Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing

An analysis of strategic alliances: forms, functions and framework

Niren M. Vyas William L. Shelburn Dennis C. Rogers

Article information:

Downloaded by INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY GHAZIABAD At 23:59 03 October 2016 (PT)

To cite this document:

Niren M. Vyas William L. Shelburn Dennis C. Rogers, (1995),"An analysis of strategic alliances: forms, functions and
framework", Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 10 Iss 3 pp. 47 - 60
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08858629510147466
Downloaded on: 03 October 2016, At: 23:59 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 46 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 6299 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

(2001),"An overview of strategic alliances", Management Decision, Vol. 39 Iss 3 pp. 205-218 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
EUM0000000005452
(2005),"Strategic alliances and models of collaboration", Management Decision, Vol. 43 Iss 1 pp. 123-148 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251740510572533
(2008),"Governance structure choice in strategic alliances: The roles of alliance objectives, alliance management experience,
and international partners", Management Decision, Vol. 46 Iss 5 pp. 725-742 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251740810873482

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:471980 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

An analysis of strategic
alliances: forms, functions and
framework
Niren M. Vyas, William L. Shelburn and Dennis C. Rogers

Downloaded by INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY GHAZIABAD At 23:59 03 October 2016 (PT)

The pace of strategic

alliances is
quickening

From software to steel, aerospace to apparel, the pace of strategic alliances is

quickening. Defined broadly as any relationship between companies
involving a sharing of common destinies, strategic alliances are cropping up
all across the globe. A strategic alliance is an agreement between two or more
partners to share knowledge or resources which could be beneficial to all
parties involved.
Strategic alliances can be as simple as two companies sharing their
technological and/or marketing resources. In contrast, they can be highly
complex, involving several companies, located in different countries. These
firms may in turn be linked with other organizations in separate alliances. The
result is a maze of intertwined companies which may be competing with each
other in several product areas.

Go-it-alone strategy

A few years ago strategic alliances were perceived as an option reserved only
for corporate giants. Today, however, for many companies, a go-it-alone
strategy no longer seems to be a viable alternative. As a result of the
maturation of several trends of the 1980s intensified foreign competition,
shortened product cycles, soaring capital investment costs, and the evergrowing demand for new technologies alliances are becoming an attractive
strategy for the future.
Published material on the subject is vast, diverse and fragmented (Harrigan,
1987; Lawrence and Vlachoutsicos, 1993; Lewis, 1991; Link, 1990; Norhia
and Garcia-Pont, 1991; Oliver, 1990; Olson, 1990; Rupp and Hamilton, 1992;
Steele, 1990; Taylor and Kaufmann, 1992; Wisnieski, 1992). The purpose of
this article is to synthesize this material and to develop a model of the
workings of strategic alliances.
Figure 1 shows how alliances are forged along a variety of dimensions.
Analyzing the alliances along these dimensions is helpful in understanding
the motivation behind this trend and the critical factors for their success.
Intra/inter-industry alliances
An example of intraindustry alliance

Alliances can take place intra- or inter-industry. The three US auto makers
have formed an alliance to develop an efficient battery for an electric car.
This is an example of intra-industry alliance. The motivation behind such an
alliance would be to meet the upcoming regulation in the state of California
to have a certain percentage of cars on the road by the year 2000 which will
not use gasoline (pollution free). If successful, this alliance will help fight
foreign (Japanese or European) competition and prevent the loss of US
market share to imports. The common objective here is to protect the home
turf (Shan, 1990).

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 10 NO. 3 1995 pp. 47-60 MCB UNIVERSITY PRESS. 0885 8624

47

Strategic alliance
Dimension

Industry
(sector)

Intra-industry sector

Intra-industry sector

Domestic

International

Supplier

Non-supplier

Arena

Downloaded by INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY GHAZIABAD At 23:59 03 October 2016 (PT)

Relationship

Technology/
market

Technology
related (TR)

Market related
(MR)

Combination of
TR and MR
Diversification
(new markets
or market

State of
technology

Technology
fusion

Newborn
technology

Embryonic
technology
(to be
developed)

Synergy
(efficiency
cost reduction
sharing

Distribution
Products

Process

Defend market
share

Raw material

Figure 1. Dimensions of strategic alliances

The Dupont (chemical giant)/Merck (pharmaceutical giant) alliance is an

example of an inter-industry alliance. Dupont brings its productive discovery
capabilities along with imaging-agents business experience, while Merck
contributes its development expertise, capital, market rights to several
brands, and its established skills in bringing products to commercial fruition.
Merck wanted to speed the costly process of bringing products to market.
Dupont wanted to establish itself as a force in the pharmaceutical market
(i.e. diversification). The main motivating force behind this alliance is
pooling of expertise to create synergy (Huston, 1991).
Arena of alliances
The second
dimension of
strategic alliances

The alliance partners arena represents the second dimension of strategic

alliances. The partners could be from the same country as in the case of the
three auto makers or they could be from different countries. An increasing
number of companies are turning to international alliances.
For example, every member of the big three auto makers has entered into
an alliance with a foreign manufacturer to sell autos in the US: GM with
Toyota (Japan) and Opel (Germany), Ford with Mazda (Japan) and Jaguar
(UK), and Chrysler with Mitsubishi (Japan) and Fiat (Italy) (Hamil et al.,
1989; Kilman, 1989; Selwyn, 1991).

48

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 10 NO. 3 1995

Downloaded by INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY GHAZIABAD At 23:59 03 October 2016 (PT)

The American auto industry has recognized the value of these alliances.
The car manufacturers have enjoyed great success by adopting the
techniques of Japanese and Europeans especially in developing small, fuelefficient cars. These alliances have enabled them to blunt foreign
competition inroads into the domestic market. E.R. Squibb, a
pharmaceutical company (USA), has joined with NOVO (Denmark), a
small insulin and enzyme manufacturer, to market a new insulin product
that was five years ahead of the market. NOVO supplied product and
production technology while Squibb provided the sales and distribution
network for the North American market as well as the expertise needed for
compliance with US government regulations pertaining to NOVOs newly
developed injection system. Winbound Electronic Corporation, Taiwans
third largest semiconductor maker has formed an alliance with NCR
Corporation (USA). Under the agreement Winbound will sell NCRs chip
products in the Taiwanese market and NCR will sell Winbound integrated
circuits in the US market. Both companies are gaining access to the others
home distribution network (Baranson, 1990; Electronic Business, 1991;
Whenmouth, 1993).
Alliances built on relationship
Examples of
working
relationships

Relationship constitutes the next dimension of strategic alliances. Often the

alliance is targeted between a firm and its supplier. This is primarily true
because the supplier is a known quantity for the company. The
relationship facilitates terms of agreement and the negotiation process as a
result of a high level of trust built on past dealings.
For example, BMW (automotive, West Germany) invested in an automated
machine-vision inspection system for automotive parts developed for them
by American Cimlex (USA). Through the alliance, BMW gained rapid and
effective access to a highly innovative product and a fast track from the
laboratory to a marketable commercial prototype. American Cimlex, a much
smaller company, gained access to otherwise unobtainable financial
resources and to BMWs manufacturing know-how and global marketing
capabilities (Barney, 1991; Hamil, 1991).
Intel Corp. (USA) and NMB Semiconductor Co. (Japan) have enjoyed
several years of an excellent working relationship supplying each other with
a variety of electronic items. They have teamed up to build a semiconductor
foundry in Japan. The new facility will give NMB access to Intels
worldwide sales and marketing network, an area where NMB has been
weak. On the other hand, it will give Intel an assured source of high quality
memory chips (Kuhn, 1989).
These alliances are examples of the benefits that can be derived from a longterm commitment made by the members of the alliance. In order to develop
complex technology and properly introduce it into, in many cases, a foreign
market, an extended time frame is required. Such an alliance may last for an
extended time period, often ten years or more, and will often produce
numerous new products.
Influence of technology- and market-related factors on alliances

Why are alliances

formed?

Technology- and market-related factors, or a combination of the two,

influence why alliances are formed. Factors which coalesce to determine the
nature and form of the alliance include:

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 10 NO. 3 1995

49

distribution channels (going around entry barriers);

synergy (to pool resources, increase efficiency, share expertise, reduce

cost, increase market share and become more competitive, etc.);

diversification ( to reduce/share risk, gain access to new market

segments); and

sourcing raw materials (Almassy and Baatz, 1992; Electronic Business,

1990; LaPedus, 1993; Valigra, 1991).

Mature industries lean toward market-related factors to form alliances,

where prospects for new product development and technical breakthroughs
are limited in scope. Their emphasis is on rationalizing production and sales
operations to keep partners viable in a tough competitive environment.

Downloaded by INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY GHAZIABAD At 23:59 03 October 2016 (PT)

For example, Caterpillar Inc. (USA) and Mitsubishi (Japan) have decided to
combine their production of forklift trucks. Rather than competing for
market share, they expect to benefit from joining forces. With the initial aim
of supplying 11% of the world forklift market, the two companies plan to set
up joint production operations in the US, Singapore and The Netherlands.
Caterpillar and Mitsubishi are considered medium-sized among forklift
manufacturers, but working together will put them close to the top three
makers in the world (Capon and Glazer, 1987; Dambrot, 1990; Gross and
Neuman, 1989).
The electronics field

Motivation for high-tech industries to join forces is even more compelling

especially in fields like electronics. The development projects are often too
big for any one company to finance. Also the range of technology required is
more than a single firm can hope to develop by itself.
For example, Corning (USA) is using alliances to retain market presence in
several product areas and expand into newly emerging market opportunities
(optical thin film memory disk and electroluminescent and liquid-crystal flat
panel displays). Teaming has taken place with Siemens (Germany) in optical
cable, with Asahi Glass (Japan) in large screen TV and TV bulbs, and with
Mitsubishi Petrochemicals (Japan) in ceramic devices to control noxious
power plant emissions. Corning has been looking for technology sharing and
marketing partners in Europe for ceramic substances (for emission control)
and automatic catalytic converters (Dunn, 1993).
One lesson that companies everywhere are learning is that no one company
is big enough and strong enough to do everything on its own. For example,
NEC (Japan) and AT&T Microelectronics (USA) the two electronic world
giants, well-endowed with their own semiconductor technology, have
formed a five-year technology partnership to exchange data on applicationspecific integrated circuits (ASIC). IBM is another company that has
forsaken the going-it-alone strategy. The giant US computer company has
teamed up with Nippon Telephone and Telegraph Co. (Japan) and with
Toshiba (Japan) in developing liquid crystal display (LCD) screens (Heide
and John, 1990; Jorde and Teece 1989; Nordwall, 1991).
Alliances driven by state of technology

Technology is an
influencing factor

50

State of the technology, either recently matured (and available for

application) or in an embryonic stage (needing additional R&D), is another
influencing factor in selecting partners for the alliances. Firms seeking
immediate competitive advantages will seek alliances in new but readily
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 10 NO. 3 1995

Downloaded by INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY GHAZIABAD At 23:59 03 October 2016 (PT)

available technologies, while those who want to remain at the cutting edge
of technology and plan for long-term growth team up in technologies which
are in their embryonic stage.
An example of employing newly available technology is the effective use of
the process called technology transfer. In several areas, leading
technologies in commercial electronics are the by-product of technologies
developed for the military. The global positioning system (GPS) is a case in
point. Navigation satellites were developed for defense, but it is the
commercial marketplace that is really rushing to exploit the GPS. Simplicity
of use, the small size of receivers and worldwide applications have made
GPS one of the fastest growing electronic markets. During Operations
Desert Shield and Desert Storm, the military benefitted from the commercial
applications and rushed to buy small GPS receivers developed for civilian
use by US industry (Kanter, 1990; Kogut, 1991; Pisano, 1990).
Teaming up to exploit technologies in the embryonic stage is the example of
the alliance formed by IBM, AT&T and MIT working together on research
in superconductivity. Although IBMs largest research facilities are in the
US, the company also has research facilities in Switzerland and Japan. While
collaboration on manufacturing developments represents the main gains
from the Tokyo center, it also gives IBM access to top flight Japanese
universities and their graduates for research and development (Electronic
Business, 1992; Hagedoern, 1990).
The once lucrative but rapidly shrinking defense R&D budget is leading
many defense contractors to shift to more commercial and less defense
business. The most far-sighted companies are looking for opportunities to
increase the flow of knowledge and transfer of technology between
commercial and government researchers.
Alliances to produce technology fusion
Fusion of
technologies

