2005
DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2005.00123.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Strategic Alliances in Action: Toward a Theory of Evolution

Abstract: The popularity and prevalence of strategic alliances for problem solving has been well documented in research on the corporate sector and public policy. However, there has been limited work to date on building a comprehensive theory about the evolutionary process of alliances. The purpose of this article is to synthesize current research on alliance development in order to develop a model of strategic alliance evolution. The theoretical model is built with ideas from prior research as well as findings from our… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
46
0
3

Year Published

2006
2006
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 43 publications
(49 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
46
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Considerable flexibility was granted to the partner within the context of an improved standard of care. Whilst narrowly defined agreements may undermine goodwill and trust development between the partners (Albers et al, 2013;Greenhalgh, 2001), the absence of monitored targets makes it difficult to assess the alliance impact (Wohlstetter et al, 2005), to utilise the full alliance potential (Hoffmann & Schlosser, 2001), or to realise when it is off-course. Regularly assessing the performance is an alliance success determinant (Harbison & Pekar, 1998;Sampson, 2005).…”
Section: Measure and Monitor Performancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Considerable flexibility was granted to the partner within the context of an improved standard of care. Whilst narrowly defined agreements may undermine goodwill and trust development between the partners (Albers et al, 2013;Greenhalgh, 2001), the absence of monitored targets makes it difficult to assess the alliance impact (Wohlstetter et al, 2005), to utilise the full alliance potential (Hoffmann & Schlosser, 2001), or to realise when it is off-course. Regularly assessing the performance is an alliance success determinant (Harbison & Pekar, 1998;Sampson, 2005).…”
Section: Measure and Monitor Performancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…La colaboración entre empresas con afán de lucro y OSFL puede ser de nida como acuerdos voluntarios y cooperativos cuyo objetivo es mejorar la posición competitiva y el desempeño de empresas y OSFL (Austin y Seitanidi, 2012;Bouwen y Taillieu, 2004;Jamali y Keshishian, 2009;Koljatic y Silva, 2008;Kolk et al, 2008;Seitanidi, 2010;Wohlstetter et al, 2005). Envuelven una cuidadosa consideración de la elección del socio (Seitanidi et al, 2011), una misión interconectada (Austin, 2000;Vangen y Huxham, 2011), alineamiento de valores (Samii et al, 2002), una clara asignación de administración de responsabilidad en las áreas de competencia de ambas organizaciones (Austin, 2000;Austin, 2003), compromiso de recursos, comunicación abierta y constructiva.…”
Section: Relaciones De Colaboración Entre Organizacionesunclassified
“…Accountability partners promote public engagement (as recommended by O'Leary, Bingham, & Choi, 2010), legitimize the collaborative through outside authority, and provide additional accountability to the collaborative work (Bryson, Crosby, & Stone, 2006;Page, 2008;Wohlstetter, Smith, & Malloy, 2005;Human & Provan, 2000). Although these individuals and groups are important in motivating the work of the collaborative, they are not actually involved in the work; that is, the collaborative remains independent from the accountability partners as it develops strategies to address the social issue and implements communitywide initiatives related to those strategies.…”
Section: A Strong Accountability Partnermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…More favorable evaluations of the implementation team's skills significantly increased the accountability of individual LAP participants. collaboratives to stay on track (Human & Provan, 2001;Wohlstetter, Smith, & Malloy, 2005). Importantly, when the relationship with these groups is well managed by a skilled implementation team, accountability partners promote individual accountability within collaboratives.…”
Section: Recommendations For Grantmakersmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation