Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Antecedents of Procedural Governance in Knowledge—Sharing Alliances

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning

Part of the book series: Annals of Information Systems ((AOIS,volume 4))

Abstract

This chapter provides a better understanding of effective multi-directional knowledge flows between alliance partners, facilitated by procedural governance. We propose that procedural governance is positively related to knowledge sharing in alliances, and argue that antecedents of procedural governance are either individual or organizational in nature. Procedural governance is formed by the interplay between strategic and structural resources at the organizational level and willingness and abilities at the individual level. We develop a theoretical model for explaining the mediating role of procedural governance in the relationship between individual and organizational level antecedents. Our model leads to a series of propositions and we conclude by offering managerial implications and future research directions.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    1 According to Inkpen (2002), antecedents of alliance learning can be classified into five categories: (1) learning partner characteristics, (2) teaching partner characteristics, (3) knowledge characteristics, (4) relationship factors, and (5) alliance form. In the model presented in this article, category 1 and 2 are collapsed and included together with 3 and 4. Alliance form is considered a control variable for testing purposes.

References

  • Abell, P., T. Felin, and N.J. Foss. 2008. Building microfoundations for the routines, capabilities, and performance links. Managerial and Decision Economics 29: 489–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambrose, M.L., and C.T. Kulik. 1999. Old friends, new faces: Motivation research in the 1990s. Journal of Management 25(3): 231–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Büchel, B., and P. Killing. 2002. Interfirm cooperation throughout the joint venture life cycle: Impact on joint venture performance. In Cooperative strategies and alliances, ed. F.J. Contractor, and P. Lorange. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, A. 1989. Knowledge trading as economic exchange. Research Policy 18(3): 155–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, I.J., and A. Paulraj. 2004. Towards a theory of supply chain management: The constructs and measurements. Journal of Operations Management 22: 119–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W.M., and D.A. Levinthal. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J.S. 1990. Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Contractor, F.J., and P. Lorange. 1988. Why should firms cooperate? The strategy and economic basis for cooperative ventures. In Cooperative strategies in international business, ed. F.J. Contractor, and P. Lorange. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Contractor, F.J., and W. Ra. 2002. How knowledge attributes influence alliance governance choices: A research note. Journal of International Management 8: 11–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dansereau, F., F.J. Yammarino, and J.C. Kohles. 1999. Multiple levels of analysis from a longitudinal perspective: Some implications for theory building. The Academy of Management Review 24(2): 346–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doz, Y.L. 1996. Evolution of cooperation in strategic alliances: Initial conditions or learning processes? Strategic Management Journal 17: 55–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doz, Y.L., and G. Hamel. 1989. Alliance advantage: The art of creating value through partnering. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Draulans, J.A., P. deMan, and H.W. Volberda. 2003. Building alliance capability: Management techniques for superior alliance performance. Long Range Planning 36(2): 151–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dussauge, P., and B. Garrette. 1995. Determinants of success in industrial strategic alliances: Evidence from the global aerospace industry. Journal of International Business Studies 26(3): 505–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutta, S., and A.M. Weiss. 1997. The relationship between a firm’s level of technological innovativeness and its pattern of partnership agreements. Management Science 43: 343–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J.H., and N.W. Hatch. 2006. Relation-specific capabilities and barriers to knowledge transfers: Creating advantage through network relationships. Strategic Management Journal 27: 701–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J.H., and H. Singh. 1998. The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review 4: 660–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J.H., and H. Singh. 2004. The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. In Strategic alliances. Theory and evidence, ed. Jeffrey J. Reuer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felin, T., and N. Foss. 2005. Strategic organization: A field in search of micro-foundations. Strategic Organization 3: 441–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foss, N.J., and J.F. Christensen. 2001. A market-process approach to corporate coherence. Managerial and Decision Economics 22(4/5): 213–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, R.A., and J. Podolny. 1992. Differentiation of boundary spanning roles: Labor negotiations and implications for role conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly 37(1): 28–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geringer, M.J. 1991. Strategic determinants of partner selection criteria in international joint ventures. Journal of International Business Studies 22(1): 41–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R.M. 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 17: 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R.M., and C. Baden-Fuller. 