Nik, I liked how you discussed the social network implications of this fallout because, as we read, many researchers continue to think of these partnerships in dyadic terms.
You said this relationship began with strong trust and thus few governance structures were erected to guide the relationship. Basically, each company believed that opportunistic behavior would violate values, principles, and standards of behavior (Barney & Hansen, 1994). Do you think this assumption was correct at the time? If this partnership was founded on semi-strong trust, do you think this 'break up' could have been avoided?
I don't think that this break up could have been avoided unless Oracle made the decision to stay within their core competencies and not expand into hardware. I think that this was the natural evolution for Oracle though, and as such even with the contractual nature of a semi-strong form relationship they would have moved towards ending the relationship. I get the impression that another factor may be business styles between the two organizations are different, and even though they had strong form trust their conflicting ideologies made it difficult to maintain the relationship long term. Oracle seems much more proactive in their approach-always trying to innovate and expand on capabilities. HP on the other hand is more of a rely-on-our-laurels place and seeks to improve their current technologies, taking them to their fiscally viable extinction. For HP the Itanium processor still has a profitable future and they're committed to seeing its full realization. Oracle is more or less bored with it and looking to greener pastures.
Perhaps because I'm a regular user of Oracle software, I found your post this week intriguing. I read another article on the Oracle-HP trial in which the author expresses certainty that Oracle will come out on top due to the smarter, "bare knuckles" (Wittmann, 2012) business moves it has made.
The way Wittmann describes Oracle (a "no holds barred" player using "probably legal" tactics to "school" HP) versus HP (a company "caught flatfooted," "dependent on Oracle," and offering nothing but "platitudes") paints Oracle as just this side of underhanded.
But another way to describe what happened is that Oracle saw a smart business opportunity (to buy Sun) and made a good faith attempt to include its partner by offering HP the chance to go "halfsies" on the deal (which HP declined).
In a "no win" situation like this one, many challenging questions are raised. Is an ally really breaking trust with its partner if it pursues opportunities only after full disclosure? Are you a bad partner if you ask your ally to pass on an opportunity to acquire financial and intellectual capital?
Dr. Pade asked if the "break up" could have been avoided. Perhaps; still, our readings this week indicate that sometimes, breaking up is the right thing to do(Kanter, 2010). This may be one of those times. It sounds to me like HP and Oracle no longer share aligned goals. And with Oracle's acquisition of Sun, HP no longer brings to the table a competency that Oracle lacks.
Here is the link: http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/unix_linux/240001813
Int
References
Wittmann, A. (2012, June 11). HP-Oracle Itanium trial: Why Oracle can't lose. Informationweek. Retrived from: http://www.informationweek.com
Kanter, R. (2010). Collaborative advantage: The art of alliances. Harvard Business Review. pp. 1-16. (Full Article)
Nik, I liked how you discussed the social network implications of this fallout because, as we read, many researchers continue to think of these partnerships in dyadic terms.
ReplyDeleteYou said this relationship began with strong trust and thus few governance structures were erected to guide the relationship. Basically, each company believed that opportunistic behavior would violate values, principles, and standards of behavior (Barney & Hansen, 1994). Do you think this assumption was correct at the time? If this partnership was founded on semi-strong trust, do you think this 'break up' could have been avoided?
I don't think that this break up could have been avoided unless Oracle made the decision to stay within their core competencies and not expand into hardware. I think that this was the natural evolution for Oracle though, and as such even with the contractual nature of a semi-strong form relationship they would have moved towards ending the relationship. I get the impression that another factor may be business styles between the two organizations are different, and even though they had strong form trust their conflicting ideologies made it difficult to maintain the relationship long term. Oracle seems much more proactive in their approach-always trying to innovate and expand on capabilities. HP on the other hand is more of a rely-on-our-laurels place and seeks to improve their current technologies, taking them to their fiscally viable extinction. For HP the Itanium processor still has a profitable future and they're committed to seeing its full realization. Oracle is more or less bored with it and looking to greener pastures.
ReplyDeleteNik,
ReplyDeletePerhaps because I'm a regular user of Oracle software, I found your post this week intriguing. I read another article on the Oracle-HP trial in which the author expresses certainty that Oracle will come out on top due to the smarter, "bare knuckles" (Wittmann, 2012) business moves it has made.
The way Wittmann describes Oracle (a "no holds barred" player using "probably legal" tactics to "school" HP) versus HP (a company "caught flatfooted," "dependent on Oracle," and offering nothing but "platitudes") paints Oracle as just this side of underhanded.
But another way to describe what happened is that Oracle saw a smart business opportunity (to buy Sun) and made a good faith attempt to include its partner by offering HP the chance to go "halfsies" on the deal (which HP declined).
In a "no win" situation like this one, many challenging questions are raised. Is an ally really breaking trust with its partner if it pursues opportunities only after full disclosure? Are you a bad partner if you ask your ally to pass on an opportunity to acquire financial and intellectual capital?
Dr. Pade asked if the "break up" could have been avoided. Perhaps; still, our readings this week indicate that sometimes, breaking up is the right thing to do(Kanter, 2010). This may be one of those times. It sounds to me like HP and Oracle no longer share aligned goals. And with Oracle's acquisition of Sun, HP no longer brings to the table a competency that Oracle lacks.
Here is the link: http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/unix_linux/240001813
Int
References
Wittmann, A. (2012, June 11). HP-Oracle Itanium trial: Why Oracle can't lose. Informationweek. Retrived from: http://www.informationweek.com
Kanter, R. (2010). Collaborative advantage: The art of alliances. Harvard Business Review. pp. 1-16. (Full Article)