Are we still living in the same world?
A review of the benefits of strategic alliances in the electric vehicle market.
Name: Robbert Mos
Student number: 3249468
Subject: Benefits of strategic alliances in the electric vehicle market
Course: Research Paper for Pre-MSc BA SIM
Course code: EBS011B10
University: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
Table of content
Table of content ... 3
1. Introduction ... 4
2. Conceptual background... 6
Strategic alliances ... 6
Industry life cycle ... 6
Dominant design ... 6
3. Method ... 7
4. Findings ... 9
4.1. Strategic alliances related findings... 9
4.2. Market specific findings ... 11
4.3. Market change related findings ... 11
4.4. Dominant design related findings ... 12
5. Case review ... 13
5.1. Coopetition case ... 13
5.2. Non-competition case ... 14
5.3. Case analysis ... 15
6. Model generation ... 17
Introduction and growth stage ... 18
Maturity stage ... 19
Decline stage ... 19
Integrative model ... 19
7. Conclusion ... 21
Current state EV-market ... 21
Managerial implications ... 22
Limitations ... 22
Reverences... 23
Appendix ... 26
1. Introduction
Car manufacturers design new vehicles with a range of diverse technologies that meet customer needs for comfort, convenience and safety while improving performance and energy efficiency (Accenture, 2014). To be on top of this development, car manufacturers must work together to be able to maintain their competitive advantage, market position and market share. Long-term benefits of strategic alliances are not only the eventual end-result, but have very much to do with the entrance in a new market (Agostini & Caviggiolo, 2015). This entrance is made possible by participation in the innovation process of the sustainable electric car (Fawcett, Jones, & Fawcett, 2012). This new market entrance can be made possible by strategic alliances (Schilling, 2000). The literature presents multiple benefits of strategic alliances, but are they applicable in the new electric vehicle market? A systematic literature review is needed to answer this question.
The success rate of a strategic alliances is highly influenced by the characteristics of: the industry, the business and the type of alliance (Stiles, 1994). The benefits, as a result of successful alliances, appear to be substantial. For example, a successful alliance can lead to: a link into a global network of markets at low cost, rapid access to technological skills and consolidate competitive strength (Stiles, 1994).
The electric car is going to be the new dominant design (DD) in the car market, and with it are new characteristics of the market (Peng & Liang, 2016). The new DD may bring new types of benefits or diminish existing benefits applicable in the fossil fuel car market.
The EV-market is a new market which is currently developing, this provides a base for the review to build on the most contemporary market. Next to the IT-market, which plays a dominant role in most researches nowadays, the EV-market is proven to be an important market in the future (Wesseling, Niesten, Faber, & Hekkert, 2015). Therefore, the research question is the following: What are the benefits of strategic alliances in the electric car market?
The findings section is a result of a mixed approach, where the main source of information is from a systematic literature review. Which is combined with findings from cases, to review the existence and benefits of alliances in the EV-market. This method is used to verify findings from the literature review and add an insight for the managerial implications. Strategic alliances in the current market are illustrated and reviewed based on two types of cases, all involving Tesla. First a coopetition case of two coopetition alliances, with Daimler and Toyota. Second, a non-coopetition case with Lotus and Panasonic. The analysis is focussed on influence of alliance on the company performance. After the literature review and case study, a discussion is started to use the findings to contribute to the knowledge base. A conclusion follows to sum-up the key-findings.
2. Conceptual background
The findings are built around four concepts, which are identified from the ILC framework and the subject of this paper. The purpose of this paper is to gain more knowledge about benefits of strategic alliances, also the first concept. The findings and discussion are structured on the ILC framework. It identifies changes as the driver of the market and the emergence of the DD as key event which contributes in the transition from a developing market to a mature market (Sabol, Šander, & Fučkan, 2013). This results in the next three concepts: dominant design, change and EV-market.
Strategic alliances
Firms engage in strategic alliances to benefit from it (Fawcett, Jones, & Fawcett, 2012). Every firm has its own goals when they engage in a strategic alliance, this research gives an insight on the possible incentives. Prior research suggests the following incentives for strategic alliances: gaining capabilities, easier access to target markets, sharing the financial risk, achieving synergy, and access to new competitive advantage; (Stiles, 1994).
Industry life cycle
During the literature review results showed different benefits in different stages of the ILC, due to this finding the research is structured on the ILC concept. The concept identifies four stages: introduction-, growth-introduction-, maturity- andintroduction-, decline stage; through which every industry passes. Each phase requires a different strategy that counters the stage characteristics (Sabol, Šander, & Fučkan, 2013).
Dominant design
3. Method
This chapter gives an insight in the procedure of withdrawing the correct articles from the endless pages of search results on SmartCat. This is made in a checklist to systematically review the data selection, as suggested by Meier (Meier, 2011). Meier provides inclusion and exclusion criteria, which is useful to provide a systematic base for the literature selection.
To acquire comprehensive knowledge, a thorough literature review need to be carried out. It focuses on scientific papers related to strategic alliances, data from corporate reports and cases on the subject. To filter these papers, several steps have been taken and are documented to be as systematic and transparent as possible. It should be possible to replicate the research. The following steps have been taken to identify relevant papers:
(1) The search keywords are extracted from the research question. In this case: benefits, strategic alliances, and electric car market;
(2) Afterwards, synonyms, used in the research field, were sought. This resulted in the following extended list: (1) benefits, assistance, help, profit (2) strategic alliance, collaboration, cooperation, coopetition, coalition, partnership (3) electric car market, electric vehicle market; (3) Related to the market in which the research is performed. Research on markets that are similar
to the electric vehicle market are included. The definition of a similar market are markets in which similar events take place (Hui, Qiaowel, & Yakov, 2016). The following events characterize a similar market: (1) no existence of a dominant design yet or (2) highly technological.
(4) A combination as well as separate key words were used to find articles.
(5) The relevance of the found articles were tested by developing exclusion and inclusion criteria. These criteria are stated from point (6)-(11).
(8) Articles should be written in English, to preserve the transparency.
(9) The review is limited to articles form the last ten years, due to the novelty and the commercialization period of the electric car market (Wesseling, Niesten, Faber, & Hekkert, 2015). This means that articles related to the (electric) car market from 2007 and up are used. (10) The review is not limited to peer-reviewed journal articles due to the novelty of the
subject. The review will be too little literary supported, if the research would only be based on just peer-reviewed articles.
(11) Papers which are referenced in papers that meet the criteria above may be used, due to their assistance in the development of the papers. This resulted in fifteen extra articles.
(12) Cases are used in this research to provide extra information and application on the literature. Articles should also be found on SmartCat, Google Scholar, Business Source Premier or corresponding corporate websites.
A personal selection is executed on the articles found with the criteria above. With the use of Smartcat’s most relevant filter, the first 30 articles of every key word combination are checked on relevance for the research.
After the use of the criteria above and a second personal selection, a total number of 56 articles were found and 38 of them have been used in this research.
cases are used because of their integrity and availability based on the inclusion criterial mentioned in this chapter.
4. Findings
The benefits of engaging in a strategic alliance are clearly formulated in the literature. Despite their timestamp, these findings have been the basis for several papers as they help to understand the basic assumptions on the benefits of strategic alliances. But are these benefits applicable for the EV-market? This paragraph evaluates the prior research which is not yet specified to alliances within the EV-market. After the literature review a case study provides an application test of the prior research findings on the EV-market.
4.1.Strategic alliances related findings
The alliance benefits are not mutually exclusive, however they are dependent on the type of alliance. Benefits depend on the relationship in innovation and the type of innovation (Hatch, 2001) (Colfer & Baldwin, 2010), (Hoetker, 2006), (Sanchez & Mahoney, 1996), (Schilling, 2000). In relation with the EV-market research suggest that companies tend to select partners with tighter organizational coupling for architectural innovation than for modular innovation. Hofman, Halman and Song unexpectedly found that tighter organizational coupling results in a higher innovation performance based on their statistical analysis (Hofman, Halman, & Song, 2016). The positive effect of tighter coupling on commercial performance comes from the aspect Stiles provided earlier, achieving synergy. Products or services can complement each other, which will increase interorganizational integration and commercial returns (Hsuan, 1999).
Empirical studies show that during technical uncertainty a broader knowledge base is needed to manage innovation (Furlan, Cabigiosu, & Camuffo, 2014); (Brusoni, Prencipe, & Pavitt, 2001). This extra knowledge provides a better insight in the different modules of an innovation project and improves the performance of the end-product (Takeishi, 2002). Hofman, Halman and Song argue that this is the explanation why the organizational (tighter) coupling-performance relationship is positively linked to architectural innovations (Hofman, Halman, & Song, 2016).
Too tight or too loose coupling harms the firm. Hofman, Halman and Song argue that in the case of architectural innovation, tighter coupling creates an “idea problem”. That could result in a loss of the ability to see shortcomings in coordination that could harm the new product or service (Hofman, Halman, & Song, 2016).
When we look at the distribution of this knowledge, Capaldo suggests that knowledge is better distributed between individuals whose relationships are embedded within a cohesive social structure and who share a common cultural background (Capaldo, 2014). To implement this, alliances should be based on a common background which facilitates the social structure (Santos & Baptista, 2015).
4.2.Market specific findings
The automotive market is characterized by geographic clusters, where market leaders are not technology production leaders and do not occupy a central technological position (Castriotta & di Guardo, 2016).
Castriotta and di Guardo made a historical analysis of the most relevant alliances within the automotive market. They distinguished three categories: 1991-1997, 1998-2004 and 2005-2013. During the economic growth, market leaders excel in terms of technological positions during the economic growth period. During the growth period, the technology structure is highly dense, but when decline sets in the structure scatters because of the lack of a central technological position (Castriotta & di Guardo, 2016).
