The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Interorganizational Routines and Performance in Strategic Alliances
Abstract
This paper applies evolutionary economics reasoning to the strategic alliance context and examines whether and how routinization processes at the partnering-firm level influence the performance of the cooperative agreement. In doing so, it introduces the concept of interorganizational routines, defined as stable patterns of interaction among two firms developed and refined in the course of repeated collaborations, and suggests that partner-specific, technology-specific, and general experience accumulation at the partnering-firm level influence the extent to which alliances result in knowledge accumulation, create new growth opportunities, and enable partnering firms to achieve their strategic objectives. We also consider how governance design choices at the transaction level shape the effectiveness of interorganizational routizination processes. Based on a sample of 145 biotechnology alliances, we find that only partner-specific experience has a positive impact on alliance performance, and that this effect is stronger in the absence of equity-based governance mechanisms. We interpret these results to support the role of interfirm coordination and cooperation routines in enhancing the effectiveness of collaborative agreements.
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
Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920638601200408 · Cited by 17,102
Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3150783 · Cited by 12,222
Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224377701400320 · Cited by 10,390
Burt, R. S. (1992) · doi:10.4159/9780674029095 · Cited by 9,093
Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity
Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E., & Welsch, R. E. (1980) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471725153 · Cited by 7,297
A transaction costs theory of equity joint ventures
Hennart, J. (1988) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250090406 · Cited by 1,843 · cited 1×
“In equity alliances, ownership creates a situation of residual claimancy that serves to align the partner’s incentives more closely than a contract alone can (e.g., Hennart 1988).”
BackgroundOrganizational routines are stored as procedural memory: Evidence from a laboratory study
Cohen, M. D., & Bacdayan, P. (1994) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.5.4.554 · Cited by 1,393
Common methods bias: does common methods variance really bias results?
Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1998) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/109442819814002 · Cited by 1,380
Cited by
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
A Behavioral Theory of the Firm—40 Years and Counting: Introduction and Impact
Argote, L., & Greve, H. R. (2007) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1070.0280 · Cited by 606
Heimeriks, K. H., & Duysters, G. (2007) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00639.x · Cited by 530
What really is alliance management capability and how does it impact alliance outcomes and success?
Schreiner, M., Kale, P., & Corsten, D. (2009) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.790 · Cited by 507
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Zollo, M., Reuer, J. J., & Singh, H.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2002-12
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 701-713
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2099137380
- Cited by
- 1,180
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 65.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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.