' CHAPTER V

PARTNER-FIRM SELECTION PROCEDURE

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The selection of a more amicable symbiotic partner-firm requlres accentuated

care for two important factors. Primarily, the partner-firm 'influences

the resources and skills" which will be available for the joint util~zation

by the participating firms. Secondarily, the selected partner-firm should

not exh~bit oppor t~n i sm,~ as well as the tendency to exploit the power

Imbalance that may arise in Symbiotic agreements. The ability of a

flrm to effect the success of the other partner-firm is another implicit

reason that amplifies the need for a scientific approach In selecting

the proper partner-firm. But, the absence of a systematic approach,

with in-built pragmat~smfor selecting a symbioticf~rm,is quite conspicuous.

The objective of the current chapter is to develop a model that aids

the pract~cing Small Scale Entrepreneurs in selecting the most sultable

partner-f~rm. It is achied by presenting and analyzing the data collected

from the respondents in respect of partner-firm selection. In the process,

the various selectron criteria are factor analyzed to understand the

broader dimensions underlying these selection criteria. Initially, the

1 . Gerlnjer J M., 1991 Op cit. Po. 42

2 . Gronhaug K., 1990. Op. cit Pg 542

chapter presents a brief discussion on the various steps involved in

the selection process like identifying alternatives, reliability of different

sources of information, mode of approaching the other firms,

their perceptions towards relativity in regard to the benefits accrued,

the importance of the activity, and the degree of mutual dependence.

It continues to discuss the method of Factor analysis conducted for

the data on the selection criteria and the results of the analysis. The

chapter concludes by presenting a model for operationalising the

partner-firm selection white effecting Symbiotic Marketing agreements.

5.2 PARTNER-FIRM SELECTION METHODS :

The respondents in the pilot study are asked to identify the various

Steps they might undertake while selecting the partner-firm. But, the

respondents are found to be completely unaware of a systematic approach

and instead, have identified the various criteria against which they

might evaluate the prospective alternate partner-firms. Identifying this,

the final study has presented two methods, defining a few steps in

selecting a partner-firm, on a separate laminated sheet to the respondents.

The first approach may be called conventional. The approach initiates

the selection process by identifying the known firms and then proceeds

to identify the resources or facilities that can be shared with them.

This approach is called Conventional because, here symbiosis is attempted

Only with known firms, rather than for the resources in which the focus

-

flrm is inefficient. The second approach is more "sclentlflc".

11 proceeds to first identify the operating resources in which the sharing

m~ght benefit the firm, to identify the alternative partner-firms, to

negotiate simultaneously with all of them and finally develop alliance

w~th the more profitable partner-firm. They are requested to select

the method they are most likely to follow while selecting a partner-

firm for Symbiosis. The answers enable to identify whetherthe prospective

beneficiaries have the right knowledge as to how to select a partner-

f~rrn for practicing Marketing Symbiosls. Only two respondents in

the total sample of one hundred and eleven units, said that they are

unable to specify with clarity the method they might adopt i f they are

to select a partner-firm. The study results otherwise express a mixed

oplnion in regard to the selection methods. Though, approximately

f,fty seven per cent respondents have identified the second more

SCienbfic approach as the most likely method, a considerable percent

of(approximately forty one per cent) respondents have opted for the

first conventional approach. But, the differences In the number of

respondents favoring either method IS not statist~cally significant1 and

the d~fference in the frequencies is incidental in the present study.

The study results develop the need to educate the Small Scale Entrepreneurs

In adopting a scientific approach while selecting a more compatible

Partner-firm for Marketing Symbiosls.

1 Calculated x 2 = 2 46

Table Value = 3.481. (df = 1 . a = 05)

~ h ~ u g h , the scientific approach may not guarantee the success of

the agreement, it largely reduces the scope for unwanted failures by

considering all the important aspects in the select~on procedure. The

Small Scale entrepreneurs have to be suggested the scientificapproach

as a better method than the conventional approach, by highlighting

the various advantages of the systematic approaches In selecting the

partner-firm. The disadvantages and the drawbacks adhered to the

conventional approach will form the requ~site proof for the ability of

the scientific approach as an a ~ d in selecting a more compatible partner-

flrrn for Symbiosis.

5.3 IMPORTANCE OF IDENTIFYING ALTERNATIVES :

One of the major act~vities In the process of select~ng a Symbiotic

partner-firm is to ident~fy a few alternative partner-firms that may brlng

varled benefits to the agreement. Moreover, the importance of the

actlvlty IS magnif~ed by its abi l~ty to influence the access~b~lity of the

firm to ,different marketing resources or fac~lities. Only when the

entrepreneurs understand the importance of the activity, they assigll

due weightage to the act~vity, and take requisite care in identifying

various alternat~ves with varied resources and benefits. To identify

whether the Small Scale entrepreneurs have understood thls, the

respondents in the study are asked to specify the degree of importance

they assign to the act of ident~fying a few alternatives.

The responses are measured On a flve point Likert - type scale with

the points defined as Least lmportant (I), Less lmportant (z), lmportant (3), More Important (4) and Most lmportant (5). The

figures in the parartheses denote the score assigned to the respective

scale points for the purpose of numerical analysis of the data. The

study results largely support the earller proposition that the act of

identifying different alternative partner-firms is highly important. About

four of the one hundred and eleven respondents have not responded

to the question. Approx~mately six per cent of the respondents percelve

the act of identifying the a,lternatlves as Less Importantor Least Important.

Among the remaining sample, approximately twenty six per cent of

the respondents gave maximum importance by responding to 'Most

Important' answer. But, approximately thirty and th~rty five percent

of the respondents assigned 'More Important' and 'Important' status,

respectively, to the question. The results prove that the Small Scale

entrepreneurs perceive the importance of potential alternative firms

for Symbiosis. But, the degree of importance stated by majority of

the respondents is alarming. Moderate importance assigned may not

compel most of the respondents to undertake the activity, when they

are actually selecting a partner-firm. Thus, there exists a possibility

that most of the Small Scale entrepreneurs will not give due welghtage

to the act of identifying the alternatives while developing the Symbiotic

relationships. The present stature of moderate lmportance may be

due to the lack of adequate knowledge on the methodologies through

which potential alternative firms can be identified. The task is made

extremely difficult by the presence of a contingent of organizations,

with wide disparities in their nature and characteristics, from which

these potential alternatives may be chosen. A systematic approach

In thls regard may heip the Small Scale entrepreneurs to

turn down the organizations that may prove to be more harmful than

to be harmonious. Further, evaluating each and every f ~ r m In the

contingent may not be far from impossibility for the time, cost and

other operational considerations. Instead, restricted preliminary

information shall aid the Small Scale entrepreneurs in deciding

whether a firm can be considered as an alternative for Symbiotic

Marketing. More spec~fically, the prospective Symbiot~c flrms can

ldentlfy a few alternative firms by collecting the prel~m~nary information

about each of the firms, and from among them, a few may be selected

for further intensive evaluation through different methodologies.