Economic conditions after 2008 were not conducive for large investments during the beginning of the commercialization period. This led to conservatism in the industry because of the financial prudence, volatility and uncertainty (Wells & Nieuwenhuis, 2015). This has led to the emergence of the portfolio strategy, where firms seek a balances product portfolio. Where innovation and segmentation are balanced to still generate profit (Wesseling, Niesten, Faber, & Hekkert, 2015). With the emergence of the EV, Wells and Nieuwenhuis call it the reinvention of the automotive industry, a new DD is emergent but not yet present (Wells & Nieuwenhuis, 2015).
4.3.Market change related findings
Organizations with stronger incentive and opportunity to innovate introduce more EVs into the market (Wesseling, Niesten, Faber, & Hekkert, 2015). Those firms adopt a first mover strategy, followed by the large car manufacturers who pursue a quick follower strategy. The reason why firms choose a certain strategy is highly dependent on the existence of incentive and capability (Wesseling, Niesten, Faber, & Hekkert, 2015). This means that in some cases firms do not have the choice to pursue a first mover strategy because of the lack in capability.
4.4.Dominant design related findings
When the DD set, it benefits the central and cooperating firms in a way of lowering the technical uncertainty (Soh, 2010). Suárez and Utterback stated that entry pre-DD is clearly associated with lower probability of failure, as it facilitates room for learning in the years before DD. The entry post-DD has a higher chance of failing, due to the need to follow the DD which can be contradicting to the firms’ design vision (Suárez & Utterback, 1995).
5. Case review
This chapter discusses the findings of the case review. There is an overview of the purpose, partners, timeframe and results of the alliances at the end of the case descriptions.
5.1.Coopetition case
This paragraph discusses the findings from the case study executed by Cheong, Song and Hu in 2015. This research examines two coopetition cases in the US EV-market, with the use of literature and mathematical models. It examines how the coopetition influences the performance of the firms. They concluded that the benefit of coopetition among firms depends on the following factors: bargaining power, substitutability of goods, contract payments, friction costs and the learning curve (Cheong, Song, & Hu, 2016). To enter a certain market, firms should seek appropriate partners (Cheong, Song, & Hu, 2016). In this case, Daimler and Toyota wanted to enter the US EV-market via a alliance with Tesla. Both parties benefit from this alliance, Daimler and Toyota managed to buy a lower-cost electric powertrain and Tesla was able to enlarge their output. Firms can achieve their own goals and to respond to market changes, which motivates them to proceed in alliances with competitors, despite the fact that they still have to compete with each other at the finished-goods level (Cheong, Song, & Hu, 2016). If we use the knowledge from Stiles, a gain in capabilities and entering a specific market can recognize (Stiles, 1994).
5.2.Non-competition case
Tesla is dependent on its battery-packs, the result is a significant interest in a battery cell manufacturer in its alliance portfolio (Wells & Nieuwenhuis, 2015). Tesla formed an alliance with its supplier, Panasonic. In this case Tesla is acquiring semi-finished products and Tesla backward integrated with its supplier Panasonic. Panasonic and Tesla are cooperating in the Giga-factory project, which indicates a long-term relationship. This relationship benefits both parties, but not entirely in the same way. On the short-term, Tesla and Panasonic benefit from reduction of supplier (in the case of Tesla) or buyer (in the case of Panasonic) bargaining power, gains knowledge and shares the financial risk in the build of the giga-factory (Stiles, 1994). On the long term, Tesla could gain capabilities to produce the batteries inhouse (Cheong, Song, & Hu, 2016). The likelihood of Panasonic gaining enough knowledge, capabilities and incentive to start their own automotive brand is close to zero and should not be a thread.
Table 1 Overview alliance cases 5.3.Case analysis
6. Model generation
This paragraph highlights the key findings and opens a discussion on which further research can be conducted. The findings are applied to the cases and additional insights or connections will be presented. Prior research is reflected on cases and novel research which gives insight in the alliances in the EV-market. The results are projected on the ILC framework to review the possible benefits, pitfalls, incentives and managerial implications of strategic alliances.
After analysing the cases, a difference in alliance benefits was found between the ILC stages. In relation with the ILC framework, each stage provides a different dynamic in terms of type of innovation, pitfalls and managerial focus. These dynamics each need a different strategy to successfully reach the benefits of an alliance. It suggests that managers should adapt their strategy to the industry stage to benefit from strategic alliances.
Next to the ILC framework the Abernathy–Utterback (AU) model is used to structure the development of the market related to the innovation process (Abernathy & Utterback, 1978). The AU model focusses on the type of innovation within a certain period. The AU model consists of three phases: fluid phase (product innovation), transitional phase (product development and process innovation) and the specific phase (process development) (Abernathy & Utterback, 1978). A full description of the phases is given in table 2 below.
Phase Fluid Transitional Specific
Innovation Radical product innovation Process innovation and architectural product innovation
Incremental innovation in product and process
Product Different forms and designs Mass production with marginal customization
Standardization in product design
Competitors No direct competition, many substitutes
Many competitors, declines with the emergence of a DD
Oligopoly Organization Entrepreneurial organic
structure
Formal structure with task groups
Traditional hierarchical organization
Threats Old technology and new entrants
Imitators and successful product breakthroughs (other party wins the race to DD)
New technology and disruptive innovation
Process Flexible and inefficient Rigid, changes occur in large steps
Rigid, efficient and capital intensive
Related to the AU framework, the EV-market is currently in the fluid phase which provides room for a new DD (Suárez & Utterback, 1995) (Peng & Liang, 2016). A way to win this ‘race’ to the DD is engage in strategic alliances (Soh, 2010).
