Demonstrate your ability to write or develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for a Joint venture

MADS6628 - Chapter 7 Collaboration Drivers and Enablers

Based on a case study of Jumpstart / AmeriCorps and American Eagle, Austin discusses the following:

 Relationship Overview

 Evolutionary Dynamics

 Alliance Drivers

 Alliance Enablers

 Alliance Challenges

Relationship Overview

Goal - All children in America should be able to read when they enter school .

Trains volunteer tutors “Corps members” to teach low-income pre-schoolers how to read

Volunteers in Service to America Offers opportunities for adults to serve / volunteer through a network of partnerships with local and national nonprofit groups.

Relationship Overview

 Relationship began through donations of T-shirts  Where would you position this relationship on the

Collaboration Continuum?

Markets and sells clothing to young adults

Philanthropic Transactional Integrative Transformational

Evolutionary Dynamics

 The relationship between AEO and Jumpstart deepened in 1997 quite “by accident”

 After the ceremony, the two CEOs shared their visions  Austin would say that this is an example of: a) Systematic searching b) Serendipity c) Alliance marketplace

Aaron Lieberman CEO

Honors the efforts of young community service activists

Sponsor

Award $10,000

Evolutionary Dynamics

 Stage One: Matching Up and Starting Off  The two leaders quickly moved the relationship from

accidental to strategic through:  Attitude

 Positive and proactive mindset  Enterprising and entrepreneurial attitude  Personal initiative of both CEOs  Clear honest, and consistent communication



Aaron Lieberman CEO

George Kolber CEO

Evolutionary Dynamics

 Stage One: Matching Up and Starting Off  The two leaders quickly moved the relationship from

accidental to strategic due to:  Distinctive characteristics of each partner

 Prior experience with collaborations  Jumpstart had access to AEO’s target market:

 Young adults who are socially responsible yet practical

Aaron Lieberman CEO

George Kolber CEO

Evolutionary Dynamics

 Stage One: Matching Up and Starting Off  The two leaders quickly moved the relationship from

accidental to strategic due to:  Timing

 AEO was re-evaluating where to get the “biggest bang for its buck” in social engagement

 Jumpstart was actively seeking a corporate collaborative partner

Aaron Lieberman CEO

George Kolber CEO

Evolutionary Dynamics

 Stage One: Matching Up and Starting Off  The two leaders quickly moved the relationship from

accidental to strategic due to:  Goodness of Fit –

 Mission and value congruency  I.e. diversity and social engagement

 Goal of Inner-city engagement  Educational focus  Target group for both organizations (college age)

Aaron Lieberman CEO

George Kolber CEO

Evolutionary Dynamics

 Stage Two: Engagement and Resource Exchange

 From 1997 to 1998, the relationship evolved from philanthropic to transactional through:

 Increased engagement

 Frequent communication  Willingness to invest risk capital

 Jumpstart travel costs  AEO $10,000 investment in a national Jumpstart network

Philanthropic Transactional

Evolutionary Dynamics

 Stage Two: Engagement and Resource Exchange

 From 1997 to 1998, the relationship evolved from philanthropic to transactional through:

 Increased resource exchange

 Jumpstart:  Shared its networks and key corporate contacts  Gave AEO access to untapped market

 AEO: added supply of non-generic resources  I.e. mentors

Philanthropic Transactional

Evolutionary Dynamics

Stage Three: Scaling Up and Organizational Integration

 In 1998, the partnership continued along the Collaboration Continuum to include strategic value. I.e.

 Jumpstart’s evolution to a national network was consistent with and abetted by:

AEO’s national expansion strategy

 Mutual brand-building

Philanthropic Transactional Integrative

Evolutionary Dynamics

Stage Three: Scaling Up and Organizational Integration

 In 1998, the partnership continued along the Collaboration Continuum due to:

 Increased interaction  Mutual mentoring  Board member exchange

 Increased accountability and scope  Equity investment / joint venture in increased high school

performance

Philanthropic Transactional Integrative

Evolutionary Dynamics

What do you propose Stage Four would entail?

 Synergy?

 Innovation?  Co-creation of Value?

Philanthropic Transactional Integrative Transformational

Alliance Drivers

Powers that promote a GOOD STRATEGIC FIT:

 Alignment of Mission, Strategy and Values

 Personal connections

 Value creation

Alliance Drivers – Alignment of Partners’ Missions, Strategies and Values

can lead to:

 Marketing / brand building

 Growth from regional to national

 Reputation of social engagement

 Development of new opportunities for social engagement

 Mutual benefits due to similar target markets/ constituencies

Alliance Drivers – Personal Connections

 Collaborations are:

 Built by individuals

 Fueled by individual commitment

 Enhanced through chemistry and strong personal relationships of the leaders

 Motivated by personal emotional experience of members at all levels of the organizations

Alliance Drivers – Value Creation

Alliances can provide more than social value. I.e.  Organizational unity / glue

 working together toward a cause

 Market enhancement  brand image / exposure

 Barter  exchange of core competencies

 Competency building  passing on expertise / assets to the partner

Alliance Enablers

Supportive factors that assist the collaboration. I.e.

 Clear Purpose and Focused Attention

 Mutual Expectations

 Effective Communication Processes

Alliance Enablers

Clear Purpose and Focused Attention  Open expression of purpose. I.e.

 AEO’s purpose for the relationship is “results through inspiration”

 Jumpstart’s purpose is “to generate support to solve an important problem”

 Focused attention

 Awareness and concern about the other partner’s goals help the organizations to focus attention on the joint initiative

Alliance Enablers

Mutual Expectations

 Each partner acts as a “champion” for the other:

 expects high performance from the other partner

 looks after the best interests of the other partner

Alliance Enablers

Effective Communication Processes

 Direct & frequent communication between leaders:

 drives the collaboration

 creates mutual trust and respect - which reinforces more direct and frequent communication!

 creates a safe and encouraging environment for employees at lower levels to develop their own relationships

Alliance Enablers

Effective Communication Processes

 Communication that empowers the collaboration is:

 Enthusiastic / energetic

 Proactive

 Optimistic about the cause

 Bilingual – uses both

 the language of business and

 the language of social value

Alliance Challenges

 Communication & Relationship Management  Collaboration between the leaders is not sufficient

to sustain the relationship  Time & resources must be invested to disseminate

the collaborative attitude and interaction:  within the organizations by  Broadening channels for interaction  Encouraging employee involvement. I.e.

 Time off for AEO employees to attend Jumpstart events or promote Jumpstart programs

 outside the organizations by  Spreading the word about the collaboration to suppliers

& customers

Alliance Challenges

 Brand Dissemination  Beyond protecting the brand image ....

 Need to exploit collaboration to increase brand I.e.  Co-branded products

 Share core competencies with partner  I.e. AEO provided marketing support for Jumpstart’s

national promotion

Alliance Challenges  Value Creation

 Philanthropy brings the partners together  Value creation drives and sustains the partnership

 Think strategically I.e.  AEO & Jumpstart alliance gives AEO access to a valuable

target market (socially conscious young adults)

 Follow best practices I.e.  Timberland and City Year

 Exploit / encourage “Bonding” :  Among NGO volunteers (future sponsors)  Between employees in both organizations  Between employees and their employer

Exercise

 Discuss the proposed alliance between Dreamworks and Jumpstart with your team

 Walk us through the stages of Evolutionary Dynamics:

Stage 1: matching up and starting off

Stage 2: engagement and resource exchange

Stage 3: scaling up and organizational integration

Stage 4: innovation , synergy, co-creation of value

Case Study –

 Follow the steps outlined in Appendix B: 1. Identify the most important facts surrounding the case

(include a SWOT analysis).

