Respond to at least two of your peers postings in one or more of the following ways: ?’See attachment for details’ APA citing? No plagiarism?
Respond to at least two of your peers’ postings in one or more of the following ways: "See attachment for details"
- APA citing
- No plagiarism
- See Colleague attachments
Discussion: Ideal Alliance Partners
In thinking about ideal alliance partners, Microsoft and Apple may not immediately spring to mind. But in fact, these often fierce competitors have a surprising history of collaboration; take for example, Office for Mac 2011. Working with, rather than against Apple, “Microsoft has once again made the Mac OS X version of its world-dominant productivity suite jive a lot more closely with the latest Windows version” (Hiner, 2010).
In “Finding the Ideal Partner,” Kwicien (2012) asserts that many organizations can grow only by forming business alliances. HR executives are increasingly being called upon to find suitable alliance partners. When considering potential alliance candidates, Kwicien emphasizes the need to think originally, or “outside the box.” He provides seven characteristics of the ideal alliance partner. One way for HR to encourage original thinking would be to ask the C-suite to consider new factors not previously considered when evaluating potential alliance partners. Drawing on the Required Resources and your own additional research, suggest three other plausible ways for HR to facilitate new ways of thinking about potential alliance partners.
Do you see any risk for the HR department in leading the charge of thinking outside the box in this regard? From a risk versus reward perspective, how might the HR department fail the organization by selecting non-traditional candidates?
Reference: Hiner, J., (2010). The 10 greatest moments of Microsoft-Apple collaboration. ZDNet. Retrieved from http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/the-10-greatest-moments-of-microsoft-apple-collaboration/41106
To prepare for this Discussion ,
Review this week’s Learning Resources, especially:
· https://www.amanet.org/articles/the-right-way-to-make-alliances-work/
· Finding the ideal partner:– See pdf
· Build Versus Buy in the Current– See pdf
· Managing business processes – See pdf
Assignment:
Respond to two of your colleagues’ postings in one or more of the following ways:
· Ask a probing question.
· Share an insight from having read your colleagues’ postings.
· Offer and support an opinion.
· Validate an idea with your own experience.
· Make a suggestion.
· Expand on your colleagues’ postings.
· No Plagiarism
· APA Citing
Ideal Alliance Partners
Top of Form
Week 4 Discussion
The primary objective for businesses to get into partnerships usually is to create more value than either partner can create when operating individually. The achievement of this objective is only possible if an organization selects the right partner. Kwicien (2012) identifies a list of characteristics for organizations to look for in potential partners. This paper relies on the list to identify more characteristics HR executives should seek in a potential partner. Further, the paper uses the identified characteristics to examine examples of business partnerships that proved successful or failed, as well as the need for original thinking by HR professionals.
Successful Partnership Example
The characteristics Kwicien (2012) recommends organizations to look for in potential partners include shared vision, carrier relationships, synergistic services or products, complementary 1stbusiness model, corporate culture, and management style. The partnership between Ford Motor Company and Domino’s Pizza in 2017 was ideal in light of the characteristics of an ideal alliance. Elements such as a shared vision, carrier relationships, synergistic products and services, compatible technological capabilities, and new sales markets and channels were present. Hence, it was unlikely for the partnership to fail.
Partnership that Appeared Ideal but Failed
The partnership between Kraft-Heinz and Starbucks appeared ideal. It is logical to argue that the partnership was ideal since it worked successfully for 12 years, after which it failed. The partnership had most of the characteristics of an ideal alliance, such as synergistic products and services, complementary domain expertise, and new sales channels and markets. It is also possible to assume that the partners had a compatible management style given the years the two enterprises managed to work together However, it is difficult to determine whether the partners had a shared vision. This is because the partnership began falling apart when Starbucks decided to opt out of the partnership agreement when it realized it was lurking behind competitors due to the lack of flexibility in the agreement (Shonk, 2022). From this perspective, the alliance was not founded on a shared vision, making it unfavorable for one partner, especially with changes in the business environment of the unfavored partner. As a result, the partnership ended after 12 years of doing business together.
Lesson for HR Executives from Successful Less-than-ideal Partnerships
Less-than-ideal partnerships can succeed. Many businesses get into partnerships without checking off all the seven characteristics identified. The motives and risks involved, as well as the competitive advantage each partner gains, present enough reasons for most businesses to get into partnerships. The success of such partnerships often stems from the willingness of both partners to collaborate and trust each other, particularly with ongoing changes in the business environment. According to Moen et al. (2010), successful partnerships are characterized by partners who are able to work closely and identify capabilities to be integrated into their operations. Hence, the lesson for HR professionals is that potential partnership candidates do not have to possess all the characteristics Kwicien (2012) has listed. Rather, they should think beyond these characteristics and be on the lookout for other capabilities to be explored in their partners.
Ways for HR to Facilitate Original Thinking in Searching for Alliance Partners
It is evident that Kwicien’s (2012) list of characteristics of ideal alliance candidates is not exhaustive, calling for HR professionals to think outside the box. One way for HR to achieve this is to consider a renegotiation period. The Kraft-Heinz and Starbucks partnership illuminates this recommendation significantly because the partnership was doing well until it became inflexible for one party, leading to its disastrous end. Another way for HR professionals to facilitate original thinking is to examine the history of the potential partners in terms of alliances, to objectively determine the probability of the partnership being a success. Lastly, HR should identify the level of control they want their organization to have in the partnership to avoid potential conflict with the partners in future. These factors facilitate “out of the box” thinking because they are not included in the list of characteristics to look out for in potential partners.
Justification of the Use of a Limited HR Budget and Possible Negative Consequences of Encouraging Original Thinking
Partnerships have the potential to succeed or fail. Therefore, it is advisable to not invest a lot of money in pursuing candidates for alliances, especially because even ideal partners lead to failed alliances. HR budget for “outside the box” alliance partners should even be more limited. This is because this strategy is a trial and error one, as opposed to that proposed by Kwicien (2012) that can be described as evidence-based. This trial-and-error aspect comes with uncertainty, which can lead to the negative consequence of failure. At the same time, it may cause HR to miss out on ideal alliance partners that can help the organization create more value than the chosen alliances.
In conclusion, the determination of ideal alliance partners is a sophisticated process because it requires a balance between tried and tested methods, as well as original thinking. This balance can give HR professionals objectivity during the process, leading to successful partnerships.
Kwicien, J. (2012). Finding the ideal partner. Employee Benefit Adviser; New York 10 (2), 44.
Moen, Ø., Bakås, O., Bolstad, A., & Pedersen, V. (2010). International market expansion strategies for high-tech firms: partnership selection criteria for forming strategic alliances. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(1), 20.
Shonk, K. (2022, May 8). Negotiation in business: Starbucks and Kraft's coffee conflict. PON – Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School. https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/business-negotiations/the-starbucks-kraft-dispute-in-business-negotiations-prepare-for-problems/
Bottom of Form
2nd Colleague –
Sandra Patterson
RE: Discussion – Week 4
Week 4: Ideal Alliance Partners
Describe a successful partnership that you found in your research.
In my research, I found that the main characteristic of a successful partnership is to be able to implement a joint venture of partnerships. Also, a successful partnership needs to have a mutually beneficial relationship and the two companies need to be able to complement each other. For example, Apple and IBM have been able to bring together the analytics and enterprise-scale computing of IBM along with the elegant user experience of the iPhone and iPad to deliver a new level of value for businesses. Apple already had a background in knowing how to give customers what they want, and they could also improve IBM’s image. In addition, IBM’s big data and software gave Apple a big boost.
Cite an example of a partnership that initially appeared to be ideal, but failed and describe how it progressed
Partnerships that failed were between the Dutch oil company Shell and the Danish toy company Lego. They had a branding partnership that seemed alright. In addition, Lego even stamped some authenticity on its race cars and gas station sets. Then Shell was able to connect with customers from the start. So for decades, the partnership worked well, but as Lego toys emerged from the basement and became a global children’s entertainment brand, Greenpeace saw that it wasn’t right for children to play with toys that displayed the name of a petroleum company that had a history of questionable environmental practices. So Greenpeace released a YouTube video that criticized the partnership by enveloping a Lego arctic with thick crude oil, all to a melancholy rendition of the Lego Movie, “Everything is awesome”. The public outcry from concerned citizens and parents was quick and in 2011 the Shell-Lego partnership ended (Kosin, M., n.d.).
Suggest three ways for HR to facilitate original thinking in searching for alliance partners
The three ways that HR can facilitate original thinking when searching for alliance partners are having trust between management teams, the relatedness of partner business, and having access to links to major buyers. In addition, it is also important to have networks and distribution channels, access to local market knowledge, a good reputation, a sound financial status, and share financial risk (Moen, O., 2010).
Justify the use of a limited HR budget in pursuing “outside the box” alliance partners.
