Alternativas de tratamiento y valorización

Success of both domestic and cross-border collaborations may be a function of partner characteristics (Madhok, 1995; Hitt et al., 2000; Beske, 2012). Different types of inter- firm diversity among partners may affect the performance of alliance. Collaborative value creation through alliance requires the simultaneous pursuit of partners with similar characteristics on certain dimensions and different characteristic on other dimensions. Partnering firms need to have different resource and capability profiles yet share similarities in their social institutions (Sarkar et al., 2001). These partner characteristics are important since they help in the formation of relationship capital or the behavioral aspects of an alliance that find expression in relational dynamics such as mutual trust, commitment, and information exchange (Cullen et al., 2000). While long- term relationships and concentrated supply chain partner’s portfolios enhance the competitive benefits of process alignment between organisations, it is important to recognize the detrimental effects of these supply chain partner’s portfolio characteristics on the competitive benefits of relationship flexibility (Tang & Rai, 2012).

As firms collaborate and combine forces to compete as extended enterprises against other integrated supply chains, risk is linked to the interdependence among supply chain partner (Spekman and Davis, 2004). An integrated supply chain is becoming more

from supply chain partners working collaboratively to accomplish mutual goals. Supply chain partners begin to focus on those factors and characteristics that link supply chain members by far more than just workflow and logistics. Organizations have gained from achieving high level of transparency and information throughout the supply chain that enables the trading partners to experience the relevant operational transactions of their other supply chain partners. The successes documented at such companies as Dell, HP, and Harley Davidson point to leaner inventories, lower working capital, higher profits and productivity, and better customer service by addressing fundamental issues in selecting partners.

3.5.1.1 Partner Compatibility

Partner compatibility is one of the keys to a successful partnership (Bowersox, 1990; Sarkar et al., 2001). In a successful partnership, each party must clearly understand its partner’s business needs from the outset (Tate, 1996; Kelly et al., 2002). Involving both

partners in long term strategy planning is an integral part of the partnership process. Partners must work with clearly spelled out ground rules and procedures. In addition, the specific role of each partner must be spelled out, understood and agreed to (Tate, 1996). Pansiri (2008) observes that like relationships between people, organization relationships begin with courtship, where organizations attracted to each other seek to discover their compatibility. This is ranked as one of the main ingredients for a successful alliance because the sophistication and expression of the strategy will not work if relationship is not workable (Hagen, 2002).

The degree of compatibility among partner firms has been found to be an important predictor of the success or failure of strategic alliance (Shamdasani & Sheth, 1995; Liou et al., 2011). Compatibility covers the array of issues including broad historical, philosophical, and strategic grounds, values and principles, and hope for the future (Kanter, 1994; Brouthers et al., 1995; Sobhi, 2012), cultural and organizational issues and the extent to which an alliance partner has complementary goals and shares similar orientations that facilitate coordination of alliance activities and execution of alliance strategies (Shamdasani & Sheth, 1995; Wong et al., 2005; Wu et al., 2009; Cheung et al., 2010; Lin, 2012).

Shared values are similar but broader concept. Morgan and Hunt (1994, p. 24) define shared values as “the extent to which partners have beliefs in common about what

behaviors, goals and policies are important, unimportant, appropriate or inappropriate, and right or wrong”. Although the wider concept of shared values has some appeal, it

seems too broad to be effectively operationalized. Norms are rules by which values are operationalized. Heide and John (1992) suggest that norms differ in their proscribed behavior toward collective versus individual goals. Individual goals create norms of competitive behavior, whereas relational exchange norms are based on the expectation of mutuality interest, essentially prescribing stewardship behavior, and are designed to enhance the well-being of the relationship as a whole. Most likely, mutual goals encourage both mutuality of interest and stewardship behavior that will lead to achieving mutual goals. Perhaps it is easier to measure the degree to which the partners share the same goals than it is to measure values and norms (Wilson, 1995).

