FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1824154236> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1824154236 abstract "Attention in the alliance literature has developed from a focus on strategic alliances and joint ventures to a broader focus including marketing based alliances such as co-marketing, co-development (Crespin-Mazet and Ghauri, 2007). In doing so the empirical literature has followed the tide of practitioner activity that has flowed from manufacturing and associated rigid structures, to a greater emphasis on service and alliance roles that are typically less pre-defined. This brings with it a general emphasis on short-term task-specific interactions between firms. These are, by their nature, characteristically collaborative and frequently non-equity arrangements. In these contexts strategy can be emergent and outcome measures uncertain at the outset, with the result that the process of exchange usurps discrete performance outcomes as a true measure of efficacy. Clear understanding of this process of exchange and the antecedent conditions responsible for effective exchange is much needed yet lacks proper attention and clear explanation in the literature. Explanation is commonly couched in a buyer – seller dyadic context with a transaction costs emphasis (Heide, 2003, Parkhe, 1993, Subramani and Venkatraman, 2003, Williamson, 1985, Yilmaz and Kabadayi 2006), and where relational perspectives are explored this is frequently an extension of transaction costs logic with attention to ‘transaction costs, [ ] and high asset specificity’ (Bunduchi 2008). Attention is also given to interdependencies between partner firms (Bunduchi 2008) and information exchange (Sobrero and Schrader 1998) but these are frequently set out as explanations of forbearance under conditions of uncertainty further demonstrating a transaction costs perspective. A fuller explanation of successful collaborative exchange requires a departure from this logic towards one in which the nature of exchange will be knowledge-based rather than property-based (Hoetker and Mellewigt, 2009), one which can facilitate an understanding of the antecedent conditions of this ‘intensive and reactive rhythm’ (Crespin-Mazet and Ghauri 2007) and one that responds to calls for research in the understanding of the development of these exchange norms (Palmatier 2007).The present study seeks to address this gap by conceptualizing exchange behaviour among collaborating non-hierarchical firms. This operational exchange process is described from a social exchange perspective. This conceptualization marks a departure from the transaction costs logic providing an explanation of the social exchange process and is a central contribution of the study. The antecedent conditions necessary for successful operational exchange receive little attention in the literature. A further contribution of the present study is the modeling of these conditions as antecedents to operational exchange. Non-equity collaborative alliances were taken from the UK construction industryand analysed through Structural Equation Modeling using AMOS software. The measurement model was assessed for reliability using construct reliability and Cronbach’s coefficient alpha with both measures giving values above .70 (Nunnally 1978). Convergent validity is demonstrated through confirmatory factor loadings > .51 for each item on its respective construct, and average variance extracted values for each construct above >.50 (Fornell & Larcker 1981). The confirmatory factor analysis showed that the proposed factor model had a good fit to the data with CFI and NNFI values above 0.90, and a RMSEA value indicating an acceptable fit (Byrne 2001), χ2(46)=83.773, p=0.000, CFI=0.96, NNFI=0.96, RMSEA=0.07. The results give support for the hypothesised relationships between prior relational and relational capital and compatibility among partner firms and relational capital. These variables form the antecedent conditions for successful operational exchange between partners which is presented as the outcome variable in this study. The study contributes to understanding of the function of operational exchange as an on going reciprocal process by clarifying the distinction between this and a discrete transaction perspective of exchange. A further contribution of the study is the identification of firm size as a negative moderator of compatibility on relational capital. In larger firms the function of compatibility in this antecedent arrangement is muted and this effect is explored in the study.Managerial implications abound, however specific deliverable messages centre on the importance of relationship capital in facilitating a barrier-free exchange of valuable information as an ongoing feature of a successful alliance exchange process. Prior close relationships across social contexts aid the development of relational capital. A desire for fairness and transparency may lead decision makers to under value existing social relationships in professional contexts, however social capital aids the exchange process in collaborative business to business alliances and there are benefits in acknowledging and accommodating this. Compatibility is central to avoiding negative influences on the development of relationship capital. Commonly held as a pre requisite among alliance partners this is less variable among larger firms and remains a particular area for attention in smaller firms." @default.
• W1824154236 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1824154236 creator A5000857487 @default.
• W1824154236 creator A5064311894 @default.
• W1824154236 creator A5064559127 @default.
• W1824154236 date "2014-09-10" @default.
