Laura Ashley and Federal Express Strategic Alliance Case Analysis
The basic agreement between the two companies, Laura Ashley (LA) and Federal Express’ Business Logistics Service (BLA) is, to work together and develop each other business. This is done by, BLS handling the global distribution of LA and there by BLS utilizing all of its capabilities on a global basis, to refine its own skills and open up large new potential market for the future. Though, there are many laudable things about the agreement like, how both the companies want to keep the partnership an open book, simple and straightforward with no secrets and surprises, there are few things that needs to be contradicted.
Making the alliance with “loose structure”, leads to inconsistencies when there is a need to incorporate any changes in the future. For example, both the companies are dependent on each other based on the trust and mutual understanding, but if any change in leadership is required in any of the company, then there is a chance, that might lead to unwanted and unexpected situations.
Since both the companies are into the partnership, also because of their individual benefits, the term “Agreed to Agree” may not always lead to win-win situation. Because, in few situations at some point of time, one may compromise or agree, only to keep the alliance. Size of delivery boxes issue, trucks and sheds issue are the examples of such situations. Also, having not defined any end point and outcomes appears to have no direction. Because, competitive edge can only indicate the success of a company at a present situation, but not the future success.
Coming to financial agreements, having no penalties is a major setback. Because, there is always a chance of going wrong with the demand prediction and also, since, replenishment of shop inventory throughout the world is planned to be less than 48 hrs, there are no procedures or guidelines to follow, when the volume of shipment to be delivered is above the capacity of what BLS can handle.
So, as the entire distribution
Making the alliance with “loose structure”, leads to inconsistencies when there is a need to incorporate any changes in the future. For example, both the companies are dependent on each other based on the trust and mutual understanding, but if any change in leadership is required in any of the company, then there is a chance, that might lead to unwanted and unexpected situations.
Since both the companies are into the partnership, also because of their individual benefits, the term “Agreed to Agree” may not always lead to win-win situation. Because, in few situations at some point of time, one may compromise or agree, only to keep the alliance. Size of delivery boxes issue, trucks and sheds issue are the examples of such situations. Also, having not defined any end point and outcomes appears to have no direction. Because, competitive edge can only indicate the success of a company at a present situation, but not the future success.
Coming to financial agreements, having no penalties is a major setback. Because, there is always a chance of going wrong with the demand prediction and also, since, replenishment of shop inventory throughout the world is planned to be less than 48 hrs, there are no procedures or guidelines to follow, when the volume of shipment to be delivered is above the capacity of what BLS can handle.
So, as the entire distribution