跨國策略聯盟 創造雙贏機會(英漢對照)

■ 藍威廉 博士 Dr. William Reinfeld
Nowadays, it is quite usual to read about strategic alliances in Taiwan or elsewhere, although businessmen differ on what they are. Some say they are the same as JVs, others say that their OEM or outsourcing contracts are strategic alliances. Some businessmen choose to stay away from strategic alliances because they believe they require surrendering control and partnering with someone they don't know well. In fact, all of the above are partially correct. However, in a growing number of situations strategic alliances, in particular those alliances between firms from different countries (i.e., cross-border), are becoming requirements for success. In fact, many multinationals now find that as much as 30% or more of their revenues come from strategic alliances and that they yield significantly higher ROIs than other investments. Consequently, many companies have set up corporate Strategic Alliance departments to evaluate and conduct SAs.
What do we mean by cross-border strategic alliances (CBSA)
In order to develop guidelines for success with these business arrangements, we must start with a sharper definition of what they are. We refer to CBSAs as relationships linking two or more organizations (from two or more countries) for the purpose of creating and capturing value through mutually beneficial sharing of technologies, skills, products, markets, or other assets/capabilities. They may create greater value through new lines of business, markets, know-how/capabilities, structural changes, competitive positioning, etc.
To be a true strategic alliance, the partners must: remain independent subsequent to the formation of the alliance; share the benefits as well as the control over performance of assigned tasks; and make ongoing contributions in one or more strategic areas.
Another important precondition for a CBSA is that the partners must have clear value-creating goals for forming the alliance and explicit strategic intents for achieving these goals. Neither the goals nor the strategies of the partners need be the same; however, they must be compatible. Thus, one partner may have the goal of developing a new technology application for the China market and the other partner may be seeking to exit the OEM business and develop his own brand and channels of distribution. Individually, these partners have different but compatible goals; together they pursue a joint strategy for achieving win-win results.
In terms of relationships, CBSAs are more than “arm’s length” contracts or transactions, but are short of mergers and acquisitions (M&A). They can take a variety of forms, ranging from a memorandum agreeing to cooperate to an autonomous JV. In fact, most strategic alliances are joint ventures – however, not all joint ventures are strategic alliances. The alliance can be among competitors, suppliers, customers, complementors (e.g., hardware and software manufacturers), and companies in totally unrelated industries. They can involve equity contributions, non-equity contributions, or, a combination of both.
Success of an alliance is not measured in terms of longevity but in terms of whether or not the objectives were achieved. The median life of SAs is around 7 years. At some point, the partners either: (i) agree they have achieved their objectives and move on to other goals, possibly together, or (ii) go their separate ways; (iii) agree on a M&A; or (iv) end the alliance without having achieved their goals. In any case, a strategic alliance is not meant to be permanent.
Why have CBSAs become so important and so difficult
As world markets have become more integrated, distances shortened, technology more complex, consumer demands more stringent, and time more important, CBSAs have been seen as the best (and in some cases, only) way to facilitate an organization's strategic thrusts. Once a firm has identified its goal and strategy, it can identify the missing elements, for example: certain technology; particular competencies or resources; networks of related or complementary activities (e.g., services, internet channels, logistics); valuable information or insights; markets, reputation, contacts, approvals, etc.
To obtain these missing elements a firm has several options-- it can: develop them by itself; acquire them, or “borrow” them through an alliance. We use the term “borrow” because in most cases the firm will not own what the partner contributes, it will be temporarily theirs (although some missing elements can be permanently transferred through “learning”.) Needless to say, evaluating whether to develop, acquire or “borrow” (through an alliance) is not simple. It requires consideration of many intangibles, such as the values to assign to critical relationships or to tacit skills learned from a partner.
What are the ingredients for maximizing value and avoiding failure in CBSA
From the many examples of CBSAs we can identify key success factors (KSF) that give greater assurance for achieving value from collaborating. As a minimum, they include:
‧Have well thought-out and well-defined strategic goal(s) for creating and capturing value
‧Identify what you are seeking, through collaboration, that will enable you to achieve your goals
‧Select the right partner – compatible goals, compatible “culture”, complementary capabilities, due diligence
‧Have realistic expectations for achievements, scope, timing, capabilities, etc.
‧Agree on a realistic and effective management agenda, covering: each partner's expected contributions and rewards; scope, tasks and timing; measurements of success; how to resolve conflicts; and exit strategy
‧Be prepared to learn from each other
‧Be prepared to make adjustments to the agenda as the alliance progresses
‧Be open minded, flexible and have commitment on all levels (look for the same in the partners)
‧Be prepared to manage multiple alliances simultaneously
Pursuing these KSF is not simple and a firm that is not prepared to do so should not attempt to enter into a CBSA.
On the other hand, there are significant untapped opportunities for Taiwan firms to form successful alliances, especially with medium- and small-sized businesses in the US and Western Europe, and particularly in high-tech industries. These opportunities can yield win-win results.