• W1824154236 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W1824154236 title "Building the exchange process: The antecedents of operational exchange in collaborative business to business relationships" @default.
• W1824154236 cites W1985419904 @default.
• W1824154236 cites W2003611878 @default.
• W1824154236 cites W2021027725 @default.
• W1824154236 cites W2021301441 @default.
• W1824154236 cites W2028416274 @default.
• W1824154236 cites W2031865350 @default.
• W1824154236 cites W2048406404 @default.
• W1824154236 cites W2095771021 @default.
• W1824154236 cites W2157493871 @default.
• W1824154236 cites W2172015263 @default.
• W1824154236 cites W2315556200 @default.
• W1824154236 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W1824154236 type Work @default.
• W1824154236 sameAs 1824154236 @default.
• W1824154236 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1824154236 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1824154236 hasAuthorship W1824154236A5000857487 @default.
• W1824154236 hasAuthorship W1824154236A5064311894 @default.
• W1824154236 hasAuthorship W1824154236A5064559127 @default.
• W1824154236 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W1824154236 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1824154236 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W1824154236 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W1824154236 hasConcept C162853370 @default.
• W1824154236 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1824154236 hasConcept C185874996 @default.
• W1824154236 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W1824154236 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1824154236 hasConcept C2778431023 @default.
• W1824154236 hasConcept C2778510605 @default.
• W1824154236 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
• W1824154236 hasConcept C36289849 @default.
• W1824154236 hasConcept C40700 @default.
• W1824154236 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1824154236 hasConcept C75949130 @default.
• W1824154236 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W1824154236 hasConcept C98965940 @default.
• W1824154236 hasConceptScore W1824154236C10138342 @default.
• W1824154236 hasConceptScore W1824154236C144024400 @default.
• W1824154236 hasConceptScore W1824154236C144133560 @default.
• W1824154236 hasConceptScore W1824154236C151730666 @default.
• W1824154236 hasConceptScore W1824154236C162853370 @default.
• W1824154236 hasConceptScore W1824154236C17744445 @default.
• W1824154236 hasConceptScore W1824154236C185874996 @default.
• W1824154236 hasConceptScore W1824154236C199360897 @default.
• W1824154236 hasConceptScore W1824154236C199539241 @default.
• W1824154236 hasConceptScore W1824154236C2778431023 @default.
• W1824154236 hasConceptScore W1824154236C2778510605 @default.
• W1824154236 hasConceptScore W1824154236C2779343474 @default.
• W1824154236 hasConceptScore W1824154236C36289849 @default.
• W1824154236 hasConceptScore W1824154236C40700 @default.
• W1824154236 hasConceptScore W1824154236C41008148 @default.
• W1824154236 hasConceptScore W1824154236C75949130 @default.
• W1824154236 hasConceptScore W1824154236C86803240 @default.
• W1824154236 hasConceptScore W1824154236C98965940 @default.
• W1824154236 hasLocation W18241542361 @default.
• W1824154236 hasOpenAccess W1824154236 @default.
• W1824154236 hasPrimaryLocation W18241542361 @default.
• W1824154236 hasRelatedWork W1202508107 @default.
• W1824154236 hasRelatedWork W123293883 @default.
• W1824154236 hasRelatedWork W1507028410 @default.
• W1824154236 hasRelatedWork W1507942713 @default.
• W1824154236 hasRelatedWork W1582018713 @default.
• W1824154236 hasRelatedWork W1806923545 @default.
• W1824154236 hasRelatedWork W2040443941 @default.
• W1824154236 hasRelatedWork W2066292048 @default.
• W1824154236 hasRelatedWork W2107192340 @default.
• W1824154236 hasRelatedWork W2116286566 @default.
• W1824154236 hasRelatedWork W2170993324 @default.
• W1824154236 hasRelatedWork W2181998693 @default.
• W1824154236 hasRelatedWork W2314847253 @default.
• W1824154236 hasRelatedWork W2323647544 @default.
• W1824154236 hasRelatedWork W2562945854 @default.
• W1824154236 hasRelatedWork W2793603789 @default.
• W1824154236 hasRelatedWork W2991040661 @default.
• W1824154236 hasRelatedWork W3184080691 @default.
• W1824154236 hasRelatedWork W384197751 @default.
• W1824154236 hasRelatedWork W9163906 @default.
• W1824154236 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1824154236 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1824154236 magId "1824154236" @default.
• W1824154236 workType "article" @default.