Decision making on governance of strategic technology alliances

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to study the mechanism through which decisions on the preferred governance mode of strategic technology alliances are made at the firm level. Design/methodology/approach -The author constructed a value-mediated governance model that is empirically tested through a survey of 57 strategic alliances in the Greek wireless services industry and estimated through a Structural Equation Modeling technique, namely Partial Least Squares. Findings -Quasi-hierarchy governance modes are preferred by firms assessing their current value as high, and lacking fear of partners' opportunistic behavior. Quasi-market alliances are preferred by firms having high expectations for the future value of the alliance, and facing high endogenous uncertainty resulting from the existence of a competitive relationship with the partner. Research limitations/implications -While the resource and cost perspectives are founded on diverse assumptions on firms' ability to write complete contracts, their implications for the firms' decision-making behaviour on the alliance governance issue seem to be complementary to those of the value perspective. Practical implications -Transitional governance forms, quasi-market alliances that evolve to quasi-hierarchy alliances, seem to be preferred in emerging technology-based environments. Originality/value -The Expected Alliance Value concept is introduced to explain how exogenous uncertainty characterizing the environment of emerging technology-based industries can influence the already investigated effects of the partner uncertainty and the firm's current value on the alliance governance preferences.

Drivers influencing the governance of inter-firm relationships in the biopharmaceutical industry: an empirical survey in the Italian context

“…As also stressed by literature on the governance structure of IFRs (Leiblein 2003;Leiblein and Miller 2003;Patelli 2009;Foss and Roemer 2010) Drivers influencing the governance of inter-firm relationships 113 studies that integrate findings coming from different theoretical approaches is unfortunate for several reasons. First, the importance of common concepts, such as uncertainty and appropriation concern, suggests that important connections exist that may enhance our understanding of organisational governance.…”

Alliance strategy: context, process, and requirements

“…We thereby contribute to emerging research on how intraorganisational governance influences the development of public-private partnerships (Brinkerhoff and Brinkerhoff, 2011, Ebrahim et al, 2014, Gurcayiliar-Yenidogan, 2014, Klijn and Koppenjan, 2012, Pateli, 2009, Ruuska et al, 2011. Specifically, the results help to address the insufficient understanding of PPP risk management practice, and to extend current framing of IOR as a cross-organisation coordination process Weiss, 2004, Lewin et al, 2011).…”

“…Third, joint strategy formation may affect the extent to which an organization autonomously defines its own strategy. While alliance strategizing may support an organization's strategy (Keers and Van Fenema, 2015), the process of joint strategy formation may influence participants in the internal strategizing process Pateli, 2009). Independence of an organization´s strategic process and thereby its autonomy may be at stake.…”

“…This requires the sharing of system condition knowledge between asset owners and service supply organizations, and alignment of operations to effectively coordinate maintenance tasks just in time at minimum logistical costs (Brax, 2008;Samaddar et al, 2006). Second, today's integrated and unique technical systems have made it increasingly complex for one organization to develop and maintain all relevant service knowledge (Pateli, 2009). Along with the ageing of the technical workforce, Dutch maritime organizations therefore seek to group technological expertise to enhance the utilization of their manpower (Cambra-Fierro et al, 2011).…”

“…In this case the partnership is set up to leverage complementarities and potential synergies between public and private knowledge assets (Rausser et al, 2000). In the area of technology development and maintenance, researchers have stressed that integrated technology has made it increasingly difficult for private system manufacturers and public maintenance providers to develop all relevant knowledge for optimal functioning themselves (Kerkhof et al, 2016, Pateli, 2009). …”