Managing Strategic Alliances: What Do We Know Now, and Where Do We Go From Here?

Alliances help firms strengthen their competitive position by enhancing market power, increasing
efficiencies, accessing new or critical resources or capabilities, and entering new markets.
On the one hand, companies face significant obstacles in ensuring sufficient success with alliances.
On the other hand, they need to form a greater number of alliances than before, and must
increasingly rely on them as a means of enhancing their competitiveness and growth. If this is
indeed the case, managers need a better understanding of what can manage them better. This
paper takes a step in addressing these questions by drawing on insights gained from prior and
current research on this subject. We examine these issues at two different levels of analysis.
First, we focus at the level of a single alliance between two or more firms, investigating the major
factors that explain the success of a given alliance.
Second, we focus on a firm as a whole that is engaged in not just one but multiple alliances over
time, and we explain how it can get better at managing them. In other words, how can it develop a
firm-level “alliance capability” so as to enjoy greater and repeatable success across all its
alliances?
First, at the alliance level firms need to recognize the growing importance of a new class of
alliances in addition to the traditional firm-to-firm alliance: alliances between firms and not-for-
profit entities, including nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and alliances between firms and
individuals (such as Procter & Gamble’s Connect _ Develop relationships established to foster and
accelerate innovations).
Second, at the firm level, companies need to develop another kind of capability in the alliance
context apart from the capability to enable greater and repeatable success across their set of
alliances—firms also need to learn how to manage their alliance portfolio as a whole. We term this
“alliance portfolio capability,” and later in this paper we describe some
of its constituents. Third, we suggest that if firms have a capability to manage alliances
successfully they have an opportunity to leverage this proficiency to effectively manage
acquisitions, which are traditionally considered to be a different mode of inorganic growth from
alliances.

A strategic alliance is a purposive relationship between two or more independent firms that
involves the exchange, sharing, or codevelopment of resources or capabilities to achieve mutually
relevant benefits. A strategic alliance can span one or more parts of the value chain and have a
variety of organizational configurations typically based on the absence or presence of equity in the
relationship (for example, joint ventures represent one type of an equity based alliance).
The success of any single alliance depends on some key factors that are relevant at each stage of
alliance evolution. These include (a) the formation phase, wherein a firm deciding to initiate an
alliance selects an appropriate partner, (b) the design phase, wherein a firm (and its partner) set
up appropriate governance to oversee the alliance, and (c) the post-formation phase, wherein a
firm manages the alliance on an ongoing basis to realize value.
Alliance Formation Phase: Partner Selection and Fit
Partner complementarity is the extent to which a partner contributes nonoverlapping resources
to the relationship, such that one partner brings those value-chain resources or capabilities the
other lacks and vice versa.
Resource-based theories suggest that the greater the complementarity between partners the
greater the likelihood of alliance success.
However, partner complementarity alone is insufficient for alliance formation and success. A
partner firm must be compatible with the focal firm and committed to the relationship.
Partner compatibility refers to the fit between partners’ working styles and cultures, whereas
commitment includes not only the willingness of a partner to make resource contributions
required by the alliance, but also to make short-term sacrifices to realize the desired longer-term
benefits.
While all three partner attributes— complementarity, commitment, and compatibility—are
vital to the success of an individual alliance, emerging research shows that managers need to
appreciate under which conditions some of these attributes are more critical to alliance success
than others. To illustrate, partner complementarity seems to have greater impact on alliance
success when one partner is relatively younger than the other or when the alliance is such that it is
difficult for partners to fully specify the exact outcomes expected from that alliance. In the latter
case partner complementarity is important, as it provides assurance that due to extant
complementarity of resources or products outcome benefits are likely to be positive even if it is
difficult to fully assess them.
Often, complementarity implies greater interdependence between alliance partners. In that case,
complementarity positively affects alliance success only when partners establish the processes
necessary to manage those interdependences. On the other hand, commitment seems particularly
critical in alliances where partners have identified the specific benefits they expect to gain by
coming together, but remain relatively unclear about the exact processes necessary to achieve
them. In these alliance relationships, partner commitment is more important than usual, as
partners must be willing to dedicate costly resources to the relationship and pledge to work with
each other even when they realize that some adaptation might be required in the future in light of
the uncertainty that exists. Overall, managers need to pay attention to such contingencies
while selecting partners that are generally complementary, compatible, and committed.

Alliance Design Phase: Choice and Implementation of Alliance Governance

An alliance exposes a firm to several transaction or coordination hazards that can adversely affect
the firm itself or its partner. Thus, how a firm constructs alliance governance during the design
phase of the alliance life cycle is crucial to alliance success.
1. First, transaction costs theory has proposed that equity ownership is an effective mechanism to
govern alliances. In an alliance, a firm can expose itself to opportunistic behavior by its alliance
partner if it has invested in relationship-specific assets in order to derive expected benefits, or if
there is uncertainty regarding market conditions facing the relationship. In such situations,
creating an equity-based alliance (wherein one partner takes an equity stake in the other, or both
partners create a new, independent venture wherein both take a stake) is critical to success, as
equity has three governance properties to address the hazards involved.
A. Is the property of “mutual hostages” in which shared equity aligns the mutual interests of the
partners; by owning equity, partners are not only required to make ex ante commitments toward
the alliance, but also their concern for their investment reduces the possibility of future
opportunistic behavior.
B. Equity facilitates hierarchical supervision to monitor day-to-day functioning of the alliance and
address contingencies.
C. Equity ownership creates a basis for each partner to receive a share of the returns from the
alliance in proportion to its level of ownership. This in turn creates an incentive for partners to
cooperate with one another. Numerous studies have provided evidence for the effectiveness of
equity in governing alliances.
2. Contractual provisions in the alliance agreement represent the second mechanism of effective
Governance. Contracts help manage exchange hazards in a variety of ways. A contract clearly sets
forth mutual rights and obligations of partners by specifying each firm’s inputs to the alliance,
processes by which exchanges will occur and disputes will be resolved, and expected outputs from
the relationship. Contracts also limit information disclosures by partners during the operation of
the alliance, specify how each partner will interact with third parties, and outline ways in which
the alliance will end.
3. Self-enforcing governance, relying on goodwill, trust, and reputation is the third mechanism of
effective alliance governance. It is referred to as “Relational governance.” Relational governance
enhances the likelihood of alliance success by reducing transaction costs in several ways: (a)
Contracting costs are minimized because firms trust their partners to behave fairly, (b) monitoring
costs are lower because external, third-party monitoring is not required, and (c) costs of complex
adaptation are lowered because partners are willing to be flexible in response to unforeseen
circumstances. In addition, relational governance enables partners to work together in
implementing value-creation initiatives that need sharing of tacit knowledge between partners,
exchanging resources that are difficult to price, and offering responses that are not explicitly called
for in the contract. Finally, if relational governance is based on some resource dependence
between partners, it acts as an effective means to monitor and control partner behavior.
However, in making choices about alliance governance, it is important to understand some of
the subtle relationships between the various governance mechanisms. First, contractual
complexity does not vary across equity and nonequity alliances. This finding implies that equity
alone is insufficient to guarantee successful alliance governance and that these mechanisms might
actually complement each other in driving alliance success.
Second, there are different views of the relationships between formal governance (based on
equity ownership or contracts) and informal governance (based on trust).

Postformation Alliance Management: The Roles of Coordination and Trust

Appropriate decisions linked to partner selection and alliance governance positively affect the
likelihood of success of every alliance. However, to realize the expected benefits, firms must also
proactively manage an evolving entity such as an alliance after it is up and running. Two factors
are especially important during the postformation phase of the alliance life cycle: managing
coordination between partners and developing trust between them.
Alliance partners must coordinate their actions to manage their interdependence and realize the
benefits of their relationship. But severe coordination problems can result from the lack of
sufficient knowledge about how one’s actions are interdependent with the other’s, what decision
rules a partner is likely to use, how to allocate resources, or how information should be handled.
To manage coordination successfully, alliance partners can use any or all of three classic
mechanisms: programming, hierarchy, and feedback.
Programming involves developing clear guidelines on what specific tasks need to be carried out
by each partner, who exactly is accountable for each task, and a timetable for implementing them.
This mechanism facilitates coordination by improving the clarity and predictability of partner
actions, reducing frustration, and increasing decision-making speed.
The use of hierarchy includes the creation of a formal role or structure with authority and
decision-making ability to oversee ongoing interactions between partners and to facilitate
information and resource sharing.
Finally, in cases where partners need to regularly inform each other of their respective actions or
decisions, or they must periodically evaluate the evolving nature of their interdependence and
adapt to it, feedback mechanisms such as joint teams and collocation are helpful in order to
quickly process pertinent information and mobilize resources accordingly.
The exact nature of various coordination mechanisms and the extent to which they are
required depends on the nature of interdependence between partners. Alliances with reciprocal
interdependence generally need the greater and more complex coordination mechanisms of the
ones listed above.
Many studies find that trust between partners is critical to alliance success, not only because it
facilitates alliance governance, but also because it helps partners work more cooperatively.
Trust comprises two parts: a structural component, which refers to a type of expectation
that one’s partner will not act opportunistically due to a mutual hostage situation and a
behavioral component, which refers to the degree of confidence a firm has in its partner’s
reliability and integrity. The former type of trust is akin to deterrence-based trust, which arises
from the use of governance mechanisms such as shared equity or contractual agreements and the
latter to knowledge-based trust, which gradually emerges as two partners interact and develop
norms of reciprocity and fairness.The behavioral component of trust is particularly critical to
effective functioning of the alliance during the postformation phase.

Howto Build a Firm-Level Capability for Alliance Success?

In an environment where alliances are an important part of a firm’s strategy, having a firm-level
alliance capability to manage alliances would indeed be a source of competitive advantage.
3 MAIN BUILDING BLOCKS underlying the development of alliance capability in firms: prior
alliance experience, creation of a dedicated alliance function, and implementation of firm-level
processes to accumulate and leverage alliance management know-how and skills.

1. Building Alliance Capability Through Experience

Quite simply, a firm can develop its alliance capability by having greater experience in doing
alliances. Implicit feedback from alliance experience helps build alliance management skills
through tacit “learning by doing.”
Firms with greater alliance experience presumably have greater alliance capability and hence are
more likely to succeed with the new alliance they have formed.

Creating an Alliance Function to Build Alliance Capability

The adoption of higher-order organizing principles, such as creating a separate structure
or entity that is responsible for coordinating and managing a firm’s overall alliance activity, is
critical.
A separate organizational unit to manage alliances, commonly referred to as a “dedicated alliance
function,” is vital in building an organization’s alliance capability. The dedicated alliance function
provides several benefits to firms.
First, it is a focal point for capturing and storing alliance management lessons and best practices
from the firm’s own prior and current alliance experiences as well as leveraging that knowledge
throughout the organization as time and occasion warrant. The managers in this function
become repositories of alliance management know-how by virtue of their repeated involvement
in the various alliances of the firm. Second, the dedicated alliance function enhances the visibility
and awareness of a firm’s alliances among external stakeholders (investors, customers,
government), thus enlisting their buy-in and support.
Third, a dedicated alliance function provides legitimacy and support for a firm’s alliances and
helps garner internal resources necessary for alliance success. Fourth, it acts as a mechanism to
monitor the performance of the firm’s alliances in order to identify potential trouble spots before
they become an issue.
Firms that have a dedicated alliance function to coordinate their alliance activities enjoy a much
greater alliance success rate (around 70%) than firms without one.

3. Establishing Learning Processes to Build Alliance Capability

Building on the knowledge-based view of the firm, which suggests that organizations improve
their skills to manage a given task by accumulating and applying knowledge relevant to that task,
this work emphasizes the role of certain learning processes in building alliance capability. Firms
can implement four deliberate processes to learn, accumulate, and leverage alliance management
knowledge either from their own alliance experience or from that of others.
A firm can undertake efforts to help individual alliance managers articulate their personally held
know-how of alliance management. By doing so, the firm can capture and externalize that
knowledge so other managers in the firm can learn from those experiences.
A firm can go a step further and codify its accumulated alliance management know-how in
the form of usable knowledge objects, such as alliance management guidelines, checklists, and
manuals, that incorporate best practices to manage the different phases and decisions in the
alliance
life cycle. The codification process facilitates the replication and transfer of alliance best practices
within a firm.
It is important to note that it is not possible to articulate or codify all know-how, especially
knowledge that is tacit. However, a firm can leverage such alliance know-how by having
knowledge-sharing processes to exchange tacit and individually held alliance management know-
how across the organization.

