제휴 포트폴리오 전략 유형간 특성 비교 연구

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

To expand the market boundary and compete effectively, firms establish strategic alliances. Strategic alliance has emerged as an effective strategic decision that allows diversification of technologies, enhancement of resources and achievement of economies of scale. However, for a successful use of strategic alliance, it is important to understand the necessity of establishing not a single but a multiple alliance relationships simultaneously. Therefore, this study examines how a successful portfolio can be developed and to which extent it affects the strategic directions of alliance firms in today’s competitive global market. From the findings, this study offers meaningful implications for academic and practical applications.
This study first examines the typology of alliance portfolio, then draws alliance portfolio strategies at a firm level. Although a large body of previous literature offers industry level explanation of portfolio, this study takes a differentiated approach by focusing on the resources and competencies of alliance firms as the critical drivers of firm performance in drawing alliance portfolio strategies. Alongside the portfolio strategies, this study also offers practical use of each strategies that effectively raise the market competitiveness and enhance the performance of the alliance firm. To offer meaningful implications for the practical use of alliance portfolio strategies, this study identifies what comprises and are required for an effective portfolio strategy by conducting a comparative test based on the characteristics and internal capabilities of alliance portfolio strategy group.
Regarding the empirical test for alliance portfolio typology, this study conducts a cluster analysis which is one of non-parametric statistics. Based on the outcome of the analysis, this study then conducts a one way ANOVA to compare the differences between each alliance portfolio characteristics, internal competencies, and firm characteristics. The outcome suggests that alliance portfolios are distinguished into four clusters, which are passive alliance portfolio, exploration alliance portfolio, exploitation alliance portfolio, ambidextrous alliance portfolio. Regarding alliance portfolio strategies, three types of strategies are deduced, which are exploration portfolio alliance strategy, exploitation portfolio alliance strategy, and ambidextrous portfolio alliance strategy. Firms that pursue exploration alliance portfolio consisted mainly of joint technology development and technical alliances, and the number of alliances was more and more widespread than other types. Firms that pursue exploitation portfolio alliance strategy, is mainly composed of co-marketing, co-production, and co-brand. The number of alliances is smaller and the scope of cooperation is narrow than that of exploration alliances strategy. Firms that are pursuing a ambidextrous portfolio alliance strategy is mainly composed of co-marketing, joint technology development, technology alliance, co-production, and co-branding. The number of alliances and variance is the most widespread.
Then, to compare the firm characteristics of each types of alliance portfolio strategy, one-way ANOVA is conducted based on the firm size, foreigner share ratio, and the number of patents The result suggests that only the number of patents had significant differences for the portfolio alliance strategy.
To compare the differences of internal capabilities of each alliance portfolio strategy, one-way ANOVA was conducted for technological capability, marketing capability, and global capability. According to the result, technological capability was relatively higher for exploration portfolio alliance strategy compared to exploitation portfolio alliance strategy, whereas marketing capability was relatively higher for exploration portfolio alliance strategy and passive portfolio cluster. Global capability was relatively high for ambidextrous alliance portfolio strategy than others.
The implications of this study are as follows. Firstly, this study identified by analyzing the pattern of decisions and behaviors that firms had an alliance portfolio strategy at the firm-level. Secondly, it is the empirical test for an alliance portfolio strategy. Firms have an alliance portfolio by signing multiple alliance. Hoffmann (2007) suggested three type of alliance portfolio and conducted a case analysis of Siemons Co., Ltd as an example. However few empirical studies using a large data have been conducted. Thirdly, it presented practical implications for formulating an alliance portfolio strategy by comparing the characteristics and internal capabilities of alliance portfolio strategy. Lastly, in the case of a single alliance, it is discussed that the alliance is pursued to acquire the scarce resource or acquire the supplementary asset. However, from the viewpoint of the alliance portfolio, firms formed multiple alliance strategically focused on competitive advantage rather than complementary asset access.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제 1장 서론 1
• 제 1절 연구의 배경 및 목적 1
• 제 2절 연구의 방법 및 범위 5
• 제 2장 이론적 배경 및 선행연구 7
• 제 1절 제휴 포트폴리오 7
• 1. 단일 제휴 7
• 2. 제휴 포트폴리오 17
• 제 2절 제휴 포트폴리오 전략 26
• 1. 제휴 포트폴리오 전략의 개념 26
• 2. 유형화를 통한 기업 전략의 측정 27
• 3. 제휴 포트폴리오 유형화에 관한 선행연구 30
• 4. 제휴 포트폴리오 유형화 분류기준 36
• 제 3절 제휴 포트폴리오와 경쟁우위 41
• 제 3장 연구 설계 44
• 제 1절 연구모형과 분석절차 44
• 1. 연구모형 44
• 2. 분석절차 45
• 3. 군집분석 48
• 제 2절 변수의 조작적 정의와 분석데이터 51
• 1. 변수의 조작적 정의 51
• 2. 분석데이터 54
• 제 4장 분석결과 55
• 제 1절 표본의 특성 및 기술통계 분석 55
• 1. 표본의 특성 55
• 2. 기술통계 분석결과 56
• 3. 상관관계 분석결과 57
• 제 2절 제휴 포트폴리오 유형화 분석 59
• 1. 계층적 군집분석 결과 59
• 2. K-means 군집분석 결과 60
• 3. 제휴 포트폴리오 유형화 결과 62
• 4. 제휴 포트폴리오 유형화 강건성 검증 67
• 5. 제휴 포트폴리오 전략 69
• 제 3절 제휴 포트폴리오 전략 유형 간 특성 비교 72
• 1. 기업 특성 비교 72
• 2. 기업 내부역량 비교 74
• 제 5장 결론 78
• 제 1절 요약 78
• 제 2절 시사점 및 연구의 한계점, 향후 연구방향 82
• 1. 시사점 82
• 2. 연구의 한계점 및 향후 연구방향 84

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 장세진, "『경영전략 제8판』", 박영사, 2014

2 이학식, 임지훈, "구조방정식 모형분석과 AMOS 16.0", 법문사, 2009

3 안광호, 임병훈, "SPSS를 활용한 사회과학 조사방법론", 학현사, 2006

4 성태경, 김진석, "“기업의 기술혁신성과 결정요인”", 대한경영학회, 『대한경영학회지』, 제22권 제4호, pp. 2017-2036, 2009

5 김민창, 성낙일, 서성우, "“우리나라 기업의 e-비즈니스 시스템 도입현황과 성과”", Journal of Information Technology Applications & Management』, 제18권 제4호, pp. 55-79, 2011

6 이장호, "“자원, 전략, 국제화, 국제투자 및 제휴와 벤처기업의 경영성과”", 한국국제경영학회, 『국제경 영연구』, 제17권 제3호, pp. 121-147, 2006

7 김병연, "“기업의 외부위탁, 전략적 제휴 및 신산업 진출: 결정요인과 성과”", 한국의 기업활동: 구조, 전략, 성과 (통계개발원), pp. 153-220, 2009