Basic research. The concept of "strategic partnership" in international relations We are a strategic partner of the best

When environmental conditions are complex and uncertain, stakeholders create networks of interdependencies. This process is sometimes called bridging , or strategic partnership . It can be implemented in different forms: as a joint business with regular customers of products, various forms cooperation with competitors, the creation of joint ventures in the implementation of various types of international strategies, association for lobbying efforts at the industry level, etc. Recent studies have shown that strategic partnerships are a means of reducing both the uncertainty arising from unpredictable environmental requirements and the pressure arising for a high level of interdependence between organizations.

Partnership methods allow companies to build bridges (bridging) with stakeholders by pursuing common goals, while traditional tactics (damping or mitigating the negative impact of environmental factors) simply reduce the level of undesirable consequences and contribute to the satisfaction of their needs or requirements. The partnership can lead to timely and complete information about stakeholders, increase trust and improve the reputation of the corporation.

The potential benefits of an active partnership tactic can be illustrated using customer relationships as an example. Companies with traditional distancing from customers focus on information about the need for new products and expected demand in accordance with the existing quality and service offered in order to protect themselves from demand uncertainty and potential customer complaints. In an active partnership tactic, a firm may choose to build stronger relationships with customers by involving them directly in its product development programs, ongoing product improvement, modernization and development programs, product planning and work schedules (via computer networks). Active stakeholder management techniques build interdependencies, not prevent them. By working closely with customers, the firm is more likely to obtain better information about the direction of the market, anticipate future needs for improved and new products, maximize the likelihood of success and minimize the time required to develop and introduce new products to the market, build relationships of trust and mutual respect between groups stakeholders associated with it. The method of active creative bridging is to create common goals, and not just adapt to stakeholder initiatives.

It would be wrong to say that a strategic partnership has only benefits. There is also weak sides. For example, conflicts generated by differences corporate cultures bridging participants can weaken cooperation between firms and hinder partnerships. Strong ties to one stakeholder may force a firm to distance itself or limit ties to another to avoid conflicts of interest, breaches of business ethics, or loss of confidential information. Moreover, collaborative decision-making can take significantly longer, drag out, and result in too many compromises. Small businesses often find partnership tactics acceptable to enter some industries where barriers to entry are high, but risk being completely overwhelmed by their partner. On the whole, however, the benefits of bridging outweigh its disadvantages and dangers if the partnership tactic is applied correctly.

Creation of network organizations is currently one of the most effective methods management of internal and external stakeholders. Large, vertically integrated companies that dominated the economy developed countries during the first three-quarters of the last century, emerged to serve a growing market in goods and ensure the efficient organization of production. Later, in particular in the 1980s, the market situation in the world changed dramatically, as did the range of goods supplied to the markets. Today's competitive struggle requires high productivity and production efficiency. Firms must increasingly respond to market demands and competitors' innovations, while at the same time controlling and even reducing the prices of their goods and services.

Faced with such demands, large enterprises, designed for the conditions of the 1950s and 1960s. and linking the search for significant savings with centralized planning and control mechanisms, for obvious reasons, turned out to be untenable. The decline in the efficiency of firms with traditional structures has led to a new business situation. Competitive success is now associated not with the accumulation of resources and control, but with the production of fewer goods of higher quality at lower costs. In particular, managers who want their companies to compete successfully in the 21st century are required to:

o seeking opportunities and resources around the world;
o maximizing the return on any investment in the business, regardless of whether the investment belongs to the firm where the managers work or to other firms;
o carrying out only those operations that the company can or will be able to carry out after additional training at a high professional level;
o Outsourcing to contractors activities that other companies can complete faster, more efficiently, or at lower cost.

Not surprisingly, firms that follow these guidelines often find themselves organized in networks that provide bridging to the firm and its stakeholders. One group of stakeholders - network members can conduct research and product development, another can take over the development of technology and product production, the third can become a distributor, etc. When a large number of stakeholders are involved in the interaction, competition occurs in each link in the chain of production and marketing of a product or service, and the laws of the market have a significant impact on decision-making related to the distribution of resources. Using a network structure, a firm can be both innovative and efficient, focusing on the things it does well and contracting with other firms to get the resources it needs. On the other hand, she can take part in a new business with a minimum financial risk and to the best extent presenting their unique professional skills and experience.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Voronezh State University

engineering technologies of Voronezh, Russia

Strategic partnership: advantages and development directions

Suyazova G.A.

The development strategy includes several solutions. One of them is a strategic alliance or strategic partnership, at the global level it is the cooperation of any one country with another, more powerful and larger, to achieve common economic and strategic goals. A partnership involves cooperation that produces the best results compared to those that could be obtained from a conventional transaction. strategic partnership economic communication

In today's changing economy, strategic partnerships allow states to create a serious competitive advantage by accessing the partner's resources and capabilities, namely: markets, technologies, capital and people. Creating a team allows the participants in the process to expand their resources and abilities in total, and from this to grow and expand much faster and more efficiently.

