177

References

Aldrich, H. (I 976) Resource Dependence and Interorganizational Relations, In: Administration and Society, 7: 4 I 9-4 53.

Aldrich, H. (I 979) Organizations and Environments, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Aldrich, H./Whetten, D. (1981) Organization-sets, Action-sets, and Networks: Making the most of Simplicity, In: Nystrom, P./Starbuck, W. (eds.) Handbook of Organizational Design, Vol. I, Oxford: Oxford University Press: 385-400.

Allaire, Y./Firsirotu, M. (I 984) Theories of Organizational Culture, In: Organization Studies, 5: I 93-226.

Anderson, E. (1990) Two Firms, One Frontier: On Assessing Joint Venture Performance, In: Sloan Management Review, Winter: I 9-30.

Anderson, E./Weitz, B. (I 992) The Use of Pledges to Build and Sustain Commitment is Distribution Channels, In: Journal ofMarketing Research, 2: 18-34.

Andrews, K. (1971) The Concept of Corporate Strategy, Howewood, Illinois: Dow Jones-Irwin.

Argyris, C./Schön, D. (I 978) Organizational Leaming: A Theory of Action Perspective, Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

Arino, M. (1994) Cooperative Behavior in Collaborative Ventures: An Economic Perspective, Working Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meeting I 994, Dallas.

Axelrod, R. (I 984) The Evolution ofCooperation, New York: Basic Books.

Babüroglu, 0./Ravbn I. (I 992) Normative Action Research, In: Organization Studies, 13(1):19-34.

Bacharach, S. (I 989) Organizational Theories: Some Criteria for Evaluation, In: Academy ofManagement Review, 14: 496-515.

Badaracco, J. (1991) Strategische Allianzen: Wie Unternehmen durch Know-How Austausch Wettbewerbsvorteile erzielen, Wien: Ueberreuter.

Bain, J. (1954) Economies of Scale, Concentration, and the Condition of Entry in Twenty Manufacturing Industries, In: American Economic Review, 40: 35-47.

Barney, J. (I 991) Special Theory Forum - The Resource-Based Model of the Firm: Origins, Implications, and Prospects, In: Journal ofManagement, 17(1): 97-98.

Barr, P./Stimpert, J./Huff, A. (I 992) Cognitive Change, Strategie Action, and Organizational Renewal, In: Strategie Management Journal, 13: 15-36.

Beamish, P. (I 985) The Characteristics of Joint Ventures in Developed and Developing Countries, In: Columbia Journal ofWorld Business, Fall: 13-19.

Beamish, P. (I 987) Joint Ventures in LDCs: Partner Selection and Performance, In: Management International Review, 27: 23-37.

178

Beamish, P. (1988) Multinational JointVentures in Developing Countries, New York: Routledge.

Benson, K. (1977) Organizations: A Dialectical View, In: Administrative Science Quarterly, 22: 1-21.

Berger, P./Luckrnann, T. (1992) Die gesellschaftliche Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit­Eine Theorie der Wissenssoziologie, Frankfurt: Fischer (First Edition: 1966).

Bery, V./Bowers, T. (1993) Rebuilding an Alliance, In: Bleeke, J./Emst, D. (eds.) Collaborate to Compete: Using Strategie Alliances in the Global Marketplace, John Wiley & Sons: New York: 67-78.

Bettenhausen, K./Mumighan, K. (1985) The Emergence of Norms in Competitive Decision-Making Groups, In: Administrative Science Quarterly, 30: 350-372.

Bidwell, C./Kasarda, J. (1975) School District Organization and Student Achievement, In: American Sociological Review, 40: 55-70.

Blau, P. (1964) Exchange and Power in Social Life, New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Bleeke, J./Emst, D. (1991) The Way to Win in Cross-Border Alliances, In: Harvard Business Review, 69: 127-135.

Bleeke, J./Emst, D. (1992) Mit internationalen Allianzen auf die Siegerstraße, In: Harvard Manager, 3: 118-127.

Bleeke, J./Emst, D. (1993) Collaborating to Compete- Using StrategieAlliancesand Acquisitions in the Global Marketplace, New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Block, Z./MacMillan, I. (1993) Corporate Venturing: Creating New Businesses within the Firm, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Blodgett, L. (1987) A Resource-based Study of Bargaining Power in U.S.-foreign Equity JointVentures, PhD Dissertation, University ofMichigan.

Blumer, H. (1966) Sociological Implications ofthe Thought ofGeorge Herbert Mead, In: American Sociological Review, 19: 3-10.

Borys, B./Jemison, D. (1989) Hybrid Arrangements as Strategie Alliances: Theoretical Issues in Organizational Combinations, In: Academy of Management Review, 14(2): 234-249.

Bowman, C./Asch, D. (1987) Strategie Management, Houndmills: Macmillan Education.

Bragado, J. (1992) Setting the Correct Speed for Postrnerger Integration, In: Mergers & Acquisitions Europe, March/ April: 24-31.

Brannen, M. (1994) "YourNext Boss is Japanese": Negotiating Cultural Change at a Western Massachusetts Paper Plant, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts.

Browning, L./Beyer, J./Shetler, J. (1995) Building Cooperation in a Competitive Industry: Sematech and the Semiconductor Industry, In: Academy of Management Journal, 38: 113-151.

179

Bryant, J. (1983) Hypermaps: A Representation of Perceptions in Contlicts, In: The International Journal ofManagement Science, 11: 575-586.

Burgelman, R./Sayles, L. ( 1986) Inside Corporate Innovation: Strategy, Structure, and Managerial Skills, New York: Free Press.

Burrell, G./Morgan, G. (1979) Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis, London: Heinemann.

Cauley de Ja Sierra, M. (1995) Managing Global Alliances: Key Steps for Successful Collaboration, Wokingham, England: The Economist Intelligence Unit/Addison­Wesley Publishing Company.

Chakravarthy, B. (1982) Adaptation: A Promising Metaphor for Strategie Management, In: Academy ofManagement Review, 7: 35-44.

Child, J. (1972) Organizational Structure, Environment and Performance: The RoJe of Strategie Choice. In: Sociology, 6: 1-22.

Coase, R. (1937) The Nature ofthe Firm, In: Economica, 4(4): 386-405.

Contractor, F./Lorange, P. (1988) Cooperative Strategies in International Business, Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books.

Cook, K. (1977) Exchange and Power in Networks of Interorganizational Theories, In: The Sociological Quarterly, 18: 62-82.

Crabtree, B./Miller, W. (1992) Doing Qualitative Research, Newbury Park: Sage.

Cullen, J./Johnson, J. (1995) Japanese and Local Partner Commitment to IJVs: Pschological Consequences of Outcomes and Investments in the IJV Relationship, In: Journal oflnternational Business Studies, 1: 91-115.

Daft, R. (1983) Learning the Craft of Organizational Research, In: Academy of Management Review, 8: 539-546.

Daft, R./Huber, G. (1987) How Organizations Learn: A Communication Framework, In: Research in the Sociology ofürganizations, 5: 1-36.

Daft, R./Weick, K. (1984) Toward a Model of Organizations as Interpretation Systems, In: Academy ofManagement Review, 9: 284-295.

Datta, D. (1988) International JointVentures: A Framework for Analysis, In: Journal of General Management, 14(2): 78-91.

De Cenzo, D./Robbins, S. (1994) Human Resource Management: Concepts and Practices, New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Deal, T./Kennedy, A. (1982) Corporate Cultures: The Ritesand Rituals of Corporate Life, Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

Dean, B./Cassidy, J. (1990) Strategie Management: Methods and Studies, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

Denzin, N. (1989) Interpretative Biography, Newbury Park: Sage.

Denzin, N./Lincoln, Y. (1994) Handbook of Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks: Sage.

DeWitt, B. (1983) Quantum Gravity, In: Scientific America, December: 112-129.

180

Dodgson, M. (1991) The Management of Technological Learning: Lessons from a Biotechnology Company, Berlin: de Gruyter.

Dodgson, M. (1993) Learning, Trust, and Technological Collaboration, In: Human Relations, 46: 77-95.

Donnellon, A./Gray, 8./Bougon, M. (1986) Communication, Meaning, and Organized Action, In: Administrative Science Quarterly, 31: 43-55.

Doz, Y./Shuen A. (1995) From Intent to Outcome: Managing the Dynarnics of Strategie Alliances between Firms, Working Paper, INSEAD.

Dubin, R. (1978) Theory Develoment, New York: Free Press.

Duncan, R./Weiss, A. (1979) Organizational Learning: Implications for Organizational Design, In: Staw, 8./Cummings, L. (eds.) Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1, Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press: 75-123.

Dutton, J./Dukerich, J. (1991) Keeping an Eye on the Mirror: Image and Identity in Organizational Adaptation, In: Academy ofManagement Journal, 34: 517-554.

Dutton, J./Jackson, S. (1987) Categorizing Strategie Issues: Links to Organizational Action, In: Academy ofManagement Review, 12: 76-90.

Dwyer, F./Schurr, P./Oh, S. (1987) Developing Buyer-Seller Relationships, In: Journal ofMarketing, 51: 11-27.

Dyer, W.Jr./Wilkins, A. (1991) Better Stories, Not Better Constructs, to Generate Better Theory: A Rejoinder to Eisenhardt: Better Stories and Better Constructs: The Case for Rigor and Comparative Logic, In: Academy of Management Review, 16: 613-627.

Dymsza, W. (1988) Successes and Failures of Joint Ventures in Developing Countries: Lessons from Experience, In: Contractor, F./Lorange, P. (eds.) Cooperative Strategies in International Business, Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books: 403-424.

Eberle, T. (1992) A New Paradigm of Knowledge: "The Social Construction of Reality" After 25 Years, In: Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 2: 493-502.

Eisenberg, E. (1984) Ambiguity as Strategy in Organizational Communication, In: Communication Monographs, 51:227-242.

Eisenhardt, K. (1989a) Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review, In: Academy of Management Review, 14 (1): 57-74.

Eisenhardt, K. (1989b) Building Theories from Case Study Research, In: Academy of Management Review, 14: 532-550.

Eisenhardt, K. (1989c) Making Fast Strategie Decisions in High-Velocity Environments, In: Academy ofManagement Journal, 32: 543-576.

Eisenhardt, K. (1991) Better Stories and Better Constructs: The Case for Rigor and Comparative Logic, In: Academy ofManagement Review, 16: 620-627.

181

Eisenhardt, K./Bourgeouis, L. ( 1988) Politics of Strategie Decision-Making in High­Velocity Environments: Toward a Midrange Theory, In: Academy of Management Journal, 31: 737-770.

Eiden, M./Chisholm, R. (1993) Ernerging Varieties of Action Research: Introduction to the Special Issue, In: Human Relations, Special Issue, 46: 121-142.

Emerson, R. ( 1962) Power-dependence Relations, In: American Sociological Review, 27:31-43.

Evered, R./Louis, M. (1981) Alternative Perspectives in the Organizational Sciences: "Inquiry from the Inside" and "Inquiry from the Outside", In: Academy of Management Review, 6: 385-395.

Faulkner, D./McGee, J. (1994) International Strategie Alliances: The RoJe of Relationship Management, Working Paper.

Fichman, M./Levinthal, D. (1991) Honeymoonsand the Liability of Adolescence: A New Perspective on Duration Dependence in Social and Organizational Relationships, In: Academy ofManagement Review, 16: 442-468.

Fiol, M. (1994) Consensus, Diversity, and Leaming in Organizations, In: Organization Science, 5(3): 403-420.

Fisher, R./Brown, S. (1986) Getting Together, Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Fornell, C./ Lorange, P./Roos, J. (1990) The Cooperative Venture Formation Process: A Latent Variable Structural Modeling Approach, In: Management Science, 36: 1246-1255.

Fowler, F. (1993) Survey Research Methods, Newbury Park: Sage.

Franko, L. (1971) JointVenture Divorce in the Multinational Company, In: Columbia Journal ofWorld Business, 6(3): 13-22.

