The Internet Encyclopedia (Volume 3)

P1: C-175-Adams
Adams WL040/Bidgoli-Vol III-Ch-29 July 11, 2003 11:50 Char Count= 0

348 STRATEGICALLIANCES

VISION

Compelling

possibilities

IMPACT

Adding value

INTIMACY

Mutual trust &

sharing

Figure 1: Spirit of partnering: trust, enthu-

siasm, and opportunities grow as the rela-

tionship intertwines. Source: Rackham et al.

(1996). Reprinted with permission.

necessary for partnering to work and the level to which

it can. As the amount of trust and sharing increases, so

does the partnering effort and the mutual benefit. Attor-

neys usually develop necessary contracts but there is a

degree of partnering that cannot be contracted for or en-

sured: it either is or is not a partnership based on mutual

trust and benefit. Much like a marriage, it either works

or it doesn’t, depending on the attitudes behind the com-

mitment. Partnering has a subtle ingredient that is nearly

impossible to identify but supersedes all but intention.

It could be called the “spirit” of the partnership, or the

“spirit” behind it. As the components grow, dependency

on the relationship also grows.

In order for a strategic alliance to work, everyone must

have a stake, appreciation and respect for the proposed

partnership. To the degree that greed, intolerance, diffi-

cult personalities, lack of sharing, and feelings of inequity

enter the partnership, the relationship may erode. In a

strategic alliance, there must be a compelling axiom: “We

exist better because of the partnership.” There is no rea-

son to force a relationship or enter into a relationship

that seems to be too difficult. Mutual respect for the var-

ious teams and employees must be shared by all of the

employees involved in the alliance. Just as one negative

employee can destroy the efforts, attitudes, and work of

several within a company, one disgruntled employee can

cause exponential damage to a more complicated struc-

ture of maintaining a strategic alliance. During the initial

partnering effort, if it hasn’t already occurred, it’s time

for a good “house cleaning,” a cautious review of all em-

ployees’ value, and values within the company. Anyone not

adding specific, intrinsic value should be reevaluated with

respect to his or her association with the organization.

Negotiations

In the world of creating strategic alliances for e-

commerce, it is more important than ever to approach

it from a standpoint of personal relationships. The old

standby and still today as important a book,How to Win

Friends and Influence People(Carnegie, 1936), references

a conversation John D. Rockefeller had with Matthew C.

Brush. Rockefeller said, “The ability to deal with people

is as purchasable a commodity as sugar or coffee. And I

will pay more for that ability than for any other under the

sun.”

The ability to negotiate the best partnership for all will

depend largely on whether the principals want to spend

time with each other. If they don’t, no matter how im-

portant the deal, it probably won’t work. Things have be-

come so complex with the introduction of technology that

we have had to resolve to the most simple of truths, the

Golden Rule: “Do unto others that which you would have

done unto you” (see http://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk/

golden.html).

Before Closing the Deal: Identifying, and

Resolving, Potential Problems with the

Relationship

If it hasn’t happened yet, get rid of the whiners in the com-

pany. Find employees willing to embrace change and be

excited about working with a new strategic alliance. Com-

munication, or lack of it, is always at the root of any prob-

lem in relationships. In developing e-commerce strategic

partners, this cannot be overemphasized. A strong com-

munication procedure must be developed to address any

potential breakdown. Depending on the complexity of the

partnership and the number of people and companies in-

volved, it may make sense to use a Web-based commu-

nication or project management system. These systems

only work when people use them, so tracking and requir-

ing their use is imperative. The diversity of users and

the number of work locations will determine the extent

to which a Web-based communication project tracking

system would be effective. Even when talks are begun

between key executives, getting used to a Web-based sys-

tem from the beginning can be very productive. Face-to-

face contact and communication can never be underes-

timated, however. From time to time, it makes sense to

bring the stakeholders together.

In the late 1990s, the State of Arizona wanted to cre-

ate a way to provide a statewide connection for all stu-

dents, teachers, and schools into one common system.

In order to begin to address the complexities of such a

mammoth project, a series of two-day “think-tanks” was

implemented about six months apart. In the beginning,

key decision-makers were invited to work at creating the

solutions that would be needed. The “think-tank” events

continue to be held for all of the partners involved in pro-

viding course content software on the system. During the

events, they discussed communication problems and res-

olutions and the use of a Web-enabled project tracking

system. The entire project partnered about 50 companies

and political entities, some as strategic alliance partners,

others as consultants and service providers to the project.

The project had many stakeholders and requirements that

needed to be addressed:

The State of Arizona would be assured that they had ob-

tained discounted prices on all curriculum software,

with an appropriate tracking system.

Statewide administrators would be able to get instant as-

sessments, statistics, and communication throughout

their district’s schools.