. This paper assumes that the 7 variables that form a framework for organizational thought are also the variables of interorganizational thought. And where Waterman et al. (1980) give an insight in how those variables play a role in an organization, this thesis hopes to provide an insight in how those variables can play a role in an interorganizational relationship. When senior managers have a better insight in the variables that are at work in their interorganizational relationship they will be better in command when they wish to make changes in the relationship.
CHAPTER 1: THEORY
Interorganizational relationships are the relatively enduring transactions, flows, and linkages that occur among or between an organization and one or more organizations in its environment. (Oliver, 1990) This definition of interorganizational relationships is rather broad, therefore this thesis will only focus on those interorganizational relationships that require at least a moderate level of integration and formalization. Todeva & Knoke (2005) present in figure 1 a classification of 13 basic forms of interorganizational relationships appearing in the theoretical and research literature. The authors distinguish between the relationships in order of increasing integration and formalization in the governance of the interorganizational relationship. At the top of the list one firm takes full control, and absorbs the assets and personnel of another firm into a unitary enterprise. This relationship requires the highest level of integration and formalization. At the bottom of the list the firms who are cooperating have no obligation for recurrent cooperation, coordination, or collaboration among the anonymous exchanging parties.
Between the dotted lines in figure 1 the forms of interorganizational relationship that will be under research in this thesis can be found. Mergers and acquisitions are excluded from this research, because this thesis focuses on managing interorganizational relationships. In the case of mergers and acquisitions the goal is to integrate the organizations into one organization. It can be imagined that this requires different capabilities from a firm. The line is drawn between strategic cooperative agreements and franchising because this thesis will only focus on those interorganizational relationships that require at least a moderate level of integration and formalization. The 12 remaining interorganizational relationships are therefore split by half and the upper half will be under research.
As I have already stated in the opening section, this thesis wants to provide an insight in how to manage IOR s effectively, therefore the main research question this thesis wishes to answer is:
How should interorganizational relationships be managed effectively?
FIGURE 1: CLASSIFICATION OF BASIC FORMS OF INTERORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS
High level of
Integration/formalization
Hierarchical relations (mergers & acquisitions) Joint ventures
Equity investments Cooperatives R&D consortia Cartels
Strategic cooperative agreements Franchising
Licensing
Subcontractor networks Industry standard groups Action sets
Market relations
Low level of
Integration/formalization
1.1 Problems in Interorganizational Relationships
Before I will introduce the research questions about how to manage an IOR, I am interested in the opinion of the firms that have an IOR. Particularly which problems they experienced during their IOR. Therefore the first research question (RQ) will be.
RQ1: Which problems do interorganizational relationships experience, according to the organizations that have an IOR?
1.2 The rationale for forming an Interorganizational Relationship:
Factors influencing interorganizational relationship formation have received considerable scholarly attention (Gulati, 1998). Different theories are used to derive theoretical rationales for alliance formation. According to Duane Ireland4, the three major theories that explain the rationale for interorganizational relationship formation are: Transaction Cost Economics, Resource Based Theory & Social Exchange Theory (Ireland, Hitt, Vaidyanath, 2002)
4
1.2.1 Transaction cost economics
According to Nooteboom (1998:31) transaction cost economics has two propositions; the first proposition is the bounded rationality principle. This principle means that rationality is bounded because there is always a lack of information regarding the environment, and there is a lack of ability to process that information. The second proposition is that people can behave opportunistically and it cannot be assessed whether behaviour will be opportunistic or not. The TCE paradigm states that the decisions that a firm undertakes when making transactions is only dependent on the level of costs of this transaction (Barringer & Harrison, 2000). The relationship between TCE and interorganizational relationships is that an interorganizational relationship can be the best way to bypass inefficient transactions. If production costs are high, markets are inefficient, and acquisitions can yield spill-over costs. In such a situation an interorganizational relationship might be the most efficient alternative (de Ridder, 2007). An interorganizational relationship is one way to avoid the costs of opportunism through ownership incentives and through the assumption that all partners have an interest in maintaining the relationship. An IOR also permit firms to create new strengths for example by sharing in the use of technologies they could never afford to explore alone.
1.2.2 Resource based theory
The resource based theory considers the firm as a bundle of resources. A firm can only have the potential of a sustainable competitive advantage when its resources have four attributes: (1) it must be valuable, (2) it must be rare among a firm s current and potential competition, (3) it must be imperfectly imitable and (4) there cannot be strategically equivalent substitutes for this resource that are valuable but neither rare or imperfectly imitable. (Barney, 1991) The resource based theory can be extended to interorganizational relationships by arguing that resources provide both the needs and the opportunities for interorganizational relationships. (Eisenhardt & Schoonhoven, 1996) According to Das and Teng (2000) the overall rationale for entering into an IOR appears fairly simple. It is to aggregate, share, or exchange valuable resources with other firms when these resource cannot be efficiently obtained through market exchanges or mergers and acquisitions. It is about creating the most value out of one s existing resources by combining these with other s resources, provided, of course, that this combination results in optimal returns.
