“Pie Sharing” in Complex Collaboration Contexts

Abstract

Recently, there has been a growing interest in the development of collaborative relationships between organizations. Much attention has been given to how organizations 'expand the pie' of benefits between them; however, there is little that addresses the ensuing issue -how organizations divide the expanded pie. This research examines the relational impact of pie sharing in complex collaboration contexts marked by uncertainty in resources and outputs, information asymmetries, intangible aspects, and noncomparable factors and processes. A conceptual framework is developed that examines how the use of equity and equality sharing principles in conjunction with various resource and organizational conditions can be used to systematically impact relational outcomes. Survey results of 300 R&D managers, scientists, and engineers indicate that sharing principles can have a positive or negative effect on the relationship depending on the type of sharing principle used, and the characteristics of the resources and organizations. In particular, sharing processes should be responsive to the goals of the collaboration. The results underscore the strategic nature of the sharing phenomenon as well as the importance of relational concerns in complex and uncertain interorganizational settings.

Developing Alliance Capabilities

“…Although contributive to our understanding of the complexity involved in managing alliances, these studies concentrate on dyadic issues, which tend to be case-specific and remain anecdotal (see e.g. Killing, 1983;Doz, 1996;Young-Ybarra and Wiersema, 1999;Jap, 2001). Consequently, although evidence confirms that these dyadic factors can create relation-specific rents (Kale et al, 2000;Khanna et al, 1998;Madhok and Tallman, 1998), this evidence can at best partially explain the differences in individual firms' alliance performance (Park and Ungson, 2001).…”

“…Especially the latter type level of analysis has been used in studies focusing on knowledge transfer between firms (e.g. Jap, 2001). An obvious detriment to using this level of analysis is that each alliance is treated as a single and independent transaction (Doz and Prahalad, 1991).…”

Bad Apples, Bad Barrels, and the Structure of Marketing Channel Relationships: Analyses of the Propensity for Opportunism and Opportunistic Behaviors

“…Rindfleisch and Heide (1997) cite Gates' (1989) study as the first TCE study in the horizontal interorganizational relationship context. Other studies include Bucklin and Sengupta (1993), Osborn and Baughn (1990), Parkhe (1993), andJap (2001). Similar to vertical interorganizational relationship studies, these studies also aim to investigate transaction costs issues such as asset specificity in developing processes of horizontal relationships As for testing the assumptions of TCE, recent development of relational exchange research stream has highlighted the efficiency of a hybrid form governance.…”

“…Jap (2001) finds, in interfirm R&D collaborative relationships, that the use of complex equity sharing principles may be excessive (negative impact on relationship quality) when: (1) idiosyncratic investments exist and (2) the parties value mutual payoffs. Gassenheimer, Houston, and Davis (1998) suggest that distributive justice is a significant factor when making strategic decisions about retaining or terminating an interfirm relationship.…”

A Framework of Retailer-Manufacturer Cooperation and Coopetition: Consumer Durable Goods Retailers’ Case Studies

“…Many researchers have focused primarily on horizontal relationships, devoting less attention to vertical relationships (e.g. Chen & Hall, 2007;Jap, 1999Jap, , 2001, and especially to the relations between retailers and manufacturers.…”