The use of a limited HR budget can be justified because it includes sharing costs related to entering a new foreign market. This was found to be the main motive for finding a partner. For example, “Pronto” emphasized minimizing financial risk as being an important motive for forming strategic alliances. “Pronto” mentioned that sharing risk with a partner serves as an incentive to create more sales. Therefore, by engaging in strategic alliances, financial expenses decrease and the risk of diluting investors’ shares in a re-financing process was also decreased (Moen, O., 2010).
What are the negative consequences for HR encouraging original thinking when searching for ideal alliance partners?
The main negative consequences for HR when encouraging original thinking for searching for ideal alliance partners are that original thinking may be misconceived as being more complex and time-consuming than it is. In addition, the most demanding part of the search process is to be able to gain initial contact with potential firms. When obtaining information regarding potential partners, managers need to use accessible low-cost sources. Some other challenges include having a lack of networks. When there is a lack of access to networks for acquiring information and support, it is hard to get in touch with key people when entering new foreign markets. The knowledge barriers that a firm has to consider in a foreign market entry are more often easily handled when forming a strategic alliance with a local firm instead (Moen, O., 2010).
References:
Kosin, M., (n.d.) “Brand partnerships that failed miserably” https://www.urbo.com/content/brand-partnerships
Mike, (2020) “13 insightful examples of business partnership ideas” digitalsparkmarketing.com/business-partnership-ideas
Moen, O., (2010) “International market expansion strategies for high-tech firms” International Journal of Business and Management, 5(1), 20-30.
Bottom of Form
,
18 BioPharm International www.biopharminternational.com September 2010
Perspectives on Outsourcing
D o
n F
a rr
a ll /G
e tt
y I
m a
g e
s
A fter your R&D team has had a “Eureka!”
moment, the first order of business is
to engage in process development and
production of the product for clinical supply.
Perhaps that moment came a few years ago and
now you need to ensure that you can supply
enough product to meet commercial demand.
Do you choose to build or retrofit your own
manufacturing plant or do you buy via out-
sourcing to a contract manufacturing organiza-
tion (CMO)? This complex decision shouldn’t
be made lightly because it could affect nearly
everything about your business, including your
company’s financial situation, intellectual prop-
erty position, and business and product goals.
THE CURRENT MARKET In 2009, many small- to medium-sized bio-
pharmaceutical companies struggled to raise
funds for their product development and man-
ufacturing projects, while large, financially
stable companies reigned in spending and
reassessed their pipelines. The building of new
manufacturing facilities decreased, possibly
reflecting changes in business philosophies as
well as a reduced ability by the pharmaceutical
and biotech companies to prog-
ress with construction.1,2 At the
same time, the global CMO market
declined to approximately $2.6 bil-
lion, a reduction from years past.3
In general, CMOs saw a drop in
requests for proposal, more sensi-
tivity to pricing from potential cli-
ents, and there was (and continues
to be) increased level of competi-
tiveness amongst CMOs. At least
one CMO closed its doors (QSV
Biolog ics). Mergers and acquisi-
tions also changed the landscape
of the CMO business, as CMOs of
all sizes and capabilities were integrated into
larger pharmaceutical or biotech companies
( Watson Pha r maceut ica ls/E den Biodesig n;
Merck/Avecia; Recipharm/Cobra).
Today, the business environment seems to
be on the rebound: interest in pipelines includ-
ing biologics remains strong, and for compa-
nies considering outsourcing, CMO capacity
is broadly available (though, perhaps because
of the acquisitions of 2009, capacity may not
remain readily available). Process economics
continue to improve through leaps in produc-
tivity and the acceptance of new production
technologies. There is a wider array of product
types requiring cGMP manufacture, includ-
ing the emergence of biosimilars as originator
product patents expire. But the industry has
learned some valuable lessons as a result of the
tumult of 2009. Companies remain cautious
when evaluating requirements for risk shar-
ing, product quality compliance, and business
partner compatibility. Cost-containment is still
paramount and everyone is looking to manage
their project budgets efficiently.
HOW TO DECIDE When deciding whether to build your own
capacity or buy it from a CMO, prioritization
of what is most important to you as a com-
pany should be key. Although your available
budget and the return on investment must be
considered, your choice shouldn’t be made on
potential costs alone. Several factors should be
weighed before you make your choice:
• Risk tolerance: Are you willing to put some
(or all) of the responsibilit y for product
development and manufacturing into the
hands of a trusted partner?
