139,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
- Sprache: Englisch
This book explores the impact of information systems on the management of North–South asymmetric strategic alliances through a series of in-depth case studies which analyze different types of partnerships. Positioned at the heart of the value creation process, the choice of information system seems to be becoming a strategic issue which should be centered not only on the organizational decisions related to the type of alliance but also the management systems of each of the partners. The authors provide an understanding of the nature of this relationship between the organizational structure and the method of information system integration in asymmetric alliances. The in-depth analysis of strategic alliance case-studies illustrates the different methods of information system integration, which are themselves linked to the organisational and structural choices of the alliance. These methods are characterized by information-sharing and coordination mechanisms as well as the balance of control over shared activities developed by the distinct partners.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 173
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2017
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Title
Copyright
Introduction
PART 1: Specificities of IS within Asymmetric Alliances
Introduction to Part 1
1 Strategic Alliances versus Asymmetric Alliances
1.1. Strategic alliances
1.2. Asymmetric alliances
2 Management Specificities of North and South Asymmetric Alliances
2.1. Definition
2.2. Organizational form
2.3. Strategic objectives of partners
2.4. Nature of pooled resources
2.5. Managerial system and control mechanisms
3 Alliance Governance by IS
3.1. Information systems (IS)
3.2. Interorganizational information systems (IOIS)
3.3. Analysis of the role of IS in the management of strategic alliances
PART 2: The Role of IS in the Management of an Asymmetric Alliance: Four Case Studies
Introduction to Part 2
4. Case ALPHA
4.1. Characteristics of alliance ALPHA
4.2. The role of IS in the management of alliance ALPHA
5 Case DELTA
5.1. Characteristics of alliance DELTA
5.2. Role of IS in managing alliance DELTA
6 Case KAPPA
6.1. Characteristics of alliance KAPPA
6.2. The role of IS in managing alliance KAPPA
7 Case IOTA
7.1. Characteristics of alliance IOTA
7.2. Role of IS within alliance IOTA
Conclusion: The Role of IS in Managing Asymmetric Alliances
Bibliography
Index
End User License Agreement
List of Tables
1 Strategic Alliances versus Asymmetric Alliances
Table 1.1. Analysis grid of the forms of relations and interorganization cooperation
Table 1.2. Theoretical table of objectives leading to a strategic alliance
Table 1.3. Asymmetry factors in strategic alliances
3 Alliance Governance by IS
Table 3.1. Classification of information systems software
Table 3.2. Definitions for interorganizational information systems
Table 3.3. Classification of interorganizational information systems programs (adapted from [KUM 96])
Introduction to Part 2
Table I.1. Sample presentation
Table I.2. Functions of the respondents
Table I.3. Number of interviews with European and Tunisian partners
4 Case ALPHA
Table 4.1. Presentation of alliance ALPHA
3
Table 4.2. Resources supplied by the partners of the alliance ALPHA
Table 4.3. The perimeter of the alliance
Table 4.4. Governance mechanisms of alliance ALPHA
5 Case DELTA
Table 5.1. Presentation of alliance DELTA
3
Table 5.2. The contributions of both partners of alliance DELTA
Table 5.3. Perimeter of the alliance
Table 5.4. Governance mechanisms of alliance DELTA
6 Case KAPPA
Table 6.1. Presentation of alliance KAPPA
3
Table 6.2. Commitments of both partners of alliance KAPPA
Table 6.3. Alliance perimeter
Table 6.4. Governance mechanisms of alliance KAPPA
7 Case IOTA
Table 7.1. Presentation of alliance IOTA
4
Table 7.2. Commitments of both partners of alliance IOTA
Table 7.3. Perimeter of the alliance
Table 7.4. Governance mechanisms of alliance IOTA
Table 7.5. Synthesis table
List of Illustrations
1 Strategic Alliances versus Asymmetric Alliances
Figure 1.1. Configurations of alliances (Alliance Science, 2004)
3 Alliance Governance by IS
Figure 3.1. Layout of an integrated software package
Figure 3.2. Presentation of an EDI
Introduction to Part 2
Figure I.1. The Euro-Mediterranean partnership. For a color version of this figure, see ww.iste.co.uk/said/alliances.zip
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
Pages
C1
iii
iv
v
ix
x
xi
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
51
52
53
54
55
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
139
140
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
G7
e1
Advances in Information Systems Set
coordinated byCamille Rosenthal-Sabroux
Volume 7
Asymmetric Alliances and Information Systems
Issues and Prospects
Karim Saïd
Fadia Bahri Korbi
First published 2017 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the undermentioned address:
ISTE Ltd27-37 St George’s RoadLondon SW19 4EUUKwww.iste.co.uk
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.111 River StreetHoboken, NJ 07030USAwww.wiley.com
© ISTE Ltd 2017
