La cartera de alianzas y su relación con la estrategia de la empresa y el proceso de internacionalización: teoría y evidencias empíricas en las industrias aeronáuticas y del transporte aéreo.

UNIVERSIDAD DE SEVILLA FACULTAD DE CIENCIAS ECONÓMICAS Y EMPRESARIALES DEPARTAMENTO DE ADMINISTRACIÓN DE EMPRESAS Y MARKETING TESIS DOCTORAL LA CARTERA DE ALIANZAS Y SU RELACIÓN CON LA ESTRATEGIA DE LA EMPRESA Y EL PROCESO DE INTERNACIONALIZACIÓN. TEORÍA Y EVIDENCIAS EMPÍRICAS EN LAS INDUSTRIAS AERONÁUTICA Y DEL TRANSPORTE AÉREO AUTOR MARCO CASTIGLIONI DIRECTORES: Dr. JOSÉ LUIS GALÁN GONZÁLEZ Dr. FRANCISCO JOSÉ ACEDO GONZÁLEZ Dra. MARÍA de los ÁNGELES GALLEGO ÁGUEDA Tesis Doctoral para la Obtención del Grado de Doctor por la Universidad de Sevilla, en CC. Económicas y Empresariales. Doctoral Thesis, to obtain the degree of Ph.D. (Doctor Philosophiae) in Economics and Business by the University of Seville ABSTRACT The last three decades have witnessed a considerable development of the phenomenon of strategic alliances (Heimeriks et al., 2009). This has determined the embeddedness of many companies in networks of relationships that are fundamental to the success and survival of the company (Ahuja et al., 2012; Gulati, 1995). Depending on the level of analysis, the literature on alliances and inter-organizational relationships can be divided into two main streams: the first focuses on the individual relationship as an object of study, the second uses a network perspective to analyze the consequences of the relational position of a company on its results (Jiang et al., 2010). These two areas of research have been complemented in recent years, with increasing strength and interest, with a new stream of research focused on so-called alliance portfolios. The new line of research focused on alliance portfolios has generated an abundant literature in recent years, but despite the progress made, the literature is still quite fragmented, due, on the one hand, to the multiple issues addressed and, another part, the lack of consistency of the results obtained (de Leeuw et al., 2014; Lee et al, 2017; Parmigiani and Rivera-Santos, 2011). In the first chapter of this thesis, we will analyze the definition of the portfolio of alliances and we will propose a new definition and a systematic classification of the different types of alliance portfolio. In the second chapter, we present a comprehensive review of the literature on alliance portfolio. As a conclusion to these chapters of a theoretical nature, we have detected a series of gaps in the alliance portfolio literature that may be the subject of research. Among those gaps detected there are two on which we are going to focus. To do this, we set the following research objectives: 1) Analyze the importance of the portfolio of alliances in the internationalization of SMEs; 2) Analyze the relationship that exists between the portfolio of alliances and the strategies of the companies, considering the influence of the environment. Based on these objectives, we have carried out two empirical studies. In order to carry out these empirical works, we have selected two industries in which the use of strategic alliances and interorganizational relations is common and frequent: the airline industry and the aeronautical industry. In the airline industry proliferate horizontal alliances between competitors, while in the aeronautical industry, vertical relationships between companies and their suppliers are more frequent. Regarding the first empirical study, through which the internationalization process of the companies and the role played by alliance portfolios is analyzed, we can affirm that the analysis of the three cases has allowed highlighting the links that take place between the personal and organizational networks, observing a sequence of their evolution. The second empirical study we have conducted provides a deeper understanding of the operational and associative strategies used in the airline industry during 2005-2015. In addition, it highlights how associative behavior represents a fundamental complement to these strategies. 1 Índice INTRODUCCIÓN ............................................................................................................ 2 1. INTRODUCCIÓN DE LA INVESTIGACIÓN .................................................................... 3 2. OBJETIVOS DEL TRABAJO .............................................................................................. 4 3. ESTRUCTURA DE LA INVESTIGACIÓN ........................................................................ 7 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................ 10 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 11 2. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. 11 2.1 Conclusions of the theoretical reflection on alliance portfolio ..................................... 11 2.2 Conclusions of the empirical studies ............................................................................. 14 3. LINES OF FUTURE RESEARCH AND MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS .................. 16 4. MAIN LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................... 19 REFERENCIAS ............................................................................................................. 21 ANEXOS ........................................................................................................................ 41 ANEXO I – ENTREVISTA SEMI-ESTRUCTURADA ........................................................ 42 Indice de las figuras Figura I.1 – Esquema del presente trabajo ....................................................................... 9 Figura C.1 – Main ideas and perspectives presented in this work ................................. 14 2 Introducción 3 1. INTRODUCCIÓN DE LA INVESTIGACIÓN En las últimas tres décadas hemos sido testigos de un desarrollo considerable del fenómeno de las alianzas estratégicas (Heimeriks et al., 2009). No solo ha aumentado el número de estas relaciones (Lavie, 2007), sino que también se ha ampliado su alcance. Mientras que en el pasado las empresas establecían alianzas y colaboraciones para realizar actividades simples o marginales, ahora las utilizan en la práctica totalidad de las actividades de la cadena de valor (Lavie y Miller, 2008). Este aumento exponencial ha determinado la incrustación de muchas empresas en redes de relaciones que son fundamentales para el éxito y la supervivencia de la empresa (Ahuja et al., 2012; Gulati, 1995; Gulati et al., 2011). A nivel de investigación, el incremento en el uso de alianzas y colaboraciones entre empresas ha determinado un aumento considerable en el número de estudios sobre relaciones interorganizacionales (Parmigiani y Rivera-Santos, 2011; Wassmer et al., 2010). Dependiendo del nivel de análisis, la literatura sobre alianzas y relaciones interorganizacionales puede dividirse en dos corrientes principales: la primera se centra en la relación individual (diádica) como objeto de estudio, la segunda utiliza una perspectiva de red para analizar las consecuencias de la posición relacional de una empresa sobre sus resultados (Jiang et al., 2010). Estas dos áreas de investigación se han complementado en los últimos años, cada vez con mayor fuerza e interés, con una nueva corriente de investigación centrada en las llamadas carteras de alianzas. Esta línea de estudio surgió en respuesta a la consideración de que las empresas no solo administran sus acuerdos de cooperación estratégica individualmente, sino que tratan cada vez más de gestionar todas sus alianzas conforme a un diseño estratégico superior (Hoffmann 2005). Esta nueva línea de investigación representa un nivel intermedio de análisis entre el análisis individual (díada) y una red interorganizacional (Zaheer et al., 2010), proporcionando así una mayor comprensión del fenómeno de las relaciones interorganizacionales (Duysters et al., 1999; Wassmer, 2010; Zidorn y Wagner, 2012). Según esta literatura, a medida que aumenta el número de alianzas en las que participan las empresas, se necesita una estrategia de cartera para proporcionar el acceso de las empresas a los recursos y capacidades externos a través del uso coordinado de sus alianzas (Gomes-Casseres, 1998). Por tanto, lo importante no es solo el éxito o el fracaso de una alianza individual, sino también el logro de los objetivos estratégicos de la empresa 4 a través de todas sus alianzas. Esta concepción diferente se centra en la composición y estrategia de la cartera de alianzas en su conjunto en lugar de centrarse de forma especifica en cada una de las diferentes alianzas que la componen (Hoffmann, 2007). La nueva línea de investigación centrada en las carteras de alianzas ha generado en los últimos años una abundante literatura [véase Wassmer (2010) y Parmigiani y Rivera-Santos (2011) para una revisión], pero a pesar de los avances logrados, la literatura aún está bastante fragmentada, debido, por una parte, a los múltiples temas abordados y, por otra parte, a la falta de consistencia de los resultados obtenidos (de Leeuw et al., 2014; Lee et al, 2017; Parmigiani y Rivera-Santos, 2011). 