Research Article: “Knowledge Bridging: How Acquirers Leverage the Knowledge of Their Targets’ Prior Alliance Partners”Journal: Academy of Management Journal (2026)
Authors: Jens-Christian Friedmann, Korcan Kavusan
Core Idea in One Sentence:Acquisitions do more than transfer capabilities—they create invisible bridges to external knowledge networks, allowing firms to access and utilize knowledge from their targets’ prior partners, even without direct relationships.
1️⃣ What the Research Actually Says
This study examines a fundamental but previously overlooked question in strategy: Can firms benefit not only from what they acquire, but also from who their targets were connected to? Building on the relational view of the firm, the authors introduce a new concept—knowledge bridging—to explain how acquisitions enable firms to access external knowledge beyond the boundaries of the acquired company.
Knowledge bridging occurs when an acquiring firm leverages the relational assets of the target—developed through prior alliances—to access knowledge from the target’s former partners, even in the absence of direct ties. These relational assets include partner-specific absorptive capacity (deep familiarity with how a partner’s knowledge is structured and applied) and interorganizational routines (established patterns of knowledge exchange), which together form a durable foundation for continued knowledge access.
Importantly, the knowledge accessed through bridging is new-to-firm knowledge—it is not limited to what the target already internalized. Instead, acquirers can tap into knowledge that the target never absorbed, as well as knowledge that alliance partners developed after the alliance ended.
The authors test their theory using a large dataset of 271 acquisitions and analyze knowledge flows through patent citations. Their findings provide strong support for the existence and impact of knowledge bridging. Acquirers are significantly more likely to build on the knowledge of a target’s prior alliance partners than on similar firms without such connections, demonstrating that inherited relationships create unique knowledge access advantages.
The study also identifies key conditions that shape the effectiveness of knowledge bridging. First, the effect is stronger when the target had previously absorbed substantial knowledge from its partners, indicating that deeper prior collaboration creates stronger relational assets. Second, the effect is weaker when the acquirer already possesses similar knowledge, as its own absorptive capacity reduces reliance on inherited relationships. Third, competitive overlap between the acquirer and the partner weakens knowledge flows, as partners become less willing to share knowledge with potential rivals. Finally, maintaining the target’s autonomy after acquisition strengthens knowledge bridging by preserving the relational structures through which knowledge flows occur.
Overall, the research demonstrates that acquisitions create value not only by transferring resources and capabilities, but also by enabling firms to access extended knowledge networks, fundamentally expanding the scope of learning and innovation.
2️⃣ Strategic Meaning
The central strategic insight of this research is that the true value of an acquisition extends beyond the firm being acquired—it lies in the network of relationships that the firm brings with it. This fundamentally reshapes how strategy scholars and practitioners should think about value creation in mergers and acquisitions.
Traditionally, acquisitions have been evaluated through three lenses: what capabilities are built internally, what knowledge is borrowed through alliances, and what assets are bought through transactions. This study introduces a fourth, more subtle mechanism—bridging—where firms gain access to knowledge they neither own nor directly collaborate to obtain. Instead, they leverage inherited relational pathways to reach into external knowledge ecosystems.
This shifts the logic of strategy in three important ways.
First, it reframes competitive advantage from being resource-based to network-based. Firms are no longer competing solely based on what they possess, but on what they can access through the relational structures embedded in their organization. A firm’s position in a network—often inherited rather than intentionally built—becomes a critical strategic asset.
Second, it highlights that access can be more valuable than ownership. In many cases, firms do not need to fully acquire or internalize knowledge to benefit from it. Through knowledge bridging, they can tap into external expertise indirectly, reducing the need for costly integration or direct collaboration. This makes strategy less about control and more about connectivity.
Third, it introduces a critical tension between integration and preservation. While conventional post-acquisition logic emphasizes integration to realize synergies, this research shows that excessive integration can destroy the very relational assets that enable knowledge bridging. Preserving the target’s autonomy becomes not a weakness, but a strategic choice to maintain access to external knowledge flows.
At a deeper level, this study expands the relational view of the firm by moving beyond dyadic relationships (firm-to-firm) to a more complex understanding of multi-layered networks and indirect connections. It reveals that knowledge does not simply flow along direct ties—it can travel across organizational boundaries through inherited relational infrastructures.
Finally, the research exposes an often-overlooked strategic risk. Alliances, typically seen as vehicles for collaboration and learning, also create long-term exposure pathways. The knowledge shared today with a partner may later become accessible to an unknown third party through future acquisitions. This means that firms must think more carefully about what they share, how they structure collaborations, and how their partners may evolve over time.
