Elsevier

Long Range Planning

Volume 48, Issue 3, June 2015, Pages 151-167
Long Range Planning

Alliance Management Capability and Firm Performance: Using Resource-based Theory to Look Inside the Process Black Box

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2013.08.006Get rights and content

This study employs the framework of the resource-based theory (RBT), and investigates the process by which firms can realize the potential value of their alliance management capability. In this process, co-exploration and co-exploitation are regarded as the two main strategic actions needed to leverage alliance management capability. Analyses of multisource, time-lagged data on 172 Finnish manufacturing firms show that alliance management capability has an inverted U-shaped effect on co-exploration, but an increasingly positive effect on co-exploitation. Whereas co-exploration drives firm growth in the longer run, co-exploitation has a positive effect on firms' short-term financial performance. Ambidextrous pursuit of simultaneous co-exploration and co-exploitation, however, is negatively, rather than positively related to firm performance. By shedding light on the black-box process that takes place between alliance management capability and firm performance, these findings add new insights into research on RBT in general and alliance management capability in particular.

Introduction

The focal role of interorganizational (IO) relationships in firms' value creation is widely recognized (Gassmann et al., 2010, Parmigiani and Rivera-Santos, 2011, Swoboda et al., 2011). In light of that, it is not surprising that many management and strategy scholars (e.g., Cummings and Holmberg, 2012, Ireland et al., 2002, Kale and Singh, 2009, Schreiner et al., 2009) have increasingly underscored the importance of organizational capabilities for finding, developing, and managing IO partnerships. These capabilities, referred to as alliance management capabilities (Lambe et al., 2002), have been regarded as key resources in helping firms to effectively pursue their IO relationships (Draulans et al., 2003, Heimeriks et al., 2009, Schilke and Goerzen, 2010).

From the perspective of the resource-based theory (RBT) of the firm (Barney, 1991, Wernerfelt, 1984), alliance management capabilities can be regarded as heterogeneous and immobile resources that are controlled by a firm, and thus, they can be the basis of superior performance. In particular, alliance management capabilities are valuable because they augment the overall collaboration success (Kale and Singh, 2007, Lambe et al., 2002) and facilitate the realization of partnership benefits (Ireland et al., 2002, Rothaermel and Deeds, 2006). Yet, alliance management capabilities are rare and heterogeneously distributed (Anand and Khanna, 2000, Rothaermel and Deeds, 2006). Indeed, most alliances ultimately fail (Gulati and Kletter, 2005) because firms frequently fail to reap the benefits of their partnerships (Kale and Singh, 2009). The rarity of alliance management capabilities is largely the result of their inimitability. For example, because a firm develops alliance management capabilities through repeated partnership experiences along a unique path in the firm’s history (Kale and Singh, 2009), duplicating these capabilities in other firms is difficult (Barney, 1991). Inimitability also implies that alliance management capabilities are nonsubstitutable, as substitution is a form of imitation (Barney, 1995, Crook et al., 2008).

Due to their value, rarity, inimitability, and nonsubstitutability, alliance management capabilities constitute a potentially important source of sustained competitive advantage (see Barney, 1991, Combs and Ketchen, 1999). Bundles of capabilities can be an even more important basis of competitive advantage (Newbert, 2007). In this vein, Kandemir et al. (2006) found that a bundle of three specific lower order alliance management capabilities — alliance scanning, alliance coordination, and alliance learning — particularly enhances a firm's ability to achieve its performance objectives through IO relationships. The importance of these particular dimensions is widely recognized, which is reasonable given that alliance scanning enables finding and accessing IO collaboration opportunities in the first place (Gulati, 1999); that alliance coordination problems are the most critical challenges in IO collaborations (Schreiner et al., 2009); and that alliance learning is essential for the successful pursuit of current IO collaborations and the continuous improvement of alliance management skills (Schilke and Goerzen, 2010). Consistent with prior literature (e.g., Ireland et al., 2002, Schreiner et al., 2009, Schilke and Goerzen, 2010), I term this bundle of lower order alliance capabilities, the “alliance management capability”, which is formally defined as “a firm's skill portfolio of superior capabilities that help it scan its environment for partnering opportunities, coordinate its alliance strategies, and learn from its alliance experiences” (Kandemir et al., 2006, p. 325).

Despite alliance management capability's recognized role in building a competitive advantage, questions surrounding the processes through which alliance management capability leads to superior performance remain unanswered. In particular, the strategic actions that a firm must undertake to take advantage of its alliance management capability are poorly understood. This is an important shortcoming in the extant research, as possessing strategic resources is necessary but insufficient, because firms must also take appropriate actions to make use of their resources (Ketchen et al., 2007, Kraaijenbrink et al., 2010). That is, the potential value of resources remains unrealized as long as the firm does not have an organization and management system that enables their exploitation (Henderson and Cockburn, 1994, Miller et al., 2008). To gain insight into what is involved in leveraging firm performance through alliance management capability, this article poses the question: How does alliance management capability affect firm performance?

