Research Process of Doz’s Study (1996)

The Evolution of Cooperation in Stategic Alliances : Initial Conditions or Learning Processes?

Presented by Pınar Özbilen

Nov. 5, 2014
2 Outline of Presentation:
 Research Purpose of The Study
 Research Design : Unit of analysis
 Research Design : Data collection method
 Research Design: Analysis of data
 Quality of Research Design
 Findings of the Study
 Summary of the Study
 Limitations of the Study
 Conclusion of the Study
 Research Purpose of The Study
3
 What are the problems?
How the evolutionary process of coorporation in strategic alliances constrained by the
conditions at the inception of the alliance ?

What is the role of various types of learing in alliance evolution?

How is the evolutionary process of coorporation in strategic alliances influenced by by

collaboration process ?

 What is the opportunity provided through concentrating on the research problem? (Motivation)

Little research on
*Evolution and cooperation process of strategic alliances
*How organizations adjust their level, mode and commitment to cooperation over time as result of learning feedback
which is part of cooperation process
*Contribution to debate in strategic manegement field between teleological strategy implementation and evolutionary
strategic adaptation
 Strong Adaptive Strong Inertial
4 Forces Forces
STRATEGIC
ALLIANCE
Cooperative
projects EVOLUTION OF COORPORATION

INITIAL COLLABORATION OUTCOMES OF

CONDITIONS PROCESS ALLIANCE

LEARNING
Fostering PROCESS
SUCCESS OR
or THROUH
FAILURE
Blocking MANY
Interpartner DIMENSIONS
Learning

Mediating Effect of Learning

5 Research Design : Unit of analysis

 Three cases of new business and new product development alliances

Justification: Provides an clear balanced research platform where infleunce of both initial conditions and
process variables on outcomes can be examined

*****( Choosing appropriate unit of analysis accurately specifying research questions)

 Two projects with each of three multipoint alliances
Justification: Provides project-level, alliance level and corporate level data and analysis
 Product areas : (advanced drug delivery system-, mini- and microcomputers, civilian jet engine)
 Product alliances examined in the study: oral slow-release pills, transdermal patches,
 Case alliances: Alza ( entrepreneurial)- Ciba Geigy (multinational), AT&T (regional telephone company-
Olivetti( supplier of computers& office electronics), GE-SNECMA(manufacturer of aircraft engines)
6 Research Design : Data collection method
 Longitudinal case study of six projects in three alliances, two projects per alliance
“a how and why question is being asked about a contemporary set of events, over which the investigator has little or no control” (Yin, 2003)
 Sources of evidence: archival data and interviews with participants in the cooperation process at both partner firms =>data
triangulation, (Yin, 2003)
 Multi-case design with theoretical replication : conditions under which a particular phenomenon is not likely to be found (Yin, 2003)
emphasis on external validity and external conditions
Framework : replication (Yin, 2003, pg.47)
The initial case (Ciba Geigy-Alza) is used to generate the initial framework
 Retrospective (not real time) analysis of relatively recent partnership => to reduce bias, make access to data easier, mitigate the effect
of differences in collaborative experience of the companies ( studied projects are first partnership activity of partners)
 Most of the data collection of AT&T/Olivetti and GE/SNECMA case is done by researcher who have not involved in initial framework
development and are not familiar with the framework ( investigator triangulation)
 Cross case analysis and consolidation of the were tested by one of the researcher s who does not directly involve in field research of
cases .
 He uses all of the detailed transcripts of interviews to test the framework ( investigator triangulation)
7 Research Design : Data collection method
 Archival data is employed to prepare interviews, challenge interview’s memories, cross- check their ex-post
data and perceptions with documented data of partnership
• Eliminate participant’s selective retrospective bias
• Recreate manager’s temporal and contextual frame of reference
 Archival data consist of not just jointly produced documents by partners but also documents of
partner companies interviews in multiple levels

 Selection of Interviewees:
Participants who have key role in collaboration process, draw on archival data) and :
front-line day to day partners ( development team leaders)
More senior executives (CEOs, directors)
Senior line managers ( division managers)
 Determination of # of interviewees: Stop at when there is not anybody suggested but not interviewed
 Focus of interviews :
 Research Design: Analysis of data
8
 Data were structured in chronological sequences organized by main actors in the process

 Based on detailed with-in case analysis ( for which qualitative inductive analysis is used) : interactive and iterative cycles of learning, reevaluation,
and readjustment
1. Data analysis is guided by the evaluation objectives, which identify domains and topics to be investigated .
2. The primary mode of analysis is the development of categories from the raw data into a model or framework. This model contains key themes and
processes identified and constructed by the evaluator during the coding process

3. The findings result from multiple interpretations made from the raw data by the evaluators who code the data.
4. Different evaluators may produce findings that are not identical and that have non-overlapping components.
5. 5. The trustworthiness of findings derived from inductive analysis can be assessed using similar techniques to those that are used with other types of
qualitative analysis ( Thomas, 2006)*

* A General Inductive Approach for Analyzing Qualitative Evaluation Data

 Most aggregated data summaries for each partnership are prepared.

 First case study is used for developing initial framework
 The other cases are used for theory testing and development
 Theory testing: “qualitative pattern matching” between the initial framework and data
 Dependent variables: continuation, restructuring and discontinuation
 Independent variables: characterizing the process of collaboration ( initial conditions, dimensions of learing)
9
10 Quality of Research Design

 Construct Validity: multiple sources of evidence?

Not clearly specified operational events describing initiol conditions and outcomes: namely
measurement of dependent and independent variable is not clear  chain of evidence is not
explicit
 Internal Validity: Is inference is correct? (Pattern matching, rival explanations)
 External Validity: Replications increase generalizability
 Reliability: Case study database exists : transcribed interviews, charts, but interrater
reliability for the initial framework?
 Findings
11
 Summary
12
13 Summary
14 Limitations

 Very small purposive sample; inductive model drawn from one case
 Replicated on two cases
 Differences in relative size of partners emphasize difference in initial conditions
15 Conclusion

 Initial conditions have a important effect on outcomes of alliances by blocking learning

and adaptation (static type) or fostering learning and adaptation (generative type)

 Middle managers have a critical role on alliance evolution since they are the main parties
who generate the outcomes
16 Thank you for you attention

QUESTIONS?