2. OBJETIVOS DEL TRABAJO El concepto de cartera de alianzas se caracteriza por su amplitud y complejidad (Wassmer, 2010), y se ha empleado para analizar una amplia variedad de fenómenos, vinculados entre sí por el uso de alianzas por parte de la empresa. El concepto considera las alianzas de manera aditiva (Wassmer, 2010) y tiene una naturaleza general e instrumental (Bunge, 2017). Estas características asimilan, en cierta medida, la cartera de alianzas con un concepto paraguas (Hirsch y Levin, 1999), ya que incluye una realidad amplia y variada dentro de su definición. Este tipo de concepto plantea el problema de la vaguedad (Bunge, 2017) y, en el caso de los conceptos paraguas también de la validez (Hirsch y Levin, 1999). Para abordar estos problemas, que dificultan el desarrollo del concepto y la convergencia de los resultados en la investigación, existen dos posibles soluciones: la primera consiste en validar la definición, es decir, proponer una definición que utilice un nuevo enfoque teórico o conceptual y que cuestione e intente mejorar la definición actualmente en uso; la segunda busca desarrollar una serie de clasificaciones o tipologías que permitan reducir la gran vaguedad del concepto (Bunge, 2017; Cornelissen, 2017, Doty y Glick, 1994, Hirsch y Levin, 1999). Por lo tanto, un primer objetivo que este trabajo se propone es profundizar en el análisis del fenómeno y elucidar el concepto de cartera de alianzas a través de la propuesta de una nueva definición y de una clasificación sistemática teórica, que permita comprender la variedad de realidades que se incluyen dentro del concepto. La propuesta tanto de una nueva definición como de las tipologías de carteras de alianzas que identificamos, se basa en dos criterios sobre los que se asientan los principales estudios 5 sobre cartera de alianzas (Hoffman, 2005, 2007): la coordinación/gestión de la cartera y la relación entre cartera y estrategia de la empresa. Estos criterios derivan de la descomposición de la capacidad de cartera (Hoffmann, 2005; Sarkar et al., 2009) en sus principales componentes. Después de haber analizado en el primer capítulo la definición de cartera de alianzas y haber propuesto una clasificación sistemática de las distintas tipologías de cartera de alianzas, en el segundo capítulo presentamos una amplía revisión de la literatura sobre este tema de investigación. La revisión realizada se fundamenta en el análisis de las variables, tanto dependientes como independientes y moderadoras, que se han empleado en los estudios sobre cartera de alianzas. Este tipo de análisis de las variables es importante porque permite, por un lado, reagrupar y, de alguna forma, comparar los distintos trabajos que han estudiado áreas comunes y, por otro lado, diferenciar las áreas de investigación en función de su grado de desarrollo, poniendo el énfasis en aquellos campos aún poco explorados. Como conclusión del trabajo de revisión, hemos detectado una serie de gaps en la literatura de cartera de alianzas que pueden ser objeto de investigación. Entre esos gaps detectados hay dos en los que se va a centrar el presente estudio doctoral. Para ello, nos marcamos los siguientes objetivos de investigación: 1.- Analizar la importancia que tiene la cartera de alianzas en la internacionalización de las PYMEs. En este sentido, hay otras dos cuestiones de las que apenas hay estudios y en las que constituye una oportunidad profundizar, por lo que nos planteamos los siguientes subobjetivos: 1.1.- Investigar el papel que juegan las alianzas a la hora de proveer los recursos que las PYMEs necesitan para su internacionalización. 1.2.- Estudiar si se lleva a cabo una adecuada gestión de la cartera de alianzas en estas empresas, de forma que se vea favorecida esa expansión internacional. 2.- Analizar la relación que existe entre la cartera de alianzas y las estrategias de las empresas, así como la influencia que dicha relación tiene en el entorno. En función de estos objetivos, hemos llevado a cabo dos estudios empíricos. Para la realización de estos trabajos hemos seleccionado dos industrias en las que el uso de las alianzas estratégicas y las relaciones interoganizacionales es algo común y frecuente, ya que estas relaciones de cooperación entre empresas no se utilizan con la misma intensidad en todas las industrias. Estas relaciones suelen ser más comunes en industrias tales como 6 telecomunicaciones, electrónica, biotecnológica, aeroespacial y automotriz (Hoffmann y Schlosser, 2001), debido a sus características competitivas. El primero de los dos estudios empíricos analiza el papel de la cartera de alianzas en el proceso de internacionalización de las PYMEs. Estas empresas desempeñan un papel importante en el debate político, ya que son un factor determinante del crecimiento económico de los países (Peres y Stumpo, 2000). Esta política económica se distingue principalmente por las diversas iniciativas emprendidas por los gobiernos para promover la innovación y la asociación entre las PYMEs (Sakakibara, 2002; Thorgren et al., 2012). El creciente cambio en el entorno competitivo debido a la globalización de los mercados, la aparición de competidores más sofisticados y preparados, la rápida evolución tecnológica y la adopción de modelos de innovación abierta (Faems et al., 2010), requiere un continuo esfuerzo por parte de las empresas para adquirir y desarrollar capacidades (Marino et al., 2002). Debido a todos estos factores, el uso de actividades en cooperación por parte de las PYMEs se ha convertido en una herramienta estratégica clave para acceder y movilizar recursos y capacidades externas (Hoffmann, 2005), en particular cuando se necesita cooperación para lograr economías de escala o para fusionar e integrar diferentes habilidades, tecnologías o competencias (Zeng, Xie y Tam, 2010). Las alianzas estratégicas se han utilizado ampliamente en la internacionalización de las empresas (Swoboda et al., 2011). En este proceso, las PYMEs han utilizado cada vez más esta forma de organización porque proporciona a las empresas ventajas específicas, como el acceso a países lejanos con un riesgo reducido (Lu y Beamish, 2006; Swoboda et al. 2011). Sin embargo, para comprender mejor la internacionalización de las PYMEs, además de las alianzas estratégicas internacionales establecidas, es importante examinar las redes en las que las empresas están integradas (Coviello, 2006; Johanson y Vahlne, 2009). Estas redes comprenden tanto las relaciones sociales personales (Ellis, 2000), como las alianzas corporativas u organizacionales (Chetty y Wilson, 2003; Yli- Renko et al., 2002). Por tanto, en este primer trabajo empírico pretendemos comprender cómo las redes de relaciones donde las empresas están integradas (y especialmente sus carteras de alianzas) pueden influir en los procesos de internacionalización de las PYMEs. Dada la teoría limitada sobre cómo las carteras de alianzas influyen en la internacionalización de las PYMEs, llevaremos a cabo un estudio inductivo de casos múltiples (Yin, 2009) aplicado a la internacionalización de las empresas en el sector aeronáutico. 