1.2.3 Social exchange theory
substitutes, the bargaining power of buyers, the bargaining power of suppliers, and the rivalry among the existing competitors. The five forces determine industry profitability because they influence the prices, costs, and required investment of firms in an industry. A firm should analyze the forces that are present in its industry, and based on that analysis it should make the right strategic choices to gain a successful competitive position in the market. One way to gain a successful competitive position in the market is through an interorganizational relationship. Firms use an interorganizational relationship for example to deter entry for other firms, (Kogut, 1988) or to gain entry to new markets (Hagedoorn, 1993)
1.2.4 Relationship between the perspectives
Many authors have been critical to TCE because of its focus on efficiency and cost-minimizing. Alliances may be formed for other reasons, such as learning and legitimacy. Therefore the resource-based theory is introduced by Ireland et al. (2002). The resource-resource-based theory compensates for this weakness of transaction cost economics by looking at the value-creating benefits of an interorganizational relationship. (Tsang, 2000) However also the resource based theory has several limitations, Barringer and Harrison (2000) provide three limitations for the resource based theory. Firstly it does not explain why organizations might pursue other strategies besides forming interorganizational relationships to satisfy perceived resource deficiencies. Secondly it only states that an organization should interact with others to obtain resources, but it does not state how to do this, and thirdly the theory does not shed much light on how organizational competencies are developed. Transaction cost economics and the resource based theory state that the formation of interorganizational relationships is only done by an organization to minimize transaction costs or to have superior resources. They seem to neglect the fact that an organization operates in its environment and that the competitive positioning of an organization can also have influence on the competitiveness of an organization. The social exchange theory fills this gap in the transaction cost economics and resource based theory. A major disadvantage of the social exchange theory however, is that it is very broad. Motivations arising from the other paradigms in this section can be incorporated into the social exchange theory. While breadth can be strength, it is also a great weakness. Furthermore the research involving the strategic choice perspective and interorganizational relationships is fragmented, and very few conclusions have been validated. (Barringer & Harrison, 2000)
This explanation of the relationships between the paradigms leaves us to the conclusion that while each paradigm is useful, each paradigm on its own is also insufficient to explain the majority of interorganizational relationship formation. Therefore these three paradigms can be seen as complementary to another.
the goals that organizations had with the formation of a strategic alliance. These researches mention many reasons for forming van IOR, all agree for example that access to technology and a complementary partner resource contribution are reasons for forming an IOR, while only one research states that integrating the companies operations is a reason for forming an IOR. For the convenience of this research I will only use those reasons for forming an IOR that have the support of at least 3 researches. Those reasons are presented in Table 2 on page 22. Behind each reason it is mentioned whether this a Transaction Cost Economic (TCE) reason, a Resource-Based (RB) reason or a social exchange (SE) reason. A perspective is considered as being dominant when reasons that belong to that perspective are mentioned most.
Now we have explained these three major theories regarding the rationale for interorganizational relationship formation we can elaborate on its implications. It sounds plausible to assume that an IOR that is mainly formed because of reasons that relate to transaction costs economics, is managed differently that an IOR than is mainly formed because of reasons that relate to the social exchange theory. It can be imagined for example that a relationship to achieve economies of scale requires different management than a relationship that is formed to compete against a common competitor. With the following sub question this thesis hopes to confirm this assumption.
RQ2a: To what extent does the reason for forming an interorganizational relationship have an influence on how the relationship is managed?
According to Lajara, Lillo & Sempere (2002) the way in which the IOR is managed has a relationship with the failure rate of the IOR. Therefore it is plausible to assume that the failure rate of an IOR also depends on the management of an IOR. How an IOR can be managed will be elaborated on in the next section, where the 7S model of Waterman et al. (1980) will be introduced. For now it is sufficient to know that the way in which the IOR is managed has a relationship with the failure rate of the IOR, as stated by Lajara et al. (2002). If the former sub question can confirm that the reason for forming an IOR has an influence on how this relationship is managed and if the way in which the IOR is managed has an influence on the failure rate of the IOR (Lajara et al., 2002) then it might be interesting to research whether the reason for forming an IOR has an influence on its failure rate. This hypothesis will be thesis with the following sub question.
1.3 Managing Interorganizational Relationships
Peters & Waterman catapulted to international fame when they wrote the book In search of Excellence:
Lessons from America s Best-Run Companies, (1982) which is the best-selling management book of all
time. The origins of the book lie in a major study of the determinants of organisational excellence, which Peters and Waterman carried out when working for McKinsey and Company. (Burnes 2005: 88) Two years earlier Waterman, Peters and Phillips (1980) wrote an article in which they state that every organization is a unique blend of seven identifiable variables, and that these variables describe a framework that can help senior executives to have a better understanding of the forces at work in their organization. In this article I assume that the same variables should be understood and managed in an interorganizational relationship. While their framework is developed to manage organizations and to change organizations, I will use their framework to research the management of interorganizational relationships. I do not make the assumption that managing the relationships in one organization is the same as managing the relationships between several organizations, but I do make the assumption that the same seven variables are important in both managing one organization and in managing several organizations. The rationale for this assumption lies in the idea that when you blend organizations which have the same variables, the blend can be different but the variables as such remain the same. The seven variables of Waterman et al. (1980) are: Structure, Systems, Strategy, Staff, Style, Skills, and Shared Values. The next section will deal with each variable separately. Regularly other scholars are used to research a variable in order to make the sub question more specific and measurable; the use of these scholars must be seen as being complementary to Waterman et al. (1980).
1.3.1 Structure
According to Waterman et al. (1980) the basic theory underlying structure is simple. Structure divides tasks and then provides coordination. I will research how the structure of an effective interorganizational relationship looks like and I will do this with the help of Daft (2004:86) According to Daft there are three key components in the definition of organizational structure:
Organization structure designates formal reporting relationships, including the number of level in the hierarchy and the span of control of managers and supervisors
Organization structure identifies the grouping together of individuals into departments and of departments into the total organization
Organization structure includes the design of systems to ensure effective communication, coordination, and integration of effort across departments.
With regard to managing interorganizational relationships I wish to extend the component of the formal reporting relationship to the span of control that the individual organizations have over the relationship. Do all organizations of the relationship have an equal share in decision making? Or is there one organization in the relationship that has a dominant formal position in decision making? Having a relationship with one dominant partner can have the benefit of making decisions fast and effective while in situations where each firms have an equal share this can lead to slowness and frustration in making decisions. Killing, (1982) however states that, while in theory it might be better to form an interorganizational relationship with a dominant partner, in practice this might not be an option. Often an organization that invests resources in a relationship, also wants to have influence in managing the relationship. This raises the following sub question:
RQ3a: To what extent does the nature of decision-making (either shared or dominant) influence the effectiveness of the management of IOR?)
