Resource ambidexterity through alliance portfolios and firm performance

Wassmer, Ulrich; Li, Sali; Madhok, Anoop

doi:10.1002/smj.2488

Cited by 109 publications

(98 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It further supports the KBV notion that different knowledge sharing mechanisms, i.e., knowledge access through partner type variety and knowledge integration through partner type relevance, are based on distinct organizational routines that require an efficient and selective use (Grant, 1996a, Grant andBaden-Fuller, 2004). These insights contribute to the alliance portfolio literature, since they go beyond portfolio size (Hoffmann, 2007;Koka and Prescott, 2002) and complement a more recent discussion on the management and potential trade-offs of multiple dimensions and objectives in an overall alliance portfolio (Stettner and Lavie, 2014;Wassmer et al, 2017).…”

Section: Multidimensional Perspective Of Alliance Portfolio Diversitysupporting

confidence: 74%

“…This multidimensional perspective further allows us to investigate under-researched interdependencies in the diversity of alliance portfolios (Lee et al, 2017;Wassmer, 2010;Wassmer et al, 2017) and the implications for firm performance (Lavie, 2007). Indeed, we find that high levels of both partner type variety and relevance may diminish the effectiveness of alliance portfolios due to increased complexity of coordination and conflicting routines.…”

Section: Multidimensional Perspective Of Alliance Portfolio Diversitymentioning

confidence: 70%

“…Different types of partners often possess unique resources as well as distinctive skills and experiences (Faems et al, 2010;Koka and Prescott, 2002). With increasing variety in alliance portfolios, firms develop relational breadth that enables passive access to these distinct knowledge resources (Wassmer et al, 2017). Hence, the pool of knowledge resources that the firms can access is broadened through their collaboration with a variety of partner types.…”

Section: Partner Type Variety Relevance and Firm Innovation Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, increasing relevance of different partner types, by focusing on partners with important knowledge inputs, generates benefits for innovation performance, as it enables knowledge integration. As specific partner categories become more important to a focal firm and the more resources it commits to specific categories, the more it will develop relational depth with these partner types (Krishnan et al, 2006;Wassmer et al, 2017). With increasing relational depth, firms become more experienced and familiar with a specific partner type (Grant and Baden-Fuller, 2004).…”

Section: Partner Type Variety Relevance and Firm Innovation Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Partner Type Diversity in Alliance Portfolios: Multiple Dimensions, Boundary Conditions and Firm Innovation Performance

Hagedoorn

Lokshin

Zobel

2017

J Management Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our research extends the current knowledge based view on the configuration of alliance portfolios and their deployment in different external knowledge environments. We study these alliance portfolios in a longitudinal sample (1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010) for over three thousand firms that operate in a large number of industries in the Netherlands. Our findings indicate that partner type variety and partner type relevance, as different dimensions of partner diversity in alliance portfolios, both have an inverted U-shaped association with firm innovation performance. However, alliance portfolios characterized by both high partner type variety and high relevance cause inferior innovation performance. Different external knowledge environments, characterized by different levels of industry modularity and scope of knowledge distribution, moderate the inverted U-shaped associations of partner type variety and relevance in alliance portfolios with firm innovation performance in opposing directions. While for partner type variety, a high level is found to be optimal in environments with greater modularity or broader scope of knowledge distribution, for partner type relevance it turns out that a low level is optimal under more modular industry conditions.

show abstract

Section: Multidimensional Perspective Of Alliance Portfolio Diversitysupporting

confidence: 74%

Section: Multidimensional Perspective Of Alliance Portfolio Diversitymentioning

confidence: 70%

Section: Partner Type Variety Relevance and Firm Innovation Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Partner Type Variety Relevance and Firm Innovation Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Partner Type Diversity in Alliance Portfolios: Multiple Dimensions, Boundary Conditions and Firm Innovation Performance

Hagedoorn

Lokshin

Zobel

2017

J Management Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Whereas a broad range of traditional alliance research has mainly focused on single alliance, the alliance portfolios as the unit of analysis raises indeed a number of new and important issues that merit further scholarly research (Gulati, 1998;Wassmer et al, 2017). Whereas a broad range of traditional alliance research has mainly focused on single alliance, the alliance portfolios as the unit of analysis raises indeed a number of new and important issues that merit further scholarly research (Gulati, 1998;Wassmer et al, 2017).…”

Section: Alliance Portfolios and Their Evolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co‐evolution of exploration‐exploitation strategy and weak‐strong ties portfolios: A longitudinal case study

Wang

Guo

2018

European Management Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the interactive relationship between exploration‐exploitation strategy and alliance portfolios evolution, through examining underlying motivations of the evolution of alliance portfolios along with firm strategy change. Based on a 20‐year longitudinal case analysis on a leading Chinese pharmaceutical manufacturer, we establish a three‐stage process model: (1) stage 1: under turbulent environment and with the consequent reduction in profitability, the firm implements exploration strategy and forms weak alliance portfolio; (2) stage 2: the firm transforms its strategy from exploration to exploitation and forms strong alliance portfolio; and (3) stage 3: as this single business firm transforms into a multibusiness firm, it tends to make a balance between exploration and exploitation strategy and form weak‐strong alliance portfolio. Based on this process model, this study reveals the diverse motivations of alliance portfolios evolution along with firm strategy change, the interplay mechanisms between exploration‐exploitation strategy and weak‐strong ties portfolios, and the portfolio effects across businesses within a firm.

show abstract

Network ambidexterity and environmental performance: Code‐sharing in the airline industry

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The most common form of horizontal collaboration within the airline industry is code-sharing, which provides firms with many economic and operational benefits, although what happens in the environmental area is less certain. How should companies address code-sharing to contribute to sustainability? The main objective of this work is to analyse the impact that this type of horizontal collaboration can have on the environmental performance of airlines. From this, we propose that network ambidexterity-the ability to balance exploration with new partners and exploitation with prior partners-is an adequate strategy to solve agency problems derived from collaboration practices to achieve environmental outcomes. Using hierarchical regression analysis, our results reinforce code-sharing as a critical resource for the improvement of environmental performance and identify the moderating role of network ambidexterity in the impact of alliances on environmental performance.

show abstract

Resource ambidexterity through alliance portfolios and firm performance

Cited by 109 publications

References 56 publications

Partner Type Diversity in Alliance Portfolios: Multiple Dimensions, Boundary Conditions and Firm Innovation Performance

Partner Type Diversity in Alliance Portfolios: Multiple Dimensions, Boundary Conditions and Firm Innovation Performance

Co‐evolution of exploration‐exploitation strategy and weak‐strong ties portfolios: A longitudinal case study

Network ambidexterity and environmental performance: Code‐sharing in the airline industry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About