Fusion of technologies is the last dimension considered in the formation of

strategic alliances. One of the partners may contribute the specific
knowledge of a process (assembly, miniaturization, coating, etc.) which is
critical to gain competitive advantage or to even help create the final
product.
The alliance between SmithKline (USA) and Kubota (Japan) is a case in
point. Kubota is Japans largest producer of agricultural machinery. But, in
1988, from a brand new facility north of Tokyo, Kubota shipped its first
mini-supercomputer, one of the most advanced in the world. The design,
chips, and software were all American; products of the sharpest start-ups in
Silicon Valley. Kubota used its superb assembly know-how to produce a
high quality product (Kodama, 1992; Kogut, 1988).
What happened in the evolution of Japans fiber optics system is an excellent
example of technology fusion. The fiber optic cable developed by Nippon
Sheet Glass (NSG) in the 1970s lacked mechanical strength and the quality
of signal transmission over long distance was poor. Cable manufacturer
Sumitomo Electric Industries (SEI) developed a coating technology that
strengthened the cable, solving the mechanical fragility problem. Then NSG
and SEI together solved the transmission problem through a joint research

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 10 NO. 3 1995

51

effort using longer wavelengths (Link, 1990; Ohmae, 1989; Olleros and
MacDonald, 1988).
Problems with alliances

Downloaded by INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY GHAZIABAD At 23:59 03 October 2016 (PT)

Union of efforts

Power imbalance in terms of size, resources, image or market access may

exist among the alliance members. The initial agreement is frequently based
on the mutual benefit that each company is likely to realize from the union
of efforts. As the time progresses, one party may find that it no longer needs
the skills or the knowledge the other company brought to the union because
such knowledge and skills are duplicable, given the learning experience
from the alliance and the resources of the larger firm. Also technological
changes may have occurred so that, for example, company A no longer
needs Company Bs technological expertise, or Company B has now
developed its marketing skills to the point where it is no longer dependent on
Company A. Situations such as these lead to the termination of an alliance.
In instances where the smaller firm has retained the comparative advantage
(no duplicable expertise), it can still become a target for unfriendly takeover
by the larger alliance member.
Framework for selecting strategic alliances

Figure 2 summarizes the variety of options available to a firm seeking a

strategic alliance. For a firm operating in a mature industry, market-related
factors usually play an important role in the selection of the partners. For a
firm in the growth or high technology sector, technology-related issues
predominate in forming the alliance. Demand for new technologies,
escalating R&D costs, and a trend toward shortened product cycles have
made technology transfer an attractive option.
Technology transfer

In a broad sense, technology transfer is a process by which new ideas

(inventions, technology, knowledge and/or information) developed in one
Type of industry
Mature

Growth high tech

Strategic alliance

Market related

Gain distribution Diversification Gain access

to resources
Access new
Funds
markets
Facilities
Access foreign
Expertise
markets
Access to
raw materials

Technology related

Alliance for
technology
transfer

Alliance for joint R&D

Government University
Share risk
R&D cost
Product failure
Legal suits
Enhance/retain
competitive advantage
Defend market share
Economy of scale
- reduce cost
- increase efficiency
- avoid duplication
Image

Firms in
private sector

Improve product development

Access new technology
Accelerate new product
introduction to the marketplace
Limit strategic risk

Figure 2. Framework, for selecting strategic alliances

52

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 10 NO. 3 1995

organization are applied and utilized in another organization. A firm can

team up with another firm in the private sector, with a university or with a
government laboratory to transfer technology (Hagedoern, 1990).

Downloaded by INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY GHAZIABAD At 23:59 03 October 2016 (PT)

For example, each year, the US federal government spends over $21 billion
on R&D in federal laboratories. Direct results of this R&D could be new
ideas for products, manufacturing processes and the application of new
technologies to improve the existing products. In the past, it has not been
easy for industry to take advantage of inventions from these laboratories.
However, legislation enacted during recent years and the creation of various
agencies to facilitate the process have opened up an untapped resource for
firms in the area of technology transfer from federal facilities.
Scientists in the federal laboratory located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee have
developed a special process which uses custom designed, high energy
microwave ovens that are used to sinter ceramic parts. Through special
agreements, the laboratory is sharing this process with industry participants to
develop ceramic components for gas turbine automobile engines that are 30%
more fuel-efficient and that produce fewer emissions than conventional engines.
Cooperative research between a firm and a government laboratory, a
university or another firm is an additional area for effective alliances. For
example, 1989 legislation allows federal laboratories to enter into
cooperative research and development agreements with any firm, which
gives them access to the vast resources of the laboratories.
Octopus strategy
Multiple alliances

