Joint venture evolution: extending the real options approach
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
Abstract Real options theory has emerged as a promising avenue to study joint venture (JV) evolution as a strategic response to managing uncertainty. We extend the real options approach by integrating it with game theory. Such a combined method enriches the valuation functions of each partnering firm and helps to identify the optimal decisions for exercising options in a JV. In our model, each firm's synergy from the joint operation and its knowledge acquisition capability (KAC) can significantly influence the competitive dynamics between partners, potentially affecting how each firm decides to acquire, divest, or dissolve. We employ a new solution technique in real options theory to capture the stochastic process of three factors, and use computer simulation to test the model under varying conditions. The results are stated in five testable propositions, providing a better understanding of the dynamics of a JV. We find that symmetries between partners in synergy or KAC contribute to stability or dissolution of the JV, whereas asymmetries in synergy or KAC make acquisition of the JV assets by one partner desirable. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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