（IMBA Instructor of NCCU）
今不管是在台灣或外地，關於策略聯盟的議題都是很常見的。企業人士對策略聯盟（或合夥）的解讀也不甚相同。有些人認為其實就和合資同義，也有些人說是長期合作的代工或外包合約。有些人選擇自外於策略聯盟，因為他們認為策略聯盟會使公司失去掌控權，並且合夥對象可能是他們不熟悉的人。事實上，這些見解也有其正確性。然而，有越來越多的情況下，策略聯盟已成為企業成功的要素，特別是那些具有跨國性質的。這些跨國企業都充分認知到策略聯盟的重要性，並且越來越注重這個部分的商業發展。很多跨國企業發現到，策略聯盟所帶來的公司營收比重超過百分之30，並且投資報酬率甚至比其他的投資案還高，導致他們紛紛成立企業策略聯盟部門，通常由一位策略聯盟副總裁來帶領部門員工，使用各種分析工具和資料來評估和執行策略聯盟，目標就是在於使公司建立策略聯盟的管理能力。
跨國策略聯盟的定義
要能夠發展一套成功的執行準則，我們必須先對其定義清楚。跨國策略聯盟意指兩個以上的組織（來自兩個以上的國家），透過互惠的科技、技能、產品、市場，或其他資產/能力的分享，來創造及掌握價值的合作關係。價值創造可能來自創造新的產品線、市場、關鍵技術、結構改變、競爭定位等。
在策略聯盟的關係中，合作的夥伴即便在聯盟成立後也要保有自身獨立性，既和對方共享利益也要能確實掌控自己工作的績效，而且，要能對某些策略領域有持續的貢獻，如科技、產品，或技能等。
跨國策略聯盟的重要前提是，合作夥伴之間在建立策略聯盟之前必須擁有清楚的價值創造目標，並且有顯明的策略意圖來達到這些目標。合作夥伴的經營目標或經營策略並不需要「相同」，而是一定要「相容」。或許其中一個夥伴目標在於於中國市場發展新的技術應用，而另一個夥伴可能目標在於退出代工模式，發展自有品牌和通路。這兩者的目標不同卻相容，所以他們可以發展共同策略來達成雙贏結果。
跨國策略聯盟的夥伴雖非僅只於合約或交易的關係，但也不及合併與併購的關係。可以以許多種形式的存在，從簽署備忘錄協議、合作到合資案不等。事實上，大多數策略聯盟都是合資。然而，並非所有的合資都是策略聯盟。聯盟對象可以是競爭廠商、供應商、顧客、互補廠商（如軟體和硬體製造廠商），或是不同產業的公司。聯盟可能會牽扯資金上的投資、亦有可能是非資金相關的投資或者二者兼有。
策略聯盟的成功並非以壽命長短，而是視目標達成與否來衡量。大多數的策略聯盟平均都維持七年左右。合夥關係走到了某一程度，這些夥伴們可能會：1)同意他們已經達成了目標，並且可能再共同走向下一個目標，或(2)就此分道揚鑣，或(3)同意合併，或(4)在目標未達成之前即終止合作關係。不管如何，策略聯盟本來就並非是永久性的，然而成功的聯盟關係則會不停的找合作的契機。
跨國策略聯盟的重要性和困難度
隨著越趨整合的市場、越被縮短的距離、越趨複雜的科技、越高的消費者期望，以及對時效性越趨重視，跨國策略聯盟已被視為執行企業策略的最佳方法（在某些個案中，甚至是唯一方法）。一旦企業為自己設定提升價值的目標，並且也研擬了相應的策略，它就可以辨識出自己所缺少的成功要素，如：取得某些科技、技能、競爭優勢或資源的管道、建立相關的或互補的網路（如服務、網路通路、物流）、可減少不確定性的洞見或資訊、基礎建設、市場、文化、企業聲譽、合約、許可等。
要取得這個自身所缺少的成功要素，企業有很多選擇，它可以自己發展、或從外部買來，或是透過聯盟「借」來。我說「借」是因為在大多數情況下，企業並不是真的擁有他的合作夥伴所貢獻的資源，只是暫時擁有而已。而如果企業可以掌控好這些資源並且合宜的話，終究會如同他們所擁有一般。（透過這樣的「學習」，企業所欠缺的成功要素就可以永久的移轉過來了。）至於評估企業是否需要自己發展、購買來還是透過聯盟借來當然不容易，也要考量很多無形的議題，如關鍵合作關係的價值、未上市的科技的價值、可從合作對象處學習到的技能的價值。
跨國策略聯盟的成功及價值最大化的要素
從許多成功和失敗的例子中，我們可以定義出跨國策略聯盟的關鍵成功要素確保在合作關係中達到最大的價值，至少都包含下列幾項：
‧握有完整考量及定義明確的策略目標來追求以及創造更高的價值。
‧訂定方向可透過合作關係來達成的目標
‧選擇合適的夥伴：相容的目標、相容的文化、互補的能力、並通過查核。
‧對目標達成、規模、時程、能力有務實的預期
‧規劃並協調出務實且有效的管理議程，包含：每個夥伴的貢獻和報償、規模、任務和時程、評估成功的標準、衝突化解，以及退出合作的策略
‧準備好從你的夥伴身上學習，這幾乎是所有聯盟的關鍵好處。
‧準備好調適已議定的議程隨者相互的學習的演變
‧保持心胸開放、彈性、並保持你對夥伴的忠誠（對你的夥伴也如此要求）
‧準備好同時管理數個策略聯盟
追求關鍵成功要素並不是件容易的事，當一個企業尚未充分準備前，千萬別輕易嘗試跨國策略聯盟。就另一個方面來說，對台灣的企業而言，尚存在著許多機會來成就策略聯盟，特別是和美國以及西歐的中小企業，尤其是在高科技產業方面。而這樣的機會將創造出一個雙贏的局面。
（作者是IMBA講師）
【2005/03/06 經濟日報】