Process Capabilities and Value Generation in Alliance Portfolios

Abstract

This paper develops a multidimensional, process-based conceptualization of alliance portfolio management capability. Arguing that such a capability consists of organizational processes to proactively pursue alliance formation opportunities, engage in relational governance, and coordinate knowledge and strategies across the portfolio, we examine the impact of such a capability on organizational outcomes in the context of formal structure (alliance function) and strategy (portfolio diversity). Using data from 235 firms, we find that these three processes have a positive effect on a firm's alliance portfolio capital, and some of these effects are conditioned by a formal alliance function and diversity of the portfolio. Whereas the ability of proactive formation and relational governance processes to create value is further strengthened in the presence of an alliance function, that of the coordination dimension is weakened. Furthermore, the benefits of relational governance are strengthened for firms with diverse portfolios, whereas the benefits of coordination processes are weakened. We discuss implications of these findings for the alliance and network literature, and in general, for firm heterogeneity. In summary, we find evidence that variance in process-based capabilities to manage alliance portfolios can explain performance heterogeneity among firms.

Returns to alliance portfolio diversity: The relative effects of partner diversity on firm's innovative performance and productivity

“…When firms maintain multiple alliances at the same time, a focus on the egocentric network of the firm or the so-called alliance portfolio is called for (Wassmer, 2010). In the alliance portfolio context, diversification (APD for short) and its implication for firm performance has recently attracted attention in the literature on alliances (e.g., Baum, Calabrese, & Silverman, 2000;George, Zahra, Wheatley, & Khan, 2001;Goerzen & Beamish, 2005;Jiang, Tao, & Santoro, 2010;Lee, 2007;Sarkar, Aulakh, & Madhok, 2009;Terjesen, Patel, & Covin, 2011;Wassmer & Dussauge, 2011). This line of research, central to this study, looks outside the boundaries of the firm and considers the diversification of external partners as a vehicle to access external-party resources that are not otherwise available (Das & Teng, 2000;Lavie, 2006).…”

Foresight capabilities and SME product/service adaptiveness: the moderating effect of industry dynamism

“…Out of the 500 questionnaires administered, a total of 194 fully completed and useful questionnaires were returned. The resulting effective response rate of 38.8% is acceptable in comparison to similar mail surveys (Agarwal and Ramaswami, 1992;Nakos and Brouthers, 2002), and higher than response rates in other recent studies (Sarkar et al, 2009;Scleimer and Pedersen, 2014). To test the nonresponse bias, we statistically compared the questionnaires we received at the beginning of the data collection with those received at the end and no significant statistical differences were observed.…”

R&D partnership portfolios and the inflow of technological knowledge

“…Hence, a firm's partnering experience may ease the search for knowledge. Further, recent work reveals that more experienced firms may develop a dedicated alliance management function, which would enable the coordination of collaborative activities across a portfolio of partnerships (Heimeriks, Duysters, & Vanhaverbeke, 2007;Sarkar, Aulakh, & Madhok, 2009). …”