Despite the diversity in collaboration literature and the variety of potential benefits, there are relatively few studies that propose structural models or classification analyses. Pisano and Verganti (2008) propose a collaborative architecture in which four forms of collaboration are distinguishable according to whether, on one hand, the collaborative network is open or closed, and on the other, whether the group is self- managing or hierarchically governed. The number of relationships in practice however that are truly open in this way is questionable and examples in particular of the innovation community, in which open groups are managed peer-to-peer are notably rare. The cited example of the open-source software community remains therefore an exceptional, rather than representative, example. The closed, or partially closed, examples of the peer governed consortium, and the hierarchically managed elite-circle constitute the more commonly encountered forms.
Four modes of collaboration are also proposed by (Nidumolu, Prahalad, & Rangaswami, 2009) but in their four-box model of sustainability collaborations, the axes contrast a process or outcome operational focus against a value-chain or wider-
stakeholder structure. In other studies five types of cross business-unit collaboration have been identified (Martin & Eisenhardt, 2010) in an intra-business context and peer-to-peer collaboration has been distinguished from supply-chain collaboration (Aarikka-Stenroos & Jaakola, 2012).
Structural scope
The review of structural forms above, allows a more precise delineation of the research scope to be formulated. The study is focused on commercial value arising from business collaboration. Included within this scope are all collaborative business-to- business dyadic relationships and all larger group collaborations in which at least one commercial entity may be identified and studied as the focal organisation.
This definition includes: buyer-supplier dyads, triads and supply chains; organisational networks; partnerships; alliances; joint-ventures and coopetition relationships. The scope also includes collaborative relationships that include one or more non- commercial organisation(s), such as government, academic, or third-sector organisations, where their participation contributes to commercial value generation of the business partners. This scope does include triple-helix collaboration because of its focus on commercialisation with a business as its focal organisation.
The definition excludes collaboration that exists to meet socio-political, or research only objectives. This therefore excludes examples such as: international political collaboration, intra-national public-sector collaborations, collaborations between public sector agencies and the third-sector, and inter-university collaboration.
Finally, inter-personal networks of collaborating individuals, and collaborations internal to a business, such as between functions or even business units, represent collaborative forms that whilst not specifically identified as falling within the study scope, are nevertheless included by the study insofar as they relate to an improved understanding of business to business collaboration.
Issues impacting collaboration
Although a wide variety of benefits are possible through collaboration, not all collaborations realise their potential with many failing to address stakeholder concerns, produce expected innovations or even to result in any collective action at all
(Hardy et al., 2005). In supply-chain collaborations, the effects of power imbalances can result in behaviour that is incompatible with good relational practices (Hingley, Lindgreen, & Grant, 2015), and even in exemplary circumstances collaborations are susceptible to failure (Emberson & Storey, 2006). Even in circumstances where relationships persist, they may nevertheless often be “exceedingly unstable” with respect to their structural dynamics (Majchrzak et al., 2015, p. 1339). Collaborative relationships are often considered at an organisational actor level only (Emberson & Storey, 2006; Gligor & Autry, 2012) and at this level relational persistence can mask considerable changes occurring in the goals, organisational structures and interactional styles of the collaborating partners. These changes may be the result of reaction to external trading factors, or be driven by internal reorganisation and personnel turnover within either partner organisation. Changes are a challenge for collaborators, but should not necessarily be negatively regarded. When managed appropriately, instability can be a positive feature of successful collaborations (Majchrzak et al., 2015).
An explanation of why instability may be a positive feature in some relationships is provided by research of overly stable relationships, which have been found to be subject to an erosion in effectiveness over time (Skilton & Dooley, 2010) and a corresponding inclination toward groupthink and dysfunctional decision making (Sundaramurthy & Lewis, 2003). Erosion in effectiveness may be noted where the same group of individuals is involved in repeat collaborations their effectiveness and creativity diminish over time unless new members are introduced and steps are taken to increase creative abrasion. An inclination toward groupthink and dysfunctional decision making may occur where the increased inter-personal commitment which builds in closely working groups, leads to groups making risky decisions that individual members alone would not endorse, yet are prepared to back with the support and anonymity provided by a group environment. The effect of these decisions then persists as the group continues to defend previous decisions. (Sundaramurthy & Lewis, 2003). These issues are considered further in relation to the section on social capital and its effects on collaboration.
Collaboration effectiveness is also limited where either individuals or organisations are not adequately motivated to collaborate. There is surprisingly little consideration of collaboration willingness in the literature, particularly with respect to individuals.
In one recent related exception, the capabilities and aspirations of individuals have been linked with collaboration propensity (Schillebeeckx, Chaturvedi, George, & King, 2016). In this study, it is noted that individuals were more inclined to pursue collaboration at an individual level where they perceived a gap between personal achievement and their aspirations with respect to their peers. The greater the aspiration gap, the greater their inter-personal collaboration inclination (Ibid). The impact on inter-organisational collaboration is not considered however. Organisational willingness to collaborate has been identified as a factor impacting technology adoption in industry-university collaborations (Lai, 2011), and observed in survey data to vary by sector and by process (Sahay, 2003). Risk aversion in knowledge intensive industries has been proposed as a factor affecting organisational willingness (Corsaro et al., 2012), but generally collaboration willingness has received only superficial acknowledgement at an organisational level, and even less at an individual actor level. The limited consideration of collaboration willingness at an organisation level may be attributable to the temporal focus. Collaboration studies predominantly focus on the operation of established relationships, rather than on formation processes. The limited consideration of collaboration willingness in individuals, on the other hand, may be attributed to the predominance of organisations as the sole unit of analysis in collaboration studies. The role of individuals and their social relationships in the creation and operation of collaborative interaction is an important facet of this study.
Collaboration facilitation
Collaboration is facilitated by a number of communication and social interaction factors. Enhanced inter-firm communication improves message integrity and conveyance (Gligor & Autry, 2012) and contributes to collaborative advantage by fostering knowledge development and exchange (Paulraj et al., 2008). Communication itself is facilitated through inter-personal dialogue that helps shared meanings to be developed (Ballantyne, 2004). In a similar vein discourse, text and conversation have also been identified as three critical elements of collaborative interaction (Hardy et al., 2005). Hardy et al consider the effectiveness of collaboration from a discursive perspective over an extended period of time, utilising multiple media, and propose that the key to effective collaboration is the establishment, through discursive processes, of a collective identity among members which then is the basis for collective action. The very social processes however that produce the collective
identity, also lead to a convergence in ideas, beliefs and knowledge which then leads to a reduction in collaborative effectiveness that requires the introduction of new group members, in order to maintain “the tensions that produce effective collaboration” (Hardy et al., 2005, p. 72). The tension referred to by Hardy et al is similar to the concept of creative abrasion which is also identified as an important element in effective collaboration, but dependent on some personnel rotation through groups (Skilton & Dooley, 2010). These studies have important implications for business-to- business collaboration for suggesting firstly that behaviour and behavioural adaptations over time need to be understood, and secondly for the identification of the importance of collectives. In a business to business context a collaborative collective is an inter-organisational group unrecognised by studies that limit their attention to composite organisational actors such as companies, public bodies or charities.
The dynamic social processes, through which collaboration effectiveness firstly waxes as a collaborative team bonds, but then wanes as the group knowledge homogenises, can be explained through a related body of literature on social capital that has developed over the last forty to fifty years. The social capital literature is reviewed in detail later in this chapter.
An enhanced level of socialisation resulting from collaboration episodes in one context can also facilitate further subsequent collaboration in other contexts (Howard et al., 2015). Novice technology firms that have learned collaboration techniques from a larger and more experienced partner subsequently exhibit higher levels of inter- organisational social interaction amongst technologists, increasing subsequent collaboration between those novice firms (Howard et al., 2015).
These close social processes through which complex tacit knowledge is exchanged (reviewed in section 2.11), are important not only for the purposeful inter- organisational exchange of technical knowledge, but also, unintentionally are the mechanism through which organisations learn how to collaborate better with each other (Feller, Parhankangas, Smeds, & Jaatinen, 2013).
Review of the value literature
Three major categories of collaborative value were inductively indicated by the grounded theory analysis: commercial value, social capital and human capital. This first section examines the value concept and, with respect to collaboration, considers the timing of value creation, difficulties in its assessment, and the impact of service dominant logic.