联盟的形成和结果毕业论文外文翻译.doc

《联盟的形成和结果毕业论文外文翻译.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《联盟的形成和结果毕业论文外文翻译.doc（5页珍藏版）》请在三一办公上搜索。

1、Alliance Formation and Outcomes Researchers have extensively documented dramatic increases in the formation of strategic alliances among corporations to achieve a variety of purposes: to conduct R&D projects, integrate products, penetrate new markets, formulate industry standards, undertake collecti

2、ve political actions. A complex macro-level structure emerging from their micro-level collaborations is the strategic alliance network, comprising subsets of firms within an organizational field that are interconnected by their repeated and overlapping partnerships through time. A strategic alliance

3、 network constitutes an opportunity structure that simultaneously facilitates and constrains the possibilities for field members to form new collaborative combinations. Network configurations also shape the outcomes of both alliances and their partnering organizations. As an organizational field evo

4、lves and institutionalizes, it develops stable positions, identified by clusters of firms that exhibit specially dense collaborative ties to one another, but sparser or nonexistent alliances with other organizational positions. Our objective is to investigate dynamic structural changes in the strate

5、gic alliance networks of the global information sector (GIS) from 1989 to 2000, a period when this organizational field experience major transformations in technology and economic competition. This multi-industry sector encompasses the 145 largest North American, European, and Asian firms that eithe

6、r manufacture equipment (semiconductors; computers; peripheral devices) or create, distribute, and provide access to diverse informational content (satellite, wire, cellular, and pager telecommunications; software and database publishing; newspaper and magazine publishing; motion pictures, video and

7、 sound recording; radio, television, and cablecasting). Analyzing data on 3,571 strategic alliance announcements, we examine changes occurring at both macro- and micro-levels over the twelve years. Time trends reveal that accelerating rates of alliance formation resulted in increasing numbers of new

8、 alliances across the twelve years, with mean organizational centralization peaking in the mid-1990s. Among the 30 most-active firms, structural differentiation increased across three years spanning the 1990s, with smaller, more specialized clusters emerging. By 2000, the Japanese companies had subs

9、tantially concentrated their new alliance agreements among themselves, contradicting the globalization hypothesis that information organizations would create a stable alliance network structure consisting of a core block occupied by corporations from different nations. Our dynamic models of network

10、evolution across the three years revealed that the 30 core companies chose alliance partners that increased two structural properties. Organizations sought new connections with organizations that had direct and indirect ties resembling their own alliance propensities. At the macro-level, these chang

11、ing ties among the core global information sector firms generated a more differentiated strategic alliance network, one exhibiting greater structural balance and extensively circuitous linkages that enlarged the collective opportunity to forge new partnerships. 待添加的隐藏文字内容2Most studies of alliance fo

12、rmation processes focus on micro-level dyadic relations, that is, on a pair of organizations creating a new partnership. In general, strategic alliance formation consists of these three sequentially linked decision processes: identification of goals that an organization want to achieve by entering i

13、nto a strategic alliance, identification of a suitable partner, and choice of governance forms for the prospective alliance. Empirical analysts have made fruitful contributions to understanding these processes, including decisions to collaborate; selection of alliance partners; and choice of governa

14、nce form. Institutional and resource dependence theories explain why organizations engage in network relations with others. Institutional theorists argued that organizations try to enhance their legitimacy in a field through inter-organizational relationships . One study of nonprofit foundations dis

15、covered that cooperation with other service providers is a frequently stipulated condition for social service agencies to receive large grants.One study of nonprofit foundations discovered that cooperation with other service providers is a frequently stipulated condition for social service agencies

16、to receive large grants. Resource dependence theorists asserted that organizations enter strategic alliance to gain critical resources such as money, information, technology, and market. At the same time, organizations in the alliance also avoid over-dependence on their partners that would risk thei

17、r autonomy.In general, organizational core location within networks, prior ties to prospective partners, and middle managers personal connections all affect the search for a suitable partner and the governance forms used to manage the alliance. The search for strategic partners and governance forms

18、can be a frustrating process for many organizations that lack network leverage from previously well-establish relations with other firms in the field. Researchers have examined a broad range of alliance consequences such as alliance management, accomplishment of alliance and partner goals, and organ

19、izational performance indicators such as innovation rates, product proliferation, and market competition or collusion. Larson investigated four alliances among seven establishments operating in a diverse set of industries. She found that trust and reciprocity replaced administrative hierarchy and ar

20、ms length market to govern alliance partners in their daily exchanges. Organizations rarely relied on written contracts, administrative controls, economic incentives, or market data to coordinate their transactions with partners. Instead, to maintain a stable and sustained relationship, organization

21、s constantly use informal and implicit contracts, which derived from prior ties, interpersonal relations, and reputation knowledge. Larsons research also indicated that organizations must commit resources to understand and adapt to their partners needs. For inter-organizational ties to continue, org

22、anizational willingness and capacity to devote resources to tailor their partners interests must consistently be present. In an analysis of semiconductor firms from 1985-1991, Stuart investigated the impact of alliances on firm innovation rates and economic growth, measured respectively as the numbe

23、r of patents granted and growth as annual semiconductor sales. The crucial factors were not the size of each firms alliance portfolio, but the resource profiles of its partners. Specifically, both innovation and sales rates increased substantially if a firm was connected to more technologically inno

24、vative and revenue-rich alliance partners. These effects were especially potent for younger and smaller firms, suggesting they benefited most from access to larger, well-endowed partners. The consistent interactions of size and age with large and innovative partners were consistent with sociological

25、 arguments that affiliations enhance corporate reputations: “they build public confidence in the value of an organizations products and services and facilitate the firms efforts to attract risk averse customers. In this sense, gaining an alliance partner signals a firms quality”. An important implic

26、ation of Stuarts analysis is that firms derive advantage from their partners corporate social capital, even if their strategic alliance fails to achieve its professed formal objectives.联盟的形成和结果研究员已经广泛地证明：在达成多种目的的公司之中战略联盟的形成的戏剧性的增加:为了要执行 R&D 计划,整合产品,穿透新的市场,制定工业标准,从事集体的政治行动。从他们的微级合作出现的复杂句集级的结构是策略的同盟网络

27、,包含被互相连接的一个组织的领域里面的公司的子集被他们的重复和整时间的交叠处理合作伙伴。一个战略联盟网络组成同时地促进而且为领域成员强迫可能性形成新的协同合作的组合的机制结构。网络结构也塑造联盟和他们与合作伙伴的结果。如一个组织的领域进展而且组织化,它发展被展现特别密集的彼此协同合作的关系,但是和其他的组织位置的比较稀疏的或不存在的联盟成员的群识别的马房位置。我们的目的将从1989到2000调查动态的全球数据部门(GIS)的策略同盟网络方面的结构改变，一个这种组织的领域经验主修技术和经济的竞争的变形的时期。这个多工业部门包含 145 最大的北美，欧洲的,和也制造设备的亚洲公司 (半导体；计算机

28、； 外围设备装置) 或产生,分配,而且提供接触不同的信息内容 (人造宇宙站,电线，格状自动化和呼叫器电传视讯；软件和数据库出版业；报纸和杂志出版业；运动照片, 录象机而且听起来记录；收音机，电视和 cablecasting)。分析在3571个策略的同盟公告上的数据,我们调查在两者的句集发生的变化和微级的十二年以来。时间趋势揭露加速的联盟形成评估横过十二年造成新联盟的逐渐增加数量,并且在1990年代中期内到达高点的低劣的组织集中。在30大部分之中-活跃的公司,结构的区别增加了过三年跨越1990年代,由于比较小的,更多特殊化出现的群了。2000之前，日本公司在他们自己之中已经实质上集中他们的新同盟