Multidivision companies from Japan, the USA and Europe are joining forces
to create multiple strategic alliances. Figure 3 is an example of how these
multiple alliances are shaping up. Mr Tanikawa of Nomura Research
Institute, Japan calls corporate readiness to forge so many ties the octopus
strategy. For example, as shown in Figure 3, Toshiba (Japan) has formed an
alliance with IBM (USA) and Siemens (Germany) for the development of a
superchip. However, Siemens has teamed up with Fugistu (Japan) an archrival of Toshiba in computer operations; and with Matsushita (Japan) in TV
technology. Matsushita is also in direct competition with Toshiba on several
electronic products (Steele, 1989). Access to advanced technology is crucial
for the future.
Also intellectual property rights have become an extremely important
source of resources for many companies. If organizations can share
development costs and new technologies, they can cut their risks and
increase their income at the same time. Most of these alliances create
synergy. In an alliance for the development of a multimedia unit, Toshiba
has great expertise in manufacturing semiconductors, miniaturization and
marketing. Apples leadership is in user interface, and in hardware and
software integration. Research on a multimedia unit consists of
developing a new generation of computer chips and combining
communications, computer and entertainment technologies in a single
(multimedia) unit. This is an intriguing consumer item. The unit will
enable consumers to display telephone callers on a television screen,
allow shopping from the living room via keyboard and modem, and feed a
laser-disk movie to the kids bedroom and a violin concerto to the guest
room all from the same appliance. One could even use the unit to
compute income taxes and send worksheets to the IRS. The market for an

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 10 NO. 3 1995

53

[Computer operations]

Cannon (Japan)

[Multimedia unit]

[Multimedia unit]
NTT (Japan)

IBM (USA)

[Superchip]

[Liquid crystal
display (LCD)

[Superchip]

[Super conductivity]
MIT
USA

[Multimedia unit]

Toshiba

Downloaded by INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY GHAZIABAD At 23:59 03 October 2016 (PT)

Microsoft (USA)

Siemens (Germany)

[Multimedia unit]

[TV technology]

Advances
Micro-Devices
(USA)

[Super chip]

Fujustu (Japan)

Sony (Japan)

Apple
Computer
(USA)

[Superchip]
[Superchip]

NEC (Japan)

Texas
Instruments
USA

[Application specific integrated circuits (ASIC)]

Matsushita (Japan)

[Multimedia unit]

[Telephone
switches]

AT&T (USA)
Marubeni
(Japan)

Gold Star
(Korea)

General
magic
(USA)
Motorola
(USA)

General
Magic is a
spin off of
Apple
Computer
(USA)

Phillips elec. NV
(The Netherlands)

Figure 3. Octopus strategy

affordable multimedia unit is estimated to be in the hundreds of billions

of dollars. The race is on among these alliances to be the first in the
development of multimedia units.
Implications of the
octopus strategy

54

The opportunity for risk diversification on big projects, as well as an

opportunity to set standards on an industry basis, are the rewards of the
octopus strategy. However, the other implications of this strategy are
unknown. For example, will there be enough rivalry among multinational
giants to prevent price manipulation? How best to coordinate tripolar
operations covering Japan, the United States and Europe? Only time will
provide the answer. However, as joint-development projects near fruition,
companies will have to make tough choices of which partners to keep and
which to drop. Some groups may seek divorce and others will grow
closer and may produce offspring, Mr. Janikawa predicts. Learning the
rules of the alliance game will therefore top the agenda for the latest
generation of corporate decision makers. The next section of the article
deals with the changes in management style for successful strategic
alliances.
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 10 NO. 3 1995

Changes recommended for successful strategic alliances

Downloaded by INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY GHAZIABAD At 23:59 03 October 2016 (PT)

Cooperation is a
growing force in
business

Alliance building is now fundamental to the way large companies conduct

business from technology and product development to manufacturing and
marketing. The world has never been as interdependent as it is now, and all
trends point to cooperation as a fundamental growing force in business. In
the past decade, the number of new business alliances has about doubled
each year, and this trend may even accelerate in the future (LaPedus, 1991).
For example, a recent survey (Electronic Business, 1992) shows that eight
out of ten electronics companies now have alliances, and most CEOs are
planning or negotiating additional agreements.
The quality of business alliances now plays an essential role in how well
most US companies serve their customers in the global marketplace
(Electronic Business, 1991). US executives in general claim to be gaining
significant advantages from their alliances, but they also see room for
improvement (Almassy and Baatz, 1992). Businesses are moving from the
classic closed system which depends on its internal capabilities and
resources to an open system in which reliance on external capabilities and
the development of complex relationships with external entities are
becoming commonplace (Steele, 1989).

Changes in
management style

The changes required in management style to run successful alliances

become clear by comparing traditional ways of running a business with the
suggested ways shown in Table I. Government, industry and education all
must play a role in the transformations necessary for alliances to prosper.
US Business Schools need to devote more resources to understanding the
alliance management process, from contract negotiations to establishing
effective communications. They need to graduate managers with a new set
of competences, including foreign languages, and other communicating and
team-building skills.

Government help

Government must reassess tax and anti-trust laws to facilitate global

cooperative ventures. Japanese and South Korean governments have taken a
lead in such facilitating efforts. Through the Japan External Trade
Organization (JETRO), trade missions representing selected product areas
travel the world seeking new partnerships. For example, the JETRO office in
Osaka sponsored a Matchmakers conference in Chicago in which 20
Japanese firms participated. The firms profiled their intentions in terms of
technology interchange, cooperative R&D, cooperative marketing in third
markets and joint ventures in Europe. Product areas included electronic
materials and parts, high-speed communication equipment, medical
equipment, electronic measuring and control devices, precision machinery
and new materials processing.

US-Korean ventures
in business

The South Korean government plans to set up a $10 million fund to expand
efforts for industrial links with US companies. The Trade, Industry and
Energy Ministry has tapped two business groups, the Korea Foreign Traders
Association and the Federation of Korean Industries, to raise cash for the
funds over five years (Wall Street Journal, 1993). South Korea wants closer
US industrial cooperation to reduce its heavy reliance on Japanese
technology and to reverse a drop in investment from abroad. The fund will
support feasibility studies on strategic alliances of US-Korean ventures in
aerospace, machine tools, computers, environmental facilities, medical

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 10 NO. 3 1995

55

Traditional style

New style

Total control over resources to achieve

objectives

Shared/distributed control

Enteprise structure: closed system

Open system

Conflict resolved through hierarchy when

other means fail

Absence of such a hierarchy in the alliance.