Groupings of individuals results into levels of hierarchy. Organizations differ in the number of levels in the hierarchy. Organizations with more levels of hierarchy tend have a higher level of hierarchical control. Such hierarchical controls assert control by fiat, enable monitoring, and align incentives. (Gulati, 1998) Organizational scholars who prefer a high degree of hierarchical control state that is an effective response to concerns which originate from contracting hazards and behavioural uncertainty at the time of their formation. Organizational scholars who prefer a low degree of hierarchical control place emphasis on the fact that cooperating firms are embedded in a social network that enhances trust between firms. These opposing views on the degree of hierarchical control, makes it very interesting to research what view is most effective in managing interorganizational relationships. These views lead to the following sub question:
RQ3b: To what extent does the degree of hierarchical control influence the effectiveness of the management of IOR?
1.3.2 Design of Systems
information raises the question to what extent organizational systems need to be aligned in order manage interorganizational relationships effectively. This leads to the following sub questions:
RQ3c: What systems need to be aligned between the cooperating firms in order to manage an interorganizational relationship effectively?
1.3.3 Strategy
By strategy Waterman et al. (1980) mean those actions that a firm plans in response to or in anticipation of changes in its external environment, its customers, and its competitors. Broadly speaking an organization has, in varying degrees, two ways in which it can approach other firms; to compete or to cooperate. The difficult question for a firm is which one to choose? To meet the pressure for cooperation, firms must actually become part of a broader team , spinning a web of close collaborative relationships. But to meet the pressure for competition, firms must not become too entangled in restrictive relationships, but rather remain free to manoeuvre, bargain and attack, with the intention of securing their own interest. (De Wit & Meyer, 2004) Obviously the organizations that will be researched in this thesis have already chosen the strategy to anticipate on the environment, namely by forming interorganizational relationships. But not all organizations that have formed an interorganizational relationship have the same perspective on cooperating with other firms. De Wit and Meyer (2004) describe two different perspectives that an organization can have on cooperating with other firms; the discrete organization perspective and the embedded organization perspective.
The discrete organization perspective assumes that interorganizational relationships are largely competitive and governed by power and calculation. Forming interorganizational relationships is in this view competition in a different form. Each organization tries to learn as much as possible from the other, while attempting to limit the partner s access to it knowledge and skills. Porter (1985) and Doz and Hamel (1998) are proponents of this perspective.
The embedded organization perspective states that business isn t war but about value creation. Creating value brings organizations together to a common goal, as they can achieve more by working together than by behaving independent. In general, most organizations have a stronger interest in increasing the size of the pie, than deciding who gets what.
It can be very interesting to research how effective interorganizational relationships view their relationship. Therefore this thesis will research the following sub question
RQ3d: Do effective interorganizational relationships have a discrete organization perspective on interorganizational relationship or do they have an embedded organization perspective?
1.3.4 Style/Shared Values
relationships. Does the organizational culture have an influence on the effectiveness of the interorganizational relationship? This paper sees organizational culture as a fairly stable taken for granted (set of) assumptions, meanings and values that form a kind of backdrop for action. (Smircich, 1985: in Cooper and Cartwright, 1992) Many authors state that organization culture can be defined in various types of culture, Burnes (2005: 173) give examples of Deal and Kennedy, Quinn and McGrath, Handy and Hofstede. I will use one such cultural assessment to assess the culture within an organization. Quinn and Cameron (2000) describe four organizational cultures: the family culture, the adhocracy culture, the hierarchy culture and the market culture.
The family culture can be characterised by participation, consensus and concern for others. Such an organization is held together by loyalty or tradition. Success is defined in terms of sensitivity to customers and concern for people. (Quinn and Cameron, 2000)
The adhocracy culture can be characterised as risk-oriented, value driven and with charismatic leaders. It is a dynamic, entrepreneurial, and creative place to work. Success means gaining unique and new products or services. (Quinn and Cameron, 2000)
The hierarchy culture can be characterised by hierarchical, rule based authority that values stability and risk avoidance. Success is defined in terms of dependable delivery, smooth scheduling, and low cost. (Quinn and Cameron, 2000)
The market culture can be characterised by rational decision-making and goal-oriented employees. Success is defined in terms of market share and market penetration. (Quinn and Cameron, 2000)
This thesis wants to research whether one culture is more effective in managing interorganizational relationships. Therefore the sub question that will be researched is:
RQ3e: Is there an organizational culture as described by Quinn and Cameron (Family Culture, Adhocracy Culture, Hierarchy Culture and the Market Culture) that is more effective for managing interorganizational relationships than other organizational cultures?
Shared values is another variable that Waterman et al. (1980) describe. Shared values contribute to organizational effectiveness. With regard to interorganizational relationships it is interesting to see whether this also applies to interorganizational relationships. As above described by Smirchich shared values are an element of culture and therefore I have put these variables together. Once we have classified the organizations into the typology of Quinn & Cameron we can research whether organizations that have the same culture, are more effective in managing the interorganizational relationship?
1.3.5 Staff/Skills
With the staff in the organization Waterman et al. (1980) mean all the employees in the organization. According to Waterman et al. (1980) the people in the organization can be seen as a pool of resources to be developed, guarded and allocated. Also with regard to the skills variable Waterman et al. (1980) focus very much on the development of the organization. Organizations frequently need new skills to face big discontinuities in business conditions. This view of Waterman et al. (1980), which focuses on the developing, guarding and allocating staff, resembles the resource based theory as described before, because by doing all these activities an organization hopes to improve the quality of her staff and skills, which is are important resources.
So it is about the development, guarding and allocating of staff. The development of the staff is more or less the same as the skills variable of the Seven S Model, because Waterman et al. (1980) mean with the skills variable especially the development of new skills as being important. According to Lajara, Lillo and Sempere (2002) two of these 3 elements are often problematic in the context of interorganizational relationships. These two elements are (1) The allocation of people to interorganizational relationship and (2) The guarding of employees to remain loyal to your organization because problems can arise related to loyalty between the firm and the interorganizational relationship. Together with the element of the development of the staff this leads us to the following sub question regarding the staff variable of the seven S model.