The rights of Karim Saïd and Fadia Bahri Korbi to be identified as the author of this work have been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017935629
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 978-1-78630-097-3
Introduction
The number of international strategic alliances has grown considerably in recent years due to the increase in interdependency between economies resulting from the globalization of goods and services and financial markets. Subsequently, companies have had to reinforce their international strategic deployment capabilities, which have been made possible by the development of new generations of information and communications technologies. Academia has responded to this boom in strategic alliances with an abundance of research dedicated to this new theme, particularly in fields such as management sciences and industrial economics. And yet there are but few of these studies that focus on the management of asymmetric alliances, in particular between multinational corporations and companies from emerging economies1. A strategic alliance can be defined as a link between two or more individual companies with different sizes, resources and capacities originating from geographic areas characterized by uneven levels of macroeconomic development [MOU 05]. An asymmetric alliance is based on a number asymmetry criteria relying on geographic location, differences in size, capital and negotiating power or even experience in domestic or international collaborations and the ability to learn from one’s partners.
Coordinating the activities of a strategic alliance is increasingly complex when it ties asymmetric partners separated by strategic decisions and managerial systems set in specific social and cultural contexts. These differences can be amplified by the geographic distance that separates the partners, increasing the need for joint activity to be appropriately coordinated.
In this context, the use of an integrated information system can help unify shared information between collaborators and allow them to develop a common framework, reducing problems stemming from informational asymmetry and incompatibility within the alliance. In their ability to reduce the restrictions related to spatial locations, information systems help reduce the costs of acquisition and transportation as well as the costs of coordinating activities spanning different locations. They, therefore, encourage massive exchanges of data as well as increases in productivity and reactivity in decision making.
As we look closer at the integration of information systems within asymmetric strategic alliances, we will study the role of these technologies as tools for workflow management, communication and sharing and collaboration between geographically distant stakeholders working toward common goals.
This book is divided into two parts. Part 1 presents the specificities of asymmetric strategic alliances and will define the intellectual context of the information system and its formal and informal role in guiding strategic alliances. Part 2 is dedicated to case studies and will describe the role of information systems in managing asymmetric alliances. The organizational structure of the alliance, the ends and resources put forward by each party, their position in the value chain of the alliance and the selected mode of governance is presented for each case. We will then analyze the role of the information system in the formal and informal governance of said alliance. The detailed analyses of these cases will allow us to make managerial recommendations relating to the importance of information systems in communications within and between businesses, enlightened governance and decision making as well as the management of common information.
1
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, World Urbanization Prospects, the 2011 Revision, File 5 Total Population:
http://esa.un.org/unup/CD-ROM/Urban-Rural-Population.htm
.
PART 1Specificities of IS within Asymmetric Alliances
Introduction to Part 1
After the diffusion of integrative technologies within businesses, the question of information system integration moved to the field of relations across organizations, where it generates more and more interest among researchers in Information Systems (IS) management. The study of interorganizational relations has recently become far more interesting due to the appearance of strategic alliances and partnerships, as opposed to the traditional dichotomization of straight market and hierarchy in conjunction with the increasing use of IS. These technologies are capable of managing the relations between partners and supporting their formal and informal governance methods because of a combination of material and non-physical resources.
However, coordinating the activities of a strategic alliance is all the more complex when it links partners that are asymmetric with regard to the differences or even incompatibilities between their strategic decisions and managerial systems, often set in specific social and cultural structures. These differences can be amplified by the geographic distance between partners, highlighting the need to coordinate joint activities.
