The Cost of Misaligned Governance in R&D Alliances

By Rachelle C. Sampson. 2004

302 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f71d7b05cdadc4dd04c0afe4ef913afff44f3668

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Diversity in Alliance Portfolios and Performance Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis (2017, result): “…of level of analysis at which performance is measured, several studies examined performance at the alliance level (e.g., Hoetker & Mellewigt, 2009; Lane, Salk, & Lyles, 2001), whereas other studies analyzed performance at the firm level (e.g., Gulati & Puranam, 2009; Lavie, 2007; Sampson, 2004).”
R&D intensity and international joint venture performance in an emerging market: moderating effects of market focus and ownership structure (2007, background): “Prior research in transaction cost economics examined how firms choose governance structures that promote knowledge-sharing and protection in strategic alliances (Pisano, 1989; Sampson, 2004).”
When Does Trust Matter to Alliance Performance (2006, methodology): “Prior research states that managers consciously select from these two alliance governance modes the one that is likely to enhance the performance of their particular alliance (e.g., Gulati, 1995; Sampson, 2004).”
Coordinating and competing in ecosystems: How organizational forms shape new technology investments (2013, background): “It provides greater incentives than hierarchies as partners retain autonomy over their tasks and the associated payoffs without a significant addition in bureaucratic costs (Oxley, 1997; Sampson, 2004; Teece, 1996; Williamson, 1991a).”
Understanding the Innovation Behavior of Family Firms* (2015, background): “Organizing innovation activities in-house brings with it the advantages of limiting leakage of information and intellectual property to other firms, while also reducing coordination difficulties (Sampson 2004).”
Strategic alliance contracts: dimensions and determinants of contractual complexity (2007, background): “equity alliances, which involve greater hierarchy due to shared ownership and control (e.g., Oxley, 1997; Sampson, 2004).”
Theories of the Firm-Market Boundary (2011, unknown): “Joskow, 1985), knowledge or human capital specificity (Poppo & Zenger, 1998; Sampson, 2004), and temporal specificity (Gonzalez-Diaz, Arrunada, & Fernandez, 2000).”
Experience effects and collaborative returns in R&D alliances (2005, methodology): “Following Sampson (2004b), I estimate this probability as a function of the following variables: 1.”
Partner Geographic and Organizational Proximity and the Innovative Performance of Knowledge‐Creating Alliances (2014, unknown): “Extant research offers a number of explanations of the relationships between knowledge-intensive alliances and several performance outcomes, including alliance governance (Dyer and Singh, 1998; Sampson, 2004), the characteristics of the search processes conducted within the alliances (Capaldo and Me”
The Implications of Debt Heterogeneity for R&D Investment and Firm Performance (2008, unknown): “…that misalignment between governance and strategic investments impairs performance in numerous contexts, such as the trucking industry (Nickerson & Silverman, 2003; Silverman, Nickerson, & Freeman, 1997), strategic alliances (Sampson, 2004), and international entry modes (Brouthers, 2002).”
The dark side of knowledge transfer: Exploring knowledge leakage in joint R&D projects (2015, background): “Previous leakage studies have also adopted a transaction cost economics perspective (Oxley, 1997; Sampson, 2004), corporate networks (Dyer and Nobeoka, 2000) and R&D alliances (Kale et al., 2000; Norman, 2002).”