Frayne, C./Geringer, M. (1994) A Social Cognitive Approach to Examining Joint V enture General Manager Performance, In: Group & Organization Management, 19: 240-262.

Freeman, J. (1984) The Unit of Analysis in Organizational Research, In: Meyer, M. et al. (eds.) Environmentsand Organizations, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass: 335-351.

French, W./Bell, C. (1977) Organizational Development, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice­Hall.

Geringer, M. (1988) Selection of Partners for International Joint Ventures, In: Business Quarterly, 53: 31-36.

Geringer, M. (1991) Strategie Determinants of Partner Selection Criteria in International JointVentures, In: Journal oflnternational Business Studies, 22(1): 41-62.

Geringer, M./Hebert, L. ( 1989) Control and Performance of International Joint Ventures, In: Journal oflnternational Business Studies, 20(2): 235-254.

Geringer, M./Hebert, L. (1992) Division of Control and Performance of International JointVentures, Warking Paper.

182

Geringer, M./Hebert, L. (1991) Measuring Performance of International Joint Ventures, In: Journal oflnternational Business Studies, 22(2): 249-263.

Geringer, M./Frayne, C. ( 1993) The Joint Venture Partner Selection Process. In: Lorange, P./Chakravarthy, B./Roos, J.Nan de Yen, A. (eds.) Implementing Strategie Processes: Change, Leaming and Cooperation, Oxford: Blackwell Business: 253-272.

Geringer, M./Woodcock, P. (1989) Ownership and Contro1 of Canadian Joint Ventures, In: Business Quarterly, 54(1): 97-101.

Gersick, C. (1988) Time and Transition in Work Teams: Toward a New Model of Group Development, In: Academy of Management Journal, 31: 9-41.

Gersick, C. (1989) Marking Time: Predictable Transitions in Task Groups, In: Academy ofManagement Journal, 32: 274-309.

Gersick, C. (I 991) Revolutionary Change Theories: A Multilevel Exploration of the Punctuated Equilibrium Paradigm, In: Academy ofManagement Review, 16: 10-36.

Gersick, C. (1994) Pacing Strategie Change: The Case of a New Venture, In: Academy ofManagement Journal, 37: 9-45.

Ghemawat, P. (1991) Commitment: The Dynamic ofStrategy, New York: Free Press.

Ghoshal, S./Bartlett, C. (1994) Linking Organizational Context and Managerial Action: The Dimensions of Quality Management, In: Strategie Management Journal, 15: 91-112.

Gioa, D.A./Donellon, A./Sims, H. (I 989) Communication and Cognition in Appraisal: A Tale ofTwo Paradidms, In: Organization Studies, 10: 503-530.

Gladstein, D. (1984) Groups in Context: A Model of Task Group Effectiveness, In: Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 499-517.

Glaser, B./Strauss, A. (1967) The Discovery ofGrounded Theory, Chicago: Aldine.

Glasersfeld von, E. (1985) Einftihrung in den radikalen Konstruktivismus, In: Watzlawick, P. (ed.) Die erfundene Wirklichkeit, München: Piper: 16-38.

Golden-Biddle, K./Locke, K. (1993) Appealing Work: An Investigation of How Ethnographie Texts Convince, In: Organization Science, 4: 595-616.

Gomes-Casseres, B. (1987) Joint Venture Instability: Is it a Problem?, In: Columbia Journal ofWorld Business, 22(2): 97-101.

Goodman, P. and Associates (1982) Change in Organizations - New Perspectives on Theory, Research, and Practice, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Goodwin, B. (1989) Organisms and Minds as Dynamic Forms, In: Leonardo, 22(1): 27-31.

Gray, B. (1985) Conditions Faci1itating Interorganizational Collaboration, In: Human Relations, 38(10): 911-936.

183

Gray, B./Yan, A. (1992) A Negotiations Model of JointVenture Formation, Structure and Performance: Implications for Global Management. In: Prasad, B.S. (ed.) Advances in International Comparative Management, Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press: 41-75.

Griesinger, D. (1990) The Human Side of Economic Organizations, In: Academy of Management Review, 15(3): 478-499.

Guba, E. /Lincoln, Y. (1981) Effective Evaluation: Improving the Effectiveness of Evaluation Results through Responsive and Naturalistic Approaches, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Guba, E./Lincoln, Y. (1994) Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research, In: Denzin, N./Lincoln, Y. (eds.) Handbook ofQualitative Research, Thousand Oaks: Sage: 105-117.

Gulati, R. (1995) Does Familiarity Breed Trust? The Implications of Repeated Ties for Contractual Choice in Alliances, In: Academy of Management Journal, 38: 85-112.

Gulati, R./Khanna, T./Nohria, N. (1994) Unilateral Commitments and the Importance ofProcess in Alliances, In: Sloan Management Review, 35(3): 61-69.

Gyenes, L. (1991) Build the Foundation for a Successful JointVenture, In: Journal of Business Strategy, 12(6): 27-32.

Habermas, J. ( 1981) Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, Frankfurt: suhrkarnp.

Hakansson, L./Lorange, P. ( 1991) Research and Product Development based Cooperative Ventures. In: Mattson, L./Stymne, B. (eds.) Corporate and Industry Strategies for Europe, Amsterdarn: Elsevier Science: 235-260.

Harne!, G. (1991) Competition for Competence and Inter-Partner Learning Within International Strategie Alliances, In: Strategie Management Journal, 12: 83-103.

Harne!, G./Prahalad, C.K. (1989) Strategie Intent, In: Harvard Business Review, 67(3): 63-76.

Harne!, G./Doz, Y./Prahalad, C.K. (1989) Collaborate with Your Competitors- and Win, In: Harvard Business Review, 67: 133-139.

Hamilton, D. (1994) Traditions, Preferences, and Postures in Applied Qualitative Research, In: Denzin, N./Lincoln, Y. (1994) Handbook of Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks: Sage: 60-69.

Hannan, M./Freeman, J. ( 1977) The Population Ecology of Organizations, In: American Journal of Sociology, 82: 929-964.

Hannan, M./Freeman, J. (1984) Structural Inertia and Organizational Change, In: American Journal ofSociology, 48: 149-164.

Hannan, M./Freeman, J. (1989) Organizational Ecology, Carnbridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Harrigan, K. (1986) Managing for JointVenture Success, Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books.

184

Harrigan, K./Newman, W. (1990) Bases of Interorganizational Co-Operation: Propensity, Power, Persistence, In: Journal ofManagement Studies, 27: 417-434.

Haspeslagh, P. (1989) Emphasizing Value Creation in Strategie Acquisitions, In: International Mergers and Acquisitions, 24(2): 68-71.

Haspeslagh, P./Jemison, D. (1991) Managing Acquisitions- Creating Value through Corporate Renewal, New York: Free Press.

Hayek, F. von (1937) Economics and Knowledge in Economica, In: New Series, 5: 33, Reprinted in Hayek (1948) Individualism and Economic Order, Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Hayek, F. von (1945) The Use of Knowledge in Society, In: American Economic Review, 35:519-530.

Hayek, F. von (1948) Individualism and Economic Order, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hebert, L. (1994) Trust, Conflict and Division of Control in JointVentures, Working Paper.

Hebert, L./Beamish, P. (1994) The Control-Performance Relationship in International vs. Domestic Joint Ventures, Working Paper presented at Academy of Management Meeting 1994, Dallas.

Hebert, L./Geringer, M. (1993) Division of Control and Performance Outcomes in International JointVentures: A Social Exchange Framework, Working Paper.

Helleloid, D./Simonin, B. (1993) Collaborative Know-How: Can Firms Become More Competent International Collaborators?, Working Paper presented at the Academy ofManagement Meetings 1993, Atlanta.

Hennart, J. (1988) A Transaction Costs Theory of Equity Joint Ventures, In: Strategie Management Journal, 9(4): 361-374.

Hergert, M./Morris, D. (1988) Trends in International Collaborative Arrangements, In: Contractor, F./Lorange, P. (eds.) Cooperative Strategies in International Business, Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books: 99-110.

Homans, G. (1961) Social Behavior: Its Elementary Form, New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

Huberman, M. (1993) The Lives ofTeachers, London: Cassell.

Huff, A./Reger, R. (1987) A Review of Strategie Process Research, In: Journal of Management, 13(2): 211-236.

Inkpen, A./Birkenshaw, J. (1994) International Joint Ventures and Performance: An Interorganizational Perspective, In: International Business Review, 3(3): 201-217.

Inkpen, A./Currall, S./Hughes, S. (1995) International Joint Venture Trust: An Empirical Investigation, Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meetings 1995, Vancouver.

Inkpen, A. (1995) The Management of International Joint Ventures: An Organizational Leaming Perspective, London: Routledge.

185

ltami, H. (1987) Mobilizing Invisible Assets, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

James, L. ( 1982) Aggregation Bias in Estimates of Perceptual Agreement, In: Journal of Applied Pyschology, 67:219-229.

Jarillo, C. (1993) Strategie Networks - Creating the Borderless Organization, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Jarillo, C. (1988) On Strategie Networks, In: Strategie Management Journal, 9: 31-41.

Jarillo, C./Ricart, J. (1987) Sustaining Networks, In: Interfaces, 17(5): 82-91

Jemison, D./Sitkin, S. (1986a) Acquisitions: The Process can be a Problem, In: Harvard Business Review, March/April: 107-116.

Jemison, D./Sitkin, S. (1986b) Corporate Acquisitions: A Process Perspective, In: Academy ofManagement Review, 11(1): 145-163.

Johnson, J. (I 994) Measuring JointVenture Performance: An Information Processing Perspective, Working Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meeting 1994, Dallas.

Johnson, J./Altheide, D. (1990) Reflexive Accountability, In: Studies in Symbolic Interactionism, 11: 25-33.

Kanter, R. (1977) Men and Women ofthe Corporation, New York: Basic Books.

Kanter, R. (1994) Collaborative Advantage: The Art of Alliances, In: Harvard Business Review, 72: 96-108.

Kast, D./Rosenzweig, J. (1985) Organization and Management - A Systems and Contingency Approach, New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Katz, D./Kahn, R. (1966) The Social Psychology ofürganizations, New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Kent, D./Hellriegel, D. ( 1991) A Longitudinal Comparative Study of Two Joint Ventures, In: Journal ofManagement Studies, 28: 253-265.

Khanna, T./Gulati, R./Nohria, N. (1994) Alliances as Leaming Races, In: Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings 1994: 42-46.

Kiesler, C. (1971) The Psychology of Commitment: Experiments linking Behavior to Belief, New York: Academic Press.

Killing, P. (1982) How to Make a Global JointVenture Work, In: Harvard Business Review, May/June: 120-127.

Killing, P. (1983) Strategies for Joint Venture Success, Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.

Kilman, R./Slevin, D./Thomas, K. (1994) The Problem of Producing Useful Knowledge, In: Kilman, R./Thomas, K./Slevin, D./Nath, R./Jerrell, S. (eds.) Producing Useful Knowledge for Organizations, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass: 1-21.

186

Kimberly, J. (1980) The Life Cycle Ana1ogy and the Study of Organizations, In: Kimberly, J./Mi1es, R. (eds.) The Organizationa1 Life Cycle: Issues in Creation, Transformation, and Decline ofOrganizations, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass: 1-17.

Kimberly, J./Mi1es, R. (1980) The Organizational Life Cycle: Issues in Creation, Transformation, and Dec1ine ofOrganizations, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass: 1-17.

Kirk, J./Miller, M. (1986) Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research, Beverly Hills: Sage.

K1imecki, R./Probst, G./Eberl, P. (1994) Entwicklungsorientiertes Management, Stuttgart: Poeschel.

Kogut, B. (1988a) A Study of the Life Cycle of Joint Ventures, In: Management International Review, 28: 39-52.

Kogut, B. (1988b) Joint Ventures: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives, In: Strategie Management Journal, 9: 319-332.

Kogut, B. (1988c) A Study of Life Cycle of Joint Ventures, In: Contractor, F./Lorange, P. (eds.) Cooperative Strategies in International Business, Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books: 169-186.

Kotter, J. (1978) Organizationa1 Dynamics: Diagnosis and Intervention, Reading: Addison-W esley.

Lane, H./Beamish, P. ( 1990) Cross-cu1tural Cooperative Behavior in Joint Ventures in LDCs, In: Management International Review, Special Issue: 87-102.

Laux, H. ( 1990) Risiko, Anreiz und Kontrolle, Springer: Berlin.

Leavitt, H. (1965) App1ied Organizational Change in Industry: Structural, Technologica1 and Humanistic Approaches, In: March, J. (ed.) The Handbook of Organizations, Chicago: Rand McNally: 1144-1170.

Leblebici, H./Salancik, G.R. (1982) Stability in Interorganizational Exchanges: Rulemaking Processes ofthe Chicago Board ofTrade, In: Administrative Science Quarterly, 22: 227-242.

Lei, D./Slocum, J.Jr. (1991) Global Strategie Alliances: Payoffs and Pitfalls, In: Organizational Dynamics, 19: 44-62.

Lei, D./Slocum, J.Jr. (1992) Global Strategy, Competence-Building and Strategie Alliances, In: California Management Review, 35: 81-97.

Levine, S./White, P. (1961) Exchange as a Conceptual Framework for the Study of Interorganizationa1 Relationships, In: Administrative Science Quarterly: 583-601.

Levy, A./Merry, U. (1986) Organizational Transformation - Approaches, Strategies, Theoried, New York: Praeger.

Levinson, D. (1978) The Seasons ofa Man's Life, New York: Knopf.

Lewin, K. (1946) Action Research and Minority Problem, In: Journal of Social Issues, 11: 34-46.

Lewis, J. (1990) Partnerships for Profit: Structuring and Managing Strategie Alliances, New York: Free Press.

187

Lewis, J. ( 1991) Competitive Alliances Redefine Companies, In: Management Review, April: 14-18.

Lincoln, Y.S./Guba, E. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry, Newbury Park: Sage.

Lorange, P. (1986) Human Resource Management in Multinational Cooperative Ventures, In: Human Resource Management, 25(1): 133-147.

Lorange, P./Roos, J. (1990) Formation of Cooperative Ventures: Competence Mix of the Management Teams, In: Management International Review, 30: 69-86.

Lorange, P/Roos, J. (1991) Why some Alliances Succeed and Others Fail, In: Journal ofBusiness Strategy, 12(1): 25-30.

Lorange, P./Roos, J. (1992) Strategie Alliances: Formation, Implementation and Evolution, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Business.

Lorange, P./Probst, G. (1987) Joint Ventures as Self-Organizing Systems: A Key to Successful Joint Venture Design and Implementation, In: Columbia Journal of World Business, Summer: 71-77.

Louis, M. (1994) Useful Knowledge and Knowledge Use: Toward Explicit Meanings, In: In: Kilman, R./Thomas, K./Slevin, D./Nath, R./Jerrell, S. (eds.) Producing Useful Knowledge for Organizations, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass: 25-36.

Luhmann, N. (1987) Sozial Systeme- Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie, Frankfurt: suhrkamp.

Lyles, M. (1987) Common Mistakes of Joint Venture Experienced Firms, In: Columbia Journal ofWorld Business, Summer: 79-85.

Lyles, M. (1988) Leaming among Joint Venture-Sophicated Firms, In: Contractor, F./Lorange, P. (eds.) Cooperative Strategies in International Business, Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books: 301-316.

Lyles, M. (1991) Parental Desire for Control of JointVentures: A Case Study of an International Joint Venture, In: Advances in Strategie Management, Vol. 7, Greewich, Connecticut: JAI Press: 185-208.

Lyles, M./Reger, R. (1993) Managing for Autonomy in Joint Ventures: A Longitudinal Study of Upward Influence, In: Journal of Management Studies, 30: 383-404.

Lyles, M./Salk, J. (1995) Leaming from Foreign Parents in International Joint Ventures: An Empirical Examination in the Hungarian Context, Working Paper.

Madhok, A. (1995) Revisiting Multinational Firms' Tolerance for Joint Ventures: A Trust-Based Approach, In: Journal of International Business Studies, 26(1 ): 117-137.

March, J./Olsen, J. (1979) Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations, Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.

March, J./Simon, H. (1958) Organizations, New York: John Wiley & Sons.

McKelvey, B./Aldrich, H. (1983) Populations, Natural Selection, and Applied Organizational Science, In: Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 101-128.

188

Meyer, J./Scott, W. (1983) Organizational Environments, Beverly Hills: Sage.

Meyer, J./Rowan, B. (1977) Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony, In: American Journal ofSociology, 83: 440-463.

Miles, M./Huberrnan, M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis - An Expanded Sourcebook, Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Miller, D./Friesen, P. (1984) Organizations - A Quantum View, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Mintzberg, H. (1990) Strategy Formation: Schools of Thought, In: Frederickson, J. (ed.) Perspectives on Strategie Management, New York: Harper & Row: 105-235.

Mintzberg, H. (1994) The Rise and Fall ofStrategic Planning, New York: Free Press.

Mintzberg, H./Westley, F. (1992) Cycles of Organizational Change, In: Strategie Management Journal, 13: 39-59.

Mody, A. (1993) Leaming through Alliances, In: Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 20: 151-170.

Mohr, J./Spekman, R. (1994) Characteristics of Partnership Success: Partnership Attributes, Communication Behavior, and Conflict-resolution Techniques, In: Strategie Management Journal, 15: 135-152.

Monge, P. (1990) Theoretical and Analytical Issues in Studying Organizations Processes, In: Organization Science, 1(4): 406-430.

Moorrnan, C./Deshpande, R./Zaltman, G. (1993) Factars Affecting Trust in Market Research Relationships, In: Journal of Marketing, 57: 81-1 01.

Morgan, G. (1983) Beyond Method, Beverly Hills: Sage.

Morgan, G. (1986) Images of Organization, Newsbur)r Park!New Delhi/London: Sage.

Morgan, G./Smircich, L. (1980) The Case for Qualitative Research, In Academy of Management Review, 5: 491-500.

Neale, J./Liebert, R. (1986) Science and Behavior: An Introduction to Methods of Research, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Niederkofler, M. (1991) The Evolution of Strategie Alliances: Opportunities for Managerial Influence, In: Journal ofBusiness Venturing, 6: 237-257.

Nielsen, R. (1988) Cooperative Strategy, In: Strategie Management Journal, 9(5): 475-492.

Oliver, C. (1990) Deterrninants of Interorganizational Relationships: Integration and Future Directions, In: Academy ofManagement Review, 15(2): 241-265.

Ondracek, J. (1993) A New Look at Case Studies and International Management Research, Warking Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meeting 1993, Atlanta.

189

Parkhe, A. (1991) Interfirm Diversity, Organizational Learning, and Longevity in Global Strategie Alliances, In: Journal of International Business Studies, 22(4): 579-601.

Parkhe, A. (1993) "Messy" Research, Methodological Predispositions, and Theory Development in International Joint Ventures, In: Academy of Management Review, 18(2): 227-268.

Pennings, J. (1980) Interlocking Directorates, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pennings, J. (1981) Strategically Interdependent Organizations, In: Nystrom,P./Starbuck, W. (eds.) Handbook ofOrganizational Design, Vol. 1, New York: Oxford University Press: 433-455.

Perich, R. (1992) Unternehmensdynamik - Zur Entwicklungsfähigkeit von Organisationen aus zeitlich-dynamischer Sicht, Bern: Haupt.

Perrow, C. (1986) Complex Organizations - A Critical Essay, New York: Random House.

Peters, M./Robinson, V. (1984) The Origins and Status of Action Research, In: Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 20(2): 113-124.

Pfeffer, J. (1981) Management as Symbolic Action: The Creation and Maintenance of Organizational Paradigms, In: Staw, B./Cummings, L. (eds.) Perspectives on Organization Design and Behavior, New York: John Wiley & Sons: 371-386.

Pfeffer, J. (1982) Organizations and Organization Theory, Boston: Pitman.

Pfeffer, J./Nowak, P. (1976) Joint Venture and Interorganizational Interdependence, In: Administrative Science Quarterly, 21: 398-418.

Pfeffer, J./Salancik, G. (1978) The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective, New York: Harper & Row.

Picot, A. ( 1991) Ein neuer Ansatz zur Gestaltung der Leistungstiefe, In: Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 43(4): 336-357.

Polanyi, M. (1966) The Tacit Dimension, New York: Doubleday.

Popper, K. (1987) Auf der Suche nach einer besseren Welt - Vorträge und Aufsätze aus dreißig Jahren, München: Piper.

Porter, M. (1980) Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors, New Y ork: Free Press.

Porter, M./Fuller, M. (1986) Coalitions and Global Strategy, In: Porter, M. (ed.) Competition in Global Industries, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.

Probst, G. (1987) Selbst-Organisation, Berlin: Paul Parey.

Probst, G./Büchel, B. (1994) Organisationales Lernen, Wiesbaden: Gabler.

Pucik, V. ( 1988) Strategie Alliances, Organizational Learning, and Competitive Advantage: The HRM Agenda, In: Human Resource Management, 27: 77-93.

Quelin, B. (1994) Cooperation Inter-Enterprise et Creation de Ressources, Working Paper, HEC School of Management, Paris.

190

Rapoport, R. (1970) Three Dilemmas in Action Research, In: Human Relations, 23: 499-513.

Reason, P. (1994a) Three Approaches to Participative Inquiry, In: Denzin, N./Lincoln, Y. (eds.) Handbook ofQualitative Research, Thousand Oaks: Sage: 324-339.

Reason, P. (1994b) Participation in Human Inquiry, London: Sage.

Richards, J./von Glasersfeld, E. (1991) Die Kontrolle von Wahrnehmung und die Konstruktion von Realität - Erkenntnistheoretische Aspekte des Rückkoppelungs­Kontroll-Systems, In: Schmidt, S. (ed.) Der Diskurs des radikalen Konstruktivismus, Frankfurt: suhrkamp: 192-228.

Richardson, L. (1990) Writing Strategies - Reaching Diverse Audiences, Newbury Park: Sage.

Ring, P . ./Yan de Yen, A. (1992) Structuring Cooperative Relationships between Organizations, In: Strategie Management Journal, 13(7): 483-498.

Ring, P . ./Yan de Yen, A. (1994) Developmental Processes of Cooperative Interorganizational Relationships, In: Academy of Management Review, 19(1 ): 90-118.

Roos, J. (1989) Cooperative Yenture Formation Processes: Characteristics and Impact on Performance. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Stockholm Institute of International Business.

Root, F. (1988) Some Taxonomies of International Cooperations, In: Contractor, F./Lorange, P. (eds.) Cooperative Strategies in International Business, Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books: 69-80.

Ross, J./Staw, B. (1993) Organizational Escalation and Exit: Lessons from the Shoreham Nuclear Plan, In: Academy ofManagement Journal, 36:701-732.

Rousseau, D. (1985) Issues of Level in Organizational Research: Multi-level and Cross-level perspectives. In: Staw, B./Cummings, L. (eds.) Research in Organizational Behavior, Yol. 7, Greenwich, Conneticut: JAI Press: 1-37.

Salancik, G. (1977) Commitment and the Control of Organizational Behavior and Belief, In: Staw, B./Salancik, G. (eds.) New Directions in Organizational Behavior, Chicago: St. Clair Press: 1-54.

Salk, J. (1992) International Shared Management Joint Yentures: Their Developmental Patterns, Challenges, and Possibilities, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Salk, J. (1994) Partnersand Other Strangers: Cultural Boundaries and Cross-Cultural Encounters in International Joint Yentures Teams, Working Paper, forthcoming in International Studies ofManagement and Organization.

Sandelands, L./Drazin, R. (1989) On the Language of Organization Theory, In: Organization Studies, 10: 457-477.

Sandelands, L./Stablein, R. (1987) The Concept of Organization Mind, In: Research in the Sociology ofürganizations, 5: 135-162.

191

Sayer, A. (1992) Method in Social Science: ARealist Approach, London: Routledge.

Schaan, J.-L. (1988) How to Control a JointVenture even as a Minority Partner, In: Journal ofGeneral Management, 14(1): 4-16.

Schwartzman, H. (1993) Ethnography in Organizations, Newbury Park: Sage.

Schein, E. (1985) Organizationa1 Cu1ture and Leadership, San Francisco: Josse) -Bass.

Schein, E. (1987) The Clinical Perspective in Fieldwork, Newbury Park: Sage.

Schmidt, S. ( 1987) Der Diskurs des radikalen Konstruktivismus, Frankfurt: suhrkamp.

Smircich, L. (1984) Organizations as Shared Meanings, In: Pondy, L.R. (ed.) Organizational Symbolism, Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press: 55-65.

Schneider, S. (1994) Interpreting Strategie Issues: Making Sense of 1992, In: Advances in Managerial Cognition and Organization Information Processing, Vol. 5, Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press: 243-274.

Schneider, S./De Meyer, A. (1991) Interpreting and Respanding to Strategie Issues: The Impact ofNational Culture, In: Strategie Management Journal, 12: 307-320.

Scott, W. (1983) The Organization of Environments: Network, Culture and Historical Elements, In: Meyer, J./Scott, W. (eds.) Organizational Environments, Beverly Hills: Sage: 155-175.

Seabright, M./Levinthal, D./Fichman, M. (1992) RoJe of Individual Attachments in the Dissolution of Interorganizational Re1ationships, In: Academy of Management Journal, 35(1): 122-160.

Serapio, M./Cascio, W. (1995) End-Games in International Alliances, Working Paper, University ofColorado, forthcoming in Academy ofManagement Executive.

Shalin, D. ( 1986) Pragmatism and Social Interactionism, In: American Sociological Review, 51:9-29.

Shaughnessy, H. ( 1995) International Joint Ventures: Managing Successful Collaborations, In: Long Range Planning, 28: 10-17.

Shenkar, 0./Zeira, Y. (1990) International JointVentures: A Tough Test for HR, In: Personnel, 67: 26-31.

Shortell, S./Zajac, E. (1988) Interna! Corporate Joint Ventures: Development Processes and Performance Outcomes, In: Strategie Management Journal, 9: 527-542.

Siebert, H. (1990) Technologische Entwicklung und Vorproduktbeschaffung, Frankfurt: Lang.

Simonin, B./Helleloid, D. (1993) Do Organizations Learn?: An Empirical Test of Organizational Learning in International Strategie Alliances, Working Paper.

Sims, H./Gioia, D. (1986) The Thinking Organization: Dynamics of Organizational Social Cognition, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sitkin, S. (1993) The Legalistic Organization: Definitions, Dimension, and Dilemmas, In: Organization Science, 4: 345-351.

192

Sitkin, S.B. (1995) On the Positive Effect of Legalization on Trust. In: Bies, R./Sheppard, B./Lewicki, R. (eds.) Research on Negotiation in Organizations, Greenwich, Conneticut: JAI Press, Vol. 5 (forthcoming).

Smith, K./Caroll, S./ Ashford, S. (1995) Intra- and Interorganizational Cooperation: Toward a Research Agenda, In: Academy ofManagement Journal, 38(1): 7-23.

Snow, C./Thomas, J. (1994) Field Research Methods in Strategie Management: Contributions to Theory Building and Testing, In: Journal of Management Studies, 31(4): 457-480.

Stigler, J. (1956) Trends in Employment in the Service Industries, National Bureau of Economic Research, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Stoecker, R. (1991) Evaluating and Rethinking the Case Study, In: Annual Review of Sociology, 39: 88-112.

Strauss, A./Corbin, J. ( 1990) Basics of Qualitative Research - Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques, Newbury Park: Sage.

Sullivan, J./Peters, R. (1982) Factors Associated with Trust in Japanese-American JointVentures, In: Management International Review, (22(2): 31-40.

Susman, G./Evered, R. (1978) An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research, In: Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(12): 582-603.

Sutherland, D. (1975) Systems: Analysis, Administration, and Architecture, New York: Von Nostrand.

Sydow, J. (1992) Strategische Netzwerke - Evolution und Organisation, Wiesbaden: Gabler.

Tallman, S./Madhok, A. (1995) Shared Organization Joint Ventures: Competencies and Transaction Costs, Warking Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meetings 1995, Vancouver.

Thomas, J. (1990) Interpreting Strategie Issues: Effects of Strategy and the Information-Processing Structure of Top Management Teams, In: Academy of Management Journal, 33: 286-306.

Thomas, J./Tymon, W.Jr. (1982) Necessary Properties of Relevant Research: Lessons from Recent Criticisms from the Organizational Sciences, In: Academy of Management Review, 7: 345-352.

Thomas, J./Clark, S./Gioia, D. (1993) Strategie Sensemaking and Organizational Performance: Linkages among Scanning, Interpretation, Action, and Outcomes, In: Academy ofManagement Journal, 36: 239-270.

Thomas, K./Kilman, R. (1994) Where have the Organizational Seiences Gone? A Survey of the Academy of Management Membership, In: Kilman, R./Thomas, K./Slevin, 0./Nath, R./Jerrell, S. (eds.) Producing Useful Knowledge for Organizations, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass: 69-81.

Thomas, K./Tymon, W.Jr. (1992) Necessary Properties ofRelevant Research: Lessons from Recent Criticisms of the Organizational Sciences, In: Academy of Management Review, 7: 345-352.

193

Thomas, J./Trevino, L. (1993) Information Processing in Strategie Alliance Building: A Multiple-case Approach, In: Journal ofManagement Studies, 30: 779-814.

Tichy, N. (1983) Managing Strategie Change - Technical, Political and Cultural Dynamics, New Y ork: John Wiley & Sons.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1985) Toward a Theory of Conflict and Culture, In: Gudykunst, W./Stewart, L. (eds.) Communication, Culture, and Organizational Processes, Newbury Park: Sage: 71- 85.

Torbert, W. (1989) Leading Organizational Transformation, In: Woodman, R./Pasmore, W. (eds.) Research in Organizational Change and Development, Yol. 3, Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press: 83-116.

Tsoukas, H. (1989) The Yalidity of Ideographie Research Explanations, In: Academy ofManagement Review, 14: 551-561.

Türk, K. (1989) Neuere Entwicklungen in der Organisationsforschung, Stuttgart: Enke.

Ulrich, H. (1984) Management, Bem: Haupt.

Yan de Yen, A. (1976) On the Nature, Formation and Maintenance of Relations among Organizations, In: Academy of Management Review, I: 24-36.

Yan de Yen, A./Walker, G. (1984) The Dynamics oflnterorganizational Coordination, In: Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 598-621.

Yan de Yen, A./Huber, G. (1990) LongitudinalFieldResearch Methods for Studying Processes of Organizational Change, In: Organization Science, 1: 213-219.

Yan de Yen, A./Poole, M. (1995) Explaining Development and Change in Organizations, In: Academy of Management Review, 20: 510-540.

Yan Maanen, J. (1983) Qualitative Methodology, Beverly Hills: Sage.

Walsh, J./Fahey, L. (1986) The RoJe of Negotiated Belief Sttuctures in Strategy Making, In: Journal of Management, 12: 325-338.

Walsh, J./Henderson, C./Deighton, J. (1988) Negotiated Belief Stmctures and Decision Performance: An Empirical Investigation, In: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 42: 194-216.

Walsh, J. (1995) Managerial and Organizational Cognition: Notes from a Trip Down Memory Lane, In: Organization Science, 6: 280-321.

Walters, B./Peters, S./Dess, G. (1994) StrategieAlliancesand Joint Yentures: Making them work, In: Business Horizons, 37: 5-10.

Waterman, R. (1988) The Renewal Factor - Building and Maintaining your Company's Competitive Edge, London: Bantarn Books.

Weick, K. (1979) The Social Psychology of Organizing, New Y ork: McGraw-Hill.

Weick, K. (1982) Enactment Processes in Organizations. In: Staw, B./Salancik, G. (eds.) New Directions in Organizational Behavior, Malabar, Florida: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company: 257-300.

194

Weick, K. (1989) Theory Construction as Disciplined Imagination, In: Academy of Management Review, 14:516-531.

Weick, K. (1995) Sensemaking in Organizations, Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Wernerfelt, B. (1984) A Resource-Based View ofthe Firm, In: Strategie Management Journal, 5(2): 171-180.

Whetten, D. (1989) What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution?, In: Academy of Management Review, 14: 490-495.

Whyte, W. (1981) Street Corner Society, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Whyte, W. (1990) Participatory Action Research, Newbury Park, Sage.

Whyte, W./Greenwood, 0./Lazes, P. (1989) Participatory Action Research, In: American Behavioral Scientist, 32(5): 502-512.

Williamson, 0. (1975) Markets and Hierarchies: An Analysis and Antitrust Implications, New York: Free Press.

Williamson, 0. (1985) The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting, New Y ork: Free Press.

Willke, H. (1991) Systemtheorie, Stuttgart: Fischer.

Woo, C./Daellenbach, U./Nicholls-Nixon, C. (1994) Theory Building in the Presence of 'Randomness': The Case of Venture Creation and Performance, In: Journal of Management Studies, 31: 507-524.

Wurche, S. (1994) Vertrauen und ökonomische Rationalität in kooperativen Interorganisationsbeziehungen. In: Sydow, J./Windeler, A. (eds.) Management interorganisationaler Beziehungen, Ob laden: Westdeutscher Verlag: 142-159.

Yan, A./Gray, B. (1994) Bargaining Power, Management Control and Performance in United States- China JointVentures: A Comparative Case Study, In: Academy ofManagement Journal, 37: 1478-1517.

Yin, R. ( 1989) Case Study Research - Design and Methods, Newbury Park: Sage.

Yin, R. (1993) Applications of Case Study Research, Newbury Park: Sage.

Yoshino, M./Rangan, U. (1995) Strategie Alliances: An Entrepreneurial Approach to Globalization, Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.

Young, C./Olk, P. (1994) Why Dissatisfied Members Stay and Satisfied Members Leave: Options A vailable and Embeddedness Mitigating the Performance Commitment Relationship in Strategie Alliances, In: Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings: 57-61.

Zaheer, A./McEvily, B./Perrone, V. (1995) Does Trust Matter? Exploring the Effects oflnterorganizational and Interpersonal Trust on Performance, Working Paper.

Zahra, S./Elhagrasey, G. (1994) Strategie Management of International Joint Ventures, In: European Management Journal, 12: 83-93.

Zajac, E./Olsen, C. (1993) From Transaction Cost to Transactional Value Analysis: Implications for the Study of Interorganizational Strategies, In: Journal of Management Studies, 30: 131-145.

195

Zand, D. (1972) Trust and Managerial Problem-Solving, In: Administrative Science Quarterly, 17: 229-239.

Zeira, Y./Shenkar, 0. ( 1990) Interactive and Specific Parent Characteristics: Imp1ications for Management and Human Resources in International Joint Ventures, In: Management International Review, 30: 7-22.

Zeitz, G. (1980) Interorganizational Dialectics, In: Administrative Science Quarterly, 25: 72-87.

197

Appendix 1: Case Description of Pilot Study

Digital Equipment Enterprise

Back~;;round

During 1989 and 1990 the computer industry went through a cycle of consolidation. The general industry tendency was one of decentralization. The amount of potential small and medium-sized (SME) enterprises as customers was steadily increasing and thus this market segment became increasingly attractive for a number of computer companies. In addition, European manufacturers approached American or Japanese computer manufacturers to form alliances for the future or merged forces together such as the case with Siemens-Nixdorf. This transformation within the industry gave Digital an indication to the fact that they needed to refocus their business in order not to lose overall market share.

Digital Equipment Corporation had traditionally been preoccupied with the market space consisting of !arge institutions, i.e., companies with more than 1000 employees and revenues above $100 million. Within this market area, the growth rate for the coming years was predicted to be at 2% with an overall market size of $81 billion. The SME market was calculated at $42 billion growing at an annual growth rate of I 0%. This market covered companies with not less than 20 and not more than 999 employees and with revenues of less than $100 million per year. The number of companies estimated in this category was approximately 677,000.

As a result of these developments, Digital realized that they could not only focus on corporate accounts. Although they had always tried to achieve presence in the small and medium sized enterprise segment ofthe industry, their past strategies for entering this market had never been successful. In 1985, Digital attempted to enter this market segment, yet after 8 months, they realized that their strategy would not be successful. They did not have the products: neither hard- nor software, the marketing capabilities, nor the speed needed for this market segment. As one manager said, the software and hardware demands could not be met "fast and cheap" enough for the needs of the customer. This cost and time ineffectiveness led to the decision to abandon this business area.

Due to Digital's past strategic mistakes in trying to gain ground in the SME market, it seemed clear that their own intemal capabilities for penetrating this market segment were not sufficient. According to management, the intemal infrastructure is "too heavy, too !arge and inflexible." The Iack of an installed customer base as weil as the Iack of intemal capabilities underlined the need for Digital to Iook for companies to cooperate with. In 1991, when the changes in the European computer industry became more than obvious and pressing, a solution had to be found.

Di~;;ital Equjpment Corporatjon By 1991, Digital's operating revenues had grown by $968 million or 7% compared to the prior year and exceeded $13.9 billion. Due to increasing costs, this meant a net income loss of 4.2%. In 1991, international revenues (generated outside the US)

198

accounted for 60.2% of the company's total revenues. Product sales at 59.6% of operating revenues were up 2% compared to the prior year, following essentially no growth in 1990 and an increase of 9% in 1989. The slow growth of product sales reflected persistent weakness in the US market and a pervasive change in industry demand, favoring low-end and desktop products. Intense price competition in some product lines, particularly personal computers and workstations, made Digital respond by introducing a number of new computer systems for both UNIX, its own VMS 136

operating systems, as weil as a broad range of multivendor clients/server software, services, and other hardware products.

Digital's investment in new product and service development had been among the highest in the computer industry, standing at approximately $1.7 billion per year. Digital Equipment Corporation was the leading worldwide supplier of networked computer systems, software, and services. Digital pioneered and led the industry in interactive, distributed, and multivendor computing. Operating in 100 countries, Digital employed more than 102,000 employees in 1991 including 25,000 based in Europe.

Digital had been active in Europe since 1963, building an infrastructure of manufacturing sites, centers of technical expertise, and over 300 sales and service offices in the 35 countdes in which it operated. Europe represented more than 44% of Digital's overall business, with computing products and services generating revenues of $5.09 billion in 1991.

The corporation's European Operations ranged from research through product, service and applications development to manufacturing, sourcing, marketing, selling and post-sales support. Fifteen engineering centers and a Paris-based research center -- one of four worldwide -- supported Digital's long-term focus on developing leading-edge technology in Europe. The European CEO, Pier Carlo Falotti, showed clear leadership and his own vision for Digital Europe in the future. Looking for new possibilities of growth, he envisioned extemal cooperation possibilities. The European CEO had recognized that cooperative arrangements would define future business relationships. Digital had not developed substantial experience in this area in the past.

Mannesmann-Kienzle Data Systems The initial interest in cooperating with Mannesmann-Kienzle's computer division came from Digital's German subsidiary in February 1990. This was based on Germany's desire to expand sales activities in the SME market. In September 1990, Digitalleamed that Mannesmann was on the verge of concluding a deal with !CL on the behalf of Fujitsu. This precipitated Digital's response since European Management wanted to block Fujitsu gaining a distribution channel in Germany. In addition, it would enable Digital to gain access to a !arge installed base, broadening its distribution channel, increasing market share in Germany, and obtaining a foothold in the small and medium sized enterprise market in Europe. When Mannesmann was approached by Digital in November 1990, they expressed interest in pursuing a

136 VMS is an operating system which includes features designed to implement and facilitate VAX operations by synchronizing access to share resources.

199

cooperative arrangement, but within certain parameters. The deal had to be concluded within ten working days and the price was not negotiable for Digital. It had been set at the Ievel that was allegedly agreed to by ICL on behalf of Fujitsu. The reason for this pressurewas based on the fact that ICL and Mannesmann had signed a Letter ofintent (LOI) in September 1990.

After an intemal presentation was made to Digital's Board of Directors and the investment was approved, top management decided to partially acquire the division. The contract was signed with Mannesmann on January 3, 1991. At closing, Digital acquired 65% of the company. With the partial acquisition of Kienzle Data Systems division from Mannesmann, Digital not only acquired a well-established customer base, a quite significant application software product, but also 3800 new people in 6 different countries in Europe.

Tactically, Digital intended to migrate the Kienzle software applications to Digital hardware platforms, resulting in greater marketing synergy due to leveraging Kienzle software applications portfolio with the strong perception of Digital platforms. It would also create cost synergy due to eliminating platform engineering efforts and manufacturing. In addition, Digital was hoping for additional business through close cooperation with Mannesmann, which is one of the largest German industrial holding companies. This acquisition was, however, only the first step towards Digital's presence in the SME market space.

Philips Information Systems In July 1990, following the first Kienzle contacts, Digital's senior managers met with the president and CEO of Philips where the subject of closer cooperation between Digital and Philips' Information Systems Division (ISD) was explored.

ISD was identified as a major opportunity for Digital to greatly strengthen its presence in the retail banking market, that was complementary to Digital's back office strength. Philip's strength was the focused selling, services, application and systems integration expertise, the !arge installed customer base, the products as weil as expertise in multimedia. In addition, ISD could, following the Kienzle cooperation and the need to find a solution for the industry changes, complement the SME market entry started with that cooperation.

The Philips group was going through major restructuring at that time and ISD had been singled out as one of the divisions that was to be put up for sale as a going concem. In January 1991, the negotiations with Digital started to pick up speed. At this point in time, it was Digital's objective to acquire the ISD division. After the Ietter of intent had been signed on July 22, 1991, a thorough due diligence process 137 Iasting from the end of September until November II was conducted. Finally on November II, the contract was signed and the price was significantly reduced due to the due diligence process.

137 Due diligence is a process used during acquisitions whereby the acquirer investigates the various functions ofthe acquiree's organization in order to evaluate the business.

200

Tactically, the Philips acquisition meant using Philips software as the world-wide application for retail banking on the one hand, and creating SME focused separate subsidiaries on the other hand. These separate subsidiaries were to have a lower cost structure than traditional Digital subsidiaries by migrating from a direct to an indirect selling strategy. As a consequence of this acquisition with its !arge customer base in both areas, the Banking Front Office space as weil as the SME market, Digital added significant expertise to its traditional product portfolio and at the same time inherited another 6600 employees in 15 countries, including some operations in North America and the Far East.

Business Strate~y Part of the cooperative strategy was to establish a new company, DEE, Digital Equipment Enterprise, in Europe in parallel to the existing DEC organization. The premise was to fully benefit from the particular expertise these acquired sources had and from the advantages of their effective mode of operations in Iine with the very specific market requirements. By December 1991, a legally separate and 100% autonomaus organization, DEE consisting of Kienzle Data Systems, Philips Information Systems, and SME parts of Digital Equipment Corporation, was established. This autonomaus legal entity belonged to Digital Equipment Corporation and Mannesmann, yet the business model was to be quite different from "DEC classic." As a result of formally establishing DEE, two Digital organizations, DEC dassie and DEE, existed in the major countfies of Germany, France, England, Austria, Holland, Italy, Spain, Belgium, and Switzerland.

DEE was a means by which Digital could continue to focus its own competencies on the institutional market, while the DEE organization could focus on the small and medium-sized enterprises. The separation of the two organizational entities, DEC and DEE, was based on the rationale that due to differing demands ofthe customers in the industries, internal capabilities and mindsets need to differ in order to be compatible with customer demands. In most cases, the small and medium sized enterprises needed fast and easy access to small information systems. The delivery and maintenance of products and services thus required a flexible and responding organization that could meet demands within a short time period.

The boundary between the two organizations DEE and DEC was set by customer and product criteria in the form of accounts: !arge vs. small-sized companies or !arge, integrated systems vs. commodities. DEE was to focus on the SME market for customers who mainly wanted standard products with little service requirements. In order to operationally separate DEE from DEC, the accounts had to be divided. Whereas DEC wastobe preoccupied with 23 Digital named accounts, DEE was to concentrate on the no name accounts. The critical number to separate the small medium sized enterprises from corporate accounts was companies with revenues below $100 million and/or an employee number from 20 to 1000. As a result, not only the acquired computer divisions were to be part of DEE, but also those divisions of

201

DEC classic which concentrated on the SME market segment. 138 Managers in each country organization were responsible for clarifying these boundaries.

Acquiring these divisions and establishing a new entity meant that a set of goals for the small and medium sized enterprise market had to be reached. Digital was to become a visible force in the SME market by optimizing the infrastructure, by extending the sales ofDigital products and platforms and by taking advantage of cross fertilization of the acquired and existing technologies. These competitive advantages were tobe translated into a unique DEE businessmodeland organization design.

DEE Or~:anization Desi~:n After the formation of DEE, the primary goal was to integrate the existing Philips Information Systems and Kienzle Data Systems subsidiaries into one company in each company and make them operationally successful. The mission statement included maximizing profitable market share, managing the Desktop Services for Digital and developing an indirect sales channel by managing the Value Added Resellers (V AR) 139• In general, V ARs were application distributors from different manufacturers for a specific territory. They derived 25-50% of their revenues from value added services and applications. Instead of selling directly to the end user, Digital would sell their products to V ARs who would then be the interface to the customer.

The strategy to achieve the DEE mission was to ensure that a clear charter between DEE and DEC exists, to provide unique value added services to V ARs and end users, to invest in application software development or acquisition for the target markets, to use V ARs to expand the application and geographic coverage for selling, and to provide desktop services for all devices regardless ofthe vendor.

The features ofthe DEE business model included focusing on eight market segments: construction industry, discrete manufacturing, financial services, tourist industry, printing and publishing, local authorities, textile, and health care. The principle of the organization designwas "a lean and mean" structure. This meant building an efficient, low cost organization from Digital, Philips, and Kienzle resources. Headquarters only consisted of 11 professionals and the general manager of DEE. The countfies were to design their own business model taking into account the principle of cost­effectiveness concentrating on their operational activities. The primary functions which were established were -~ (accounting, billing), -~ (service delivery, desktop services), - product portfolio (application software development, product planning, technical support and training), - operations ( order processing and fulfillment, supplier relationships) and the - lines ofbusiness (travel, manufacturing, financial services, etc.).

138 On the other hand, those operational activities of the acquired companies which focused on !arge corporate accounts were tobe integrated into the DEC organization. 139 V ARs are resellers who sell total solutions (hardware, software, software services) to end users.

202

Manufacturing and research and development did not exist within DEE. Products were either produced by Digital, Philips, or Kienzle. The product set was referred to as application platforms including low and mid-range VAX machines, Risc, Ultrix workstations, Intel based SCO-Unix systems, andIntel based PC's. For the remainder of 1991 and the major part of 1992, DEE was to continue to offer, sell, and support all of the above mentioned technology. DEE's plan was to gradually replace all Philips and Kienzle products with DEC platforms.

Product marketing and delivery was thus kept within DEC. The product portfolio of DEE consisted of platforms and tools, general, horizontal and vertical software and services as weil as multivendor services. In terms of product strategy, a formal product roadmap and migration program for the products of Philips and Kienzle was established. All V AR recruitment, new application development and migration activities were to be focused on Intel based hardware. Thus, DEE was to move from proprietary products to open systems. 140 Other than affering application platforms, DEE also provided customer service for all multivendor equipment.

The DEE organization was to use as little infrastructure as possible from the DEC organization. Other than manufacturing and research and development, areas of connection existed in finance due to common worldwide reporting requirements and legal issues. The separation of the two operational units was going to be the basis for establishing different business models.

~ The DEE organization consisted of 10.400 employees -- 6.600 Philips and 3.800 Kienzle employees and additional 5% DEC employees. The goal was set to reduce the total number of employees by 30% within the first year. Whereas Kienzle and Philips employees had long term contracts that were passed on from the parents to DEE, some of the DEC employees had retum guarantees. Since the employees came from different company cultures, various salary Ievels existed within DEE. One of the first steps was to develop a DEE human resource strategy whereby one standard would exist for all employees.

In the country organizations, the general manager was chosen by Digital. In most cases, the manager which had experience in leading a !arge subsidiary in the country was named independent of company origin. Middle managers were then assigned by the general manager and the human resource department.

Termination Approximately a year after the organization was implemented, management of Digital Equipment Corporation had decided to acquire full ownership and merge the existing organization (DEE) into DEC classic. The reason for this decision was based on the existing conflicts between DEC and DEE. This was accentuated by a Iack of coordination in product development between the two organizations undermining the

140 Proprietary products are computer products which allow only limited access of several software applications on the same hardware. Open systems are computer products which allow a number of different software applications tobe run on the same hardware.

203

original intent to sell to the small and medium sized enterprise market. DEC had made an intemal decision (without prior approval of DEE) to stop the development of a product which was going tobe the primary product DEE was to sei!.

204

Appendix II: Research Design for Pilot Study

The study originated in a project idea which was formalized in the following manner:

In order to increase organization effectiveness, companies increasingly view collaborative strategies as a means to develop new capabilities. Cooperative arrangements are not a goal in themselves but an opportunity to meet a new set of objectives by different means. Ifthis is the case, cooperative arrangements are notjust legal and economic arrangements impacting an organization but represent a whole new understanding of how organizations engage in learning a different way to do business. The project specifically focuses on organizational development and learning processes and the critical consequences.

The overall objectives for the two projects were to: - establish a synthesis document of the DEE (EHPT) cooperative arrangement in terms

of organizational development - ensure knowledge transfer takes place based on major findings.

Investifiators: Contact was established between an internal organizational consultant (diversity strategist) and myself to ensure two responsible researchers for this project. The internal diversity strategist had over 20 years of experience with Digital Equipment Corporation and thus took an insider perspective. I tried to capture the outside perspective. Both conducted the interviews. A third person was secured for evaluation. This third person, a student in organizational studies, added to the evaluating process by making remarks about the interpretations and by ensuring that consensus was reached about answers to interview questions.

Population: There was a total of 6,500 DEE employees in all DEE countries at the outset of the project. These employees were spread over 9 countries: UK, France, Germany, Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, Austria, Spain, and Italy. Out of these 9 countries 5 were chosen for interviews. Country organizations with diverse characteristics were selected, yielding an heterogeneaus sample. The original countries chosen represented 85% of the employee pool to be selected from for interviews. When Germany withdrew due to business reasons, the size of this selection pool was reduced. The sequence of countries to be interviewed was Holland, Germany, France, Austria, Spain. When Germany withdrew, it was replaced by Belgium.

A representative sarnple of the organization was chosen for interviews according to the size (number of employees) of each country. An average of 2-3% of each population was included, dividing it by top management, cost center people, and operations. Organizational members from the three involved companies, Philips, Kienzle, and Digital were included in the interviews.

205

Before the outset of the interviews, a random sampling procedure was used. Each country was asked for an employee Iist indicating the Ievel of each employee (manager, cost center, or operations) within the organization and the company origin (Philips, Kienzle, Digital, in France Alcatel) of each person. From this Iist of employees the people interviewed were randomly selected. The only requirement was the presence of all original companies involved as weil as a representative selection of each Ievel within the organization according to the number of employees present.

Preparation of Participants: Country managers and human resource and organization (HRO) managers were contacted by the European DEE HRO manager to inform them that this study was going to take place. After this introduction to the countries, the intemal diversity strategist and I were introduced to all DEE HRO managers to further inform them about the study. Needs for the project and the selection process for people to be interviewed were explained. A Ietter informed all employees about the study. After the employees were selected for an interview, the HR managers were to tell them about their selection and fix interview appointments. The total process of data gathering took approximately three months, beginning in October and ending on December 17 1992 (approx. 180 hours).

206

Appendix 111: Case Comparison

The following figure provides an overview of the main aspects of the background of the two cases.

DEE EHPT

Locatjon of HQ Switzerland Sweden

Nurober of Subsjdjarjes 9 3

LQ~;<!tiQn Qf Subsidiarit;s UK, F, B, I, NL, S,F D,A,E,CH

EquitJ: Shat:t;S 65% (DEC) 60% (Ericsson) 35'% (Mannesmann) 40% (HP)

~ $ 1.108 Mio $44 Mio

S~;Qpt; Qf A~;1iyit:x: Sales, Marketing, Product Development, Sales, Service Marketing, Service

T:,:pe Qf Actiyit:,: Market Penetration Joint Development

Dependence Qf Parents Very High High

~ 90% Philips/Kienzle 95% Ericsson 10% Digital 5%HP

Number QfEmp!Q:,:ees 7185 314

Natl.lrt; Qf St;~;Qndmt;nt Philips/Kienzle: Ericsson: life time employment formal contract withDEE with possibility to

return within 2 years Digital: HP: depending on country short-term appointment

ranging from 2 years

The most significant differences between the two cases are the size of the two cooperative entities and the scope and type of activity. DEE was 25 times !arger in terms ofrevenue. Thus, the DEE country organizations were analyzed separately. This resulted in a less homogenaus picture of the cooperative entity as a whole since each country organization was specific in some aspect. In addition, the DEE cooperation was viewed as a market penetration tool whereas EHPT was a joint development organization that was to open opportunities in a changing market.

207

Appendix IV: Interview Questions

Environmental Adaptation

• How would you describe the present extemal situation ofthe market (for EHPT)? • Are there any economic, political, social trends or demographic changes taking

place now and how do they impact you? • How would you predict the future developments in this market? • What products and services is EHPT affering to the market? • What difficulties do you encounter in dealing with customers? • What are your main concems right now?

• What were the motives in forming the joint venture? • How important is this joint venture for your business? • What is the vision of EHPT? how was it formed? • What is the mission ofEHPT? how was it formed?

• What Iead up to the development ofthe decision to collaborate? • What made you choose Ericsson/Hewlett-Packard? • What were the leading factors in that decision? • Can you explain the negotiation process in terms of the necessary preparations and

the contract terms?

• What were the transaction costs connected with the establishment of the joint venture?

• How do you compare this strategic option with other possibilities? • How do you (parents) ensure that you will benefit from the joint venture?

Objectives

• What are the main tasks of EHPT at this moment? • What function do you fulfill in the EHPT business? • How does EHPT have to Iook like in the future m order to deal with the

challenges?

Capabilities

• What products and services have to be provided? • What were the main problems you had to solve in the recent past? • How did you solve them? Who did you work with? • Who do you have to convince in order for new ideas to materialize?

208

Structure

• Can you explain the organizational structure of EHPT? • Who are the key contact people within the parent companies? • Who are the key contact people within the joint venture? • Who is responsible for the outcomes of the joint venture? • How does your process of information sharing between EHPT, HP and Ericsson

Iook like?

Relationship

• Can you give an example of an important event that had consequences of the development ofthe collaboration?

• How do you ensure feedback from the various companies? • Are there any areas of difficulties or conflict between Hewlett-Packard - Ericsson -

EHPT? • How do you deal with these conflicts? • What are the formal or informal mechanisms used to resolve the conflicts? • How would you define your relationship to Hewlett-Packard, Ericsson and other

EHPT sites?

Dependence

• How do you perceive your degree of dependency on Hewlett-Packard? Ericsson? • How high do you feel is the degree of control exercised by Hewlett-Packard? by

Ericsson? • How do you feel about your ability to decide without Ericsson/Hewlett-Packard's

involvement (individual, group and organizational Ievel) about e.g. services, marketing, etc.?

• Do you consider yourself autonomous?

• How do you perceive your control over EHPT? • What mechanisms do you employ to control the joint venture operations? • How do you budget for the joint venture in the future?

Le~itimacy

• Do you feel that your knowledge or the company knowledge has increased through the existence ofEHPT?

Interaction

• How would you evaluate the difficulties of managing the work force considering the different management practices ofthe original entities?

• Do you see any difficulties in the interactions between employees from the two parent companies?

209

• Do you feel that your values have changed since EHPT has come into existence? Do you have a new corporate culture?

• Are the values shared by top management, middle management, employees? • What are the values of this present culture? or With what words would you

characterize your present culture? • Is it difficult to establish your own management principles and practices? • Are present values differentlsimilar to previous parent companies? • How would you characterize Hewlett-Packard's culture? • How would you characterize Ericsson's culture? • Are you seeing that new values are emerging?

• What are the outcome measures of EHPT? • Have they changed since the establishment of EHPT? • Are there contrasts between goals and objectives between HP and Ericsson? • How frequently do you get involved in the process of clarifying issues conceming

your expectations about the results of the joint venture?

INTERNAL EHPT QUESTIONS

Leadership

• Is there clear leadership for EHPT? • Who is perceived as the Ieader? • Which other managers can be considered influential? Who is known in terms of

management? • What is the roJe ofHR in your organization?

Communjcation

• What information is generally shared in the organization? • What information is generally not shared? • How is information shared? • (a) What information channels are used for sharing information? • (b) What informal information channels are used? • To what extent is information shared among empl'öyees, customers, suppliers, and

other stakeholders?

Decjsjon-makin~ process

• How do you make decisions? • Who is involved in this process? • How frequently are you involved in decision-making processes? • To what extent, if at all, do you use mechanisms (e.g. teams, employee

involvement) for decision-making? • Do they work? • How do you know they work?

210

Conflict-resolution process

• Are there any conflicts between the various stakeholders of the joint venture? • How do you handle these conflicts? • Do you have a formal or informal mechanism for resolving conflicts? • How do you escalate conflicts?

• Do you feel that your values have changed since EHPT has come into existence? Do you have a new corporate culture?

• Are the values shared by top management, middle management, employees? • With what words would you characterize your present culture? • Is it difficult to establish your own management principles and practices or a new

corporate culture? • Are present values different/similar to previous parent companies? • How would you characterize Hewlett-Packard's culture? • How would you characterize Ericsson's culture? • Are you seeing that new values are emerging? • Do you seen any difficulties in handling differences in interpretation? • How do you handle these differences?

211

Appendix V: Information Sheet

Since you have been selected as interviewee for the project that is going to be conducted, we would like to inform you about the objectives and content ofthe study.

The project will focus on understanding main factors enabling or hindering organizational learning to take place. This means showing the relationship between the critical Stakeholders of the cooperative arrangement as weil as the intemal functioning in the human resource and organization design area.

The following objectives have been proposed for the study:

- establishing a synthesis document ofthe EHPT joint venture. - ensuring knowledge transfer takes place based on major findings.

In order to achieve these objectives, it will be necessary to conduct interviews with organizational members of EHPT, Hewlett-Packard and Ericsson. Agneta Planander, doctoral student at the University of Lundt and I, Bettina Büchel - doctoral student at the University of Geneva will jointly conduct these interviews. It is important to underline that all information that you provide us with will be handled in a confidential manner.

The questions that we will ask will deal with the following subject areas:

1. Strategy 2. Culture 3. Organizational lnterdependencies 4. Leadership 5. Human Resource Management

212

Appendix VI: Contact Summary Form

Number of Total Interviews: 74 100%

Number oflnterviews within HP: 15 20.3% Number oflnterviews within Ericsson: 10 13.5% Number oflnterviews within EHPT: 49 66.2%

Site: Stockholm (EHPT) • Erling Storesund - EHPT (Ericsson) contract consultant, participated from start to

finish in the negotiations • Mikael Edholm - EHPT (HP) Business Development • Sten Olsen- EHPT (Ericsson) Operations Development • Lars Y Svensson- EHPT (Ericsson) Manager ofBusiness Unit Network

Management Systems, participated in the Polaris 141 discussions in one ofthe projects

• Mikael Balte- EHPT (Ericsson) Manager ofProduct Provisioning Unit • Hans Carlson - EHPT (Ericsson) Marketing, responsible for relationship between

HP andEHPT • Jan Karlsson -EHPT (Ericsson) general manager assistant (Anders Engvall) • Johan Bergendahl- EHPT (Ericsson) Manager ofProduct Provisioning • Anders Engvall- EHPT (Ericsson) General Manager, former manager ofBusiness

Unit- Network Management Systems, high involvement during negotiations • Skipper Rasmussen -EHPT (HP) Product Provisioning business Unit • Joaquin Molina - EHPT (HP) Marketing unit responsible for Spain • Claude Perrigault - EHPT (HP) Supply Manager, involved in Polaris discussions • Fraucis Gindein - EHPT (HP) Field Communication • Peter Perssou - EHPT (Ericsson) Product Management for TMOS Platform • Annette Oke-Bradman - EHPT (Ericsson) Human Resource unit • Hans Wester- EHPT Customer Services Manager (recruited outside with HP

background) • Ola Wittenby - EHPT (HP) Marketing responsible for Germany and Switzerland • Pierre Chabre - EHPT (HP) Product Manager of an application • Dag Mellgren - EHPT (HP) CAP Transfer Project • Seved Torstendahl- EHPT (Ericsson) System Management Unit (Product

Provisioning), some involvement in Polaris • Örjan Eriksson- EHPT (Ericsson) Manager ofProduct Management in Platform

Product Provisioning unit • Sounie Byrling - EHPT (Ericsson) Marketing Strategy • Johan Bergendahl - EHPT (Ericsson) Manager of Product Provisioning • Kent Linde - EHPT (Ericsson) Marketing Area Manager • Fredrik Ljungblom - EHPT (Ericsson) Marketing responsible for Spain and US • Timo Nikki - EHPT (HP) Marketing responsible for Finland • Bernt Kristiansen - EHPT (HP) Marketing Communication Manager • Mark Broms- EHPT Finance Manager (recruited from the outside)

141 Polaris was the name given to the negotiations before the jointventurewas officially announced.

213

Site: Grenoble (EHPT) • Mats Jonsson - EHPT Manager of Supply Unit, participated in Polaris • Luc Pittier - EHPT (HP) Supply Finance Manager

Site: Gothenburg (EHPT) • Sture Östlund - EHPT Marketing Manager (recruited from the outside with former

Ericsson experience) • Hakan Bolmsjö - EHPT (Ericsson) Engineering and Services Manager • Susanne Samuelsson -EHPT (Ericsson) Human Resource Unit (competence

development) • Jan Landarp - EHPT (Ericsson) Customer Services Unit Manager • Sven Ljungren- EHPT (Ericsson) Engineering and Services subunit Manager • Lars Kökeritz - EHPT (Ericsson) Marketing • Anna Wegen- EHPT (Ericsson) Technical Marketing, union representative,

participates at board meetings • Bertil Lundberg- EHPT (Ericsson) Marketing Assistant to Sture Ostlund • Hakan Hammaren- EHPT (Ericsson) Product Provisioning unit User Interfaces • Lars Axelsson - EHPT (Ericsson) Marketing responsible for UK • Jim Linlor - EHPT (HP) Customer Services subunit Manager • Kjerstin Ljungkvist- EHPT (Ericsson) Human Resource Unit (Rewards) • Anders Nyberg- EHPT (Ericsson) Project Ieader for Torben-Interface between

Open View and TMOS • Johan Losman- EHPT (Ericsson) Marketing Area Manager, involved in Polaris

discussions • Johnny Johnsson- EHPT (Ericsson) TMOS System Management Unit Manager • Peter Gundersen - EHPT (Ericsson) Engineering and Services subunit Manager • Ulf Larsson- EHPT (Ericsson) Torben project

Site: Grenoble (HP) • LuAnn Piccard- HP Alliance Manager, responsible for HP-EHPT cooperative

arrangement • Andre Meyer- HP Manager ofTelecommunications Systems BU, Member ofthe

EHPT Board of Directors, after participation in negotiations was "EHPT" sponsor within HP, was active manager ofHP Telecommunication Network Operation until replaced by Virgil

• Virgil Marton- HP Manager ofTelecommunication Network Operations, in close contact to Product Provisioning

• Micheie Prieur - HP responsible for CAP project (TNO) • Jacques Desserre- HP technical marketing (TNO) • Olivier Strievi - HP CAP Transfer Manager (TNO) • Jean-Pierre Dinet- HP Manager • Jean-Luc Gianduzzo- HP CAP ProductManager • Nigel Rogers- HP Telecommunication Systems Finance Manager, participated in

Polaris • Daniel Bosson - HP Supply Manager • Olivier Aba- HP LBB responsible, participated in Polaris

214

Site: Geneva (HP) • Jean Baillod - HP Corporate Development, participated in Polaris discussions

• Bob Venus - HP Corporate Development, participated in Polaris discussions

• Heinz Fischer- HP European Human Resource Manager

Site: Gothenburg (HP) • Martin Rosell - EHPT Account Manager

Site: Stockholm (Ericsson) • Kari-Hendrik Sundström - Ericsson controller who closely monitors the progress of

EHPT • Jan-Anders Dalenstam - Ericsson Mobile, works closely with EHPT • Stellan Nennerfeldt- EHPT Board ofDirector, participated in Polaris discussions,

Manager ofEricsson Mobile BU • Jan-Eric Nordin - Ericsson Corporate Development, participated in Polaris

discussions • Anders Bremmer - Ericsson Accounting, works for Karl-Hendrik Sundström, was

temporary, (finance manager for EHPT until new manager arrived)

• P-0 Sjöberg - Ericsson Alliance Specialist, participated in Polaris discussions

• Roland Hagman - Ericsson Controller, participated in Polaris discussions

• Lars Wiklund - Ericsson Human Resource Manager • Bo Nilsson - Ericsson Partner Manager, participated in Polaris discussions

• Britt Paju - Ericsson HR departrnent

215

Appendix VII: Document Summary Forms

Documept Form #1 Site: Stockholm

Briefsummary ofcontents· These documents exp1ain telecommunication management and provide an official review of the first year of EHPT's operations. They describe EHPT as company and its policies.

Brachures on the new partners in Telecommunication Management Review of the EHPT Operations EHPT Organization Chart EHPT Goals 1994 Leadership Synergies between Ericsson and HP EHPT Operations Description - 28.12. 93 EHPT Operations Development- EHS/FO 2.3.94 EHPT Management, Function and Unit Responsibilities- 21.1.94 EHPT Palieies- 27.12.93 EHPT Survey Results in Swedish EHPT Management Groups- 2.4.94 EHPT Main Interactions- 8.2.94 EHPT Order/Supply Process- 24.1.94 EHPT Supply Organization- 8.2.94 EHPT Supply Objectives EHPT Cast of Sales EHPT Management Meeting No. I- 10.1.94 Handwritten Notes from Management Meeting No. 1 Summary ofManagement Meeting No. 1-20.1.94 Follow-up Information on EHPT Management Meeting No. 1- 26.1.94 EHPT Management Meeting No. 2- 18.4.94 NMAS for CCS7 Network Management Props EHPT Telephone Directory

Eyent or contact wjth wbich document js assocjared· Jan Karlsson (EHPT Operations, Policy, Management Groups and Meeting, Argus) Claude Perrigault (Supply Process, Interactions, Objectives, Organization) Karl-Hendrik Sundstrom (Cast of Sales)

216

Document Form #2 Site: Stockholm

Brief summru:y of contents · The Business Plan as it was prepared by Mikael Edholm and to be presented to the management team and board of directors was not accepted as such until it was changed to Business Vision. Since the vision was not jointly developed, the vision did not get the acceptance throughout the company. Originally the vision was to be the revised business plan.

Managing Change is a document prepared by Mikael which is to show the development of EHPT's environment including the key players in the market, their roles, the possible opportunities. This was one of the first documents I received trying to explain the business ofEHPT.

Win~ows of Opportunity is a document written in June, 1994 explaining the possible business options for EHPT in the future.

Business Plan 1994 Business Vision Managing Change Volume 1, 2, 3 Windows of Opportunity Mikael's Overheads on the Vision Business Development Role EHPT Business Development - 21.1. 94

February 4, 1994 April, 1994 January to April, 1994 June, 1994

Event or contact with which document is assocjated: Mikael Edholm

217

Document Form #3 Site: Stockholm

Briefsummary ofcontents· The document provides an elaborate explanation of the goals of the joint venture as developed during the negotiations between HP and Ericsson. Project teams were created on both sides that worked in various areas of this business plan. The HP business plan method was used as a basis for that development. In November 1992, the document was ready and final negotiations concluded the deal.

Polaris Business Plan - Executive Summary - Mission Statement - Strategie Objectives - Customers, Markets and Channels - Competition - Necessary products, services and development plan - Financial analysis - potential problems - 1st year tactical plan

Event or contact with whjch document is assocjated: Jan Karlsson

Document Form # 4

Brief summary of contents · Summary ofTMOS, its architecture, applications etc.

TMOS Design Management Seminar Participant List Description ofthe TMOS System

Site: Gothenburg

218

Documeot Form # 5 Site: Stockholm

Brief surnmary of contents · These documents show Ericsson's and EHPT's activity in the area ofhuman resources.

EHPT Human resource documents: Performance appraisal document (new) Training record Planning for training Salary Policy and Revision Document List for Compensation Recruiting Process and Profile Instructions concerning personal files EHPT Management Improvement Package - target and steps Management meeting 18-19 Jan. 94 EHPT Human Resource Interna! Customer Survey December 1993 New Employee Interviews 10.8.93 Training Course Program EHPT Human Resources Staff Manual - EHPT Goals 1994 - Operations Descriptions and Development Plan - Job descriptions - Action Plans - Training Record, Development Plan -Budget - Survey

Ericsson Human Resource Documents: The MCCO - Model for Competence Careers for Occupational Categories Ericsson Management Institute Program Interna! Information from Ericsson on Model for Competence Careers for Occupational Categories Interna! Information from Ericsson on MKY (MCCO) Project- activities Performance Appraisal and Career Development Talks- Advice to Managers Candidate Identification Ericsson world-wide management planning I, 2 - Candidate identification and development, 3 -No chain is stronger than its weakest link, 4 - Management selection, 5 - Evaluation guide, Job analysis

Event or contact with which document js assocjated: EHPT documents were obtained from HR personnel - trammg and reward (Gothenburg), communication and management improvement package (Stockholm). Each responsible was only able to give information in their area of responsibility. Ericsson HR documents were obtained by the responsible for management planning or by EHPT HR personnel.

219

Document Form #6 Site: Gothenburg

Brief summazy of contents · The documents presents the summary ofthe seminar (in mid September 1993) worked out with the group of engineers headed by Anders Nyberg. It presents the various prob1ems of the joint venture and tries to point to the most important points. According to Anders, the general manager, this document did not receive a Iot of attention amongst management.

Event or cootact with which document js assocjated· Anders Nyberg - engineer that works on the overlap between TMOS and OPEN VIEW (TOB)

Document Form # 7 Site: Stockholm, Grenoble, Geneva

Brief summazy of contents · The Open View Documents provide an overview of the HP network management product. The organization charts describe the organizations interfacing with EHPT and the people that hold various positions.

The TMOS evolution documents presents HP Grenoble's perspective of the evolution of TMOS. According to Virgil Marton both EHPT and HP could not agree on this document due to misunderstandings, thus no action followed.

The HP way explaios HP's values. Polaris Post-Mortem evaluates the joint venture after one year of operation.

HP Documents: Open View Network Node Manager Open View Distributed Management Products Hewlett-Packard Corporate Organization Telecommunication System Business Unit/TNO/Lab Organization Telecommunication Networks Operation Salutions Integration Group EHPT-HP TNO Cooperation Seminar EHPT TMOS Evolution- 31.8.94 Mission of EHPT from HP perspective HP 1993 Annual Report Polaris Post-Mortem

Event or contact wjtb wbjcb document is assocjated· Open View Documeots from Bemt Kristianson Organization documents from TNO- LuAnn Piccard EHPT- HP TNO from LuAnn Piccard TMOS Evolution and Mission from Virgil Marton Tbe HP way from Heinz Fiseber HP 1993 Annual Report from Heinz Fischer Polaris Post-Mortem from Bob Venus

220

Document Form #8 Site: Stockholm

Briefsummary of contents: These documents provide an overview of Ericsson, products related to EHPT, the financial accounting principles that also apply to EHPT as weil as general information.

Ericsson Documents: Ericsson Report on 1993 Operations Ericsson Organization Chart FMAS Setting new standards for network operation eXchange Manager Pulling tagether our global systems development expertise Argus Principle- Financial Steering ofResearch and Design Finance Function EHS Ericsson Addresses Booklet Ericsson Presentation Booklet

Event or contact with which document is assocjated: Jan Karlsson

Document Form #9

Brief summar.y of contents:

Site: Stockholm

These documents describe partnering, critical success factors, practices and analyses.

Documents related to JointVenture Topic: Best Customer and Supplier Partuering Practices in the US Semiconductor lndustry The Management oflnterfirm Alliances - Thesis The Management oflnterfirm Alliances - Article Interna! Ericsson Information of Sjöberg on Ericsson- HP Alliance- 3.3.93 Proposal for Survey to explore cultural differences- 22.10.92 by Sjöberg "Ifyou cannot do it on your own, do not do it at all" Setting the correct speed for Postroerger Integration Implementation and Performance Review The Six Organizational Model (Weisbord) Alliances over borders in Swedish GSM Going Global - History oflnfrastructure for digital cellular networks

Event or contact with whjch document js associated· Received from a person during an interviewthat was interested in partnerships. Alliance documents received by Sjöberg Setting the Correct Speed from Bob Venus Implementation and Performance Review from Bob Venus Six Organizational Model from Jan Karlsson

221

Appendix VIII: Standards for the Quality ofParticipatory Research­Trustworthiness?

The question whether a research methodology can be considered scientific or trustworthy centers around objectivity. The term objectivity is, however, an ambiguous concept. It builds on the natural sciences and refers to the assumption that everything in the universe can be explained in terms of causality. "So much that has been written on methods of explanation assumes that causation is a matter of regularities in relationships between events, and that without models ofregularities we are left with allegedly inferior, 'ad hoc' narratives. But social science has been singularly unsuccessful in discovering law-like regularities." (Sayer, 1992:2)

Quantitative researchers continue to criticize qualitative approaches based on two flaws (Stoecker, 1991). The firstproblern centersaraund the threat of bias and its impact on internal validity. The second problern focuses on the inability to generalize findings to other settings. In the literature, we have seen two responses to these critiques (Stoecker, 1991; Johnson!Altheide, 1990). One group ofresearchers tries to develop more rigorous and sophisticated qualitative techniques for ensuring reliability and validity. The second group shows that qualitative research fills the gap of quantitative research and should be evaluated on other criteria. 142

In the following section, issues of reliability and validity as weil as alternative criteria for evaluation will be discussed within the context of my case. These criteria, which were developed in the process of conducting research and scanning the relevant Iiterature will be made explicit by describing the research process, problems, data sources, and investigators. By presenting the research and screening methods as weil as the criteria for evaluation, the results of this dissertation should fulfill the most important requirement of scientific work: arriving at results under controlled circumstances.

Interna! Validity - Credibility Interna! validity is usually defined as the extent to which variations of the dependent variable can be associated with the controlled manipulation of the independent variable. It is based on the assumption that an objective reality exists and researchers undertake scientific projects in order to obtain this truth. The conventional strategy to provide compelling evidence is to eliminate rival hypotheses by testing it against nature. Based on these grounds, participatory research is judged inappropriate or "nontrustworthy on the grounds that controls and/or randomization were not effected," yet to state this is "to miss the point that, at bottom, those techniques are appropriate insofar as one can buy into the assumption of naive realism" (Lincoln!Guba, 1985: 295). 1fthat assumption is rejected and replaced by the constructivist perspective, then the value of research is to show the multiple constituencies. Research becomes credible in qualitative terms when the researcher carries out the inquiry in a way that the probability that the findings are "valid" are enhanced by having the outcome approved by the constructors (Lincoln!Guba, 1985 :296).

142 "Different research perspectives make different kinds of knowledge claims, and the criteria as to what counts as significant knowledge vary from one to another" (Morgan, 1983: 15).

222

In order to enhance credibility of qualitative findings, several approaches are proposed by Lincoln/Guba (1985) of which I have employed the majority. The authors suggest the following strategies:

prolonged engagement persistent observation triangulation of sources, methods, investigators peer debriefing negative case analysis referential adequacy member checking

- scope - depth and relevance

- multiple checks - exploring implicit ideas - revise working idea - allowing others to critique - consensus validation

Prolonged engagement helps in learning about the context, trusting the information and perceiving distortions as weil as building trust. I stayed within the organization for approximately six months giving organizational members the opportunity to trust me and the way I treated the information I obtained. By learning about the organization and its members, I got a better understanding of my personal biased perceptions as weil as the informant's distortions, thus enabling me to neglect or incorporate certain information. Both the personal biases and distortions through "misinformation" require that the researcher is sufficiently involved in the context in order to detect these problems through reflection (Lincoln/Guba, 1985).

Persistent observation establishes salience. Whereas prolonged engagement produces scope, persistent observation helps in producing depth and relevance. I was able to examine intersubject agreement by repeatingly questioning Statements through observation and discussing the results with my co-investigator. Due to persistent observation, I was also able to Iabel and categorize information during the process of data gathering and explore these Iabels further when the opportunity arose. This happened in EHPT. Although I had not planned to ask about their product development process, it became clear during the first interviews that product development played a crucial role in the development ofthe organization.

Triangulation of source, method, and investigators is employed to obtain multiple copies (1) of one type of source, (2) of different sources of the same information, (3) of different data collection methods to produce one result, or (4) of different perceptions of the investigators of the same phenomenon. I used different data gathering methods and sources: interviews, observation and documents in order to cross-check the content. Since we were two investigators, we were able to jointly examine intersubject agreement.

Peer debriefing helps in exposing oneself to an analytic session for the purpose of exploring some implicit idea. It helps in uncovering biases, creates awareness, tests ideas, and clears the mind of emotions. I was able to present my data to my colleagues who then questioned my approach and findings. Negative case analysis is undertaken

223

to revise hypotheses until the cases are known without exception. Both peer debriefing and negative case analysis went hand in hand since it allowed me to revise working hypotheses.

I tape-recorded the interviews for later evaluation purposes in order to satisfy referential adequacy. Referential adequacy is a means of ensuring that others can critique the work based on data.

The last criteria proposed by Lincoln!Guba (1985) is a crucial, yet difficult test to conduct. In order to obtain the validity needed, it is necessary to turn to the subjects and analyze the perceptions of the researcher. Member checks are conducted in order to assess the intentionality of members, to correct errors of perception, to add information, or to summarize findings (Lincoln!Guba, 1985). Involvement of the subjects in the research process helps understand the embeddedness of the researcher and effects of perception. 143

Externat Validity- Applicability Extemal validity refers to the generalizations of causal relationships across different types of settings. Applicability, the term for extemal validity employed by qualitative researchers, poses a problem. Since qualitative researchers frequently conduct few in­depth inquiries within a limited number of settings, the transferability of findings across settings is difficult. In order to generalize across settings, a certain degree of similarity between situations is required which itself infers similar situational contexts. By controlling for the situation, generalizations across settings are made difficult. Y et, this argumentation is based on the assumption that generalizations will Iead to universal laws. If one does not accept an objective reality, the search for generalizations across situations becomes insignificant and one argues differently arguing that the context plays an important roJe in scientific research.

Whereas quantitative researchers will provide statistical confidence Iimits in order to ensure the extemal validity of findings, it is neither within the paradigm of qualitative research nor their methods to provide such measures. Instead, qualitative researchers posit working hypotheses with thick descriptions of the context in order to allow the reader to know when and if the findings can be transferred to similar situations. Both thick description and the presentation of the data employed are necessary for the reader to make the judgment whether the findings can be transferred. 144

ReHability - Dependability Reliability refers to the degree that a particular observation has yielded the "true" score (Neale/Liebert, 1986). Reliability defined as stability, predictability or

143 Contrary to quantitative criticism which assumes that the research subjects are neither honest nor knowledgeable, qualitative researchers rely on the subjects to agree with the behaviors, molivatians and meanings attributed to them (Stoecker, 1991: I 07). "While we need not abandon all efforts at obtaining foundational knowledge about social life, it is clear to us that such knowledge will emerge from collective assessments and critiques of descriptive accounts of social activities" (Johnson/Aitheide, 1990: 32). 144 Inslead of providing an index of transferability (statistical confidence), qualitative researchers provide the information so the reader can make his/her own judgment.

224

reproduction demonstrated by replication in order to yield "truth" is also based on the assumption ofthe existence of an objective reality. If one admits that everything in the social world changes, and stability only exists in the dynamics and the continual existence of change, then predictability has to be reduced to instrumental reliability. For qualitative researchers, instrumental reliability is achieved by avoiding variation of the research question. Since the researcher itself is an instrument, one ought to focus on the same research question across subjects. 145

In order to guarantee that the findings are dependable, several strategies can be employed. Employing multiple investigators increases the likelihood of reaching intersubjective consensus and makes the interpretations of the same phenomenon more consistent. Since the investigators are the primary instrument of inquiry, multiple researchers help in establishing dependability. We were two researchers who conducted interviews and observed, thus helping to ensure this criterion. An extemal audit consisting of someone who assesses the process of data gathering as weil as the product, the data itself, would have been another useful device in ensuring dependability. Yet due to inconvenience and the creation of interruptions of the research process, this element was not secured. Dependability is, however, finally linked to credibility. Ifthe findings are credible, then they are dependable.

Objectivity - Confirmability The tools employed in ensuring confirrnability are linked to the mentioned criteria: dependability, credibility, and applicability. What can be done additionally to help convince the audience of the conclusions drawn? One of the tools mentioned in helping the reader to judge the authenticity of the research is to establish an audit. 146

In order to ensure that traces of the research are left behind, I include as many sources of the data as possible. A second tool is to guarantee a multitude of triangulation, a criteria needed for credibility. As previously mentioned, this aspect has been taken into account. The third and maybe most important aspect is the researcher's reflection upon the work. 147

Since research in the field is essentially a social act, all statements are reflexive in that inquiry is to be located in the process and context of actual human experience (Johnson/ Altheide, 1990). As a result, reflexive accountability of the researcher includes presenting the work within the context -- entry into the organization, individual approach and self-presentation, researcher's roJe, misconceptions, surprises, types of data, data collection and recording, data coding and data demonstration. Reflexive accountability, the last criteria proposed for evaluation of confirrnable qualitative research, entails not only the communication of results, but also the

145 Inslead of proving that the measurement composed of a systematic and unaccounted-for random component is not due to chance factors, qualitative researchers differentiale between the consistent and inconsistent factors in order to show the variations in the context. 146 The audit is comprised of an audit process and an audit trail. The audit process entails the involvement of an extemal person from the beginning to the end with the task of controlling the researcher in the inquiry. The audit trail is comprised of the data collected, the analysis products, the data reconstruction and synthesis products, process notes, intentions and information about instrument development. 147 I have tried to reflect upon each step of the research process as I moved along.

225

research experience, the process of inquiry, and discovery. At best, however, qualitative research persuades the reader, but does not declare the findings as unassailable.