The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The scope and governance of international R&D alliances
Open accessAbstract
Participants in research and development alliances face a difficult challenge: how to maintain sufficiently open knowledge exchange to achieve alliance objectives while controlling knowledge flows to avoid unintended leakage of valuable technology. Prior research suggests that choosing an appropriate organizational form or governance structure is an important mechanism in achieving a balance between these potentially competing concerns. This does not exhaust the set of possible mechanisms available to alliance partners, however. In this paper we explore an alternative response to hazards of R&D cooperation: reduction of the ‘scope’ of the alliance. We argue that when partner firms are direct competitors in end product or strategic resource markets even ‘protective’ governance structures such as equity joint ventures may provide insufficient protection to induce extensive knowledge sharing among alliance participants. Rather than abandoning potential gains from cooperation altogether in these circumstances, partners choose to limit the scope of alliance activities to those that can be successfully completed with limited (and carefully regulated) knowledge sharing. Our arguments are supported by empirical analysis of a sample of international R&D alliances involving electronics and telecommunications equipment companies. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error
Heckman, J. J. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912352 · Cited by 28,779
Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.3.3.383 · Cited by 12,939
Strategic Factor Markets: Expectations, Luck, and Business Strategy
Barney, J. B. (1986) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.10.1231 · Cited by 5,548
Accelerating Adaptive Processes: Product Innovation in the Global Computer Industry
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Tabrizi, B. N. (1995) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393701 · Cited by 2,426
Cited by
Co-opetition between giants: Collaboration with competitors for technological innovation
Gnyawali, D. R., & Park, B.-J. (. (2011) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.01.009 · Cited by 1,044
The Two Facets of Collaboration: Cooperation and Coordination in Strategic Alliances
Gulati, R., Wohlgezogen, F., & Zhelyazkov, P. (2012) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2012.691646 · Cited by 768
Competing with complementors: An empirical look at Amazon.com
Zhu, F., & Liu, Q. (2018) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2932 · Cited by 546
Coordinating and competing in ecosystems: How organizational forms shape new technology investments
Kapoor, R., & Lee, J. M. (2013) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2010 · Cited by 502
Termination outcomes of research alliances
Reuer, J. J., & Zollo, M. (2005) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2004.11.003 · Cited by 157
Governing the Provision of Ecosystem Services
(2013) · Studies in Ecological Economics · doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5176-7 · Cited by 97
Salvato, C., Reuer, J. J., & Battigalli, P. (2017) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2014.0001 · Cited by 86
Fragmenting global business processes: A protection for proprietary information
Gooris, J., & Peeters, C. (2016) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/jibs.2015.44 · Cited by 66
Collaborative business models: Aligning and operationalizing alliances
de Man, A.-P., & Luvison, D. (2019) · Business Horizons · doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2019.02.004 · Cited by 64
Velez-Calle, A. (2018) · No Publisher Supplied · doi:10.7282/t3-8zsd-a782 · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- Oxley, J. E., & Sampson, R. C.
- Venue
- Strategic Management Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-07-20
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 8-9
- Pages
- 723-749
- ISSN
- 0143-2095 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0266
- OpenAlex
- W3125260193
- Cited by
- 872
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 64.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.