Introduction and growth stage
In the introduction and growth stage, alliances can contribute to: easier access to target markets, sharing the financial risk, gaining capabilities and access to new competitive advantage; (Stiles, 1994). In the cases, four benefits can be recognized. But, the cases provide no evidence of achieving synergy. Expanding the case base could provide evidence or patience to wait for the current cases to mature. The innovative focus is on product innovation (Abernathy & Utterback, 1978). In these phases technologic uncertainty is high, due to the lack of available information (Furlan, Cabigiosu, & Camuffo, 2014) (Brusoni, Prencipe, & Pavitt, 2001). Due to this, pre-DD architectural innovation performance is positively linked to tighter coupling in alliances (Hofman, Halman, & Song, 2016). This approach improves the knowledge transfer, but could cause an idea problem and externalities when cooperating firms copy the competitive advantages of others (Hofman, Halman, & Song, 2016) (Skippari, Laukkanen, & Salo, 2017).
In the case of architectural innovation, tighter coupling could create an “idea problem”. It results in a loss of the ability to see shortcomings in coordination, which could harm the new product or service (Hofman, Halman, & Song, 2016). Engaging in multiple alliances will help to remain the ability to see shortcomings due to multiple-stakeholder composition (Ayağ & Samanlioglu, 2016).
Maturity stage
The maturity stage, alliances can contribute to: sharing the financial risk, gaining capabilities and access to new competitive advantage; (Stiles, 1994). Some first movers have moved to process innovation, as seen in the ‘giga-factory’ case. This move indicates a move from the growth stage to the maturity stage (Sabol, Šander, & Fučkan, 2013). For the firms who moved to the maturity stage, they focus on product development and process innovation. The loose-coupled management method has a positive effect on the development performance (Hofman, Halman, & Song, 2016).
Decline stage
In the Decline stage, alliances can contribute to: gaining capabilities and access to new competitive advantage; (Stiles, 1994). The cases provide no evidence for any of the benefits in the last two stages because of the current progress in the ILC. Patience or expanding to other industries are possibilities to gain insight in the possible benefits of alliances in the decline stage. In the decline firms focus on process development. The loose-coupled management method has a positive effect on the development performance (Hofman, Halman, & Song, 2016).
Integrative model
7. Conclusion
This paragraph presents the main findings of the research and answers the research question. The following conclusions can be drawn based on the literature review and the case analysis.
Firms engage in strategic alliances to benefit from it (Fawcett, Jones, & Fawcett, 2012). Every firm has its own incentives when they engage in a strategic alliance (Stiles, 1994). The literature provides the following benefits of strategic alliances: gaining capabilities, easier access to target markets, sharing the financial risk, achieving synergy, and access to new competitive advantage; (Stiles, 1994).
Current state EV-market
The EV-market is currently in the fluid phase, which means that there is no DD yet (Suárez & Utterback, 1995). Organizations with stronger incentive and opportunity to innovate introduce more EVs into the market (Wesseling, Niesten, Faber, & Hekkert, 2015). The reason why firms choose a certain strategy is highly dependent on the existence of incentive and capability (Wesseling, Niesten, Faber, & Hekkert, 2015).
If we focus more on the ‘race to the DD’, we find that firms build alliance networks with suppliers around their preferred technology standard. With the goal of setting a design standard and gaining first mover access to scare resources. The firm positions itself in the centre of the network to acquire and share knowledge broadly within the technological community, with the goal of achieving better innovation performance. This benefits the central and cooperating firms in a way of lowering the technical uncertainty (Soh, 2010). Pre-DD entry is associated with lower probability of failure, as there is room for learning in the years before the DD emerges. The entry post-DD has a higher chance of failing, due to the need to follow the DD which can be contradicting to the firms’ design vision (Suárez & Utterback, 1995).
Managerial implications
After analysing the literature and cases, a difference in alliance benefits was found between the ILC stages. In relation with the ILC framework, each stage provides a different dynamic in terms of type of innovation, pitfalls and managerial focus. These dynamics each need a different strategy to successfully reach the benefits of an alliance. Managers should adapt their strategy to the industry stage to benefit from strategic alliances.
Not all benefits are identified in the cases, but they could be applicable. For example, synergy, products or services can complement each other which will increase the returns which is caused by the interorganizational integration (Hsuan, 1999). Tesla could engage in a strategic alliance with a power grid supplier to enlarge their Supercharger network which improves the network externalities of their product (Löfsten, 2016). Tesla could also engage in a strategic alliance with Toyota. Toyota is the initiator of Six-Sigma which improves the efficiency and constancy of a production process, which can complement the technological advancement of Tesla that could lead to the emergence of a DD (Riel & Tichkiewitch, 2016).
