Some Practical Implications Emerging From the Research

The practical implications emerging from this research is that the word alliances will be better understood by many in the telecommunications industry as well as the technology industry and the wider community. The definition of the word alliance can be defined now as a linkage of customer/supplier relationships that has not got a specific duration or sustainability, but helps in sustaining a relationship through cultural fit and where its success is dependent on effective communication.

Alliances tend to grow in clusters, forming network of clusters and if difficulties do arise then all parties need to use effective communication to resolve these difficulties. The resolution of problems should be a higher priority in a strategic alliance than in the ordinary course of business pursued by a single company. The research confirms this because when the alliance partners do feel free to raise and solve problems amicably to achieve common goals they individually perceive that the alliance is working.

Therefore, the alliance partners should ensure that: they feel they can raise problems; they feel they can raise them amicably; they feel they can resolve them; and they feel that the resolution will result in achieving common goals. It is critical at all stages of the alliance progression that all parties believe that they are benefiting from the alliance. Though not specifically an issue for problem resolution, the sharing of information in coordinating all types of activities to achieve common goals with another firm is critical to alliance success. Withholding information from a partner can be a severe negative impost on the effective operations of an alliance and should be avoided at all costs. Sometimes, however, the difficulty may not be in withholding information but knowing when to stop giving over too much information to the other party and therefore

Vanaja Karagiannidis Page 144 endangering your own role within the alliance. This is for alliance managers or

contracts to determine and should not be left to operational employees. The crux of the issue is that management should have effective internal monitoring regimes before any information leaves the confines of their business. While in this case it has been cited as an alliance issue, it is in fact, an ongoing vendor management issue.

Companies should not focus specifically and only on the length of time of an alliance to ascertain whether it has been successful. Companies should enter into alliances with specific objectives, including that of time duration and should monitor the progress of an alliance at all stages of its operation. As such, benchmarks, critical success factors, and other forms of performance review should be employed to monitor and manage their (and their partner’s) performance in the alliance. At some point in time the senior management of either one or both of the vendor partners will have to conclude that the alliance has (or has not) served its purpose and may need to be terminated in due course. Obviously, even this consideration should be thought of at the outset and incorporated into the rules of engagement of the alliance; in this way either one or both of the parties has an acceptable ‘out’ from the alliance.

In a similar manner, this research found that alliance sustainability was measured by the length of time a relationship was in existence. Obviously, such issues of alliance

duration need to be clarified and formally documented at the outset, and especially before any activities are undertaken in the name of the alliance. Once such early formalities are completed then the parties can proceed to act according to the alliance agreement, ensuring that sustainability is not threatened. The last issue that any partner wants or needs to face at the beginning of an alliance is the uncertainty of when it

started, who was empowered to act (and in what manner) and to whom the outcomes of certain courses of action accrue to: one party, the other party or to the alliance in

general. Therefore, potential alliance partners should ensure rigor in offering successful determinants in the alliance.

For an alliance to operate to a level considered satisfactory by all parties, then all parties should act in a consistent manner with expressed values, beliefs and practices

Vanaja Karagiannidis Page 145 share between the parties across all facets of alliance operations. Alliance partners should consider that practical implications of formalising their expressed values, beliefs and practices and providing them to all staff engaged in alliance activities. These values, beliefs and practices can be formalised in a similar manner to that of a mission statement, alliance management objectives, code of ethics and rules of operation

(inclusive of intra and inter alliance partner. Thompson and Strickland (1998) explained the general concept that strategic alliances are a game plan for strengthening the organization’s position, pleasing customers, and achieving performance targets for parties involved in the relationship.

This thesis has shown that alliances by their nature generally tend to have time duration (otherwise they would not be alliances); therefore the duration of the alliance should also be clarified and documented from the beginning. In addition to this is that all staff engaged in alliance activities should have ongoing training (for example on alliance dynamics and teamwork and communication skills) and development to add to their skill base and ensuring the sustainability of the alliance, perhaps on a yearly basis. It is commonly understood that in order for a partnership to succeed, all parties must work at it continually or else it (the partnership, cum alliance) will atrophy and break down. Businesses should consider all the components of values, beliefs and practices because the subsets of these include cultural fit and respect, mentality, written and unwritten rules of the ways of doing things, the makeup of the staff in the businesses that make up the alliance, and methods and types of communication among and between the alliance parties are vital.

From a practical perspective, the size of the parties in an alliance should not be of concern as long as the roles and obligations (as discussed above) are clearly agreed between the parties, formalised and then communicated to all the staff engaged in the alliance and third parties are duly notified of this arrangement. There is an inherent risk (either to the smaller party or to both parties if a takeover is an aim of both parties) in forming alliances when one party is large and the other party is small because the tendency may be for the larger party to dominate and possibly take over the smaller party. However, if the relationship is clearly enumerated and boundaries are

Vanaja Karagiannidis Page 146 established, monitored and errant behavior is dealt with speedily by both parties and to their satisfaction, then the alliance should become a successful one. Smaller

businesses entering into an alliance should ensure that their unique skills, knowledge and expertise are adequately protected through patents, trademarks and other forms of legal protection. If they are not, there is the possibility that the frequency of a potential merger or takeover may occur, also supported by Hanson et al. (2008:286) who stated that an alliance can be used as a way to determine if partners might benefit from future merger or acquisition between them.

In addition to this, the practical thing to do is to ensure that size does not determine the extent of power in the alliance. A bigger company does not necessarily mean that it should or ought to have more power and control in an alliance than a smaller company; it ultimately depends on why they want to form the alliance, what they will bring into it and what they expect to achieve from it. There may be similarities as well as differences and no one company should consider itself the paramount alliance partner due to its size. Conversely, size also bring threats to the larger alliance partner as they may have more to lose by possibly giving away valuable knowledge and expertise which the smaller alliance partner does not posses. As Spekman et al. (2000) have acknowledged, it’s not about size but about business and relationships that matter. The scarcity of empirical research on alliance relationship success leaves the field open to a learning signpost for the future in a variety of fruitful research questions as follows:

• Does profit measured in dollars constitute a driving force for an alliance’s success?

• Are alliances a litmus test for mergers, acquisitions or takeovers?

• Do profit organizations achieve more successful alliances than non-profit organizations?

Vanaja Karagiannidis Page 147