When Do These Mechanisms Really Matter and How Do They Relate to One Another?
Alliance experience, a dedicated alliance function, and organizational processes to learn and
leverage alliance management know-how are 3 mechanisms to develop and institutionalize
an organization wide capability in alliance management.
Concerning alliance experience, it seems that prior experience is more useful in developing
capabilities to manage certain kinds of alliances than others.
Prior experience with joint ventures is useful in developing skills to manage future joint ventures,
but this does not hold true for contractual nonequity alliances. This may be
because, as an alliance form, joint ventures show greater similarity in terms of structure, design,
and
governance issues across different situations as compared to contractual nonequity alliances.
Sampson (2005) observed that prior experience helps develop alliance skills when that experience
is more recent, as the benefits derived from experience depreciate over time. The usefulness of
experience also varies by the degree of its specificity; experience in alliances with a particular
partner help a firm build its capability to manage future alliances successfully with that same
partner, whereas general alliance experience is less useful in this regard.
Even though experience is a critical mechanism for building alliance capability, its relevance
varies by its type, specificity, and timing.
The relevance of the dedicated alliance function also seems to vary across different business or
firm conditions. We find that a dedicated alliance function helps develop alliance skills more
effectively in larger firms than in smaller ones because the use of organizing principles to collect
relevant knowledge is perhaps more necessary in larger firms, where the knowledge has to be
collated from and shared with diverse sources/individuals. This may not be the case in smaller
firms where key individuals interact directly and frequently with each other.
The use of explicit mechanisms, such the dedicated alliance function or specific processes to
articulate or codify alliance know-how, enhances the direct effect of implicit mechanisms such as
alliance experience in building a firm’s alliance capability.
The dedicated alliance function mediates the impact of alliance experience on a firm’s alliance
capability and overall alliance success. In turn, alliance-learning processes of articulation
and codification further mediate the effect of the dedicated alliance function in building a firm’s
alliance capability.

Creating Capabilities: Time Frames and Challenges

First, the process of building alliance capability in a large corporation is a slow and multiyear
process.
Second, as in most organizations, creating capabilities that rest on knowledge-based processes
requires consistent sponsorship and support from senior management.
Third, the impact of the alliance function is easier to observe with rich, multifaceted data in a
single firm than in a more reduced form or larger sample study.
A Relational Organization: From Managing Alliances to Managing Acquisitions
In a strategic alliance two or more firms come together to access or exchange resources and
capabilities to enhance their competitive advantage or growth while retaining their respective
independence and identity. However, instead of doing an alliance, a firm can also use a
very different mode to access resources of another firm: It can acquire that firm. In an acquisition,
the focal company (i.e., the acquirer firm) purchases control rights over the assets and operations
of another firm (i.e., the acquired firm), and in the process the two companies usually become
one organization to realize the desired benefits of coming together.
The success of an acquisition relies on how an acquirer manages the acquired firm after
completing
the transaction. During the postacquisition management phase, the acquirer has to make
decisions on 2 aspects: the extent to which it integrates the acquired firm with itself, and the
extent to
which it replaces managerial resources of the acquired firm. Research shows that in most cases, an
acquirer fully integrates the acquired organization within itself, combining the boundaries of the
two firms. Consequently, the acquired company loses its separate identity and independence in
the market; this approach to integration is referred to as absorption or structural integration.
The acquirer typically also replaces most of the acquired firms’ senior executives with its own, and
even in cases where it chooses to retain them it limits their decision making freedom.
When large companies acquire small entrepreneurial firms for their technological or knowledge-
based skills or when firms from emerging economies acquire larger firms in developed
economies to enhance their global presence, acquirers leave the acquired firm structurally
separate so that the latter maintains its identity in the market. The acquirer also retains most
senior employees in the acquired firm and gives them operating freedom in running the acquired
company.
By not integrating the acquired company into itself, an acquirer minimizes the complexities that
arise during the postacquisition period and avoids the disruption of resources and routines that
results when two companies attempt to combine their operations. Maintaining a separate
organization is also beneficial if the acquired firm has a unique identity in the minds of its key
stakeholders (customers, regulators, shareholders) and maintenance of that identity generates
business value for the firm. Retaining senior executives of the acquired
firm and giving them independence and autonomy creates a positive climate within the
acquired firm and sends a positive, symbolic signal to its stakeholders. It also allows the acquirer
firm to retain the industry- or context-specific expertise of the acquired firm’s
management/employees and leverage their human and social capital for mutual gains. This is
relevant when an acquirer buys a target for its intellectual capital and expertise.
At the same time, the two companies still need to coordinate some of their activities and
operations to realize potential synergies that exist between them.
First, the acquirer needs to choose appropriate coordination mechanisms to leverage the
interdependence between the two separate firms. Second, it needs to build trust between the two
firms such that employees in each firm work in the interests of both firms and are willing to share
relevant know-how with each other for mutual benefit. Third, it needs to establish appropriate
mechanisms to resolve or escalate any conflicts that might arise.
We term this approach a “partnering approach to acquisitions.” What it implies is that if a firm is
skilled in managing alliances and has a collaborative capability or mindset, that firm could be
equally effective in managing acquisitions that call for such an approach to handling
postacquisition integration. Therefore, firms can extend their alliance capability into a broader
relational capability that can sometimes be leveraged to manage certain other interfirm
relationships, such as acquisitions, too.