2004. A knowledge accessing theory of strategic alliances. Journal of Management Studies 41: 61–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R. 1999. Network location and learning: The influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal 20(5): 397–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R., and M. Gargiulo. 1999. Where do interorganizational networks come from? American Journal of Sociology 104(5): 1398–1438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J. 2002. Inter-firm R&D partnerships: An overview of major trends and patterns since 1960. Research Policy 31: 477–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J., and R. Narula. 1996. Choosing organizational modes of strategic technology partnering: International and sectoral differences. Journal of International Business Studies 27: 265–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamel, G. 1991. Competition for competence and interpartner learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal 12: 83–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, M. 1999. The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organizational sub units. Administrative Science Quarterly 44: 82–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrigan, K.R. 1985. Strategies for joint ventures. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennart, J.F. 1988. A transaction cost theory of equity joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal 9: 361–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, G.P. 1991. Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science 1(special issue): 88–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inkpen, A.C. 2002. Learning, knowledge management, and strategic alliances: So many studies, so many unanswered questions. In Cooperative strategies and alliances, ed. F.J. Contractor, and P. Lorange, 267–289. Kidlington: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inkpen, A., and A. Dinur. 1998. Knowledge management processes and international joint ventures. Organization Science 9(4): 454–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jemison, D.B. 1988. Value creation, acquisition integration: Role of strategic capability transfer. In Advances in the study of entrepreneurship, innovation, and economic growth, Supplement 1: Corporate reorganization through mergers, acquisition, and leverage buyouts, ed. G. Libecap. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R.M. 2002. Strategy as improvisational. Leadership and Organizational Studies 43(2): 76–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, R., and T.J. Allen. 1982. Investigating the not invented here (NIH) syndrome: A look at the performance, tenure and communication path of 50 R&D project groups. R&D Management 12: 7–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T., R. Gulati, and N. Nohria. 1998. The dynamics of learning alliances: Competition, cooperation, and relative scope. Strategic Management Journal 19(3): 193–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B. 1988. Joint ventures: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Strategic Management Journal 9: 319–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B. 1989. The Stability of joint ventures: Reciprocity and competitive rivalry. The Journal of Industrial Economics 38(2): 183–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., and U. Zander. 1996. What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning. Organization Science 7(5): 502–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, A. 1992. Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings: A study of the governance of exchange relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly 37: 76–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsson, R., L. Bengtsson, K. Henriksson, and J. Sparks. 1998. The interorganizational learning dilemma: Collective knowledge development in strategic alliances. Organization Science 9: 285–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latham, G.P., and C.C. Pinder. 2005. Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology 56: 485–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lei, D., and J.W. Slocum Jr. 1992. Global strategy, competence-building and strategic alliances. California Management Review 35: 81–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton, D. 1995. Wellsprings of knowledge: Building and sustaining the sources of innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leung, K., and S. White. 2006. Exploring dark corners: An agenda for organizational behavior research in alliance contexts. In Handbook of strategic alliances, ed. O. Shenkar, and J. Reuer. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzoni, G., and A. Lipparini. 1999. The leveraging of interfirm relationships as a distinctive organizational capability: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal 20(4): 317–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyles, M. 1988. Learning among joint venture-sophisticated firms. In Cooperative strategies in international business, ed. F. Contractor, and P. Lorange, 301–316. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mjoen, H., and S. Tallman. 1997. Control and performance in international joint ventures. Organization Science 8: 257–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narula, R. 2004. R&D collaboration by SMEs: New opportunities and limitations in the face of globalisation. Technovation 24: 153–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, B.B. 2005. The role of knowledge embeddedness in the creation of synergies in strategic alliances. Journal of Business Research 58: 1194–1204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, B.B. 2007. Determining international strategic alliance performance: A multi-dimensional approach. International Business Review 16: 337–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, B.B. 2009. Strategic fit, contractual and procedural governance in alliances. Journal of Business Research Forthcoming

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, B.B., and S. Michailova. 2007. Knowledge management systems in multinational corporations: Typology and transitions. Long Range Planning 40(3): 314–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., and H. Takeuchi. 1995. The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxley, J.E. 1997. Appropriability hazards and governance in strategic alliances: A transaction cost approach. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 13: 387–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parkhe, A. 1993. Partner nationality and the structure–performance relationship in strategic alliances. Organization Science 4: 301–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pisano, G. 1988. Innovation through markets, hierarchies, and joint ventures: Technology strategy and collaborative arrangements in the biotechnology industry. Berkeley: University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisano, G.P. 1989. Using equity participation of support exchange: Evidence from the biotechnology industry. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 5: 109–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poppo, L., and T. Zenger. 2002. Do formal contracts and relational governance function as substitutes or complements? Strategic Management Journal 23: 707–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M.E., and M.B. Fuller. 1986. Coalitions and global strategy. In Competition in global industries, ed. M.E. Porter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W.W. 1990. Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior 12: 295–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W.W., K.W. Koput, and L. Smith-Doerr. 1996. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly 41: 116–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ring, P.S., and A.H. Van de Ven. 1994. Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Review 19: 90–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D.M. 1985. Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross-level perspectives. Research in Organizational Behavior 7: 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salk, J.E., and O. Shenkar. 2001. Social identities in an international joint venture: An exploratory case study. Organization Science 12: 161–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seabright, M.A., D. Levinthal, and M. Fichman. 1992. Role of individual attachments in the dissolution of interorganizational relationships. The Academy of Management Journal 35(1): 122–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P.M. 1990. The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonin, B.L. 1997. The importance of collaborative know-how: An empirical test of the learning organization. The Academy of Management Journal 40(5): 1150–1174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonin, B.L. 2002. The nature of collaborative know-how. In Cooperative strategies and alliances, ed. F.J. Contractor, and P. Lorange, 237–263. Killington: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smitka, M.J. 1991. Competitive ties. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobrero, M., and S. Schrader. 1998. Structuring interfirm relationships: A meta-analytic approach. Organization Studies 19: 585–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spekman, R., J.W. Kamauff, and N. Myhr. 1998. An empirical investigation into supply chain management: A perspective on partnerships. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 28(8): 630–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sveiby, K.E., and R. Simons. 2002. Collaborative climate and effectiveness of knowledge work – An empirical study. Journal of Knowledge Management 6(5): 420–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szulanski, G. 1996. Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal 17: 27–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szulanski, G. 2000. The process of knowledge transfer: A diachronic analysis of stickiness. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes 82(1): 9–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D.J., G. Pisano, and A. Shuen. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 18(7): 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thuy, L.X., and T. Truong Quang. 2005. Relational capital and performance of international joint ventures in Vietnam. Asia Pacific Business Review 3: 389–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tidd, J., and M. Trewhella. 1997. Organizational and technological antecedents for knowledge acquisition and learning. R&D Management 27(4): 359–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas, H., and N. Mylonopoulos. 2004. Organizations as knowledge systems: Knowledge, learning and dynamic capabilities. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uzzi, B. 1999. Embeddedness in the making of financial capital: How social relations and networks benefit firms seeking financing. American Sociological Review 64(4): 481–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt, B. 1984. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 5: 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zander, U., and B. Kogut. 1995. Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities: An empirical test. Organization Science 6(1): 76–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

Dr. Nielsen acknowledges the support of the European Commission Marie Curie Reintegration Grant COLEUMNC 46447

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. DEA/Danish Business Research Academy, Fiolstraede 44, Copenhagen, 1171 Kbh K, Denmark

    Line Gry Knudsen

  2. Department for Management, Politics and Philosophy, Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Line Gry Knudsen

  3. Center for Strategic Management and Globalization, Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Bo Bernhard Nielsen

Authors
  1. Line Gry Knudsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bo Bernhard Nielsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Line Gry Knudsen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    Copyright information

    © 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

    About this chapter

    Cite this chapter

    Knudsen, L., Nielsen, B. (2009). Antecedents of Procedural Governance in Knowledge—Sharing Alliances. In: King, W. (eds) Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning. Annals of Information Systems, vol 4. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0011-1_10

    Download citation

    Publish with us

    Policies and ethics

    Search

    Navigation