Strategic Alliances and Competitive Performance in the Pharmaceutical Industry

Abstract

This paper aims to improve knowledge about the relationship between strategic alliances and performance. It begins by proposing a moderating role for the alliance management capability. Next, it advances an explanation of the impact of the alliances on performance, which is based on the firms' ability to deploy their product portfolios and their alliance portfolios. The research hypothesis formed a structural model that was tested using partial least squares (PLS). The context for the empirical application was the Portuguese pharmaceutical industry. The results confirmed that the proposed moderating role is significant. Additionally, alliances are effectively used for growing and for innovating. Generic drugs are an important way to reconfigure the firms' portfolios and to explain performance; however, they do not significantly depend on alliances. The main lessons are: (a) a better understanding of the reasons ‘why’ alliances enhance performance; (b) managers should develop their firms' alliance management capabilities, in order to fully exploit the benefits of alliance; and (c) a sensible criterion for firms to evaluate the potential alliances is to evaluate the alliance's ability to leverage growth and innovation.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Teece

Pisano

Schuen

(1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strat. Manage. J. 18, 509–533.

Eisenhardt

Martin

(2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strat. Manage. J. 21, 1105–1121.

Winter

(2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strat. Manage. J. 24, 991–995.

Porter

(1991). Towards a dynamic theory of strategy. Strat. Manage. J. 12, 95–118.

Dyer

Singh

(1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Acad. Manage. Rev. 23, 660–680.

Draulans

de Man

Volberda

(2003). Building alliance capability: Management techniques for superior alliance performance. Long Range Plann. 36, 151–166.

Lambe

Spekman

Hunt

(2002). Alliance competence, resources and alliance success: Conceptualization, measurement and initial test. Acad. Market. Sci. 30, 141–158.

Tsai

Ghoshal

(1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Acad. Manage. J. 41, 464–473.

Ahuja

(2000). The duality of collaboration: Inducements and opportunities in the formation of inter-firm linkages. Strat. Manage. J. 21, 317–343.

10.

Bae

Gargiulo

(2001). Network evolution and efficient alliance strategies. Working Paper, INSEAD, Fountainbleu, France.

11.

Sarkar

Echambadi

Cavusgil

Aulakh

(2001). The influence of complementarity, compatibility, and relationship capital on alliance performance. Acad. Market. Sci. J. 29, 358–374.

12.

Cockburn

Henderson

(1998). Absorptive capacity, coauthoring behavior, and the organization of research in drug discovery. J. Ind. Econ. 46, 157–183.

13.

George

Zahra

Wheatley

Khan

(2001). The effects of alliance portfolio characteristics and absorptive capacity on performance: A study of biotechnology firms. J. High Technol. Manage. Res. 12, 205–226.

14.

Duysters

Heimeriks

(2002). The influence of alliance capabilities on alliance performance: An empirical investigation. Working Paper, 02.08, Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies, Technical University of Eindhoven, Eindhoven, Netherlands.

15.

Hoskisson

Hitt

Wan

Yiu

(1999). Theory and research in strategic management: Swings of a pendulum. J. Manage. 25, 417–456.

16.

Kogut

Zander

(1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and the replication of technology. Org. Sci. 3, 383–397.

17.

Grant

(1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strat. Manage. J. 17, 109–122.

18.

Hunt

Morgan

(1997). Resource-advantage theory: A snake swallowing its tail or a general theory of competition? J. Market. 61, 74–82.

19.

Simonet (2002). Licensing agreements in the pharmaceutical industry. Int. J. Med. Market. 2, 329–341.

20.

Hunt

(2002). RAT and Austrian Economics: Toward and Austrian Theory of Competition?, Austrian Scholars Conference, Austria, Ludwig Von Mises Institute.

21.

Ray

Barney

Muhanna

(2002). Capabilities, business processes, and competitive advantage: Choosing the dependent variable in empirical tests of the resource based view. Strat. Manage. J. 25, 23–37.

22.

McGee

Dowling

Megginson

(1995). Cooperative strategy and new venture performance: The role of business strategy and management experience. Strat. Manage. J. 16, 565–580.

23.

Chin

(1998). Issues and opinion on SEM. MIS Quart. 22, 7–16.

24.

Gefen

Straub

Boudreau

M. -C.

(2000). Structural equation modelling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Commun. Assoc. Inform. Syst. 4, 1–70.

25.

Haenlein

Kaplan

(2004). A beginner's guide to partial least squares (PLS) analysis. Understand. Stat. 3, 283–297.

26.

Werts

Linn

Jöreskog

(1974). Interclass reliability estimates: Testing structural assumptions. Educ. Psychol. Measure. 34, 25–33.

27.

Baron

Kenny

(1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Personal. Social Psychol. 51, 1173–1182.

28.

Chin

Newststed

(1999). SEM analysis with small samples using PLSin Hoyle

(ed.), Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 307–341.

29.

Stoenhorst

Raaij

(2004). On explaining performance differentials – marketing and the managerial theory of the firm. J. Bus. Res. 57, 462–477.

30.

Apifarma (2005). A indústria farmacêutica em números, Apifarma, Lisbon, Portugal.

31.

Zollo

Winter

(2000). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Org. Sci. 13, 339–351.

32.

Foss

Ishikawa

(2006). Towards a dynamic RBV: Insights from Austrian capital and entrepreneurship theory. Working Paper, available at (http://www.nicolaifoss.com). Accessed on the 15th December 2006.