Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal

Using a multi-method qualitative approach to examine collaborative relationships

Nitha Palakshappa, Mary Ellen Gordon,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Nitha Palakshappa, Mary Ellen Gordon, (2006) "Using a multi‐method qualitative approach to examine
collaborative relationships", Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 9 Issue: 4,
pp.389-403, https://doi.org/10.1108/13522750610689104
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/13522750610689104
Downloaded by University of Reading At 20:58 04 June 2018 (PT)

Downloaded on: 04 June 2018, At: 20:58 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 45 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1913 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2000),"Recognising deductive processes in qualitative research", Qualitative Market Research: An
International Journal, Vol. 3 Iss 2 pp. 82-90 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/13522750010322089">https://
doi.org/10.1108/13522750010322089</a>
(2009),"Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method", Qualitative Research Journal, Vol. 9 Iss 2
pp. 27-40 <a href="https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027">https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:289728 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1352-2752.htm

Multi-method
Using a multi-method qualitative qualitative
approach to examine approach
collaborative relationships
389
Nitha Palakshappa
Department of Commerce, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand, and
Mary Ellen Gordon
Market Truths Ltd, Omarama, New Zealand

Abstract
Downloaded by University of Reading At 20:58 04 June 2018 (PT)

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to describe a multi-method approach for examining
collaborative relationships.
Design/methodology/approach – Collaborative relationship performance is examined by combining
narratives, structured questionnaires, and perceptual mapping within a case-based approach.
Findings – Details associated with case selection and subsequent analysis are discussed. Themes
emerging from the study are used to illustrate the depth of insights that were gained.
Research implications/limitations – The findings demonstrate the value of the approach in
discovering insights that would not have emerged from more commonly utilised methodologies.
Practical implications – The methodology described in this paper captures the detailed dynamics
of collaborative business relationships. As such, it allowed us to identify specific steps that managers
can take to improve the performance of their collaborative relationships: in particular by ensuring that
everyone involved in the relationship shares an understanding of the purpose of the relationship, and
the roles of the participating individuals and organisations.
Originality/value – The paper describes a new approach to studying collaborative business
relationships, which is needed since the overall performance of collaborative business relationships is
not improving in spite of extensive previous research trying to uncover the factors that influence
performance.
Keywords Qualitative research, Research methods, Joint ventures, Partnership, Strategic alliances
Paper type Research paper

Background to research on collaborative relationships

The term collaborative business relationships is used in this paper to refer to alliances,
joint ventures, business networks and other formal and informal relationships in which
firms coordinate activities to achieve their goals. These relationships may differ in
terms of their legal structures, governance arrangements, the number of participating
organisations, and many other structural characteristics, as well as in terms of their
scope, which may include research and development, production and manufacturing,
sales and marketing, or a number of other activities. Firms in virtually every type of
industry participate in collaborative business relationships, and their partners may be
related vertically or horizontally, or may participate in entirely different industries. Qualitative Market Research: An
Collaborating organisations may be part of a cluster in a small geographic area or may International Journal
Vol. 9 No. 4, 2006
be on entirely different continents. pp. 389-403
Increasing our understanding of how collaborative relationships perform is important q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1352-2752
because these relationships are pervasive, yet many fail (Geringer and Hebert, 1991; DOI 10.1108/13522750610689104
 QMRIJ Kale et al., 2002; Mohr and Spekman, 1994), and there is little evidence that their success
9,4 rate is improving. Conceptual and empirical explorations of collaborative business
relationships are numerous (Ireland et al., 2002 for a detailed account of recent empirical
work), in part reflecting their significance in the business environment. Theoretical
perspectives contributing to the dialogue on collaborative relationships include the
resource-based view (Barney, 1991; Varadarajan and Cunningham, 1995), transaction cost
390 analysis (Williamson, 1985), resource dependence (Heide, 1994; Pfeffer, 1981) and strategic
perspectives (Day, 1995). More recent work incorporates the notions of network and social
structure (Gulati, 1998).
Despite the prevalence of collaborative activity and sustained academic and
practitioner interest, no single integrated theory of collaborative business relationship
performance has emerged nor is there an indication of improving performance. Some
possible reasons researchers have not been able to develop an integrated theory to
explain and predict performance of collaborative business relationships are the diverse
Downloaded by University of Reading At 20:58 04 June 2018 (PT)

nature of the phenomena, the fragmented nature of existing research, and conceptual
and methodological challenges.
Given the diverse nature of the phenomena, it’s not surprising that researchers have
attempted to control some variation by limiting studies to a particular industry,
relationship type, or geographic location or by limiting their studies to particular
aspects of collaborative performance or its antecedents or consequences.
Although some research examines relationships in a cross-section of industries
(Alajoutsijärvi et al., 2000; Aulakh et al., 1996; Blankenburg-Holm et al., 1996;
Chowdhury, 1992; Gulati, 1999; Harrigan, 1988), many studies concentrate on a single
industry (e.g. insurance, hospitals, automobiles or semi-conductors – Burgers et al.,
1993; Hamel, 1991) or industry type (e.g. technology-related industries). Such studies
provide considerable insight into collaboration within a particular industry; however
it’s often not clear whether the results generated are transferable to other settings.
In addition, many studies also focus on a single type of collaborative relationship. For
example, some researchers concentrate on buyer – supplier relations (Alajoutsijärvi et al.,
2000; Hausman, 2001; Jap, 1999; Paun, 1997; Zaheer et al., 1998), whereas others examine
international joint ventures (e.g. Geringer, 1991; Glaister and Buckley, 1999; Hu and Chen,
1996; Hyder and Ghauri, 2000; Lin and Germain, 1998; Luo, 2002; Lyles and Salk, 1996).
Once again, this limits the generalisability of findings to alternative types of relationships,
yet only a few studies consider multiple forms of collaborative relationships (Doz, 1996;
Dussauge et al., 2000; Harrigan, 1988; Hoffman and Schlosser, 2001).
Research on collaborative business relationships is also often limited to a particular
geographic area or areas, yet given such things as firm size or industry distribution vary
geographically, it is also not clear to what extent findings from a study of collaborative
business relationships in one particular geographic area are transferable to other areas.
Perhaps, the most serious of the limitations on the types of relationships included
in empirical studies of collaborative relationships is survivor bias. Few studies
include discontinued relationships in their sampling frames, and even among active
relationships, it’s likely to be easier to get data about relationships that are performing well
than about those that are performing poorly. This limits performance variation, and may
result in a misleading picture about the antecedents and consequences of performance.
Numerous potential antecedents of collaborative performance have been suggested
in the literature. Some studies consider the influence of environmental variables, while
 others focus to a greater degree on the way partners interact. Many researchers have Multi-method
also examined how partner or organisational characteristics influence performance; qualitative
however, empirical work that attempts to tie all of these antecedents together is
lacking. This is significant given that omitting antecedents that are correlated with approach
variables that are included in a study may result in exaggeration of the importance of
variables that are included, and once again makes generalisation difficult since
different studies include and omit different antecedents. In addition, the varying 391
combinations of potential performance antecedents included in different studies make
it difficult to understand if and how these variables interact.
Whether industry, relationship type, and geographic location are held constant or
allowed to vary, and whether or not the same or different models are being tested,
researchers attempting to study collaborative business relationships also face
measurement challenges, and this may explain why many propositions that have been
made about these relationships have not been well tested empirically. Measuring
Downloaded by University of Reading At 20:58 04 June 2018 (PT)

collaborative performance and its antecedents is a complex task.

One issue that complicates the development of theory pertaining to collaborative
relationships relates to challenges associated with collecting, synthesising, and
analysing data from multiple informants. All of these relationships are formed with
two or more partner organisations. Many relationships require the active participation
of several individuals within each partner organisation. The organisations may have
differing objectives and individuals may have varying perceptions of the role and
performance of the relationship, yet most empirical studies rely on data collected from
one informant at one of the participating organisations despite widespread recognition
that this may threaten the validity of the data collected.
Further, complicating the measurement of performance of collaborative business
relationships and its antecedents and consequences are the wide variation in objectives for
these relationships (across relationships as well as between or among partners within the
same relationship), and the fact that many of the objectives set may be difficult to quantify.
It’s difficult to ascertain the incremental contribution a collaborative relationship has
made to achievement of a particular outcome over and above what a firm could have
achieved independently in the absence of such a relationship or with a different partner,
and to quantify positive and negative “spill-over” effects that occur when the existence of a
collaborative relationship has some sort of impact on other aspects of participating firms’
businesses.
In spite of the variation in objectives within and across collaborative relationships,
performance is typically assessed using managerial self-reports on standardised
scales. Very few published studies have evaluated performance based on participating
managers’ own objectives for their relationships. This omission could diminish the
relevance and consequent value of the research to practitioners. Also, even when
researchers derive a priori performance measures, there is variation in the way
performance (and its antecedents and consequences) is defined and measured.
The problems associated with measurement compound the difficulties associated
with development of an integrated theory. Measurement problems may lead to
inconsistent results, and incomplete or incorrect model specification may exacerbate
these inconsistencies.
Finally, the paucity of qualitative studies examining the performance of collaborative
relationships needs to be noted. Although many studies have a small qualitative
 QMRIJ component, they are typically followed by a large-scale quantitative study. Notable
9,4 qualitative contributions in more recent years include Hyder and Ghauri’s (2000) study
examining formation and development of international joint ventures between Swedish
and Indian partners. Other studies have concentrated on explaining characteristics of
alliance termination or dissolution (Alajoutsijärvi et al., 2000; Giller and Matear, 2001).
Alajoutsijärvi et al. (2000) adopted a case-based approach, where individual cases were
392 selected on theoretical grounds, to examine exit strategies in Finnish buyer – seller
partnerships. However, broad studies that adopt a more “holistic” approach to the
examination of collaborative performance appear absent from recent literature.
In light of the lack of progress toward an integrated theory to explain performance
in collaborative relationships, the challenges associated with developing one based on
existing research for the previously described reasons, and the lack of improved
average performance in collaborative relationships, we thought it would be valuable to
try an alternative qualitative approach to describing, explaining, and understanding
Downloaded by University of Reading At 20:58 04 June 2018 (PT)

the performance and dynamics of collaborative business relationships. The

multi-method process we used to do this is outlined next.