13 Therefore, researchers will take this diversity into account, but by creating portfolio types based on the portfolio's capacity, we have reduced an important source of variance, especially by analyzing the impact of portfolios on performance or any other variable in the portfolio. exit, and that way we have improved the work of researchers. On the other hand, we have also carried out a wide literature review in the field of the alliance portfolio. The portfolio of alliances constitutes a relatively recent research area (Wassmer, 2010) that, in recent years, has generated an abundant scientific production, opening roads and new lines of research. The present work has carried out an extensive review of the literature on this field of study, focusing on the variables used in the works and future developments. The results show that previous studies have gone a long way in understanding this phenomenon and its consequences for performance, but that there are still many opportunities for research in the field, both in the topics already addressed and in new areas of study. In addition to the traditional areas of research (composition, evolution and management of alliance portfolios), it is possible to identify other relevant areas, some already initiated, such as the study of the relationship between company strategy and portfolio strategy, and others. just outlined, such as those related to internationalization, the transfer of knowledge within the portfolio, the appropriation of the value generated by the portfolio or the management of the portfolio of alliances. Based on these findings we have proposed the objectives of this thesis. One of them has been to deepen the relationship between the portfolio of alliances and the strategy of the company. Both the theoretical debate on the definition of the portfolio of alliances and the classification of the portfolio of alliances that we have proposed connect the portfolio of the alliance with the strategy of the company (Hoffmann, 2005, Lavie and Singh, 2012). The strategy of the portfolio forces the company to consider which alliances should be established and which one should conform the portfolio of the alliance company (Ozcan and Eisenhardt, 2009). It also involves deciding on the structure of the portfolio (Capaldo, 2007) and the composition, as well as to what type of partners a company should be allied with and what kind of relationships it should establish with them (Dyer and Nobeoka, 2000, Partanen and Möller, 2012). The following figure (Figure C.1) presents the main ideas and points of view presented in the theoretical section of this paper. 14 Figure C.1 - Main ideas and perspectives presented in this work Source: own elaboration The other objective that we had set was the analysis of the relationship between the portfolio of counterfeits and the internationalization of SMEs. In this sense, we have developed a theoretical model to graphically express this relationship and that has been captured in Figure 3.1 of this thesis. Therefore, the main contributions of the review work of the literature that we have conducted are basically in three areas: a) an updated review of the abundant literature on the portfolio of alliances and the study of the main variables used in it; b) the definition of the different research areas that make up the literature on the portfolio of alliances; and c) the identification of two specific lines of research on which we have carried out our empirical study (portfolio of alliances and internationalization in SMEs, and portfolio of alliances and operational strategies). 2.2 Conclusions of the empirical studies In the second part of this work we have addressed the analysis of two research areas in the field of the portfolio of alliances through two empirical studies: the first study has focused on the role of the portfolio of alliances in the internationalization process of companies, especially SMEs; The second study has focused on the relationship between the associative behavior of companies, behavior in which the portfolio of alliances assumes relevant role, and the strategy of the company. 15 Regarding the first empirical study we can affirm that the bibliographic review and the analysis of the three cases have allowed to highlight the links that take place between the personal and organizational networks, observing a sequence of their evolution. In addition, we can conclude that companies often use alliance strategies that are more or less defined for the development of their internationalization process, but that there may be significant differences between them, especially in SMEs. These alliances provide companies with resources that enable / favor their international expansion. The differences are also observed in the case of portfolio management of alliances between, on the one hand, SMEs that have established specific departments or functions and, on the other, SMEs that have not developed organizational mechanisms and whose management is relatively informal. The findings confirm the results obtained by Ozcan and Eisenhardt (2009) and Hoffmann (2007) in different questions and research contexts. The second study we have conducted provides a deeper understanding of the operational and associative strategies used in the airline industry during 2005-2015. In addition, it highlights how associative behavior represents a fundamental complement to these strategies. This study emphasizes the increase in associative behavior of airlines by showing how a large number of them have joined the different constellations that characterize the industry, and by showing the increase in the use of codeshare agreements, the most important strategic alliance and more employed in the industry. These two trends have significantly increased the size of the airlines' alliance portfolios, which generates certain challenges due to the need to manage their alliances in a coherent and coordinated manner (Lavie, 2007). Despite having generalized the growth of airline alliance portfolios in this industry, we want to highlight how this growth can occur with different levels of intensity among airlines, which indicates a relationship between operational and associative strategies. The results show the close connection between the network of routes and destinations of the airlines and their network of alliances, since one of the main purposes of an alliance is to increase and complement these routes and destinations. This relationship is reflected in the growing virtualization of the airlines (environment), which provides access to a greater number of routes through the alliances that the airlines establish with their partners, without the need to invest their own resources. However, this virtualization has a limit, since companies must manage their own routes to offer exchange possibilities to their partners, although it is possible to identify diverse 16 associative behaviors, reciprocal or unilateral, according to the strategy and commercial profile of the airline. This study contributes to the alliance literature by showing how associative behavior can complement operational strategies within an industry, leading to a process of virtualization in which companies increasingly depend on partners' resources to compete. In a highly competitive industry, the use of alliances allows companies to outsource part of their activities, increasing the division of labor (Buckley and Prashantham, 2016) and promoting the progressive virtualization of the industry. The virtualization process allows companies to simplify their internal organizational structure, allowing them to focus their resources and capabilities on the key elements of their business model. This trend creates new challenges for airlines, related to the protection of their basic resources, especially their routes, and the greater demands of management in terms of its coordination and relations with its partners. 