Case selection Methodological reflection on Case Study 1

was already available and the market was current. It should be specified how in the set of candidate cases, differences between new and already available technology, and between new and current markets could be recognized. Because the propositions in this study specified necessary conditions, successful cases were selected selection on the presence of the dependent concept, i.e. projects that had resulted in the market launch of a new product. Product launch was identified through press releases.

5.3.6 Hypothesis

Because the propositions in this study specified necessary conditions and the selection was done on the basis of the presence of the depend- ent concept, the hypothesis was that the condition was present in each case that was studied.

5.3.7 Measurement

In order to test the hypotheses, the three collaboration characteristics collaboration history, technological capabilities, and level of commit- ment had to be measured in each case. A partner in an alliance was considered to be a not new partner for Nokia if that partner had collaborated with Nokia in a previous alliance in the database since 1985 and new if it had not collaborated before. The year 1985 was arbitrary and it is possible that partners that had collaborated with Nokia before 1985 were incorrectly classified as new. This measurement procedure was precisely specified and, there- fore, likely to result in reliable scores. A partner’s technological capabilities were mainly determined by its code in the SIC. Partners with the same code were considered to have similar technological capabilities, whereas partners with other codes were considered to have different capabilities. An industrial classifica- tion such as SIC is not a classification of technological capabilities and the measurement validity of this operationalization of similarity in capabilities, therefore, depends on the likelihood that companies with the same capabilities get the same SIC code. It is unknown whether or not companies with the same capabilities do indeed have the same SIC code. This method for measuring similarity of technological capabilities is likely to be very reliable because the coding rule – is it SIC code 3661 or is it not code 3661? – is precise. A high level of commitment is the “intensity of the relation” between the partners in the alliance and is determined by the type of alliance agree- ment, referring to the classification by Hagedoorn 1990. The greatest intensity of the relation can be found in joint or combined ventures, and the smallest in licensing agreements. Regarding measurement validity, it is not known whether “intensity of the relation” was as good a descriptor of level of commitment as it was meant to be. The method for measuring commitment using agreements and contracts is likely to be reliable.

5.3.8 Data presentation

All relevant data of each individual case were provided: whether the project was an incremental or a radical innovation project; why it was considered successful; and what the score of the three collaboration characteristics were.

5.3.9 Data analysis

Hypothesis-testing was straightforward: comparing the “observed” scores for the collaboration characteristics in the tables with the pre-