Heavy dependence on negotiation skills

Downloaded by INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY GHAZIABAD At 23:59 03 October 2016 (PT)

Corporate culture:
Success based on competition

Success based on cooperation. Competitors

regarded as potential strategic resources

Emphasis on secrecy of operation

Need for sharing of information with partners

Focus on generating internal resources/

know-how/technologies to maintain/create
competitive advantage

Using alliances as a strategic leverage to

procure resources to maintain/create
competitive advantage

Not invented here (NIH) syndrome

common weakness

NIH discouraged. Identifies need for new

mind set. Encourages search for better ideas
beyond corporate boundaries

Internal stereotypes us-they at

various levels of workforce may persist

Such stereotypes are discouraged with

specific actions such as training, open
communications, team-building efforts at all
levels of workforce

Enterprise structure of closed system may

lead to workforce behavior such as turf
protection, accepting status quo, etc.

Rethinking, relearning, adopting new ideas,

experimentation to do better to avoid the trap
of yesterdays wisdom

Value/importance of good communications

is not obvious because of functional
organization

Value of formal and informal communications

is stressed. Cross-functional approach to
management builds collective understanding

Fear of failure

Failure tolerated and expected to lead to

new insights

Alliance often viewed as a threat (reduced

control/power, loss of job, hence resisted or
at worse rejected

Alliance viewed as a strategic tool

Slow to react to changes

Permits rapid and flexible response to changes

Short-term perspective: to reduce cost,

avoid investment and move manufacturing
to offshore where labor cost is low

Long-term view: develop long-term

objective for gaining access to newly
acquired capabilities

No specific programs to seek out

alliances and make them successful

Specific programs to broaden the experience

and education of the workforce. Mutual
learning and mutual dependence encouraged
through formal training and informal
networking

Table I. Comparison of traditional management style versus new style for

successful strategic alliances

technologies and telecommunications equipment as well as cooperation

between small businesses (Wall Street Journal, 1993).
Alignment of cultures

Cultural differences often create problems in making strategic alliances

work especially between Asian and Western companies. For example,
Japanese companies put employee interests ahead of the shareholders
interests. Western companies, on the other hand, are managed to benefit
their shareholders. Such a difference can cause serious conflict over
investment and dividend policies. The decision process in Asian
companies often takes longer as compared to those in their Western
counterparts. Patience rather than pushing for a decision becomes a helpful
strategy.
56

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 10 NO. 3 1995

Language barriers

Language barriers are another source for delays and frustrations. However,
English is becoming a common international language. Communication
problems may also arise because job definitions are much more specific in
Western companies than in Asian companies. In the end, management
learning is the key to lowering cultural barriers.
Strategic alliance model

Downloaded by INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY GHAZIABAD At 23:59 03 October 2016 (PT)

It is important to identify the steps and variables involved in the workings of

a typical strategic alliance. Barriers to the success of the alliance should also
be identified. Figure 4 depicts the Strategic alliance model.
Scanning the environment for opportunities is the first step in developing
strategic alliances. It includes the firms analysis of its own strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT). Clear understanding of
strengths and opportunities allows the firm to set the short-term and longterm goals and objectives, while the analysis of weaknesses and threats
provides direction to look for alliances. These may include competitors,
suppliers, or other firms which could provide the needed strengths. These
firms constitute the group with alliance potential (GWAP).
The firm should perform similar analyses (SWOT) for its major GWAP
firms to help negotiate the strategic alliances.
Four critical issues identified in the model for the success of the alliance are:
(1) Goal compatibility. Short-term and long-term among alliance partners.
Without such compatibility, the alliance partners may pull in different
directions.
(2) Synergy among partners. One is strong where the other is weak. This is
the major reason for and the advantage of the alliance. The partnership
is efficient, effective and, as a result, much more competitive compared
to each alliance partner performing the similar tasks individually.
(3) Value chain. Clear understanding of what value each partner will bring
to the alliance is the foundation on which trust and relationships are
built for future success.
(4) Balancing contributions of partners in the areas of product
development, manufacturing, and marketing are necessary so that no
one partner dominates the alliance. Absence of such a balance may

SWOT
analysis
(internal)
Scanning the
environment for
opportunities

SWOT
analysis of
GWAP firms
(external)

Goal compatibility:
short-term and longterm amount alliance
partners
Synergy among partners:
one is strong where
other is weak
Value chain: clear
understanding of what
value each partner will
bring to the alliance
Balancing contributions
of partners in product
development,
manufacturing and
marketing

Barriers to success
Failure to understand
and adapt "new style"
of management
(table I)

Successful
strategic
alliance

Failiure to learn and

understand cultural
differences
Lack of iron-clad
commitment to
succeed

Figure 4. Dimensions of strategic alliances

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 10 NO. 3 1995

57

result in the takeover of the weaker partner by the dominant firm or a

short-term relationship, usually resulting in breaking the alliance
without achieving its full potential.
Barriers to
successful strategic
alliances

Barriers to successful strategic alliances must also be recognized. The three

major barriers are:
(1) Failure to understand and adapt to new style of management as
detailed in Table I. The adaptation of a new style of management
requires a change in corporate culture which must be initiated and
nurtured from the top.

Downloaded by INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY GHAZIABAD At 23:59 03 October 2016 (PT)

(2) Failure to learn and understand the cultural differences. Not only do the
cultural differences exist among international firms seeking alliances,
but corporate cultures may be different among firms from the same
country. Flexibility and learning are the greatest tools in overcoming this
barrier.
(3) Lack of iron-clad commitment to succeed. Individuals who negotiated
or implemented the initial alliance agreement may change due to
promotions, transfers, retirement, or terminations. Continuity of total
commitment for the alliance is needed at all levels in the organization
without which the alliance will fail to reach its full potential.
Third party legal
attacks

Recent trends are causing firms to turn increasingly to alliances as a way to

build needed strengths. Such trends include:

reduced opportunities for mergers and acquisitions (as a result of the

virtual disappearance of junk bond markets);

a 1991 Supreme Court ruling that allows third party legal attacks on
takeovers;

higher risks in the uncertain world;

the growing cost of technology; and

mounting global competition.