RQ3g: How should an interorganizational relationship manage the assignment of people in order to manage the interorganizational relationship effectively?
RQ3h: How should an interorganizational relationship manage the problems related to loyalty between the firm and the interorganizational relationship in order to manage the interorganizational relationship effectively?
RQ3i: How should an interorganizational relationship manage the development of the staff and skills in order to manage the interorganizational relationship effectively?
1.4 Managing Change
research and publications. De Caluwé5 et al. (1999) have integrated all these different perspectives into five families of change theories, each labelled by a colour.
1.4.1 Yellow perspective
This perspective is based on socio-political concepts about organizations, in which interests, conflicts and power play important roles. According to the yellow print perspective, change will only succeed if all important stakeholders are committed to support the change. It assumes that stakeholders will only change if their own interests are taken into account. A change will fail if it does not have the support of all, or at least most of the key players. A major pitfall of the yellow perspective is that major power struggles also can be destructive for an organization. The colour yellow can be thought of as the colour of power, because of symbols like the sun and fire are used to illustrate power. (De Caluwé et al., 2004)
1.4.2Blue perspective
This perspective can be characterized by its rational design and implementation of the change. The Scientific Management approach of Taylor is a well-known example. The assumption of this perspective is that people change when the results of the change is made clear beforehand. Detailed planning is very important, and also control over the results is crucial for this perspective. A major pitfall of the blue perspective is that irrational and external aspects are ignored. The colour blue represents the type of blueprint (architectural) design that is drawn up beforehand. (De Caluwé et al., 2004)
1.4.3 Red perspective
This perspective assumes that people and organizations will change when change is made attractive for them. Mayo s Hawthorne experiments are a good example of this perspective. Stimulating and inspiring people to change is important, just as caring about people and give them personal attention. People will change in response to formal and informal rewards or sanctions. Good communications is crucial for managers to sell visions and to manage expectations. Avoiding conflict and ignore political games a pitfalls for this perspective. The red colour refers to the colour of blood, as people must be influenced, tempted and stimulated for change to succeed. (De Caluwé et al., 2004)
1.4.4 Green perspective
People change when they learn is the assumption that the green perspective makes. People should be motivated to find out the limits of their competences. Particularly learning is thought to be effective in collective settings. Senge s learning organizations is an example of the green perspective. Ignoring the fact that not everybody is willing of capable to learn is a major pitfall of this perspective. The green colour refers the idea of growth , as in nature (de Caluwé et al., 2004)
5
1.4.5 White perspective
The last perspective is more or less the opposite of the blue perspective which was very deterministic. The white perspective on the contrary state that change is nourished by chaos, network and complexity theory. Self-organization is a core concept of this perspective, people can change when there is the energy to change and complexity is seen as an enriching, rather then a disruptive element of organizational life. The colour white reflects the association with openness and spaciousness because this perspective encourages self-organization and evolution. (De Caluwé et al., 2004)
These five perspectives provide the base for some very interesting research questions. It would be very interesting to research whether there is one change perspective that is the most effective for managing changes in an IOR, depending on the rationale for the formation of the relationship.
Another point of interest is that de Caluwé and Vermaak (2001) distinguish between how organizations and managers think about change, and how they act during changes. Thinking and acting on change should be in congruence, but this is often not the case. An important cause for this incongruence is that people in the organization are not capable to act like they wish they would act. They lack the required capabilities to manage change in an organization. This master thesis wants to elaborate on the distinction between thinking and acting on change by trying to confirm the statement of de Caluwé and Vermaak that thinking and acting on change should incongruence for and organizations to be effective. A last question regarding the 5 different change perspectives would be to research whether the cooperating organizations should have the same change perspective in order to have an effective relationship.
RQ4a: What organizational perspective is most effective for managing the change in an IOR?
RQ4b: Should an organization s thinking about change resemble the organization s acting on change in order to effective in an interorganizational relationship?
RQ4c: Should an organization s change perspective resemble the change perspective of the cooperating organization(s) for an interorganizational relationship to be effective?
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY
The research has been conducted amongst Dutch firms that have over 50 employees. In the Netherlands there are around 26,000 firms which have over 50 employees (CBS). I have chosen this classification because according to the European Union this is the definition of medium sized and large firms. The interorganizational relationships of firms smaller than 50 employees are not under research because those relationships are considered to be insignificant for research.
The data collection was done by sending 377 firms in the Netherlands (31 per province) a letter with the request to fill in a survey on the internet. These letters were addressed to those in the organization who are responsible for the interorganizational relationship. These firms were selected at random from an AD HOC data list. The survey was available on the following website: www.enqueteviainternet.nl /samenwerkingsverbanden. The firms could fill in the survey from July 10th to August 18th. Furthermore a follow up email was sent to improve the response rate. In another attempt to stimulate more firms to fill the survey on the internet an additional 4234 firms with more than 50 employees were send an email with the request to fill in the survey. Advantages of this type of survey is that is cheap to hold many surveys, it can provide access to people who might otherwise by inaccessible and it provide people more time for consideration than surveying by phone and it provides anonymity. (Cooper & Schindler, 2003) Two major limitation of an internet survey is that is cannot probe deeply into topics and that is has a high nonresponse rate. (Cooper & Schindler, 2003) The problem of the high nonresponse rate of an internet survey was tried to tackle by sending many emails and 377 firms were sent a letter, because this would probably increase the response rate. The problem that an internet survey cannot probe deeply into topics was tackled by holding personal interviews with 9 firms who have filled in the internet survey. These interviews were held on location and served to provide more in depth insight in the results of the email survey, which is the major advantage of a personal interview. (Cooper & Schindler, 2003) The interviews were also used to provide anecdotes for this thesis. On the survey form there was an option to fill in your telephone number if you were interested in an interview. In this way the interviews were arranged. A list of the interviewed people and their firms can be found in appendix A.
In order to determine the organizational culture and change perspectives I used the same questions as Quinn and Cameron (2000) and de Caluwé (2004) do in their book to determine culture and change perspective.
A total of 190 firms filled in the questionnaire completely. No significant differences were observed between the responding firms and the total populations of firms with more than 50 employees in the Netherlands (see FIGURE 2).
FIGURE 2: COMPARISON BETWEEN THE TARGET POPULATION AND THE SURVEY POPULATION WITH REGARD TO THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 50-1 00 e mpl oyee s 10 0-150 em ploy ees 15 0-200 em ploy ees 20 0-250 em ploy ees 25 0-500 em ploy ees 50 0-1000 em ploy ees 1000 -200 0 em ploy ees mor e th an 2 000 em ploy ees percentage target population percentage respondents
answered this question. Subsequently those 35 firms were called with the request whether I could send them an e-mail with the questions of Quinn & Cameron and de Caluwé. 10 firms answered these questions, which is a response rate of 29%.
CHAPTER 3: RESULTS
From all 190 organizations, 115 (61%) organizations have an interorganizational relationship with one or more organizations. In figure 3 an overview of the distribution of the different types of IOR s is presented. 59 (55%) of the firms that have an IOR stated that their IOR did meet or even exceed the initials goals of the IOR. 48 (45%) firms did not fully meet the initials goals of the IOR. No results where to be found whether these figures are representative for all organizations who have an IOR.
3.1 Problems in Interorganizational relationships
In research question 1 the question was asked: Which problems do interorganizational relationships
experience, according to the organizations that have an IOR?. The answer to this question is presented
TABLE 1: PROBLEMS THAT IOR S HAVE EXPERIENCED Problems that IOR s have experienced Number Percentage
Did not experience any problems 33 20%
Short term experience 5 3%
Limited experience 6 4%
Unclear goals 8 5%
Ineffective handling of conflicts 7 4%
Cultural differences 36 22%
Fear of losing autonomy 16 10%
Fear of losing customers 7 4%
Communication problems 24 14%
Misunderstanding 10 6%
One-sided orientation( on finance, operations, etcetera) 9 5%
Other problems 6 4%
FIGURE 3: DISTRIBUTION OF IOR'S
3.2 The rationale for forming an Interorganizational Relationship
With regard to the rationale for forming an IOR 2 questions were asked: RQ2a To what extent does the
reason for forming an interorganizational relationship have an influence on how the relationship is managed? And RQ2b: Does the reason for forming an interorganizational relationship have an influence on the failure rate of the relationship?
In table 2 the results of the survey about the reasons for forming an IOR are presented. Behind each reason is stated whether this reason belongs to the Transaction Cost Economic (TCE) paradigm, the Resource-Based (RB) paradigm or the Social Exchange (SE) paradigm. As already stated before the different paradigms are on their own insufficient to explain the majority of IOR formation. This can also be said about the IOR s in this survey because almost none of the respondents mentioned reasons that belong solely to one paradigm. As can be seen in table 2 reasons for forming an IOR that are mentioned most are: (1) Exploit economies of scale, (2) Gain presence in a new market, (3) Risk sharing and (3) Capabilities to provide quality products & services.
In order to find the dominant paradigm for the formation of the IOR, the reasons that belong to a paradigm were counted and the paradigm that was mentioned most was considered to be the dominant perspective. 31 (24%) IOR s have the TCE paradigm as the most dominant paradigm, 60 (46%) IOR s have the RB paradigm as the most dominant paradigm and 39 (30%) IOR s have the SE paradigm as the most dominant paradigm. In research question 2a I asked whether there is a relationship between the paradigms and the way in which the IOR s were managed. This relationship was analyzed by looking whether there was a significant relationship between the 3 paradigms and (1) the autonomy of the IOR, (2) dominant or shared decision-making in the IOR, (3) the monitoring from the owners of the IOR s, (4)the hierarchy in the IOR, (5) their view on cooperation (de Wit & Meijer, 2004), (6) the adaption of several systems, (7) policy on the placement of people on the relationship and (8) policy on the prevention of loyalty problems in the relationship. None of the above mentioned characteristics of an interorganizational relationship had a significant relationship with one of the paradigms. Therefore it can be concluded that the reason for forming an interorganizational relationship does not have an influence on how the relationship is managed. In research question 2b I asked whether the reason for forming an IOR has an influence on its failure rate. In figure 4 it can be found how many IOR s of each paradigm did meet or even exceed the initial goals of the relationship and how many IOR s did not, or not fully, meet the initial goals of the relationship. The resource based theory appears to be more successful then the others paradigms but statistically there is no evidence of a relationship between the paradigms and the degree to which the initial goals of the IOR are met cannot be proven. Because, with the help of the Chi-squared test of a contingency table, it can be calculated that the test statistic of
TABLE 2: REASONS FOR FORMING AN INTERORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIP
Technology know how Percentage of 115 respondents who have an IOR.