Limitations
Reverences
Abernathy, W., & Utterback, J. (1978). Patterns of innovation in technology. Technology Review, 41-47.
Accenture. (2014). The Electric Vehicle Challenge. Accenture, 2-16.
Agostini, L., & Caviggiolo, F. (2015). R&D collaboration in the automotive innovation environment. Management Decision, VI(53), 1224-1246.
Ayağ, Z., & Samanlioglu, F. (2016). An intelligent approach to supplier evaluation in automotive sector. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 889-903.
Bleeke, J., & Ernst, D. (1991). The way to win in cross-border alliances. Harvard Business Review, 127-135.
Brusoni, S., Prencipe, A., & Pavitt, K. (2001). Knowledge specialization, organizational coupling, and the boundaries of the firm: Why do firms know more than they make? Administratice Science Quarterly, 597-621.
Capaldo, A. (2014). Network governance: A cross-level study of social mechanisms, knowledge benefits, and strategic outcomes in joint-design alliances. Industrial Marketing Management, 685-703.
Castriotta, M., & di Guardo, M. (2016). Disentangling the automotive technology structure: a patent co-citation analysis. Scientometrics, 819-837.
Chang, S., Chan, S., & Lai, J. (2006). The effect of alliance experience and intellectual capital on the value creation of international strategic alliances. ScienceDirect, 298-316.
Cheong, T., Song, S., & Hu, C. (2016). Strategic alliance with competitors in the electric vehicle market: Tesla Motor's case. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 1-10.
Colfer, L., & Baldwin, C. (2010). The mirroring hypothesis: Theory, evidence and exeptions. Harvard Business School, 1-39.
Fawcett, S., Jones, S., & Fawcett, M. (2012). Supply chain trust: The catalyst for collaborative innovation. Business Horizons, 163-178.
Furlan, A., Cabigiosu, A., & Camuffo, A. (2014). When the mirror gets misted up: modularity and tachnological change. Strategic Management Journal, 789-807.
Hatch, N. (2001). Design rules: Volume 1 the power of modularity. Academy Of Management Review, 130-134.
Hoetker, G. (2006). Do Modular Products Lead to Modular Organizations? Startegic Management Journal, 501-518.
Hofman, E., Halman, J., & Song, M. (2016). When to Use Loose or TIght Alliance Networks for Innovation? Empirical Evidence*. Product Development & Management Association, 81-100.
Hsuan, J. (1999). Impacts of supplier-buyer relationships on modularization in new product development. Earopean Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 197-209. Hui, L., Qiaowel, S., & Yakov, B. (2016). Local Market Characteristics and Online-to-Offline
Commerce: An Empirical Analysis of Groupon. Management Science, 1-19.
Kale, P., & Singh, H. (2009). Managing strategic alliancesL What do we know now, and where do we go from here? Academy of Management Perspectives, 45-62.
Kim, K., & Lee, K. (2016). Collaborative product design processes of industrial design and engineering design in consumer product companies. Design Studies, 226-260.
Löfsten. (2016). Industrialization of hybrid electric vehicle technology: identifying critical resource dimensions. Journal of Technology Transfer, 349-367.
Meier, M. (2011). Knowledge Management in Strategic Alliances: A Review of Empirical Evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 1-23.
Peng, Y., & Liang, I. (2016). A dynamic framework for competitor identification: A neglecting role of dominant design. Journal of Business Research, 1898-1903.
Riel, A., & Tichkiewitch, S. (2016). Industry-academia cooperation to empower automotive engineering designers. Procedia CIRP, 739-744.
Sabol, A., Šander, M., & Fučkan, Đ. (2013). The concept of industry life cycle and development of business strategies. Management, Knowledge and Learning, 635-642.
Sanchez, R., & Mahoney, J. (1996). Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organizational design. Strategic Management Journal, 63-76.
Santos, J., & Baptista, C. (2015). Business interaction between competitors – towards a model for analyzing strategic alliances. IMP Journal, 286-299.
Schilling, M. (2000). Toward a general modular systems theory and its application to interfirm product modularity. The Academy of Management Review, 312-334.
Skippari, M., Laukkanen, M., & Salo, J. (2017). Cognitive barriers to collaborative innovation generation in supply-chain relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 108-117. Soda, G. (2011). The management of firms' alliance network positioning: Implications for
innovation. European Management Journal, 377-388.
Soh, P. (2010). Network patterns and competitive advantage before the emergence of a dominant design. Strategic Management Journal, 438-461.
Wells, P., & Nieuwenhuis, P. (2015). EV Business Models in a Wider Context: Balancing Change and Continuity in the Automotive Industry. In D. Beeton, & G. Meyer, Lecture Notes in Mobility (pp. 3-16). Cham: Springer International Publishing Zwitzerland.
Appendix
Appendix 1 literature review table
# Used in: Author Year Journal Title Research
2 Market specific findings;
Castriotta, M. & Di Guardo, M.C.
