本篇研究整理過去相關文獻，並探討商業生態系統內夥伴選擇活動中何種特質的合作夥伴(趨近通才組織或專才組織)以及合作夥伴在平台上的定位相關性對組織績效的影響。本研究同時加入了一個調節變數，檢驗聯盟持續時間是否會加強或是減弱與趨近通才或專才組織合作以及定位相關性的影響力。

本研究共發展出四個假設來探討以上的問題，並以SDC Platinum資料庫中2010年1月1日至2018年12月31日共計九年間的全球觀光旅遊業的聯盟案件為樣本，最終樣本為200筆聯盟案，最後以最小平方法之迴歸分析來進行實證研究。

由實證結果得知，與接近專才的合作夥伴共同營銷對組織績效表現具有顯著負相關，亦即與接近通才的合作夥伴相比，與愈接近專才的合作夥伴共同營銷會帶來愈低的組織績效；另一方面，企業間的定位相關性對組織績效表現具有顯著正相關，亦即企業在平台上的定位相關性愈高會帶來較佳的組織績效。此外，在調節效果的構面上，當聯盟持續時間愈長，與接近專才的合作夥伴共同營銷對組織績效表現的影響程度會隨之減少。

關於本研究之貢獻，首先，我們延伸商業生態系統的觀點，以相較整體觀的角度探討策略聯盟夥伴選擇的活動；同時，本研究延伸學術界尚未探究的議題，將可用資源的來源以及應用與聯盟活動做連結，以了解其對組織績效的影響；接著，我們檢驗出通才與專才組織以及與合作夥伴的定位相關性對於組織績效具有影響力，有助生態系統中的企業能更精準地尋找以及取得可以為其帶來更良好績效的資源；最後，本研究給予經理人重要參考依據，將合作夥伴的特質和定位相關性作為在夥伴選擇上其中的重要考量因素。

The Influence of Partner Selection on Firm Performance in Business Ecosystem: A Look at the Tourism Industry
Yu-Ting Peng
Chiung-Hui Tseng
Institute of International Business, National Cheng Kung University

SUMMARY

Prior literature focusing on the relationships between firms in a business ecosystem has not considered the source and applications of available resources. The purpose of this thesis is to understand what characteristics of alliance partners (more like generalists or specialists) and the level of positioning relatedness with the alliance partner would affect firm performance in business ecosystem. Furthermore, alliance length is also included as the moderator to examine whether this factor may strengthen or weaken the influence of the characteristic of alliance partner and the level of positioning relatedness. The study develops four hypotheses to investigate these questions, which are empirically tested with a sample of 200 tourism industry strategic alliance cases around the world announced between January 1st, 2010 and December 31st, 2018 drawn from Securities Data Corporation (SDC) database. And empirical results find that compare with firms that are close to generalists, alliancing with specialists may lead to worse firm performance; the higher positioning relatedness with the alliance partner, the better firm performance of focal firms.

Key words: Business Ecosystem, Firm Performance, Partner Selection, Tourism Industry

INTRODUCTION

Prior literature focusing on the relationships between firms in a business ecosystem has not considered the source and applications of available resources. The purpose of this thesis is to understand what characteristics of alliance partner (more like generalists or specialists) and the level of positioning relatedness with the alliance partner would affect firm performance in business ecosystem. Furthermore, alliance length is also included as the moderator to examine whether this factor may strengthen or weaken the influence of the characteristic of alliance partner and the level of positioning relatedness.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study develops four hypotheses to investigate these questions, which are empirically tested with a sample of 200 tourism industry strategic alliance cases around the world announced between January 1st, 2010 and December 31st, 2018 drawn from Securities Data Corporation (SDC) database. After we obtained the required information, least-squares regression analyze were used to run statistical tests.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Empirical results find that alliance with firms that are close to specialists has significant negative correlation with firm performance. In other words, compare with firms that are close to generalists, alliancing with specialists may lead to worse firm performance. On the other hand, the result also shows that positioning relatedness with the alliance partner has significant positive correlation with firm performance. In other words, the higher positioning relatedness with the alliance partner, the better firm performance of focal firms. In terms of the moderator, the longer the alliance length, the influence of alliancing with specialists on firm performance will be weaken. We also argued that the longer alliance, the positive correlation between positioning relatedness with the alliance partner and firm performance will be strengthen. However, the hypothesis is not supported.

CONCLUSION

This study attempts to find out what characteristics of alliance partner (more like generalists or specialists) and the level of positioning relatedness with the alliance partner would affect firm performance in business ecosystem. According to our findings, even though part of our hypotheses were not supported, we still could prove that the characteristic of alliance partner and the level of positioning relatedness may influence firm performance.
Regarding the theoretical contribution of this research. First, we extend the view of the business ecosystem to discuss the activity of alliance partner selection from a holistic perspective. From the perspective of business ecosystem, this study hopes to bring academic contribution to not only strategic alliance partner selection activities but other strategy-related research. We also expect further relevant research may enrich this research topic in the future. At the same time, this study extends the topics that have not yet been explored by the prior studies, linking the sources and applications of available resources with alliance activities in order to understand their impact on firm performance. Third, we find the relation of generalist and specialist and positioning relatedness with firm performance, helping companies in the business ecosystem to be more accurate on finding and obtaining resources that can bring better performance. It also echoes prior research on the organization's ability of absorbing and integrating resources.
This research also provides two managerial contributions. First, due to the changes of global economic environment, new technology development and consumer behaviors, companies in the industry that we focus on have generated the need to cooperate with others to create better performance. In this study, we find that compare with firms that are close to generalists, alliancing with specialists may lead to worse firm performance. In other words, alliancing with generalists may lead to better firm performance. Also, the longer the alliance length, firm performance will be better since alliance partners are more willing to build long-term relationships. Therefore, it provides managers an important consideration for the selection of alliance partners. Second, we find the higher positioning relatedness with the alliance partner, the better firm performance of focal firms. The reason is that it is easier to achieve higher value in integrating resources. And when companies and their alliance partners are facing environmental uncertainties, they may spend relatively lower coordination cost on developing new strategies because they hold similar core values. And this helps both focal firms and their partners achieve better organizational performance. So, when selecting alliance partners, managers may take positioning relatedness into consideration. These practical practices can also be provided to firms in other industries.
This research also has following limitations and suggestions. First, we collect cases announced between year 2010 and 2018. Due to time constraints, there might be bias. So, we suggest time to be lengthened to overcome time limitation and reduce the bias. Second, this study focuses on tourism industry. This made our findings unable to be applied to every industry due to the differences between them. Future research can focus on other industries. Furthermore, there are several methods to measure firm age and firm performance. We suggest that future studies may extend our model and try other measurements. Last but not least, we hope that future studies may apply the view of the business ecosystem to discuss not only strategic alliance partner selection activities but other strategy-related research.

Bucklin, L. P., & Sengupta, S. (1993). Organizing successful co-marketing alliances. Journal of Marketing, 57(2), 32-46

Carrol, M.R., & Levo, L. (1985). The association for specialists in group work. Journal of Counseling & Development, 63(7), 452-454.

Homburg, C., & Bucerius, M. (2005). A marketing perspective on mergers and acquisitions: how marketing integration affects post-merger performance. Journal of Marketing, 69 (1), 95-113

Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152

Dacin, M. T., Hitt, M. A., & Levitas, E. (1997). Selecting partners for successful international alliances: examination of US and Korean firms. Journal of World Business, 32(1), 3-16

Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (1998). Between trust and control: developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliances. The Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 491-512

Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 51(2), 11-27

Ganesan, S. (1994). Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 58(2), 1-19

Goerzen, A. (2007). Alliance networks and firm performance: the impact of repeated partnerships. Strategic Management Journal, 28(5), 487-509

Gossain, S., & Kandiah, G. (1998). Reinventing value: the new business ecosystem. Strategy & Leadership, 26(5), 28-3

Gulati, R., & Wang, L. O. (2003). Size of the pie and share of the pie: implications of network embeddedness and business relatedness for value creation and value appropriation in joint ventures. Sociology of Organizations, 20, 209–242

Hamel, G., Doz, Y., & Prahalad, C. (1989). Collaborate with your competitors and win. Harvard Business Review, 67(1), 133-139

Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 929-964

Hannan, M. T., Carroll, G. R., & Freeman, J. (1983). The liability of newness: age dependence in organizational death rates. American Sociological Review, 48(5), 692-710

Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1989). Organizational ecology. Harvard University Press, 1989, 3-27

Heide, J. B., & Miner, A. S. (1992). The shadow of the future: Effects of anticipated interaction and frequency of contact on buyer-seller cooperation. Academy of Management Journal, 35(2), 265-291

Hitt, M. A., Dacin, M. T., Levitas, E., Arregle, J. L., & Borza A. (2000). Partner selection in emerging and developed market contexts: resource-based and organizational learning perspectives. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 449-467

Homburg, C., Artz, M., & Wieseke, J. (2012). Marketing performance measurement systems: does comprehensiveness really improve performance? Journal of Marketing, 76(3), 56-77

Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). Strategic as ecology. Harvard Business Review, 82(3), 68-78

Inkpen, A. C., & Dinur, A. (1998). Knowledge management processes and international joint ventures. Organization Science, 9(4), 454-468

Judge, W. Q., & Dooley, R. (2006). Strategic alliance outcomes: a transaction-cost economics perspective. British Journal of Management, 17(1), 23–37

Kale, P., & Singh, H. (2009). Managing strategic alliances: what do we know now, and where do we go from here. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(3), 45-62

Lambkin, Mary, & Day, G. S. (1989). Evolutionary processes in competitive markets: beyond the product life cycle. Journal of Marketing, 53(3), 4-20

Lavie, D. (2006). The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: an extension of the resource-based view. The Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 638-658

Lavie, D. (2007). Alliance portfolios and firm performance: a study of value creation and appropriation in the U.S. software industry. Strategic Management Journal, 28(12), 1187-1212

Li, D., Eden, L., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. (2008). Friends, acquaintances, or strangers? Partner selection in R&D alliances. The Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 315-334

Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 75–86

Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change.

Newman, B. (1992). The reluctant alliance: behaviorism and humanism.

Nooteboom, B., Berger, J., & Noorderhaven, N. G. (1997). Effects of trust and governance on relational risk. Academy of Management Journal, 40(2), 308-338

Post, J. E., Preston, L., Mattingly, J. E., & Sachs, S. (2002). Redefining the corporation: stake-holder management and organizational wealth. The Academy of Management Review, 29(3):520-523

Rothaermel, F. T., & Boeker, W. (2008). Old technology meets new technology: complementarities, similarities, and alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 29(1), 47-77

Simonin, B. L. (1999). Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 20(7), 595-623

Sohn, M.-W. (2001). Distance and cosine measures of niche overlap. Social Networks, 23(2), 141–65.

Spekman, R. E., & Sawhney, K. (1990). Toward a conceptual understanding of the antecedents of strategic alliances. Marketing Science Institute, Report No. 90-114.

Stimpert, J. L., & Duhaime, I. M. (1997). In the eyes of the beholder: conceptualizations of relatedness held by the managers of large diversified firms. Strategic Management Journal,18(2), 111-125

Trout, J., (1969). Positioning is a game people play in today’s me-too market place. Industrial Marketing, 54(6), 51-55

Trout, J., & Ries, A. (1972). Positioning cuts through chaos in marketplace. Advertising Age, 43(1), 51-54

Vorhies, D.W., & Morgan, N.A. (2005). Benchmarking marketing capabilities for sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Marketing, 69(1), 80-94

Walters, B. A., Peters, S., & Dess, G. G. (1994). Strategic alliances and joint ventures: making them work. Business Horizons, 37(4), 5-10