The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Differential Learning and Interaction in Alliance Dynamics: A Process and Outcome Discrepancy Model
Abstract
Our paper develops a dynamic theory of alliances by examining certain outcome and process discrepancies that may emerge as the partners interact, highlighting issues that are especially relevant in knowledge intensive alliances, such as joint R&D or product development. Firms enter into these types of alliances to create economic value and to acquire knowledge to enhance their competencies. The degree to which the partners can realize their objectives is dependent on their absorptive capacities and the collaborative strategies adopted by the partners. Outcome and process discrepancies may emerge as collaboration unfolds. Outcome discrepancies concern the ability of the partners to achieve their economic and learning objectives. Process discrepancies relate to the partners' satisfaction with the pattern of interaction, and affect their feelings of psychological attachment to the relationship. How the partners assess and react to discrepancies shapes the developmental path of an alliance. The alliance flourishes in certain states but may collapse in others as the collaboration is subjected to environmental changes or shifts in the grand strategies of the partners. Guidelines for assessing and managing outcome and process discrepancies are suggested.
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
Affect and Cognition Based Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations
McAllister, D. J. (1995) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256727 · Cited by 7,346
The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988) · Critical Issues in Social Justice · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-2115-4 · Cited by 6,585
Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1985.4279103 · Cited by 3,385
Cited by
Van den Bosch, F. A. J., Volberda, H. W., & de Boer, M. (1999) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.10.5.551 · Cited by 1,630
Alliance Management as a Source of Competitive Advantage
Ireland, R. (2002) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1016/s0149-2063(02)00134-4 · Cited by 1,431
Balancing Exploration and Exploitation in Alliance Formation
Lavie, D., & Rosenkopf, L. (2006) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2006.22083085 · Cited by 1,371
Walking a Tightrope: Creating Value Through Interorganizational Relationships
Barringer, B. R., & Harrison, J. S. (2000) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1016/s0149-2063(00)00046-5 · Cited by 1,369
The Co-Evolution of Strategic Alliances
Koza, M. P., & Lewin, A. Y. (1998) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.9.3.255 · Cited by 1,239
Metadata
- Authors
- Kumar, R., & Nti, K. O.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 1998-06
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 356-367
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W1994370215
- Cited by
- 464
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 49.03
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Differential Learning and Interaction in Alliance Dynamics: A Process and Outcome Discrepancy Model. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/orsc.9.3.356
- The paper
- Kumar, R., & Nti, K. O. (1998). Differential Learning and Interaction in Alliance Dynamics: A Process and Outcome Discrepancy Model. Organization Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.3.356
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.