Compared to conventional types of cooperation, strategic partnership is the highest level. Partners have similar values, national interests and recognize the need to develop bilateral trade and deepen cooperation. In order to give cooperation a strategic character, an economic, political, social international environment is being created that contributes to mutual complementation, the development of competition, as well as forms of management within the country and in cooperation with a partner. Despite the fact that some countries prefer the short term, yet the strategic partnership is a long-term phenomenon. It can also be both at the bilateral and multilateral levels. Multilateral strategic cooperation involves the creation of strategic alliances or alliances. For example, NATO and the EU can be considered such alliances.

Strategic partnerships have many benefits.

First, trade and investment barriers are overcome when entering foreign markets. This allows the development of international imports and exports. Secondly, the state gets access to the partner's financial resources, products, and technologies. This creates new markets for products and a new range of products for buyers. Benefits include strengthening the brand in the market through partner channels, reducing the cost and risk of R&D, setting technology standards and manufacturing products to those standards.

It is necessary to strengthen strategic cooperation by organizational and constructive steps.

To begin with, political dialogue with strategic partners should be improved to build confidence and prevent conflict. Another important step will be to stimulate mutual investment in the economy.

It is necessary to deepen military and military-technical cooperation with strategic partners by signing agreements, intensify interregional cooperation with strategic partners, and consider the possibility of creating trade missions.

It is also important to strengthen information support for the development of strategic cooperation, to adopt bilateral agreements in the field of information exchange. For broad public support, awareness of the life of partner countries is needed through the Internet, television and radio broadcasting.

Of course, it is not entirely true to say that strategic partnership brings only benefits. There are weaknesses here. First, conflicts related to differences in the cultures of the participants in a strategic alliance can significantly weaken cooperation between companies and hinder the creation of partnerships. Or shared decision-making can be time-consuming, protracted, and culminate in too many compromises. And finally, the state is at great risk of being overwhelmed by its partner. In this case, there can be no question of any further development.

But in general, with the right partnership tactics, the benefits of strategic partnerships outweigh its drawbacks and dangers.

Such a type of cooperation as a strategic partnership has developed significantly, but has changed markedly in recent years. Single tactical goals inherent in traditional joint forms have been replaced by global strategies, views and approaches to forming partnerships have changed. Strategic partnerships should be thought of as a means to an end, as an extension of your influence by respecting your competitors. Planning and communications are key components of successful strategic alliances.

Hosted on Allbest.ru

Similar Documents

The essence and causes of strategic alliances, the main types of their organization. Advantages and directions of development of cooperation between the companies that are part of these alliances. Concepts and models of regional integration in the CIS countries.

abstract, added 01/14/2013

Universal groups of goals create international alliances. State regulation activities of strategic alliances in Russia and abroad. Distribution of the largest M&A and Renault-Nissan markets in the world. Cross-border transactions 2010-2015

presentation, added 12/15/2015

Comparative analysis institute of public-private partnership (PPP) in Russia and abroad. Recommendations for use foreign experience in the implementation of public-private partnership projects in Russia. Scope of application of PPP mechanisms in Russia.

test, added 09/23/2016

The history of the emergence of the European Union, its position in the world economy. Comprehensive analysis of the content and prospects of political interaction between Russia and the European Union. Substantiation of priority areas of strategic partnership between states.

term paper, added 10/15/2014

The Bilateral Commission for Strategic Partnership is the leading Ukrainian-American international body, the activity of which is directed to the implementation of cooperation between the two countries. Spivpratsya from the USA is the primary factor for preserving the sovereignty of Ukraine.

article, added 09/11/2017

Agreement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, its essence, content, goals and objectives. Probability of conflict between the norms of the World Trade Organization and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Possible implications for multilateral trade regulation.

test, added 09/23/2016

The need to develop social partnership in international relations. The mechanism for its implementation is a set of methods and tools for partner interaction between the parties. Partner countries in the field of education, their scientific and technical cooperation.

control work, added 01/30/2012

The strategy of mutual relations between the countries for the Ukrainian government crisis and the creation of a new architecture of European security in the borders of the Northern Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Features of transatlantic strategic partnership, regulation of Russian aggression.

article, added 09/11/2017

The essence of the summits of the European Union with the power of the "Skhіdnogo partnership". The peculiarity of the expansion in the lands of democracy, the security of the rights and freedoms of the people, and the improvement of the social and economic camp. Analysis of Georgia's activity along the Pivdenny gas corridor.

article, added 09/11/2017

Switzerland in the world market of goods and services. Factors of competitive advantage of the country in the world market. Four stages life cycle countries according to M. Porter. Brief description of the stage of factors of production, investment, innovation, wealth.

Strategic partnership (cooperation)(strategic alliance) - the general name of the forms of cooperation of resources and coordination of the activities of companies in order to obtain mutual benefits (). Strategic partnership is the cooperation of one company with another, larger and more powerful, to achieve common economic and strategic goals.