Methodological approach
Overview of methodology
Decisions on research design within this study reflect an attempt to overcome many of
the challenges outlined in the previous section, whilst ensuring that a holistic view of
collaboration is presented from the viewpoint of participating managers.
A qualitative methodology was therefore selected based on its ability to increase our
understanding of the dynamics and outcomes of collaborative relationships. In particular,
a methodology that was open to the “new and unexpected” was essential as was a
methodology that would enable us to delve deeper into each collaborative relationship
since the main goal of the study was to step back and examine collaborative relationships
from a fresh perspective.
According to Gummesson (2001), case study research recognises a multitude of
variables and complex interrelationships, and allows for a holistic account of the
network of relationships among a number of factors. In this regard, the method moves
beyond detailing single cause-and-effect links. In particular, using case research in this
study allows the development of theory that is based on a rich understanding of
collaborative outcomes and antecedents relevant to managerial practice. With regard
to our current understanding of collaboration, a case study approach allows empirical
research that “investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context
when the boundaries of the phenomena are not clearly evident” (Yin, 1994). The
relationship was the main unit of analysis within this study.
Given the exploratory nature of this research, specific hypotheses were not
considered appropriate. As suggested by Eisenhardt (1989), the cases for this research
were chosen for theoretical rather than statistical generalisability in order to aid theory
development. According to Patton (2002), purposeful sampling allows the researcher to
examine the issues that are integral to the research by selecting information-rich cases.
Purposeful sampling was used to select the cases studied to ensure relationships
varied in terms of performance (above or below average), partner location (domestic or
international), use of technology (high or low), and resource contributions (partners
contributing similar or different resources – this distinction is similar to the horizontal
 vs vertical distinction made in prior research, but more explicitly recognises that many Multi-method
relationships do not fit neatly into either of those categories) leading to a total of 16 qualitative
possible combinations (2 £ 2 £ 2 £ 2). This systematic variation was intended to
help us isolate factors that might affect performance and understand their interactions approach
and boundary conditions.
The University of Canterbury’s database of collaborative business relationships
served as the sampling frame for identifying cases. This comprehensive database, 393
which was compiled in 1997, contains details on a number of domestic and
international collaborations involving New Zealand (NZ) firms. One respondent from
one of the firms involved in the relationship completed the original questionnaire used
to create this database.
Information captured in this database included descriptive background information,
details of the collaborative activities (e.g. distribution, joint marketing) and type,
partner-related information and an overall assessment of the performance of the
Downloaded by University of Reading At 20:58 04 June 2018 (PT)

collaboration. Using this information, relationships were categorised as exhibiting high or

low technology use, cumulative or complementary resource contributions, international or
domestic partners and above- or below-average performance. Performance was assessed
on the extent to which respondents perceived that the collaboration had “exceeded
expectations”, “met expectations”, or “had not lived up to expectations”.
Despite the apparent need for a longitudinal approach, few studies of collaborative
business relationships have managed to achieve this. In part, the problems and
complexity associated with such an approach have been prohibitive. Whilst a true
longitudinal approach was not feasible within the context of this study, Melin’s
biographical history approach was used to study the relationship from its formation
through to its present status. Melin (1992) outlines the process through which a
biographical history may be used to capture the evolution of a firm within the context
of internationalisation. This method consists of a thorough examination of all the
events, episodes and epochs that have contributed to a firm’s evolution thus enabling
the researcher to capture all key details relevant to the history and consequent
outcomes of the alliance.
The prescriptions of Yin (1994) and Eisenhardt (1989) were closely followed in both
design and subsequent analysis. Yin (1994) outlines six primary sources of evidence:
documents, archival records, interviews, direct observation, participant observation,
and physical artefacts. For the purpose of this research three major sources of evidence
are used:
(1) interviews;
(2) documents; and
(3) archival records.

Interviews were audio taped and transcribed for analysis. The transcripts were coded
by two individuals and repeated until agreement on the assigned codes was reached.
Codes provided a guide for emergent themes and formed a crucial part of the
single-case summaries and the cross-case analysis. The compilation of a detailed case
summary for each relationship, including information from all sources, preceded
the cross-case analysis.
An important aspect of case research is the use of multiple sources of evidence to
converge on the same findings. Multiple sources help reduce the problems associated
 QMRIJ with respondent bias or poor recall/articulation through the personal interview
process. The multiple source approach also allows for consideration of a broader
9,4 range of issues and within-method triangulation (Bonoma, 1985; Yin, 1994). These
procedures, in turn, strengthen the grounding of the theory, produce more accurate
results and enhance construct validity (Eisenhardt, 1989).
Depth interviews were conducted with managers in as many of the participating
394 organisations as possible (in most cases this was all participating organisations, but
two of the relationships studied were relatively large networks, and for each of those no
representatives of at least one participating organisation were interviewed) of the
partner organisations. Each interview consisted of three components. These are
discussed next.

Unstructured narrative
The unstructured phase was designed to elicit general information and was purely
Downloaded by University of Reading At 20:58 04 June 2018 (PT)

inductive. An emphasis was placed on capturing the respondents’ perceptions of the

relationship. Each participant was asked to describe his or her understanding of the
background to the relationship, its formation process and subsequent evolution, and its
current structure, dynamics and performance. Probes were used to encourage the
interviewee to elaborate to ensure we understood and accurately characterised their
perceptions. As part of this process, documents mentioned by the participants were
also collected. These, along with the information gathered from all participants in a
relationship and information gathered in preparation for the interviews (through a
review of secondary sources pertaining to the particular collaborative relationship),
were used to develop a biographical history of each collaborative relationship and to
understand the role of the individual participants within each relationship.
Collectively, these unstructured narratives allowed an evaluation of the extent to
which constructs (e.g. form of the relationship or trust and commitment) discussed in
the literature capture the characteristics of collaborative relationships, and to see
whether we could identify any constructs that the collaborative business relationship
literature has missed or misrepresented. This part of the interview was also used to
better understand the language managers use to characterise the collaborative
business relationships that they are involved into see whether or not this matches the
terminology used in the academic literature.

Structured questionnaire
The next phase of data collection involved the use of a structured questionnaire.
This was carefully constructed to enable comparisons across the collaborative
relationships. The structured section included questions about the inputs provided by
each of the partners, the scope of the relationship, contributions of each partner and
measures used to assess the success of the relationship. Specifically, the structured
section concerned:
.
the specific inputs provided by each partner, including such things as research
and development, marketing or distribution channels;
.
the scope of the relationship in terms of activities, product-markets and
geographic markets;
.
the experience level of each partner with respect to each input and geographic
market;
 .
any specific outcome measures used to evaluate the relationship, and Multi-method
achievement of objectives. qualitative
The measures used allowed for a richer description of the specific collaborative approach
relationship than was available in either the original database or in most previous
research. That is because such things as inputs and market boundaries were described
by the managers rather than specified a priori. 395
Asking the same questions of multiple partners within a relationship and multiple
individuals within the same organisation enabled us to compare and contrast descriptions
given by different participants in the same alliance. This was important in understanding
just how serious a limitation the reliance on single informants in most research on
collaborative business relationships is, and in considering whether the extent of consensus
relates to the level of performance within collaborative business relationships.
This section was considered particularly important for the future development of a
Downloaded by University of Reading At 20:58 04 June 2018 (PT)

detailed questionnaire to be utilised in a quantitative study. The personal interview

made it possible to clarify constructs and understanding of terminology in the
questions administered. The feedback gained in the first few interviews allowed for
revision of the original questionnaire. These provide a valuable contribution to future
construct measurement and development.

Perceptual mapping
Perceptual mapping techniques (Huff, 1990) were used to develop a visual representation
of elements that each individual respondent believed to have influenced performance in
their relationship. Perceptual mapping is a two-dimensional technique that is used to
summarise information and obtain a visual representation of the interviewees’ thoughts.
It is a research tool that is increasingly being used by management researchers. According
to Fiol and Huff (1992). Mapping provides a good trigger for the memory of the
interviewee, and helps reveal gaps in information.
This study utilised a form of mapping that illustrates influence, causality and
system dynamics, and is designed to demonstrate causal relationships between
concepts. Selection was based on its suitability to the research purpose – that is,
developing an understanding of the factors influencing the outcomes of collaborative
relationships. Specifically, the mapping allowed us to assess factors participants
believe to account for performance in their collaborative relationships. The maps also
form an important part of both the single and cross-case analysis and are essential for
the development of a model of collaboration.
The mapping process was carefully developed based on work by Gordon et al.
(1999), tested and refined to ensure that it elicited managers’ perceptions concerning
what outcomes are important, what factors influenced these outcomes, and how all of
these were related, defined and measured. It was intended to highlight elements and/or
relationships that have not been discussed in the literature and to facilitate the possible
development of valid measures of factors for use in any future quantitative research on
collaborative outcomes. The details of the process that was used are described next.
The mapping section began by reiterating the outcomes highlighted by the
informant in the structured section of the interview.
First, the purpose of the section was explained to the respondent. Each respondent
was told that the aim was to discover what factors have influenced the achievement or
 QMRIJ otherwise of the outcomes outlined. As the respondent listed the items, they were
9,4 recorded on a separate post-it note, using the respondent’s own terminology. Once
the respondent finished this process, the researcher probed for any extra factors.
This process was repeated until it was clear that all of the factors that the interviewee
believed influenced the achievement of the objectives within the relationship were
identified.
396 Secondly, each of the factors recorded on the post-it notes was explored
individually. The respondent was asked questions to identify different facets of the
factors and any if/how they are measured. Probing for this additional information
enabled us to increase our understanding of managerial definition and interpretation of
factors, measurement, and evaluation. For example, if good distribution channels were
suggested as an important factor, through probing we may have discovered that the
particular interviewee determines whether a distribution channel is good by
considering its timeliness, efficiency and so on. If more than one facet was been
Downloaded by University of Reading At 20:58 04 June 2018 (PT)