In essence, this study elevates strategy from managing assets and alliances to managing invisible pathways of knowledge flow, where the most valuable resources are not always owned, but accessed through the architecture of relationships.
3️⃣ What This Means for Key Decision Makers
🧑💼 Managers
For managers, this research fundamentally changes how acquisitions should be evaluated and executed. The traditional approach focuses heavily on tangible assets, financial performance, and internal capabilities. However, this study suggests that the most valuable assets may be invisible—embedded in the target’s prior relationships and knowledge networks.
This means that due diligence must go beyond financials and operations. Managers should systematically analyze the target’s alliance history, asking questions such as: Who has this firm collaborated with? How deep were those collaborations? What kinds of knowledge were exchanged? These relationships may reveal hidden pathways to innovation that are not captured in balance sheets or patents alone.
For example, a firm acquiring a mid-sized technology company might overlook the fact that the target previously collaborated with leading research institutions or industry pioneers. Even if those alliances have ended, the relational assets—shared routines, familiarity, and informal ties—may still exist. Through knowledge bridging, these connections can become indirect channels of learning, providing access to cutting-edge ideas without formal partnerships.
Managers must also rethink post-acquisition integration strategies. The instinct to quickly integrate systems, processes, and teams may actually destroy the relational infrastructure that enables knowledge bridging. Excessive restructuring can disrupt routines, dissolve social ties, and erode the organizational memory that connects the target to its former partners. In contrast, maintaining a degree of autonomy allows these relational assets to persist and continue generating value.
At the same time, managers must recognize the strategic risks. If the acquiring firm operates in a domain similar to the target’s former partners, those partners may perceive the acquirer as a competitor and restrict knowledge flows. This introduces a critical tension: the very acquisition that creates access to new knowledge may simultaneously trigger defensive behaviors that limit that access.
Ultimately, managers should shift their mindset from “What are we buying?” to “What are we gaining access to?”. The most effective acquisition strategies will be those that identify, preserve, and leverage these hidden knowledge bridges—treating relationships not as historical artifacts, but as active strategic resources.
🎯 Leaders
For leaders, this research elevates acquisitions from transactional decisions to architectural decisions about the firm’s position in a broader knowledge ecosystem. The key challenge is no longer just selecting the right target, but understanding how that target reshapes the organization’s access to external knowledge and future innovation pathways.
Leaders must think in terms of strategic reach rather than organizational boundaries. An acquisition is not simply an expansion of the firm—it is a reconfiguration of its network position. Through knowledge bridging, leaders can extend the firm’s influence into domains where they previously had no presence, leveraging relationships they did not build themselves. This requires a shift from managing assets to orchestrating connections.
This also places a premium on long-term strategic vision. The value of knowledge bridging often unfolds over time, as inherited relationships gradually translate into new ideas, technologies, and opportunities. Leaders must therefore resist the pressure for immediate post-acquisition performance and instead cultivate patience, recognizing that the most significant gains may come from future knowledge flows rather than immediate synergies.
At the same time, leaders must carefully balance control and preservation. While governance systems often prioritize alignment and integration, this research highlights that excessive control can undermine the very mechanisms that create value. Preserving the target’s identity, routines, and relational fabric becomes a strategic priority. This requires leaders to embrace a more nuanced approach—one that allows for coordination without eroding the autonomy that sustains knowledge access.
Another critical leadership implication is the need to manage ecosystem-level tensions. When acquisitions create indirect ties to former partners, especially in overlapping business domains, leaders must anticipate potential resistance or defensive behavior from those partners. Strategic communication, trust-building, and selective engagement become essential to maintaining the flow of knowledge through these indirect channels.
Finally, this research challenges leaders to rethink how they define competitive advantage. It is no longer sufficient to ask what the firm owns or controls. Instead, leaders must ask: What networks do we now sit within, and how can we leverage them? The firms that succeed will be those led by individuals who understand that strategy is increasingly about positioning within evolving webs of relationships, where influence, access, and connectivity determine long-term success.
🚀 Entrepreneurs
For entrepreneurs, this research fundamentally expands how value creation should be understood—not as something confined within the startup, but as something co-created through relationships over time. It suggests that the true strategic asset of a venture is not only its product, technology, or business model, but the network of knowledge connections it builds and embeds into its organizational fabric.
At an early stage, entrepreneurs often prioritize speed, experimentation, and product-market fit. However, this study highlights that who you collaborate with—and how deeply you collaborate—can shape the long-term trajectory of your venture far beyond immediate outcomes. Strategic alliances with universities, large corporations, suppliers, or even other startups create more than temporary synergies; they generate relational assets such as shared routines, mutual understanding, and informal knowledge pathways. These assets become part of the startup’s “organizational memory,” persisting even after formal partnerships end.
