The authors also claim that as company gains more experience in forging alliances, their success-rate improves, thereby, favorably impacting profitability. For the most part, the authors have successfully argued that corporate alliances, and collaboration, would become a strategic differentiator between those who flourish; and, those who perish, in the global competitive turf. Reflecting upon the contents of the article, I question, is the 'bonding spree' (as in alliances), always better than 'buying spree' (as in acquisitions) of the past So the classic management question, 'to make or buy,' has shifted in a refined sense, 'to acquire or to ally' I believe, the middle-ground approach of corporate alliances, is playing safe; lowering "I" and increasing "R" of ROI.
In this article, the authors emphasize that equity alliances are emerging as a new corporate growth model. The authors note that between 2000 and 2002, corporate alliances have risen from a mere 25% to 62%. This encompasses industries ranging from heavy engineering, automotive, durable goods to entertainment, media, business and financial services. Interestingly, of top 50 global alliance-forming firms averaging 150 publically announced alliances, 25% are equity-based. Studies quoted by the authors indicate that alliances are yielding 50% higher ROIs for the top 1000 U.S. and non-U.S.