In this context, an integrated information system can unify the information shared between partners and help develop a common framework that will work toward problems arising from information asymmetry and incompatibility within the alliance. Through their ability to alleviate restrictions linked to spatial location, information systems can help reduce the costs of acquisition and transportation of information, thus enhancing efficiency and productivity as well as decision-making time. Furthermore, these technologies allow the development of interpersonal relations between the members of two partnering companies and the establishment of a dynamic of knowledge transfer.
1Strategic Alliances versus Asymmetric Alliances
1.1. Strategic alliances
A cooperation agreement between organizations relies on a range of partnership relations between corporations that seek to realize a joint production of information, products or commercial services. These agreements include different forms of contractual cooperation such as licensing contracts, R&D agreements and functional collaborations that aim to reinforce the value chain of both parties which can range from common participations to total integration (see Figure 1.1). This can be a number of autonomous entities participating in a network, applying one of many possible configurations: corporate collaboration – cooperation between two or more partners from different countries where each corporation remains autonomous within the areas that are not included within the collaboration perimeters including the common realization of activities and specific tasks.
Garrette and Dussauge [GAR 95] present an analysis grid of different forms of collaborations for strategic alliances, thus distinguishing agreements between competing corporations from agreements between non-competing corporations. A distinction can thus be made between market relations, mergers and acquisitions, and collaborations (see Table 1.1). The following analysis grid presents the differences in definitions of collaboration and the collaboration models between corporations. We will note that one of the most ubiquitous collaboration models remains is that of strategic alliance.
Figure 1.1.Configurations of alliances (Alliance Science, 2004)
Table 1.1.Analysis grid of the forms of relations and interorganization cooperation
(source [GAR 95, p. 97])
Stakeholders Relation
Non-competing corporations
Competing corporations
Market relations
Exports and imports
Transactions
Competition
Mergers and acquisitions
Local acquisitions
Vertical integration
Diversification
Sector concentration
Collaboration
Multinationalization
joint venture
Vertical partnerships
Intersectoral agreement
Strategic alliances between competitors
1.1.1. Definition
The notion of strategic alliance refers to a link between two or more individual corporations, deciding on the governance and structure of a common project while both maintaining their independence. They are therefore engaged in a partnership whereby they will share the benefits and the costs of the collaboration. Khanna et al. [KHA 98, p. 195] highlight other dimensions associated with the definition of alliance, citing the mutual transfer of information between strategic partners and the development of organizational knowledge. Resorting to strategic alliances is here justified by the act of: “mutually transferring information from one partner to another, allowing them to combine and grow their competences and key-knowledge to exploit them within common operations”. However, Gulati [GUL 98] highlights goals other than the transfer of knowledge and learning, such as the desire to exchange, share or develop common products, technologies or services.
Jolly [JOL 01, p. 3], on the other hand, defines alliances as:
“A link established by at least two sovereign companies that do not belong to the same group, agreeing to pursue a common goal within a defined space by pooling or exchanging resources in order to obtain mutually beneficial results, while remaining independent outside of the alliance”.
This notion of independence implies, for the partners, that they maintain their strategic autonomy outside of the areas covered by the mutual agreements. For their part, Contractor and Lorange [CON 88] put forward the importance of sharing financial and technological resources as well as the management and control model of the joint activity. Pooling complementary capital and manpower as well as production capabilities and information must therefore allow the creation of value [BUC 88].
Using these definitions as a basis, we can establish a theoretical framework that encompasses the different dimensions that characterize a strategic alliance, i.e.:
– a strategic alliance encourages networking between non-competing companies, competing companies or potentially competing companies;
– the decision to enter a strategic alliance must involve a formal, well-defined and appropriately structured contract;
– when active, this contract will not remove the autonomy of either of the companies or their independence;
– a strategic alliance involves pooling resources and capabilities as well as sharing the results by the contracting parties.
1.1.2. Organizational forms
Partnerships, functional collaborations, joint ventures and cooperation agreements are generic terms that refer to various organizational forms that companies can take on in order to mobilize the resources necessary to their competitiveness. These organizational forms can fall into one of two categories depending on whether the nature of the commitment is equity based or simply contractual.
