June 8, 2022

Inter-firm learning is crucial to most business partnerships. Using the Kohtamaki (2010) article, Relationship Governance and Learning in Partnerships, as a

To complete this Assignment, respond to the following in a 3 page paper: See attachment for detailed instructions

· No Plagiarism

· APA citing

Assignment: Inter-Firm Learning

Inter-firm learning is crucial to most business partnerships. Using the Kohtamaki (2010) article, “Relationship Governance and Learning in Partnerships,” as a guide, think about how governance structures explain the effectiveness of learning in partnerships. Consider a specific example from your research of a particular governance structure that stimulated learning by both partners and a specific example where a particular governance structure hindered or extinguished learning.

For each example above, cite the particular governance structure used, and the expected results. For the success story, did the structure perform as intended, or were there unexpected results of a positive or negative nature? For the failure example, were there any positive results of the applied structure? Suggest a governance structure that you believe would have worked better.

To prepare for this Discussion ,

Review this week’s Learning Resources, especially:

· Case study of processing firm-distributor – See pdf

· How Good Are Service – See pdf

· Relationship Governance – See pdf

· Infighting unravels alliance – See pdf

· Outsourced Marketing – See pdf

· Creating an effective service level agreement – See pdf

Assignment:

To complete this Assignment, respond to the following in a 3- to 4-page paper:

· Evaluate the importance of inter-firm learning in successful partnerships.

· Explain how inter-firm learning contributes to the success of business partnerships.

· How can inter-firm learning be promoted?

· Analyze how governance structures facilitate inter-firm learning in partnerships.

· From your research, cite a particular governance structure designed to stimulate learning by both partners and describe how it should work.

· How do governance structures promote inter-firm learning throughout all levels of employees in a partnership?

· What can HR professionals specifically do to ensure that governance structures enhance the effectiveness of inter-firm learning?

· Support your reasoning.

· No Plagiarism

· APA citing

Business Insight (A Special Report); Preparing for the Exit: When forming a business alliance, don't ignore one of the most crucial ingredients: how to break up Ranjay Gulati, Maxim Sytch and Parth Mehrotra . Wall Street Journal , Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.

[New York, N.Y]. 03 Mar 2007: R.11.

ProQuest document link

ABSTRACT (ABSTRACT) The lack of an agreement is compounded by the fact that when tensions arise between partners, the alliance's

managers may be reluctant to alert their superiors back at the partner companies. They fear they may be blamed

for the alliance's failure, which would hurt their own careers. So instead, the managers focus their tensions on their

alliance counterparts. The typical outcome: a dysfunctional strategic alliance marked by deep animosity between

alliance managers. Any ensuing discussions about possible alliance termination are likely to be emotionally

charged and ineffective.

Second, a core team of disengagement managers should be formed, drawing on managers not only from the

parent companies but from the alliance itself. When a team comprises only managers from the parent companies,

attorneys get involved too early and negotiations tend to focus solely on the observance of rights to stocks; this

tends to alienate alliance managers and to hurt not only what remaining value the alliance has, but the flows of the

partner companies as well. Additionally, the smartest companies assign the supervision of disengagements to

senior corporate personnel at the parent companies who weren't originally linked to the alliance. Such supervision

not only enforces clear accountability and allows for greater impartiality, it enables alliance managers to better

clear organizational and legal roadblocks during the disengagement process.

When a partnership has to be dissolved, a strong communication plan is key. In our view, a number of companies

have learned that mishandling communications during a break-up can damage a company's reputation and

significantly hinder its chances of finding future partners. During disengagement, it's important to avoid offending

partners and to maintain your own company's reputation. FULL TEXT A WORD OF ADVICE for companies thinking about forming a business alliance: Before launching any partnership,

make sure both parties agree on how you'll know, and what you'll do, when it's over.

There is no doubt this can be challenging. Like a prenuptial agreement, in which a couple discusses divorce

options on their way to the altar, negotiating exit options while still at the formation stage of an alliance seems

almost counter to human nature. For one thing, neither partner wants to admit that things could go awry. What's

more, there's an eagerness to get the deal done — and a fear that raising the worst-case scenario will undermine

the euphoria and trust that often accompany a new deal.

But partners ignore the issue at their own risk. Discussing the trigger points for exiting, as well as the

disengagement process itself, while still in the negotiation stage is paramount for an effective partnership. In

https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/business-insight-special-report-preparing-exit/docview/399031135/se-2?accountid=14872

many cases, exit planning may actually enhance the alliance's performance and longevity.

Interviews with managers who have overseen alliances reveal a pattern that sometimes emerges when a

partnership with no adequate separation agreement becomes strained: Partner A grows dissatisfied with the

venture and seeks an exit, but can't find any easy options; Partner A then attempts to covertly appropriate as much

value as possible from the alliance before the venture goes completely sour, while creating a paper and action trail

aimed at placing the blame for the failed venture on Partner B; an angry Partner B discovers the maneuvers, and

takes countermoves.

The lack of an agreement is compounded by the fact that when tensions arise between partners, the alliance's

managers may be reluctant to alert their superiors back at the partner companies. They fear they may be blamed

for the alliance's failure, which would hurt their own careers. So instead, the managers focus their tensions on their

alliance counterparts. The typical outcome: a dysfunctional strategic alliance marked by deep animosity between

alliance managers. Any ensuing discussions about possible alliance termination are likely to be emotionally

charged and ineffective.