Conclusions
In the face of growing competition, the high rate of technological change, and discontinuities
within most industries, firms pursue a large number of alliances to access new resources, enter
new markets or arenas, or minimize their risk. Yet there is a paradox: They frequently
fail to reap the anticipated benefits of most of their alliances. In this paper we have
discussed how firms can address this paradox to improve their likelihood of alliance success by
focusing on two different levels of analysis: (a) the level of an individual alliance a firm engages in,
and (b) the level of the firm as a whole that is engaged in more than one alliance over time. At
the level of a single alliance of a firm, we highlighted how certain factors at each stage of the
alliance life cycle are critical to alliance success. If a firm selects a complementary, compatible, and
committed partner at the time of alliance formation, and makes relevant choices with respect to
alliance design in terms of equity or contractual or relational governance, the alliance is more
likely to succeed. During the postformation stage, alliance success depends on the effective use of
relevant coordination mechanisms to manage the interdependence between the two firms, and
the successful development of trust between partners as the alliance evolves. We also highlight
specific conditions when the above-mentioned aspects are more pivotal to alliance success.
In settings where alliances are a central element of strategy and firms engage in more than
one alliance over time, they stand to benefit by building their alliance capability. So firms improve
their overall alliance success if they take systematic action to develop processes and talent
in support of alliance management. Alliance capability requires attention to both a dedicated
alliance function within a firm and a set of institutionalized processes to accumulate and leverage
alliance management know-how across the firm.
These soft factors underlying a firm’s overall alliance success perform better when championed by
a firm’s leaders; frequent restructuring and inconsistent support are recipes for the loss of
accumulated learning. Yet the path to development of alliance capabilities remains both uncertain
and time-consuming.
Firms need to learn how to manage certain new types of alliances, generate incremental value by
taking a portfolio approach to managing their alliances, and realize gains by extending their
alliance capabilities to become relational organizations that are adept at successfully managing
other interfirm relationships too, including acquisitions.
What would each of the 3 parties do vis a vis continue or not? 3 entities involved. They should
proceed with their JV?
Alliances are useful to: enter a market, access resources and diversify

Option value: because there is a third legal entity. One of the partner have “The rider first refusal”
(I’m the first to have the option of buy your shares).

Notes
la complementarità dei partner sembra avere un maggiore impatto sul successo dell'alleanza quando un partner
è relativamente più giovane dell'altro o quando l'alleanza è tale che è difficile per i partner specificare
pienamente i risultati esatti attesi da tale alleanza.