1.1.2.1. Equity alliances
Joint ventures and equity investments (joint/unilateral) are representative of this type of alliance. Joint ventures, in particular, refer to the investment of capital into a new entity and the pooling of resources among a number of partners. This will take the form of a new administrative structure that operates on the basis of a new hierarchy. The objectives for a joint venture are most often expressed in a long-term context in the areas of R&D, production and product commercialization. Kogut [KOG 88], Pisano [PIS 89, PIS 91] and even Oxley [OXL 97] mention that joint ventures allow control over the behaviors of the partners in order to align their objectives, particularly in the context of an uncertain environment favorable to opportunistic moves and behaviors.
Members of a joint venture agree beforehand to commit their resources in order to determine ownership over the common subsidiary. This avoids any of the partners going back on their commitment. Furthermore, the partners wield their operational power via a formal administrative unit (the executive board of the joint venture), which allows them to efficiently exercise control over the joint activity and reduce transaction costs among partners.
Das and Teng [DAS 98] underline the fact that joint ventures allow control over decisions, resources, assets and partners through specific organizational routines and an elevated hierarchical control. This type of alliance ensures that the partners’ interests are aligned and reduces the inherent costs that occur from incomplete contracts and opportunistic behaviors.
The works of Contractor and Lorange [CON 88, p. 6] emphasize the high level of co-dependency between partners during a joint venture who mobilize part of their personnel in a collaborative framework and rely on common resources, technologies and processes: “The joint venture is a cooperative arrangement characterized by a high level of organizational interdependency”. Therefore, the partners are in constant interaction at all hierarchical levels in order to optimize the exchange of knowledge and expertise and to simultaneously direct added-value operations [GUL 98]. This is manifested by an integration of abilities and resources by both contracting parties allowing them to synergize in terms of commercialization capabilities, production capacities or even research and development.
Park and Russo [PAR 96] differentiate “integrated” forms from “sequential” forms of alliance depending on the nature of the interdependency of the partners. Therefore, the “integrated” joint venture is characterized by a joint interdependency between partners since they dedicate part of their personnel and resources to an integrated and separate organization, granting them an operational role. On the other hand, “sequential” joint ventures are characterized by a “sequential” interdependency in the sense that operations are directly taken on by members of the alliance. Each partner performs the distinct actions that are tied to the resources they commit before transferring activity to a partner who continues the work using on their own resources. With common venture not having an operational role, it is confined to a role of judicial and administrative coordination. As for Hennart [HEN 88], he distinguishes between scale joint ventures and link joint ventures. This is based on the transaction cost theory [WIL 85]. While the former model of alliance aims to realize similar economies of scale by pooling similar resources, the latter is preferred by companies with complementary resources with the objective of developing activity synergies.
Recourse to equity alliances is favorable when partners are looking to exchange or acquire new skills. Khanna et al. [KHA 98] point out that successful knowledge transfer and learning requires a solid governance of the alliance allowing the partners to effectively perform R&D activities. In the same vein, Mowery et al. [MOW 96] emphasize that tacit knowledge requires a large amount of interactions, personal relations and proximity between partners. Competence transfer activities are assisted by the presence of executives dedicated to joint ventures as well as face-to-face meetings and improved personal relations between partners. Asymmetric strategic alliances that connect partners from cultures from different geographical contexts need to be governed by equity agreements that encourage learning and the acquisition of knowledge, unlike contractual agreements [LI 09].
Furthermore, it should be noted in this context that joint ventures are most often associated with high investment costs relating to equipment, personnel or the creation of a new managerial structure designed to direct the joint activities. The particularly irrecoverable nature of these investments as well as the elevated exit costs of these types of alliances reduces the ability for partners to adapt to unpredicted events or develop an innovation dynamic likely to encourage the development of new products and/or processes.
1.1.2.2. Contractual alliances
Contractual alliances refer to agreements established between partners to cooperate while maintaining their autonomy and without creating a new entity. Contractual alliances are preferred by companies operating within a context of high uncertainty and adapted to the knowledge transfer and expertise associated with activities in the technological sector [HAG 02]. Companies therefore favor contractual agreements such as licenses in intensive R1D sectors, where technological innovations are both radical and constantly changing. The simplicity of management and the flexibility offered by contractual alliances help the negotiations and collaboration between different parties [HAG 96].