29、协议, 反驳全球化假设数据组织会产生有被来自不同的国家的公司占领的核心区段的稳定的联盟网络结构。横过三年的我们的网络进化的动态模型显示了30家核心公司选择增加了二结构的财产的联盟合作伙伴。组织用有了相似他们自己的脸，联盟倾向的直接的和间接的关系的组织寻找了新的连接。在句集级者,变更的这些在核心之中绑全球的数据部门公司产生一个更区别的策略同盟网络,一展现比较棒的结构平衡和扩大了集体的机会伪造新的合伙的广泛迂回的路连合。 有关联盟形成程序的大多数研究聚焦于微观的动态关系,也就是说,在创造一对新的合伙关系的组织上。大体上,战略联盟形成是由这三个相互联系的决定程序:一个组织想要参与一个战略联盟的目标的

30、达成，适当合作伙伴的共识,和对于预期联盟的官方表格的选择。有经验的分析家作出了包括决定串谋；同盟合伙人的选择；和官方表格的选择在内的对这些程序的了解的成功贡献。制度及资源依赖理论解释组织为什么专注于同其它组织的网络关系。制度理论学家主张组织试着通过组织之间的关系提高在这一领域中的合法性。来自非营利机构的一项研究发现与其他的服务提供者的合作是一种让社会的服务代理商受到巨大荣誉频繁被约束的情况。资源依赖理论家断言组织组织加入战略联盟是为了得到关键资源,诸如是资金，信息，技术和市场等。同时,联盟中的组织也避免过度依赖会给自身自治带来风险的合作伙伴。大体上，组织在前期与预期合作伙伴关系网络中的核心定位

31、和中间管理者之间的个人关系都会影响对一个适当的合伙伙伴的选择和习惯于管理联盟事务官方表格。对联盟合作伙伴和官方表格的搜寻能是一个为缺乏来自领域中先前所建立的和其他企业很好的关系的网络杠杆作用的许多组织的挫败程序。研究员已经调查各类型的联盟结果,像是战略联盟的管理，联盟和合作伙伴目标的成就,和组织的表现指标,像是创新效率，产品增殖和市场竞争或共谋。Larson调查在一不同组的工业中操作的七个建立之中的四个联盟。她发现信赖和相互性代替管理的阶级组织和手臂的长度在市场上销售在他们的每日交换中战略联盟的合作伙伴。组织很少地仰赖书面的契约，管理的控制，经济的激励, 或在市场上销售数据和合作伙伴协调他们的

32、交易。 相反的, 维持一间马房而且维持了关系, 组织不变地使用非正式的和暗示的契约,这起源于之前的关系，人与人之间的关系和名誉知识了。Larson调查在一不同组的工业中操作的七个建立之中的四个联盟。她发现信赖和相互性代替管理的阶级组织和手臂的长度在市场上销售在他们的每日交换中战略联盟的合作伙伴。组织很少地仰赖书面的契约，管理的控制，经济的激励, 或在市场上销售数据和合作伙伴协调他们的交易。 相反的, 维持一个稳定而且维持的关系, 组织持续地使用非正式的和暗示的契约,这起源于之前的关系，人与人之间的关系和名誉知识了。Larson的研究也指出组织一定资源了解而且适应他们合作伙伴的需要。对于在组织之

33、间的关系维持, 组织用于将资源贡献于维持他们的合伙人利益的目标和能力必须一直是一致地。在1985-1991之间，一项半导体公司的分析,斯图亚特调查联盟对坚定的创新效率和经济成长的冲击和在分别地被测量的当专利权的数字允许和生长当作年度半导体销售。决定性的因素不是每个公司的联盟文件夹的大小 , 但是它的合作伙伴的资源描绘。如果一个公司和更具科技创新和收入-富有的联盟合作伙伴连接在一起，创新和销售率明确地实质上的增加了。 这些效果尤其对更年轻和更小的公司是有力的,建议他们从接触比较大又捐赠良好的合作伙伴当中获益。和巨大的和创新的合作伙伴的大小的一致交互作用和寿命对加入提高企业的名誉的社会学的争论感到一致：“他们建立组织的价值的公众信心哪一产品和服务而且促进公司的努力吸引危险不愿意的客户。在这一个感觉,得到一个联盟合作伙伴向一个公司的质量作信号”。斯图亚特的分析的重要含意是公司源自从他们的合作伙伴企业社会的利益所带来的利益, 即使他们的战略联盟无法达成它的名正言顺的目的。