Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
However, rather than talking purely of collaboration in a generic sense, it is important to
outline the various types of collaborative arrangements that exist. For example, collaborations
can be directional in that they can be 'horizontal', 'vertical' or 'diagonal' in nature. While
horizontal collaboration relates to collaboration between two 'competitors' at the same level (the
primary collaborative from of international airline alliances) vertical collaboration relates to
collaboration between suppliers of a product and its buyers. Diagonal, or external, collaboration,
meanwhile, refers to collaboration between organizations in different sectors or industries. An
alternative way of describing different forms of collaboration is by comparing them to personal
relationships. Dev and Klein (1993), for example, compare collaborative arrangements to short-
term, opportunistic 'one night stands', medium-term and tactical collaborations with a sense of
self-protection as 'affairs' with long-term relationships, involving continuity and a high degree of
commitment as marriages. Fyall and Garrod (2005) provide a summary of other, more complex
typologies which are all designed to take the form of a continuum or hierarchy, with 'simpler'
forms of collaboration at one end of the scale and more 'complex' types at the other.
The fi rst, which originates from Kanter (1994), presents a continuum of collaboration ranging
from 'weak
and distant' at one end to 'strong and close' at the other. In contrast, Walker and
Johannes (2003), drawing on the original work of Segil (1996), focus on risk as the predominant
distinguishing feature of different types of collaborative arrangements. Child and Faulkner
(1998), meanwhile, present a simple typology of collaborative 'alliances' based on three
dimensions: scope (whether it is 'complex' or 'focused'); the number of participants (whether
there are two or several partners in the collaboration); and the legal nature of collaboration
(whether it is a 'joint venture' or simply a 'collaboration'). One of the limitations of this framework
is that it allows for only two categories along each dimension where in reality collaboration can,
and often does, involve more than two partners. One particularly useful typological framework
is that proposed by Terpstra and Simonin (1993) whereby four principal features are identifi ed
to distinguish between different types of collaboration, namely: coverage, mode, form and motive
(1993). While 'motive' has been discussed earlier, the extensiveness of a collaboration vis-à-vis
markets and geographical reach is referred to as 'coverage' while 'mode' refers to the intrinsic
nature of relationship among the members involved which can be either of a personal or cultural
nature (Palmer and Bejou 1995). 'Form', meanwhile refers to the constitutional characteristics of
the collaboration with the governance style adopted normally sitting on a continuum between
loose (less formal) governance styles at one end and tight (more formal) governance styles at the
other. While trust is critical in the establishment and implementation of loose governance styles,
as styles become tighter, there is a greater need for more concrete systems or rules to be in place,
most probably endorsed by some form of legal intervention.
Collaboration effectiveness
One of the perennial challenges for all forms of collaboration is in determining how best
to measure their performance (Donaldson and O'Toole 2002). Over the years a number of
approaches have been advocated that include forms of economic measurement (Goodman
1970), behavioural measurement vis-à-vis trust and commitment (Bucklin and Sengupta 1993),
perceived success (Kanter 1994) and propensity (Gulati 1995). It is interesting to note that where
studies have sought to examine collaboration effectiveness, in most cases it is not effectiveness
that has been examined rather the reasons behind termination of the collaboration which clearly
is not the same thing (Gulati 1998).
In spite of such problems, however, a variety of studies have attempted to shed light on those
factors that contribute to collaborative effectiveness. One of the earlier studies, albeit in the