The strategic partnership is based on cooperation between the management of firms, due to mutual participation in capital, the coincidence of strategic interests in development and production, expanding sales markets, entering new markets, etc. Strategic partnership involves the coordination of the activities of the participating firms.

According to the degree of deepening cooperation and pooling resources, the following forms of strategic partnership are distinguished:

training of personnel of one firm by specialists of another for the development of new production;
an agreement on the production, assembly and transfer of products (compensation deals "buy-back" - buy-back);
transfer of a patent under license;
agreement on joint marketing research;
partnership in survey work, R&D and co-production.

Strategic partners can be selected among domestic and foreign firms. At the same time, both firms of equal size and firms that differ in scale and market coverage become partners. Often, strategic partnerships are an effective way for small firms (especially those in advanced technology) to enter new markets with their unique product.

A common form of strategic partnerships is entrepreneurial networks, whose members coordinate their activities both in the short and long term. An important form of strategic partnership is the so-called technoparks (science cities), within which science, high-tech production, modern computerized infrastructure and vocational education interact.

Strategic partnership relations are built on the following principles:

common interest of partners in fruitful cooperation, mutual recognition of the strategic nature of relations;
readiness to take into account the interests of the other side, to make compromises to achieve strategic goals, even if such actions are ambiguously expedient from the point of view of one's own benefit;
mutual rejection of discriminatory (moreover, ultimatum) actions in relation to each other;
the long-term nature of partnerships, because a strategic partnership is established not for two or three years, but for a long term;
availability of effective mechanisms for the implementation of such a format of relations;
legal consolidation of the content and mechanisms of strategic partnership in bilateral documents, because the strategic goals of cooperation should not change depending on the change of leadership in both states;
discipline, consistency and predictability, steady fulfillment by partners of their obligations;
high efficiency of strategic partnership - both sides should feel the return from such cooperation, and not only the state-political elites, but also the subjects of economic activity, ordinary citizens of both countries.

The issue of alliance formation is to a large extent common to many of the leading modern trends in managerial and economic thought. The founders of neo-institutionalism (R. Coase, R. Posner, O. Williamson, and others) made their original contribution to its solution. They substantiated the effectiveness of strategic alliances from the standpoint of creating prerequisites for reducing transaction costs.

Managers argue that alliances provide a rational alternative to traditional and in many cases unproductive hierarchical ties and relationships. This emphasizes the network nature of their origin and functioning, which is immanent in strategic alliances, based on the contrasting and at the same time trusting nature of interfirm interaction. However, often the thesis about the advantages and positive effects of network structures such as an alliance is not supported by actual arguments and calculations, that is, alliances are recognized a priori as beneficial for its participants.

There are judgments when network alliances are opposed to joint ventures, although, in our opinion, these organizational forms of the life of corporate structures have more similarities than differences, and are capable of rapid transformation from one to another.

The organizational and managerial potential of alliances is significant and has not yet been properly assessed, and therefore is not always used in the practical activities of companies. We share the position that the participation of integrated corporate structures (ICS), complex, bureaucratic and conservative formations, can have a mobilizing, stimulating effect on the corporate structure as a whole, thereby eliminating

Bolshakov A. V. Management of the formation of strategic alliances Russian companies- M, 2007, pp. 22-24.

the danger of its strategic drift towards degradation and decrease in the effectiveness of the management system. After all, one of the main tasks of the dominant link of the ICS (corporate center) is to preserve the integrity of the entire corporation, to maintain centrifugal tendencies. In this situation, the corporate center (subject to the active use of the advantages of strategic alliances) is called upon to perform the following key features: Modification and redistribution of financial and other resources; coordinating the activities of the network of alliances of other business structures that are members of different ICS. The dominant link of the ICS can get rid of the burdensome duties of solving routine tasks that become the competence of the coordinating management bodies of strategic alliances that are part of the ICS structures, including subsidiaries and grandchildren companies. At the same time, it is also advisable for the latter to enter into mutually beneficial alliances both with structures similar to themselves, and with structures that are not equal in size, non-core, etc. This circumstance makes the network of these structures attractive from an investment point of view.

It is necessary to study and analyze the theoretical foundations for the formation of strategic alliances. It is important to clarify the very concept of a "strategic alliance", identify the motives for its creation, and classify the types of strategic alliances. In addition, it is advisable to determine the features of strategic partnerships in comparison with other forms of company mergers, as well as to identify methods for assessing the effectiveness of interaction between companies within the framework of a strategic alliance. All of the above will make it possible to create the necessary theoretical basis for solving applied managerial issues of alias formation in relation to the object and subject of analysis.

It should be noted that within the framework of this study, the concepts of "strategic alliance", "strategic partnership", "consortium for the mutual provision of services", "strategic union" will be used as identical or of the same order, despite the attempts of some experts to find unprincipled, as it seems , differences between them. In cases where such differences do affect the quality and results of the interaction, appropriate reservations will be made.

The conducted analysis established that in the specialized literature there is a fairly wide range of approaches to the definition of the content of the term "strategic alliance". Let's highlight the most common and significant in terms of detailed elaboration and practical applicability.