Access to technology (RB) 25%
Access to knowledge of production processes(RB) 15% Access to knowledge of local market (RB) 26% Exchange of complementary technology (RB) 26%
Financial asset
Risk sharing (TCE) 30% (3)
Exploit economies of scale (TCE) 45% (1)
Reduce/share costs of research (TCE) 14%
Competition
Compete against common competitor (SE) 20%
Reduce competition (SE) 13%
Influencing structural evolution of the industry & to set market standard (SE)
11%
Pre-empting competitors (SE) 17%
Market Segment Access
Facilitates international expansion (SE) 12%
Faster entry to market (SE) 23%
Gain presence in new market (SE) 41% (2)
Conform to foreign government policy/ overcome trade barriers (SE)
3%
Access to inputs, outputs & management experiences
Access to inputs (materials, labour, services, patents) (RB)
20%
Access to outputs (distribution channels & brand names) (RB)
8%
Managerial capabilities (RB) 8%
Complementary resources & capabilities
Complementary partner resource contribution (TCE) 20% Capabilities to provide quality product & services (RB) 30% (3)
Product diversification (RB) 20%
FIGURE 4: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE REASON FOR FORMINGAN IOR AND THE DEGREE TO WHICH THE INITIALS WERE MET
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 TCE RB SE
3.3 Managing interorganizational relationships.
3.3.1 Structure
With regard to the structure of the organization in RQ3a the question was asked: In order to manage an
interorganizational relationship effectively, should there be shared or dominant decision making among the cooperating firms? . 77 organizations employ shared decision making while only 23 organizations
employ dominant decision making. These results of the survey proof the statement of Killing (1982) where he states that in practice is not an option to have a dominant partner in decision making because often an organization that invests resources in a relationship, also wants to have influence in managing the relationship. Killing s statement that in theory it might be better to form an interorganizational relationship with a dominant partner could not be proven. 14(61%) out of the 23 dominant decision making relationship state that their initials goals are fully met or exceeded, against 41(53%) out of the 77 shared decision making relationships. With the help of the Chi-squared test of a contingency table, it can be calculated that the test statistic of X2=0,46 does not exceed the rejection region of X2=3,84.
Therefore it cannot be concluded that shared decision making is more effective then dominant decision making. It can be stated that shared decision making is much more common in IOR s. The form of that shared decision making seems to be depending on the level of formalization of the relationship. In IOR s with a low level of formalization the decision are often made in mutual consultation with each other. In IOR s with a high level of formalization the decision making procedures are often documented in a Relationship Document . In this document agreements are written down about numerous subjects like investment decisions, remunerations of employees, authorities of the management, personnel policy etc.
With regard to the structure of the organization in RQ3b the question was asked: What degree of
hierarchical control should an interorganizational relationship possess to manage an interorganizational relationship effectively? In order to answer this question the autonomy, monitoring
FIGURES 5,6,7: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN IOR S, WITH REGARD TO THE AUTONOMY, MONITORING AND HIERARCHY OF THE RELATIONSHIP.
Autonomy 0 5 10 15 20 25
very w eak Weak average High very high
IOR S that meet or exceed initial goals
IOR S that did not or not fully meet the initial goals.
Monitoring/controle 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
very w eak Weak Average High very high
IOR S that meet or exceed initial goals
IOR S that did not or not fully meet the initial goals.
Hierarchy 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
very w eak Weak Average High very high
IOR S that meet or exceed initial goals
IOR S that did not or not fully meet the initial goals.
month, or sometimes quarterly, the results of the IOR are discussed with the owners of the IOR. Each IOR that I researched had made specific arrangements about how to monitor the results.
3.3.2 Design of Systems
With regard to the systems of the organization in RQ3c the question was asked: What systems needs to
be aligned between the cooperating firms in order to manage an interorganizational relationship effectively? Out of the 58 IOR s that did not align any system, 34 (59%) IOR s did fully meet its initial
goals against 24 (41%) IOR s that did not fully meet its initial goals. Out of the 47 IOR s that did align at least one system, 24 (51%) IOR s did fully meet its initial goals against 23 (49%) IOR s that did not fully meet its initial goals. When I calculated whether successful IOR s do align systems their systems more often than unsuccessful IOR s then it can be seen that this statement cannot be proven. With the help of the Chi-squared test of a contingency table, it can be calculated that the test statistic of X2=0,62
does not exceed the rejection region of X2=3,84. The systems that needed to be aligned most are
mentioned most are communication systems (36), accounting systems (28), budgeting systems (15) and reward systems (11). That communication systems are mentioned most is not surprising because in table 1 we already saw that communication problems are the second biggest problems that occur in an IOR. Communication systems can be seen as a rather broad concept, an example from one of the interviews was a situation where there was a lot of mutual irritation between the two cooperating firms, it was analyzed that this was because of a lack of communication. Therefore more specific agreements where made about when, what and where to communicate. Another example is about an IOR in the engineering industry that had to choose the proper reward system. One organization had a reward system that was based on the achievements of the individual employee, so that every employee had a different salary. The other organization had a reward system that only had one profit sharing arrangement so that every employee had more or less the same salary. Eventually the organizations choose for the reward system that was based on individual achievement. Once the other organization saw the benefit of a reward system that was based on the individual achievement of the employee, they decided to implement such a reward system in their entire organization.
3.3.3 Strategy
With regard to the strategy of the organization in RQ3d the question was asked: Do effective
interorganizational relationships have a discrete organization perspective on interorganizational relationship or do they have an embedded organization perspective? Out of the 52 IOR s that have an
X2=3,84. Therefore no statements can be made whether successful IOR s have a different perspective
on cooperation than unsuccessful IOR s.
3.3.4 Style/Shared Values
In table 1 cultural differences is mentioned as the problem that occurs most in IOR s. This underlines the importance of culture in an IOR. With regard to the culture of the organization the research question
RQ3e was asked: Is there an organizational culture as described by Quinn and Cameron (Family Culture, Adhocracy Culture, Hierarchy Culture and the Market Culture) that is more effective for managing interorganizational relationships than other organizational cultures? In figure 8
the results of the survey are presented. The family culture is very dominant among the respondents, 56 out of the 109 respondents who filled in the questions about organizational culture had a family culture. With the help of the Chi-squared test of a contingency table, it can be calculated that the test statistic of
X2=1,54 does not exceed the rejection region of X2=7,81. Therefore it cannot be stated that one culture
is better at managing IOR s than other cultures.
Another research question was meant to compare the cultures of both organizations. In RQ3f the question was asked: Should both organizations have the same organizational culture as described
by Quinn and Cameron, in order to manage an interorganizational relationship effectively? For 8
organizations I was able to compare both cultures. 7 out of 8 organizations were IOR s that fully had fully meet or exceed the initial goals of the IOR. Only 2 of those 7 organizations did have cultures that were different from each other, so 5 out of 7 organizations did have the similar culture. These results are promising, but need further research before any inferences can be drawn.
3.3.5 Staff/Skills
With regard to the staff and skills of the organization, Waterman et al. (1980) state that particularly the development, guarding and allocation of staff are important. Therefore 3 research questions were formulated that had to do with these topics. The first research question (RQ3g) was How should an
interorganizational relationship manage the assignment of people in order to manage the interorganizational relationship effectively?
60 Firms stated that they didn t have any policy with regard to the assignment of people in the IOR. 36 firms did meet or exceed the initials goals of the IOR and 24 not fully meet or exceed the initials goals. 36 Firms did have special policy with regard to the assignment of people in the IOR from which 22 firms meet the goals of the IOR and 14 did not fully meet those goals. With the help of the Chi-squared test of a contingency table, at a 5% significance level, it can be calculated that the test statistic of X2=0,01 does not exceed the rejection region of X2=3,84. Therefore it cannot be stated that
for an IOR to be successful it should have a special policy in the placement of people.
FIGURE 8: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN IOR S, WITH REGARD TO ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Family Culture Adhocracy Culture
Market Culture Hierarchy Culture
IOR S that meet or exceed initial goals
IOR S that did not or not f ully meet the initial goals.
and that customer was new for the organization that I interviewed then they made sure that the project leader of that project was from his firm and not from the firm he formed an IOR with. When the new customer became familiar with the projectleader of this firm, they hoped to have a better chance in next tenders of that customer.
Another question that was asked with regard to the staff and skills of the organization was
RQ3h: How should an interorganizational relationship manage the problems related to loyalty between the firm and the interorganizational relationship in order to manage the interorganizational relationship effectively? Out of the 105 firms that answered this question, only 17 firms answered that
they have experienced problems that were related to loyalty and only 3 of those 17 firms did have policy on this area. With the help of the Chi-squared test of a contingency table, it can be calculated that the test statistic of X2=1,2 does not exceed the rejection region of X2=5,99. These results prove that there is no difference between IOR s that meet their goals and IOR s that did not fully meet their goals. These results do not support the statement of Lajara et al. (2002), as mentioned before on page 15, that loyalty problems are one of the major problems in IOR s. Loyalty problems are often hard to trace, but a nice example that I heard during an interview comes from the engineering industry, were the employees of the IOR were always present at the parties of one firm and where absent at parties of the other firm. The last research question that was asked with regard to the staff and skills of the organization was
RQ3i: How should an interorganizational relationship manage the development of the staff and skills in order to manage the interorganizational relationship effectively? The respondents were asked how
TABLE 9,10: DIFFERENCES IN THINKING AND ACTING ON CHANGE BETWEEN EFFECTIVE AND INEFFECTIVE IOR S
Think ing on change
0 5 10 15 20 25 Red perspective W hite perspective Blue perspective Yellow perspective Green perspective Ef f ective IOR s Inef f ective IOR s
Acting on change 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Red perspective White perspective Blue perspective Yellow perspective Green perspective Ef f ective IOR s Inef f ective IOR s
and IOR s that did not fully meet their initial goals. As the test-statistic of X2=2,94 did not exceed the
rejection region of X2=7,81. The same applies for the sort of education that the employees receive.
Management skills (14), communication skills (13), teambuilding (12) and project management skills (12) were mentioned most. The test statistic X2= 3.93 did not exceed the rejection region of X2= 9,48.
3.4 Managing Change
In research question 4a the question What organizational perspective is most effective for managing the
change in an IOR? was asked. The 5 colour perspectives of de Caluwé & Vermaak (2006) were used;
10 can be seen that the green perspective on managing change was clearly the most popular both in thinking and acting on change.
Firms that have a green perspective on change emphasize the importance of creating an atmosphere in which communication happens naturally. They think that change will only happen when the people in the organization gain new insights, they do not focus exclusively on the planning & analysis of the change but they emphasize on the people who need to make a change. In acting on change the organizations with a green perspective stated that management puts the responsibility for change within the group. Giving and receiving feedback is very important and there are specific education packages with which employee can develop their own specific competences. Statistical analysis was not able to prove significant differences between IOR s that fully meet their initial goals and IOR s that did not fully meet their initial goals as the test-statistic of X2=4,64 did not exceed the rejection region of X2=9,49.
In research question 4b the question: Should an organization s thinking about change resemble
the organization s acting on change in order to effective in an interorganizational relationship? was asked. The results of the survey were that 30 firms had a similar perspective on thinking on change and acting on change. 20 firms did fully meet their initial goals of the IOR s and 10 firms did not. 64 Firms did not have a similar perspective on thinking on change and acting on change. 34 firms did fully meet their initial goals of the IOR s and 30 firms did not. At first sight I am inclined to state that firms that do have a similar perspective on thinking on change and acting on change do perform better. However statistical analysis was not able to proof significant differences between IOR s that fully meet their initial goals and IOR s that did not fully meet their initial goals. As the test-statistic of X2=1,54 did not
exceed the rejection region of X2=3,84.
The last research question was: RQ4c: Should an organization s change perspective resemble
CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION
In this thesis I have tried to grasp the differences between effective and ineffective interorganizational relationships. Statistical analysis showed that there was no significant relationship between the rationale for forming an IOR and the effectiveness of the IOR. The same applies for the way in which the relationship is managed. Lajara et al. (2002) stated that the way in which the IOR is managed has a relationship with the failure rate of the IOR, but I was not able to confirm this statement. An IOR that have the Transaction Cost Economic paradigm as the most dominant paradigm is not more effective and is not managed differently than an IOR that has the Resource Based or Social Exchange paradigm as the most dominant perspective. A possible explanation for these results lay in the observation that I already made before that each paradigm on its own is insufficient to explain the majority of interorganizational relationship formations. These paradigms should be seen as complementary to each other. The survey supports this statement because hardly any IOR mentioned reasons for IOR formation that can be solely attributed to one paradigm. This makes the distinction between an IOR with a TCE paradigm and an IOR with a RB or SE paradigm rather small. And when it is hard to make a distinction between a TCE, a RB or a SE paradigm than it is not strange that is also hard to make a distinction in the effectiveness of a paradigm or the way in which it is managed. With regard to the rationale for forming an IOR this thesis provides worthwhile insights about the reasons for forming an IOR because it is made clear that exploiting economies of scale and gaining entrance in a new market are by far the most frequent reasons for IOR formation.