2. Identify the key issue, problem, dilemma, challenge, or opportunity (find a corporate partner for EHomemaker).

3. Identify and weight criteria for making the decision.

4. Specify alternative courses of action.

5. Evaluate each course of action (using a table).

6. Recommend the best course of action

Case Study Grading Rubric

Marks Criterion

2 Format, grammar and spelling (ability to follow the suggested format and communicate

effectively)

2 Identify the most important facts surrounding the case (include a SWOT analysis).

1 Identify the key issue, problem, dilemma, challenge, or opportunity (in one sentence)

3 Identify and weight 3 criteria for making the decision

3 Identify and analyze 3 potential corporate partners that would help EHomemaker to succeed.

(Provide an equal number of pros and cons for each alternantive)

3 Evaluate each course of action (using a weighted analysis table).

1 Recommend the best course of action (based on the alternatives)

15 Total marks

Break and Preparation for Practice Case Study

 In your teams, research Innocence Lost Foundation: www.innocencelostfoundation.com/

 Identify:  Strengths

 Weaknesses

 Opportunities

 Threats

 Identify:  NGO assets that may be attractive to a corporate

partner

 Corporate partners or industries that may be able to meet the NGO`s needs

 Fazineh Keita Founder, Director, President

 Ava Vanderstarren Founder, Director, CEO

Case Study

Innocence Lost Foundation – http://www.innocencelostfoundation.com/

1. Identify the most important facts surrounding the case (include a SWOT analysis).

2. Identify the key issue, problem, dilemma, challenge, or opportunity.

3. Identify and weight criteria for making the decision.

4. Specify alternative courses of action. 5. Evaluate each course of action. 6. Recommend the best course of action

Case Study Review

1. Identify the most important facts surrounding the case (include a SWOT analysis).

 Strengths

 Weaknesses

 Opportunities

 Threats

Case Study Review

2. Identify the key issue, problem, dilemma, challenge, or opportunity.

 Hint: Finish this question:

 What is the most strategic corporate partner for Innocence Lost foundation to help __________________?

Case Study Review

3. Identify and weight criteria for making the decision.

 What factors do you need to consider in your decision? I.e.

 Financial support for projects (for NGO)?

 Revenue potential for Corporate partner?

 Time / ease of implementation?

 Compatibility of missions or visions?

 Compatibility of markets / communities?

Case Study Review

3. Identify and weight criteria for making the decision.

 Rate and explain importance of each criterion in term of % out of 100%. I.e.

 Financial support for projects (for NGO)? 40%

 Revenue potential for Corporate partner? 40%

 Time / ease of implementation? NA

 Compatibility of missions or visions? 20%

 Compatibility of markets / communities? NA

Case Study Review

3. Identify and weight criteria for making the decision.  Explain / justify the weighting!  I.e. financial support is 40% because….  Compatibility of mission / vision is only 20%

because….

1st Criterion Financial support for NGO Project

2nd Criterion Revenue potential for Corporation

3rd Criterion Compatibility of mission or vision

Weight out of 100%

40% Weight out of 100%

40% Weight out of 100%

20%

Case Study Review

4. Specify alternative courses of action (to address the key issue).

 List at least 3 possible solutions (partners)

 Give equal # of pros and cons for each

 Make sure that alternatives are unique and self- supporting. I.e.

 Do not suggest alternatives that are actually compatible steps to one overall solution

 Do not say “Do nothing”!

Case Study Review

5. Evaluate each course of action.

 Use a weighted analysis table

 Rank each alternative on each criterion

 3 = best; 2 = 2nd best; and 1 = worst

Alternatives Criterion 1 Financial support

Criterion 2 Revenue potential

Criterion 3 Compatibility

Total Score

Weight Rank W x R Weight Rank W x R Weight Rank W x R

Alternative #1 40% 40% 20%

Alternative #2 40% 40% 20%

Alternative #3 40% 40% 20%

Case Study Review

6. Recommend the best course of action.

 Based on your evaluation:

 Recommend the best alternative

 Summarize “why” you recommend this alternative