Knowledge, Technology & Policy

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 113–124 | Cite as

High technology alliances in uncertain times: The case of bluetooth

  • John Rice
  • James Juniper


Research into strategic alliances has traditionally focused on motivation and performance. More recently, network dynamics and alliances as complex and evolving arrangements are emerging areas for investigation. Thus far, little research has been undertaken that integrates these emerging themes in the context of the impact of deteriorating exogenous environments on network alliances.

The ICT industry provides such a context, with the rapid deterioration of fortunes in the industry as a result of equity market moves since early 2000. This research looks at the Bluetooth consortium, a loosely framed network of firms involved in the development and commercialization of wireless technical applications for information technology based products. It finds that matters related to intellectual property ownership and inter-firm coordination in complex product development have been problematic, with the deterioration of environmental munificence driving a slowing of network investment and product development success.


Strategic Alliance Special Interest Group Strategic Management Journal Network Alliance Promoter Group 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beatty, R.P., and Zajac, E. J. (1994). “Managerial Incentives, Monitoring and Risk-Bearing: A Study of Executive Compensation, Ownership and Board Structure in Initial Public Offerings.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 313–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Child, J. and Faulkner, D. (1998). Strategies of Co-operation: Managing Alliances, Networks and Joint Ventures, OUP, Oxford.Google Scholar
  3. Das, T. and Teng, B. (1998). “Between Trust and Control: Developing Confidence in Partner Cooperation in Alliances.” Academy of Management Review, 23: 419–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Das, T. and Teng, B. (2000). “A Resource-Based Theory of Strategic Alliances.” Journal of Management, 26: 31–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Das, T. and Teng, B. (2001). “Trust, Control, and Risk in Strategic Alliances: An Integrated Framework.” Organization Science, 22: 251–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Economist, The. (2001). “The Rise and the Fall.” 5 May.Google Scholar
  7. Eneroth, K. and Malm, A. (2001). “Knowledge Webs and Generative Relations: A Network Approach to Developing Competencies.” European Management Journal, 19: 174–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Foss, N. (1997). Resources, Firms and Strategies: A Reader in the Resource-based Perspective. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Geletkanycz, M. and Hambrick, D. (1997). “The External Ties of Top Executives: Implications for Strategic Choice and Performance.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 654–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gresov, C. and Drazin, R. (1997). “Equifinality: Functional Equivalence in Organization Design.” Academy of Management Review, 22: 403–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gulati, R., Nohria, N., and Zaheer, A. (2000). “Strategic Networks.” Strategic Management Journal, 21: 203–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gulati, R. and Singh, H. (1998). “The Architecture of Cooperation: Managing Coordination Costs and Appropriation Concerns in Strategic Alliances.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 781–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hagedoorn, J. and Schakenraad, J. (1994). “The Effects of Strategic Technology Alliances on Company Performance,” Strategic Management Journal, 15: 291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ireland, R. D. and Hitt, M. A. (1997). “Strategy-As-Story: Clarifications and Enhancements to the Barry and Elmes’ Arguments.” Academy of Management Review, 22: 844–7.Google Scholar
  15. Jones, C., Hesterly, W. S., & Borgatti, S. P. (1997). “A General Theory of Network Governance: Exchange Conditions and Social Mechanisms.” Academy of Management Review, 22: 911–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. King, A. (1995). “Avoiding Ecological Surprise: Lessons from Long Standing Communities.” Academy of Management Review, 20: 961–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lamming, R. C. (1993). Beyond Partnership: Strategies for Innovation and Lean Supply, Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hestead.Google Scholar
  18. Larson, A. & Starr, J. A. (1993). “A Network Model of Organization Formation.” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice. 17: 5–15.Google Scholar
  19. Lee, C., Lee, K. and Pennings, J. (2001). “Internal Capabilities, External Networks, and Performance: A Study on Technology-Based Ventures.” Strategic Management Journal, 22: 615–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lindsley, D. H., Brass, D. J. and Thomas, J. B. (1995). “Efficacy-Performance Spirals: A Multileved Perspective.” Academy of Management Review. 20: 645–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lundvall, B. Å. (ed.) (1992). National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  22. Lynskey, M. (1999). “The Transfer of Resources and Competencies for Developing Technology Capabilities: The Case of Fujitsu-ICL.” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 11: 317–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Markides, C. (1999). “In Search of Strategy.” Sloan Management Review, 40: 6.Google Scholar
  24. McKelvey, B. (1999). “Avoiding complexity Catastrophe in Co-Evolutionary Pockets: Strategies for Rugged Landscapes.” Organization Science, 10: 294–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Matusik, S. & Hill, C. (1998). “The Utilization of Contingent Work, Knowledge Creation, and Competitive Advantage.” The Academy of Management Review, 23: 680–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Morel, B. and Ramanujam, R. (1999). “Through the looking glass of complexity: The dynamics of organizations as adaptive and evolving systems.” Organization Science, 10: 278–93.Google Scholar
  27. Nelson, R. R. (ed.) (1993). National Systems of Innovation: A Comparative Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Reed, R., Lemak, D. J. & Montgomery, J.C. (1996). “Beyond Process: TQM Content and Firm Performance.” Academy of Management Review, 21: 173–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schilling, M. (1998). “Technological Lockout: An Integrative Model of the Economic and Strategic Factors Driving Technological Success and Failure.” Academy of Management Review. 23: 267–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shepherd, J. (1991). “Entreprenurial Growth Through Constellations.” Journal of Business Venturing. 6: 363–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stacey, R. (1995). “The Science of Complexity: An Alternative Perspective for Strategic Change Processes.” Strategic Management Journal, 16: 477–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stuart, T. (2000). “Interorganizational Alliances and the Performance of Firms: a Study of Growth and Innovation Rates in a High-Technology Industry.” Strategic Management Journal, 21: 791–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). “Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management.” Strategic Management Journal, 18: 509–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Waddock, S. (1991). “A Typology of Social Partnership Organizations.” Administration and Society, 22: 480–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zanfei, A. (2000). “Transnational Firms and the Changing Organisation of Innovative Activities.” Cambridge Journal of Economics. 24: 515–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Rice
    • 1
  • James Juniper
    • 1
  1. the University of South Australia at AdelaideSouth Australia

Personalised recommendations