In primo luogo, la teoria dei costi di transazione ha proposto che la partecipazione azionaria sia un meccanismo
efficace per governare le alleanze.
In un'alleanza, una società può esporsi a comportamenti opportunistici da parte del suo partner alleato se ha
investito in attività specifiche della relazione al fine di ricavare benefici attesi, o se vi è incertezza in merito
condizioni di mercato di fronte alla relazione. In tali situazioni, creando un'alleanza basata sull'equità
(in cui un partner prende una partecipazione azionaria nell'altra, o entrambi i partner creano una nuova,
indipendente impresa in cui entrambi prendono una partecipazione) è fondamentale per il successo, poiché
l'equity ha tre proprietà di governance per affrontare i rischi coinvolti:
1. l'equità condivisa allinea gli interessi reciproci dei partner: la loro preoccupazione per il loro
investimento riduce la possibilità di futuri comportamenti opportunistici.
2. l'equità facilita la supervisione gerarchica per monitorare il funzionamento quotidiano dell'alleanza e
affrontare le contingenze.
3. la proprietà azionaria crea una base per ciascun partner per ricevere una quota dei rendimenti
dall'alleanza in proporzione al suo livello di proprietà

Oltre all’equity, Le disposizioni contrattuali dell'accordo di alleanza rappresentano il secondo meccanismo di

efficacia di Governance

Relational governance: La governance autoapplicabile, basata su buona volontà, fiducia e reputazione è il terzo
meccanismo di governance efficace delle alleanze.
I costi di contrattazione sono ridotti al minimo perché le aziende si fidano dei loro partner a comportarsi in
modo equo, (b) i costi di monitoraggio sono inferiori perché non è richiesto il monitoraggio esterno di terze parti
e (c) i costi complessivi dell'adattamento sono ridotti perché i partner sono disposti a essere flessibili in risposta
a circostanze impreviste

Distinizione tra governance formale (basata su partecipazione azionaria o contratti) e governance informale
(basata sulla fiducia).

Importante coordinare partner e sviluppare fiducia tra loro.

Per gestire con successo il coordinamento, i partner dell'alleanza possono utilizzare uno o tutti i tre meccanismi
classici: programmazione, gerarchia e feedback.
La programmazione implica lo sviluppo di linee guida chiare su quali compiti specifici devono essere svolti
da ciascun partner, che è esattamente responsabile per ogni attività, e un calendario per la loro attuazione.
Questo meccanismo facilita il coordinamento migliorando la chiarezza e la prevedibilità delle azioni del partner
riducendo la frustrazione e aumentando la velocità decisionale.
L'uso della gerarchia include la creazione di un ruolo o di una struttura formale con autorità e capacità
decisionale per sorvegliare le interazioni in corso tra i partner e per facilitare la condivisione di informazioni e
risorse.
Infine, nei casi in cui i partner devono informarsi regolarmente delle rispettive azioni o decisioni, o devono
valutare periodicamente l'evoluzione della loro interdipendenza e adattarsi ad esso, meccanismi di feedback
come team congiunti e collocazione sono utili per elaborare rapidamente informazioni pertinenti e mobilitare le
risorse di conseguenza.

La fiducia comprende due parti: una componente strutturale, che si riferisce a un tipo di aspettativa che il
proprio partner non agirà opportunisticamente a causa di una situazione di ostaggio reciproca e di una
componente comportamentale, che si riferisce al grado di fiducia che un'azienda ha nell'affidabilità e integrità
del suo partner .

3 principali elementi costitutivi dello sviluppo della capacità di alleanze nelle imprese:
1. precedenti esperienze di alleanza; 2, creazione di una funzione di alleanza dedicata 3. implementazione di
processi a livello di impresa per accumulare e sfruttare il know-how e le competenze di gestione dell'alleanza.

1. Le imprese con maggiore esperienza di alleanze presumibilmente hanno una maggiore capacità di alleanza e
quindi hanno maggiori probabilità di riuscire con la nuova alleanza che hanno formato.

