Collaborative business relationships

Abstract

PurposeThis paper aims to describe in depth case studies demonstrating that many small companies that participate in collaborative relationships are not realising the knowledge and skill acquisition benefits that policy makers envision when they formulate public policy that promotes creation of collaborative business relationships.Design/methodology/approachHamel's theory of inter‐partner learning is built upon to explain the possible reasons why firms fail to derive learning‐related benefits from participation in collaborative relationships, and the implications for public policy, for firms participating in collaborative relationships, and for future research are discussed.FindingsKey findings reveal that small companies are not realising the intended benefits of collaboration. Many New Zealand firms that participate in alliances are not using them to develop new skills and competencies.Research limitations/implicationsLearning was neither an objective nor an outcome of most of the collaborative business relationships investigated in this research. The cases studied were selected from a large database of collaborative business relationships involving New Zealand firms, so there is no reason to believe that these findings are unique to the particular relationships examined; however, it would be useful to investigate the extent to which the findings generalise to other collaborative relationships in New Zealand and in other countries.Practical implicationsPolicy makers should carefully consider the types of collaborative relationships that they promote as not all relationships generate public benefits. Firms should consider collaborative relationships as a possible option for acquiring new skills and, if they wish to learn through participation in such a relationship, then they should make this a specific objective.Originality/valueThe paper shows that the adoption of a qualitative approach allows a more insightful examination of collaborative relationships and learning.