Hopefully the strategic alliance model discussed in the article will help to
achieve this goal.
Conclusion

In this modern age with our interdependence growing toward a unified

market building stronger domestic and international business is a
commercial necessity. The trend toward strategic alliance is clear; it is not a
passing fad. Deregulation, the emergence of regional trading blocs, the ease
of technology transfer, and the internationalization of markets have
prompted firms to look at each other in a different light as allies rather
than adversaries.
The Japanese and Europeans have used strategic alliances to gain
competitive advantages in world markets. US companies are starting to
grasp the importance of employing this technique to deal with foreign
competition and to enter foreign markets. The emergence of truly global
markets will only add to the number of companies who see strategic
alliances as a means to compete in an ever more competitive world
market.
References and further reading
Almassy, S.E. and Baatz, E.B. (1992), Strategic alliances. 455 electronic executives say
rugged individualism is fading, Electronic Business, March 30, pp. 38-138.

58

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 10 NO. 3 1995

Baranson, J. (1990), Transnational strategic alliances: why, what, where and how,
Multinational Business, No. 2, pp. 54-61.
Barney, J. (1991), Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage, Journal of
Management, Vol. 17, pp. 99-120.
Capon, N. and Glazer R. (1987), Marketing and technology: a strategic coalignment,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51, pp. 1-14.
Dambrot, S.M. (1990), Foreign alliances that make sense, Electronic Business, September 3,
pp. 68-71.
Dunn, D. (1993), Alliances drive ferroelectric technology, Electronic Business News, May 3,
p. 12.
Electronic Business (1990), Challenges for the 90s: shift in focus for strategic alliances,
March 19, pp. 58-60.

Downloaded by INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY GHAZIABAD At 23:59 03 October 2016 (PT)

Electronic Business (1991), Competitive battlefield of the 90s. Strategic alliances: a necessary
ingredient for success, June 17, 1991, pp. 29-77.
Electronic Business (1992), High expectations foil many US/Asian joint ventures,
June, p. 7.
Electronic Business (1993), Korea pursues US alliances, Wall Street Journal, International
Business Section, June 7.
Gross, T. and Neuman, J. (1989), Strategic alliances, vital in global marketing, Marketing
News, Vol. 23 No. 13, pp. 6-8.
Hagedoern, J. (1990), Organizational modes of inter-firm cooperation and technology
transfer, Technovation, Vol. 10, pp. 17-30.
Hamil, G. (1991), Competition for competence and interpartner learning within international
strategic alliances, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12, pp. 83-103.
Hamil, G., Doz, Y.L. and Prahalad, C.K. (1989), Collaborate with competitors and win,
Harvard Business Review, January-February, p. 133.
Harrigan, K. (1987), Strategic alliances: their new role in global competition, Columbia
Journal of World Business, Summer, pp. 67-70.
Heide, J.B., and John, G. (1990), Alliances in industrial purchasing: the determinants of joint
action in buyer-supplier relationships, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 27, pp. 24-35.
Huston, P. (1991), When two companies capitalize on each others strengths, Medical
Marketing and Media, February, pp. 16-25.
Jorde, T.M. and Teece, D.J. (1989), Competition and cooperation: striking the right balance,
California Management Review, Vol. 25, p. 31.
Kanter, R.M. (1990), When giants learn cooperative strategies, Planning Review, Vol. 18
No. 1, pp. 15-22.
Kilman, R.H. (1989), Tomorrows company wont have walls, New York Times, Business
Section, June 18, p. 3.
Kodama, F. (1992), Technology fusion and the new R&D, Harvard Business Review, JulyAugust, pp. 70-8.
Kogut, B. (1988), Joint ventures: theoretical and empirical perspectives, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 9, pp. 319-32.
Kogut, B. (1991), Joint ventures and the option to expand and acquire, Management Science,
Vol. 37, pp. 19-33.
Kuhn, R.L. (1989), Japanese-American strategic alliances, Journal of Business Strategy,
March-April, pp. 51-3.
LaPedus, M. (1993), Alliances boost sales, Electronic Business News, May 3, p. 41.
Lawrence, P. and Vlachoutsicos, C. (1993), Joint ventures in Russia: put the locals in charge,
Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp. 44-54.
Lewis, J.D. (1991), Competitive alliances redefine companies, Management Review, April,
pp. 14-18.
Link, A.N. (1990), Perspectives on cooperative research: learning from US experiences,
Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 5, pp. 731-8.
Nordwall, B.D. (1991), Electronic companies form alliances to counter rising costs, Aviation
Week and Space Technology, June 17, pp. 151-2.
Norhia, N. and Garcia-Pont, C. (1991), Global strategic linkages and industry structure,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12, pp. 105-24.

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 10 NO. 3 1995

59

Downloaded by INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY GHAZIABAD At 23:59 03 October 2016 (PT)

