Alliance Management Capability: An Investigation of the Construct and Its Measurement
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research conceptualizes and operationalizes alliance management capability. The authors develop alliance management capability as a second-order construct to capture the degree to which organizations possess relevant management routines that enable them to effectively manage their portfolio of strategic alliances. In addition to identifying and measuring specific organizational routines as critical dimensions of alliance management capability, the authors advance knowledge on the performance effects of dedicated alliance structures and alliance experience based on survey data from 204 firms. Their primary contribution is a theoretically sound alliance management capability measure that is reflected by five underlying routines: interorganizational coordination, alliance portfolio coordination, interorganizational learning, alliance proactiveness, and alliance transformation. One of the key findings is that alliance management capability has a positive impact on alliance portfolio performance and mediates the performance effects of dedicated alliance structures and alliance experience.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it