5.4 PRELIMINARY INFORMATION NEEDS :

This research has identified four such preliminary information needs

through the pilot study. The questionnaire requests the respondents

to Identify the different sorts of Information they may wish to have

for deciding a firm as an alternative. All the four identified needs

are provided as answers to the question. The responses are noted

through a dichotomous nominal scale with YES and NO answers

for each of the choices. Further, the respondents are motivated to

identlfy other information needs as they feel are necessary. The most

needed piece of information by approximately fifty six per cent of

the respondents, 1s 'the knowledge and experience of the considered

firm in the activity intended to be shared'. Further, 'the marketplace

relationship between the products' of the participating firms, i.e.

competitive, complementary or unrelated products, IS the other information

measure that has obtained the second hlghest "YES" response in the

approximately fifty three per cent of the respondents. The third measure

is 'the resources or the facilities possessed by the other firm

' has also recelved positive responses from a considerable portion

(approximately forty seven per cent) of the sample population. The

last measure 'the size of the other firm' also helps about forty

six per cent respondents in deciding whether a given flrm may be

considered as an alternative firm or not. Apart from these, no other

information need is identified by the respondents. This shows that

the identified four information measures w ~ l l suffice the requirements

for the preliminary analysis. Besides, the differences in the frequencies

observed are not significant', enabling to conclude that al l the four

identified information measures are equally important in assessing the

Preliminary elig~bility of a firm as an alternative for Marketing Symbiosis.

1 Calculated x 2 Value = 1.543

Table Value = 7 815. (df = 3. a = 05)

5.5 THE RELIABILITY OF SOURCES OF INFORMATION :

The reliability of the information collected from the different sources

facilitates in assessing the various future eventualities of Symbiotic

agreements with added precision, More specifically, the knowledge

of relative reliabilities of the different external sources of information

would provide help in professing the more reliable and pertinent sources

for collecting the various information. It further helps in formulating

the methods of approaching these sources for collecting the relevant,

desired, and effective information from each of these sources. Thus,

the present study makes an effort to establish the relative rellablllties

of d~fferent sources of information. The . respondents are asked

to account their perceptions about the rellabillty of these Information

sources. The responses are measured on a 5 - point sernantlc scale

with end points defined as 'Not at Reliable'(1) and Highly Reliable(5).

The figures In the parantheses are the scores ass~gned to the respective

scale points. The other three mld points of the scale are assigned

2, 3 and 4 scores respectively in the ascending order of the responses.

A total of 'eight' d~fferent sources, that are inferred through the pilot

Study, are depicted in the final study. The efforts to rnotlvate

the respondents to ~dentify new sources and their relative reliabilites

are not product~ve. The study results are presented in Table 5.1. It

may be concluded from the results that "friends who are in commercial

activity", i.e. f r~ends undertakrng other business activ~ties, is the most

reliable source for collecting information about the alternative partner-

firms. Whereas, "friends who are not in commercial actlvlty", are

perceived to be not at fellable in regard to the information provided

about the other firms. The results appearto be supporting the preva~ling

perceptions. The first source is perceived to be highly rellable, as the

perceived friends may not possess the afflicting nature and motivation

to provide inaccurate information about the other f~rms. The second

category of friends, who are not in business, may not be havlng the

inclination to understand the business operatlons, and thus the

lnformatlon obtained through t h ~ s source may not be reliable. But,

some of the respondents, though the proportion is consrderably

lnslgnlflcant, c la~m even the first source, 1.e.. fr~ends who are In commercial

actlvlty, also as not reliable, forthey may obtaln only general Information

about the other firms and in most cases they may fail to provide

the operational and other technical information with speclal relevance

to the product under consrderat~on. Moreover, they specifically claim

that a management consultant would provide more rellable Information

In this regard and such inforrnat~on would be h~ghly useful in the f~na l

selection process. The perception has been supported by the study

results also. This source has obta~ned the second hlghest average

score of 3.94. Thus, the Small Scale entrepreneurs areslowly comprehending

the importance of a Management consultant and are opening up their

minds to believe in the consultancy profession. This indicates the

unveiling of the transition pnrlod in the style of managing their small

businesses. In regard to the other sources like retail shop owners,

personal'survey In a specified geographical zone and Dealers or

stockiests or Agents, the respondents have expressed a mixed opinion

with high responses on scale points 3 and 4, and low responses

on scale points 1 and 2. The respondents were encouraged to identify

the other sources which,.they think, can provide the required information.

But no new sources other than those specified in the quest~onnaire,

are ident~ f~ed by the respondents. In spite of this, it may not be

concluded that the Small Scale entrepreneurs regard only these information

sources as valid. Rather, these represent the most popular sources

of ~nformation. There could be other information sources that have

not been ident~ f~ed by the respondents. This is because the present

Study is based on the perceptions of the Small Scale entrepreneurs

and most of them have not really been practicing the concept. Thus,

the other practrcal sources m~ght not have been identified by the

entrepreneurs.

5.6 RELATIVITY OF DEPENDENCE. BENEFITS AND THE IMPORTANCE OF ACTIVITY :

The Study also appraises the perceptions of the Small Scale entrepreneurs

In regard to cenain measures like mutual dependence, Scale of

mutual benefits, and mutual importance of the activity, among the

symbiont firms. Three different questions are asked separately for

each of the three measures. For each of the questions, four similar

answers are provided, from which the respondents are asked to select

their answer. The nature of the answers is 'to have panty among the

symbionts, to have dominant position, to have submissive posit~on

and to accept any of the earller mentioned three options'. Table 5.2

IS an abridged version of the study results in regard to the three

measures. The high correlations between the dominance measure

and the other two measures, Importance of the activ~ty (r = .6036)

and the benefits from the Symbiotic agreements (r = .5319), have

developed the scope for a combined discussion on the three measures.

A considerably large portion of the sample expressed the feeling of

equal dependence on each other, equal benefitsfor both the partlclpating

firms and equal importance to be assigned to the activ~ty intended

to be shared. Though, thls idealistic approach has many posltlve

Consequences, achieving the real equal~ty simultaneously in all the

measure$ in the actual practlce of the concept may be extremely

difficult, if not impossible. Moreover, how many of the Small Scale

Entrepreneurs would attempt to accomplish w ~ t h cognizance,the perfect

equality in all the three measures, can be seen only when they endorse

Its practice personally. The skepticism is expressed, because the

ultimate objective of any such cooperative effort is to reap as much

benefits as possible. Moreover, the second popular perception expressed

by the entrepreneurs seems to be explaining a reasonable proposition.

Here, the focus firm wishes to have dominant positions in all the

three dimensions, i.e. the other firm being more dependent on the

focus firm, getting less'er benefits and assigning more importance to

the shared activity. The third option is to have a submissive stature,

i.e. to be more dependent on the other firm, to allow the other partner

to get more benefits and to share activities that are more Important

to the focus firm than to the other partner-firm. The fourth answer,

for all the three measures, provides more flexibility and is stated as

"I (focus flrm) can accept any of the above three situations". Thls

attitude paves the way path to conclude that the respondents attach

little importance to the Rellable aspect of the three earlier measures.

Indirectly, it may provide the foundation for measuring the absoluteness

with which the respondents measure these three dimensions of a

Symbiotic Marketing agreement, 1.e. to weigh the achievements in each

Of these measures against their own expectations, rather than against

those achieved by the other partner-firm. Though, the knowledge of

relative positions is highly essential during the negotiation phase of

the agreement, the inability of the firms to build a degree of flexiblllty

or absoluteness dur~ng the execution stages of the agreement, may

Prove to be detrimental to the agreement. The on-going evaluation

of relativity during the execution phases of the agreement may chisel

out the envious feelings resulting In unintended non-cooperation and

Intensified conflicts. The responses obtained in the present study to

this f lexibl l l ty pr0~0Sit i0n has been very poor. Only approxomately

five percent of the respondents have selected this option for the

measures of dependence and importance of the actrv~ty, and

approximately fourteen per cent on the measure of benefits. Thus,

Small Scale entrepreneurs may need to be professed to develop the

flexibility or absoluteness, in their evaluation of the partner-firm, in

regard to these three measures. Thrs attrtude, alongwrth accomplishing

the expected benefits, suppresses the jealous atmosphere and thus

avoids the Symbiotic Marketing agreements from resulting into

conflicting episodes.

5.7 MODE OF APPROACH FOR MARKETING SYMBIOSIS :

The study observes that majority of the Small Scale entrepreneurs

would not prefer any partocular mode of approach for Symbiotic agreement.

More specifically, they attach lrttle importance to how the other firm

has approached the focus firm, 1.e. either through a known medrator

or directly without the assistance of any mediator. The attitude is

meaSUred through a more explic~t question asklng the respondents

to specify the mode of approach, they would like or prefer, when an

external firm wants to develop symbiosis with them. Three responses

are Provided to the question. They are 1. through a known mediator

only (like friends etc.), 2. drrectly, without the help of any medrator,

and 3. through either of the ways. Majorlty (approximately sixty seven

percent) of the respondents have positively replied to the third response.

But, approximately twenty three per cent of them have preferred the

f~rst response and only approximately seven per cent have selected

the second answer. The remaining three per cent have not responded

to the question. The perceptlon has been cross checked by another

question narrating a hypothesized situation. The question requests

the respondents to imagine two firms that have simultaneously approached

the focus firm for Symbiotic Marketing agreements, one through a

mutually known mediator, and the other directly without the help of

any mediator. Then the respondents are asked to specify how carefully

they evaluate one flrm relat~ve to the other. A five po~nt Likert-type

scale IS adopted in noting the responses. The points are defined as:

1. I (focus firm) EVALUATE FIRM 'A' (approached through mediator)

EXTREMELY CAREFULLY

2. 1 (focus firm) EVALUATE FIRM 'A' (approached through med~ator)

MORE CAREFULLY

3. 1 (focus firm) EVALUATE BOTH THE FIRMS WITH EQUAL

CONSIDERATION

4. 1 (focus firm) EVALUATE FlRM 'B' (approached directly) MORE

CAREFULLY

5. 1 (focus flrm) EVALUATE FIRM '6' (approached directly) EXTREMELY

CAREFULLY

The greater part of the sample (approximately sixty six per cent) of

the respondents have said that they evaluate both firms with equal

care. Approximately fifteen per cent and eleven per cent of the

respondents have specified that they evaluate the second f ~ r m t.e.

the one that has directly approached, with more and extreme care,

respectively. The study results contradict the prevailing perception

that the Small Scale entrepreneurs preferto be approached only through

a known mediator and supports the theoretical propositton that the

agreement is rather more important than the channel through which

the other firm approaches. This encourages the Small Scale Entrepreneurs

to approach the otherfirms without much hesitation for maklng Symbiotic

~arket in$ agreements. In other words, when they know that there

IS no additional advantage In approaching the other firm through a

mutually known mediator, they tend to concentrate more on the other

Important aspects of the agreement.

5.8 TYPES OF S ~ I O T I C FIRMS :

Symbiosis can be developed with any f ~ r m or organization as long

as Such coming together is mutually beneflclal. But, almost all the

organizations, basing on their prior experience in Symbiot~c agreements,

can be classified into four groups. They are :

1. A firm which has never entered into a cooperative agreement

2. A flrm which has never entered Into a cooperative agreement

firm, but presently terminated the agreement..

3. Afirm which is already having a cooperative agreement with any other

firm for sharing other activltles.

4. A firm which had or IS havlng a cooperative agreement with focus flrm

These fourtypes of firms present different advantages and disadvantages

to the focus firm. Thus, the focus firm has to carefully defrne its

spec~fications in regard to this aspect and identify clearly the type

of the firm it would prefer. For example, the first type of the firm

carries the advantage of being enthusiastic about the agreement and

thus will tend to possess more adjustability and cooperative attrtude.

Simultaneously, the lack of earlier experfence in sharlng any of the

operating resources may pose different operational problems that might

not have been identified dur~ng the varlous stages of developrng the

agreement. Similarly, the other three types of firms also carry varlous

advantages as well as disadvantages with them. Accordingly, the

respondents in the present study are asked a slmilar question to rank

the four types of firms according to the order of thelr preference.

The respondents are asked to give first rank to the most preferred,

second rank to the next preferred and so on. Thus, the lower the

average score for the firm, the more preferred is the type of the

firm. The first preference for approximately s~x ty one per cent of

the respondents is the fourth type of the firm, 1.e.a firm

which had or is having Symbiot~c agreement with the focus firm.

