Research summary: We study how technological discontinuities generate first‐ and second‐order effects on alliance formation and termination, leading to reconfiguration of firms' alliance portfolios. Following technological shocks, we argue that firms often seek alliances that provide new resources while also having incentives to form alliances for reinforced and challenged resources that complement the new resources. In parallel, alliance terminations, even involving resources otherwise unaffected by the discontinuity, increase due to limits in firms' alliance carrying capacity. We study biopharmaceutical firms between 1990 and 2000, which faced a technological discontinuity in 1995 in the form of combinatorial chemistry and high‐throughput screening. We improve understanding of how technological discontinuities affect the value of resources and how firms reconfigure alliance portfolios in response. Managerial summary: When firms form alliances to gain new resources during technological discontinuities that disrupt their industry, they cannot consider only the focal new partnerships. Instead, new alliances create complementarity and substitution pressures that lead to broader reconfiguration of the firms' alliance portfolios: (1) complementarity creates incentives to also form alliances for resources that the technological discontinuity reinforces or challenges in order to improve the collective value of co‐specialized assets; (2) substitution creates incentives to terminate existing alliances, even if their value is otherwise unaffected by the discontinuity, in order to create carrying capacity for new alliances. Thus, one new alliance can generate a cascade of reconfiguration that challenges the balance between the benefits of stability and the need for change in an alliance portfolio. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Research Summary: Firms with resources that make them attractive allies are also desirable partners for competitors so that competition among partners is embedded in alliance portfolios. We develop a framework in which competition within a portfolio creates benefits for a focal firm but threatens partners, increasing the hazard of alliance termination. We then propose four mechanisms for managing the threat of competition to partners reflecting aspects of portfolio configuration: alliance governance, social cohesion, social structure of competition, and partner similarity. We test our framework using a sample of 204 biopharmaceutical firms with alliance portfolios comprising 1,621 alliances between 1990 and 2000. The study addresses the interplay of competition and cooperation in alliance portfolios, and more generally, key aspects of value chain integration strategy. Managerial Summary: Alliance portfolios comprise a focal firm's set of direct partners, some of which compete with each other because of overlapping resources, capabilities, and strategies. The threat of actual or perceived competition from other partners may cause some firms to terminate their alliance with the focal firm. We develop a framework comprising four mechanisms related to alliance portfolios—alliance governance, social cohesion, social structure of competition, and partner similarity—that allows focal firms to attenuate the hazard of termination of their alliances. We find support for our framework in a study of 204 biopharmaceutical firms with alliance portfolios comprising 1,621 alliances between 1990 and 2000. We improve understanding of how firms can manage competition and cooperation within their alliance portfolios.

Research Summary We examine whether acquisitions affect the divestment of firms' alliance‐based relational assets. Using data from the biopharmaceutical industry and a matched case–control research design, we find that alliances are more likely to be terminated following acquisitions compared to alliances not subject to acquisitions. This higher termination likelihood is driven by acquisitions where the acquirer's alliance management capacity is stressed, and by alliances inherited from targets. The inherited alliance effect is attenuated by the target's partner's common connections with the acquirer but amplified by the target's partner's unique connections outside the merging firms' alliance portfolios. These findings are consistent with our relational view‐based theorizing on the post‐acquisition challenges of retaining alliance‐based assets, contributing to corporate strategy scholarship on alliances and acquisitions. Managerial Summary In many industries, firms' portfolios of interorganizational alliances enable them to realize novel complementarities and, thereby, enhance their performance. In such sectors, managers also frequently acquire other organizations to obtain access to critical resources. However, what managers may overlook is that acquisitions can destabilize existing alliance relationships. In this study, we show that the acquiring firm's capacity to effectively manage alliance‐based assets is stressed once it inherits the target firm's alliances. In general, target firm alliances become more challenging to sustain, and, in particular, those that hold a higher potential for novelty become more unstable. Consequently, when evaluating acquisitions, managers should look beyond obvious measures of a target alliance's value and assess the post‐acquisition integration challenges that may threaten its stability.

No abstract

No abstract