J. Appl. Environ. Biol. Sci., 7(7)80-90, 2017 | ISSN: 2090-4274 |
© 2017, TextRoad Publication | Journal of Applied Environmental and Biological Sciences |
www.textroad.com |
1Master in Project Management and Construction, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran 1988913154, Iran 2Ph.D. in Project Management and Construction, Associate Professor in Shahid Beheshti University,and Vice Chairman Of IPMA board, Tehran1983963113, Iran 3Ph.D. candidate for Project Management and Construction, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran 1511815314, Iran
Received: February 5, 2017 Accepted: April 29, 2017
Strategic alliance is a form of collaboration that brings learning opportunities for the partners. There is a large number of factors identified in previous researches which facilitate or hamper the process of gaining knowledge form partners through strategic alliances. The purpose of this paper is categorizing these factors according to their influence and importance from the local firm’s point of view in the context of construction industry’s international strategic alliances. To achieve this goal, a deep literature review has been done and critical factors which soothe the learning process and knowledge transfer in the alliances were derived from the valid sources. These factors were ranked in the 5-points Likert scale via structured interviews conducted with head managers of enterprises that were successful in the respect of learning and knowledge transfer in international strategic alliances. Finally, these factors were analyzed by T-test and categorized under the definition of three types: Core skills and resources, Key success factors (Conjunctive key success factors or Compensatory key success factors), and Slack skills and resources. According to the results of the analyses, it can be said that in the context of construction industry’s international strategic alliances in a developing country like Iran, local organizations should have adequate and relevant knowledge along sides with sufficient organizational resources as the core elements in order to enter the international strategic alliances. In order to have a successful learning process, the most important conjunctive key success factor for these enterprises is the actual involvement of managers. In addition, systematic approach for knowledge transfer and governmental supportive policies may appear as the compensatory key success factors. KEYWORDS: strategic alliances, construction industry, key factors.
Since one of the important elements accelerating the pace of economic growth of a country is development of infrastructure, the construction industry plays a major role in this field. Since technology is expanding and the complexity of the construction projects is increasing every day, the construction industry’s companies are notable to do the projects alone anymore. In this situation, partnering can be an opportunity for construction enterprises to pool their tangible and intangible resources in order to handle the projects. Different kinds of collaborative relationships are preferred to internalizea whole company, because for acquiring a whole company the acquirer should pay for non-necessary assets and is confronted with different integration problems[1]. Strategic alliance is a form of collaborative relationship between at least two members of the supply chain. It helps partners to reach their common goals [2,3] and also gives more power to them in order to seek their own strategies[4]. One of the most important assets that can be shared between partners is knowledge. Knowledge brings competitive advantages for organizations and is considered an essential asset for every enterprise. Many researches have shown that strategic alliances can provide learning opportunities for partners [1-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-1819]. Also, the relation between learning and alliance success is bilateral, because the succession of an alliance is reflected on the amount of skills and knowledge obtained from the alliance by partners [20-21-22]. In addition, it has been emphasized that international strategic alliances provide more chances for developing countries’ enterprises to gain knowledge than national ones [23-24-25]. But since forming such alliances is almost a new strategy for companies, especially for developing countries’ construction industry, and few researches have been done in this area, this paper seeks to find the key success factors that can help Iranian construction organizations to have a prosperous learning process in the context of international strategic alliances. For this purpose, after giving a brief
Corresponding author: Razieh Tavallaei, Master in Project Management and Construction, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran 1988913154, Iran. Cell: +989124196826, Tel: +982122439184, Fax: +982122439254
introduction of related subject literature, this paper explains the research methodology and survey results and subsequently presents the conclusion.