3.5.1.2 Goal Congruence

Goal congruence or mutual goals are the degree to which partners share goals that can only be accomplished through joint action and maintenance of the relationship (Wilson, 1995; Cavusgil & Deligonul, 2012). Goal congruence between supply chain partners is the extent to which supply chain partners perceive their own objectives are satisfied by accomplishing the supply chain objectives (Cao & Zhang, 2011) . It is the degree of goal agreement among supply chain partners (Angeles & Nath, 2001). In the case of true goal congruence, supply chain partners either feel that their objectives fully coincide with those of the supply chain, or, in case of disparity, believe that their goals can be achieved as a direct result of working toward the objectives of the supply chain (Lejeune & Yakova, 2005).

Goal congruence among supply chain partners provides strong reason for relationship continuance. Wilson et al., (1995) suggest that mutual goals influence performance satisfaction, which, in turn, influences the level of commitment to the strategic alliance. Strategic alliances are known to be risky. Potential partners may be a lot better or worse than the company at the strategic alliance formation (Cavusgil & Deligonul, 2012). Goal assessment is seen as an important criteria in choosing partners besides complementary skills and cooperative cultures (Brouthers et al., 1995).

A successful alliance must be based on compatible goals. The ideal is when strategic goals converge, while competitive goals diverge (Lorange & Roos, 1991). Ambiguity must be avoided, as should coordinated activities. According to Lynch (1990) clarity of focus is vital, ambiguous goals, fuzzy directions, and uncoordinated activities are the

primary causes of failure of cooperative ventures. To avoid the pitfall of ambiguity or different goals, partners should make sure they have synchronous goals to begin with, and then review what has been accomplished in terms of their original goals.

3.5.1.3 Corporate Reputation

The increasing importance of corporate reputation has, in recent years, been recognized within the strategic management literature by a proliferation of conceptual and empirical work (McWilliams & Siegel, 2000; Hillman et al., 2001). Reputation is a precious intangible asset (Branco & Rodrigues, 2006). Corporate reputation is viewed as a solution for asymmetric information regarding firms. It increases investors’ confidence that firms will act in ways that are reputation-consistent.

Strategy scholars see reputation as assets and as mobility barriers (Rose & Thomsen, 2004). When faced with lack of information on a product or on a firm's initiative, stakeholders rely on the firm's reputation to judge its products or its intentions (Schnietz & Epstein, 2005). Reputation may derive from the unique internal features of the company, which describes the history of the company’s interactions with its

constituents. Established reputations impede mobility and produce returns to firms because they are difficult to imitate (Barney, 1991). Partner related criteria are concerned with variables, which are specific to the character, culture and history of the involved partner. One of the critical and important factors of partner selection in strategic partnership identified by Al-Khalifa and Peterson (1999) and Chen et al. (2012) is related to reputation of the alliance partners.

3.5.1.4 Resources Complementarities

One of the reasons organisations enter strategic alliances is to access inimitable skills or resources and to penetrate new markets (Lin & Darnall, 2010). However, resource complementarities are crucial to strategic alliance success (Dyer & Singh, 1998; Jiang et al., 2008; Yan & Yang, 2012). As noted by Love and Roper (2009), resource complementarities involve both uniqueness and symmetry. On one hand, complementarities determine the mix of unique and valuable tangible and intangible resources available to achieve strategic objectives, thus enhancing competitive viability of the alliance (Wu et al., 2009; Cheung et al., 2010).

Alliance partners are motivated to associate themselves with partners with their required resources. Effective inter-organizational alliances are associated with selection of appropriate partners since choosing partners who possess necessary resources and with whom strategic and economic incentives can be aligned is a critical determinant of partnering success (Sarkar et al., 2001; Jiang et al., 2008). Sarkar et al. (2001) suggests that performance is likely to be enhanced when firms are able to manage the paradox involved in choosing a firm that is different, yet similar. Consistent with the RBV, alliances allow firms to trade strategic resources across their boundaries (Nielsen & Gudergan, 2012). When these resources are complementary, desirable performance arises due to synergistic effects. Thus complementary resources and capability profiles may enhance the value generated in alliances, as do similarity in the social institutions of the partners (Chung et al., 2000).

Organisations enter into a strategic alliance when the combined resources can create excess value and advantages (Bretherton & Chaston, 2005). By combining their resources and capabilities with those of other companies, organisations can initiate projects that they could not have successfully done alone. For a firm attempting such a project, the consideration of the resource complementarity becomes an important issue (Burgers et al., 1993; Hess & Rothaermel, 2011; Chen et al., 2012).