This has profound implications for how entrepreneurs should approach partnerships. Rather than viewing collaborations purely as transactional (e.g., access to funding, distribution, or technology), entrepreneurs should see them as investments in future optionality. A partnership today may open doors years later—especially if the venture becomes an acquisition target. For instance, a startup that collaborates with leading AI labs or industry incumbents may later offer an acquirer indirect access to those ecosystems, making the startup strategically valuable far beyond its immediate capabilities.
This perspective also reshapes how entrepreneurs think about exit strategies. Traditionally, acquisitions are evaluated based on financial metrics, intellectual property, or market position. However, this research suggests that acquirers increasingly value startups as bridges to external knowledge networks. A startup that has cultivated deep, knowledge-intensive alliances effectively becomes a gateway to broader ecosystems. This means that entrepreneurs who intentionally build and manage high-quality partnerships may significantly enhance their firm’s attractiveness and valuation during acquisition negotiations.
At the same time, this creates a delicate strategic tension. While openness and collaboration are essential for learning and growth, they also introduce long-term knowledge exposure risks. Knowledge shared with a partner today may eventually become accessible to other firms through indirect pathways, such as acquisitions. For example, if a startup collaborates closely with a larger firm, and that firm is later acquired by a competitor, some of the shared knowledge may indirectly flow into rival organizations. Entrepreneurs must therefore carefully design collaboration agreements, intellectual property protections, and knowledge-sharing boundaries to balance learning benefits with strategic protection.
Another critical implication lies in how entrepreneurs structure their organizations. The effectiveness of knowledge bridging depends heavily on the preservation of relational assets, which are embedded in routines, team interactions, and informal networks. Startups that operate in highly chaotic or unstructured ways may struggle to retain these assets in a way that can be leveraged later. In contrast, ventures that develop clear processes for collaboration, knowledge sharing, and partner engagement are more likely to create durable relational capital that survives organizational change, including acquisitions.
Entrepreneurs should also recognize the importance of relational depth over relational breadth. While having many partners may seem beneficial, the study suggests that deeper knowledge exchange with fewer partners creates stronger relational assets, which are more valuable for future knowledge bridging. Superficial partnerships may provide short-term visibility but are less likely to generate the kind of embedded knowledge and trust that enable long-term strategic advantages.
Finally, this research encourages entrepreneurs to adopt a broader, ecosystem-oriented mindset. Instead of asking only, “How do I grow my startup?”, they should also ask:“What knowledge networks am I embedding my startup into, and how will these networks shape my future opportunities?”
Entrepreneurs who internalize this perspective will move beyond building standalone ventures and instead create strategically positioned nodes within larger ecosystems. These ventures are not only more innovative and adaptive in the present, but also more valuable, resilient, and strategically significant in the long run—especially when viewed through the lens of potential acquirers seeking access, not just ownership.
🧠 Individuals
For individuals, this research offers a powerful reframing of how personal and professional growth should be understood. It suggests that success is not determined solely by what you know or what skills you possess, but by how you are connected to knowledge through your relationships, experiences, and interactions.
Most individuals focus on building expertise—acquiring degrees, certifications, and technical skills. While these remain important, this study highlights that knowledge does not exist in isolation. Instead, it is often embedded in networks of people, routines, and shared experiences. Just as firms gain value from the relationships they inherit through acquisitions, individuals gain value from the relational pathways they build throughout their careers.
This means that every collaboration, project, or team experience has a deeper significance. Working with different colleagues, organizations, or industries exposes individuals not only to new information but also to how knowledge is created, applied, and shared in different contexts. Over time, these experiences build a form of “relational intelligence”—an ability to navigate, interpret, and access knowledge across diverse environments.
For example, an individual who has worked across multiple industries or collaborated with diverse teams may develop the ability to connect ideas that others cannot. Even if they are not the original source of knowledge, they can act as a bridge between domains, facilitating innovation and problem-solving. This mirrors the concept of knowledge bridging at the organizational level—individuals can also become connectors of knowledge ecosystems.
Another important implication concerns career mobility. Changing roles, organizations, or industries is often viewed as a way to gain new skills. However, this research suggests that mobility also creates lasting relational assets. Even after leaving a role or organization, individuals retain insights into how those environments operate—their culture, knowledge structures, and informal networks. These insights can later be leveraged in new contexts, enabling individuals to access or interpret knowledge that others may find difficult to reach.
At the same time, individuals must be mindful of the trade-offs involved in sharing knowledge. Just as firms face risks of knowledge leakage through alliances, individuals also navigate boundaries between collaboration and protection. Sharing ideas openly can build trust and strengthen relationships, but it may also expose unique insights that contribute to one’s competitive advantage. The key is to develop a thoughtful approach to what to share, when to share, and with whom.
