Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Essay:
Strategic Alliances and Growth
Alliances should be structured in one of four ways: as an equity alliance, as a non-equity alliance, as a global alliance, or as a joint venture (Cartwright & Schoenberg, 2006; Rigsbee, 2000). How the alliance is structured depends on several different things, because not all alliance structures would be appropriate for all types of companies or all types of negotiations. It is very important that the alliance is one that is agreed upon by both parties, however, and that neither party feels as though the type of alliance chosen was something he or she was pushed into in order to get things moving. A clear understanding of each type of alliance is important. For example, a global alliance is usually something that is undertaken between large, global companies. That type of alliance would not be appropriate for two small-time, sole proprietors who live and work in the same time and are trying to work together to grow a local customer base. A joint venture may be a better type of alliance in that situation, and would certainly provide a more realistic starting point for any kind of negotiation or discussion (Rosenbaum & Pearl, 2009).
Equity and non-equity alliances are also important to distinguish between. In an equity alliance, each firm owns part of the company (often in different percentages) and the firms work together in an effort to create a competitive advantage for all firms involved (DePamphilis, 2008). A non-equity alliance involves the pooling of resources by two or more firms, but it does not involve the creation of a company that is "owned" by all the firms based on the percentages to which they have contributed (DePamphilis, 2008). There are many reasons to choose one type of alliance over the other, and which one is chosen by a firm or a group of firms often depends simply on the option with which the majority of intended parties is more comfortable. As long as all firms are in agreement, any option is viable.
There are both pros and cons of equity and non-equity alliances, of course, just as there are with other types of alliances and business structure. With the non-equity alliance, the firms who engage in this option are not as "tied" to one another as with some other options. There is a contractual relationship between the firms, but they have only agreed to share specific resources in specific amounts with one another (Mowery, et al., 1996). They often have capabilities and/or resources that are unique to them, but they might need something that another firm has, and that is unique to that particular firm. When that is the case, and both parties (or a large group of parties) can benefit from working together, there is really no reason not to do so, provided the details are agreeable to everyone. A competitive advantage can be created that way, which will allow all of the companies involved in the non-equity alliance to gain customers, build profits, and see increased market share (Rosenbaum & Pearl, 2009).
That sounds like a great reason to just go with the non-equity alliance and not even consider the equity alliance, but it is not good to be too hasty. There is a downside to the non-equity alliance in that each company has far less invested (Rosenbaum & Pearl, 2009). In other words, they do not "own" anything. They have simply agreed to work together, and to allow the other companies in the alliance to use their resources capabilities. If one company decides to break the alliance, there is often little that can be done. There is no company to dissolve, no ownership to take over, and no real way (other than trying to sue the company that left) to do much about the fact that the company decided to get out of the alliance. Writing provisions for these things into the alliance is very important, but it can also be something that many people overlook (Rigsbee, 2000). Why would someone leave? What if one company goes out of business? There are all types of considerations that have to be addressed with a non-equity alliance. While there are benefits to it, there are also certainly concerns to consider.
As for equity alliances, they have their own list of pros and cons. An equity alliance can be thought of as more secure, because all the parties to that kind of alliance have more invested in it than they would with a non-equity alliance (Rigsbee, 2000). A company is created by different firms, and they all own a percentage of that company. That makes them much more invested in the welfare of the company and how successful it is. They are still looking for a competitive advantage, but they are looking to create it by becoming one with other firms that can help them get there, instead of just pooling resources into a type of collective as they would in a non-equity alliance (Rigsbee, 2000; Rosenbaum & Pearl, 2009). It is far different for everyone to own a percentage of all the tools purchased, for example, than for everyone to simply bring the tools they have and allow others to use them. The stakes are not the same.
With that stronger level of involvement, though, comes a stronger tie that is more difficult to break. A company that wants to leave an equity strategic alliance may find that it is much more difficult (and much more costly) to do than leaving a non-equity alliance. The equity alliance creates ownership of a separate company, and a specific percentage of that consolidated company belongs to each one of the companies involved in the alliance (Rigsbee, 2000). Getting out of the alliance can mean that a company may lose what was invested in that alliance - time, money, talents, equipment, etc. It can also mean a buyout from the other companies in the alliance, and the terms under which that can take place are not always good. Protecting oneself is important no matter which kind of alliance is chosen, but an equity alliance is more significant and should be given more careful consideration, especially as to how the company will leave the alliance at a later date if things do not work out acceptably (Cartwright & Schoenberg, 2006). Like other types of business ideas, alliances do not always work. They can have difficulties and struggles, and some of those can be too much to bear.