2016 Akade´miai Kiado´ Disentangling the automotive technology structure: a patent co-citation analysis
What is the firms technological positioning landscape within a high collective cognition sector? What is the groups technological positioning evolution? How do technology structures shift according to different economic scenarios? Science mapping patent co-citation techniques Patent co-citation analysis; Patent strategy; Technology structure; Technological positioning; Collective cognition
3 Not used Akhaven, P. & Barak, S. Maghsoudlou, H. & Antecheviciene, J. 2015 Technological and Economic Development of Economy FQSPM-SWOT for strategic alliance planning and partner selection; case study in a holding car manufacturer company Successful outsourcing QSPM matrix, SWOT matrix Partner selection; strategic alliance; SWOT; FQSPM; MCDM; ARAS-F; COPRAS-F; Fuzzy MOORDA; Fuzzy TOPSIS
4 Not used Löfsten, H. 2015 Springer Science Industrialization of hybrid electric vehicle technology: identifying critical resource dimensions
5 Not used Cecere, G. & Corrocher, N. & Battaglia, R.D. 2014 Telecommunications Policy Innovation and competition in the smartphone industry: Is there a dominant design? Investigation whether a dominant design had emerged in the smartphone industry
Dominant design Smartphones; Dominant design; Product
differentiation 6 Introduction; Agostini, L. &
Caviggioli, F. 2015 Management Decision R & D collaboration in the automotive innovation environment An analysis of co-patenting activities (1) analyse the innovation output of R&D collaborations (2) type of relationship used in R&D collaboration
R&D partnerships Alliances; Automotive; Suppliers; Co-patenting; R&D collaboration 7 Introduction; Strategic alliances related findings; Case review; Model generation;
Stiles, J. 1994 Long Range Planning Strategic
Alliances: Making Them Work Theoretical and practical examination to improve alliance management
Strategic Alliances Strategic alliance; Benefit;
8 Not used Deeds, D.L. & Hill, C.W.
1996 Journal of Business Venturing
Strategic alliances and the rate of new product development: an empirical study of entrepreneurial biotechnology firms An entrepreneurial firm can increase its rate of new product development by entering into strategic alliances with firms that possess
complementary assets
Strategic Alliances First mover advantage; Complementary assets; Strategic alliances; New product development
9 Not used Peeters, T. & Martin, X.
2015 R&D Management Strategies for knowledge use in R&D and their implications for innovative performance
Research on R&D strategy and on the use of external knowledge in R&D in particular should differentiate between distinct uses of external knowledge. Knowledge differentiation R&D strategy; External knowledge; Compounding firms; Replicating firms;
10 Introduction Fawcett, S.E. & Jones, S.L. & Fawcett, A.M.
2012 Business Horizons Supply chain trust: The catalyst for collaborative innovation Relation between trust and collaborative innovation capability Dynamic systems model of building trust Collaboration; Innovation; Trust; Supply chain; Project and relationship risk 11 Not used Adams, R. &
14 Not used Keränen, O. 2016 Industrial Marketing Management Roles for developing public–private partnerships in centralized public procurement
What types of roles do actors play to develop PPPs in centralized public procurement? (1) Role theory (2) typologies of managerial and intermediary roles (3) triadic approach Relationship development; Role; Triadic approach; Public-private partnership; Centralized public procurement; 15 Not used Dutta, D.K. &
Hora, M. 2017 Journal of Small Business Management From Invention Success to Commercialization Success: Technology Ventures and the Benefits of Upstream and Downstream Supply-Chain Alliances*
Assess whether and in what ways does the entrepreneurial venture’s supply-chain partnerships (upstream and downstream alliances) influence success Resource Based View Ambidextrous behaviour; Up-stream; Down-stream; Alliance; Partnership; Commercial success; Invention success;
16 Not used Vonortas, N. & Zirulia, L.
17 Not used Emerald insight 2016 Strategic Direction Sleeping with the enemy: Strategic benefits of competitor relationships
How can horizontal alliances be
understood through an interaction and network
perspective?
Network alliance Network; Alliance; Technology industry;
19 Strategic alliances related findings; Model generation;
Capaldo, A. 2014 Industrial Marketing Management Network governance: A cross-level study of social mechanisms, knowledge benefits, and strategic outcomes in joint-design alliances
(1) what are the knowledge benefits of network
governance? (2) what are the coordination mechanisms that characterize network
20 Not used Sheldon, T.L. & Deshazo, J.R. & Carson, R.T.
2017 Economic Inquiry Electric and Plug-in Hybrid Vehicle Demand: Lesson for an Emerging Market
How large are the differences in consumer demand for BEVs, PHEVs, and internal
combustion engines (ICEs)?
