The Alliance between General Motors and PSU Peugeot Citroen - Essay Example

COMPETITION: PARTNERING WITH DIRECT COMPETITORS: GENERAL MOTORS AND PSU PEUGEOT CITROEN Table of Contents Table of Contents 1 Introduction 2 Rational for Alliance Formation 2 Background of Alliance 4 Resource and Investments 5 Strategic objectives and Goals of alliance 6 Stakeholder Analysis and Identification 7 Alliance structure and process map 9 Challenges in development of Alliance 11 Performance Metrics in Strategic Alliance 13 Performance Measurement 14 Implementation of performance metrics 17 Conclusion and Recommendation 18 Reference List: 20 Bibliography: 24 Introduction Business expansion is considered as the foremost strategy used by the business houses for internationalization of their activities. In the words of Akio (2009), the level of competition in the international market place is increasing and firms are trying to rise over it by enhancing the scope of operations in a wider market place. Kale, Dyer and Singh (2001) noted that competition is forcing rival firms to join hands for developing a better position in the market and also enhance their resource base. The amount of alliances, partnerships, ventures and mergers have increased in the last decade in the corporate sector. However, Hoffmann, (2007) mentioned that creating alliances is a complex process which can also result in negative outcomes if the allies do not measure the variables of the process in a proper manner. This report is focused on analyzing the alliance between American automobile company General Motors and French automobile firm PSU Peugeot Citroen. General Motors and PSU Peugeot Citroen have created a customized approach for following up with their alliance plan and created a separate committee for members by selecting key personnel of both the organizations to manage the alliance activities. The researcher is a member of the committee and hence will reflect on the plans and activities being performed within the alliance. Rational for Alliance Formation The alliance between General Motors and PSU Peugeot Citroen was formed mainly with the view of developing a better resource base for the operations of both the companies in global scale (PSU Peugeot Citroën, 2012). The strategic alliance between the companies is expected to build their organizational capabilities in response to the challenges faced by the firms in the global market place. One of the most crucial considerations which urge firms to engage in mergers and alliances is to reduce the cost of operations (Kang and Sakai, 2012). The organizational processes related with the formation of an alliance are structured by the top management of the companies. In the case of GM and PSU Peugeot Citroen, Weinmann and Thomas (2012) mentioned that this alliance will lead to the union of American and European automobile industry and enhance the scope of production process for the firms as well as will create more options for the customers in all the marketing zones of the concerned organizations. In context of specific objectives, GM is focused on designing new and innovative production process whereas PSU Peugeot Citroen will utilize the market base of GM for entering the major markets of Asia and America. The planning stage of the alliance as reported in various media means has highlighted that organizational needs of the allies have been accurately shared and balanced by the firms. This has reduced the liability of the allies and also boosted the level of trust among the partners. According to Media.General Motors (2012a), the alliance is expected to put both these firms among the top players of the automobile industry in context of their manufacturing abilities. Media.General Motors (2012a) reported an estimated production of 70000 vehicles per year by the alliance. The inclusion of Gefco as the logistics partner of the alliance has allowed the business houses to combine the production and other operational activities of GM and PSU Peugeot Citroen and will also enhance the resource utilization of both the firms in context of sharing the platforms for global production and purchasing of automobile products (PSU Peugeot Citroën, 2012). Background of Alliance The alliance between General Motors and PSU Peugeot Citroen were formed mainly to enhance their product base by utilizing the resource base of the companies in a joint manner. An alliance was struck between two of these automobile giants on 29th of February 2012. The global strategic alliance was formed with primary objectives. The first objective is to create a shared platform for enhancing the supply chain management of companies and the second objective to develop global subsidiaries creating joint venture opportunities. A strategic move from General Motors followed this process and purchased €1 billion preferential rights shares of PSU Peugeot Citroen. General Motors thus was raised to the position of the 2nd largest shareholder of PSU Peugeot Citroen with 7% capital (Media.General Motors, 2012b). From the perspective of General Motors, the strategic alliance would help them in extending their market operations towards the organizational and strategic functions of the business process. Weinmann and Thomas (2012) noticed that strategic alliance between General Motors and PSU Peugeot Citroen would further increase the scope of business in the international market and also result in better resource utilization for both the firms. The need for the growth and