This research also underscores the importance of maintaining relationships over time. Connections formed in past roles or collaborations do not lose their value when formal ties end. Instead, they often become latent pathways to future opportunities, providing access to new ideas, information, or collaborations. Individuals who actively nurture these relationships—through communication, mutual support, and ongoing engagement—are more likely to benefit from these indirect knowledge flows.
Ultimately, this study encourages individuals to rethink a fundamental question:“Am I just building skills, or am I building access to knowledge through my relationships?”
Those who focus only on accumulating knowledge may limit their growth to what they can directly learn. In contrast, individuals who cultivate diverse, meaningful connections position themselves within broader knowledge ecosystems, enabling them to learn faster, adapt more effectively, and create value in ways that go beyond their individual capabilities.
🌟 Celebrities / Public Figures
For celebrities and public figures, this research reveals that influence and relevance are not driven solely by personal talent, visibility, or brand strength, but increasingly by the networks of relationships they build and the ecosystems they participate in. Much like firms in the study, public figures do not operate in isolation—they are embedded in webs of collaborations that shape their access to ideas, opportunities, and audiences.
Celebrities often collaborate with producers, directors, designers, brands, platforms, and other creators. These collaborations create more than immediate outputs such as films, music, or campaigns—they generate relational assets, including trust, shared creative routines, and deep familiarity with how others work. Over time, these assets form an invisible infrastructure that allows celebrities to access new opportunities even when formal collaborations end.
For example, an actor who has worked with visionary directors or cutting-edge production teams does not just gain experience from those projects. They develop an understanding of creative processes, storytelling techniques, and industry dynamics that can be leveraged in future work. Even years later, these relational connections can open doors to new roles, collaborations, or ventures. In this sense, celebrities become part of a creative ecosystem, where past collaborations continue to shape future possibilities.
This perspective also explains why some public figures are able to continuously reinvent themselves and remain relevant across different domains. It is not only because of their individual capabilities, but because they are connected to diverse and evolving networks of talent and knowledge. A musician collaborating with global artists, a fashion icon working with innovative designers, or a public figure engaging with emerging digital creators is effectively building bridges across domains, enabling cross-pollination of ideas and audiences.
At the same time, this research highlights an important strategic tension. Collaborations that enhance visibility and creativity may also create pathways through which ideas, styles, or personal brand elements diffuse to others. For instance, working closely with certain creative teams may influence broader trends that competitors or peers can adopt. Public figures must therefore balance openness and collaboration with strategic differentiation, ensuring that their unique identity is preserved even as they engage in collective creation.
Another critical implication concerns platform dynamics. In today’s digital environment, celebrities are not only connected to other individuals but also to platforms—such as streaming services, social media, and content ecosystems—that shape visibility and audience reach. These platforms act as intermediaries, amplifying or constraining access to audiences in ways that resemble the knowledge flows described in the research. Public figures who understand how to navigate and leverage these platforms effectively can extend their influence far beyond their immediate network.
Finally, this research encourages celebrities and public figures to think more strategically about their long-term positioning. Instead of focusing only on individual projects or short-term gains, they should ask:“What networks am I becoming part of, and how will these networks shape my future opportunities and influence?”
Those who actively cultivate diverse, high-quality relationships and position themselves within influential ecosystems are more likely to sustain relevance, innovate creatively, and expand their impact over time. Their success will not only be a function of who they are, but of how effectively they connect, bridge, and leverage the networks around them.
🔬 Researchers
For researchers, this study opens a rich and consequential avenue for extending theory on interorganizational learning, innovation, and strategy. By introducing knowledge bridging as a distinct mechanism, it challenges the traditional “build–borrow–buy” paradigm and demonstrates that firms can access valuable knowledge without ownership, direct collaboration, or prior familiarity. This invites a rethinking of how knowledge flows are conceptualized across organizational boundaries.
At a theoretical level, the paper extends the relational view of the firm by moving beyond dyadic relationships to a more complex, networked perspective. Knowledge does not only flow through direct ties; it can travel through inherited relational infrastructures, where prior alliances create latent pathways that acquirers can activate post-acquisition. This suggests that relational assets are not only valuable within alliances, but also portable and redeployable across organizational transformations, such as acquisitions.
The study also contributes to the literature on knowledge diffusion and innovation by identifying a mechanism that operates independently of traditional absorptive capacity assumptions. Unlike prior work that emphasizes the need for direct ties or shared knowledge bases, knowledge bridging shows that firms can access external knowledge through indirect pathways, leveraging the partner-specific absorptive capacity and social capital embedded in acquired organizations.