Latent class model for consumer segmentation Demand; Plug-in hybrid market; Electric vehicle market; Adoption policies; Demand heterogeneity; 21 Not used de Hoog, J. &
Alpcan, T. & Brazil, M. & Thomas, D.A. & Mareels, I. 2016 IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid A Market Mechanism for Electric Vehicle Charging Under Network Constraints (1) how can individual user preferences be incorporated in a way that accurately addresses individual user requirements, while still ensuring that general vehicle charging demands are met as well as possible for all users? (2) how can this be done in a way that is fair, and does not allow a given user to cheat or otherwise manipulate the
22 Not used Yu, Z. & Li, S. & Tong, L. 2016 Transportation Reseatch Part D Market dynamics and indirect network effects in electric vehicle diffusion
(1) how does the EV adoption interact with EVCS investment? (2) how do indirect network effects affect market dynamics? (3) what are the implications of indirect network effects on the public policy? Two-sided market framework (sequential game model) Two-sided market; Indirect network effects; Product diffusion; Electric vehicles; EV charging;
23 Not used Mourtzis, D. 2016 Springer Science Challenges and future
perspectives for the life cycle of manufacturing networks in the mass
customisation era
Focusing on the aspects that affect manufacturing network performance Mass customisation Manufacturing system and networks; Design; Planning; Mass customisation
24 Not used Chiambaretto, P. & Gurau, C. & Le Roy, F. 2016 Industrial Marketing Management Coopetitive branding: Definition, typology, benefits and risks Coopetitive branding, defenition, typology, benefits and risk Two key dimensions (1) nature of the agreement (2) type of partners (typology of coopetitive branding situations) Coopetitive branding; Coopetition; Co-branding; Typology; Benefits and risks;
26 Managerial implications; Riel, A. & Tichkiewitch, S 2016 Elsevier Industry-Academia Cooperation to Empower Automotive Engineering Designers Qualify automotive engineering designers to achieve the integration of development process and product quality according to Automotive SPICE®, Functional Safety and Design for Six Sigma
Six Sigma Integration; Design education; Industry-academia cooperation;
27 Not used Haider, S. & Mariotti, F. 2016 Scandinavian Journal of Management The orchestration of alliance portfolios: The role of alliance portfolio capability The use of orchestration of alliances to increase competitiveness and the survival of the company Orchestration of alliance portfolios Alliance portfolio; Knowledge requirements; Orchestration; Interorganizational ties; Critical events; 28 Not used Richa, K. &
Babbitt, C.W. & Nenadic, N.G. & Gaustad, G.
2015 Springer Science Environmental trade-offs across cascading lithium-ion battery life cycles
29 Not used Chang, S. & Chen, S. & Lai, J.
2008 Elsevier The effect of alliance experience and intellectual capital on the value creation of international strategic alliances
What firms can do to enhance the possibility of success and maximize wealth gains from alliance activities
Intellectual capital Learning effect; Intellectual capital; Tobin's q; Experience content; Strategic alliances; Wealth effect 30 Strategic alliances related findings; Soda, G. 2011 European Management Journal The management of firms’ alliance network positioning: Implications for innovation
Which of the two network
configurations produces greater innovation benefits?
Network alliance Network; Alliance; Automotive industry
31 Not used Daim, T.U. & Wang, X. & Cowan, K. & Shott, T. 2016 Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Technology roadmap for smart electric vehicle-to-grid (V2G) of residential chargers The development of a technology road mapping (TRM) process for smart electric vehicle-to-grid(V2G)
technologies in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest (PNW) Technology road mapping Technology roadmap; Vehicle-to-grid; R&D; Computing; Communication; Residential; 32 Introduction; Method; Market specific findings; Market change related findings; Wesseling, J.H. & Niesten, E.M.M.I. & Faber, J. & Hekkert, M.P. 2013 Business Strategy and the Environment Business Strategies of Incumbents in the Market for Electric Vehicles:
Opportunities and Incentives for Sustainable Innovation
How did the incentive and opportunity to innovate affect large car manufacturers’ decision to mass market EVs over the period 1990– 2011?’.
33 Strategic alliances related findings; Dominant design related findings; Hofman, E. & Halman, J.I.M. & van Looy, B.
2016 Research Policy Do design rules facilitate or complicate architectural innovation
alliance networks?
Assess how product design rules and the degree of organizational coupling among innovation alliance network partners influence architectural innovation performance. Architectural innovation Architectural innovation; Design rules; Organizational coupling; Innovation networks; Innovation performance; Modularity; 34 Not used Rijnsoever, F.J.
& Welle, L. & Bakker, S.
2013 Springer Science Credibility and legitimacy in policy-driven innovation networks: resource dependencies and expectations in Dutch electric vehicle subsidies What is the influence of different types of credibility on the likelihood of granting individual actors within consortia an innovation subsidy? Resource dependence theory Electric vehicle technology; Expectations; Resource dependence theory; Credibility; Legitimacy; Innovation policy; 35 Dominant design related findings; Kim, K.M. & Lee, K. 2016 Elsevier Collaborative product design processes of industrial design and engineering (1) What types of collaborative product design processes exist? (2) What conditions
36 Not used Cooper, D.R. & Gutowski, T.G. 2015 Journal of Industrial Ecology The Environmental Impacts of Reuse Reviewing the potential benefits and pitfalls described in the literature and providing a framework for future research on the environmental impact of reuse.
Use-ohase energy Dematerialization; Energy; Environmental impact; Materials efficiency; Remanufacturing; Reuse; 37 Conceptual background; Dominant design related findings; Model generation; Soh, P. 2010 Strategic Management Journal Network Patterns and Competitive Advantage Before the Emergence of a Dominant Design Examines the performance implications of the alliance networks
Dominant design Alliances; Networks; Dominant design; Technology standard; Technological innovation;
39 Dominant design related findings; Model generation; Suárez, F.F. & Utterback, J.M. 1995 Strategic Management Journal Dominant Designs and the Survival of Firms
The hypothesis tested is that the competitive environment of an industry, and therefore the survival of firms in it, is substantially affected by the evolution of the technology on which it is based Competitive environment Technology; Firm survival; Dominant design; 40 Strategic alliances related findings; Kale, P. & Singh, H. 2009 Academy of Management Managing Strategic Alliances: What Do We Know Now, and Where Do We Go from Here?
How firms can address these failures by
identifying some of the primary drivers of alliance success
Strategic Alliances Alliance paradox; Managing strategic alliances; Benefits: Drivers of alliance success; Alliance contact; Portfolio approach; 41 Strategic alliances related findings; Model generation; Santos, J.N. & Baptista, C.S.
42 Strategic alliances related findings; Dominant design related findings; Case analysis; Model generation Hofman, E. & Halman, J.I.M. & Song, M. 2016 Product Development & Management Association When to Use Loose or Tight Alliance Networks for Innovation? Empirical Evidence*
The objective of this study was to better understand how the degree of
43 Strategic alliances related findings; case review; Model generation; Song, M. & Berends, H. & van der Bij, H. & Weggeman, M. 2007 Journal of Product Innovation Management The Effect of IT and Co-location on Knowledge Dissemination H1: The use of computer-mediated communication technologies is positively
associated with the level of knowledge dissemination in technology development. H2: Co-location of R&D staff is positively associated with the level of knowledge dissemination in technology development. H3: Co-location of R&D staff is more positively
co-location of R&D staff on the level of knowledge dissemination in technology development. H4b: The interaction effect will be negative, meaning that the use of computer aideted communication technologies and co-location of R&D staff weaken each other. 44 Introduction; Conceptual background; Model generation; Sabol, A. & Šander, M. & Fučkan, D. 2013 Management Knowledge and Learning The concept of industry life cycle and development of business strategies
According to the theory of industry life cycle all industries go through four very different phases, where each particular phase requires a strategy that will effectively absorb specific conditions of the phase.
45 Dominant design related findings; Model generation; Abernathy, W.J. & Utterback, J.M.
1978 Technology review Patterns of Industrial Innovation
How does a company's innovation and its response to innovative ideas change the
company grows and matures?
Industrial innovation
46 Not used Abernathy, W.J. & Utterback, J.M. 1975 Journal of management science A dynamic model of process and product innovation Empirical test of relationships between the pattern of innovation within a firm and certain firm characteristics
Patterns in innovation, firm characteristics
47 Not used Taseishi, A. 2002 Organizational Science Knowledge Partitioning in the Interfirm Division of Labour: The Case of Automotive Product Development Whether an automaker’s knowledge is indeed important to achieve a better outcome from outsourcing the task of component development to a supplier. And, if so, the second question
48 Strategic alliances related findings; Model generation; Brusoni, S. & Prencipe, A. & Pavitt, K. 2001 Administrative Science Quarterly Knowledge Specialization, Organizational coupling, and the Boundaries of the Firm: Why Do Firms Know More Than They Make?
Why Do Firms Know More Than They Make? Knowledge Specialization, Organizational Coupling, and the Boundaries the Firm
Organizational coupling Coupling; Organizational performance; Innovation performance; Network innovation; Collaborative innovation; 49 Strategic alliances related findings; Model generation; Furlan, A. & Cabigiosu, A. 2014 Strategic Management Journal
When the mirror gets misted up: modularity and technological change
how component technological change affects the relationship between product modularity and organizational modularity Product modularity and organizational modularity Modularity; Product architecture; Buyer-supplier relationships; Technological change; Air conditioning industry; 50 Strategic alliances related findings; Managerial implications;
Hsuan, J. 1999 European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management Impacts of supplier-buyer relationships on modularization in new product development the effects of supplier-buyer relationships on modularization by evaluating the opportunities of modularization and corresponding interface constraints of a product at four deferent levels: component, module,
sub-system, and system.
51 Introduction; Strategic alliances related findings;
Schilling, M.A. 2000 Academy of Management
Toward a General Modular Systems Theory and Its Application to Interfirm Product Modularity Build a general theory of modular systems, drawing on systems
54 Strategic alliances related findings; Colfer, L. & Baldwin, C.Y. 2010 Harvard Business Review The Mirroring Hypothesis: Theory, Evidence and Exceptions
Predicts that the organizational patterns of a development project will correspond to the technical patterns of dependency in the system under development Patterns of development Modularity; Innovation; Product and process development; Organization design; Design structure; Organizational structure; Organizational ties 56 Strategic alliances related findings; Bleeke, J. & Ernst, D. 1991 Harvard Business Review
