View/Open - Scholarly Commons Home

More documents

Recommendations

Info

when the partners come together to combine skills to accomplish a project. The other type of symmetrical learning, mutual learning, is where each partner tries to learn skills from each other. For example “we take from you and we give to you; you take from us and give to us” (Huxham & Hibbert, 2008, p. 521). The competitive type occurs when alliance partners are in direct competition with each other (Tsang, 1999). The opposite of this is the non-competitive type, where partners want to develop their skills in their respective areas. However, no matter how little or how much each partner learns they should have learned something from being involved in an alliance (Contractor & Lorange, 2002). The dynamics between alliance partners influences knowledge transfer (Easterby- Smith et al., 2008). Given that the KBV assumes that knowledge resides within individuals, it is therefore important to consider the relationships that exist between members of different organisations as a precursor to understanding issues of knowledge transfer (Bell & Zaheer, 2007). The influence of social networks on the knowledge transfer process is well established (Wijk et al., 2008). As one might expect, it almost inevitable that conflict is a natural bedfellow of alliances (Kale et al., 2000). Darby (2006) explains that significant levels of trust and strong positive relationships between people in each of the alliance organisations are almost certain to have been common features of nearly every successful alliance. Relationship capital is an important facilitator of knowledge transfer between organisations (Sarkar, Cavusgil, & Aulakh, 2001; Yan, 2004). In the context of alliances, relationship capital is comprised of mutual trust, respect and friendship between individuals in alliances and is a consequence of “the close interaction at the personal level between partners” (Kale et al., 2000, p. 221). In their meta analysis, Wijk et al. (2008) indentified clear evidence that trust and strong relations, as represented by the term relationship capital 20
are amongst the most important factors influencing knowledge transfer between organisations. 2.7 Inter-partner Learning in Alliances The seminal work of Hamel (1991) investigated how the collaborative processes between alliance partners could result in a reapportionment (i.e. redistribution) of skills. Hamel (1991) used the term ‘quasi-internalization’ to describe the trading of skills between partners and ‘de facto internalization’ to describe the process through which partner skills are acquired. In this grounded theory study, Hamel (1991) investigated inter-partner learning by eleven companies across nine strategic alliances in a number of industries ranging from aerospace to electronics. The first stage of the research involved determining a formal model consisting of intent, receptivity and transparency. This model was developed through a number of interviews with managers, who discussed partner’s intent, openness, and ability to absorb skills from its partner as part of a wider discussion on asymmetrical learning. The second part of the research aimed to investigate the understanding of how these processes affected learning outcomes involving two partnerships and five firms. These two stages lead to six major propositions being proposed. These propositions related to competitive collaboration, learning and bargaining power, intent, transparency, receptivity and sustainable learning. Competitive collaboration refers to the primary objective in an alliance to internalize the other partner’s skills. The key competitive collaboration propositions offered by Hamel are: a) Some partners may regard internalization of scarce skills as a primary benefit of international collaboration. b) Where learning is the goal, the termination of an agreement cannot be seen as failure, nor can its longevity and stability be seen as evidence of success. c) Asymmetries in learning within the alliance may result in a shift in relative competitive position and advantage between partners outside the alliance. Thus, 21
Page 1 and 2: Determinants of Inter-Partner Learn
Page 3 and 4: 3.3 Data Sources...................
Page 5 and 6: INDEX OF FIGURES Figure 1: Case Stu
Page 7 and 8: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to of
Page 9 and 10: DEDICATION I would like to dedicate
Page 11 and 12: CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Backgrou
Page 13 and 14: Harvey, 1997). However, the study o
Page 15 and 16: take over management of the Knights
Page 17 and 18: “to be New Zealand’s leading pa
Page 19 and 20: transparency and receptivity to lea
Page 21 and 22: CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Int
Page 23 and 24: To summarise this section, transfer
Page 25 and 26: separated into internal and externa
Page 27 and 28: least some form face-to-face contac
Page 29: experiences with a view to improvin
Page 33 and 34: Whether learning becomes self-susta
Page 35 and 36: alliance. Organisations with a pref
Page 37 and 38: uncontrolled access. Organisations
Page 39 and 40: additional factor influencing recep
Page 41 and 42: The rationale for this research was
Page 43 and 44: the organisation and the relationsh
Page 45 and 46: By keeping accounts of the research
Page 47 and 48: number of questions where developed
Page 49 and 50: interviews. Not only was there the
Page 51 and 52: The next section focussed on the se
Page 53 and 54: the opportunity to archive the data
Page 55 and 56: 3.4.4 Communication A major factor
Page 57 and 58: three determinants of learning deve
Page 59 and 60: the type of organisation but not th
Page 61 and 62: CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS 4.1. Introductio
Page 63 and 64: een one of the factors that had res
Page 65 and 66: Interestingly NSO3 made this commen
Page 67 and 68: some duplication, then, there’s c
Page 69 and 70: [I]t’s mainly the management, but
Page 71 and 72: Other participants supported this b
Page 73 and 74: [the sport] in the country. And tha
Page 75 and 76: communication, April 18, 2008). Thi
Page 77 and 78: [W]e’ll come back from the intern
Page 79 and 80: [PSF1], and [PSF2] and ... the owne
Page 81 and 82:
When probed further as to why this
Page 83 and 84:
In certain areas the NSO1 thought i
Page 85 and 86:
However in an unusual move, likely
Page 87 and 88:
Since I’ve come on board, and cer
Page 89 and 90:
obviously doing it. So on that leve
Page 91 and 92:
PSF6 also reiterated this, wanting
Page 93 and 94:
with them, you never know what you
Page 95 and 96:
the answer: I think as I said, we
Page 97 and 98:
access....so, in return for univers
Page 99 and 100:
important.....we’re opening up ou
Page 101 and 102:
It was clear that there had been so
Page 103 and 104:
When questioned about who was the t
Page 105 and 106:
We have three full time coaches her
Page 107 and 108:
wanting to know more, I guess, yes,
Page 109 and 110:
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 5.1 Introducti
Page 111 and 112:
Both organisations are collaboratin
Page 113 and 114:
Hamel’s (1991) study that argued
Page 115 and 116:
financial issues. However one parti
Page 117 and 118:
5.4 Receptivity of Organisations in
Page 119 and 120:
5.5 Future Research There are a num
Page 121 and 122:
REFERENCES Alexander, T., Thibault,
Page 123 and 124:
Contractor, F. J., & Lorange, P. (2
Page 125 and 126:
Inkpen, A. C. (2002). Learning, kno
Page 127 and 128:
New Zealand Companies Office. (2008
Page 129 and 130:
Tsang, E. W. K., & Kwan, K.-M. (199
Page 131 and 132:
Area Research Question Appendix 1:
Page 133 and 134:
Appendix 2: AUTEC Ethical Approval
Page 135 and 136:
Appendix 3: Participant Information
Page 137 and 138:
How do I agree to participate in th
Page 139 and 140:
Appendix 4: Participant Consent For
show all

View/Open - Scholarly Commons Home

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?