• People/exper tise/core competencies: Can
you assemble a team to execute various proj-
ect tasks, or do you require support from an
Build Versus Buy in the Current Biotech Market Environment Factors such as production scale and intellectual property must be considered when deciding whether to build your own capacity or buy it from a CMO
Maria Lusk is a director of client management at Eden Biodesign, a part
of the Watson Group, Liverpool, UK,
919.806.4234,
20 BioPharm International www.biopharminternational.com September 2010
Perspectives on Outsourcing
external source for things like
basic process development and
manufacturing, or for specialized
activities like fill-and-finish?
• Manufacturing scale and pro-
duction forecast: How much of
your product will you need to
complete your clinical trials or
to support commercial demand?
Will your company have avail-
able capacity at the proper pro-
duction scale to meet your needs?
• Technology: What technologies
will be required to manufacture,
test, and finish your product?
Do you already have the appro-
priate science and equipment in
place? Do you have the budget
and time to obtain the required
technology, or is partnering with
a CMO the best option?
• Ti mel i ne s: Is t here pressu re
from investors or the market to
achieve a clinical or commercial
milestone by a particular date?
How will the required project
tasks fit with the expected time-
line? Will building or retrofitting
a facility fit with the timeline, or
do you need to use a CMO to
achieve your milestones?
• Geography/cultures/currencies/
com mu n icat ion: Does closer
necessar ily mean better? A re
currency exchange rates critical
to your project budget? Are you
prepared to communicate across
various time zones and possibly
cultural influences?
• Regulatory affairs (RA)/clinical
sites: What is your target market
and will you need to include
severa l locat ions a rou nd t he
globe in your plan to submit a
regulatory filing? Do you need
to have your own facility and
R A staff in the same location
as the clinical sites? Is there a
CMO out there that can fully
support your regulatory plans?
• Intellectual proper ty/control:
Does you r compa ny w ish to
control its IP completely, or are
you willing to share your know-
how with a trusted CMO part-
ner? Will you grant a license to
a business partner who will take
your product through to com-
mercialization, or do you prefer
to maintain control, including
manufacturing, throughout the
product’s lifecycle?
• Number of products and their
development/clinical phase: You
should plan for success, but the
“what ifs” of failure also need
to be considered. Do you have
one or two products in the early
phase of development, or is your
por t folio well balanced w it h
products in all stages of clinical
development and clinical trials?
It does not make sense to build
a new facility if your pipeline
cannot support it.
GREENFIELD OR RETROFIT? If you have the option to build a
facility from scratch (“greenfield”)
or to retrofit an existing space, you
must carefully scrutinize what is
available to support the production
of your product. A greenfield facil-
ity will be fit for purpose from the
beginning, but various challenges
may arise for a company that cho-
ses to build, including keeping to
the construction budget and time-
line; employing people with the
proper background to ensure that
the facility is fit for purpose; and
training staff to install, validate,
and operate equipment. On the
other hand, it may be more dif-
ficult to retrofit an existing space
because the existing space must
be able to accommodate the new
equipment while perhaps main-
taining (and re-validating) some
of the legacy infrastructure (e.g.,
clean-in-place and steam-in-place
skids, utilities, tanks, water supply).
Any compromises in facility design
will need to be weighed against
planned production and regulatory
requirements.
If you do decide to build, consider
that there are several manufacturing
technologies to choose from:
• Disposable, single-use, or limited-
use manufacturing equipment:
Some of the benefits of these
components and systems include
a low initial capital outlay, fast
installation, and reduced routine
operating costs, because these can
reduce or eliminate the require-
ment for cleaning or cleaning
validation. Although the use of a
completely disposable production
train is not common, biotechnol-
ogy companies are beginning to
investigate this as an option.4 For
particular types of products such
as viral vaccines, disposables are
indispensable.
• St a i n le ss – steel systems on ly:
Stainless-steel systems are proven
for manufacturing products reli-
ably and reproducibly; the tech-
nology is common, so process
transfer between manufactur-
ing sites (internal and external)
is relat ively st ra ight for wa rd,
and these systems can support
various types of products. But
consideration should be given
to budget and timeline require-
ments for installation because
they tend to be expensive and
time-consuming to order, install,
and validate. Cleaning will be
a continuous challenge for the
lifetime of the system.
Before making the decision to buy, get to
know your potential CMO partner. Ask questions
and be prepared to answer some, too.
September 2010 www.biopharminternational.com BioPharm International 21
Perspectives on Outsourcing
• Hybrid systems consisting of dis-
posable and stainless-steel com-
ponents: This option seems to be
the most popular for manufac-
turing biopharmaceutical prod-
ucts.4 Systems can be designed
to meet your facility and prod-
uct requirements, using a “best
of both worlds” approach.
