Home / Summaries / Designing effective organizations : how to create structured networks / alliance-scope-knowledge

Alliances articles - Oxley&Sampson: The scope and governance of international R&D alliances

13 important questions on Alliances articles - Oxley&Sampson: The scope and governance of international R&D alliances

Firms engaging in R&D alliances must find the right balance between maintaining open knowledge exchange to further the technological development of the alliance and controlling knowledge flows to avoid unintended leakage of valuable technology. What researches O&S regarding this balance?

If an alliance scope is an alternative way (other than equity JV) to control the threat of knowledge leakage and protect technological assets in R&D alliance.

Scope decisions (f.e. only R&D or also manufactoring/marketing alliance) have important implications, for what? (O&S)

For the extent to which alliance partners expose valuable know-how to each other. When the costs of knowledge leakage are high> the alliance scope will be narrowed in order to limit exposure.

What for collboration is recommended when alliance objectives require partners to share complex/tacit knowledge, especially in technology innovative projects? (O&S)

Pisano: JV's is the best form. The transaction cost theory explaines this as following: firms have incentives to behave opportunistically. Contractual governance of collaborations involving complex and tacit knowledge is problematic as contracts are very difficult to specify, monitor and enforce in circumstances. By a JV the hazards of opportunism can be mitigated, because incentives are more closely aligned when ownership of the venture is shared.

Determining alliance scope is one of the most important tasks alliance partners will undertake. The more extensive, interdependent, complex and uncertain the activities are performed in the alliance, the greater the risk of opportunism. What is the result of this? (O&S)

This will lead to uncertainty, what will raise the costs of monitoring and assessing partner behavior.

When joining in all the activities seems the best option, why do firms isolate R&D activities from other aspects of the process? (O&S)

The risk of partner opportunism limits the knowledge-sharing what will reduce the alliance scope. When the alliance purely is R&D, partners are able to partition (afscheiden) the activities such that the exposure of a firm's (tacit) knowledge/skills/routines is relatively small. Contractual safeguards can control the exposed knowledge.

What is the consequence of increasment of the scope of the alliance? (O&S)

The extent of knowledge sharing and coordination inevitably rises. Protection of knowledge becomes more challenging with increases in scope. Knowledge must be exposed to let the JV proceed efficiently.

When will the goal of the alliance be thwarted (gedwarsboomd)? (O&S)

When the alliance partners are competitors in end-product markets, they may be so intent on internalizing the other's knowledge and at the same time limiting access to their own skills, that the goal will be thwarted. Or the scope will be narrowed, to achieve the goal with limited knowledge sharing.

More knowledge sharing > More partners look a like over time (resemble) > undermining rarity and inimitability of resources. What is the result of this? (O&S)

The incentives to team up in technology development projects may be different for leading and lagging firms. Market leaders will more likely 'go alone' to protect know-how and laggards are more willing to team up to get closer to the leader. Being a leader or laggard will influence the scope of activities.

What is the effect of partners having an extensive or (almost) no overlap in technological areas on the scope? (O&S)

Extensive overlap > perceive the other as direct competitor in the resource markets > scope will be restricted to limit exposure of knowledge relevant to competition

And the other way around.

What happens when alliance partners are very far apart in terms of their technological area (O&S)?

Their absorpative capacity (opname van vreemde kennis) will likely limit the achievement of objectives within an alliance.

What conclude O&S regarding the technological overlap, absorptive capacity and the scope?

That means that a technology overlap will have impact on the alliance scope when firms are very close in technological space. The absorptive capacity will have its effecy when partner fims are technologically distant.

Why is the JC a much chosen form bij collaboration? (O&S)

When there is a broad alliance scope, the hazards of contractual alliance increases and therefore increases the need for more protective governance> which is a JV.

What is the overall conclusion of O&S?

They expect that more protective governance structures will make firms more confident in broadening alliance scope. In this sense, adoption of a protective governance structure and narrowing of alliance scope are substitutes; either may be used to control partner opportunism.

The question on the page originate from the summary of the following study material:

Designing effective organizations : how to create structured networks | 9780787960643 | Michael Goold, et al

View summary

A unique study and practice tool
Never study anything twice again
Get the grades you hope for
100% sure, 100% understanding

Remember faster, study better. Scientifically proven.

Alliances articles - Oxley&Sampson: The scope and governance of international R&D alliances

13 important questions on Alliances articles - Oxley&Sampson: The scope and governance of international R&D alliances

Firms engaging in R&D alliances must find the right balance between maintaining open knowledge exchange to further the technological development of the alliance and controlling knowledge flows to avoid unintended leakage of valuable technology. What researches O&S regarding this balance?

Scope decisions (f.e. only R&D or also manufactoring/marketing alliance) have important implications, for what? (O&S)

What for collboration is recommended when alliance objectives require partners to share complex/tacit knowledge, especially in technology innovative projects? (O&S)

Determining alliance scope is one of the most important tasks alliance partners will undertake. The more extensive, interdependent, complex and uncertain the activities are performed in the alliance, the greater the risk of opportunism. What is the result of this? (O&S)

When joining in all the activities seems the best option, why do firms isolate R&D activities from other aspects of the process? (O&S)

What is the consequence of increasment of the scope of the alliance? (O&S)

When will the goal of the alliance be thwarted (gedwarsboomd)? (O&S)

More knowledge sharing > More partners look a like over time (resemble) > undermining rarity and inimitability of resources. What is the result of this? (O&S)

What is the effect of partners having an extensive or (almost) no overlap in technological areas on the scope? (O&S)

What happens when alliance partners are very far apart in terms of their technological area (O&S)?

What conclude O&S regarding the technological overlap, absorptive capacity and the scope?

Why is the JC a much chosen form bij collaboration? (O&S)

What is the overall conclusion of O&S?

Summaries related to Structured Networks - A new approach to organization design

Designing effective organizations : how to c…

Challenging 'strategic HRM' and the relevanc…

Desegregating HRM: A review and synthesis o…

Strategic human resource management and its …

Internationalization of human resource manag…

Economics of personnel and human resource ma…

Taking Stock of Networks and Organizations: …

Psychological Contracts of Employees with th…

Understanding the basic dynamics of organizi…

Human resource development

Justice : what's the right thing to do?

Advanced Service Management