Ohmae, K. (1989), The global logic of strategic alliances, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 89
No. 2, pp. 143-54.
Oliver, C. (1990), Determinant of interorganizational relationships: integration and future
directions, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15, pp. 241-65.
Olleros, F. and MacDonald, R. (1988), Strategic alliances; managing complementarity to
capitalize on emerging technologies, Technovation, Vol. 7, pp. 155-76.
Olson, J. (1990), Choices for innovation-minded corporations, The Journal of Business
Strategy, Vol. 11, pp. 26-42.
Pisano, G. (1990), The R&D boundaries of the firm: an empirical analysis, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 35, pp. 153-76.
Porter, M. (1990), The competitive advantage of nations, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 88
No. 2, pp. 73-93.
Rupp, W.T. and Hamilton, R.H. (1992), Cooperative strategies and performance: an empirical
analysis of the telecommunications industry, paper presented at the Southern Management
Association, New Orleans, LA.
Saghafi, M. and Davidson, C. (1989), New age of global competition in semiconductor
industry, Columbia Journal of World Business, Winter, pp. 60-70.
Selwyn, M. (1991), Making marriages of convenience, Asian Business, January, pp. 26-9.
Shan, W. (1990), The empirical analysis of organizational strategies by entrepreneurial hightechnology firms, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, pp. 129-39.
Steele, L.W. (1989), Managing Technology: The Strategic View, McGraw Hill, New York,
NY.
Steele, L.W. (1990), Managing joint international development, Research Technology
Management, July-August, pp. 16-26.
Taylor, L.A. and Kaufmann, J.B. (1992), Technology driven strategic alliances: the impact of
technological risk and potential on strategic alliance form, paper presented at Southern
Management Association, New Orleans.
Valigra, L. (1991), Fuji-Xerox: example worth copying, Asian Business, January, p. 29.
Whenmouth, E. (1993), Rivals become partners, Industry Week, February 1, pp. 11-14.
Wisnieski, J.M. (1992), Strategic alliances for commercializing technology: beauty or the
beast, paper presented at Southern Management Association, New Orleans, LA.

Niren M. Vyas, William L. Shelburn and Dennis C. Rogers are based at the
University of South Carolina, Aiken, South Carolina, USA.
60

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 10 NO. 3 1995

Downloaded by INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY GHAZIABAD At 23:59 03 October 2016 (PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. Inwon Kang, Shin Han, Geon-Cheol Shin. 2014. A process leading to strategic alliance outcome: The case of IT companies in
China, Japan and Korea. International Business Review 23:6, 1127-1138. [CrossRef]
2. Imam Wahyudi Department of Management, University of Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia . 2014. Commitment and trust in
achieving financial goals of strategic alliance. International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management 7:4,
421-442. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Frans Prenkert, Atle Flgesvold. 2014. Relationship strength and network form: An agent-based simulation of interaction in a
business network. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ) 22:1, 15-27. [CrossRef]
4. Erica Mazzola, Giovanni Perrone. 2013. A strategic needs perspective on operations outsourcing and other inter-firm relationships.
International Journal of Production Economics 144:1, 256-267. [CrossRef]
5. Gary D. Holt, David J. Edwards. 2013. Inter-organizational interactions among a sample of plant-reliant construction subcontractors. Engineering Project Organization Journal 3:2, 100-115. [CrossRef]
6. Nurullah Gen, Nihat Alayolu, N. yk yign. 2012. A Conceptual Model Proposal for Determinants, Form, Functions and
Structure Choice in Strategic Alliances. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 58, 1594-1600. [CrossRef]
7. Thomas BrashearPelin BicenDepartment of Marketing, Black School of Business, Penn State University Erie, the Behrend
College, Erie, Pennsylvania, USA Shelby D. HuntDepartment of Marketing, Rawls College of Business, Texas Tech University,
Lubbock, Texas, USA. 2012. Alliance market orientation, new product development, and resource advantage theory. Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing 27:7, 592-600. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. Mohinder Chand, Anastasia A. Katou. 2012. Strategic determinants for the selection of partner alliances in the Indian tour operator
industry: A cross-national study. Journal of World Business 47:2, 167-177. [CrossRef]
9. Wang Dan, Wang Yi-qinEvaluation of cooperative innovation performance based on grey model 335-341. [CrossRef]
10. Stephen M. WigleySchool of Art, Design and Architecture, Huddersfield University, Huddersfield, UK AikateriniKonstantina
ProvelengiouAthens, Greece. 2011. Marketfacing strategic alliances in the fashion sector. Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management: An International Journal 15:2, 141-162. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Murali SambasivanGraduate School of Management, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia Loke SiewPhaikFaculty
of Business Management, UiTM Perak, Perak, Malaysia Zainal Abidin MohamedGraduate School of Management, Universiti
Putra Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia Yee Choy LeongFaculty of Economics and Management, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Selangor,
Malaysia. 2011. Impact of interdependence between supply chain partners on strategic alliance outcomes. Management Decision
49:4, 548-569. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. Michael Pitt, Marjolein van Werven, Samantha Price. 2011. The developing use of strategic alliances in facilities management.
Journal of Retail & Leisure Property 9:5, 380-390. [CrossRef]
13. Michael Jay Polonsky, Kathryn Lefroy, Romana Garma, Norman Chia. 2011. Strategic and tactical alliances: Do environmental
non-profits manage them differently?. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ) 19:1, 43-51. [CrossRef]
14. Brad D. Carlson, Gary L. Frankwick, Kevin J. Cumiskey. 2011. A Framework for Understanding New Product Alliance Success.
The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 19:1, 7-26. [CrossRef]
15. Marco S. Giarratana, Salvatore Torrisi. 2010. Foreign entry and survival in a knowledge-intensive market: emerging economy
countries' international linkages, technology competences, and firm experience. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 4:1, 85-104.
[CrossRef]
16. PAUL TROTT, DAP HARTMANN. 2009. WHY 'OPEN INNOVATION' IS OLD WINE IN NEW BOTTLES. International
Journal of Innovation Management 13:04, 715-736. [CrossRef]
17. Neera JainManagement Development Institute, Gurgaon, India Shoma MukherjiManagement Development Institute, Gurgaon,
India. 2009. Communicating a holistic perspective to the world: Kautilya on leadership. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal 30:5, 435-454. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
18. Vinnie JauhariTushar VaishnavHyatt Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, London, UK Levent AltinayDepartment of Hospitality,
Leisure and Tourism Management, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK. 2009. The franchise partner selection process and
implications for India. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes 1:1, 52-65. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
19. Adam Lindgreen, Martin Hingley and Jacques TrienekensFlvia A. GhisiUniversidade de So Paulo, Piracicaba, Brazil Jos A.G.
da SilveiraUniversidade de So Paulo, So Paulo, Brazil Tore KristensenCopenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark
Martin HingleyHarper Adams University College, Newport, UK Adam LindgreenHull University Business School, Hull, UK.
2008. Horizontal alliances amongst small retailers in Brazil. British Food Journal 110:4/5, 514-538. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Downloaded by INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY GHAZIABAD At 23:59 03 October 2016 (PT)

