Dealing with the Post-Honeymoon Blues: Tensions and Governance in Industry-University Alliances

Abstract

Industry-university (IU) alliances are often subject to tensions caused by the dissimilarities between industry and university partners. Interestingly, due to a honeymoon effect, these tensions may not necessarily emerge immediately. However, shortly after the alliance is initiated, the likelihood of tension seems to increase rapidly. Thus, early detection of potential tensions seems crucial to the success of IU alliances. This paper explores how these tensions emerge and can be effectively managed through an exploratory study of two IU alliances in the energy sector. Based on our cases, we identified four types of dissimilarities (i.e., orientation-based, routine-based, administrative, and personal) that may lead to different types of tensions (i.e., orientation, routine, transaction, and distinctive), which in turn may be addressed through different governance mechanisms (i.e., communication, flexibility, contracts, and hierarchy). Beyond contributing to the literature on IU alliances, our exploratory study may help managers of these alliances in identifying potential tensions and effective governance practices.

Appendices

Appendix 1 Overview of Data Sources

Interview	Type of interview	Role of interviewee	Interview details
1	Expert interview	University professor	Face to face, 01h22
2	Expert interview	Valorization expert	Face to face, 00h54
3	Expert interview	University advisor	Face to face, 01h02
4	Expert interview	University professor	Face to face, 01h02
5	Expert interview	University professor	Face to face, 01h19
6	Case interview: Wave Energy	Project leader & CTO	Face to face, 00h58
7	Case interview: Wave Energy	Assistant professor	Face to face, 00h49
8	Case interview: Wave Energy	Associate professor	Face to face, 00h29
9	Case interview: Wave Energy	Investor	Face to face, 00h57
10	Case interview: Wave Energy	CEO	Face to face, 01h09
11	Case interview: Power Network	University professor	Face to face, 00h50
12	Case interview: Power Network	Business developer	Face to face, 00h47
13	Case interview: Power Network	Project manager	Skype call, 00h52
14	Case interview: Power Network	Technical specialist	Telephone call, 00h45
15	Case interview: Power Network	Project coordinator	Face to face, 00h51

Document	Case	Type of document	Document details
1	Wave Energy	Private	Business plan
2	Power Network	Private	Project plan

Appendix 2 Overview of Coded Concepts

Dissimilarities
Strategic position	Extent to which being part of the alliance enables a firm to access financial resources and other resources (Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven 1996)
Social position	Extent to which extensive personal relationships and trust create an awareness of alliance opportunities (Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven 1996)
Short-term vs. long-term orientation	Extent to which partners are accustomed to applying a long-term vs. short-term orientation research and innovation
Protect knowledge	Extent to which knowledge remains hidden within the firm or disclosed in a limited way through patents (Bruneel et al. 2010)
Publish knowledge	Extent to which research aims to create public knowledge (Bruneel et al. 2010)
Experience	Extent to which an organization is experienced with alliancing
Low vs. high interdependence	Extent to which an organization financially depends on the alliance outcome (Doz et al. 2000)
Tensions
Orientation barriers	Partners have different ideas about the alliance rationale, their reciprocal obligations, and the alliance horizon and scope (Estrada et al. 2016)
Routine barriers	Partners behave differently towards communication, joint work and decision-making, and alliance task execution and flexibility (Estrada et al. 2016)
Transaction barriers	Partners have conflicting views on IP; also, barriers related with dealing with university administration (Bruneel et al. 2010)
Governance
Trust	Extent to which partners rely on trust to address issues of safeguarding and coordination (Faems et al. 2008)
Flexibility	Extent to which partners are willing to accommodate deviations from the contract when necessary (Das and Teng 1998)
Contracts	Extent to which contractual rigidity is used to make sure that contingencies are dealt with and opportunism is mitigated (Das and Teng 1998)
Hierarchy	Extent to which partners rely on control based on authority and giving orders to subordinates and then evaluating their performance (Das and Teng 1998)