With regard to the management of the 7 S es in of the 7S Model the survey results did not make a distinction between effective and ineffective IOR s. This is rather surprising because several scholars were able to make a distinction between both. Saxton (1997) for example found a relationship between the degree of shared decision making and alliance outcome. Furthermore he found the counterintuitive finding that similarities between partners with respect to specific organizational characteristics, including culture and human resources, were negatively related to alliance outcomes. As stated before this thesis could not find such differences. With regard to the 7 S es of an IOR the contribution of this thesis lays more in describing how an IOR is managed, rather than being able to make a distinction between effective and ineffective IOR s. The results of the survey reveal several characteristics about IOR s in general.
IOR s are often managed by shared decision-making in which all participants have an equal stake in important decisions.
Communication systems and accounting systems are systems that often need to be aligned. Particularly aligning communication systems is often mentioned as being key to a successful relationship. Without proper communication, annoyance about the behavior of the partnering organization can build up to high levels when this is not spoken out in an early phase.
By far the most IOR s have a view on cooperation in which it states that business is about value creation and that they can achieve more by working together, than by behaving independent and seeing the IOR as competition but then in a different form.
Most IOR s have a Family Culture which focused much on consensus and concern for others.
What this thesis has made clear is that the difference between effective and ineffective IOR s cannot be captured in hard differences that are easy to measure like the type of decision making, the level of authority of the IOR or the alignment of certain systems within an IOR.
With regard to how to manage changes that occur during the existence I found out that there is not one perspective on change that is more effective than another perspective. Likewise there does not have to be congruence between thinking and acting on change. Also when the organizations are compared that form an IOR it cannot be concluded that perspective of one organization should resemble the perspective on change of the other organization(s).
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
According to the results of my thesis none of the numerous factors that have been researched, play a significant role in the effectiveness of the IOR. Off course it could be the truth that none of these factors have an influence on the effectiveness of a relationship, but another possibility is that the theories that I have used to research the management of an IOR was not sufficient. The 7S model of Peters & Waterman does possibly not include all factors that makes an company excellent . Perhaps there are more factors that determine (inter)organizational excellence, a statement that does not have to be that controversial. When we take a look at the companies that were considered excellent in the early eighties by Peters & Waterman, then we can see that several companies do not deserve the certificate excellent anymore. Delta Airlines for example is suffering major losses currently and needs a merger with Northwest Airlines in order to survive. Other companies that cannot be considered excellent anymore are amongst others Amdahl, Digital Equipment, Maytag and Wang Labs. The failure of these companies does not have to mean that the 7S is insufficient because it is also possible that these companies were unable to excel in all the S factors, but the option that there are more factors that determine (inter) organizational excellence cannot be excluded.
Another remark that can be made about the choices that I have made in conducting this research is about my definition of an effective IOR. I have considered an IOR to be effective when one of the participating companies considers this to be true, but when I would have taken financial figures (profit, revenue, market share) to determine IOR effectiveness then I could have made a more objective distinction between effective an ineffective firms. However many companies would be reluctant to provide this information, so in that case I would not be able to hold a survey amongst 190 firms.
REFERENCES
Bamford, J., Ernst, D., Fubini, D.G., 2004, Launching a World-Class Joint Venture, Harvard Business
Review, 82: 90-100
Barney, J., 1991, Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage, Journal of Management, 17: 99-120
Barringer, B.R., Harrison J.S, 2000, Walking a Tightrope: Creating Value Through Interorganizational Relationships, Journal of Management, 26: 367-403
Bruner, R., Spekman, R., 1998, The Dark Side of Alliances: Lessons from Volvo-Renault, European
Management Journal, 16: 136-150
Burnes B., 2005, Managing Change, London, Prentice Hall
Caluwé de, L., Vermaak, H., 2006, Leren veranderen, een handboek voor de veranderkundige, Amsterdam, Kluwer
CBS, http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=07221ed&D1=0,10-23&D2=0-1,4,6,10,34,37,39,43,45,51,55,61,63,65,67&D3=l&HD=080624-1643&HDR=T&STB=G1 On date: June, 24th, 2008
Cooper, D.R., Schindler, P.S., 2003, Business Research Methods, New York, McGraw Hill. Daft, R.L., 2004, Organization Theory and Design, Mason Ohio, Thomson South-Western
Das, T.K., Teng, D., 2000, A resource-based theory of strategic alliances, Journal of Management, 26: 31-61
Doz, Y.L., Hamel, G., 1998, Alliance Advantage, the art of creating value through partnering, Boston, Harvard Business School Press
Eisenhardt, K.M., Schoonhoven, C.B., 1996, Resource-based view of strategic alliance formation: strategic and social effects in entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science, 7: 136 150.
Ertel, D., 2001, Alliance Management: A blueprint for success, Financial executive, 17: 36 Goerzen, A., 2005, Managing Alliance Networks: emerging practices of multinational corporations,
Academy of Management Executive, 19: 94-107
Gulati, R., 1998, Alliances and Networks, Strategic Management Journal, 19: 293-317
Hagedoorn J., 1993, Understanding the rationale of strategic technology partnering: interorganizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences, Strategic Management Journal, 14: 371-385
Ireland, R.D., Hitt, M.A., Vaidyanath, D., 2002, Alliance Management as a Source of Competitive Advantage, Journal of Management, 28: 413-446