For example, in the popular textbook "Strategic Management", American authors Arthur Thompson Jr. and Lonnie Strickland give the following formulation: strategic alliances are cooperation agreements that go beyond ordinary agreements between two companies, but do not extend to the merger of enterprises or the creation of legally established joint venture. This definition seems to be of a rather general nature, it does not clearly fix the signs of attributing certain corporate entities to the organizational and legal form of strategic alliances.

According to J. David Hanger and Thomas L. Whelen, a strategic alliance is a partnership of two or more corporations or business units created to achieve strategic goals that are important to all participants. Here, the priority of the goal-setting function, which is implemented by the joint efforts of the participants in the business union, is emphasized.

French scientists Bernard Garrett and Pierre Dussage proposed their own, more detailed and meaningful definition. They meant by a strategic alliance the union of several independent enterprises who intend to engage in a specific kind of production or want to implement a project using the intellectual and material resources of each other, instead of acting independently or following the path of merger or accession. Unlike American researchers, French scientists considered the creation of a joint venture as one of the types of implementation of a strategic partnership agreement.

Mark Douma, a researcher from the Netherlands, made his original contribution to the interpretation of the concept of strategic partnership. In his opinion, a strategic alliance is a temporary relationship based on a contract between companies that maintain independence. These relationships are aimed at reducing uncertainty about the implementation of the strategic goals of each of the partners by coordinating or jointly implementing projects in one or more areas of the companies' activities. Each of the partners can significantly influence the strategic management within the alliance. Participants equally cover the costs, receive profit and share the risks of the created strategic alliance.

Thus, despite the fact that the first strategic partnerships were formed back in the seventies, there is still no single approach regarding the essence of alliances. Moreover, in many economic dictionaries the very term "strategic alliance" is missing.

In one of his publications on strategic management issues, the French specialist Philippe Lasserre offers the following definition: an alliance is the combination of the capabilities of two or more companies in order to increase their competitive advantage and/or creating a new business unit at condition of maintaining the strategic independence of these companies. "Strategic partnerships, according to F. Lasserra, can be formed in various legal forms: from the signing of a long-term contract to the creation of a joint venture.

A. V. Bolshakov summarized the distinctive features (properties) of strategic alliances according to the criterion of their usefulness. Positive properties are highlighted: the independence of partners, the reversibility of strategic decisions made, the absence of the problem of staff adaptation, the ability to save on transaction costs, trust between partners. Neutral properties are shown (contractual nature, relative usefulness of the subsequent transformation of the alliance into a merger / acquisition deal. Negative properties are also named: the presence of several leading centers, unpredictability of consequences, instability, fragility organizational structure, a combination of cooperation and competition .

This kind of analysis is useful, but it can be deepened in the direction of establishing the degree of risk: alliances are high-risk, medium-risk, low (acceptable) risk. The classification of strategic alliances on this basis will make it possible to make a more informed choice from alternative options.

Alliance agreements, sometimes referred to as cooperative agreements, are made between companies and business units, forming a continuum from weak and distant to very strong and closed. An interesting development of this theme is contained in the work of R. Keiter 1 . He argues that the types of alliances range from service consortiums, joint ventures and licensing agreements to value chain partnerships. Schematically, this setting is as follows (Fig. 1).

Rice.

Unfortunately, this very, in our opinion, fruitful idea was not developed. This is especially true for partnerships that are complex in structure and nature of activity in Porter's value chains.

To structure and generalize the information provided, it is advisable to present it in a tabular form (Table 1). Thus, it is possible to visually display the differences in the approaches of specialists to the definition of the concept of a strategic alliance in terms of highlighting it. characteristic features according to several criteria.

As can be seen from the presented table, the most vague and non-specific is the formulation of the strategic alliance presented in the textbook "Strategic Management" by A. Thompson and L. Strickland. It did not specify the purpose of the merger of companies and the tools to achieve it. Definition J.D. Hanger and T.L. Whelena also seems rather superficial.

The main difference between the approaches presented in the other three studies reviewed is the mismatch in the definition of the purpose of combining companies within the framework of a strategic partnership. So, B. Garrett and P. Dussage call the implementation of the project as a goal, while M. Douma considers the joint implementation

Kanter R. M. Collaborative Approach: The Art of Alliances. // Harvard business review, July-August 1994, p.96-108.

projects as a tool for the implementation of strategic goals. In our opinion, M. Dome's view on this issue is more logical, since it allows us to visually and reasonably trace the causal relationship between the motives of the association and the tools for achieving the goals.