Before mak ing your decision
to build or retrofit, consider that
regardless of the equipment you
choose to install, maintenance
and mater ials supply w ill be a
continuous endeavor. Planning
for time and costs to operate and
maintain these systems should be
included in your overall product
lifecycle design.
ARE CMOS THE ANSWER? An alternative to building or ret-
rofitting a facilit y is to partner
with a CMO. Indeed, innovator
companies have started looking
at the strategic benefits of engag-
ing CMOs to support their prod-
ucts throughout their lifecycle:
in general, it is likely t hat t he
CMO’s facilit y and qualit y sys-
te m s a l r e ad y me e t r eg u l ator y
requirements, including interna-
tional regulations; an innovator
company can choose a CMO in a
particular location (or locations)
as there continues to be signifi-
c a nt C M O b u s i n e s s d e v e l o p –
ment in Singapore, Israel, Japan,
and the BR IC countries (Brazil,
Russia, India, and China); CMOs
are differentiating themselves by
increasingly offering specialized
technolog ies a nd ser v ices, a nd
several major CMOs are engag-
ing the innovator companies by
e x plor i ng a lte r nat ive bu si ne ss
models. In addition, companies
have access to C MO s t hat a re
already prepared to not only man-
ufac t ure a my r iad of produc ts,
but also provide you with tech-
nologies and personnel already in
place to “hit the ground running”
in support of your project needs.
Expression Systems
O ne of t he b e ne f it s of work-
i n g w i t h a C M O i s t h a t i n
s ome i n st a nc e s t he I P hold e r
f o r a p a r t i c u l a r e x p r e s –
s i o n s y s t e m i s t h e C M O
(for e x a mple, G – Pe x /C at a le nt;
G S/ L on z a; BI – H E X / B ohe r i nge r
I n g e l h i e m ; C H E F – 1 / C M C
Biologics), or a technolog y may
be available to the CMO (SUR E
( S e l e x i s), U C O E ( M i l l i p o r e)/
E den Biodesig n) a nd accessi ng
it through the CMO may allow
your company to obtain prefer-
ential business terms. Discussion
of available options that may be
most appropriate for the produc-
tion of your product should be
based on your company’s supply
requirements (current and future);
your available budget; any target
product delivery date(s); and your
c omp a ny ’s r i sk tole r a nc e a nd
regulatory strategy.
NICHE TECHNOLOGIES There are a few areas of special-
ization that commonly are out-
sourced by innovator companies,
including those who have their
own internal manufacturing capa-
bility. These include:
• Product characterization: This usu-
ally includes highly specialized
analytical techniques such as
mass spectrometry, amino acid
analysis and post-translational
modification analysis. Because
these analytical methods usually
require expensive equipment and
highly skilled technicians, many
companies choose to engage the
services of an external contract
testing house.
• Drug product fill-and-finish: This
can include vial fill and lyophi-
lization, combination products,
and transdermal patches.
• V i r a l p r o d u c t p r o d u c t i o n :
There are several product types
in development requiring spe-
cialized knowledge and exper-
t i se. E x a mple s i nc lude v i ra l
vaccines, gene therapies, and
cell culture products compris-
i ng or made usi ng bac u lov i-
ruses, adenoviruses, or a wide
variety of other viruses. Some
i n novator compa n ies choose
to outsource the production of
these types of product because
of constraints in their existing
facility (e.g., segregation of pro-
duction suites and air handling
units), technical expertise, or
regulatory requirements.
FINAL THOUGHTS B efore ma k i ng t he dec ision to
b uy, get to k now you r p ote n-
tial CMO partner. Ask questions
and be prepared to answer some
too. You should understand and
t hen sha re what you r expec ta-
tions are for working with your
c hose n C MO, a nd you shou ld
have an understanding of how its
capabilities stack up against your
internal capabilities and project
requirements.
In general, those who choose to
build tend to be the large pharma-
ceutical and biotech companies that
have sturdy pipelines and plenty of
cash on hand. Smaller companies
with fewer products and less cash
often outsource production of their
products. But regardless of who you
are, the choice to build or buy is one
that could have a significant impact
on your present and future busi-
ness success, and therefore should
be made very carefully. ◆
REFERENCES 1. Langer E. Build or Buy? Strategic
Choices in Biomanufacturing.
2010 BIO International Convention.
Chicago, IL. 2010 May 3–7.
2. Bush L. Build or Buy? Strategic
Choices in Biomanufacturing.
2010 BIO International Convention.
Chicago, IL. 2010 May 3–7.
3. Liu C
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