2. L'adozione di principi organizzativi di ordine superiore, come la creazione di una struttura separata
o entità che è responsabile del coordinamento e della gestione dell'attività generale dell'alleanza di un'impresa, è
fondamentale. Un'unità organizzativa separata per gestire le alleanze, comunemente denominata "funzione di
alleanza dedicata", è essenziale per costruire le capacità di alleanza di un'organizzazione.
Scopriamo che una funzione di alleanza dedicata aiuta a sviluppare le competenze di alleanza in modo più
efficace nelle grandi aziende che in quelle più piccole perché l'uso di principi organizzativi per raccogliere le
conoscenze pertinenti è forse più necessario nelle grandi aziende, dove la conoscenza deve essere raccolta e
condivisa con diversi fonti / individui

3.Basandosi sulla visione della società basata sulla conoscenza, che suggerisce che le organizzazioni migliorano
le loro capacità per gestire un determinato compito accumulando e applicando le conoscenze pertinenti a tale
compito, questo lavoro sottolinea il ruolo di determinati processi di apprendimento nella costruzione di capacità
di alleanza. Le imprese possono implementare quattro processi deliberati per apprendere, accumulare e
sfruttare la conoscenza della gestione dell'alleanza sia dalla propria esperienza di alleanza che da quella degli
altri. Un'azienda può intraprendere sforzi per aiutare i singoli manager dell'alleanza a esprimere il proprio
know-how personale sulla gestione dell'alleanza. In tal modo, l'impresa può acquisire e esternalizzare tale
conoscenza in modo che altri dirigenti dell'azienda possano apprendere da tali esperienze.
Un'impresa può compiere un ulteriore passo avanti e codificare il suo know-how di gestione dell'alleanza
accumulato sotto forma di oggetti di conoscenza utilizzabili, come linee guida per la gestione dell'alleanza,
elenchi di controllo e manuali, che incorporano le migliori pratiche per gestire le diverse fasi e decisioni nella
vita dell'alleanza ciclo.

Tuttavia, invece di fare un'alleanza, un'azienda può anche usare a

modalità molto diverse per accedere alle risorse di un'altra impresa: può acquisire quell'impresa. In
un'acquisizione, la società focale (ossia la società acquirente) acquista i diritti di controllo sulle attività e sulle
attività di un'altra impresa (vale a dire, la società acquisita), e nel processo di solito le due società diventano
un'organizzazione per realizzare i benefici desiderati di unirsi.
Il successo di un'acquisizione dipende da come un acquirente gestisce la società acquisita dopo il completamento
la transazione. Durante la fase di gestione postacquisizione, l'acquirente deve prendere decisioni su 2 aspetti: la
misura in cui integra l'impresa acquisita con se stessa e la misura in cui
che sostituisce le risorse manageriali dell'impresa acquisita. La ricerca mostra che nella maggior parte dei casi,
un acquirente integra completamente l'organizzazione acquisita al suo interno, combinando i confini delle due
aziende. Di conseguenza, l'azienda acquisita perde la propria identità e indipendenza nel mercato; questo
approccio all'integrazione è indicato come integrazione strutturale o di assorbimento.

Quando le grandi imprese acquistano piccole imprese imprenditoriali per le loro competenze tecnologiche o
basate sulla conoscenza o quando le imprese delle economie emergenti acquisiscono società più grandi in paesi
sviluppati le economie aumentano la loro presenza globale, gli acquirenti lasciano strutturalmente separata la
società acquisita in modo che quest'ultima mantenga la propria identità sul mercato.
Non integrando la società acquisita in se stessa, un acquirente riduce al minimo le complessità che sorgono
durante il periodo di postacquisizione ed evita l'interruzione delle risorse e delle procedure che si verificano
quando due società tentano di unire le loro operazioni. Il mantenimento di un'organizzazione separata è anche
vantaggioso se l'impresa acquisita ha un'identità unica nelle menti dei suoi principali soggetti interessati (clienti,
autorità di regolamentazione, azionisti) e il mantenimento di tale identità genera valore aziendale per l'impresa.

In primo luogo, l'acquirente deve scegliere adeguati meccanismi di coordinamento per sfruttare
l'interdipendenza tra le due imprese separate. In secondo luogo, è necessario creare fiducia tra le due aziende in
modo tale che i dipendenti di ciascuna impresa lavorino nell'interesse di entrambe le imprese e siano disposti a
condividere reciprocamente il know-how per ottenere benefici reciproci. In terzo luogo, è necessario stabilire
meccanismi appropriati per risolvere o aggravare eventuali conflitti che potrebbero insorgere.
Definiamo questo approccio un "approccio di partenariato alle acquisizioni".