The average score obtalned

by this type is the lowest (1.61). This is because the focus firm might

already be having the internal information of the other firm and the

avallabillty of the information reduces the uncertalnity in decision

making process. Further, 'longer-standing relationships are less vulnerable

to the threats to their persistence"'. But, the findlng may be alarming

In two aspects. Primarily, developlng multiple agreements w ~ t h the

same partner-firm, may result in closer relat~onships with the other

firm. Such close interaction may threaten the s u ~ l v a l of either of

the flrms for such close relationships tempt both the participants to

make attempts to take over the other's busmess. Secondarily, such

close Interaction with only one firm, may l~mi t the scope of acqu~ring

new skllls and techniques as well as for explo~t~ng new opportunities

for further growth. Thus, developing Symbiotic Marketing agreements

with a number of flrms may be more preferable to developlng multiple

agreements wlth one flrm. Further, the option may not be practical

for most of the Small Scale Units, as a large majorlty of them have

not operationallsed the concept trll now. Thls requlres to consider

the other preferences to be more optimlstlc in Indian situations. Bbt,

the responses to the other three types of flrms seem to be presenting

a mrxed opinion with almost similar number of the respondents giving

them second, third and fourth ranks. The average scores also do

not present any clear picture. ~ u t , for comparlson, the Type 3 firm

1 . C.f. LOUIS P. Bmklin a n m d Sonjit Sengupta. 1993. OP c l t . Pg. 35

has obtained the second lowest score (2.74), Type 2 firm has obta~ned

the next lowest average score (2.76) and Type 1 has been the least

preferred with the highest average score of 2.85. Though Type 1

firm i.e, a firm with no prior experience in Symbiot~c agreements, is

the least preferred by most of the Small Scale Entrepreneurs, this

type only seems to be the most probable option, because major~ty

of the firms do not h t ve prior experience in Symbiotic agreements.

These results show that the Small Scale entrepreneurs have no clear

~dea about the type of the f~rm, they prefer for Marketing Symbiosis.

Th~s may be attributed to the lack of comprehensive knowledge of

various advantages and disadvantages attached to each type of these

flrms. Thus, the Small Scale entrepreneurs need assistance In identifying

the suitable type of Symbiot~c firm. This may require further research

to assess the relative strateg~c and tact~cal impacts of each of the

four types in different organizational environments.

5.9 PAST ALLIANCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED :

Another cons~deration in selecting a Symbiotic partner is to appraise

the past alliances, the alternat~ve partner-firms had or are having

with other firms for sharing any of the resources. Thls informatlon

assists mainly in two aspects. F~rstly, it helps in more pragmatically

understanding the behavioral patterns of the otherfirms. Mor? specifically,

it provides answers to many questions like, how does the other firm

react to different actions of the focus firm, what are the different

situations that result into conflicts, how does the other firm behave

In such conflicting situations, how moral and ethical are the operations

of the other firm and whether the other firm exhibits opportunlst~c

behavlor or not. Secondly, the information helps in assessing the

potent~al of the other firm to lnstltute threats or opportunit~es to the

focus f ~ r m . So, the survey questlonnalre IS incorporated with a

question to ident~fy the different information needs of the Small Scale

entrepreneu'rs in this regard. Pr~or to thls, a filter quest~on is asked

so as to filter the respondents who do not want t h ~ s Information at

all. Responding to this fllter questlon, approximately one quarter of

the respondents said that thsy would not need any ~nformat~on on the

past aillances of the other firms. T h ~ s group of entrepreneurs argue

that they (other firms) learn from the previous agreements and recognize

the perplexity attached to the opportunistic behav~or and thus, will not

commlt the same mistake again. But, opportunistic behavior crops

up from the basic objective of the busmess, i.e, to accrue as much

Profits as possible from all the commercial relationsh~ps. Thls Cannot s

be controlled except by external measures l ~ k e a continuous v~g l l by

the other firm. So, obtaining information on the past alliance is essential.

and It should be made clear to the Small Scale entrepreneurs to

comprehend its influence on the l ~ f e of Symblotlc alllance.

Six of Such information needs have been presented In the questlonnaire

and the respondents were asked to spec~fy thelr requirements of each

of them. A five point Semantic scale with end points defined as not

necessary (1) and compulsory (5) and the mid-point as mostly

necessary (3), is used in noting the responses. The figures in the

parantheses denote the scores asslgned to the respective scale points.

The mld points between 1 and 3 and 3 and 5 are asslgned 2 and

4 score points respectively. The average scores obtained by the d~fferent

inforrnatlon parts explain their degree of importance in the selection

procedure. The study results regarding the question are presented

In Table 5.3. 'The reasons for terminating the alliance has been

glven the highest average score of 4.63, and thus is the most Important

plece of inforrnatlon regarding the past alllance of the other flrm. Thls

Information may help the focus firm in assessing the potentlal for

recurrence of similar factors effectrng the success of the present

relatlonsh~ps. It further helps In identlfylng the varlous situations which

can transform into conflicting ep~sodes. This knowledge, in turn permits

the symbionts to take necessary precautions for ascertalnlng the success

of the allrance. Similarly, the degree of cooperative attitude between

the other two firms, If the alliance Is still In force, IS considered

to be relevant. This piece of information 1s important because it aids

in assessing the other firm's attitude towards ~ t s partner-firm and the

" f lex~bi l i t~" in adjustin9 its behavior to different conflict situations. It

further helps in identifying in advance, the various conflict resolution

methods to be adopted when a conflict arlses during the latter phases

of executing the agreement. It also aids the focus flrm in formulating

long-term strategies with a degree of certainty about the behavior

of the other partner-firm.)The average scoresforthe other four information

needs, range from 3.2 to 3.8. This denotes that this information

is 'mostly needed', but not compulsory. In other words, the availability

or non-availability of this information, will only have marginal effect

on the decision of the Small Scale entrepreneurs, regarding the alternative

partner-firms.

5.10 ORGANIZATIONAL COMPATIBILITY :

Organizational Compatibility is the degree of "semblance" among the

organizations participating in a cooperatlve alliance. Two compatible

organizations will generally have complementary marketing objectives

and goals, slmilar operating philosophies and corporate cultures. A

Perfect match in the marketing objectives, operating philosophies and

corporate cultures considerably reduces the scope for erroneous under-

standing of each other's actlvitles and the conflicts arlsing out of such

misunderstanding. This confl~ctless stature enhances the efficiency

of the Symbiotic agreements. Bucklin and Sengupta have proved that

Organizational Compatibil~tyand the effectiveness (success) of a Symbiotic

agreemenere positively correlated with each other1. More specifically,

as the degree of compatibility Increases, the potential for succeeding

in Symbiot !~ agreements also increases and vice versa. The Small

1 . LOUIS P Bucktin and Sengupto. 1993. OP clt. P g 44

Scale entrepreneurs should recognize the importance and need for

a compatible organrzation for prof~tably practising Symbiotic Marketing.