3. LINES OF FUTURE RESEARCH AND MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS In this section we will present the main lines of research that the various studies we have carried out throughout the present work have suggested. More in detail, we will comment on the lines of research derived from the theoretical reflections on the portfolio of alliances that we have presented in the first chapter and the future lines of the two empirical studies that we have developed throughout chapters four, five and six. The future lines of research derived from the review of the literature that we have presented in chapter two of this paper are found at the end of the same chapter two to favor its readability. The new definition of the portfolio of alliances, the classification of the types of portfolio proposed and the review of the literature, allow us to point out some of the most promising avenues of investigation in the study of the portfolio of alliances. A first line of research should delve into the three types of portfolios that have been identified and analyze the appropriate portfolio according to the type of company and its environment. The previous reflections seem to indicate a preference for strategic alliance portfolios, but this is probably not the right portfolio for all companies. A second line of research should focus on the performance of a portfolio of alliances and reconsider that relationship based on the types of portfolios identified. It 17 could even be interesting to review the studies carried out and verify, through a metaanalysis, the consistency of this relationship taking into account the type of portfolio. A third line of research should analyze the relationship between the portfolio strategy and the evolution of a portfolio of alliances, following the path opened by the works that have explored the evolution of a portfolio of alliances (Capaldo, 2007, Dittrich et al., 2007; Lavie and Singh, 2012). The study of the relationship between the company strategy, the portfolio of alliances and the environment would provide a greater theoretical consistency to the evolutionary studies and would allow progress in understanding the coevolution between these variables (Hoffman, 2007, Ozcan and Eisenhardt, 2009). A fourth line of research arises from the consideration that rich and in-depth academic discussion about alliance portfolios has not been accompanied by practical development. That is, professionals (consultants and entrepreneurs) do not have sufficiently effective tools at their disposal when they try to manage a portfolio of alliances. Therefore, instruments and tools are needed that allow the management of a portfolio of alliances, which help them move from an unmanaged portfolio to a managed one, and from this to a strategic portfolio. A final line of investigation should focus on the function of the alliance. Although there are different studies on the function of the alliance (Heimeriks and Duysters, 2007, Heimeriks et al., 2009, Kale et al., 2001, Kale et al., 2002), it seems appropriate to analyze more thoroughly their functions, structure and composition, hierarchical position and its relationship with the firm strategy. It could also be interesting to investigate the role of the alliance function in the effective management and development of the different types of alliance portfolios. The two empirical studies we have done on the portfolio of alliances open up interesting possibilities for future research. Next, we will indicate the four lines of future research that we have detected. A first line of research could focus on investigating how constellations affect the associative behavior of their members, since constellations do not represent a phenomenon exclusive to the air transport industry. A second line of research should deepen the relationship between the composition of a portfolio of alliances and the process of internationalization of a company, since as we noted earlier, there is little literature in this area. A third line of research could focus on analyzing the different types of partners within a portfolio of alliances and their strategic role for the company. As we have highlighted above, the different studies that have used variables that have analyzed the nature and type of partners have done so only to analyze the 18 complexity or diversity of the portfolio as a whole without really interested in the partners that make up a portfolio. Finally, the fourth and last line of research that we pointed out, should focus on the analysis of the consequences of the virtualization process from the perspective of marketing and strategy, to the extent that the different routes of an airline can be considered as markets in the that competes (Gimeno and Woo, 1996). Among the many research questions related to virtualization, we will briefly summarize the most interesting and promising ones. From a marketing perspective, it would be interesting to study the brand strategies of the airlines in the different markets in which they compete. These strategies are possible thanks to the use of subsidiary airlines or third-party airlines. From a strategic perspective, it could be interesting to investigate the potential loss of operational autonomy that an airline suffers when forming alliances or, adopting a perspective of dependence on resources, the question of whether there is any "central resource" (in terms of routes) that a airline should protect, in the sense of maintaining those routes / markets within their own portfolio (Kleymann, 2005). In addition to its theoretical contributions, the two empirical studies we have carried out have practical implications, especially the second study. The first study highlights that the strategies of alliances and the portfolio of alliances that companies can use in their internationalization process can vary significantly. Therefore, managers have to determine which is the alliance and portfolio strategy that best suits the internationalization process of their company. The second study we have done, being more extensive and complex offers more practical applications for managers. In the first place, the identification of strategic groups makes it easier for companies to determine their position within the industry and the competitive movements that are underway, both from the perspective of their own routes and in association with other airlines. Identify the strategies of the airlines and their evolution provides relevant information for professionals who make decisions about the future of their companies. Secondly, the importance of codeshare agreements for an airline to overcome numerous mobility barriers is highlighted (Mehra and Floyd, 1998) currently present in the industry. Third, the results show that the growth of alliances, both global alliances and shared codes, creates a dichotomy for airlines. This growth in the alliances suggests a greater degree of openness among the airlines, but also causes polarization in the formation of alliances as a result, because membership in a specific constellation restricts the potential partners of an airline, although this has some nuances. Therefore, entering into a global alliance is an extremely important strategic decision for 19 an airline. The option of remaining independent requires an operational strategy consistent with that option and the resources available to the airline. Finally, the results show that some of the fastest growing airlines in recent years have been able to define alternative and novel development strategies compared to those pursued in the industry due to the support of their governments. Ultimately, these alternative strategies have helped airlines achieve dominant positions within the industry. 4. MAIN LIMITATIONS In this section that concludes this work we will highlight the main limitations that derive from the studies we have done: a literature review study and two empirical studies. Regarding the study of review of the literature on the portfolio of alliances, we emphasize that, although its intention has been to present a literature review that is as complete and coherent as possible, there are some limitations. The most important is that the review has focused mainly on the literature on the alliance portfolio, leaving aside the literature on inter-organizational relations and business networks. This decision has excluded jobs belonging to areas of knowledge related to the portfolio of alliances, which may in some way have damaged our understanding of the phenomenon. Nevertheless, despite the possible exclusion of related works, we consider valid the conclusions and suggestions of the present study due to the important number of works analyzed, including also part of the literature on the alliance network, especially the one that focuses on the egonetworks. Regarding the empirical study we have conducted to investigate the role of the portfolio of alliances in the process of internationalization of SMEs, we note that its main limitation lies in the cases analyzed, since they are companies with unique characteristics. However, the methodology used is similar to other studies that have addressed similar research questions (Ozcan and Eisenhardt, 2009, Santos and Eisenhardt, 2009, Sepulveda and Gabrielsson, 2013). In addition, the observations are representative of those companies that adopt an internationalization strategy and that use proactive strategic alliances to achieve success in this process. Our objective was to analyze how this process develops and to know the differences that occur between SMEs. Regarding the empirical study we have done to investigate how the associative behavior of companies, whose maximum expression is represented by the portfolio of alliances, affects the company's strategy, we emphasize that the sampling of the airlines 20 is related to one of the main weaknesses of the study. It is possible that other strategies within the industry could be identified, although both the selection of the sample and the consistency of the results seem to indicate that any new strategy would be merely a modification of those identified in this study. Another limitation involves the data used in the analysis because only the routes offered by the airlines are considered, without information on the frequency of flight. However, as it is an exploratory study, we consider that this choice, although a limitation, is appropriate because the number of routes indicates the size and evolution of the airlines. However, future studies more focused on specific issues should avoid this omission because a joint analysis of routes and frequencies would offer a better understanding of the operational strategies of the airlines and their associative behavior. Finally, we would point out that the present study is largely based on quantitative variables, due to the type of analysis carried out. Despite this, we have tried to confirm the consistency and reliability of the strategies of companies by analyzing qualitative variables, to allow us to understand and interpret the results obtained. 21 REFERENCIAS 22 Adler, N., & Hanany, E. (2016). Regulating inter-firm agreements: The case of airline codesharing in parallel networks. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 84, 31– 54. Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S.-W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17–40. Ahuja, G. (2000a). Collaboration Networks, Structural Holes, and Innovation: A Longitudinal Study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425–455. Ahuja, G. (2000b). The duality of collaboration: inducements and opportunities in the formation of interfirm linkages. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 317–343. Ahuja, G., Soda, G., & Zaheer, A. (2012). The genesis and dynamics of organizational networks. Organization Science, 23(2), 434–448. Alderighi, M., & Gaggero, A. A. (2014). The effects of global alliances on international flight frequencies: Some evidence from Italy. Journal of Air Transport Management, 39, 30–33. Alderighi, M., Gaggero, A. A., & Piga, C. A. (2015). The effect of code-share agreements on the temporal profile of airline fares. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 79, 42–54. Aldrich, H., & Auster, E. R. (1986). Even dwarfs started small: Liabilities of age and size and their strategic implications. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8, 165–198. Aldrich, H., & Zimmer, C. (1986). Entrepreneurship through social networks. In D. L. Sexton & R. W. Smilor (Eds.), The art and science of entrepreneurship (pp. 3–23). Ballinger. Anand, B. N., & Khanna, T. (2000). Do firms learn to create value: the case of alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 295–315. Andrevski, G., Brass, D. J., & Ferrier, W. J. (2016). Alliance Portfolio Configurations and Competitive Action Frequency. Journal of Management, 42(4), 811–837. Asgari, N., Singh, K., & Mitchell, W. (2017). Alliance portfolio reconfiguration following a technological discontinuity. Strategic Management Journal, 38(5), 1062–1081. Bae, J., & Gargiulo, M. (2004). Partner substitutability, alliance network structure, and firm profitability in the telecommunications industry. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 843–859. Bakker, R. M., & Knoben, J. (2015). Built to Last or Meant to End: Intertemporal Choice in Strategic Alliance Portfolios. Organization Science, 26(1), 256–276. Bamford, J., & Ernst, D. (2002). Managing an alliance portfolio. The McKinsey Quarterly, (3), 28–39. Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. (1997). Institutionalization and Structuration: Studying the Links between Action and Institution. Organization Studies, 18(1), 93–117. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. 29 noncooperative game theory. Transportation Research Part B, 24(1), 27–43. Hashai, N., Kafouros, M., & Buckley, P. J. (2015). The Performance Implications of Speed, Regularity, and Duration in Alliance Portfolio Expansion. Journal of Management, XX(X), 14920631559203. Heimeriks, K. H. (2010). Confident or competent? How to avoid superstitious learning in alliance portfolios. Long Range Planning, 43(1), 57–84. Heimeriks, K. H., & Duysters, G. (2007). Alliance Capability as a Mediator Between Experience and Alliance Performance: An Empirical Investigation into the Alliance Capability Development Process. Journal of Management Studies, 44(1), 25–49. Heimeriks, K. H., Duysters, G., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2007). Learning mechanisms and differential performance in alliance portfolios. Strategic Organization, 5(4), 373–408. Heimeriks, K. H., Klijn, E., & Reuer, J. J. (2009). Building capabilities for alliance portfolios. Long Range Planning, 42(1), 96–114. Hirsch, P. M., & Levin, D. Z. (1999). Umbrella Advocates Versus Validity Police: A Life-Cycle Model. Organization Science, 10(2), 199–212. Hite, J. M. (2005). Evolutionary Processes and Path of Embedded Network Ties in Emerging Entrepreneurial Firms. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 29(1), 113–144. Hite, J. M., & Hesterly, W. S. (2001). The evolution of firm networks: From emergence to early growth of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 22(3), 275–286. Hoang, H., & Antoncic, B. (2003). Network-based research in entrepreneurship A critical review. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 165–187. Hoehn-Weiss, M. N., & Karim, S. (2014). Unpacking functional alliance portfolios: How signals of viability affect young firms’ outcomes. Strategic Management Journal, 35(9), 1364– 1385. Hoehn-Weiss, M. N., Karim, S., & Lee, C.-H. (2017). Examining Alliance Portfolios Beyond the Dyads: The Relevance of Redundancy and Nonuniformity Across and Between Partners. Organization Science, 28(1), 56–73. Hoffmann, W. H. (2005). How to manage a portfolio of alliances. Long Range Planning, 38(2), 121–143. Hoffmann, W. H. (2007). Strategies for managing a portfolio of alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 28(8), 827–856. Hoffmann, W. H., & Schlosser, R. (2001). Success factors of strategic alliances in small and medium-sized enterprises: an empirical survey. Long Range Planning, 34(3), 357–381. Holmlund, M., & Kock, S. (1998). Relationships and the internalisation of finnish Small and Medium-sized Companies. International Small Business Journal, 16(4), 46–63. Hora, M., & Dutta, D. K. (2013). Entrepreneurial Firms and Downstream Alliance Partnerships: Impact of Portfolio Depth and Scope on Technology Innovation and Commercialization 30 Success. Production and Operations Management, 22(6), 1389–1400. Huber, G. P., & Power, D. J. (1985). Retrospective reports of strategic‐level managers: Guidelines for increasing their accuracy. Strategic Management Journal, 6(2), 171–180. Huettinger, M. (2014). What determines the business activities in the airline industry? A theoretical framework. Baltic Journal of Management, 9(1), 71–90. Hunt, M.S., 1972. Competition in the Major Home Appliance Industry: 1960-1970. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Harvard University. Hymer, S. H. (1976). International operations of national firms. MIT Press. IATA, 2016. Passenger Forecast - Global Report. Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., & Vaidyanath, D. (2002). Alliance management as a source of competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 28(3), 413–446. Jiang, R. J., Tao, Q. T., & Santoro, M. D. (2010). Alliance portfolio diversity and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 31(10), 1136–1144. Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 602–611. Johanson, J., & Mattsson, L.-G. (1988). Internationalisation in Industrial Systems — A Network Approach. In N. Hood & J. Vahlne (Eds.), Strategies in global competition (pp. 287–314). Croom Helm. Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. (1990). The Mechanism of Internationalisation. International Marketing Review, 7(4), 11–24. Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. (1977). The internationalization process of the firm - a model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1), 23–32. Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. (2009). The Uppsala internationalization process model revisited: From liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9), 1411–1431. Jones, M. V, & Coviello, N. E. (2005). Internationalisation: conceptualising an entrepreneurial process of behaviour in time. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(3), 284–303. Kale, P., Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (2002). Alliance capability, stock market response, and long term alliance success: the role of the alliance function. Strategic Management Journal, 23(8), 747–767. Kale, P., Dyer, J., & Singh, H. (2001). Value creation and success in strategic alliances: Alliancing skills and the role of alliance structure and systems. European Management Journal, 19(5), 463–471. Kale, P., & Singh, H. (2009). Managing strategic alliances: what do we know now, and where do we go from here? Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(3), 45–62. Kenny, B., & Fahy, J. (2011). Network resources and international performance of high tech 31 SMEs. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 18(3), 529–555. Ketchen, D., & Shook, C. (1996). The application of cluster analysis in strategic management research: An analysis and critique. Strategic Management Journal, 17(6), 441–458. Khanna, T. (1998). The scope of alliances. Organization Science, 9(3), 340–355. Khanna, T., Gulati, R., & Nohria, N. (1998). The dynamics of learning alliances: Competition, cooperation, and relative scope. Strategic Management Journal, 19(3), 193–210. Kim, H. S., & Choi, S. Y. (2014). Technological alliance portfolio configuration and firm performance. Review of Managerial Science, 8(4), 541–558. Kim, W. C., Hwang, P., & Burgers, W. P. (1993). Multinationals’ diversification and the riskreturn trade‐off. Strategic Management Journal, 14(4), 275–286. Kleymann, B. (2005). The dynamics of multilateral allying: A process perspective on airline alliances. Journal of Air Transport Management, 11(3), 135–147. Kleymann, B., & Seristö, H. (2001). Levels of airline alliance membership: Balancing risks and benefits. Journal of Air Transport Management, 7(5), 303–310. Koka, B. R., Madhavan, R., & Prescott, J. E. (2006). The Evolution of Interfirm Networks: Environmental Effects on Patterns of Network Change. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 721–737. Koza, M. P., & Lewin, A. Y. (1998). The Co-Evolution of Strategic Alliances. Organization Science, 9(3), 255–264. Lahiri, N., & Narayanan, S. (2013). Vertical Integration, Innovation and Alliance Portfolio Size: Implications for Firm Performance. Strategic Management Journal, 34(9), 1042–1064. Larson, A. (1991). Partner networks: Leveraging external ties to improve entrepreneurial performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 6(3), 173–188. Larson, A., & Starr, J. A. (1993). A Network Model of Organization Formation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17(2), 5–15. Laumann, E. O., Galaskiewicz, J., & Marsden, P. V. (1978). Community Structure as Interorganizational Linkages. Annual Review of Sociology, 4(1), 455–484. Lavie, D. (2006). The Competitive Advantage of Interconnected Firms: an Extension of the Resource-Based View. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 638–658. Lavie, D. (2007). Alliance portfolios and firm performance: A study of value creation and appropriation in the U.S. software industry. Strategic Management Journal, 28(12), 1187– 1212. Lavie, D. (2009). Capturing value from alliance portfolios. Organizational Dynamics, 38(1), 26– 36. Lavie, D., Kang, J., & Rosenkopf, L. (2011). Balance Within and Across Domains: The Performance Implications of Exploration and Exploitation in Alliances. Organization Science, 22(6), 1517–1538. 32 Lavie, D., & Miller, S. R. (2008). Alliance Portfolio Internationalization and Firm Performance. Organization Science, 19(4), 623–646. Lavie, D., & Rosenkopf, L. (2006). Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 797–818. Lavie, D., & Singh, H. (2012). The evolution of alliance portfolios: The case of Unisys. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(3), 763–809. Lazzarini, S. G. (2007). The impact of membership in competing alliance constellations: Evidence on the operational performance of global airlines. Strategic Management Journal, 28(4), 345–367. Lechner, C., Dowling, M., & Welpe, I. (2006). Firm networks and firm development: The role of the relational mix. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(4), 514–540. Lee, D. (Don), Kirkpatrick-Husk, K., & Madhavan, R. (2017). Diversity in Alliance Portfolios and Performance Outcomes A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Management, 43(5), 1472–1497. Lee, H., Kelley, D., Lee, J., & Lee, S. (2012). SME survival: The impact of internationalization, technology resources, and alliances. Journal of Small Business Management, 50(1), 1–19. Leonidou, L. C., Katsikeas, C. S., Palihawadana, D., & Spyropoulou, S. (2007). An analytical review of the factors stimulating smaller firms to export. International Marketing Review, 24(6), 735–770. Lin, C., Wu, Y.-J., Chang, C., Wang, W., & Lee, C.-Y. (2012). The alliance innovation performance of R&D alliances—the absorptive capacity perspective. Technovation, 32(5), 282–292. Lin, M. H. (2008). Airline alliances and entry deterrence. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 44(4), 637–652. Lin, Z., Yang, H., & Arya, B. (2009). Alliance partners and firm performance: resource complementarity and status association. Strategic Management Journal, 30(9), 921–940. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. SAGE Publications Locke, K. (2001). Grounded Theory in Management Research. Sage Publications. Lorenzoni, G., & Lipparini, A. (1999). The leveraging of interfirm relationships as a distinctive organizational capability: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 20(4), 317– 338. Lorenzoni, G., & Ornati, O. A. (1988). Constellations of firms and new ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 3(1), 41–57. Lu, J. W., & Beamish, P. W. (2001). The internationalization and performance of SMEs. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 565–586. Lu, J. W., & Beamish, P. W. (2006). SME internationalization and performance: Growth vs. profitability. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 4(1), 27–48. 33 Lufthansa Group, 2017. Retrieved from https://www.lufthansagroup.com/en/company/alliances/jointventures.html. Madsen, T. K., & Servais, P. (1997). The internationalization of Born Globals: An evolutionary process? International Business Review, 6(6), 561–583. Magalhães, L., Reis, V., & Macário, R. (2015). Can flexibility make the difference to an airport’s productivity? An assessment using cluster analysis. Journal of Air Transport Management, 47, 90–101. Marhold, K., & Kang, J. (2017). The effects of internal technological diversity and external uncertainty on technological alliance portfolio diversity. Industry and Innovation, 24(2), 122–142. Marino, L., Strandholm, K., Steensma, H. K., & Weaver, K. M. (2002). The moderating effect of national culture on the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and strategic alliance portfolio extensiveness. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(4), 145–160. Mariotti, F., & Delbridge, R. (2012). Overcoming Network Overload and Redundancy in Interorganizational Networks: The Roles of Potential and Latent Ties. Organization Science, 23(2), 511–528. Markides, C. C., & Williamson, P. J. (1996). Corporate Diversification And Organizational Structure: A Resource-Based View. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), 340–367. Markowitz, H. (1952). Portfolio Selection. The Journal of Finance, 7(1), 77–91. Markus, M. L., Manville, B., & Agres, C. E. (2000). What Makes a Virtual Organization Work? MIT Sloan Management Review, 42(1), 13–26. McGill, J. P., & Santoro, M. D. (2009). Alliance Portfolios and Patent Output: The Case of Biotechnology Alliances. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 56(3), 388–401. Mehra, A., & Floyd, S. W. (1998). Product Market Heterogeneity, Resource Imitability and Sfrategic Group Formation. Journal of Management, 24(4), 511–531. Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process. Stanford University Press. Min, H., & Joo, S.-J. (2016). A comparative performance analysis of airline strategic alliances using data envelopment analysis. Journal of Air Transport Management, 52, 99–110. Morandi, V., Malighetti, P., Paleari, S., & Redondi, R. (2015). Codesharing agreements by lowcost carriers: An explorative analysis. Journal of Air Transport Management, 42, 184–191. Morrison, A. J., & Roth, K. (1992). A taxonomy of business‐level strategies in global industries. Strategic Management Journal, 13(6), 399–417. Mouri, N., Sarkar, M. B., & Frye, M. (2012). Alliance portfolios and shareholder value in post- IPO firms: The moderating roles of portfolio structure and firm-level uncertainty. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(3), 355–371. Mukherjee, D., Gaur, A. S., Gaur, S. S., & Schmid, F. (2013). External and internal influences on 34 R&D alliance formation: Evidence from German SMEs. Journal of Business Research, 66(11), 2178–2185. Murthi, B. P. S., Rasheed, A. A., & Goll, I. (2013). An Empirical Analysis of Strategic Groups in the Airline Industry using Latent Class Regressions. Managerial and Decision Economics, 34(2), 59–73. Namiki, N. (1988). Export Strategy for Small Business. Journal of Small Business Management, 26(2), 32–37. Neyens, I., & Faems, D. (2013). Exploring the Impact of Alliance Portfolio Management Design on Alliance Portfolio Performance. Managerial and Decision Economics, 34(4–5), 347– 361. Nohria, N., & Garcia-Pont, C. (1991). Global strategic linkages and industry structure. Strategic Management Journal, 12(S.I.), 105–124. O’Donnell, A. (2004). The nature of networking in small firms. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 7(3), 206–217. OAG analyzer, 2016. Retrieved from www.oag.com. Oerlemans, L. A. G., Knoben, J., & Pretorius, M. W. (2013). Alliance portfolio diversity, radical and incremental innovation: The moderating role of technology management. Technovation, 33(6–7), 234–246. Osiyevskyy, O., Tao, Q. T., Jiang, R. J., & Santoro, M. D. (2017). Opportunity is in the eye of beholder. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 18(2), 115–127. Oum, T. H., Yu, C., & Zhang, A. (2001). Global airline alliances: International regulatory issues. Journal of Air Transport Management, 7(1), 57–62. Oviatt, B., & McDougall, P. (1994). Toward a theory of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(1), 45–64. Ozcan, P., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2009). Origin of Alliance Portfolios: Entrepreneurs, Network Strategies, and Firm Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52(2), 246–279. Padula, G. (2008). Enhancing the Innovation Performance of Firms by Balancing Cohesiveness and Bridging Ties. Long Range Planning, 41(4), 395–419. Parkhe, A. (1991). Interfirm Diversity, Organizational Learning, and Longevity in Global Strategic Alliances. Journal of International Business Studies, 22(4), 579–601. Parmigiani, A., & Rivera-Santos, M. (2011). Clearing a Path Through the Forest: A Meta-Review of Interorganizational Relationships. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1108–1136. Partanen, J., & Möller, K. (2012). How to build a strategic network: A practitioner-oriented process model for the ICT sector. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(3), 481–494. Pels, E. (2008). Airline network competition: Full-service airlines, low-cost airlines and longhaul markets. Research in Transportation Economics, 24(1), 68–74. Peng, M. W., & Luo, Y. (2000). Managerial Ties and Firm Performance in a Transition Economy: 35 The Nature of a Micro-Macro Link. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 486–501. Peres, W., & Stumpo, G. (2000). Small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises in Latin America and the Caribbean under the new economic model. World Development, 28(9), 1643–1655. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. Harper & Row. Phelps, C. C. (2010). A longitudinal study of the influence of alliance network structure and composition on firm exploratory innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4), 890– 913. Piening, E. P., Salge, T. O., & Schäfer, S. (2016). Innovating across boundaries: A portfolio perspective on innovation partnerships of multinational corporations. Journal of World Business, 51(3), 474–485. Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and companies. The Free Press. Provan, K. G., Fish, A., & Sydow, J. (2007). Interorganizational Networks at the Network Level: A Review of the Empirical Literature on Whole Networks. Journal of Management, 33(3), 479–516. Rai, A., & Tang, X. (2010). Leveraging IT Capabilities and Competitive Process Capabilities for the Management of Interorganizational Relationship Portfolios. Information Systems Research, 21(3), 516–542. Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational Ambidexterity: Antecedents, Outcomes, and Moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375–409. Reger, R., & Huff, A. (1993). Strategic groups: A cognitive perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 14(September 1992), 103–123. Reuer, J. J., & Ragozzino, R. (2006). Agency hazards and alliance portfolios. Strategic Management Journal, 27(1), 27–43. Robinson, R. B. J., & Pearce, J. A. I. I. (1984). Research Thrusts in Small Firm Strategic Planning. Academy of Management Review, 9(1), 128–137. Rogbeer, S., Almahendra, R., & Ambos, B. (2014). Open-Innovation Effectiveness: When does the Macro Design of Alliance Portfolios Matter? Journal of International Management, 20(4), 464–477. Rothaermel, F. T., & Deeds, D. L. (2006). Alliance type, alliance experience and alliance management capability in high-technology ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(4), 429–460. Sadowski, B. M., Dittrich, K., & Duysters, G. (2003). Collaborative strategies in the event of technological discontinuities: the case of Nokia in the mobile telecommunication industry. Small Business Economics, 21(2), 173–186. 36 Sakakibara, M. (2002). Formation of R&D consortia: Industry and company effects. Strategic Management Journal, 23(11), 1033–1050. Sampson, R. C. (2007). R&D Alliances and Firm Performance: The Impact of Technological Diversity and Alliance Organization on Innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 364–386. Santos, F. M., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2009). Constructing markets and organizing boundaries: entrepreneurial action in nascent fields. Academy of Management Proceedings, 52(4), 643– 671. Sarkar, M. B., Aulakh, P. S., & Madhok, A. (2009). Process Capabilities and Value Generation in Alliance Portfolios. Organization Science, 20(3), 583–600. Schilke, O., & Goerzen, A. (2010). Alliance Management Capability: An Investigation of the Construct and Its Measurement. Journal of Management, 36(5), 1192–1219. Schreiner, M., Kale, P., & Corsten, D. (2009). What really is alliance management capability and how does it impact alliance outcomes and success? Strategic Management Journal, 30(13), 1395–1419. Schutjens, V., & Stam, E. (2003). The Evolution and Nature of Young Firm Networks: A Longitudinal Perspective. Small Business Economics, 21(2), 115–134. Sepulveda, F., & Gabrielsson, M. (2013). Network development and firm growth: A resourcebased study of B2B Born Globals. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(5), 792–804. Shah, R. H., & Swaminathan, V. (2008). Factors influencing partner selection in strategic alliances: The moderating role of alliance context. Strategic Management Journal, 29(5), 471–494. Shan, W., Walker, G., & Kogut, B. (1994). Interfirm Cooperation and Startup Innovation in the Biotechnology Industry. Strategic Management Journal, 15(5), 389–394. Shane, S., & Cable, D. (2002). Network ties, reputation, and the financing of new ventures. Management Science, 48(3), 364–381. Silverman, B. S., & Baum, J. A. C. (2002). Alliance-based competitive dynamics. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 791–806. Singh, D. a., Gaur, A. S., & Schmid, F. P. (2010). Corporate diversification, TMT experience, and performance: Evidence from German SMEs. Management International Review, 50(1), 35–56. Singh, D. A., Gaur, A. S., & Schmid, F. P. (2010). Corporate Diversification, TMT Experience, and Performance: Evidence from German SMEs. Management International Review, 50(1), 35–56. Sivakumar, K., Roy, S., Zhu, J. J., & Hanvanich, S. (2011). Global innovation generation and financial performance in business-to-business relationships: The case of cross-border alliances in the pharmaceutical industry. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37 39(5), 757–776. Slotte-Kock, S., & Coviello, N. (2010). Entrepreneurship research on network processes: A review and ways forward. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 34(1), 31–57. Sluyts, K., Matthyssens, P., Martens, R., & Streukens, S. (2011). Building capabilities to manage strategic alliances. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(6), 875–886. Smith, K., Grimm, C., & Young, G. (1997). Strategic groups and rivalrous firm behavior: Towards a reconciliation. Strategic Management Journal, 18(2), 149–157. Srivastava, M. K., & Gnyawali, D. R. (2011). When do Relational Resources Matter? Leveraging Portfolio Technological Resources for Breakthrough Innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 797–810. Steier, L., & Greenwood, R. (2000). Entrepreneurship and the Evolution of Angel Financial Networks. Organization Studies, 21(1), 163–192. Stinchcombe, A. L. (1965). Social structure and organisations. In J. P. March (Ed.), Handbook of Organizations (pp. 142–193). Rand McNally. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. SAGE Publications. Stuart, T. E. (2000). Interorganizational Alliances and the Performance of Firms: a Study of Growth and Innovation rates in a high-technology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 21(8), 791–811. Stuart, T. E., Hoang, H., & Hybels, R. C. (1999). Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 315–349. Sukoco, B. M. (2016). The effects of convergence and divergence alliance portfolio on firm performance. International Journal of Business, 21(2), 112–131. Swaminathan, V., & Moorman, C. (2009). Marketing Alliances, Firm Networks, and Firm Value Creation. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 52–69. Swoboda, B., Meierer, M., Foscht, T., & Morschett, D. (2011). International SME Alliances: The Impact of Alliance Building and Configurational Fit on Success. Long Range Planning, 44(4), 271–288. Tang, Y. K. (2011). The influence of networking on the internationalization of SMEs: Evidence from internationalized Chinese firms. International Small Business Journal, 29(4), 374– 398. Terjesen, S., Patel, P. C., & Covin, J. G. (2011). Alliance diversity, environmental context and the value of manufacturing capabilities among new high technology ventures. Journal of Operations Management, 29(1/2), 105–115. Thorgren, S., Wincent, J., & Boter, H. (2012). Small firms in multipartner R&D alliances: Gaining benefits by acquiescing. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management - JET-M, 29(4), 453–467. 38 Tiwana, A. (2008). Do bridging ties complement strong ties? An empirical examination of alliance ambidexterity. Strategic Management Journal, 29(3), 251–272. Tolstoy, D., & Agndal, H. (2010). Network resource combinations in the international venturing of small biotech firm. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 30(1), 24– 36. Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly III, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30. U-FLY Alliance, 2016. Corporate Website. Retrieved from: http://www.uflyalliance.com/about. Untiedt, R., Nippa, M., & Pidun, U. (2012). Corporate Portfolio Analysis Tools Revisited: Assessing Causes that May Explain Their Scholarly Disdain. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(3), 263–279. Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61(4), 674–698. Value Alliance, 2016. Corporate Website. Retrieved from: http://www.valuealliance.com/#!about/c1enr. Van De Vrande, V. (2013). Balancing your technology-sourcing portfolio: How sourcing mode diversity enhances innovative performance. Strategic Management Journal, 34(5), 610– 621. Vandaie, R., & Zaheer, A. (2014). Surviving bear hugs: Firm capability, large partner alliances, and growth. Strategic Management Journal, 35(4), 566–577. Vanilla Alliance, 2015. Retrieved from: http://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news/40422-vanilla- alliance-agreements-signed-in-antananarivo. Vapola, T. J., Paukku, M., & Gabrielsson, M. (2010). Portfolio management of strategic alliances: An international business perspective. International Business Review, 19(3), 247–260. Vassolo, R. S., Anand, J., & Folta, T. B. (2004). Non-additivity in portfolios of exploration activities: a real options-based analysis of equity alliances in biotechnology. Strategic Management Journal, 25(11), 1045–1061. Vasudeva, G., & Anand, J. (2011). Unpacking absorptive capacity: A study of knowledge utilization from alliance portfolios. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 611–623. Venkatraman, N., & Subramaniam, M. (2002). Theorizing the future of strategy: questions for shaping strategy research in the knowledge economy. Handbook of Strategy and Management, 1–32. Vlaisavljevic, V., Cabello-Medina, C., & Pérez-Luño, A. (2016). Coping with Diversity in Alliances for Innovation: The Role of Relational Social Capital and Knowledge Codifiability. British Journal of Management, 27(2), 304–322. Wan, X., Zou, L., & Dresner, M. (2009). Assessing the price effects of airline alliances on parallel routes. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 45(4), 627–