Methodologically, the use of patent citations as proxies for knowledge flows, combined with a triadic design (acquirer–target–partner), provides a robust empirical framework for studying indirect knowledge transfer. This opens opportunities for future research to explore multi-layered network effects, where knowledge flows are shaped by combinations of alliances, acquisitions, and ecosystem structures.
Importantly, the study also surfaces several contingencies that invite further investigation. The moderating roles of knowledge base relatedness, business competition, and post-acquisition autonomy suggest that knowledge bridging is not a universal mechanism, but one that depends on contextual alignment between firms, technologies, and competitive dynamics.
Promising Research Questions
Building on these insights, several promising research directions emerge:
· How does knowledge bridging interact with emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, which may independently enable firms to access distant knowledge domains?
· To what extent can knowledge bridging substitute for traditional alliances, and under what conditions do firms prefer one mechanism over the other?
· How do different integration strategies (e.g., full integration vs. autonomy) influence the longevity and effectiveness of inherited relational assets?
· What role do ecosystems and platform structures play in amplifying or constraining knowledge bridging across industries?
· How do firms manage the tension between leveraging relational assets for knowledge access and protecting themselves from unintended knowledge spillovers?
Ultimately, this research invites scholars to shift their focus from who is directly connected to whom toward understanding how knowledge travels across indirect, evolving networks of relationships. It positions knowledge bridging as a foundational concept for future work on strategy, innovation, and organizational learning in increasingly interconnected and dynamic environments.
4️⃣ 🏭 Industry Lens
🏨 Hospitality & Tourism
In the hospitality and tourism industry, this research provides a powerful lens for reinterpreting how firms create competitive advantage in an ecosystem characterized by platform dependence, global partnerships, and continuous service innovation. Unlike manufacturing sectors where knowledge may be more codified, hospitality operates through experience-based, relational, and often tacit knowledge, making the concept of knowledge bridging especially relevant.
Hospitality firms—such as hotel chains, airlines, online travel agencies, and platform-based intermediaries—are deeply embedded in multi-layered ecosystems involving technology providers, distribution platforms, local partners, service vendors, and even governments. Acquisitions in this context are rarely just about acquiring properties, brands, or market share; they are often about gaining access to embedded relationships and knowledge flows that shape customer experience and operational excellence.
For example, when a global hotel chain acquires a boutique hotel group, the value of that acquisition may not lie solely in the physical assets or brand positioning. The boutique group may have previously collaborated with:
· Local experience providers
· Digital booking platforms
· Design and service innovation firms
· Regional tourism networks
Through knowledge bridging, the acquiring firm can gain indirect access to these relationships and the knowledge embedded within them—such as insights into local customer preferences, unique service delivery models, or innovative guest engagement practices. This allows large firms to internalize localized, experience-driven knowledge without having to build those relationships from scratch.
This mechanism is particularly critical in an era where hospitality firms increasingly rely on digital ecosystems. Consider acquisitions involving technology-driven companies—such as revenue management systems, AI-based personalization tools, or customer analytics platforms. These firms often maintain prior collaborations with software developers, data providers, and platform ecosystems. By acquiring such companies, hospitality firms do not just obtain the technology—they gain access to broader knowledge networks that continuously evolve, enabling ongoing innovation in pricing, personalization, and demand forecasting.
However, the study also highlights important constraints that are highly relevant in this industry. Hospitality is characterized by intense competition within overlapping market segments. If an acquiring firm competes directly with the prior partners of the target (e.g., competing hotel chains or platforms), those partners may restrict knowledge flows due to competitive concerns. For instance, if a hotel chain acquires a technology startup that previously worked with rival chains, those rivals may limit further collaboration or knowledge sharing, reducing the effectiveness of knowledge bridging.
Another critical implication concerns post-acquisition integration strategies. Hospitality firms often pursue standardization to ensure brand consistency across locations. However, this research suggests that excessive standardization may undermine the relational assets that enable knowledge bridging. Boutique hotels, local operators, or innovative service firms often rely on informal routines, personal relationships, and localized knowledge-sharing practices. Preserving a degree of autonomy allows these relational structures to remain intact, enabling the acquiring firm to continue accessing valuable external knowledge.
From a strategic perspective, this shifts the focus of hospitality M&A from:
· “How do we scale operations?”to
· “How do we access and leverage diverse knowledge ecosystems?”