To assess whether the Small Scale Entrepreneurs have identifled the

~mportance of the concept of organizational compatibility, the present

study incorporates a set of six statements into its questionnaire. The

six statements cover varied aspects I~ke, similar operatingphilosophies,

slmllar understanding of the nature of the marketing actlvltles,

consistent marketing objectives, executives' style of managing

the activities, mutualrespect for the employees ofboth the organizations,

and the level of importance assigned to the activities. All the

SIX statements are mostly assertive in nature and the respondents

are asked to note how intensely they agree or disagree with each

of the six statements. The responses are measured on a flve polnt

semantic scale with the end points def~ned as strongly agree(5) and I

strongly dlsagree ( 1 ) and the mld point as neitheragree nor disagree

(3). Though, the impact of these measures on the success of a

Symb~otic Marketing agreement is not directly assessed In the present

study, the need for having like-minded partner-f~rm, may be understood

as an aid to improve the efficiency of the alliance. Table 5.4 depicts

the responses to each of the scale points and average scores calculated

for each of the six statements separately. The study results are in

concurrence with the findings of Bucklln and Sengupta. The final

average scores of the responses, are in the range of 3.77 and 3.42.

Results on Organizational Compatibility

Table 5 . 4 Source : Primary Data @ All Values S ~ g n ~ f ~ c a n t at 4 degrees of freedom and 0 1 Level of slgnof~cance 8 The F~gures In the 5 columns. show~ng the percentages. add to '100 '

~ h u s , when the flrms try to select a surtable partner-firm for practicing

Symbiotic Marketing, they need to look Into these various aspects of

compatibrlity for a better performance of the agreement.

5.1 1 PARTNER-FIRM SELECTION CRITERIA :

The earlier parts of the chapter have highlighted the need for a more

compat~ble partner-f~rm in practlslng Symb~osis. In thls section, a

discussion on the various crlterla for evaluating the congeniality of

each of the alternative firms, is made. Here, a total of 31 selection

criterla are identified through the results of the p~ lo t survey. These

crlterla are utilized for ident~fylng the common factors that explaln the

bases for applying these criteria. In the absense of a basic idea as

to how many factors are underly~ng the criteria, Exploratory Factor

Analysis1 method is adopted in the study The prlmary data required

for the analysls IS collected from the respondents In respect of each

of the 31 c r ~ t e r ~ a on a 5-point L~ket-type scale. The remalnlng of the

sect~on presents a detailed d~scuss~on on the criterla considered, the

method of conducting the factor analysis, its results and a brief

descript~on of each of the common factors identified.

5.1 1.1 DESCFUPTION OF THE CRITERIA :

The present study considers a total of thrlty one criteria In the process

of identifying the underlying general elements. The list has been

1 Joe-on-klm and Charles W Mueller, 1985. Introduction to factor Anolysis What It I s and how to do i t , Sage Publlcatlons. Bevery Hllls, Pg.9

consolidated from the rbsults of the pllot study. The respondents of

the pilot study are asked to speclfy as many crlteria as they might

conslder fit, while selecting a Symblotlc partner-firm. Though, the

list may not be comprehensive, it IS mostly representatwe of all the

dimensions, as it has been compiled through adequate consultation

wlth the practising entrepreneurs. It can be observed from the list of

the criteria presented in Table 5.5 that varlous aspects llke past growth

achievements, future growth prospects, the resources - both tanglble

and ~ntangble- possessed by the other firms, the previous marketing

policies of the other firms, possible future changes In the execution

of the agreement and the scope for the other firm to become a

competitor in the future have been covered. The Table also presents

the 11st of the codes used in the computerised analysis of the data

and also in the presentation of the results. The respondents of the

flnal study are also requested to mention other select~on crlterla that

have not been Included In the questionnaire. But, none of the one

hundred and eleven respondents has ldentlfied any add~tional crlttria.

This supports that almost all the popular selection crltelra have been

Included in the study.

Out of the thirty one criteria cons~dered, four are presented directly

In the questionnaire, through a question. The remaining 27 cr~terla

are presented through a second questron. Each of these 27 crlterla

222 UST OF PARTNER-FIRM SELECTION CRITERIA USED IN THE STUDY

Table 5.5

' SI NO.

1.

2.

3

4.

5

6.

7.

8.

9

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

16.

16

17.

18.

19.

20

21.

22.

23

24.

25.

26.

27

28.

29.

30

31.

*

DESCRIPTION

THE PARTNEIi'S OTHER COMMERCIAL RELATIONSHIPS

THE PARTNER'S MANAGEMENT STYLE

SIZE OF THE FIRM

THE OTHER RESOURCES THE POTENTIAL PARTNER POSSESSES

FAVOURABLE ATTITUDE TOWARDS US

THE PARTNER'S ADJUSTABILITY NATURE

THE PARTNER'S ABILITIES, SMARTNESS AN0 INTEGRITY

PARTNER'S FAMILY BACKGROUND

SALES POLICIES OF THE PARTNER-FIRM OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS

PARTNER-FIRM'S REPUTATION IN THE MARKET

EXPECTED FUTURE CHANGES THAT MAY AFFECT THE AGREEMENT

THEIR ADVERTISEMENT PLANS FOR THE NEAR FUTURE

FINANCIAL STABILITY AND CAPABILITIES OF THE PARTNER-FIRM

THE PARTNER'S PRODUCT BRAND IMAGE AND POPULARITY

BENEFITS ACCRUED TO US FROM THE AGREEMENT

MARKETING AND DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS OF THE PARTNER

THE INFLUENCE OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS ON H IM

NO SUPERIORITY OR INFERIORITY COMPLEX

THE PARTNER'S COMMITMENT TOWARDS WORK

FAIRNESS AND FRANKNESS ?F THE PARTNER IN CONDUCTING THE BUSINESS

AGE GROUP OF THE PARTNER

ABILITY TO CREATE BETTER IMAGE ABOUT OUR PRODUCT

CONSISTENT POSITIVE AND COMMITTED ATTITUDE TOWARDS SYMBIOSIS

' Q U A L I P MINDEDNESS OF THE PARTNER

THE PARTNER'S CHARACTERISTICS AND CAPABILITIES

SPILLOVER IMPACTS OF THE PARTNER'S PRODUCT ON OUR PRODUCT

THE PARTNER'S MANAGERIAL EXPERIENCE SKILLS AN0 PAST RECORD

PARTNER-FIRM'S EXPERIENCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE RESOURCES INTENDED TO BE SHARED

PARTNER-FIRM'S STATUS WHEN COMPARED WITH OTHERS HAVING SIMILAR RESOURCES

PARTNER-FIRM'S ABILITY AND INTENTIONS TO ENTER INTO OUR BUSINESS

PARTNER.FIRM8S OVERALL SUCCESS IN THE MARKETING FUNCTION

NOTE : ~h~ codes are used for presenting the results in Tables 5 6. 5 7, 5.8, 5 9, 5 10 and Appendlcea E. F, G and *

CODE'

C 1

C 2

C 3

C 4

C 5

C 6

C 7

C 8

C 9

C 10

C 11

C 12

C 13

C 14

C 15

C 16

C 17

C 18

C 19

C 20

C 21

C 22

C 23

C 24

C 25

C 26

C 27

C 28

C 29

C 30

C 31

IS printed on a separate card of 2' x 2 112' size. The bunch of 27

cards IS given to the respondents, when they are asked to answer

the second question. The method is adopted for two reasons. Primarily,

it is observed that the questionnaire IS lengthy and time-consuming.

So, the respondents may feel enervated when this long list of criterla

is presented at the end of the Interview. A change in the monotonous

way of the researcher asking the questions, revitalizes thelr ~nterests

In the study. Thus, the cards are made use of In the process. Secondarily

and more significantly, when the respondents see the long llst of criteria

at the end of the questionnaire, they may try to avold it for varlous

reasons llke fatigue and lack of time. But, the bunch of the cards

handed over to the respondents may repress the feeling of a long

llst and tlme consuming activity. Moreover, as the respondents are

exposed to one cr~terion at a tlme, ~t allows them to specify the

importance of each of the criterion, without being biased by the level

of importance assigned to the other related or unrelated crlteria included

In the list.

The respondents are requested to speclfy the degree of importance

they assign to each of the criteria. The answers are noted on a five-

POlnt Likert-type scale with the flve points def~ned as Essential (5),

Most ~ m p o r t a n t (4), important (3), Less Important(2) and Least

important ( 1 ) . The figures in the parentheses denote the score points

assigned to each of the scale Points. If the respondents omit certain

criteria from their answers, such crlteria are given 'Onscore, assuming

that they have no impact on the flnal scores of the respondents1. The

various descriptive Stat.istics like Mean, Standard Deviation, Median,

Skewness, Kurtosis, for each of the thlrty one criter~a are presented

In Appendlx E. The inter-item correlations among the thlrty one criteria

are presented in Appendix - F.

5.11.2 NUMBER OF FACTORS TO BE EXTRACTED :

The number of factors to be extracted in a factor model is determined

through various methods. The results of all these metl~ods may or

may not be s~milar. In the present study, three methods lnvolv~ng Eigen

values are srrnultaneously used for determining the number of factors

to be extracted. The following paragraphs present the three methods

and their results.

Kalser or Eigenvalue spec~f~cat~on IS one of the most popular methods

In thls regard. The method suggests " to retain factors with elgenvalues

greater than 'one". Table 5.6 presents the four criteria for which

the Eigen values are greater than or equal to 'one'. The values are

calculated through STATGRAPHICS software and are depicted In the

descending order. For the other 27 criteria, the Eigen values are

1 When the responding entrepreneurs have falled to provides answers to all the criterlo. which had happened in two cases, the answers were not considered for the analysls of the data, making only 109 cases available for conducting factor analysis.

2 . Jge-on Kim and Charles W Mueller. 1985. OP, Cit Pg 49

less than 'one' and are presented In Appendlx G, in more detall. Thus,

It is decided to extract four factors from the available primary data.

The second method also involves Eigenvalues. But, it slightly differs

from the earlier method and is proposed by Harrnan. According to

hlm "one shouldstop extracting common factors before the cumulative

sum of the eigenvalues exceeds the sum of the estimatedcommunalities~.

The sum of Estimate Communalities as presented at the end of the

table In Appendix - G, is 13.70502. Thls value IS exactly equal to

the sum of the Eigen values (1 3.70502) for the four factors presented

In Table 5.6. Thus, it can be concluded that four factors may statistrcally

be extracted in the factor model. Thls result IS same as the result

of the earlier method

The scree-test is also performed for determ~ning the number of factors.

The Scree-test advocates "to examine the graph of elgenvalues,

andstop factoringat thepoint where the eigen values (or characteristic

roots) begin to level off forming a straight line with an almost

horizontal slope"2. Figure 5.1 presents the line graph drawri with

the Elgenvalues on the Y-axis and the serlal number of varrables on

the X-axls. It is clearly vrsible from the graph, that the downfall in

the slope of the graph is greater between second and thlrd factor

values. ' ~ u t , it continues to fall, though comparltively at a lower rate,

1 . C f. Joe-on Klm and Charles W Mueller. 1985. Op clt . Pg. 51

2 lbld . pg.52

EIGEN

VALUE

1 8 J 4 5 8 r 8 FACTORS

upto the sixth factor value. Another break is seen at the fourteenth

factor, though is minor. But, the line is more stable in its fall after

this point. These multlple break-points make the results difficult to

Interpret in order to find out the number of factors to be extracted.

Thus, in the present study, it is decided to extract only four factors,

In accordance with the results of the first two methods explained.

5.11.3 FACTOR EXTRACTION :

As decided above, four factors are extracted as the underlyrng common

dimensions from the thirty one partner-flrm select~on criteria. The factor

extraction is performed through a computer software package called

STATGRAPHICS. The software uses Principal Component analysls

in the process of extracting the Initial factors. The resultant initial

factor loadlngs for the thrrty one criterla on the four factors extracted

are presented in Append~x - H. From th~s, it IS observed that majority

of variables exhlbrt high loadrngs on only the Second factor. Moreover,

almost all variables having h ~ g h loadlngs on the f~rst factor, are negative

In drrection. Both the conditions make the lnterpretatlon of the results

drfflcult and necessrtates the rotation of the factors for more clarity

In the results. Assuming that the four extracted factors are independent

of each other, Varimax type of orthogonal rotation is conducted for

the initial loadlngs. The factor loadrngs for the 31 criterra, after the

factors are Varlmax rotated, are presented in Appendrx - I. A criterion

is grouped into a factor, on which it has the highest factor loading

value. Thus, it is observed that the first and second factors are

constituted by eleven and ten original criteria, respectively. The third

factor is comprised of six variables whereas the fourth factor is founded

on only four criteria. All.the four factors together explain seventy two

point six per cent of the total variance1 in the original data. u o u t

twenty eight per cent of the variance is caused by the first factor alone.

The second factor is responsible for another twenty seven per cent

of the variance. The third and fourth factors have effected ten per

cent and seven per cent of the variance in the original data, respectively.

5.11.4 FIRST FACTOR :

The first factor is constituted by eleven of the thirty one or~glnal criteria

considered in the study. The eleven criteria, their respective loadings

on the factor and their estimated communalities, are presented in

Table 5.7. A close observation of these eleven variables enabled to

further classify them into two groups. The first sub-group of six criterion

variables attempt to clearly sketch the "personality" of the partner.

The initial two variables like "his famlly background and the influence

of other family members" describe the lineage of the partner in person.

These variables help in assessing whether the partner comes from

afamily with business understanding or is theflrst generation entrepreneur;

1 Variance is the sum of squared devliatlons from the meon, divided by the number of cases The rneosureindicotesihe degree of dispersion of data from the mean

THE CRITERIA THAT CONSTITUTE THE FIRST FACTOR

N O . I =I'

I I ;1

2

I ' 3

' 4

1 I 1 5

1 1 6 1 1

I I

1 1 7

I I

I I 9

1 1

1

' 1

-

C o d e

C8

C17

C27

C18

C30

C5

C3

C9

C14

C26

C11

Qescrlptlon of the Crlterlon

P R O F I L E a . Partner' Fam~ ly Background

The ~nf luence o f the Partner's f am~ ly members on h ~ m

The partner 's managerla1 experience, s k ~ l l s and past record

No S u p e r ~ o r ~ t y or l n f e r ~ o r ~ t y complex

Partner's a b ~ l ~ t y and lntentlons to enter focus f ~ r m ' s bus~ness

Favourable a t t~ tude towards the focus f ~ r m

b ORGANIZATIONAL PROFILE,

Sue of the par tner - f~rm

Sales pol~cres of the par tner - f~rm over the last few years

Product Brand lmage and popularity of the par tner - f~rm

Sp~l lover ~mpac'ts of the partner's product on the focus f l rm's product

Expected future changes that may affect the agreement

Table 5.7

Loadlng on Factor I

88901

86078

58128

74851

45605

44527

55322

61156

60031

49302

73836

Estlmate C o m m u n e l l t y

8890

8698

5813

7485

- 4561

- 4453

5532

61 12

6003

4930

7384

the type of businesses, if any, the other family members are involved

in, and how independently the partner can take decisrons on strategic

aspects Involving finances and other resources. The remaining four

variables in the sub-group explain the business-related other behavioral

patterns of the partner that may have varying influences, though

peripheral, on the smooth performance of the sharing activ~ties. Similarly,

the second sub-group of five cr~terra direct our attention towards the

organizational characteristrcs of the partner flrm. Here, the first three

criteria present a picture of the past and the existing stature and the

last two criteria relate to the probable future consequences. In fact,

these expectatrons are generally based on all the earher nlne criteria.

For example, knowledge about the managerial experience and skills

of the partner enables In rdentify~ng the probable areas of inefficiencies,

slze of the partner-firm to w~thstand the sw~ft changes in the marketing

environment of the firm and the product Image to assess the scope

for negative spillover effects. Thus, whrle the first sub-group prov~des

information on the "profile" of the promoter of the firm, the second

sub-group draws our attention to the "prof~le" of the flrm itself. Thus,

the frrst common dimension is named as "Profile"

5.11.5 SECOND FACTOR :

Description of the criteria having hlgher factor loadings on this factor,

the~r respective loading values and their estimated communal~ties are

presented In Table 5.8. This factor 1s constltuted by ten crlter~a and

is defined as "OPERATIONAL ATTRIBUTES". Akrn to the first factor,

thls factor also is explained through two sub-dimens~ons, each const~tuted

by5 criteria, as shown inTable 5.8. The first sub-d~mens~on, "Entrepreneurial

Attributes" attempts to evaluate the capabilities, smartness, integrity,

fairness, consistent attitudes and the commitment of the partners. All

these attributes are essent~al for commltted sharlng of the varlous

marketing actlv~ties. Similarly, the second sub-d~mens~on "Organlzatlonal

Attrlbutes" evaluates the firm's operational resources like the marketing

and distribution channels, advertising plans, the f~rm's abil~ty to create

a better image about the focus firm, thew financial stabll~ties and

capabilities. All these crl ter~a are directly related to the operatlonalities

of the shar~ng activ~ties and thus, are grouped as "Operational

Attributes".

5.11.6 THIRD FACTOR :

Table 5.9 presents the descript~on of the criter~a w~ th higher factor

loadings on the third factor, t he~ r respective factor loadlng values and

the estimated communalitles. A close 0bse~at lOn of the description

of the criteria in the Table reveals that most of these relate to relative

status o f the alternative partner-firms. The relativity IS measured

in regard to the operational resources possessed, their experience

In adrninisterlng these resources, their overall success, thelr reputation

Table 5.8

THE CRITERIA THAT CONSTITUTE

C o d e

C25

C7

C20

C23

C19

C22

C12

C13

C16

C15

THE SECOND FACTOR

I

Dtrsr lpl lon ol Iha Crlttrlon

OPEAATIONAL RESOURCES OR ATTRI8UTES

a. ENTREPRENEURIAL

The partner's character~st~cs and

capabl l l t~es

The partner 's a b ~ l i t ~ e s , smartness

and lntegrl tv

Fa~rness and franknuss of the partner

i n conducting the bustness

The partner's conststent poslttve and

commttted a t t ~ t u d e towards symbiosis

The partner's commitment towards work

b . QRGANIZATIONAL

A b ~ l l t y of the partner-flrm to create

better Image about the focus flrm's product

Advertfsement plans fo'r the near

future o f the par tner - f~rm

F~nanclal s tab l l ~ t y and capab~lltles

o f the par tner - f~rm

Marketing and Dls t r~but lon channels

of the par tner - f~rm

Beneftts accrued to the focus firm

f rom the agreement

SI. N O .

1 .

I 2 .

'I 3 .

! 4

5. 1 I : I I !

1 8 I

i ~ 1 9.

lo. 1

LL

Loadlng on Factor 11

,72228

,62596

,60853

,55028

,39035

,61803

6081 4

53116

,50741

45004

Eatlm8te Communallty

7223

,6260

6085

,5503

,3904

,6180

,6081

,5312

,5074

,4500

THE CRITERIA THAT CONSTITUTE THE THIRD FACTOR

Loadlng or Dercrlptlon of the Crlterlon Factor 111

IVlTY

Partner-f~rm's status when compared

w ~ t h other f ~ r m s hav~ng s ~ m ~ l a r

resources

Partner-f~mr's experoence on the

admin~stratoon of the resources

intended to be shared

Partner-f~rm's overall success on the

marketong function

Partner-form's reputatoon In the

market

Qualoty mindedness of the partner

Age group of the partner

T a b l e 5.9

In the market and their attitude towards the quality of the product.

TO be more specific, in regard to all these aspects, the focus firms

assess the relative positions of various alternative partner-firms for

selecting a symbiont. Thus, the dimension is named as "Co-firm

Relativity".

5.11.7 FOURTH FACTOR :

The fourth common factor is constituted by four orrginal criteria. The

factor is known as " ~ x t r a ~ o p e r a t l o n a l Attributes or Resources". This

factor explains the criteria like the partner's other commercial relationships,

their management style and their adjustabrlrty nature, which are not

generally involved directly in the execution of the sharing agreement.

These criteria are necessary to understand the abilities and capabilities

of the partner-firm to extract support from other resources in times

of need. The description of these criterra, their respective factor

load~ngs and estlrnate cornrnunal~t~es are presented In Table 5.10.

5.12 A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH IN SELECTING A

PARTNER-FIRM :

The earlier discussion has highl~ghted the various steps involved and

their relative importance in the process of selecting a more compatible

and profitable partner-firm for Symbiotic Marketing practices. The

Present section attempts to consolidate this discussion into a few

comprehensible steps organized into a simple model, as presented

THE CRITERIA THAT CONSTITUTE THE FOURTH FACTOR

Table 5.10

SI. N o .

I 1

I

' I 2 .

3 .

1 4

C o d e

Cl

C 4

cz

C6

D e s c r l p t l o n C r l t e r l o n

T - -s

:he par tner 's other c o m m e r c ~ a l

r e l a t ~ o n s h ~ p s

T h e other resources, the partner

possesses

;he par tner 's management style

T h e partner 's adjustablilty nature

Loadlng o n Factor IV

4981 9

69832

,68216

Estlmale C o m m u n a l l t y

6983

6822

4982

In Flgure 5.2. Though, the partner selection procedure physically

starts with the ldentlficatlon of a few alternat~ve firms, clearly de f~n ing

the term "potential alternative" is the most ~ n i t ~ a l and prellmlnary actlvity

In the process. This definition enables to spec~fy whether a given

f ~ r m can be considered as a potential alternative or not forthe symbiosis.

It should include a note on the nature of the actrv~ty, the size of the

partner-firm and the preferred type of the symbiotic firm. The nature

of the activity decides the preferable marketplace re lat~onsh~p w ~ t h

the symbiotic partner-f~rm for better mutual benefits. If the actlvlty

1s hlghly inter-industry generic In nature, unrelated product manufacturers

provide a more benef~cia l relationship. But, ~f the activlty IS h~ghly

~ntra-industry specific, competitors form a better option of practising

market~ng symb~osrs. Similarly, the growth orlentation of the f ~ r m

determines the prefered size of other symb~onts. Speclflcally, flrms

wlth h~ghe r growth orlentation largely prefer organizations blgger than

tt~eir own size, for they provide the technical and financial help in

times of need as well as opportunit~es for future growth. Whereas,

survival orientated firms'aim at reducing their operational expenditure

through these sharing agreements and would not prefer to accept the

domination of bigger firms. So, for these f~rms, it IS largely beneficial

to develop alllances w ~ t h elther equal slzed flrms or smaller firms.

Slmllarly, the focus firm has to first decide on the type of the firm

from among the four types based on thelr prior experience in S~mbio t l c

agreements. These four types of flrms are d l~cussed the earlier

2 3 8 S Y S T E n R T I C RPPROnCH IN S E L E C T I N G

A B Y MEIOTIC PBRTNER-FIRM

I d r n t i f y thc a c t i v i t y

1 1 H i g h l y Highly

l n t r r ~ n d u t w H ~ s h f y

Gentrrc b n p l e r m t u y l n t r r - n d u r t w

S p r c i H o

I l d r n t l f y thc p n l t n n c r of the t r p ~ PI S Y * ~ I O ~ I C T I N I

a 141th e l r l l r r con I ' # I t h ptHr

*gotiate s i w l t m r o u r ~ Y with t M three k ~ t

r l t e m a t l v r f ! m , d rv t lop r l l l r n c r

r i t h thr WSt ~ u l t L b l ~ , conpatlblr and

b rn r f r c i a l t l n

t Id rn t t fy

t k r l t r t i u r tl",

I n f o r ~ a t i o n So=

4

1 Iva lua t r

r r e h of t k n against Selection

a s r t of Crl terl a p r r d r t e n r n r d

CFl t r r 1 a

Gnptibility

k c l d r on 1

F i g u r e 5.2

t k k d r of R machlng ik brs t

t h r a l t r n a t l v r

f l n s

Source : Prepared f o r the study

- Collrct

lnfonat:on about t k past a l l i m o s of t k 0 t h r i m s ,

i f mu

4

parts of the chapter and the focus firm has to select the most sultable

and pragmatic type of firm after considering the advantages and

disadvantages attached to each of them. All these decisions wlll enable

the focus firm to clearly define the term "potentral alternatlves" with

speclal reference to their speclflcations, which in turn makes the job

of identifying the alternative partner-flrms easy.

The steps that follow the act of Identifying the alternatlves, are rather

predeterm~ned. The Identified alternative firms are to be evaluated

In regard to two important aspects. First, the degree of organlzatlonal

compatibility with each of the alternatives is to be assessed. Second,

these alternatives are to be evaluated against a set of predetermined

crlteria like their proflle, operational attributes, co-firm relatlvlty and

the extra-operational resources. This is followed by s~multaneously

negotiating with the best three alternatives to measure thelr offers

and to finally select one firm for Marketing Symbiosis. But, in the

entire process of partner-firm selection procedure, the most important

activities are - identification of the proper alternatives and the Selection

of the criteria against which these alternatives are to be evaluated.

The model presented at the end of the discussion incorporates all

these activities starting from the nature of the sharable aCtlvltY to the

final negotiation with the best three alternative partner-firms.

5.13 CONCLUSION :

The selection of the proper and right partner-firm exhibits a direct

influence on the success of a Symbiotic alliance. The respondent

Small Scale entrepreneurs are slowly comprehending the importance

of this activity and are getting interested in employ~ng a systematic

approach in selecting partner-firm. The various issues relating to

the selection process like the importance of identifying alternatives,

preliminary information needs, the reliability of d~fferent sources of

information, relativity of benefits accrued, mutual dependence and

importance assigned by the firms to the activity, preferred mode of

approach, care taken while evaluating the firms that approached through

two different modes, preferred types of Symbiotic firms, information

required on the past alliances of the alternatives, and importancce

of organizational compatibility are discussed in detail

through presenting the results of the study. The responses on the

selection criteria are factor analyzed. The resultant four factors are

named as 1 . Profile 2. Operational Resources or Attributes 3. Go-

firm Relativity and 4. Extra-operatronal Resources Or Attributes. The

chapter finally presented a model, establlshlng the relatlonshlPS among

all these issues, to aid the Small Scale entrepreneurs in selecting

a more amenable symbiont-firm.