Strategic alliance is a form of cooperation networks that can be defined as a kind of contract or agreement [26] in which partners pool their resources [27] for a limited or unlimited period of time to reach their common goals [28]. Despite the tactical decisions which are short and temporary answers to the industries’ environmental changes, alliances are strategic and objective solutions [29]. In strategic alliances there are at least two partner companies which remain independent legally after alliance formation. They share the risks and control mechanisms over the alliances performance and have continued cooperation in one or more strategic areas like technology or production [30]. However, there are different categories of strategic alliances’ structures according to literature; there is not a unique agreement on them [31]. Nevertheless, according to the most expressed definitions, it can be said that there are two main general types of strategic alliances under the headlines of equity alliances and non-equity alliances [1623-32-31].
“Learning is acquisition of new knowledge” [33]. Many researchers believe that there are two main kinds of knowledge: Tacit and Explicit[19-23-34-35-36]. Tacit knowledge is embedded in the individuals’ beliefs, commitment and activities like know-how, and is hard to share with others; while, Explicit knowledge is systematic, formal and can be explained though charts, images and formulas[11-35-36-37]. Knowledge is possessed by individuals and is expressed by the principles via which members collaborate in a social community or group. So, although knowledge is held by individuals, it is transferred to the organizational level [38]. When organizations collaborate, they obtain new knowledge from each other. As Doz and Gary explain, alliance is a way for learning and internalizing new knowledge and skills, especially those which are tacit and embedded and therefore hard to be earned by other means [39]. In addition, when people with different backgrounds and opposite insights communicate with each other, new knowledge is created, because the new knowledge is the fruit of antithetical concepts’ interactions [40]. Furthermore, when more people are engaged in the communication process the speed of new knowledge creation is increased and the scope is expanded [10-23]. The process of creating new knowledge occurs both within and outside an organization [40]. It means that collaboration between enterprises enable them to create new knowledge [10-4142-43]. Moreover, the type of strategic alliance as a collaborative relationship affects the way of communication and the process of knowledge transfer [15]. The equity type of alliance provides more learning chances for partners as it needs closer and more cordial cooperation than non-equity ones [16]. Overall it can be said that various forms of collaborative relationships between organizations constitute a way for creating and acquiring new knowledge. This knowledge may bring competitive advantages for enterprises, including those that are active in the construction industry [44].
According to the definition presented by Grunert and Ellegaard, every organization’s skills and resources can be devided into three diffiernet types [45]:
In short, it can be said that the Core skills and resources are the nessecery and fundamental assets that an organization needs in order to enter a market. Key/Critical Success Factors are skills and resources which the firms’ superior performance relies on. Slack skills and resources can’t bring success for a specific business in a determined period of time; however, they may be the success factors for other areas of a market or for a different period of time.
Iran is a developing country with a young, innovative population who is seeking to learn and improve. Besides, Iranian organizations are willing to promote their young employees' capabilities to have innovative enterprises which can bring them a permanent competitive advantage. As indicated in the literature review, forming strategic alliances as a type of collaborative relationships between organizations can be a way for creating and gaining new knowledge. Forming these alliances has been a new strategy for Iranian enterprises, specifically for those who are involved in the construction industry. But the questions are: How can this learning process be improved? What are the key factors that make this process successful and enrich the knowledge assets of an enterprise? To answer these questions, a wide literature review on the subjects of learning through strategic alliances was done and a list of key/critical factors were derived from quantitative and qualitative researches done by experts and published in authentic sources. Then, these factors were measured in the context of Iranian construction industry’s strategic alliances. Since it has been proven by researchers that international cooperation leads to a better learning process than national ones [23-24-25], the survey population was limited to construction industry’s international strategic alliances between consultants. A questionnaire was prepared based on 5-pointLikert range to measure the priority and the degree of importance of driven CSFs. For determining the survey sample population, the list of first grade consultant firms recorded in the engineers’ society was identified. After explaining the subject of the research via email or telephone contacts interviewees were asked if they ever had an experiment in the field of international strategic alliance and if they evaluated their experiment successful in the aspect of learning by specifying the gained knowledge in the three given knowledge groups:
• New management methods [11-51]. Finally, ten construction organizations, who had successful experiments in regard of leaning in the context of international strategic alliances and were interested to join our survey, were selected. The pie chart below (Figure 1) shows the portions of the three knowledge groups that these ten organizations specified as gained knowledge:
Know-how Skills and abilities New management methods
Then a pilot survey was done and the personnel and managers who were involved in at least one successful learning international strategic alliance were asked to fill in the questionnaire. After analyzing the pilot survey, ambitious replies and deviation in the results proved that most of the people lacked information and the questionnaires should have been completed through interview; so that, the factors and their probable effects could be explained transparently. Besides, the interviewees should be the top managers of the international strategic alliances with high quality information and rich working experience in the industry. Overall, the questionnaires were filled in through structured interviews. Also, the nature and progress of the alliances were explained by the managers, and the factors were ranked according to their points of view.
Data collection and Analysis results As expressed in the methodology to recognize the list of learning key/critical factor in the context of alliances, a set of 25 valid resources written by experts in this filed were reviewed and a list of 31key/critical factors were driven, as exhibited in Table 1.
Key Factors
[61] [20] [25] [60] [23] [18] [59] [57-58] [44] [16] [56] [24] [10-11-37] [55] [50] [19] [54] [9] [22] [53] [1] [52] The no. of occurrence
• | Absorptivity | |||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
capacity and | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | 14 | |||||||||
receptivity | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
• | Learning | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | 11 | |||||||||||
intention | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
• | Systematic and | |||||||||||||||||||||||
structured | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
learning process | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | 11 | ||||||||||||
and/or knowledge | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
transfer1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
• | Programmed | |||||||||||||||||||||||
connections and | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | 10 | |||||||||||||
people | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
interactions2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
• | Existence of trust | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | 10 | ||||||||||||
• | Reforming home | |||||||||||||||||||||||
organizational | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | 9 | ||||||||||||||
context | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
• | Existence of | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | 9 | |||||||||||||
transparency | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
• | Partners with no different levels3 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | 8 | ||||||||||||||
• | Absence of | |||||||||||||||||||||||
complexity of | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | 7 | ||||||||||||||||
knowledge | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
• | Existence of | |||||||||||||||||||||||
clear, realistic and | + | + | + | + | + | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||
flexible | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
expectations | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
• | Investment on alliances4 | + | + | + | + | + | 5 | |||||||||||||||||
• | Managers | |||||||||||||||||||||||
engagement in | + | + | + | + | + | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||
alliances | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
• | Giving rewards | + | + | + | + | + | 5 |
1 Like training programs[23] 2 Formal and informal 3Different standards, information, competitive position, language and culture, power 4 Time, money, physical assets
J. Appl. Environ. Biol. Sci., 7(7)80-90, 2017
• | Common goals and strategies | + | + | + | + | + | 5 | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
• | Intensity of effort | + | + | + | + | 4 | ||||||||||||||
• | Quality of staffs | + | + | + | 4 | |||||||||||||||
• | Constructing crisis5 | + | + | + | 3 | |||||||||||||||
• | Prior cooperation experience | + | + | + | 3 | |||||||||||||||
• | Seeking for skill | |||||||||||||||||||
gaps and complementary | + | + | + | 3 | ||||||||||||||||
resources | ||||||||||||||||||||
• | Absence of stress and tension | + | + | 2 | ||||||||||||||||
• | Supportive government | + | + | 2 | ||||||||||||||||
policies | ||||||||||||||||||||
• | Alliance stability and longevity | + | + | 2 | ||||||||||||||||
• | Size of organization | + | + | 2 | ||||||||||||||||
• | Increasing the | |||||||||||||||||||
number of evolved people in | + | + | 2 | |||||||||||||||||
interactions | ||||||||||||||||||||
• | Absence of | |||||||||||||||||||
restricted agreements for | + | + | 2 | |||||||||||||||||
the alliances | ||||||||||||||||||||
• | Alliance performance | + | + | 2 | ||||||||||||||||
• | Gaining new knowledge | + | + | 2 | ||||||||||||||||
• | Alliance as a core | |||||||||||||||||||
activity for | + | + | 2 | |||||||||||||||||
organization | ||||||||||||||||||||
• | Existence of | |||||||||||||||||||
related knowledge to the alliance | + | + | 2 | |||||||||||||||||
activities | ||||||||||||||||||||
• | Increasing the number of | + | 1 | |||||||||||||||||
partners | ||||||||||||||||||||
• | Tolerance for redundancy | + | 1 |
Then these factors were placed in the questionnaire and their importance in respect of their influence on the learning process in construction industry’s international strategic alliances were scored by 5-point Likert ranges through the structured interviews conducted with 40 professionals in this field.
5Middle level of crisis or constructed crisis
After collecting the data, the reliability of the answers was measured by using Cronbach's alpha coefficients. If the value of alpha is more than 7, the data is reliable[62]. Since the alpha for this data was 7.42, the data is reliable. The rates given to the factors based on 5-Point-Likert range were analyzed through T-test and the factors with an average score more than 3 (Test Value) were recognized as critical success factors. Other factors with an average score equal to or less than 3 were assumed as slack skills and/or resources. Also, the interviewees were asked to select the factors that play an essential role for entering alliances. Those factors can be named as core skills and resources. Surprisingly, all of the experts believed that Existence of knowledge related to the alliance activities and the Size of organization are the fundamental factors. An organization lacking of any of these factors can’t enter an alliance, and the failure of the learning process is inevitable. So these two factors were selected as the Core skills and resources. The result of the analysis is shown in Table 2.
Table 2:T-test results
Factors | T-test analysis average score | Result | |
---|---|---|---|
• | Existence of related knowledge | 5 | Supported |
• | Size of organization | 5 | Supported |
• | Managers’ engagement in alliances | 4.1 | Supported |
• | Seeking for skill’s gaps and complementary resources | 4.1 | Supported |
• | Existence of trust | 4 | Supported |
• | Intensity of effort | 4 | Supported |
• | Quality of staffs | 4 | Supported |
• | Alliance performance | 4 | Supported |
• | Gaining new knowledge | 4 | Supported |
• | Alliance as a core activity for organization | 4 | Supported |
• | Programmed connections and people interactions | 3.8 | Supported |
• | Investment on alliances | 3.8 | Supported |
• | Constructing crisis | 3.7 | Supported |
• | Existence of transparency | 3.6 | Supported |
• | Absorptivity capacity and receptivity | 3.4 | Supported |
• | Learning intention | 3.4 | Supported |
• | Reforming home organizational context | 3.4 | Supported |
• | Common goals and strategies | 3.4 | Supported |
• | Previous cooperation experience | 3.4 | Supported |
• | Giving rewards | 3.3 | Supported |
• | Existence of clear, realistic and flexible expectations | 3 | not supported |
• | Systematic and structured learning process and/or | 3 | not supported |
knowledge transfer | |||
• | Absence of stress and tension | 2.9 | not supported |
• | Partners with no different levels | 2.7 | not supported |
• | Supportive government policies | 2.5 | not supported |
• | Absence of complexity of knowledge | 1.9 | not supported |
• | Increasing the number of evolved people in | 1.7 | not supported |
interactions | |||
• | Absence of restricted agreements for the alliances | 1.7 | not supported |
• | Increasing the number of partners | 1.6 | not supported |
• | Alliance stability and longevity | 1.5 | not supported |
As explained in the previous section, the Table 2 shows the final result of data analysis. According to the information given in this table, it can be inferred that the factors described below are the conjunctive key success factors for gaining knowledge through international strategic alliances in the context of Iran’s construction industry.
1. Managers’ engagement in alliances: the mangers’ engagement refers to their willingness and their condemnation attitudes toward learning process. It means that there should at least be a directive and supportive power who nurtures the knowledge transmutation[10]. These managers should be familiar with
J. Appl. Environ. Biol. Sci., 7(7)80-90, 2017
the knowledge transfer progress and the organizational procedures in order to be sure that the knowledge flow is moving correctly through organizational units[25]. However, manager’s engagement can be costly[10]. Nevertheless it is necessary for developing countries’ enterprises which are experiencing young international collaborations and don’t have enough experience in this context [56].
acquire more knowledge in order to produce the outputs and reach their goals[44-53-60]. Other factors were recognized as slack skills and resource. These are not key factors for having a prosperous learning process, according to the opinions of Iranian international strategic alliances’ experienced senior managers. These slack factors are:
• Alliance stability and longevity The interviewees believe that even though the influence of the above mentioned factors are important in the learning process, they are not the critical/key success factors that prosperous learning depends on. They think that these factors don’t affect the learning process and knowledge transfer through international strategic alliances. For example, they believe that the absence of flexible or clear expectations isn’t a crucial issue. If the intention of learning is actually institutionalized in the partners’ goals, the expectations will be shaped during the first steps of alliance formation. After a while, partners automatically gain a real imagination of what they want and adjust their expectations mutually. Especially in international alliances where the foreign partners have experience in the context of collaboration, they help the Iranian local partners to form and crystalize their expectations. In addition, these interviewed professionals state that other factors like stress, tension, complexity of knowledge, differences in partner’s levels and restricted agreements are not the barriers for successful learning through alliances. They believe that these factors may seem like obstacles at first glance, but they can be managed accordingly. Therefore, they are not considered factors whose elimination is a crucial issue. Furthermore, the professionals explained that usually the number of the partners and the people assigned to the strategic alliances is sufficient. Increasing their number might cause conflicts and make the management of the alliance an arduous task. Also, they say that normally the time allocated to the alliance is sufficient as well. Longevity of the alliances’ period may create dependency and prevent them from trying to internalize the gained knowledge. Due to the source of knowledge is always convenient, they neglect the necessity of learning. However, the interview didn’t rate the two factors as the conjunctive critical success factors:
1. systematic and structured learning process and/or knowledge transfer
2. supportive government policies The professionals expressed during the interviews that these factors can be named as the compensatory success factors. This means that they cannot be considered as conjunctive success factors because they are not easy to achieve yet. Whenever the organizations implement a part of these factors, they improve their ability for gaining knowledge, compensate the lack of some other resources or skills and increase the probability of having a favored learning process through international strategic alliances. In other words, if the enterprises are able to implement a systematic learning approach within their organizations, they improve their chance to gain further knowledge. As Hamel indicates, learning happens by design, not by chance[1]. The existence of a structured learning process which uses information technology software and hardware beside a planned program helps organizations to attain incisively what they desire and helps them to distribute and internalize the gained knowledge in the organizational units; however, Iranian construction organizations haven’t met this condition and structure yet. Also, the interviewees believe that if the government supports the international strategic alliances and smooths the industry atmosphere in order to facilitate the foreign organizations’ presence in the collaborations, the opportunity to have a successful learning process through these collaborations can be enhanced. The government might support international alliances by allocating budgets, reducing taxes, simplifying the process of getting visa and so on.
J. Appl. Environ. Biol. Sci., 7(7)80-90, 2017
Due to the high velocity of technical growth, enterprises are unable to continue their activities in the construction industry alone. They should cooperate with other organizations in order to share their resources and gain competitive advantages. One of the most important assets of every firm is its knowledge, which can be shared and increased through collaboration. International strategic alliance is a form of collaboration that brings learning opportunities for the partners. In this regard, in Iran as a developing country, the construction enterprises should have adequate knowledge related to the alliance subject and a suitable organization’s size referring to their assets. This way they may enter international strategic alliances. It is useless to form an alliance without core skills and resources, including basic knowledge and enough resources such as human and physical resources. Also, there are some factors that can be named as critical success factors on which enterprises should rely in order to have a prosperous learning process in alliances. Examples of such factors are direct engagement of the management in the alliances tasks and seeking for skill’s gaps. Besides, there are some other factors like government supportive policies and existence of a systematic learning structure which may accelerate the learning and gaining knowledge and maybe named as compulsory success factors. In conclusion, construction industry enterprises in a developing country like Iran should consider these three groups of factors. They may help them to enhance the probability of gaining knowledge through international strategic alliances and enrich their knowledge resources.
[1] G. Hamel, "competition for competence and interpartner learning within international strategic alliances," strategic management journal, vol. 12, pp. 83-103, 1991.
[2] . C. W. Eddie , H. Li, P. E. Love and Z. Irani, "Strategic alliances: a model for establishing long-term commitment to," Building and Environment 39, p. 459 – 468, 2004.
[3] Kwok, Tommy , Hampson and Keith, "STRATEGIC ALLIANCES BETWEEN CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS -A TENDER EVALUATION CRITERION FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS SECTOR," in International Conference on Construction Process Re-engineering, Australia, 1997.
[4] R. Wilson , A. Songer and J. Diekmann , "Partnering: more than a workshop, a catalyst for change," Journal of Management in Engineering, p. 11(5):40–5, 1995.
[5] G. D. Holt, P. E. Love and H. Li, "The learning organisation: toward a paradigm for mutually benecial strategic construction alliances," International Journal of Project Management, vol. 18, pp. 415-421, 2000.
[6] J. Barney, "Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage," Journal of Management, pp. 99-120, 1991.
[7] R. Hall, "The strategic analysis of intangible resources," Strategic Management Journal, vol. 13 (2), p. 135, 1992.
[8] W. K. K. S.-D. L. Powell, "Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology," Administrative Science Quarterly , p. 116–145, 1996.
[9] D. C. Mowery, J. E. Oxley and B. S. Silverman, "STRATEGIC ALLIANCES AND INTERFIRM KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER," Strategic Management Journal, vol. 17, pp. 77-91, 1996.
[10] A. C. Inkpen, Creating Knowledge through Collaboration, vol. 39, 1996, p. 123–140.
[11] A. C. Inkpen, "LEARNING THROUGH JOINT VENTURES: A FRAMEWORK OF KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION," Journal of Management Studies, vol. 37, no. 7, pp. 0022-2380, November 2000.
[12] A. Inkpen, "An examination of knowledge management in international joint ventures," in Cooperative Strategies.NorthAmerican Perspectives, San Francisco, TheNewLexington Press, 1997, pp. 337-369.
[13] K. N. Iyer, Learning in Strategic Alliances: An Evolutionary Perspective, vol. 10, 2002.
[14] B. Kogut , "Joint ventures: Theoretical and empirical perspectives," Strategic Management journal, vol. 9, pp. 319332, 1988.
[15] M. Easterby-Smith, M. A. Lyles and E. W. K. Tsang, "Inter-Organizational Knowledge Transfer:Current Themes and Future Prospects," Journal of Management Studies, vol. 45, pp. 0022-2380, June 2008.
[16] C.-J. Chen, "The effects of knowledge attribute,alliance characteristics, and absorptive capacity on knowledge transfer performance," R&D Management, vol. 34, pp. 311-321, 2004.
[17] S. Janczak, "Knowledge and learning in strategic alliances: how to learn with cooperation," Problems and Perspectives in Management, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 39-47, 2008.
[18] P. Otto and G. P. Richardson, "Interorganizational learning: A dynamic view on knowledge development in strategic alliances," in In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Oxford, 2004.
[19] D. Lei, J. W. Slocum, Jr. and R. A. Pitts, "Building Cooperative Advantage: Managing Strategic Alliances to Promote Organizational learning," Journal of World Business, vol. 32, no. 3, p. 203–223, Autumn 1997.
[20] C.-L. (. Liu, P. N. Ghauri and R. R. Sinkovics, "Understanding the impact of relational capital and organizational learning on alliance outcomes," Journal of World Business, vol. 45, p. 237–249, 2010.
[21] B. Simonin, "The Important of Collaborative know-how: An empirical test of the learning organization," Academy of Management Journal, vol. Vol. 40, pp. 1150-1174, 1997.
[22] Y. Doz, "The evolution of cooperation in strategic alliances: Initial conditions or learning processes?," Strategic Management Journal, vol. 17, pp. 55-83., 1996.
[23] A. Inkpen and K. Ramaswamy, Global Strategy:Creating and sustaining Advantage across Borders, New York: OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2006.
[24] L. Kim, "Absorptive Capacity, Co-opetition,and Knowledge Creation:Samsung’s Leapfrogging in Semiconductors," in Knowledge Emergence:Social, Technical, and Evolutionary Dimensions of Knowledge Creation, I. Nonaka and T. Nishiguchi, Eds., New York, Oxford, 2001, pp. 281-297.
[25] J. M. d. C. Lima, Patterns of Internationalization for Developing Country Enterprises:Alliances and Joint Ventures, Vienna: UNITED NATIONS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION, 2008.
[26] J. Broome, Procurement Routes for Partnering – A Practical Guide, London: Thomas Telford, 2002.
[27] S. Haghbin, M. Hosseinalipour and A. Mohebifar, "Investigation of Iranian General Contractors' Collaboration in Social Network of Construction," Journal of Applied Environmental, pp. 17-24, 2014.
[28] P. F. Takac and C. Singh, "Strategic Alliances in Banking," Management Decision, vol. Vol.30 No.1, pp. 32-43, 1992.
[29] E. W. K. Tsang, "A Preliminary Typology of Learning in International Strategic Alliances," Journal of World Business, vol. 34, no. 3, p. 211–229, Autumn 1999.
[30] Yoshino, Michael Y. and U.Srinivasa Rangan, Strategic Alliances: An Entrepreneurial Approach to Globalization, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995.
[31] L.-S. Kim , Trust, Risk and Control in Strategic Alliances: A Case Study, Australia: Monash University, 2005.
[32] . T. Das and B. Teng, "A risk perception model of alliance structuring," Journal of International Management, vol. Vol. 7(1), pp. 1-29, 2001.
[33] S. Rodan, "Exploration and exploitation revisited:Extending March’s model of mutual learning," scandinavian journal of manangement, p. 407–428, 2005.
[34] I. Nonaka, N. Konno and R. Toyama, "Emergence of “Ba”," in Knowledge Emergence:Social, Technical, and Evolutionary Dimensions of Knowledge Creation, I. Nonaka and T. Nishiguchi, Eds., New York, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2001, pp. 13-29.
[35] M.polany, the tacit dimention, New york: Anchor day books, 1996.
[36] I. Nonaka, The knowledge-creating company, Harvard Business, 1991.
[37] A. Inkpen, "Learning, Knowledge Acquisition, and Strategic allinces," European Management Journal, vol. 16, p. 223–229, 1998.
[38] B.kogut, and U.zender, "knowledge of the firm and evolutionary theory of multinational corporation," organization science, p. 384, 1992.
[39] Doz.Yves L. Hamel,Gray, allaince advantage: the artof creating value through partnering, Boston: Harvard bussiness school press, 1998.
[40] I. Nonaka, R. Toyama and N. Konno, "SECI, Ba and Leadership: a Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation," in MANAGING INDUSTRIAL KNOWLEDGE:Creation, Transfer and Utilization, I. Nonaka and D. J. Teece, Eds., London, SAGE Publications, 2001, pp. 13-43.
[41] I. Nonaka and H. Takeuchi, The Knowledge-creating Company, New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
[42] J. J. Badaracco, The Knowledge Link: How Firms Compete through Strategic Alliances, Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1991.
[43] S. Wikstrom and R. Normann, Knowledge and Value: A New Perspective on Corporate Transformation, London: Routledge, 1994.
[44] C. O. Egbu, ""Managing knowledge and intellectual capital for improved organizational innovations in the construction industry: an examination of critical success factors," Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 301 -315, 2004.
J. Appl. Environ. Biol. Sci., 7(7)80-90, 2017
[45] K. G. Grunert and C. Ellegaard, "The Concept of Key Success Factors:Theory and Method," in MAPP working paper no 4, 1992.
[46] P. R. Varadarajan, "A two-factor classification of competitive strategy variables," Strategic Management Journal, vol. 6, pp. 357-375, 1985.
[47] C. Bullen and J. Rockart, A primer on critical success factors, Cambridge,MA: Center for Information, 1981.
[48] A. Inkpen and E. Tsang, "Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer," Academy of Management Journal, p. 146–165, 2005.
[49] I. L. H. C. M. I. A. Tiemessen, "Knowledge management in international joint ventures," in Cooperative Strategies. North American Perspectives, San Francisco, New Lexington Press, 1997, p. 370–398.
[50] R. Larsson, . L. Bengtsson and K. Henriksso, "The Interorganizational Learning Dilemma:Collective Knowledge Development in Strategic Alliances," Organization Science, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 285-305, 1998.
[51] M. lyles, "Learning among JV-sophisticated firms," in Cooperative Strategies in International Business, Lexington, MA, Lexington books, 1988, pp. 16-301.
[52] W. M. Cohen; Daniel and A. Levinthal, "Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation," Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 35, pp. 128-152, march 1990.
[53] J. Child and L. Markoczy, "HOST-COUNTRY MANAGERIAL BEHAVIOUR AND LEARNING IN CHINESE AND HUNGARIAN JOINT VENTURES," Judge Institute of Management Studies, vol. 30, 4 July 1993.
[54] . E. Levitas, M. A. Hitt and M. T. Dacin, Competitive intelligence and tacit knowledge development in strategic alliances, vol. 8, Summer 1997, pp. 20-27.
[55] A. S. Hyder, "Differences between developed and developing country joint ventures — a reality or a myth?," International Business Review, vol. 8, p. 441–461, 1999.
[56] E. K. Tsang, "ACQUIRING KNOWLEDGE BY FOREIGN PARTNERS FROM INTERNATIONAL JOINT VENTURES IN A TRANSITION ECONOMY: LEARNING-BY-DOING AND LEARNING MYOPIA," Strategic Management Journal, vol. 23, pp. 835-854, 2002.
[57] B. L. Simonin, "AMBIGUITY AND THE PROCESS OF KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER IN STRATEGIC ALLIANCES," Strategic Management Journal, vol. 20, p. 595–623, 1999.
[58] B. L. Simonin, "An empirical investigation of the process of knowledge transfer in international strategic alliance," Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 35, p. 407–427, july 2004.
[59] F. Swierczekl and G. P. Dhaka, "Learning and its impact on the performance of manufacturing joint ventures in developing countries," Technovation, vol. 24, p. 53–62, 2004.
[60] W. B. Lin, "Factors affecting the correlation between interactive mechanism of strategic alliance and technological knowledge transfer performance," Journal of High Technology Management Research, vol. 17, p. 139–155, 2007.
[61] S. K. Muthusamy and M. A. White, "Learning and Knowledge Transfer in Strategic Alliances: A Social Exchange View," Organization tudies, pp. 416-441, 1 oct 2012.
[62] Momeni, Static analysis with S.P.S.S, Tehran: Ketabeno, 2007.
[63] P. W. Beamish, "The Design and Management of International Joint Ventures," in International Management: Text and Cases, 5th ed., Irwin, McGraw-Hill, 2003, p. 120–139.
[64] B. Nooteboom, Inter-firm Alliances -Analysis and Design, London: Routledge, 1999, p. 1.
[65] L. Kim, "Building Technological Capability for Industrialization: Analytical Frameworks and Korea’s Experience," Industrial and Corporate Change, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 111-136, 1999.