This investigation makes two key advances to the extant literature on RBT in general and alliance management capability in particular. First, by answering the “how” question, this study is able to look inside a black box of processes through which alliance management capability contributes to firm performance (Priem and Butler, 2001). This is an important contribution to the RBT discussions, as comprehensive empirical representations of the paths between resources and firm performance have been missing.1 I adhere to recent recommendations by Crook et al., 2008, Ketchen et al., 2007, and Newbert (2007), and use an integrative framework that includes the mediating variables in the relationship between resources and firm performance (see Figure 1). Beyond the RBT discussions, in general, this article contributes to literatures on alliance management capability and IO relationships, in particular (e.g., Koza and Lewin, 1998, Parmigiani and Rivera-Santos, 2011). Specifically, to my knowledge, this study presents the first depiction of how alliance management capability influences a firm's pursuit of different types of activities in IO relationships.

Second, the inquiry into the “how” question raises another issue: Are the effects of resources always positive? The examination of the process may not only expose the mediating steps between resources and performance, but it may also depict the negative effects within the integrative RBT framework. This perspective is a particularly important addition to previous alliance management capability literature, as the examination of these negative effects is virtually nonexistent in the extant literature. As Armstrong and Shimizu (2007, p. 978) stated, “If we could identify a context in which a seemingly valuable, rare, and hard-to-imitate resource does not provide sustainable competitive advantage and accumulate these findings, we can greatly extend RBV research.” Drawing on the capability – rigidity literature (Raisch, 2008, Leonard-Barton, 1992), the current study investigates whether exceptionally strong alliance management capabilities might lead to inertial strategic actions and, thereby, compromise growth, and long-term prospects for short-term performance. Studying these negative effects within the RBT framework helps to cross-validate the theoretical value of the RBT (Armstrong and Shimizu, 2007) and contributes to nascent discussions on the traps inherent in the path-dependent development of alliance management capabilities (Heimeriks, 2010).

Section snippets

Theory and hypotheses

Although the process by which resources contribute to firm performance is almost certainly multi-phased, most previous studies have investigated only simple resource – performance links (Crook et al., 2008). Due to these simplistic representations, the RBT models have appeared tautological (Priem and Butler, 2001), while at the same time, surprisingly few studies have been able to demonstrate that resources influence firm performance (Newbert, 2007). As a result of these problems, several

Sample and data collection

To evaluate the hypotheses, I obtained survey data from Finnish manufacturing firms with at least five employees. Manufacturing sectors were identified based on the TOL classification codes of Statistics Finland (i.e., codes 10–33 are classified as “manufacturing”). I selected manufacturing firms, because co-exploration and co-exploitation are common phenomena in these firms (Rothaermel and Alexandre, 2009). Moreover, I focused on firms with at least five employees, because in very small firms,

Results

The research model was analyzed using structural equation modeling (SEM) with LISREL 8.80. Due to performance variables with different time lags, I created two distinct structural model models: one for performance in 2009 (t + 1, N = 172) and the other for performance in 2010 (t + 2, N = 158). Both of these models provide an acceptable fit to the data. The fit indices are as follows: firm performance 2009: χ2 = 155.41, d.f. = 97, RMSEA = .06, CFI = .90, SRMR = .06; and firm performance 2010: χ2

Discussion

Prior research has noted that alliance management capability is associated with elevated performance, but the strategic actions required to implement alliance management capability have remained black-boxed. Using the RBT framework, this study demonstrated how the attainment of higher firm performance depended on the strategic actions that firms implemented to leverage their alliance management capability. When co-exploration deploys alliance management capability, the main outcome is firm

Limitations and conclusion

Although the current analyses provide novel insights into the process by which alliance management capability influences different aspects of firm performance, it is more appropriate to say that this study has only “looked into” the black box than to say that it has entirely “opened” it. To begin with, with respect to strategic actions, the current study examined only the roles of “pure” forms of co-exploration and co-exploitation (Parmigiani and Rivera-Santos, 2011). However, other meaningful

Olli-Pekka Kauppila is a postdoctoral scholar at Aalto University, Department of Management and International Business. He received his Ph.D. in organization and management from Aalto University and M.Sc. degree from Turku School of Economics at the University of Turku. Olli-Pekka's current research interests include organizational ambidexterity, interorganizational relationships and alliance capabilities. His recent articles have appeared in Strategic Organization, Industrial Marketing

References (108)

  • V. Gilsing et al.

    Exploration and exploitation in innovation systems: the case of pharmaceutical biotechnology

    Research Policy

    (2006)
  • K.H. Heimeriks

    Confident or competent? how to avoid superstitious learning in alliance portfolios

    Long Range Planning

    (2010)
  • K.H. Heimeriks et al.

    Building capabilities for alliance portfolios

    Long Range Planning

    (2009)
  • W.H. Hoffmann

    How to manage a portfolio of alliances

    Long Range Planning

    (2005)
  • R.D. Ireland et al.

    Alliance management as a source of competitive advantage

    Journal of Management

    (2002)
  • O.-P. Kauppila et al.

    Antecedents of salespeople's reluctance to sell radically new products

    Industrial Marketing Management

    (2010)
  • M.M. Kristal et al.

    The effect of an ambidextrous supply chain strategy on combinative competitive capabilities and business performance

    Journal of Operations Management

    (2010)
  • S. Miller et al.

    From strategy to action: involvement and influence in top level decisions

    Long Range Planning

    (2008)
  • K. Möller et al.

    Rise of strategic nets—new modes of value creation

    Industrial Marketing Management

    (2007)
  • G. Padula

    Enhancing the innovation performance of firms by balancing cohesiveness and bridging ties

    Long Range Planning

    (2008)
  • C. Quintana-García et al.

    Innovative competence, exploration and exploitation: the influence of technological diversification

    Research Policy

    (2008)
  • S. Raisch

    Balanced structures: designing organizations for profitable growth

    Long Range Planning

    (2008)
  • F.T. Rothaermel et al.

    Alliance type, alliance experience and alliance management capability in high-technology ventures

    Journal of Business Venturing

    (2006)
  • G. Ahuja

    Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: a longitudinal study

    Administrative Science Quarterly

    (2000)
  • B.N. Anand et al.

    Do firms learn to create value? The case of alliances

    Strategic Management Journal

    (2000)
  • J.C. Anderson et al.

    Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach

    Psychological Bulletin

    (1988)
  • C. Andriopoulos et al.

    Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: managing paradoxes of innovation

    Organization Science

    (2009)
  • C.E. Armstrong et al.

    A review of approaches to empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm

    Journal of Management

    (2007)
  • J.S. Armstrong et al.

    Estimating Nonresponse bias in mail surveys

    Journal of Marketing Research

    (1977)
  • K. Atuahene-Gima

    Resolving the capability-rigidity paradox in new product innovation

    Journal of Marketing

    (2005)
  • R.P. Bagozzi et al.

    The Evaluation of Structural Equation Models and Hypothesis Testing

  • R.P. Bagozzi et al.

    On the evaluation of structural equation models

    Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

    (1988)
  • J.B. Barney

    Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage

    Journal of Management

    (1991)
  • J.B. Barney

    Looking inside for competitive advantage

    Academy of Management Executive

    (1995)
  • M.J. Benner et al.

    Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited

    Academy of Management Review

    (2003)
  • W.C. Bogner et al.

    Knowledge management as the basis of sustained high performance

    Journal of Management Studies

    (2007)
  • Q. Cao et al.

    Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects

    Organization Science

    (2009)
  • J.G. Combs et al.

    Explaining interfirm cooperation and performance: toward a reconciliation of predictions from the resource-based view and organizational economics

    Strategic Management Journal

    (1999)
  • T.R. Crook et al.

    Strategic resources and performance: a meta-analysis

    Strategic Management Journal

    (2008)
  • E. Danneels

    Tight-loose coupling with customers: the enactment of customer orientation

    Strategic Management Journal

    (2003)
  • E. Danneels

    Organizational antecedents of second-order competences

    Strategic Management Journal

    (2008)
  • Y.L. Doz et al.

    Formation processes of R&D consortia: which path to take? Where does it lead?

    Strategic Management Journal

    (2000)
  • J.H. Dyer et al.

    Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: the Toyota case

    Strategic Management Journal

    (2000)
  • J.J. Ebben et al.

    Efficiency, flexibility, or both? Evidence linking strategy to performance in small firms

    Strategic Management Journal

    (2005)
  • K.M. Eisenhardt et al.

    Dynamic capabilities: what are they?

    Strategic Management Journal

    (2000)
  • D. Faems et al.

    Interorganizational collaboration and innovation: toward a portfolio approach

    Journal of Product Innovation Management

    (2005)
  • M. Fichman et al.

    Multiple imputation for missing data: making the most of what you know

    Organizational Research Methods

    (2003)
  • C. Fornell et al.

    Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error

    Journal of Marketing Research

    (1981)
  • N.J. Foss

    Knowledge-based approaches to the theory of the firm: some critical comments

    Organization Science

    (1996)
  • R.M. Grant et al.

    A knowledge accessing theory of strategic alliances

    Journal of Management Studies

    (2004)
  • Cited by (0)

    Olli-Pekka Kauppila is a postdoctoral scholar at Aalto University, Department of Management and International Business. He received his Ph.D. in organization and management from Aalto University and M.Sc. degree from Turku School of Economics at the University of Turku. Olli-Pekka's current research interests include organizational ambidexterity, interorganizational relationships and alliance capabilities. His recent articles have appeared in Strategic Organization, Industrial Marketing Management, and Management Learning. Email: [email protected]

    View full text