20. Claudine A. SoosaySchool of Management, Division of Business, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia Paul W.
HylandSchool of Natural and Rural Systems Management, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia Mario FerrerFaculty
of Business and Informatics, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Australia. 2008. Supply chain collaboration:
capabilities for continuous innovation. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 13:2, 160-169. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]

21. Saleema Kauser. 2007. Alliance Relationship Dynamics: Conflict, Structure and Control. Journal of Euromarketing 16:3, 5-25.
[CrossRef]
22. Beth DavisSramekDepartment of Marketing, College of Business, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, USA Brian
S. FugateLehigh University, Bethlehem, Philadelphia, USA Ayman OmarUniversity of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA.
2007. Functional/dysfunctional supply chain exchanges. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 37:1,
43-63. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
23. Chris Easingwood, Steven Moxey, Henry Capleton. 2006. Bringing High Technology to Market: Successful Strategies Employed
in the Worldwide Software Industry. Journal of Product Innovation Management 23:6, 498-511. [CrossRef]
24. Pr hlstrm, Fredrik Nordin. 2006. Problems of establishing service supply relationships: Evidence from a high-tech
manufacturing company. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 12:2, 75-89. [CrossRef]
25. Fredrik Nordin. 2006. Identifying intraorganisational and interorganisational alliance conflictsA longitudinal study of an alliance
pilot project in the high technology industry. Industrial Marketing Management 35:2, 116-127. [CrossRef]
26. Professor Richard DealtryDean ElmutiEastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois, USA Michael AbebeEastern Illinois
University, Charleston, Illinois, USA Marco NicolosiEastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois, USA. 2005. An overview of
strategic alliances between universities and corporations. Journal of Workplace Learning 17:1/2, 115-129. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
27. Ilan Alon. 2005. Forming International Business Alliances: A Case Study of the Global Packaging Industry. Journal of Small
Business & Entrepreneurship 18:1, 1-20. [CrossRef]
28. Angeliki PoulymenakouDepartment of Management Science and Technology, Athens University of Economics and Business,
Athens, Greece Elpida PrasopoulouDepartment of Management Science and Technology, Athens University of Economics and
Business, Athens, Greece. 2004. Adopting a lifecycle perspective to explain the transition from technological innovation to alliance
management. Management Decision 42:9, 1115-1130. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
29. Saleema Kauser, Vivienne Shaw. 2004. International Strategic Alliances. Journal of Global Marketing 17:2-3, 7-43. [CrossRef]
30. Michael J. Polonsky, Romana Garma, Norman Chia. 2004. Australian Environmental Alliances from an Environmental NGOs
Perspective. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 12:2, 73-86. [CrossRef]
31. Saleema KauserExecutive Development Centre, Manchester Business School, Manchester, UK Vivienne ShawDepartment of
Marketing, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. 2004. The influence of behavioural and organisational characteristics on
the success of international strategic alliances. International Marketing Review 21:1, 17-52. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
32. Mosad ZineldinSchool of Management and Economics, Vxj University, Vxj, Sweden Torbjrn BredenlwSchool of
Management and Economics, Vxj University, Vxj, Sweden. 2003. Strategic alliance: synergies and challenges. International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 33:5, 449-464. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
33. Michael Beverland. 2002. Relationship Strategies for Market Entry. Journal of East-West Business 7:4, 55-77. [CrossRef]
34. Angela HausmanAssistant Professor of Marketing, Management, Marketing, and International Business, The University of Texas
Pan American, Edinburg, Texas, USA. 2001. Variations in relationship strength and its impact on performance and satisfaction
in business relationships. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 16:7, 600-616. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
35. Aodheen ODonnellUniversity of Ulster, Newtownabbey, Northern Ireland Audrey GilmoreUniversity of Ulster, Newtownabbey,
Northern Ireland Darryl CumminsUniversity of Ulster, Newtownabbey, Northern Ireland David CarsonUniversity of Ulster,
Newtownabbey, Northern Ireland. 2001. The network construct in entrepreneurship research: a review and critique. Management
Decision 39:9, 749-760. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
36. Alex Sharland. 2001. The Negotiation Process as a Predictor of Relationship Outcomes in International BuyerSupplier
Arrangements. Industrial Marketing Management 30:7, 551-559. [CrossRef]
37. Dean ElmutiLumpkin College of Business and Applied Sciences, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois, USA Yunus
KathawalaLumpkin College of Business and Applied Sciences, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois, USA. 2001. An
overview of strategic alliances. Management Decision 39:3, 205-218. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
38. Saleema Kauser, Vivienne Shaw. 2001. International Strategic Alliances: The Impact of Behavioral Characteristics on Success.
Journal of Euromarketing 10:1, 71-98. [CrossRef]

Downloaded by INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY GHAZIABAD At 23:59 03 October 2016 (PT)

39. Rod McNaughton. 2001. American Software Firms in Europe: Acquire, Invest or Partner?. Journal of Euromarketing 10:1, 49-70.
[CrossRef]
40. Judith Schmitz WhippleAssociate Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, East Lansing, Michigan, USA Julie J.
GentryAssociate Professor, Department of Marketing, University of Marketing, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arizona,
USA. 2000. A network comparison of alliance motives and achievements. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 15:5, 301-322.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
41. David A. Reid, Richard E. Plank. 2000. Business Marketing Comes of Age: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature. Journal
of Business-to-Business Marketing 7:2-3, 9-186. [CrossRef]
42. Michael Beverland. 2000. Uncertainty and Opportunity as Determinants of Strategic Alliances: Evidence from Four Case Studies.
Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ) 8:2, 19-31. [CrossRef]