development of the business houses was carefully embedded in the objectives of the global strategic alliance process which helped in increasing the value of the alliance for the stakeholders. In July 2012, the alliance was further strengthened by connecting the logistics functions of General Motors and PSU Peugeot Citroen which was expected to reduce the cost of operations for General Motors and PSU Peugeot Citroen. The connection of the logistics process also allowed the alliance to develop more platforms for continuing their activities in multiple markets and establish cross business functions (Ghani et al. 2011). Kang and Sakai (2012) noted that logistics is one of the largest operational functions of the supply chain management and also in cost incurring. The decision of amalgamation of the logistics process of General Motors and PSU Peugeot Citroen will help them in reducing their operational expenses and also streamline the alliance activities. In 2013 December, decided on making two new vehicles named B-MPV and C-CUV segments. The B-MPVs were decided to be manufactured by GM while the C-CUVs were supposed to be developed by PSU Peugeot Citroen in France. This showed that the planning process of the allies are not only directed towards mutual growth but is also supported by a balanced division of roles and responsibilities. The estimated launch of the vehicles is scheduled for 2016. Resource and Investments General Motors can be marked as the more experienced partner in the alliance in comparison to PSU Peugeot Citroen. General Motors has already established alliances and mergers with other big brands in the automobile industry such as Chevrolet, Cadillac, Opel, Vauxhall, etc. General Motors also acquired 7% preferential stakes of PSU Peugeot Citroen for helping the company in generating the capital investment the alliance process. The contribution of General Motors was directed towards ensuring the financial stability of the alliance (Media.General Motors, 2012a). PSU Peugeot Citroen on the other hand focused on developing the operational needs which would help them operate in a global scale. The production system and design of PSU Peugeot Citroen was also used in order to frame the platforms for new vehicle design. Weinmann and Thomas (2012) mentioned that in order to enhance the resource utilization and functionality of an alliance process both PSU Peugeot Citroen and General Motors would have to improve the performance of their business houses. The expected synergies to be produced with the alliance are $1.2 billion by the year 2018 while the purchasing joint venture between General Motors and PSU Peugeot Citroen is expected to develop €60 million beginning from the year 2013 (PSU Peugeot Citroën, 2012). In December 2012, both the parties completed all the formalities for creating a new joint venture which will enable them to accumulate the resources for their European operations (Media.General Motors, 2012c). This joint venture will focus on the process of influencing the activities of the market and create better synergies for General Motors and PSU Peugeot Citroen in mutual manner. Considering the investments of PSU Peugeot Citroen, the company raised €1 billion with the help of preferential rights which would be directed towards pooling of the resources and to enhance the purchase volume up to $125 billion (Media.General Motors, 2012b). Strategic objectives and Goals of alliance As mentioned above, the primary objectives for creating the alliance by General Motors and PSU Peugeot Citroen was to enhance the operational scope of the business my amalgamation of the supply chain activities of both the firms and also to create platforms for purchasing the resources in the international market place (Weinmann and Thomas, 2012). The strategic objectives of the alliance were also implemented in a tactical and operational level. The tactical goals were to identify the essential stakeholders associated with the process of logistics and other supply chain function. The inclusion of Gefco with the business process was among the tactical objectives of the alliance (Media.General Motors, 2012c). Other tactical objectives include the process of relating the business functions with the work structure of General Motors and PSU Peugeot Citroen. The balancing of the roles and responsibilities for framing a successful alliance was equally divided among the partners that influenced their operational goals. An example of the operational goals can be seen in the production process of B-MPV and C-CUV, which were divided among the allies (PSU Peugeot Citroën, 2012). General Motors considered that always behaving in a positive manner and framing clear and transparent communication will help both the companies in pushing the alliance to its optimum level. In order to manage the changes in the international market, both car makers have segmented the management of sales platform all over the world in accordance to their capabilities. Stakeholder Analysis and Identification In the words of Kang and Sakai (2012), the business expansion and operational plans are always related with the performance and contribution of the stakeholders. In case of General Motors and PSU Peugeot Citroen, both the companies involved in a strategic alliance by alignment of their corporate vision and strategy making process. The stakeholder analysis process performed in the following segment will help in identification of the key stakeholders associated with the concerned alliance: Figure 1: Stakeholder Analysis (Source: Geletkanycz and Black, 2001, p- 34) The primary stakeholders with high interests in the alliance were the top management of both the organizations. For instance, CEO and Chairman of GM and PSU Peugeot Citroen, the Board of Directors of both the firms, the Non-executive directors were among the highly interested members of the alliance. They were mainly responsible for designing the strategic objectives and also planning the operational functions of both the companies. According to Geletkanycz and Black (2001), the top management of a company occupies both power and interest positions in case of a joint venture or other forms of mergers. The investors and shareholders of the company were among the most interested group of stakeholders. The investment in the alliance would urge them towards helping the process for gaining success (Ghani et al. 2011). The next group of stakeholders includes the suppliers and the distributors who help in fulfilling the operational duties of the alliance and also were related with the strategic objectives of creating shared purchasing platforms. The logistics firm Gefco can be included in this position (Weinmann and Thomas, 2012). Coming down to the operational level, the employees and the customers were among the stakeholders who are to be closely managed. The employees must be aware of the changes taking place in the work structure because of the alliance and also should be able to adapt to these changes. On the other hand, the customers will have to be informed about the objectives of the alliance and reflect the benefits being created for them. The government and other regulatory authorities associated with the process were mainly influencers and can be delegated as stakeholders with high interests. However, because of their limited inclusion in the direct activities of the alliance they need to be informed about the activities of the alliance (Geletkanycz and Black, 2001). The media and competitors are also part of the stakeholders as they will be influenced by the activities of the alliance and vice-versa. Other than these, financial institutions such as banks and accounting firms will also be major stakeholders of the business process who would ensure that the alliance is clear of any unethical or illegal activities. Alliance structure and process map The structure of the alliance was framed in a manner which could accommodate the key stakeholders of both the business houses. The structure was mainly built with the objective of resource accumulation and sharing for enhancing the productivity of General Motors and PSU Peugeot Citroen (Weinmann and Thomas, 2012). The development of the structure of the alliance has been reflected below: Figure 2: Structure of the Alliance (Source: Weinmann and Thomas, 2012, p - 3) The above given structure of the alliance has been framed by considering only the internal stakeholders of the alliance between General Motors and PSU Peugeot Citroen. It is essential to mention that the logistics section of the alliance has not been reflected within the framework as it was under the management of Gefco which was working with the alliance under the authority of PSU (PSU Peugeot Citroën, 2012). The development of the structure reflects that each level has been designed in accordance to the objectives of the alliance process such as strategic, tactical and operational. An exclusion made in the given structure is that of the accounts and financial departments which was maintained on both end by General Motors and PSU Peugeot Citroen. This was embedded in the alliance process mainly to understand the contribution and management of both the firms in respect to the financial considerations of the alliance (Geletkanycz and Black, 2001). The structure of the alliance also influences the process map of the global strategic alliance between the concerned parties. Figure 3: Process Map of the Alliance (Source: Weinmann and Thomas, 2012, p - 5) The above given process map of the alliance between General Motors and PSU Peugeot Citroen have been designed mainly based on their operational functions and the objectives. The planning process of the alliance has not been included as the process map focuses mainly on the operational objectives Inkpen and Ross, 2001). It can be seen that the operations have been segmented into three primary groups which reflect the intentions of forming the alliance. The activities related with each group will be performed on a global level and will be designated to the regional and operational heads. The challenges in maintaining the process map will mainly relate to the alignment of the activities of both the firms at a lower level for the employees and requires the formation of a common team for monitoring the activities of the functional segments (Grant and Baden‐Fuller, 2004). Challenges in development of Alliance The formation of an alliance is one of the most common forms for enhancing the ability to perform. The development of the business process of the firm is also associated with the objectives of forming an alliance with other companies. Bierly and Coombs (2009) noted that one of the key trends in the formation of alliances among the business houses is to reduce the level of competition. The case of General Motors and PSU Peugeot Citroen can also be considered as a competition reduction alliance process. PSU Peugeot Citroen is among the top most automobile firms in the European