Strategies of Entrepreneurs to Collaborate with Alliances for Commercializing Technology and New Product Innovation: A Practical Learning in Thailand

Authors: Kusumaphorn Sompong, Helen Lawton Smith, Barbara Igel

Abstract:

This paper provides a key driver-based conceptual framework that can be used to improve a firm-s success in commercializing technology and in new product innovation resulting from collaboration with other organizations through strategic alliances. Based on a qualitative study using an interview approach, strategic alliances of entrepreneurs in the food processing industry in Thailand are explored. This paper describes factors affecting decisions to collaborate through alliances. It identifies four issues: maintaining the efficiency of the value chain for production capability, adapting to present and future competition, careful assessment of value of outcomes, and management of innovation. We consider five driving factors: resource orientation, assessment of risk, business opportunity, sharing of benefits and confidence in alliance partners. These factors will be of interest to entrepreneurs and policy makers with regard to further understanding of the direction of business strategies.

Keywords: Managing collaboration, strategic alliance, technology commercialization, innovation.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1063330

References:

[1] Das T.K. and Teng B.S. (2000). A resource-based theory of strategic alliances. Journal of Management, 2(1), 31-61.
[2] Ball D. (1999). Conference report: The R&D management conference 1998. Technology strategy and strategic alliances. R&D Management, 29(3), 303-311.
[3] Verspagen B. and Duysters G. (2004). The small worlds of strategic technology alliances. Technovation, 24 (7), 563-571.
[4] Garette B. and Dussauge P. (2000). Alliance versus acquisitions: choosing the right option. European Management Journal, 18 (1), 63- 69.
[5] Child J., Faulkner D. and Tallman S. (2005). Cooperative Strategy : Managing Alliances, Networks and Joint ventures. 2 nd. Edition. Oxford University Press Inc., New York.
[6] Arranz N. and Carlos Fdez de Arroyabe J. (2008) The choice of partners in R&D cooperation: An empirical analysis of Spanish firms. Technovation, 28, 88-100.
[7] Lavie, D. (2006). The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: an extension of the resource-based view. Academy of Management Review, 31 (3), 638-658.
[8] Balachandra, R., Friar, J.H., 1997. Factors for success in R&D projects and new product innovation: a contextual framework. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,44 (3), 276-287.
[9] Aronson Z.H., Lechler T., Reilly R.R. and Shenhar A.J. (2001). Project spirit. A strategic concept. Portland International Conference on the Management of Engineering and Technology, Portland, 539-544.
[10] Wheelwright, S., Clark, K. (1992). Revolutionizing product development: quantum leaps in speed, efficiency, and quality. The Free Press, New York.
[11] Peters L. Groenewegen P. and Fiebelkorn N. (1998). A comparison of networks between industry and public sector research in materials technology and biotechnology. Research Policy, 27, 255-271.
[12] Osterloh M., Frost J. and Rota S. (2002). Solving social delemas: the dynamics of motivation in theory of the firm. University of Zurich. Institute for research in Business Administration.
[13] Bayona C., Garcia-Macro T. and Huerta E. (2001). Firms- motivations for cooperative R&D: an empirical analysis of Spanish firms. Research Policy, 30, 1289-1307.
[14] Greis, N.P., Dibner, M.D. and Bean, A..S. (1995), "External partnering as a response to innovation barries and global competition in biotechnology" Research policy, Vol.24, pp. 609-30.
[15] Miotti, L. and Sachwald, F. (2003), "Co-operative R&D: why and with whom? An integrated framework of analysis", Research Policy, Vol.32, pp.1481-99.
[16] Barnes A.P. (1999). Commercial R&D linkage with public agro-food institutions. Food policy, 24, 349-355.
[17] Hall, J. and Vredenburg, H. (2003), ÔÇÿÔÇÿThe challenges of innovating for sustainable development--, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 61-8.
[18] Ayuso, S., Rodr─▒'guez, M.A. and Ricart, J.E. (2006). "Responsible competitiveness at the ÔÇÿÔÇÿmicro-- level of the firm Using stakeholder dialogue as a source for new ideas: a dynamic capability underlying sustainable innovation ", Corporate Governance, Vol. 6 No.4, pp.475- 490.
[19] Park, N.K., Mezias J.M. and Song J.A. (2004). Resource-based view of strategic alliances and firm value in the electronic marketplace. Journal of Management, 30 (1), 7-27.
[20] Vuola O. and Hameri A. (2006). Mutually benefiting joint innovation process between industry and big-science. Technovation, 26 (1), 3-12.
[21] Hooley G.J. Saunders J.A. and Piercy N.F. (1998). Marketing Strategy & Competitive Positioning. Prentice Hall Europe. Great Britain.
[22] Zahra S.A. and Garvis D.M. (2000). International corporate entrepreneurship and firm performance: the moderating effect of international environmental hostility. Journal of Business Venturing, 15, 469-492.
[23] Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J. (1998), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
[24] Esterburge, K. (2001), Qualitative Methods in Social Research, McGraw-Hill.
[25] Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J. (1990), Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
[26] Dubois, A. and Gadde, L.E. (2002), "Sytematic Combining : An Abductive Approach to Case Research", Journal of Business Research, Vol.55, pp. 553-560.
[27] Janesick, V.J. (1998), "The Dance of Qualitative Research Design: Metaphor, Methodololatry, and Meaning", in Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (Eds), Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry: Sage Publication, CA.