Cited by 793Business Strategy and InnovationInnovation and Knowledge ManagementOutsourcing and Supply Chain Management

Interfirm Rivalry and Managerial Complexity: A Conceptual Framework of Alliance Failure

Park, Seung Ho, Ungson, Gerardo R.·2001·Organization Science

Abstract

Empirical research indicates that more than half of strategic alliances fail, and the outcomes of alliance failure can be devastating. Despite the increased concern about managing strategic alliances, the field still lacks a theoretical framework to describe the conditions and dynamics leading to the failure of strategic alliances. This paper attempts to distill, derive, and integrate theories across different disciplines into a unified framework that offers a better understanding of alliance failure. The conceptual framework focuses on two primary sources of alliance failure: interfirm rivalry and managerial complexity. We propose that strategic alliances fail because of the opportunistic hazards as each partner tries to maximize its own individual interests instead of collaborative interests. Also, strategic alliances fail because of the difficulties in coordinating two independent firms (i.e., coordination costs), and in aligning operations at the alliance level with parent firms’ long-term goals (i.e., agency costs). The paper extends the theoretical framework by looking into a process model of alliance development and failure.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/orsc.12.1.37.10118

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Park, S. H., & Ungson, G. R.
Affiliations
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
  • University of Oregon (US)
Venue
Organization Science
Published
2001-02
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
37-53
ISSN
  • 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5455
OpenAlex
W2144123907
Cited by
793
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 53 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 44 · 2017: 38 · 2016: 52 · 2015: 62 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 51 · 2012: 41
FWCI
26.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Organization Science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Business Strategy and Innovation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Outsourcing and Supply Chain Management
Keywords
strategic alliances, alliance failure, corporate rivalry, managerial complexity, opportunism, coordination costs, agency costs, alliance development, inter-organizational collaboration, conceptual framework

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