outlined for each factor, the respondent was then questioned further to ascertain
whether the different facets are indeed to be considered in combination or separately
(in which case a separate post-it note is utilised).
Any extra information included on the post-it note as a result of probing was coded
if appropriate. Explanations for factors were coded with a bullet point (†). Any
measurement of factors were coded (M), and those factors outlined as important/less
important were coded with either a ( *) or (#), respectively. Once this process was
complete, the post-it notes were laid out on a large piece of white A2 paper. The
respondent is asked to examine each of the post-it notes to ensure that they accurately
capture what is being said. Any necessary corrections were made at this stage. Also,
any recognised similarities or differences were explored.
At this point the respondent was asked to categorise the post-it notes based on any
perceived similarities. This process resulted in a series of post-it note piles. The
respondent was asked to provide a title for each pile. Concurrently, the respondent was
asked to begin placing the notes or categories of notes according to how they have
influenced each other and thereby the outcomes of the relationship. The next step
involved asking the respondent to place arrows on the map between factors in order to
demonstrate, visually, their influence on each other, and on the relationship outcomes.
The next step involved probing with prompts designed to ascertain the importance
of any factors highlighted in the literature as being potentially influential in
collaborative relationships that had not been mentioned by the respondent. Any factors
added at this stage were noted on a different coloured post-it to signal that it was a
prompted factor. Finally, the respondent was asked to view the map and assess its
representation of their own view of the antecedents influencing the outcomes of the
relationship.
An example of one of the maps produced is provided in Figure 1.

Analysis
According to both Yin (1994) and Eisenhardt (1989), the development of a concise case
description enhances the researcher’s familiarity with the case data, and aids
preliminary theory development. According to Patton (2002), immersing oneself in the
details of the cases enables the discovery of important themes and interrelationships.
Descriptions that are accurate, detailed and objective allow the theory to emerge
 Market Issues Financial Issues Multi-method
Relationship Issues Changing Market qualitative
Financial viability
Conditions
of partner firm approach
Inability of partner to - Recesionary periodss
- Change in training
treat organisations with
delivery method Turnover
respect
- Arrogance of key - Sales (40%) 397
individual in partner (total gross sales)
Declining popularity of
firm (impact on - Rentals (60%)
key actor in videos
relationship dynamics)
New products Failure to meet original
sales targets and
Lack of support - Too much or too little
guarantees
- Marketing assistance Market share
- Order processes (fell Forecasted sales
- Training videos specifically
Downloaded by University of Reading At 20:58 04 June 2018 (PT)

apart)

Market image

- Specific product to meet Figure 1.

market need Perceptual map

naturally before links are made to extant literature. For these reasons, a single-case
summary that includes pertinent information from all sources of data formed the first
stage of analysis. Individual case descriptions were generated from a comprehensive
analysis of transcripts, structured questionnaires and perceptual maps.
To aid subsequent comparisons of findings to the literature and to facilitate the
cross-case analysis, the case accounts were arranged around the topics highlighted
from the literature as antecedents of collaboration. Further, topic headings are included
to incorporate outcome-related measures, managerial perceptions (including comments
and map related observations) and an examination of key case selection dimensions.
Hence, the following major headings were used consistently to write up each case:
.
outcomes;
.
resource contributions;
.
technology;
.
geographic scope;
.
context;
.
form and formation;
.
partner selection and opportunity;
.
relationship dynamics; and
.
managerial perceptions.

After preparing the single case summaries, cross-case analysis was undertaken.
Cross-case analysis enhances our ability to understand, explain and thereby draw out
valid generalisations (Miles and Huberman, 1994). It allows for greater explanations of
circumstances where certain observations are or are not likely to be present. Miles and
Huberman also argue that it enables the researcher to form more general categories of
 QMRIJ how various conditions might actually be related. Overall, the broad approach adopted
9,4 in this study combines a case-oriented and variable-oriented approach (Miles and
Huberman, 1994), with comparison of groups of cases incorporating key selection
dimensions of the study. Each individual case is understood in its entirety, and then
compared to other cases at both a case level and a variable level.
Eisenhardt (1989) advocates within-case analysis followed by a cross-case pattern
398 search or explanation building. Eisenhardt (1989) suggests that this process is facilitated
by the selection of pertinent categories, followed by a search for within-group similarity
and intergroup differences. These categories can be those suggested by the literature or
can simply be chosen by the researcher. Given the amount of previous research that has
been conducted on collaboration, it is deemed appropriate to use dimensions derived
from the literature to facilitate comparison across cases. Within this, Eisenhardt (1989)
also stresses the importance of examining the data in divergent ways. Hence, the main
emphasis within the cross-case analysis is to search for patterns or explanations relating
Downloaded by University of Reading At 20:58 04 June 2018 (PT)

to collaborative outcomes using the selection dimensions applied in this study. The
specific process through which the cross-case analysis is conducted is described next.
The cases were initially compared solely on the combination of above- vs
below-average performance as categorised in the questionnaire completed for the
original sampling frame. This division involved comparing the above-average
relationships against the below-average relationships. As an understanding of
collaborative outcomes was the focus of this work, this major initial division is also one
of the most important. The cases are compared along the main headings used in the
write-up. This process is then repeated for domestic vs international relationships, those
that exhibited cumulative vs complementary resource contributions and either a high or
low technology use. Themes and associations between antecedents and outcomes were
noted.
In accordance with Brown and Eisenhardt (1997), each consecutive stage of analysis
incorporated a further dimension. The level of abstraction was continually decreased
with each iteration. At each stage the cases were compared along the dimensions used
in the single-case summary.
The cross-case analysis incorporated a detailed examination of responses to the
structured questionnaires and perceptual maps. These were used to highlight
comments made by individuals and elaborate on emerging themes.
The major themes discovered through the cross-case analysis were then compared
with both similar and conflicting literature in an attempt to build theoretical consistency.
Eisenhardt (1989) refers to this stage as “enfolding literature”. This process helps to
build internal validity and shape the theoretical contribution of the findings. Thus, the
cross-case analysis in this study fulfils the important role of furthering understanding,
but also provides useful insights into some interrelationships among facets of
collaborative relationships. In short, the analysis allows some understanding of how
many of the antecedents are interrelated and aid collaborative outcomes.

Discussion and conclusion

Theoretical findings
Five themes linking various aspects of collaboration with collaborative outcomes, were
identified and refined through the analysis process. The study provided, for instance,
empirical evidence to suggest that relationships with formal agreements are more
 likely to achieve their objectives. Whilst formal agreements have been suggested by Multi-method
others as important, the use of a multi-method qualitative methodology allowed us to qualitative
better explain why they are important. We found that the process of generating a
formal agreement helps create a shared understanding about and shared expectations approach
for a collaborative relationship, and this shared understanding reduces the likelihood
of conflict and increases the likelihood of positive resolution in the event of a conflict.
The multi-method approach enabled us to see that since it’s really the shared 399
understanding and expectations that are important rather than the agreement per se.
An ill-considered agreement is unlikely to be effective, and mutual understanding
achieved in other ways (such as previous interactions) can reduce the need for a formal
agreement.
The use of a multi-method approach, in conjunction with the inclusion of multiple
informants involved in each relationship also allowed us to examine how mutual
understanding between partners, and the respect for skills and resources contributed
Downloaded by University of Reading At 20:58 04 June 2018 (PT)

by each firm within a relationship were associated with the achievement of objectives.
As responses were sought from all participating organisations and individuals, we
were able to compare ratings and perceptual maps within and between participating
organisations. Relationships in which objectives were achieved showed a greater level
of comparability in the responses provided by participating individuals and
organisations. For example, Figure 2 is a perceptual map pertaining to the same
relationship as Figure 1, but generated from an interview with a different participant.
Note how differently these two participants in this unsuccessful relationship perceive
the situation.

Market structure and approach Performance

Size of New Performance criteria
Zealand
- Knowledge of similarly sized markets
State of the market - Added value of new products
- “Volume”
- Nature of “industry” [peak over?] - Payment–on time; in full

Similarity of top titles

Relationships Product nature

Managerial style in - Nature/popularity of some key actors
partner firm

History Take up of new titles

- “Father of current owner” - Speed of entry in the marketplace
- How well it was launched
- Use of techniques developed in
“Consultative” process other markets
- Sharing of ideas
build relationship and
commitment “Presence”

Partner firms relationship in

Trust Geographic distance Australia Figure 2.
- Confidentiality - Trying to sort out problems: Perceptual map – partner
- Consistency Australia was not doing well firm
 QMRIJ Methodological contributions
9,4 The multi-case approach adopted in this research has been important in promoting
in-depth insights such as those described above. The information collected for these
case studies has significantly expanded on the information available in the database
since this information was collected from multiple informants in all or most (in the case
of the two networks mentioned previously) of the firms participating in the relationship
400 during a series of in-depth interviews.
The research design ensured that a variety of collaborative forms were considered,
multiple informants were sought, and managerial perceptions were given priority.
Additionally, a biographical history of each relationship provided a picture of
longitudinal changes. A conscious effort was made to avoid some of the less favourable
design issues associated with previous studies whilst ensuring that dues consideration
was given to previous research in the area. By being non-prescriptive and using
narrative and mapping components, the methodology gave interviewees ample
Downloaded by University of Reading At 20:58 04 June 2018 (PT)

opportunity to describe their relationships through their own eyes and using their own
words.
As a result of this approach potential facilitators and detractors of collaborative
performance were identified. This methodology allowed the extraction of subtle
nuances that were unlikely to be accessible within a traditional quantitative design.
The insights emerging from the case analysis have provided propositions relating to
collaborative performance which can now be tested quantitatively. As the research
method has also enabled the perceptions and concerns of the managers actually
involved in alliances to be captured, the findings provide managerially relevant
implications.

Limitations and future research

This paper describes a case study methodology. As such the constraints associated
with such an approach need to be recognised. Whilst every attempt has been made to
ensure methodological rigour in undertaking this research, the nature of qualitative
research is such that the researcher may have some influence on the data collection and
analysis. Strict adherence to analytical procedure and case protocol were used to
minimise the potential impact of this. Although obtaining a biographical history
allowed more than a cross-sectional view of collaborations, a “true” longitudinality
may have captured additional insights.
Overall, the multi-method qualitative nature of this research has allowed some new
insights about an important and well studied, yet not fully understood topic, to emerge.
It is strongly recommended that further research of this type be conducted in other
research settings.

References
Alajoutsijärvi, K., Möller, K. and Tähtinen, J. (2000), “Beautiful exit: how to leave your business
partner”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 Nos 11/12, pp. 1270-89.
Aulakh, P.S., Kotabe, M. and Sahay, A. (1996), “Trust and performance in cross-border
marketing partnerships: a behavioral approach”, Journal of International Business Studies,
Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 1005-32.
Barney, J. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
 Blankenburg-Holm, D., Eriksson, K. and Johanson, J. (1996), “Business networks and cooperation Multi-method
in international business relationships”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 27
No. 5, pp. 1033-53. qualitative
Brown, S.L. and Eisenhardt, K.M. (1997), “The art of continuous change: linking complexity approach
theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organisations”, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 42, pp. 1-34.
Bonoma, T.V. (1985), “Case research in marketing: opportunities: problems, and a process”, 401
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XXII, pp. 199-208.
Burgers, W.P., Hill, C.W.L. and Kim, W.C. (1993), “A theory of global strategic alliances: the case
of the global auto industry”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 419-32.
Chowdhury, J. (1992), “Performance of international joint ventures and wholly owned foreign
subsidiaries: a comparative perspective”, Management International Review, Vol. 32 No. 2,
pp. 115-33.
Downloaded by University of Reading At 20:58 04 June 2018 (PT)

Day, G.S. (1995), “Advantageous alliances”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23
No. 4, pp. 297-300.
Doz, Y.L. (1996), “The evolution of cooperation in strategic alliances: initial conditions or learning
processes?”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 55-83.
Dussauge, P., Garrette, B. and Mitchell, W. (2000), “Learning from competing partners: outcomes
and durations of scale and link alliances in Europe, North America and Asia”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 99-126.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-50.
Fiol, C.M. and Huff, A.S. (1992), “Maps for managers: where are we? Where do we want to go?”,
Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 267-85.
Geringer, J.M. (1991), “Strategic determinants of partner selection criteria in international joint
ventures”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 41-62.
Geringer, J.M. and Hebert, L. (1991), “Measuring performance of international joint ventures”,
Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 249-63.
Giller, C. and Matear, S. (2001), “The termination of inter-firm relationships”, Journal of Business
& Industrial Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 94-112.
Glaister, K.W. and Buckley, P.J. (1999), “Performance relationships in UK international
alliances”, Management International Review, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 123-47.
Gordon, M.E., Clemens, M., Carrick-Leslie, S., Sinclair, R. and Viedma, C. (1999), “Strategic
alliance evaluation: comparing theoretical prescriptions and managerial practice”,
Proceedings of the 1999 Academy of Marketing Science Conference, Academy of
Marketing Science, Miami, FL, pp. 255-60.
Gulati, R. (1998), “Alliances and networks”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 4,
pp. 293-317.
Gulati, R. (1999), “Network location and learning: the influence of network resources and firm
capabilities on alliance formation”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 5,
pp. 397-420.
Gummesson, E. (2001), “Are current research approaches in marketing leading us astray?”,
Marketing Theory, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 27-48.
Hamel, G. (1991), “Competition for competence and interpartner learning within international
strategic alliances”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12, pp. 83-103.
 QMRIJ Harrigan, K.R. (1988), “Strategic alliance and partner asymmetries”, Management International
Review, Vol. 28, pp. 53-72.
9,4
Hausman, A. (2001), “Variations in relationship strength and its impact on performance and
satisfaction in business relationships”, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 600-16.
Heide, J.B. (1994), “International governance in marketing channels”, Journal of Marketing,
402 Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 71-85.
Hoffman, W.H. and Schlosser, R. (2001), “Success factors of strategic alliances in small and
medium-sized enterprises – an empirical survey”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 34 No. 3,
pp. 357-81.
Hu, M.Y. and Chen, H. (1996), “An empirical analysis of factors explaining foreign joint venture
performance in China”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 165-73.
Huff, A.S. (1990), Mapping Strategic Thought, Wiley, Chichester.
Hyder, A.S. and Ghauri, P.N. (2000), “Managing international joint venture relationships: a
Downloaded by University of Reading At 20:58 04 June 2018 (PT)

longitudinal perspective”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 205-18.

Ireland, R.D., Hitt, M.A. and Vaidyanath, D. (2002), “Alliance management as a source of
competitive advantage”, Journal of Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 413-46.
Jap, S.D. (1999), “Pie-expansion efforts: collaboration processes in buyer-supplier relationships”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 461-75.
Kale, P., Dyer, J.H. and Singh, H. (2002), “Alliance capability, stock market response, and
long-term alliance success: the role of the alliance function”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 747-67.
Lin, X. and Germain, R. (1998), “Sustaining satisfactory joint venture relationships: the role of
conflict resolution strategy”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 179-96.
Luo, Y. (2002), “Contract, cooperation, and performance in international joint ventures”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 10, pp. 903-19.
Lyles, M.A. and Salk, J.E. (1996), “Knowledge acquisition from foreign parents in international
joint ventures: an empirical examination in the Hungarian context”, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 877-903.
Melin, L. (1992), “Internationalization as a strategy process”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 13, pp. 99-118.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Mohr, J.J. and Spekman, R.E. (1994), “Characteristics of partnership success: partnership
attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 135-52.
Patton, M.Q. (2002), Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks,
CA.
Paun, D.A. (1997), “A study of ‘best’ versus ‘average’ buyer-seller relationships”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 13-21.
Pfeffer, J. (1981), Power in Organizations, Pitman, Marshfield, MA.
Varadarajan, P.R. and Cunningham, M.H. (1995), “Strategic alliances: a synthesis of conceptual
foundations”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 282-96.
Williamson, O.E. (1985), The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational
Contracting, Free Press, New York, NY.
 Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Multi-method
Zaheer, A., McEvily, B. and Perrone, V. (1998), “Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of qualitative
interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance”, Organization Science, Vol. 9
No. 2, pp. 141-59. approach

About the authors

Nitha Palakshappa is currently a Senior Lecturer in Marketing at the Department of Commerce, 403
Massey University. She is based at their Albany Campus in Auckland, New Zealand.
Nitha’s recent research examines collaborative business relationships with a particular emphasis
on how these relationships perform in the New Zealand context. Her research incorporates
various qualitative methods. She teaches courses in marketing strategy, services and
marketing theory. Nitha Palakshappa is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
[email protected]
Mary Ellen Gordon is currently Managing Director of Market Truths a New Zealand-based
market research and analysis firm. Market Truths have clients from around the world.
Downloaded by University of Reading At 20:58 04 June 2018 (PT)

Mary Ellen was previously a Senior Lecturer at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch,
New Zealand. Given her background, Mary Ellen maintains strong ties with many academics
which provides a bridge between her consulting work and leading-edge academic research in
New Zealand. E-mail: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Trevor Cadden, Donna Marshall, Paul Humphreys, Ying Yang. 2015. Old habits die hard: exploring the
effect of supply chain dependency and culture on performance outcomes and relationship satisfaction.
Production Planning & Control 26:1, 53-77. [Crossref]
2. Azizan Ramli, Mazlin Mokhtar, Badhrulhisham Abdul Aziz. 2014. Revisiting the concept of development,
disaster and safety management: The Quranic perspective. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction
9, 26-37. [Crossref]
3. Anne-Maria Holma. Adaptation in Business Contexts: Working Triadic Relationships 119-291.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
4. A. H. J. Klopper-Kes, N. Meerdink, C. P. M. Wilderom, W. H. Van Harten. 2011. Effective cooperation
influencing performance: a study in Dutch hospitals. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 23:1,
94-99. [Crossref]
5. Gabriela Alvarez, Colin Pilbeam, Richard Wilding. 2010. Nestlé Nespresso AAA sustainable quality
Downloaded by University of Reading At 20:58 04 June 2018 (PT)

program: an investigation into the governance dynamics in a multi‐stakeholder supply chain network.
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 15:2, 165-182. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Gabriel Eweje, Nitha Palakshappa. 2009. Business partnerships with nonprofits: working to solve mutual
problems in New Zealand. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 16:6, 337-351.
[Crossref]
7. Peter Tsasis. 2009. The social processes of interorganizational collaboration and conflict in nonprofit
organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 20:1, 5-21. [Crossref]
8. Kathy M. Babiak. 2009. Criteria of effectiveness in multiple cross-sectoral interorganizational
relationships. Evaluation and Program Planning 32:1, 1-12. [Crossref]