market and so is General Motors in the American as well as the Asian markets. This alliance will help both these firms gain entry to new territory and also enhance the scope of production and sales. However, Camuffo and Volpato (2006) mentioned that one of the key challenges in forming a strategic alliance is to ensure mutual benefits for both the parties associated with the process. The motives of both the business houses may differ which can hamper the longevity of the alliance. Faulkner (2009) stated that self-motivated interests of the business houses can change the direction of the alliance process and also hamper the performance of the allies. Das and Teng (2009) added that the mutual trust and loyalty between the business firms is also essential for ensuing the effectiveness of an alliance. Most of the times, forming an alliance with the competitors leads to an unhealthy relationship or effort for working together. The alliance between General Motors and PSU Peugeot Citroen has however performed well till date. Both the companies have supported the mission of the alliance and also reflected a strong and healthy relationship between them. Dussauge and Garrette (2008) considered that it is essential for all the firms in an alliance to know the motives of each stakeholder participating in the alliance process. One of the key drivers of alliance growth is transparency in the activities. All the firms must work towards forming a common platform which can enable them to achieve mutual growth and success. The objectives formed by General Motors and PSU Peugeot Citroen were focused towards the individual business goals and thus both the companies were able to develop a successful endeavor. Performance Metrics in Strategic Alliance In the words of Ghani et al. (2011), performance metrics are embedded into an alliance with its instigation. The performance metrics are mainly used for measuring the progress of the alliance and the contribution of the allies towards the vision and mission of the alliance. Hofstede (2008) noted that performance metrics are used by the firm assessing the risks in the operational process and also to determine the reasons behind any sort of changes in the performance level of the companies. Kang and Sakai (2012) identified the primary performance metrics for measuring the growth of an alliance namely, economic, strategic, operational, learning and relational performance of the alliance. In context of General Motors and PSU Peugeot Citroen, the primary performance metrics is to measure the utilization of resources in the concerned activities which highlights the economic, operational and the relational performance of the alliance with its strategic objectives. The indicators for the performance of the alliance can be categorized as profit, revenue, costs, ,market share, opportunities for growth, competitive position, operational significance, lead time for production, managerial knowledge gathering and decisions, internal information regarding the operations and finally the psychological contents such as trust, loyalty, aligned and vision (Judge and Dooley, 2006). Another performance metrics that can be related with the case of General Motors and PSU Peugeot Citroen is their ability to align the logistics systems with the capability of Gefco. The inclusion of Gefco in the alliance has helped both firms in reducing the monitoring pressure and also to streamline the logistics need of both the companies. Apart from the allies involved in an alliance, external stakeholders such as Government, media, financial institutions are also associated with the development of the performance metrics. These stakeholders focus on evaluating the performance of the alliance in respect to the financial performance of the organizations and reflect the position of the companies to the customers and shareholders. Performance Measurement Performance measurement processes are varied in nature however the selection of an appropriate performance measurement process for the concerned needs of the organizations are critical in nature and should ensure that the business development systems are compatible with the measurement technique (Kuratku, Ireland and Hornsby, 2009). Reuer (2011) noted that as business functions and their internal management systems are being changed in to an automated system, the performance measurement techniques are also being developed with the help of technological platforms. One of the most common performance measurement techniques that is being used by the business firms in the contemporary scenario is the balanced scorecard. The Balanced Scorecard analyses the various internal functions of a business and relates them with the organizational mission in order to evaluate the performance and contribution of different departments of the firm (Malmgren, 2010). The balanced scorecard sets different objectives for each of the functional units such as customers, finance and auditing, internal operations and learning and growth process. The individual objectives of the units help them in assessing their own performance against other units and thus create a competitive atmosphere for monitoring and enhancing the productivity of the firm (Weinmann and Thomas, 2012). In case of GM and PSU, the balanced scorecard can be utilized for enhancing the operational aspects of the alliance process. As the alliance has been formed in context of the global activities of GM ad PSU, both the organizations can implement it in for each subsidiary related with the alliance activities. For instance, the activities of Gefco can be calculated against the strategic objectives of the alliance for assessing their contribution. Figure 4: Balanced Scorecard (Source: Faulkner, 2009, p - 21) Another effective technique for measuring the growth and the position of a business alliance is to implement the alliance life cycle graph. The alliance life cycle graph is formed of the five primary stages of alliance formation. The alliance life cycle graph reflects the overall growth and progress of the concerned alliance in respect to its strategic objectives. Figure 5: Alliance Life Cycle (Source: Weinmann and Thomas, 2012, p - 15) The above given diagram shows the five stages involved in the alliance life cycle and the relevant level of performance in each stages of the cycle in respect to time and resource utilization. Faulkner (2009) mentioned that the evolution and performance of an alliance are interlinked and hence the organizations involved in an alliance should always consider the level of their commitment in context of the strategic objectives of the business process. In respect of GM and PSU, their alliance is based on mutual interests which is urging the firms to focus on the needs and requirements of the business and focus on continuous maintenance and evolution of activities. Implementation of performance metrics The implementation of the performance metrics for General Motors and PSU Peugeot Citroen can be performed with the process of benchmarking. The activities associated in the process map of the alliance can be marked in an individual level. The responsibilities of the employees and the organizational structures of the business houses can help the organizations to identify the key performance points of the activities (Pek-Hooi, 2008). In context of the performance metrics for the logistics system managed by Gefco, the time taken for delivery of the products and raw materials will be measured for all the platforms established by General Motors and PSU Peugeot Citroen within the global strategic alliance. Measuring the costs of the activities performed will help General Motors and PSU Peugeot Citroen in measuring the compatibility of third party performance with the financial structure of the alliance (Weinmann and Thomas, 2012). In context of resource utilization, General Motors and PSU Peugeot Citroen should implement a wastage management process. This will help them in assessing the amount of raw materials, time and funds to be considered in the functional process of the alliance. The wastage management structure can be developed by implementing the muda concept of Japanese automobile firm Toyota. The muda concept also helps in connecting the work processes with each other for reducing the overall time taken for performance of the concerned tasks. Conclusion and Recommendation The recommendations for General Motors and PSU Peugeot Citroen will mainly focus on the human resource management process. The allies have mainly utilized their existing work process for the requirements of the new division which can reduce their individual performance and create gaps in the productivity of alliance. The organizations can include their managerial level employees for enhancing the effectiveness of the alliance platforms but the operational level employees should be new recruits. This will help the companies to maintain their individual status and also ensure selection of new chain of successors for continuing the alliance. The above performed analysis of the global strategic alliance between General Motors and PSU Peugeot Citroen showed that the alliance was formed with mutually aligned objectives which will equally pursued by both the organizations. Also in relation to the competition based alliance it was noted that the alliance would help General Motors and PSU Peugeot Citroen to venture in new markets with the help of the brand value of the allies. The ability of the business houses to sustain in the alliance and also fulfill their strategic objectives can be observed by the through planning process and the strong relationship between the firms. It was noted that organizational processes have been segmented in accordance to the roles and responsibilities of the firms and also linked with all the level of objectives. The companies included third party logistics firms Gefco for increasing the efficacy of the logistics functions in all their platforms. Considering the mutual interest General Motors and PSU Peugeot Citroen towards the alliance, the performance measurement process has also developed in a cumulative manner. It was noted that General Motors and PSU Peugeot Citroen have kept their original performance management tactics for reducing the changes in the operational functions and also to ensure growth of productivity. Overall, the strategic alliance of General Motors and PSU Peugeot Citroen has proved to be successful so far, however in order to maintain this steady platform for mutual growth both the organizations must uphold their trust and relationship with each other. Reference List: Akio, T., 2009 The Logic of Strategic Alliances. Institute of International Relations and Area Studies, 2. Bierly, P.E. and Coombs, J.E., 2009.Equity alliances, stages of product development, and alliance instability”, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21(3), pp. 191- 214 Camuffo, A. and Volpato, G., 2006. Partnering in the global auto industry: The Fiat-GM Strategic Alliance. International Journal Automotive Technology and Management , 8(16), pp. 335-351. Das, T.K. and Teng, B.S. (2009)”A risk perception model of alliance structuring”, Journal of International Management, 7(1), pp. 1-29. Dent, G.W. jr. 2001,Gap fillers and fiduciary duties in strategic alliance, The Business Lawyer, 57(1), pp. 55-104. Dussauge, P. and Garrette, B., 2008. Determinants of success in international strategic alliances: Evidence from the global aerospace industry. Journal of International Business Studies, 26, pp. 505-530 Faulkner, D., 2009. International Strategic Alliances: Cooperating to Compete, 5th ed. London: McGraw-Hill Book Company Geletkanycz, M.A., and Black, S.S., 2001.Bound by the past? Experienced-based effects on commitment to the strategic status quo, Journal of Management, 27, pp. 3-21. Ghani, A. et al. 2011. An Empirical Case Study of International Strategic Alliances in Malaysia. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2 (6), pp. 194-209. Grant, R. M., and Baden‐Fuller, C., 2004. A knowledge accessing theory of strategic alliances. Journal of management studies, 41(1), pp. 61-84. Hoffmann, W., 2007. Strategies for managing a portfolio of alliances, Strategic Management Journal, 28(8), pp. 827-856. Hofstede, G., 2008. Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviours, institutions and organisations across nation’s international differences in work-related values, 5th ed. London: Sage. Inkpen, A.C., and Ross, J., 2001.Why do some strategic alliances persist beyond their useful life?, California management Review, 44(1), pp. 132-148. Judge, W. and Dooley, R., 2006. Strategic Alliance Outcomes: a Transaction-Cost Economics Perspective . British Journal of Management, 17, pp.23-27. Kale, P, Dyer, J. H. and Singh, H.,, 2001. Value creation and success in strategic alliances: Alliancing skills and the role of alliance structure and systems. European Management Journal, 19(5), pp. 463-471. Kang, N. and Sakai, K., 2012. International Strategic Alliances: Their Role in Industrial Globalisation. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 05, pp.7-28. Kuratku, D.F., Ireland, R.D. and Hornsby, J.S., 2009. Improving from performance through entrepreneurial actions: Acordia’s entrepreneurship strategy, Academy of Management Executive, 15(4), pp. 60-71. Malmgren, M., 2010. Trust and control in strategic alliances: Managing Risk in Business Critical Outsourcing . Strategic Management Track, 3. Media. General Motors 2012a. PSU and GM Report Progress on Strategic Alliance Implementation [Online]. Available at: < http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.print.html/content/Pages/news/emergency_news/2013/1212-PSU.html > [Accessed 8th May 2015]. Media. General Motors 2012b. GM Announces Sale of PSU Equity Stake Strategic alliance continues [Online]. Available at: < http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/help.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2013/Dec/1212-PSU.html > [Accessed 8th May 2015]. Media. General Motors 2012c. GM and PSU Peugeot Citroën Create Global AllianceLong-term strategic pairing to leverage combined scale and strengths [Online]. Available at: < http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2012/Feb/0229_PSU.html > [Accessed 8th May 2015]. Pek-Hooi, S., 2008. The role of networking alliances in information acquisition and its implications for new product performance, Journal of Business Venturing, 18(6), pp. 727-744. PSU Peugeot Citroën 2012. PSU Peugeot Citroën and General Motors Confirm Key Steps in Global Strategic...[Online]. Available at: < http://www.PSU-peugeot-citroen.com/en/media/press-releases/PSU-peugeot-citroen-and-general-motors-confirm-key-steps-in-global-strategic-alliance > [Accessed 8th May 2015]. Reuer, J.J., 2011. Strategic Alliances: Theory and Evidence. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press Weinmann, S. and Thomas, J., 2012. GM and PSU Peugeot Citroen Provide Further Details of Their Global Strategic Alliance. Press Release. Bibliography: Gulati, R., 2009. Alliance and Networks. Strategic Management Journal. 19, pp. 293-317. Hamel, G., 2007. Competition for competence and interpreter learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 12, pp. 83-103. Harbison, J. R. and Pekar, P., 2008. Smart Alliances. A Practical Guide to Repeatable Success, Jossey-Bass. Ricerca di Booz. Allen and Hamilton Kauser, S. and Shaw, V., 2006. International Strategic Alliances: Objectives, Motives and Success. Journal of Global Marketing, 17, pp. 7-42. Mockler, R.J., 2009. Multinational Strategic Alliances, 4th ed. New York: Wiley Narula, R. and Hagedoorn, J., 2006. Innovating Through Strategic Alliances: Moving Towards International Partnerships and Contractual Agreements, Technovation 19, pp. 6-12 Sim, A.B. and Yunus, A., 2007. Performance of International Joint Ventures from Developing and Developed Countries: An Empirical Study in a Developing Country Context”, Journal of World Business 33(4), pp. 357-375 Todeva, E. and Knoke, D., 2005. Strategic alliances and models of collaboration, Management Decision 43(1), pp. 123-148 Varadajaran, P. R. and Cunningham, M. H., 2006. Strategic Alliances: A Synthesis of Conceptual Foundations, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(4), pp. 282-296 Yoshino, M.Y. and Rangan, U.S.. 2009. Strategic Alliances: an Entrepreneurial Approach to Globalization. 5th ed. Boston: Harvard Business School Press Read More