This is particularly important in areas such as:
· Customer experience innovation (e.g., personalized services, cultural authenticity)
· Sustainability practices (e.g., partnerships with local communities and eco-certification bodies)
· Digital transformation (e.g., integration with platforms like booking systems and travel apps)
In all these domains, the most valuable knowledge often resides outside the firm, embedded in networks of partners and collaborators.
Ultimately, this research suggests that leading hospitality firms will not be those that simply expand their asset base, but those that strategically position themselves within rich, interconnected ecosystems of knowledge. Acquisitions become tools not just for growth, but for reconfiguring access to ideas, capabilities, and innovations that are distributed across the global tourism landscape.
The key strategic question for hospitality executives therefore becomes:“Which acquisitions will connect us to the most valuable knowledge networks—not just the most attractive assets?”
🏦 Banking & Financial Services
In banking and financial services, this research reframes acquisitions from being primarily about scale, capital, or market share to being about access to embedded knowledge ecosystems. The industry is increasingly driven by data, algorithms, regulatory complexity, and digital innovation—much of which resides not within traditional banks, but within networks of fintech firms, data providers, and technology partners. In this context, knowledge bridging becomes a critical mechanism for strategic advantage.
Banks and financial institutions operate in dense ecosystems that include:
· Fintech startups (payments, lending, blockchain, AI)
· Data providers (credit scoring, alternative data, fraud detection)
· Technology vendors (cloud infrastructure, cybersecurity, APIs)
· Regulatory bodies and compliance networks
When a bank acquires a fintech firm, the visible value may lie in its technology or customer base. However, the deeper strategic value often lies in the fintech’s prior partnerships and relational assets. These may include collaborations with:
· Other fintech innovators
· Platform ecosystems (e.g., payment networks, open banking platforms)
· Data-sharing consortia
· Developer communities
Through knowledge bridging, the acquiring bank can gain indirect access to these networks, allowing it to tap into ongoing streams of innovation, data insights, and technological evolution without forming direct alliances with each actor. This is particularly powerful in financial services, where innovation cycles are rapid and knowledge is highly distributed.
For example, acquiring a digital payments startup may provide not only the technology itself, but also access to its prior collaborations with global payment processors, API developers, and merchant ecosystems. These connections can enable the bank to accelerate product development, enhance customer experience, and expand into new markets more effectively than relying solely on internal capabilities.
However, the study also highlights important constraints that are especially pronounced in this industry. Financial services are characterized by high competitive overlap and strict regulatory environments. If the acquiring bank operates in the same domain as the fintech’s prior partners, those partners may perceive the bank as a competitor and restrict knowledge flows. For instance, a fintech that previously collaborated with multiple banks may face pressure from those institutions to limit information sharing once it is acquired by a rival bank.
Regulation introduces another layer of complexity. Knowledge in financial services is often tied to compliance, risk models, and proprietary data, which are subject to strict controls. Even if relational pathways exist, the ability to leverage them may be constrained by legal, regulatory, and governance considerations. This means that knowledge bridging in this sector requires not only relational access but also institutional alignment and compliance readiness.
Post-acquisition integration is also a critical issue. Large financial institutions often impose rigid structures, processes, and governance frameworks on acquired firms. While this may enhance control and risk management, it can also disrupt the informal networks and routines that enable knowledge bridging. Fintech firms, in particular, rely on agile collaboration, open communication, and flexible partnerships. Preserving a degree of autonomy is therefore essential to maintain their relational assets and ensure continued access to external knowledge.
From a strategic perspective, this research suggests that banks should rethink their acquisition logic from:
· “How do we acquire capabilities and customers?”to
· “How do we embed ourselves in innovation ecosystems?”
This is especially relevant in areas such as:
· Digital banking and fintech integration
· AI-driven risk assessment and fraud detection
· Open banking and API ecosystems
· Blockchain and decentralized finance (DeFi)
In all these domains, the most valuable knowledge is not owned by a single institution but distributed across networks of specialized actors.
Ultimately, this study highlights that the future of competitive advantage in financial services lies in strategic connectivity rather than sheer size or control. Banks that successfully leverage knowledge bridging will be those that can acquire not just firms, but access to evolving knowledge networks, enabling them to innovate faster, adapt to regulatory changes, and compete effectively in an increasingly digital and interconnected financial landscape.
The key strategic question for financial leaders becomes:“Which acquisitions position us at the center of the most valuable knowledge ecosystems?”
🏥 Healthcare
In healthcare, this research provides a powerful lens for understanding how innovation and value creation increasingly depend on access to distributed knowledge networks rather than isolated organizational capabilities. The industry is inherently complex, knowledge-intensive, and highly interdependent, involving hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, biotech firms, research institutions, technology providers, and regulatory bodies. In this context, knowledge bridging becomes a critical mechanism for advancing clinical innovation, improving patient outcomes, and accelerating the adoption of new technologies.
Healthcare organizations rarely innovate alone. Breakthroughs in areas such as drug discovery, medical devices, diagnostics, and digital health emerge from collaborative ecosystems. Pharmaceutical firms partner with biotech startups, hospitals collaborate with universities, and health systems work with technology firms on AI-driven diagnostics and patient management solutions. These collaborations generate deep relational assets—shared expertise, routines, and trust—that persist beyond the life of formal partnerships.
When a healthcare organization acquires another firm—such as a biotech startup, a digital health company, or a specialized clinic—the value of that acquisition extends far beyond the target’s existing products or capabilities. The acquiring organization gains access to the target’s embedded relationships with prior partners, including:
· Research collaborations with universities and labs
· Clinical trial networks
· Technology partnerships with AI and data analytics firms
· Connections with regulatory experts and institutions
Through knowledge bridging, these relationships become indirect channels of learning, enabling the acquirer to tap into cutting-edge scientific and clinical knowledge without establishing new partnerships from scratch. For example, acquiring a biotech firm that has collaborated with leading research institutions may provide a pharmaceutical company with indirect access to emerging scientific insights, accelerating drug development pipelines.
This mechanism is particularly valuable in healthcare because much of the knowledge is tacit, specialized, and difficult to transfer through formal documentation alone. Understanding clinical practices, patient pathways, or research methodologies often requires familiarity with the people, routines, and contexts in which that knowledge is embedded. Knowledge bridging allows acquiring firms to leverage these relational pathways to access such tacit knowledge more effectively.
However, the study also highlights important constraints that are highly relevant in healthcare. First, competitive and proprietary concerns can limit knowledge flows. Pharmaceutical companies, for instance, are highly protective of intellectual property and may restrict knowledge sharing if an acquisition creates indirect ties with competitors. Similarly, hospitals and healthcare providers may be cautious about sharing patient-related insights due to privacy regulations and ethical considerations.
Second, regulatory frameworks play a significant role. Healthcare is one of the most regulated industries, with strict rules governing data sharing, clinical trials, and patient information. Even when relational pathways exist, the ability to leverage them depends on compliance with legal and ethical standards. This means that knowledge bridging in healthcare is not only a strategic challenge but also an institutional one, requiring alignment with regulatory requirements.
Third, post-acquisition integration must be handled with particular care. Healthcare organizations often rely on highly specialized teams and collaborative routines that are sensitive to disruption. Over-integration can break down the trust and informal networks that underpin knowledge exchange, reducing the effectiveness of knowledge bridging. Maintaining the autonomy of acquired research units, clinics, or startups can help preserve these relational assets and sustain access to external knowledge.
From a strategic perspective, this research shifts the focus in healthcare from:
· “How do we acquire technologies or capabilities?”to
· “How do we access and participate in knowledge ecosystems that drive innovation?”
This is especially critical in areas such as:
· Precision medicine and genomics
· AI-driven diagnostics and treatment planning
· Pharmaceutical R&D and drug discovery
· Integrated care and patient experience innovation
In all these domains, innovation is not contained within a single organization but emerges from interconnected networks of expertise and collaboration.
Ultimately, this study suggests that leading healthcare organizations will be those that strategically position themselves within rich, knowledge-intensive ecosystems, using acquisitions not merely to expand their asset base but to unlock access to new sources of scientific, clinical, and technological insight.
The key strategic question for healthcare leaders becomes:“Which acquisitions will connect us to the most valuable networks of medical and scientific knowledge?”
🛍 Retail & Platform Businesses
In retail and platform-based businesses, this research provides a powerful reframing of competitive advantage in environments increasingly shaped by data, digital ecosystems, and interconnected actors. Unlike traditional retail models that relied heavily on scale, supply chains, and physical presence, modern retail—especially platform-driven retail—is deeply embedded in networks of sellers, technology providers, logistics partners, and data ecosystems. In this context, knowledge bridging becomes a critical mechanism for sustaining innovation and market leadership.
Retailers today operate within complex ecosystems that include:
· Suppliers and manufacturers
· Third-party sellers and marketplace participants
· Logistics and fulfillment networks
· Data analytics and AI providers
· Digital platforms (e.g., marketplaces, payment systems, recommendation engines)
When a retail firm—especially a platform like an online marketplace—acquires another company, the visible value may lie in its customer base, technology, or brand. However, the deeper strategic value often resides in the target’s prior relationships and embedded knowledge networks. These may include collaborations with:
· Niche suppliers or emerging brands
· Advanced data analytics firms
· Last-mile delivery innovators
· Content creators and digital marketing ecosystems
Through knowledge bridging, the acquiring firm can gain indirect access to these networks, allowing it to tap into new sources of product innovation, customer insights, and operational capabilities without building those relationships independently.
For example, when a large e-commerce platform acquires a smaller, specialized marketplace, it is not only acquiring a segment of customers or products. It is also gaining access to the marketplace’s curated network of sellers, data on consumer behavior, and relationships with niche brands. These relationships often carry tacit knowledge about customer preferences, emerging trends, and product positioning that are difficult to replicate through internal analytics alone.
This mechanism is particularly powerful in platform-based businesses, where value creation depends on network effects. Knowledge bridging allows platforms to enhance these effects by integrating new relational pathways into their ecosystem. By accessing the target’s prior partnerships, platforms can:
· Improve recommendation algorithms through richer data inputs
· Expand into new product categories or market segments
· Strengthen relationships with high-value sellers or partners
However, the study also highlights important constraints that are highly relevant in this domain. Retail and platform businesses often operate in highly competitive and overlapping ecosystems. If the acquiring firm competes with the target’s prior partners—such as competing platforms, brands, or service providers—those partners may restrict collaboration or limit data sharing. This can weaken the effectiveness of knowledge bridging and reduce the anticipated benefits of the acquisition.
Another critical issue is post-acquisition integration. Large retail and platform firms often aim to standardize operations, integrate data systems, and align processes across acquired entities. While this can improve efficiency, it may also disrupt the informal relationships and routines that enable knowledge sharing. Smaller platforms or niche retailers often rely on personalized interactions, trust-based relationships, and flexible collaboration models. Preserving these elements is essential to maintaining the relational assets that underpin knowledge bridging.
From a strategic perspective, this research shifts the focus in retail from:
· “How do we expand our assortment or customer base?”to
· “How do we enhance our position within interconnected ecosystems of sellers, data, and partners?”
This is especially critical in areas such as:
· Personalization and recommendation systems
· Omnichannel customer experience
· Private label and product innovation
· Supply chain and logistics optimization
In all these domains, the most valuable knowledge is distributed across networks of partners rather than concentrated within the firm.
Ultimately, this study suggests that leading retail and platform businesses will be those that use acquisitions not merely to scale operations, but to strategically reconfigure their access to knowledge ecosystems. Firms that can effectively identify, preserve, and leverage the relational assets embedded in acquired organizations will be better positioned to innovate, adapt, and compete in rapidly evolving markets.
The key strategic question for retail and platform leaders becomes:“Which acquisitions will connect us to the most valuable networks of sellers, data, and innovation?”
5️⃣ 🎯 Strategy Literacy Takeaway
At its core, this research delivers a simple but transformative insight:
Strategy is no longer about what you own—it is about what you can access through the networks you inherit.
The traditional logic of strategy emphasized building capabilities, acquiring assets, and forming alliances. This study adds a critical new dimension: the power of indirect access. Firms can create value not only through direct relationships, but through hidden pathways of knowledge embedded in prior connections.
This shifts strategic thinking in three fundamental ways.
First, it redefines competitive advantage as network position rather than resource possession. The most strategically valuable firms are not necessarily those with the most assets, but those positioned within the richest and most connected ecosystems of knowledge. What matters is not just what you know, but how easily you can reach what others know.
Second, it highlights that invisible assets often drive visible outcomes. Financial statements, technologies, and capabilities tell only part of the story. The real drivers of long-term innovation and adaptability often lie in relational capital—trust, routines, and shared experience—that cannot be easily measured but can be strategically leveraged.
Third, it introduces a new strategic mindset: thinking in terms of pathways rather than boundaries. Instead of asking, “What do we have?”, strategists must ask,“What can we reach, and through whom?”
This perspective is especially critical in today’s world, where knowledge is distributed across industries, platforms, and ecosystems. Firms that focus only on internal capabilities risk becoming isolated, while those that actively design and leverage relational pathways can continuously access new ideas, technologies, and opportunities.
At the same time, this research serves as a caution. Relationships that enable access can also create unintended exposure. Knowledge shared within alliances today may flow to unknown actors tomorrow through indirect connections. Strategy, therefore, must balance openness with protection, ensuring that firms benefit from knowledge flows without losing control over their most valuable insights.
Ultimately, the strategic lesson is clear:
The future of strategy belongs to those who can see, build, and leverage the invisible bridges that connect knowledge across organizations, industries, and ecosystems.
Those who master this perspective will not only compete more effectively—they will learn faster, adapt quicker, and innovate more continuously than those who remain confined within traditional organizational boundaries.
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit strategyliteracy.substack.com/subscribe
