Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Alliance formation, partner diversity, and performance of Singapore startups

  • Published:
Asia Pacific Journal of Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Drawing on the resource dependence theory, the resource-based view, and the organizational learning perspective, we examine the under-researched relationship between alliance strategy and the performance of high-tech startup firms. Specifically, we posit that startup firms forging a larger number of alliances will exhibit better performance. We also hypothesize that startups with a diverse portfolio of alliance partners will outperform others. Our analysis of 76 survey responses obtained from Internet-related startups in Singapore lends support to our key predictions. Our results are robust to the deployment of alternative performance measures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In the pharmaceutical industry, the tremendous success of Glaxo’s anti-ulcer drug Zantac was attributed to the array of its co-marketing and distribution agreements with a variety of partners around the world.

  2. Gomes-Casseres (1997) cited the example of MIPS Technologies in this regard. Though MIPS had some initial difficulties in attracting partners, once it was able to get DEC and NEC in its “camp” the others followed. A MIPS executive had the following comment: “Because of the NEC connection, we are bigger than life in Japan” (38).

  3. Eleven surveys could not be delivered by the postal service and three of the returned surveys were unusable due to incomplete information.

  4. Strategic alliances—Agreements between two or more firms to share the costs, risks, and benefits associated with developing new business opportunities through activities such as R&D, joint marketing, etc.

  5. Given that the largest firm in our sample had 72 employees, the profile of firms in Weaver and Dickson’s (1998) sample, which included medium-sized enterprises, may be somewhat different.

References

  • Anand, B., & Khanna, T. 2000. Do firms learn to create value? The case of alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 295–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. 1977. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3): 396–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barkema, H.G., Shenkar, O., Vermueulen, F. & Bell J.H.J. 1997. Working abroad, working with others: How firms learn to operate international joint ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 40(2):426–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantages. Journal of Management, 17: 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, T. 1990. Entrepreneur human capital inputs and small business longevity. Review of Economics and Statistics, 72: 551–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bower, G. H., & Hilgard, E. R. 1981. Theories of learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cegarra-Navarro. 2005. An empirical investigation of organizational learning through strategic alliances between SMEs. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 13(1): 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, P. S., & Heide, D. 1993. Strategic alliances in biotechnology: Key competitive weapon. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 58(4): 9–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, X., & Wu, J. 2011. Do different guanxi types affect capability building differently? A contingency view. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(4): 581–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cyert, R.M., & March, J.G. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. 2000. A resource-based theory of strategic alliances. Journal of Management, 26: 31–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. 2001. Trust, control and risk in strategic alliances: An integrated framework. Organization Studies, 22(2): 251–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, G. F., & Cobb, J. A. 2010. Resource dependence theory: Past and future. In C. B. Schoonhoven & F. Dobbin (Eds.). Research in the sociology of organizations, 28, ch. 2 (Stanford’s organization theory renaissance, 1970–2000): 21–42. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

  • Deeds, D. L., & Hill, C. W. L. 1996. Strategic alliances and the rate of new product development: an empirical study of entrepreneurial biotechnology firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 11: 41–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodgson, M. 1992. Technological collaborations: Problems and pitfalls. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 4(1): 83–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dussauge, P., Garrette, B., & Mitchell, W. 2000. Learning outcomes from competing partners: Outcomes and durations of scale and link alliances in Europe, North America and Asia. Strategic Management Journal, 21(2): 99–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich, S. B., De Noble, A. F., Moore, T., & Weaver, R. R. 1994. After the cash arrives: A comparative study of venture capital and private investor involvement in entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(1): 67–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Schoonhoven, C. B. 1996. Resource based view of strategic alliance formation: Strategic and social effects in entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science, 7(2): 136–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forrest, J. E. 1990. Strategic alliances and the small technology based firm. Journal of Small Business Management, 28(3): 37–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortune. 2004. eBay’s secret Oct. 18: 53–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fried, V., & Hisrich, R. 1995. The venture capitalist: A relationship investor. California Management Review, 37(2): 101–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gao, S., Xu, K., & Yang, J. 2008. Managerial ties, absorptive capacity, and innovation. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25(3): 395–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geisler, E., Furino, A., & Kiresuk, T. J. 1990. Factors in the success or failure of industry-university cooperative research centers. Interfaces, 20(6): 99–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, G., Zahra, S. A., & Wood, D. R. 2002. The effects of business-university alliances on innovative output and financial performance: A study of publicly traded biotechnology companies. Journal of Business Venturing, 17: 577–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomes-Casseres, B. 1997. Alliance strategies of small firms. Small Business Economics, 9: 33–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomes-Casseres, B. 1998. Do you really have an alliance strategy?. Strategy and Leadership, 26(4): 6–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. 1998. Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965–1988. Review of Economics and Statistics, 65: 119–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. C. 2005. Politicians on the board: Do connections affect the bottom line?. Journal of Management, 31: 464–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, W. H., & Schlosser, R. 2001. Success factors of strategic alliances in small and medium-sized enterprises—An empirical survey. Long Range Planning, 34: 357–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, D. H. 2006. Venture capitalists and cooperative startup commercialization strategy. Management Science, 52(2): 204–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., & Vaidyanath, D. 2002. Alliance management as a source of competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 28(3): 413–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katila, R., Rosenberger, J., & Eisenhardt, K. 2008. Swimming with sharks: Technology ventures, defense mechanisms and corporate relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53: 295–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keh, H. T., Foo, M. D., & Lim, B. C. 2002. Opportunity evaluation under risky conditions: The cognitive processes of entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(2): 125–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotha, S., Rajagopal, S., & Rindova, V. 2001. Reputation building and performance: An empirical analysis of top-50 pure Internet firms. European Management Journal, 19(6): 570–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavie, D., & Miller, S. R. 2008. Alliance portfolio internationalization and firm performance. Organization Science, 19(4): 623–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K. S., Lim, G. H., & Tan, S. J. 1999. Dealing with resource disadvantage: Generic strategies for SMEs. Small Business Economics, 12(4): 299–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, R. P., Johnson, J. L., & Grewal, R. 2008. Understanding the antecedents of collateral learning in new product alliances. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25(3): 192–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, B., & March, J. 1988. Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14: 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lui, S. S., & Lu, Y. 2002. Managing the inter-firm cooperation process: Exploratory case studies of Hong Kong Architects and contractors. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(4): 503–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyles, M. A. 1988. Learning among joint venture sophisticated firms. In F. J. Contractor & P. Lorange (Eds.). Cooperative strategies in international business. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marino, L., Strandholm, K., Steensma, K. H., & Weaver, K. M. 2002. The moderating effect of national culture on the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and strategic alliance portfolio extensiveness. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(4): 145–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mian, S. A. 1997. Assessing and managing the university technology business incubator: An integrative framework. Journal of Business Venturing, 2: 251–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, G., Preece, S. B., & Baetz, M. C. 1999. Dangers of dependence: The impact of strategic alliance use by small technology-based firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 37(2): 20–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. 1996. A preliminary typology of organizational learning: Synthesizing the literature. Journal of Management, 22(3): 485–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, G. B., Trailer, J. W., & Hill, R. C. 1993. Measuring performance in entrepreneurship research: A review of empirical literature. Paper presented at Proceedings of the Eighth Annual United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship National Conference: 163–170.