Legal pitfalls to include in alliance negotiation include may different types of issues. Listing all of them here is not possible, but there are a few that are more significant than others. The development of strategy is one area that can fall into legal problems (DePamphilis, 2008). Who created the strategy? To whom does it belong as intellectual property, and can others use it outside of the alliance? Asking those kinds of questions and agreeing on the answers is vital to ensuring that the alliance that is created is going to be safe, effective, appropriate, and as successful as possible. While there are no guarantees, a legal pitfall over intellectual property can ruin an alliance that otherwise might have been very successful. Another thing to avoid is a misunderstanding about exactly what type of alliance is being undertaken and how the legal aspects of that alliance affect everyone involved in it (Mowery, et al., 1996). It can be easy to confuse different options, especially if one is new to the business world.
Additionally, always be sure that alliance termination is discussed, and that there is something spelled out clearly in writing when it comes to how and when the alliance can be terminated, and on what grounds (Rosenbaum & Pearl, 2009). Many people do not do this, and they just assume that the alliance will go on forever because everyone is happy with it. They might be happy in the beginning, but if they end up unhappy later there needs to be provisions. If nothing is addressed properly, it can be easy for one or more companies to simply walk away, leaving other companies "stuck" because they no longer have access to resources they needed and that were owned and managed by the other companies. Something like that taking place can be very costly for the companies involved and can sour them on developing alliances in the future - even if those alliances seem to be very beneficial to them. In order to avoid losing out on a current alliance or choosing to stay out of them in the future due to a bad experience, a lawyer who'd a neutral party should help to draft the alliance (Rigsbee, 2000).
It is very important to understand alliance termination, because it can be complex and difficult if provisions for it were not included in the original alliance when it was created. Sometimes an alliance is terminated on rather hostile grounds, or because of serious problems and disagreements. However, there are plenty of other times…[continue]
"Strategic Alliances And Growth Alliances Should Be" (2012, August 12) Retrieved October 25, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/strategic-alliances-and-growth-81572
"Strategic Alliances And Growth Alliances Should Be" 12 August 2012. Web.25 October. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/strategic-alliances-and-growth-81572>
"Strategic Alliances And Growth Alliances Should Be", 12 August 2012, Accessed.25 October. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/strategic-alliances-and-growth-81572
Alliances Strategic Alliances and Growth In this modern era when the corporate world is full of competition and every organization is running for its own benefits and generating revenues, alliances and acquisitions are of immense importance. Different firm shave different criteria's of entering into alliances or acquisitions and it primarily depends upon the present situation of the business as well as on the nature of the business. An alliance is an agreement
Fuji Xerox Sub-Strategic Alliances & Growth. The joint venture between Xerox and Fuji Photo Film to form Fuji Xerox was considered by many to be one of the most successful joint ventures between an American and Japanese company in history. The purpose of the strategic alliance was to overcome growing competition in the global marketplace. Fuji Xerox is only one portion of the Xerox Group, which is comprised of several larger divisions.
Human Resources Strategic HRM Strategic Role of HR In most companies today, the HR function provides vital services to such stakeholders as job applicants, workers, supervisors, middle managers, and executives. Yet, the HR function tends to be located at the end of the business chain, on the reactive side, and too frequently centers on carrying out actions rather than achieving outcomes. The role of the HR function is frequently one of providing people,
Strategic Direction of Apple in the Enterprise Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) has emerged as one of the most profitable and prolific companies in the world, generating a market capitalization rate of $623B as of this writing in late August, 2012, delivering $148B in Revenues in their latest fiscal year and $40B in Net Income (Apple Investor Relations, 2012). One of Apple's greatest strengths is its ability to quickly translate innovative product concepts
Strategic Management at McDonald's McDonald's Strategic Management Strategic Management at McDonald's Strategic Management at McDonald's McDonald's: Introduction Organizational Structure and Corporate Governance Industry Sector Analysis Michael Porter's Five Forces Model Key conditions in the External Operating Environment of McDonald's and its Industry The Value Proposition on McDonald's Products Financial Performance SWOT Analysis for McDonald's TOWS Matrix for Alternative Strategies BCG Growth Share Matrix for McDonald's Marketing, Financial, and Research & Development Strategies McDonald's Leadership Joint Ventures, Strategic Alliances, and Partnerships Performance Measurement Methods and Benchmarks Recommendations References Table of Contents Sr.
As the combination of the different pieces, would allow three out of the four business segments to be able to see earning growth between 2007 and 2008, when the economy was severely contracting. (Exhibits 2009) Using appropriate theoretical frameworks evaluate alternative options to create growth? An alternative option that company could use to achieve growth would be: to acquire a weaker competitor. One way to do this is: to evaluate the
This shift in organizational structure also required the entire corporation to shift from centralized to decentralized decision making. The approaches GE took to ensure the shift in structure and decision making would work included putting output and behavioral controls into place for each business unit. The output and behavioral controls were specifically designed to ensure each independently operating business unit shared accountability for corporate results yet also had the