Bernard Garrette

Learning from competing partners : Outcomes and durations of scale and link alliances in Europe, north America and Asia

This paper investigates the outcomes and durations of strategic alliances among competing firms, using alliance outcomes as indicators of learning by partner firms. We show that alliance outcomes vary systematically across link and scale alliances. Link alliances are interfirm partnerships to which partners contribute different capabilities, while scale alliances are partnerships to which partners contribute similar capabilities. We find that partners are more likely to reorganize or take over link alliances than scale alliances. By contrast, scale alliances are more likely to continue without material changes. The two types of alliances are equally likely to shut down, at similar ages. These results support the view that link alliances lead to greater levels of learning and capability acquisition between the partners than do scale alliances. Copyright

Anticipating the Evolutions and Outcomes of Strategic Alliances between Rival Firms

Focuses on the strategic alliances set up by rival firms. Information on the evolution and outcomes of strategic alliances; Definition of strategic alliances

Alliances With Competitors: How to Combine and Protect Key Resources?

Our study addresses two main questions: First, what types of alliances do firms tend to create when combining different kinds of resources? Second, what governance mechanisms do firms set up to coordinate and protect resources when they use them for different alliances? We examine 227 alliances between competitors in Asia, North America, and Europe. We first identify two types of alliances: scale alliances in which the partner firms contribute similar resources, and link alliances in which the partners contribute complementary resources. We find that firms contributing R&D and production resources tend to form scale alliances, while firms contributing marketing resources tend to enter into link alliances. We also find that firms are more likely to choose stronger protection mechanisms for link alliances, which create greater appropriation risks, while they tend to seek higher levels of coordination in scale alliances.

An empirical study of hybrid forms of governance structure: the case of the telecommunication equipment industry

This article examines hybrid forms of governance structures as defined in transaction cost theory. It demonstrates that these hybrid forms can be split into a small number of discrete categories instead of being distributed evenly on a continuum between market and hierarchy. The analysis is based on a sample of strategic partnerships set up by telecommunication equipment manufacturers, either among themselves or with firms of related industries. The taxonomy of strategic partnerships presented in this paper underlines the importance of the organization of tasks and the symmetry of the contributions of the partner firms as discriminating factors of hybrid forms.

Industrial alliances in aerospace and defence: An empirical study of strategic and organizational patterns

An empirical study of seventy inter-firm alliances in the aerospace and defence industries reveals the importance of organizational factors in the construction of a typology of such ventures. Three types of alliances are identified. The study also suggests a link between each type and patterns of evolution of the partnerships over time.

Patterns of strategic alliances between rival firms

This article describes the results of a research project which examined 171 alliances set up by competing firms in an international context. It presents an empirically-based taxonomy of such alliances constructed on the basis of a set of variables chosen for their demonstrated or assumed influence on the evolution and outcomes of strategic partnerships. Three contrasted types of allliances are identified: quasi-concentration alliances, market penetration alliances and shared supply alliances. They differ according to two fundamental dimensions: their symmetrical or dissymmetrical nature and the way in which they alter competition. Legal structure, often emphasized in previous research on the subject, does not emerge as a strongly discriminating factor. Hypotheses on the likely evolution and outcomes of each type of alliance are derived from the taxonomy.

Sell the Solution: Recommendation Report and Delivery

Walking the audience through PowerPoint slides is both the most frequent and the least efficient way to deliver recommendations. The challenge is to steer a productive conversation with problem owners in which visual aids do not become visual impediments. Telling relevant stories and using striking examples can help. Handing out a neat and concise recommendation report is mandatory. The report must start with an executive summary and follow the storyline. If it takes the form of a slide deck, it must feature only one message per page. You can present supporting evidence with charts that you must keep relevant and simple. The chapter discusses various types of charts and templates, as well as guidelines to check and improve your presentations.

The 4S Method in Action

This chapter applies the 4S method from end to end to a disguised, real-life case. It starts with a brief description of the Kangaroo Company and the issue at hand, which is basically to look into the attractiveness of “Kangaroo” (the leader in the men’s underwear market in “Syldavia”) as an acquisition target. It then discusses the problem statement and the problem-structuring effort. Finally, it presents a storyline and the first section of a slide deck that conveys the main conclusions and the final recommendation. The content draws from analyses that were actually conducted to look into the real situation. A facsimile of the first 12 pages of the report is appended.

Redefine the Problem: The Design Thinking Path

The design thinking path to problem solving is appropriate whenever the problem is human centered, complex, and too poorly understood to be defined using the analytical TOSCA approach. In design thinking, the problem owner you consider is the user of the solution you are trying to design. Typically, this is a product or service, but the design thinking path can be used to create a strategy, an organization, and so on. To state the problem, a designer will first empathize with users through observation, empathy and immersion, in order to gain insights into the problems they face and the way they experience them. It will then become possible to define the problem with a set of design imperatives and a how-might-we design goal.

Structure and Solve the Problem Using Design Thinking

The design thinking approach to the Structure stage in the 4S method is the Ideate phase. It entails generating a large and diverse set of concepts, using creativity techniques such as analogical thinking, brainwriting, morphological analysis, and SCAMPER (Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Put to some other use, Eliminate, and Reverse) questions. Designers will then use a structured selection process to converge on a small number of concepts. In the Prototype and Test phases, these concepts are iteratively tested by developing tangible prototypes, exposing users to them, and learning from their feedback. Iterations in these phases result in a solution that meets the design goal: they are the design thinking approach to the Solve stage in the 4S method.