So, what kind of exit-plan pact works best? One that clearly specifies the point of disengagement, tells both parties

what their subsequent rights and responsibilities are, and provides a clear and effective procedural map that

minimizes time and capital losses.

More specifically, a successful disengagement plan should comprise the following:

— Clear definitions of what both parties will consider as exit triggers, or events that will set off specific exit

provisions.

— A detailed description of each party's rights in a fair separation of the partnership's assets and products, as well

as a determination of rights and responsibilities with regard to third parties, such as customers, suppliers and

employees of the alliance.

— A detailed description of the disengagement process, including specific strategic options, guidelines for creating

the core disengagement team, and clear timelines.

— A communication plan for continuous flow of information to alliance partners, customers, suppliers and other

involved parties during the dissolution.

Not clearly stating when an alliance should end can be lethal, even when partners have agreed on how the alliance

should end. Partners' perspectives on the timing of dissolution can differ, leading to lengthy and expensive

haggling.

This is why the first step in devising a successful exit strategy is to have clear trigger provisions. Triggers may

consist of such contingencies as the inability of the alliance to meet certain milestones, performance metrics or

service-level agreements; breaches of contract terms; or the insolvency or change in control of one of the partners.

When pharmaceutical and biotech companies team up to bring an experimental drug to market, the partners often

use milestones as exit triggers, such as whether the drug reaches a particular stage of a clinical trial.

For example, a large U.S. pharmaceutical company we talked to often sets a deadline by which patients must be

enrolled in Phase III clinical trials, typically the last round of tests before a drug is submitted to the Food and Drug

Administration for approval. Other milestone triggers used in this area include failing to successfully complete

Phase III trials, failing to attain approval from the Food and Drug Administration, or, for a drug that is already

approved, failing to meet specific sales targets.

In some cases, exit triggers are linked not to goals but to events, such as a change in control of one of the partner

companies. One large domestic dairy manufacturer we investigated, for example, when entering alliances, often

stipulates that it will end the partnership if its partner's percentage of voting shares in its own company declines

without the dairy company's prior consent. The dairy maker makes this requirement to avoid having an undesired

firm indirectly obtain a stake in the alliance by buying shares in the partner company.

Once an exit trigger is reached, the next step is dissolving the alliance. This raises the question of each partner's

rights and responsibilities. What's the fairest way to split everything up?

Partners can start by breaking things down into two broad categories: stocks, which we'll define as the current

products or services sold by the alliance, as well as the physical and intellectual assets used in their production;

and flows, which are contractual commitments to third parties and to the partners.

Stocks include inventory of products and materials, any land and facilities, as well as intellectual property. The less

integration there has been between the partners, the easier it is to determine these rights. The difficulties increase

where joint ownership or joint operations are concerned, and even more when the alliance has grown to involve

multiple product lines with competing brands and geographically dispersed physical infrastructure.

If a partial or complete buyout is a possibility, one has to consider not only present but future value of stocks.

Certain contingencies can have huge effects on the alliance's revenue streams and all manner of agreements

involving revenue sharing, royalties and licensing, and options to buy or sell products or services in the future.

A recent alliance between a U.S. software maker and a Japanese electronics company included an exit agreement

that paid particular attention to the assignment of intellectual property rights in case of certain contingencies. The

agreement between the pair, which teamed up to produce a color-management system for the software maker's

new operating system, stated that if for any reason the operating system never made it to market, rights to

intellectual property developed by the alliance would default to the Japanese company.

Similarly, in many of the biotech-pharmaceutical alliances reviewed, the partners made it very clear at the outset

who would retain the rights to jointly produced intellectual property if the alliance ended.

After rights to stocks comes the question of fulfilling contractual commitments — the so-called flows of the

alliance. Big losses in an alliance's value can arise from uncertainty about who is responsible for what.

Flows typically include contracts or other relationships with customers, suppliers, service providers, employees

and providers of capital. If such relationships are mishandled during a dissolution, profits and productivity can

suffer. Customers, for example, might switch to competitors in order to avoid service disruptions, or might seek to

modify payment terms. Suppliers and other service providers might stop treating the alliance organization as a

high priority. Employees, fearing uncertainty, might leave.

There's a leading sports-apparel company that outsources almost all of its production in numerous small alliances

and yet maintains tight control over its supply chain — even when an alliance occasionally ends. The company tries

to manage the procurement processes of the suppliers in those alliances. This way, when terminating an alliance,

it can forecast exactly how much inventory it will need from that supplier right up until the termination point. It also

eliminates the risk of having the inventory go into brand-damaging outlets, such as discount stores.

A typical disengagement agreement can include various strategic options such as rights of first refusal to various

stocks and flows, or buyout clauses based on different conditions. The specifics of these are dictated by the

nature of the exit trigger, changing markets and partners' shifting strategic priorities.

Some constants can be followed, however, and interviews with alliance managers suggest a three-step process

that can serve as a kind of roadmap to disengagement.

First, partners should agree to a mandatory unwind period. An unwind period gives each party enough time to

implement its exit strategy successfully, and ensures that the alliance organization is able to fulfill its obligations

and remain competitive in the marketplace until the time when it is dissolved.