Firms use repeated partnerships to gain the benefits of shared experience such as improved coordination, collaboration, and adaptation. However, there are downsides to partnering repeatedly, including vulnerability to opportunistic partners upon whom the firm becomes dependent, muted efficiency incentives, and overlooking better options. This paper unpacks the effects of repeated partnerships by investigating their impact on two distinct types of performance: revenue and profitability. To understand repeated partnerships, we analyze a unique dataset of 580 partnerships that completed 144 bridge construction projects. Controlling for project attributes that affect the level of outsourcing, we posit that a greater proportion of repeated partners and deeper relationships with these partners will result in greater revenue through winning bids, but that the prime contractor will not necessarily garner higher profits. We find support for these predictions, highlighting the trade-offs of repeated partnerships. ABSTRACTFirms use repeated partnerships to gain the benefits of shared experience such as improved coordination, collaboration, and adaptation. However, there are downsides to partnering repeatedly, including vulnerability to opportunistic partners upon whom the firm becomes dependent, muted efficiency incentives, and overlooking better options. This paper unpacks the effects of repeated partnerships by investigating their impact on two distinct types of performance: revenue and profitability. To understand repeated partnerships, we analyze a unique dataset of 580 partnerships that completed 144 bridge construction projects. Controlling for project attributes that affect the level of outsourcing, we posit that a greater proportion of repeated partners and deeper relationships with these partners will result in greater revenue through winning bids, but that the prime contractor will not necessarily garner higher profits. We find support for these predictions, highlighting the trade-offs of repeated partnerships.

Carbon dioxide capture and geological storage is a technology that could be used to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere from large industrial installations such as fossil fuel-fired power stations by 80–90%. It involves the capture of carbon dioxide at a large industrial plant, its transport to a geological storage site and its long-term isolation in a geological storage reservoir. The technology has aroused considerable interest because it can help reduce emissions from fossil fuels which are likely to remain the dominant source of primary energy for decades to come. The main issues for the technology are cost and its implications for financing new or retrofitted plants, and the security of underground storage.

Our knowledge-based society is pressing universities to transform from monastic scholarly enclaves into producers of new technologies and incubators of start-up firms. However, converting scientists' curiosity-driven discoveries into commercially viable innovations has proven so difficult that observers liken the journey to crossing a 'Valley of Death'. We conceptualise the challenges of commercialising university inventions in terms of three gaps: the technology discovery gap, the commercialisation gap, and the venture launch gap. We chronicle the inception and evolution of a technology commercialisation programme at the University of Oregon, relating how the university confronted and dealt with the three gaps, and describing the intra-organisational partnerships developed to address them. We find that negotiating the gaps requires assimilation of a technology commercialisation mission into the traditional academic missions of education and scientific discovery. To do this, universities must confront fundamental contradictions between learning, discovery, and commercialisation.

Firm boundaries and strategic execution affect the firm's ability to generate rents, grow, and survive. Boundaries are determined through governance mode choices, such as whether to make or buy a particular good or activity. While significant work has addressed the performance implications of this fit, less attention has been directed toward strategic execution, or implementation. In particular, the impact of corporate parents has been understudied. We suggest that parent-level implementation capabilities of operating expertise gained through related experience and coordination from collocation combine with governance mode choices to jointly affect performance. By employing theories of organizational economics and testing predictions in casual dining chains, this paper unpacks the relationship between implementation, governance mode choice, and performance. Our findings suggest that parent capabilities may be more important than mode choice fit and that parent benefits are contingent upon mode choice and type of performance.

No abstract