Characteristic features and criteria of strategic alliances

Table 1

Signs of a strategic alliance	A. Thomnson- L. Strickland	J.D. hanger, T.L. At captivity	B. Garrett, P. Dussage	M. Douma	F. Lasserre
Character interaction action	Cooperation Agreement	partnership	Union several enterprises	Temporary contract based relationship	Union opportunities
Organization- tsonno- legal the form	No legal entity	Not determined		Not determined	Various, including joint venture
The degree of dependence of the companies - members of the alliance	not labeled	not labeled	Preservation independence	Preservation independence	Preservation independence
The purpose of association within the alliance	Not determined	Achievement of strategic goals	Implementation	Implementation of strategic goals	Increasing competitive advantage
Goal Achievement Tools	Not named	Joint efforts of participants	Use of each other's intellectual and material resources	Joint implementation projects	Union opportunities

As a result of the textual analysis and application of the combination of considered internally consistent approaches, the following definition of a strategic alliance is proposed, which will more accurately reveal its essence, goals, and design features of strategic partnership schemes.

So, a strategic alliance is a long-term relationship based on an agreement between two or more companies, the purpose of which is to achieve the strategic goals set for the participants by pooling financial, technological and other resources in the implementation of joint projects and other types of cooperation in one or more areas of activity. The alliance can be formed in various legal forms, provided that the strategic independence of the participating companies is maintained.

It is important to note that in practice, strategic partnership agreements, as a rule, do not prescribe specific methods of cooperation or areas of responsibility of the companies participating in the alliance. In this regard, the high level of trust of partners in each other in non-regulated cooperation is extremely important.

As you know, as a result of the growing processes of globalization of the world economy, companies different countries are increasingly interacting with each other. The joint implementation of research, production, marketing and other programs allows economic entities to quickly master new technologies and conquer segments of the world market. The creation of joint ventures is designed to increase production volumes, product quality and competitiveness of companies without violating the requirements of antimonopoly legislation. According to M. Anokhina and N. Seredina, a strategic alliance is a unique form of combining companies, since it combines partnership at the level of existing markets and competition for leadership in promising markets.

Strategic alliances, by their nature, are aimed at achieving long-term competitive advantages, and are one of the most effective areas for improvement. strategic management companies. Structurally, strategic alliances combine, as a rule, several organizational forms, including such as joint ventures, license agreements, long-term contracts for the supply and purchase of products, joint research and development programs, mutual provision of sales networks.

Thus, the main criterion for classifying alliances as strategic is their role in creating the company's competitive advantages. If relations with an external partner significantly affect the development of the company, allow you to attract consumers and protect against negative impacts industry competition, then they can be considered strategic. This distinguishes them from tactical partnerships and conventional long-term contracts.

One of the features of the alliance is the lack of a clearly built hierarchical system. Since independent companies are united within the framework of a strategic partnership, as a rule, several leading corporate centers operate within the framework of the alliance. This creates a number of difficulties.

First, it can take too long to make a strategically important decision, since it is necessary that all participating companies agree with it or reject it.

Second, because partner companies remain autonomous from each other, they may have their own goals that conflict with the partner's goals. In such a situation, a conflict of interest is created. None of the partners can forcibly make a decision in their favor, since there is a risk of another partner leaving the alliance, which will entail the loss of all previously gained advantages.

Thirdly, the organizational competencies of the companies included in the alliance cannot but differ. Bringing them into a certain correspondence requires additional resources, primarily time.

Thus, managing a strategic partnership is a very complex, specific activity and area of corporate management, in which it is extremely important to maintain a balance between the interests of the alliance as a whole, the interests of one's own company and the interests of the partner company, taking into account also the interests of shareholders, strategic investors and other stakeholders.

Thompson Jr. A.A., Strickland A.J. Strategic management - M „2006, p. 188.
Hunter JD, Wiley TL Fundamentals of strategic management. - M., 2008, p. 144. Anokhina M.E., Seredina II.S. Competitiveness of the regional agro-industrial complex. - M., 2011, p.35.

The article discusses the author's approach to the construction and development of entrepreneurial networks through the prism of strategic partnership. The analysis of various approaches to the definition of entrepreneurial networks in the context of the globalization of the world economy and markets has been carried out, the conceptual apparatus has been updated. It is shown that entrepreneurial networks are currently one of the most common forms of integration interaction between economic entities in international economic practice. The classification of the levels of creating entrepreneurial networks is given. Particularly noted is such a form of network interaction of business structures as a cluster, in which each of the participants realizes its strategic goals, while the cluster is an innovative form. organizational culture which allows the network members to develop effectively based on the balance of economic interests of strategic partners. There is a lot of factual material in the work. The author's conclusions are supported by a practical example of the development of entrepreneurial networks in the hotel business. The TOP-10 world leaders of hotel chains are shown.

network organization

entrepreneurial networks

strategic partnership

integration

hotel chains

1. Bushueva M.A. Local compromise as a basis for making financial decisions in a cluster (on the example of a textile cluster) / M.A. Bushueva, D.A. Korovin, N.N. Masyuk // Izvestiya vuzov. Technology of the textile industry. - 2013. - No. 6 (348). – P. 35–41.

2. Bushueva M.A. Financial motivations of cluster members and ways of making decisions based on local compromises / M.A. Bushueva, D.A. Korovin, N.N. Masyuk // Izvestiya vuzov. Technology of the textile industry. - 2013. - No. 2 (344). – P. 15–22.

3. Vakhramov E.N., Kovbas A.P. Entrepreneurial network as an objective result of the evolution of forms entrepreneurial activity/ Bulletin of the Astrakhan State technical university. – 2006. – № 4.

4. Kovbas A. P. Entrepreneurial networks as a form of integration and business development / AROOO VEO of Russia. - Astrakhan. - 2005. - C. 9.

5. Masyuk N.N. Innovative development of the region based on clustering as a form of virtual integration of companies / N.N. Masyuk, M.A. Bushueva // Territory of new opportunities. Bulletin of the Vladivostok State University of Economics and Service. - 2012. - No. 3. - P. 102–107.

6. Morkovina S.S. The mechanism of network development of entrepreneurial structures: Monograph / S.S. Morkovina, N.A. Azarov. - Voronezh: SCIENCE-UNIPRESS. - 2011. - S. 116.

7. Webster F.E. The Changing Role of Marketing in the corporation // Journal of Marketing. - 1992. - No. 56 (4). – P. 1.

To date, a new trend has emerged in the world community "creation and development of entrepreneurial networks" - this is a new approach of firms to solving various problems with the rapid development of the world economy, markets, technologies, the emergence of new high-tech products, while improving integrated solutions in the modern economy, with high level of risk in the market.

Companies create entrepreneurial networks (hereinafter - entrepreneurial networks, PS) in the format of strategic partnerships with suppliers, consumers, government and other organizations, various institutions, research centers, laboratories, and even with competing firms in order to increase the efficiency of the enterprise, reaching a new level of quality products, services, development and implementation of innovations in the world market, which cannot be achieved in conditions of direct competition. Based on the foregoing, we can conclude that the relationship between companies provides the formation of an entrepreneurial network in which the success of each unit depends on the success of the entire network as a whole.

Nowadays, there are very few studies on the creation, functioning and development of entrepreneurial networks.

Different researchers in the concept of "network" invest different meanings.

European scientists adhere to the concept of networks as a flexible structure, participation in which allows the company to achieve competitive advantages, while most American figures, on the contrary, tend to present networks as a stable structure controlled by a single center.

In American business, the concept of "network" is considered as a certain group of people with common or similar interests, interacting with each other and maintaining informal contact with the aim of mutual assistance and support for each other.

Participants of the entrepreneurial network interact about a common business for more efficient collaboration, but the organizational, legal and economic content of this interaction is not yet clear.

The largest number of definitions of the network is based on the complete independence of the participants in network formations. However, in today's markets, it is much more common for network participants to find themselves tied to each other by obligations of a financial nature, ranging from joint ventures to ownership of a part of the partner's capital, while remaining legally independent.

The most decisive approach to the interpretation of networks is reflected in Webster. The author equates networks with closed corporate structures: network organizations are corporate structures that are the result of numerous contacts with partners, relationships and strategic alliances. The main characteristics of the network are unity, a flexible and open coalition, led from a common center, in which the most important functions are concentrated, such as the direct management of networks, their development, financial function, coordination and technological development. The authority of the common center also includes the determination of the network strategy, the regulation of relations with consumers and the management of information flows linking the network.

This approach is opposite to the approaches of the authors of most definitions of network interfirm cooperation. Webster singles out the main organization in the network, which builds the network and performs the role of manager in it. Such a company is a network integrator, it has at its disposal the key functions and resources of the network, which allows it to occupy a dominant position in relation to other network participants and build network relationships around itself. In this approach, it is possible to apply strategic management methods to the network, all its participants are drawn to the "manager" who manages the network.

Study of various definitions of "network", "network organization", etc. shows that under the entrepreneurial network, most researchers understand the presence of a permanent, stable circle of autonomous independent firms (usually quite highly specialized) that perform various tasks necessary either for the functioning of the parent company in the market or the implementation of some unifying idea that they cannot implement separately . A network organization combines advanced technologies, traditions, resources, goals, experience and production capabilities of agents of an entrepreneurial network.

Today, entrepreneurial networks, along with syndicates, concerns, holdings, consortiums, business associations, franchisees, cartels, pools, virtual companies, trusts, strategic alliances, unions, complexes, industrial hubs, financial and industrial groups, contract groups, multinational companies etc., are one of the complex forms of metacorporation - the association of a certain number of business entities that do not have the status of a legal entity.

Many organizations, when they become part of production and economic associations, completely or partially lose their legal, economic and administrative independence. Various associations of organizations with a rigid hierarchical management structure (holdings, etc.) have a significant drawback - low flexibility and the inability to quickly and effectively respond to various changes in the market.

Organizations that have joined the entrepreneurial network are protected from such a shortcoming. Small and medium-sized businesses need such protection, they still have some freedom of action and unlimited rights.

The goals of the association are: competitiveness in the market, development in all areas of activity, a successful position in the market, development and work with innovations.

The main priority in the creation of entrepreneurial networks is the solution of the problems that arise before its participants on the basis of their full interaction; improving the efficiency of the activities of organizations included in the network; obtaining a synergistic effect.

The main prerequisites for the creation and development of entrepreneurial networks, which increase their attractiveness, are:

The presence of common goals for all network participants;

Mutual interest of all partners in the results of activities;

Monotony of dominant concepts and current tasks;

Detailed study of projects and rationality of decisions on its organization;

Collective solution of problems related to all partners of network formations;

Availability of management centers that guarantee the coordination of actions and decisions of all partners;

Free entry into the business network on mutually beneficial terms;

Timely and indispensable fulfillment of obligations agreed with common strategy and assumed by each member of the network;

Constant communication between partners, constant and timely response to changes in the external and internal environment.

The stages of the formation of an entrepreneurial network, as a rule, begin with an analysis of the prerequisites for the integration life of a business unit. In our opinion, it is necessary to consider the prerequisites for combining entities into an entrepreneurial network, rationally, based on:

Obtaining and evaluating data on the preferences and socio-psychological state of the owners (management) of an economic entity;

Obtaining and evaluating data on socially oriented dangers of the external environment (and its trends);

Obtaining and evaluating data characterizing the main technical and economic indicators of an economic entity, its profitability (and its trends).

The study of the theory of entrepreneurial networks, the study of existing models of their functioning made it possible to distinguish two organizational models of an entrepreneurial network: horizontally and vertically integrated entrepreneurial networks.

1. Vertically integrated networks on the principle of "technological chain" unite autonomous economic entities. At the same time, one of the subjects of the network plays the role of a manager: organizes current activities, generates a strategic plan for the development of the network.

That is, an entrepreneurial network is formed around a large company. In this case head company- the center of the network - concentrates smaller firms around itself, entrusting them with the implementation of certain types of activities. The dominant position in various business operations is predominantly occupied by a large company, being the customer, and the network becomes hierarchical. As a rule, in this situation, small companies quickly fall into submission to a more powerful partner.

To give an example - in the 1990s, the American automobile manufacturer Chrysler created an "extended enterprise" model, including independent suppliers of parts and equipment with whom the company had stable long-term ties. Corporate documents defined the "new" Chrysler as "a consolidated group of suppliers and buyers who work together to maximize efficiency in vehicle model development and minimize total costs to maximize product value to the end consumer." As part of long-term agreements with these suppliers, Chrysler created structures for the joint management of resource flows, built communication systems, coordinated schedules and supply logistics. Through the partnership network, innovative experience in organizing production was quickly transferred, there was an exchange of personnel, knowledge, and experience. Fundamentally new decisions were made on the location of production facilities in relation to proximity to partners. As a result, the development time for new models was reduced, and production capacities were loaded more efficiently. Similar examples are the Japanese company Toyota, the alliance of the Procter & Gamble household products manufacturer, and largest network supermarkets Wal-Mart and others. A key factor in making strategic decisions about creating alliances is the ability to reduce transaction costs. General Motors is the largest American automobile corporation. It has established an extensive business network with automotive enterprises and suppliers in Europe, Asia, North America. Some of them controlled the exchange of technologies, others were supposed to improve the promotion of products to the markets of other countries, others were called upon to improve production methods, the fourth - to update and expand the range, etc. With the help of a well-built entrepreneurial network, General Motors has established production in 35 countries, sales in 192 countries and for 77 years (until 2008) was the largest car manufacturer in the world (in 2008 - Toyota, and since 2009 - Volkswagen) . According to the results of 2011, the concern again became the largest automaker in the world, although in May 2012 it again gave way to Toyota and Volkswagen.

In Russia, the progress of this form of organization of entrepreneurial networks is hampered by the avoidance of large entities from delegating their functions to partners. As a result, as an alternative, authoritarian holdings arise, which are distinguished by the presence of a single core and many autonomous business entities capable of working in a project mode.

2. Horizontally integrated networks are an association of business units that manufacture similar products and operate on the same market of various ancillary industries, parts of the infrastructure operating within the business network on the principles of outsourcing. In this case, the management of the network is carried out by a collegial body - the board of directors, which also manages the current activities and develops a strategy for the development of the PS.

A network of organizations of similar size. Most of the networked companies are independent from a legal point of view, but maintain mutually beneficial stability for each other in economic terms. Some areas of activity when companies are combined into a network can be transferred from one network member to another, specializing, for example, in the provision of raw materials and materials, after-sales service of products, marketing research, selection of personnel and improvement of their qualifications, marketing research. Under the conditions under consideration, the entrepreneurial network is managed by the presidential council (board of directors), which includes directors of the most important enterprises of the network, owners, investors, etc.

Consider the example of an entrepreneurial network at the global level.

In September 1991, an entrepreneurial network began to form between Apple Computer, IBM, and Motorola.

IBM offered cooperation to Apple in the creation of single-chip processors. After that, Apple offered to join this network of Motorola (Apple was a major customer for Motorola), believing that it was capable of producing more microprocessors than IBM. Then this tripartite network was nicknamed AIM (Apple, IBM, Motorola).

As a result of joining the network, everyone benefited:

IBM got a single-chip processor with minimal cost, which was the goal of networking;

Apple received one of the most powerful RISC processors on the market and free publicity in publications in the form of the IBM name;

Motorola received a state-of-the-art RISC chip at no cost, with the ability to market it to Apple and IBM as well.

Consider an example with the participation of Russian organizations.

Transaero Airlines announced the formation of a new aviation alliance, organizing a network with several airlines: Ural Airlines, Krasnoyarsk Airlines, Eryo Kazakhstan Group and the American Continental Air Lines. The organized network provided for the sharing of routes and the sale of tickets at special prices, which created comfortable conditions for its passengers - now they could spend minimal time between flights and save money.

In addition, in practice there are so-called combined business networks that combine the features of vertically and horizontally integrated business networks.

In a combined (vertical-horizontal) entrepreneurial network, both companies participating in separate stages are combined technological process, and companies that produce the same products, engaged in auxiliary production, providing services to network members.

One of the modern examples of an entrepreneurial network is a cluster that has all of its features. In this case, the business network is a virtual integrated structure. However, all financial decisions are made collectively on the basis of local compromises between cluster members, which is also typical for an entrepreneurial network.

The decision to create a network is not always simple and obvious. In spite of successful development, inter-firm partnerships, in fact, remain controversial. They simultaneously manifest the features of both the firm and the market. On the one hand, entrepreneurial networks behave like a single firm, partners jointly coordinate strategic actions and collective decisions. On the other hand, the competitive mechanism of the market continues to operate within the network. The success of the result depends on many factors: the choice of the level of association, the compatibility of strategic interests, the maturity of the industry, and even, not least, the commonality of cultural characteristics.

Based on the foregoing, it is possible to classify the levels of creating entrepreneurial networks (Table 1). The table shows that entrepreneurial networks can be of three levels.

Table 1

Classification of the levels of creating entrepreneurial networks

creation of PS

Classification criteria

Business level

Compatibility of strategic interests (technological, marketing)

Pirelli Tires + Cooper Tire

(tire industry)

(cars)

Forms of ownership

(agreements, joint ventures, partnerships,

trade associations, franchising, licensing)

Citigroup + Oracle Corporation

(without participation in ownership)

Express + Banksys + ERG + Interplay

(joint venture)

Interaction mechanism

(bilateral, multilateral)

Microsoft + Motorola

(double sided)

(network)

Industry level

Industry structure

(intra-industry, inter-industry)

Pirelli Tires + Cooper Tire

(tire industry)

Cisco Systems + Cap Gemini

(intersectoral)

Industry maturity

(origin, rapid growth, maturity, contraction, decline)

Cisco Systems + Motorola

(fast growing)

(mature industry)

International level

Country affiliation

(national and international)

CiscoSystems + PeopleSoft (USA)

SAS (Scandinavia) + Lufthansa (Germany)

Cultural characteristics

(sociocultural identification)

(Japanese cluster + English)

As an example, it is appropriate to cite hotel chains that began to appear in the world in the early 30s of the 20th century. Chain hotels are the most popular among customers, because behind a well-known brand there is always a guarantee of reliability, comfort and high-class service.

In table. 2 shows the TOP-10 world leaders among hotel chains in 20121.

table 2

TOP-10 world leaders among hotel chains (2012)

Hotel chain name	Number of hotels	Number of rooms	Owner country
InterContinental Hotels Group
Hilton WorldWide

Wyndham Hotel Group

Choice Hotels International
Starwood Hotels & Resorts

Carlson Rezidor Hotel Group
Hyatt Hotels Corporation

conclusions

1. Most firms enter into an entrepreneurial network to increase competitiveness. This is advisable only while maintaining individuality, otherwise the firm may fall into the position of ignoring its interests for the sake of other network participants.

2. The main reason for the entry of a business unit into the network is the presence of problems that can be most effectively solved together with network partners.

3. When entering an entrepreneurial network, each business unit reveals its economic potential, the emergence of new management ideas and decisions is activated, and a synergistic effect is obtained in the entrepreneurial network from combining all the resources of the participants in the network.

Reviewers:

Terentyeva T.V., Doctor of Economics, Associate Professor, First Vice-Rector, Head of the Department of Economics and Management, Vladivostok State University of Economics and Service, Vladivostok;

Vorozhbit O.Yu., Doctor of Economics, Professor, Head of the Department of International Business and Finance, Vladivostok State University of Economics and Service, Vladivostok.

The work was received by the editors on December 29, 2014.

Bibliographic link

Masyuk N.N., Kulik D.G. STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP OF STAKEHOLDERS: ENTREPRENEURIAL NETWORKS // Fundamental Research. - 2014. - No. 12-10. – S. 2179-2184;
URL: http://fundamental-research.ru/ru/article/view?id=36548 (accessed 31.10.2019). We bring to your attention the journals published by the publishing house "Academy of Natural History"

It might be useful to read: