File Name: strategic alliances and models of collaboration .zip
Skip to search form Skip to main content You are currently offline.
Governments around the world are attempting to improve public services through the use of advanced information technology. Increasingly these efforts rely on cross-boundary collaboration among government agencies, the private sector, and non-profit organizations. This guide focuses on the key elements of these new working arrangements of particular importance to the people who will design and manage them. In the last decade, both industrialized and developing countries have been seeking new organizational models involving collaboration across-government or public-private partnerships.
Alliances between companies, whether they are from different parts of the world or different ends of the supply chain, are a fact of life in business today. Some alliances are no more than fleeting encounters, lasting only as long as it takes one partner to establish a beachhead in a new market. Whatever the duration and objectives of business alliances, being a good partner has become a key corporate asset. In the global economy, a well-developed ability to create and sustain fruitful collaborations gives companies a significant competitive leg up.
Yet, too often, top executives devote more time to screening potential partners in financial terms than to managing the partnership in human terms.
They worry more about controlling the relationship than about nurturing it. Three years ago, I began a worldwide quest for lessons about productive partnerships, especially but not exclusively those intercompany relationships that spanned two or more countries and cultures.
We included large and small companies in both manufacturing and service industries that were involved in many kinds of alliances. To ensure that the lessons were widely applicable, we sought companies less prominent in the business press than giants like IBM, Corning, Motorola, or Ford.
Several of the relationships that we studied were more than 20 years old; others had formed only recently in response to industry and geopolitical changes. In multiple visits, we conducted more than interviews with leaders and staffs of both partners. Over time, we saw relationships blossom after good or rocky starts; change goals or structures; and wither or dissolve—amicably or contentiously.
Our research uncovered three fundamental aspects of business alliances:. Moreover, we observed that North American companies, more than others in the world, take a narrow, opportunistic view of relationships, evaluating them strictly in financial terms or seeing them as barely tolerable alternatives to outright acquisition.
Preoccupied with the economics of the deal, North American companies frequently neglect the political, cultural, organizational, and human aspects of the partnership. Asian companies are the most comfortable with relationships, and therefore they are the most adept at using and exploiting them.
European companies fall somewhere in the middle. Exploring the different outcomes of the business relationships of other companies can help companies manage their own. Successful alliances build and improve a collaborative advantage by first acknowledging and then effectively managing the human aspects of their alliances.
Cooperative arrangements between companies range along a continuum from weak and distant to strong and close. At one extreme, in mutual service consortia, similar companies in similar industries pool their resources to gain a benefit too expensive to acquire alone—access to an advanced technology, for example.
At mid-range, in joint ventures, companies pursue an opportunity that needs a capability from each of them—the technology of one and the market access of the other, for example. The strongest and closest collaborations are value-chain partnerships, such as supplier-customer relationships. Companies in different industries with different but complementary skills link their capabilities to create value for ultimate users. In value-chain partnerships, companies with different skills come together to build value for customers.
Companies can participate simultaneously in many kinds of relationships, and partners in any relationship may play a variety of roles. In every case, a business relationship is more than just the deal.
It is a connection between otherwise independent organizations that can take many forms and contains the potential for additional collaboration.
It is a mutual agreement to continue to get together; thus its value includes the potential for a stream of opportunities. Relationships between companies begin, grow, and develop—or fail—in ways similar to relationships between people. Relationships between companies begin, grow, and develop—or fail—much like relationships between people. The characteristics of effective intercompany relationships challenge many decades of Western economic and managerial assumptions.
For example, most Westerners assume that modern industrial companies are run best by professional managers operating within limited, contractual Western obligations. And most Westerners assume that any person with the requisite knowledge, skills, and talents can be a manager in the modern corporation. Intercompany relationships are different. They seem to work best when they are more familylike and less rational. Obligations are more diffuse, the scope for collaboration is more open, understanding grows between specific individuals, communication is frequent and intensive, and the interpersonal context is rich.
The best intercompany relationships are frequently messy and emotional, involving feelings like chemistry or trust. And they should not be entered into lightly.
Only relationships with full commitment on all sides endure long enough to create value for the partners. Indeed, the best organizational relationships, like the best marriages, are true partnerships that tend to meet certain criteria:. Individual Excellence. Both partners are strong and have something of value to contribute to the relationship.
Their motives for entering into the relationship are positive to pursue future opportunities , not negative to mask weaknesses or escape a difficult situation. The relationship fits major strategic objectives of the partners, so they want to make it work. Partners have long-term goals in which the relationship plays a key role. The partners need each other. They have complementary assets and skills. Neither can accomplish alone what both can together.
The partners invest in each other for example, through equity swaps, cross-ownership, or mutual board service to demonstrate their respective stakes in the relationship and each other. They show tangible signs of long-term commitment by devoting financial and other resources to the relationship. Communication is reasonably open. Partners share information required to make the relationship work, including their objectives and goals, technical data, and knowledge of conflicts, trouble spots, or changing situations.
The partners develop linkages and shared ways of operating so they can work together smoothly. They build broad connections between many people at many organizational levels. Partners become both teachers and learners. The relationship is given a formal status, with clear responsibilities and decision processes.
It extends beyond the particular people who formed it, and it cannot be broken on a whim. The partners behave toward each other in honorable ways that justify and enhance mutual trust. They do not abuse the information they gain, nor do they undermine each other.
In the first—courtship—two companies meet, are attracted, and discover their compatibility. During the second—engagement—they draw up plans and close the deal. In phase three, the newly partnered companies, like couples setting up housekeeping, discover they have different ideas about how the business should operate.
In phase four, the partners devise mechanisms for bridging those differences and develop techniques for getting along. And in phase five, as old-marrieds, each company discovers that it has changed internally as a result of its accommodation to the ongoing collaboration.
Indeed, successful company relationships nearly always depend on the creation and maintenance of a comfortable personal relationship between the senior executives.
Alliances and partnerships are initially romantic in another sense: their formation rests largely on hopes and dreams—what might be possible if certain opportunities are pursued. Strategic and financial analyses contribute a level of confidence, but, like all new business ventures, collaborative relationships draw energy largely from the optimistic ambition of their creators.
COMCO, a Swiss diversified services company, seeing a big demand for environmental cleanup in Eastern Europe, touted enthusiastically the benefits of its joint venture with the U. COMCO optimistically made the Martech joint venture a linchpin of its future growth strategy and assumed Martech felt the same way. Only later, when a cash infusion was needed and Martech backed off, did COMCO realize that its infatuation had been one-sided. Like romances, alliances are built on hopes and dreams—what might happen if certain opportunities are pursued.
The risk of missing a rare opportunity also motivates company leaders to enter into relationships with open-ended possibilities beyond just clear financial payoffs. For example, newly privatized telecommunications businesses in Europe, Latin America, and Asia often find many foreign companies bidding for their affections, even when financial payoffs are uncertain and venture strategies confusing.
Those companies offer a rare chance for outsiders to acquire inside positions in country markets. Furthermore, distance lends enchantment. Selective perceptions reinforce the dreams, not the dangers. Leaders see in the other what they want to see and believe what they want to believe, often realizing only later that infatuation blinded them to early warning signs. One leader on the European side of an alliance with a U.
Relationships get off to a good start when partners know themselves and their industry, when they have assessed changing industry conditions and decided to seek an alliance. It also helps if executives have experience in evaluating potential partners.
To highlight the personal side of business relationships is not to deny the importance of sound financial and strategic analyses. But deals often turn on rapport between chief executives. And the feelings between them that clinch or negate a relationship transcend business to include personal and social interests.
Also, a good personal rapport between executives creates a well of goodwill to draw on later if tensions develop. A relationship between CEOs that includes personal and social interests can make or break a business deal.
Northern Telecom was not even on the list when Matra Hachette of France began to seek partners for its Matra Communication subsidiary.
Eventually Matra executives flew to North America to meet Stern and other senior staff. We hit it off socially; we share an interest in the arts and fast cars. In July , Northern and Matra closed the deal. The courtship period tests compatibility on broad historical, philosophical, and strategic grounds: common experiences, values and principles, and hopes for the future. While analysts examine financial viability, leaders can assess the less tangible aspects of compatibility.
Publicis, operating in 39 major European cities by , was twentieth in the world in billings. FCB, also with an extensive international presence, ranked fifteenth. FCB and Publicis both brought humility to their growth plans, which made them open to sharing control; each believed that it could not grow alone and that industry globalization was blunting its competitive edge.
Both had searched for several years without finding the right partner, so they had sufficient experience with other potential partners to be satisfied with what they found in each other. Each company was strong in territories that the other was not, but there was reasonable equivalence in the strengths each brought to the relationship. The companies had similar creative principles and operating philosophies, similar experiences with common clients, and few areas of direct business conflict.
Though Beja did not take the offer, the two men stayed in touch.
Axelrod, R. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Barringer, B. Walking a tightrope: creating value through interorganizational relationships. Journal of Management, 26 3 , p. Borys, B.
Skip to search form Skip to main content You are currently offline. Some features of the site may not work correctly. Todeva and D. Todeva , D. Knoke Published
Strategic alliances developed and propagated as formalized interorganizational relationships. These cooperative arrangements represent new organizational.
Alliances and partnerships are a key staple in business strategies for organizations large and small. But while many partnerships begin with big visions and aspirations, not all alliances turn out to be strategic. In the last few months, I have seen various new alliances being formed among top companies of the world. Alliances are business relationships.
Alliances between companies, whether they are from different parts of the world or different ends of the supply chain, are a fact of life in business today. Some alliances are no more than fleeting encounters, lasting only as long as it takes one partner to establish a beachhead in a new market. Whatever the duration and objectives of business alliances, being a good partner has become a key corporate asset. In the global economy, a well-developed ability to create and sustain fruitful collaborations gives companies a significant competitive leg up. Yet, too often, top executives devote more time to screening potential partners in financial terms than to managing the partnership in human terms.
The vast majority of these collaborations are structured as non-equity alliances — i. In fast-moving industries like software, electronics, financial services, pharmaceuticals, and retail, non-equity alliances are the dominant form of partnership. These industries thrive on purely contractual relationships that offer a quick way to access capabilities and markets without the time, rigidity, and other issues associated with creating a separate company with a counterparty. Indeed, single non-equity alliances are often being structured as part of broader alliance ecosystems, where firms are assembling complementary and sometimes overlapping partnerships to introduce entirely new business models. At the same time, companies are enabling their alliances through various electronic collaboration tools and systems.
Professor at University of Aveiro, Portugal. Master in Management by University of Aveiro, Portugal. The rapid and all-encompassing changes in regional and world wine markets have stimulated us to carry out this study. Accordingly, based on the competitiveness of an important Port wine producer in Portugal, this article analyzes a strategic alliance between this company and another important multinational one that is present in many different worldwide distribution markets.
Strategic Alliances and Models of Collaboration objectives better through collaboration than through competition. Open PDF in Browser.
Edwin Kaats and Wilfrid Opheij, both management consultants and researchers, specialize in collaboration between organizations. Their discipline is the science and practice of connecting people and organizations. They help to improve the way collaboration -in alliances, networks, chains and partnerships- work by providing advice on the subject, by directing the processes, by lecturing, by researching the field, and by publishing about it. They were the co-authors of the book, Organizing in between, design and governance of inter-organizational relations , and many articles on cooperation and the capacity to connect. They earned their PhDs with the co-authored doctoral thesis, Executives make sense of alliances and networks Tilburg University, Their book, Learning to Collaborate between Organizations, was published in , and was honored with the Dutch Management Book of the year award in
DOI This paper contributes to the strategic alliance literature by undertaking a literature review of the burgeoning strategic alliance literature published in the last three decades in the mainstream management journals to fulfil two primary objectives. First, to bring a coherent structure into the fairly vast and growing alliance literature and second, to serve as a medium for a holistic understanding of the major life stages of strategic alliances. This is done by first dividing the alliance literature into three distinct yet related alliance life stages namely the pre-alliance stage, alliance formation stage and the alliance management and performance stage, and then by discussing in detail the three alliance stages individually. The paper would be useful for academics as well as practitioners looking to get a holistic understanding of strategic alliances and its three distinct yet related life stages and the key research papers which have been published focussing on each of these alliance stages. Keyword : strategic alliances, literature review, interorganizational relationships, interfirm partnerships, joint ventures. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.
Вирус? - Его грубый хохот разнесся по подземелью. - Так вы считаете, что это вирус. Фонтейн оставался невозмутимым. Грубость Джаббы была недопустима, но директор понимал, что сейчас не время и не место углубляться в вопросы служебной этики. Здесь, в командном центре, Джабба выше самого Господа Бога, а компьютерные проблемы не считаются со служебной иерархией.
На легком летнем костюме, как и на загорелой коже, не было ни морщинки.
PDF | Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to engage in a comprehensive review of the research on strategic alliances in the last decade. | Find, read and.Ellen S. 21.03.2021 at 18:28
Edwin Kaats and Wilfrid Opheij, both management consultants and researchers, specialize in collaboration between organizations.