Process Capabilities and Value Generation in Alliance Portfolios
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 paper develops a multidimensional, process-based conceptualization of alliance portfolio management capability. Arguing that such a capability consists of organizational processes to proactively pursue alliance formation opportunities, engage in relational governance, and coordinate knowledge and strategies across the portfolio, we examine the impact of such a capability on organizational outcomes in the context of formal structure (alliance function) and strategy (portfolio diversity). Using data from 235 firms, we find that these three processes have a positive effect on a firm's alliance portfolio capital, and some of these effects are conditioned by a formal alliance function and diversity of the portfolio. Whereas the ability of proactive formation and relational governance processes to create value is further strengthened in the presence of an alliance function, that of the coordination dimension is weakened. Furthermore, the benefits of relational governance are strengthened for firms with diverse portfolios, whereas the benefits of coordination processes are weakened. We discuss implications of these findings for the alliance and network literature, and in general, for firm heterogeneity. In summary, we find evidence that variance in process-based capabilities to manage alliance portfolios can explain performance heterogeneity among firms.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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