Strategic Alliancse Discussion Question. In Working Responses

Strategic Alliancse

Discussion Question. In working responses Discussion Question, choose examples experience find cases Web discuss. Credit references make relevant examples real companies. Analyse journal article regard proposed integrated framework knowledge tacitness trust act mediating mechanisms relationship partner characteristics alliance outcomes.

Nielsen, B.B. & Nielsen, S. (2009). Learning and innovation in international strategic alliances:

an empirical test of the role of trust and tacitness. Journal of Management Studies, 46 (6): 1031-1056

According to Nielsen & Nielsen "learning and innovation in ISA [International Strategic Alliances] are likely to be influenced by a firm's ability (know-how) and willingness (protectiveness) to transfer knowledge, mediated by the codifiability and transferability of knowledge to be shared (knowledge tacitness) and the quality of the relationship (trust)" (Nielsen & Nielsen 2009: 1033). Ideally, relationships between firms across international boundaries are characterized by a free flow of communication between entities and the alliance is founded in cultural understanding and a sense of trust between the two partners involved.

While Nielsen & Nielsen's study was a quantitative, survey-based instrument, many might protest that there are many notable examples 'in the real world' of cases where ISAs were failures. Measuring trust -- a critical component of the formula -- can be challenging and a lack of trust between the entities leads to a failure to share knowledge and subsequently a failure to generate innovations. However, there are a number of examples of cases in which such bonds of trust were possible to generate, often because of mutually shared interests.

For example, "Kraft's Maxwell House brand and Starbucks -- direct competitors -- created an alliance for Starbucks to place its coffee into supermarkets. Starbucks benefited from Maxwell House's extensive network of shelf space in major chains nationwide, while Maxwell House profited from customer desire for Starbucks-branded coffee" (Segil 2002). Starbucks wanted an inroad into supermarkets to be able to sell its coffee and by capitalizing upon Maxwell's willingness to share shelf space; Maxwell House was able to gain financial remuneration while Starbucks was able to reframe its brand as a supermarket coffee at a time when many consumers were beginning to balk at its store's latte prices. Pharmaceutical companies have profited through information-sharing. Bringing a new drug to market can be extremely costly, and without knowledge-sharing, including knowledge-sharing across national and organizational borders, the race to develop a new drug becomes infinitely more challenging. At present, "Eli Lilly and Takeda Chemical Industries of Osaka, Japan, have joined together to develop a drug for the treatment of type-2 diabetes" (Segil 2002).