The Effect of General and Partner-Specific Alliance Experience on Joint R&D Project Performance
Abstract
Drawing on the organizational learning literature, we posited that both general, diverse-partner experience and partner-specific experience contribute to alliance performance, but at a declining rate. We tested hypotheses in unique data on the objective performance of projects between large pharmaceutical firms and biotechnology partners. The general alliance experience of the biotechnology partners, but not of the pharmaceutical firms, positively affected joint project performance. This relationship exhibited diminishing marginal returns. Contrary to predictions, partner-specific experience had a negative, marginally significant effect on joint project performance.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Continued reliance on established information transfer processes can prevent acquiring new types of knowledge that may prove critical under drastically altered environmental conditions.
“Continued reliance on established information transfer processes, for example, can prevent acquiring new types of knowledge that may prove critical under drastically altered environmental conditions (Hoang and Rothaermel, 2005;Sampson, 2005).”
From On the contingent value of dynamic capabilities for competitive advantage: The nonlinear moderating effect of environmental dynamism (2014) · cites this paper as Hoang and Rothaermel, 2005
The subjective alliance management capability measure was significantly correlated with prior alliance experience (r = 0.27; p ≤ 0.001), supporting its validity.
“Both measures were significantly correlated (r = 0.27; p ≤ 0.001), which supported the validity of the perceptual measure.”
From On the contingent value of dynamic capabilities for competitive advantage: The nonlinear moderating effect of environmental dynamism (2014) · cites this paper as Hoang and Rothaermel, 2005
Cites
Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage
Barney, J. (1991) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920639101700108 · Cited by 48,334 · see citing works
A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation
Nonaka, I. (1994) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.5.1.14 · Cited by 17,809 · see citing works
Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology
Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393988 · Cited by 8,499 · see citing works
Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development
Leonard-Barton, D. (1992) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250131009 · Cited by 6,477 · see citing works
Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., & Kim, H. (1997) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256948 · Cited by 2,855 · see citing works
Interfirm cooperation and startup innovation in the biotechnology industry
Shan, W., Walker, G., & Kogut, B. (1994) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250150505 · Cited by 1,166 · see citing works
Knowledge Management Processes and International Joint Ventures
Inkpen, A. C., & Dinur, A. (1998) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.9.4.454 · Cited by 993 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Schilke, O. (2014) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2099 · Cited by 1,264 · see citing works
Ego-Network Stability and Innovation in Alliances
Kumar, P., & Zaheer, A. (2019) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2016.0819 · Cited by 171 · see citing works
Confident or Competent? How to Avoid Superstitious Learning in Alliance Portfolios
Heimeriks, K. H. (2010) · Long Range Planning · doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2009.10.004 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Yang, W., & Lee, S. (2025) · Clinical and Translational Science · doi:10.1111/cts.70135 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hoang, H., & Rothaermel, F. T.
- Affiliations
- INSEAD (FR)
- Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
- Venue
- Academy of Management Journal
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2005-04
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 332-345
- ISSN
- 0001-4273 (ISSN-L)
- 1948-0989
- OpenAlex
- W2105115435
- Cited by
- 784
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 63 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 59 · 2015: 59 · 2014: 52 · 2013: 49 · 2012: 44
- FWCI
- 89.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Academy of Management Journal (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Business Strategy and Innovation
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › International Business and FDI
- Keywords
- interfirm alliances, alliance performance, organizational learning, pharmaceutical industry, biotechnology companies, diminishing returns, project performance
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