  • Oliver, A., & Liebeskind, J. P. 1998. Three levels of networking for sourcing intellectual capital in biotechnology: Implications for studying interorganizational networks. International Studies of Management and Organization, 27(4): 76–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pangarkar, N. 2009. Do firms learn from alliance terminations? An empirical examination. Journal of Management Studies, 46(6): 982–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pangarkar, N., & Klein, S. 2001. The impacts of alliance purpose and partner similarity on alliance governance. British Journal of Management, 12(4): 341–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parkhe, A. 1993. Strategic alliance structuring: A game theoretic and transaction cost examination of inter-firm cooperation. Academy of Management Journal, 36(4): 794–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parise, S., & Casher, A. 2003. Alliance portfolios: Designing and managing your network of business partner relationships. Academy of Management Executive, 17(4): 25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. W. 2002. Towards an institution-based view of business strategy. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(2–3): 251–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. 1978. The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of research and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandberg, W. R., & Hofer, C. W. 1987. Improving new venture performance: The role of strategy, industry structure and the entrepreneur. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(1): 5–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shan, W., Walker, G., & Kogut, B. 1994. Interfirm cooperation and startup innovation in the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 387–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, T. 1998. Network positions and propensities to collaborate: An investigation of strategic alliance formation in a high technology industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 668–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, R. W., & Abetti, P. A. 1990. Impact of entrepreneurial and management experience on early performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 5(3): 151–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7): 509–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tzeng, C.-H., Beamish, P. W., & Chen, S.-F. 2011. Institutions and entrepreneurship development: High-technology indigenous firms in China and Taiwan. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28(3): 453–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A. H., Hudson, R., & Schroeder, D. M. 1984. Designing New Business Startups: Entrepreneurial, Organizational and Ecological Considerations. Journal of Management, 10(1): 87–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, K. M., & Dickson, P. H. 1998. Outcome quality of small- to medium-sized enterprise based alliances: The role of perceived partner behaviors. Journal of Business Venturing, 13: 505–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, J. 2011. The asymmetric roles of business ties and political ties in product innovation. Journal of Business Research, 64(11): 1151–1156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, J. 2012. Technological collaboration in product innovation: The role of market competition and sectoral technological intensity. Research Policy, 41(2): 489–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, J., & Chen, X. Y. 2012. Leaders’ social ties, knowledge acquisition capability and firm competitive advantage. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. doi:10.1007/s10490-011-9278-0.

  • Yoon, E., Guffey, H., & Kijewski, V. 1993. The effects of information and company reputation on intentions to buy a business service. Journal of Business Research, 27: 215–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. 2005. A theory of international new ventures: A decade of research. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(1): 20–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, S., & Li, X. 2008. Managerial ties, firm resources, and performance of cluster firms. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25(4): 615–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, Y., Witman, X., & Peng, M. 2012. Institution-based barriers to innovation in SMEs. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. doi:10.1007/s10490-011-9263-7.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National University of Singapore, School of Business, 1 Business Link, Singapore, Singapore, 117592

    Nitin Pangarkar

  2. Faculty of Business Administration, University of Macau, Avenida Padre Tomás Pereira, Taipa, Macau, China

    Jie Wu

Authors
  1. Nitin Pangarkar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jie Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Nitin Pangarkar or Jie Wu.

Additional information

Research assistance by Mr. Goh Ruey Long is gratefully acknowledged.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pangarkar, N., Wu, J. Alliance formation, partner diversity, and performance of Singapore startups. Asia Pac J Manag 30, 791–807 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-012-9305-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-012-9305-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation