The potential data that can describe the joint venture advantage are through the researcher-made questionnaire. The items or descriptions embedded in the researcher-made questionnaires are well-crafted as these questions were reviewed its relevance of the study. Considering the target customers, this research utilized the responses from the employees, authorities, and customers because they received a direct contact from MHM Company and because they are the recipient of the firefighting products and services. The employees, customers, and authorities were the best participating subjects from the total universe because they are particular with the business like Unisafe and MHM and because they would have a direct experience with MHM Company. In fact, the researcher utilized fifty (50) interviewees classified into three such as twenty for the employees, fifteen for the authorities, and another fifteen for the customers. Within the frame of this research, the following factors why a Joint Venture (JV) is beneficial and effective in terms of corporate strategy.
It could be said that MHM Company has been expanding its product lines. From the leading suppliers of electrical parts in Qatar, which began in 1972, its market became diversified into various the products that would provide some electrical and MEP contracting, manufacture switch gear, and trade some low voltage electrical parts. It possessed the ability to handle enormous assignments and projects throughout the business operations. In the process, the support of the business would offer the customers with quality products in the electrical industry in Qatar at a reasonable price. Through the years, the market dynamics in Qatar rapidly changed, and the economic conditions grew highly complex that most businesses closed and others survived. When all businesses intertwined with complicated and puzzling business transactions, the MHM Company was projected to expand and survive in the global competition where it continuously increased the demands for electrical equipment and parts.
However, the global recession appeared in the global arena where all businesses could not progress if business leaders would never find effective strategies to prevent from market losses. Maintaining the quality of the comprehensive products and the same viable prices might not be effective strategies. Attempting to build a new market entry in the global trends might not be a wiser decision to make for business leaders. In fact, other businesses required other business enthusiasts to franchise so that they could lower their costs and expenses. McDonald’s, KFC, Pizza Hut, and other food chain stores did, however, experience tremendous losses over the years. Starbucks did not also escape from the global economic struggle in the business world, and many business leaders discovered another corporate strategy apart from merger. Such corporate strategy is called a joint venture (Meyer, KEstrin, Bhaumik, and Peng, 2009, p. 65). In the global market where all businesses experienced the worst of their times due to global recession and natural disasters, the MHM Company could only manage to survive and expand through joint venture. If MHM decided to build a new stand-alone business, the business leader might similarly experience downfall due to the staggering economic condition in the local and international setting.
This corporate strategy could be the opportunities for the MHM management to widen its market products and services such as fire alarms, firefighting installations, and trading business. The chance for the MHM Firefighting Company to grow amidst plenty of competitors could still be part of what businesses tried to survive in the long run if enough supervision, management, and business-entry tactic were reflected.
1.2.1 Background
In the section, the use of questionnaires or social surveys was the only tool to gather the data whether stand-alone business or joint venture is effective and plausible. Upon conducting this research, the questionnaires were made standardized considering a number of participants or respondents. The selection of the respondents did not undergo randomization since there were a few employees and authorities that could justify and provide valid data for research. The customers of MHM who were assigned as respondents were utilized; however, randomization was also not applied since the availability of time to answer the tests. It could be safe to state this research used a convenient sampling technique, which the researcher used the available respondents. However, these respondents did not have the opportunities to cheat on others’ opinion because the test itself did not require them to answer for long hours. They were only used as the best tool to collect data and analyzed through a statistical form. In Data Collection in Context (1981), Ackroyd and Hughes identified three types of survey such as factual survey, attitude survey, and explanatory survey. For each survey, it has specific boundaries and descriptions. For factual survey, the researcher would use this type to collect descriptive information. The type of information would come from the government census, national statistics, and many others. Next, for the attitude surveys, the researcher would use an opinion poll rather than a descriptive information to measure the attitude of the respondents. In this type of survey, the researcher would collect and measure the data through statistical analysis through attitudes and opinions using the 5-Point Likert Scale. Lastly, for the explanatory surveys, the researcher would attempt to consider some data and test these data to test the theories and hypotheses. Nonetheless, the researcher in this study utilized the attitude surveys to determine the perceptions of the respondents regarding the issue on the joint venture of MHM and Unisafe Companies.
The use of attitude surveys through the written form might not be enough to gather the information. Since the attitude surveys did focus on the perceptions that the respondents tried to answer, the researcher utilized the survey questionnaires to make generalizations based on carefully selected samples. It would be safe to assert that the researcher-made questionnaires would be either filled out by respondents. In some cases, the questionnaires could be sent to the respondents through the online medium and the same protocol the respondents to send it back to the researcher. Even if the questionnaires are developed in a structured manner, the questionnaire method of data collection has always been a formal method to garner plausible and general data from the total population. Once the questionnaires were collected and gathered, the researcher started tallying and formulating them to graphical and statistical representations through tables and graphs. The questionnaire method, which was administered by the researcher, became the chief factor to determine and measure the perceptions whether or not the respondents favorably agreed the joining venture of MHM and Unisafe Companies.
In the study, the researcher would seek to answer the best plausible options to take whether or not the MHM Companies would be joined by Unisafe. Using several analytical tools such as Ansoff, Porter Five Model, SWOT, MOST, Boston Box, and many others, the possibility of surviving and improving the business would seem applicable. Further, this research further asked to answer the following questions:
- Can MHM Company succeed in the business if it does expand it in a stand-alone basis in the international setting?
- Which option is better than the other for MHM, a joint venture with Unisafe or a stand-alone business?
Amidst the possible options that MHM could take, the responses would be quantified through statistical analysis. Using the mean average, standard deviation, and frequency distribution, the perceptions of the respondents that MHM Company would be better to survive in the business if it would join forces with Unisafe Industry. As the use of questionnaires became quantifiably important, the answers of those questions would be measured in order to quantify the data.
1.2.2 Target Customers
In this study, the questionnaires were given to the three groups of people such as customers, employees, and authorities. The inclusion of the authorities and the employees was relevant in the research to determine their perceptions regarding the joint ventures. However, the target respondents were the customers who would need the firefighting products and services because they have had some experiences in the jobs and the products they used. If the customers decided to highlight their needs for firefighting products and services, the researcher would recognize the needs to expand the business in the local and international ventures. If the MHM and Unisafe worked together through agreements, the chances for the business leaders and their constituents were positive that their joint ventures would progress and survive in the business world. As long as the MHM and Unisafe Companies would consider those analytical tools and business planning techniques, they could survive in the business in the long term. With the use of the survey questionnaires, the researcher and the MHM Company could realize plausible ideas to sustain the business.
1.2.3 List of the Questions
In this section, the researcher utilized a template questionnaire for the attitude survey test. However, some questions or statements were modified to suit the needs of the research studies while the modification of the research questions was made after the preliminary oral interview (Campion, Campion, and Hudson, 1994, p. 128). The timing for question modification was made in order to frame the required statements of the study or to discriminate other questions if they were found irrelevant.
Along with the three sets of questionnaires, there are two questions left not part from the numbered items. These questions would directly offer immediate answers from the respondents even during the oral interviews. The question whether the MHM Company could succeed in the business if it would expand its business operations in a stand-alone basis or it would be successful if it would be joining with the Unisafe Industry. These two questions would determine how the perceptions of the customers changed when they tried to evaluate the business status quo.
1.2.4 Result Analysis
Based on the findings of the study and using the three sets of questionnaires and the three different groups of people, the researcher obtained the results. Firstly, the MHM Company with its unique business experience was favorably and positively marked by the respondents set at 3.79 found in Table 1. This result would mean that most of the respondents believed that MHM Company has offered and served customers and employees as well. Most of the respondents also considered that the best option for MHM to expand its business at a wide scope would be to have a joint venture with other companies.
MHM Company has already established a name in the business operations. Its expansions were a sign of progress amidst the changing economic times. As business owners, they would need to take risks by venturing another step towards progress by combining with other businesses. Based on the graph, most of the respondents believe that expansion could be better taken if the MHM Company would be joined with Unisafe with similar product lines set at 66.7 percent while the stand-alone garnered a 31.2 percent. In this study, some respondents were undecided which corporate strategy to be used when expanding the business was set at 2.1 percent. To analyze, only a few of the respondents were undecided to give opinions which step was better and which was not. Though MHM Company did not focus on firefighting products and services, its joint venture with Unisafe would be effective for growth of the economy considering its benefits or advantages.
In a nutshell, the use of questionnaires when conducting experiments or when garnering various data sources was essential in this particular descriptive design. It is the only tool to deliver a quantifiable data where the researcher could translate data into figures and numbers. However, possible changes of results might be done if the researcher had encountered errors in the methodology. To state, the result of the research might not be absolute in which the researcher had to review the data and sources before presenting the final paper. The research could review the findings, the methodology used, and the validity and reliability of the tests. When these three factors or more were checked and triangulated, the researcher could verify the result. And yet, this case would still impart that the research could be the best medium to consider determine how MHM and Unisafe Companies would progress when they were together running the businesses.
2.0 Conclusion
Undeniably, when business people think of expansion and growth, they have to develop a new business that involves principle, plan, and research. Like MHM and Unisafe, its business development involves with apprehending planning and business strategy. The MHM and Unisafe together can develop new opportunities to progress in the business world. The realization to construct another dimension of opportunities is through the presence of products and services and their designs, business models, and marketing strategies and techniques. MHM Company alongside of some business experts and marketing researchers knows that establishing a new business demands time, effort, and knowledge especially in the international setting. MHM and Unisafe Companies will agree that time and effort are also ingredients to succeed in business. What business leaders of MHM and Unisafe companies must learn is that business means economics and funds, finance and assistance, managerial activities, prices, and competitions and promotions. MHM and Unisafe business experts and marketing researchers can justify that primary scope of development of companies will be linked to the technological advancement, marketing plans, and business advancements, cost reduction of expenditures, business ethics and welfare, enhanced business and customer relations, and business activities that lead to success.
Based on the findings, the possible union of MHM and Unisafe would bring any progress to both companies. As long as they continually use market entry strategies to expand their businesses in the local and global markets and as much as they learn how to break business rules and policies in order to integrate new techniques and approaches, they can survive the whole business process. Besides, as long as both companies ensure the accuracy of the business plans while pushing their limits beyond market activities, they have to aim high and execute possibilities of change through analyzing the market entry strategies. As such, they stand out from the rest of the business in the global arena.
Further, the joint venture of MHM and Unisafe, which was observed as the best tandem for progress, would surely be diversified into several products and services. If both companies engaged in a joint venture, the opportunities for growth including those advantages would be experienced. Even in the difficult tasks, both companies could have more capability of handling huge projects with least assistance in the local and international setting. While carrying out in the chances of survival in the business operations, the union between the two companies is a corporate strategy that helps both of them stay in the business (Watts, 1993, p. 78). At the expense of survival in the most challenging and trying times, the competition in the global market is high in which its dynamics has been highly influenced by the rapid globalization. Due to the rapid change economic conditions, almost all companies if not closed will result in a struggle in an extremely multifaceted bazaar where all business leaders entangled a competitive transactions.
The MHM and Unisafe Joint Ventures have been incessantly meeting the possible opportunities to grow. The increase of resources could be the chances that both companies survive and grow in the process of competitive advantage. In the market times when the economic condition has gotten worst due to global recession, MHM and Unisafe Joint Venture can expand and grow in the global trade.
Based on the result, for the next few years, the MHM and Unisafe would still grow as joint ventures (JV) and continue providing low current electric products good for business while maintaining the quality standards of those products and services. MHM and Unisafe Company and its leaders to plan further expansions amid the varying economic times would need to take risks by venturing another step towards progress. Joint venture strategy, based on the graph, could be better taken as revealed in Figure 3 where the MHM and Unisafe Companies go further. Both MHM and Unisafe Companies are candidate for growth considering its benefits or advantages.
References
Ackroyd, S. and Hughes, J. A. (1981) Data Collection in Context. New York: Longman.
Alvarez, J., Campos, L. and Lasar, I. (2010). Driving Efficiency through Strategic Acquisitions. Delta Partners Intelligence Unit Journal, p. 11.
Ansoff, H. I. (1980) ‘Strategic Issue Management.’ Strategic Management Journal, 1(2), 131-148.
Brodley, J. (1982) ‘Joint Ventures under the Anti-Trust Policy.’ Harvard Law Review, 95, pp. 1523-1590.
Campion, M.A., Campion, J.E., and Hudson, J.P. Jr. (1994) ‘Structured Interviewing: A Note on Incremental Validity and Alternative Question Types.’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, pp. 998-1002.
Chunnan, S. (2009) ‘Problems and Challenges of Global Sourcing.’ Journal of Supply Chain Management, pp. 12-14.
Cole. G.A. 2003. Strategic Management. USA: Cengage Learning EMEA.
Collis, D. J. and Rukstad, M. G. (2008) ‘Can you say what your strategy is?’ Harvard Business Review, 86(4): p. 82.
Dick, B. (2002) Convergent Interviewing. Sessions 8 of Areola-Action Research and Evaluation, Southern Cross University
Downey. J. (2007) Strategic Analysis Tools. [Pdf] Available at: http://www.cimaglobal.com/Documents/ImportedDocuments/cid_tg_strategic_analysis_tools_nov07.pdf.pdf [Accessed 21 June 2013]
Elissa. (2008) Mergers -- Challenges Facing Procurement Organizations. Wharton Publications.
Fiedler, B. and Thornton, J. (2012) Strategic Management: UNISAFE Study Guide – HKBU Part-Time. Undergraduate Program. UNISAFE.
Foddy, W. (1993) Constructing Questions for Interviews. Cambridge University: Cambridge University Press.
Franko, L. G. (1971) Joint venture survival in multinational corporations. New York: Praeger Publishers, pp. 305-323.
General Accounting Office. (1991) ‘Using Structured Interviewing Techniques.’ Program Evaluation and Methodology Division. Washington D.C.
Gillespie, A. (2007) PESTEL Analysis of the Macro-Environment. Foundations of Economics, Oxford University Press, USA.
Groat, L. and Wang, D. (2001) Architectural Research Methods. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
Harrigan, K. R. (1986) Managing for joint venture success. New York, USA: Simon and Schuster.
Hennart, J. F. (1991) ‘Transaction Costs Theory of Joint Ventures: An Empirical Study of Japanese Subsidiaries in the United States.’ Management Science, 37, pp. 483-497.
Hill, C. W. (2007) Strategic Management: Text and Cases, McGraw Hill Edition
Hollowitz, J. and Wilson, C. E. (1993) ‘Structured Interviewing in Volunteer Selection.’ Journal of Applied Communication Research, 21, pp. 41-52.
Jackson, S. E., Joshi, A., & Erhardt, N. L. (2003). ‘Recent Research on Team and Organizational Diversity: SWOT Analysis and Implications.’ Journal of Management, 29(6), 801-830.
Jeffs, C. (2008) Strategic Management. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Kanter, R. M. (2009) ‘Mergers That Stick.’ Harvard Business Review, 87(10): pp. 121-125.
Karlöf, B. (1993) Key Business Concepts: A Concise Guide. New York, USA: Routledge
Killing, P. (2012). ‘Strategies for Joint Venture Success.’ RLE International Business Vol. 22. New York, USA: Routledge.
Kotler, P. and Keller K.L. (2006) Marketing Management 12th edition. New York: Pearson and Prentice Hall.
M.H. Al Muftah Est. [Online] Available at: http://www.mh-almuftah.com/ [Accessed 21 June 2013]
Makh, B. (2013) Business Analysis. TMG Hill edition
McConnell, J. J. and Nantell, T. J. (1985) ‘Corporate Combinations and Common Stock Returns: The Case of Joint Ventures.’ Journal of Finance, 40, pp. 519-536.
McNamara, C. (1999) General Guidelines for Conducting Interviews: Personal Interview. Minnesota.
Meyer, K. E., Estrin, S., Bhaumik, S. K., and Peng, M. W. (2009) ‘Institutions, Resources, and Entry Strategies in Emerging Economies.’ Strategic Management Journal, 30(1): pp. 61-80.
Mind Tools. (2013). McKinsey 7S Framework. Available at: http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newSTR_91.htm [Accessed 21 June 2013].
Pahl, N. and Richter, A. (2007). SWOT Analysis. Germany: GRIN Verlag.
Parida, S. (2009) ‘Strategic Sourcing Projects: Common Challenges Faced.’ Nitor Partners Publication, March Issue.
Paterson, J. (2011) ‘Winning Strategies driven by Global Procurement Transformation.’ IBM Integrated Supply Chain Journal, November Issue.
Pawlas, G. E. (1995) The Structured Interview: Three Dozen Questions to Ask Prospective Teachers. NASSP Bulletin, 79, pp. 62-65.
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., and Xin, K. R. (1999) ‘Exploring the Black Box: An Analysis of Work Group Diversity, Conflict and Performance.’ Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), pp. 1-28.
Popper, K. (2004) Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959). New York, USA: Routledge and Taylor & Francis.
Porter, M. E. (2008) ‘The Five Competitive Forces that Shape Strategy.’ Harvard Business Review (January): pp. 79-93
Porter, M.E. (2008). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Rathore, K. (2008) ‘Global Supply Management.’ Advanced Supply Chain Management Journal, March Issue.
Riley, J. (2012) “What is Strategy: Exploring Corporate Strategy’’ Strategy Review Wednesday, pp. 2-3.
Schaan, J. L. F. (1983). Parent Control and Joint Venture Success: The Case of Mexico, p. 34.
Steinar, K. (1996) Interviews an Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. New York, USA: Sage Publications.
Sutton, M. (2012) MHM to Deploy Epicor ERP. [Online] Available at: http://www.itp.net/589688-mhm-to-deploy-epicor-erp#.UcN2MDtpPIm [Accessed 21 June 2013].
Swann, G. M. P. (2009) Economics of Innovation: An Introduction. USA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Sysque, D. (2013) ‘Tools and techniques of Business improvement.’ Quality World, the Journal of the Chartered Quality Institute, p. 23.
Tidd, J., Bessant J., and Pavitt K. (2005) Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change, 3rd Edition. Haddington: Scotprint.
Trochim, W. M. K. (2002) Types of Surveys. Research Methods Knowledge Base, 2002.
Unisafe Overview. 2014. [Online] Available at: http://www.unisafe.com.eg/about/company-overview.aspx [Accessed 13 December 2014].
Valentin, E. K. (2001). ‘SWOT Analysis from a Resource-Based View.’ Journal of Marketing theory and Practice, 54-69.
Watts, G. E. (1993) Effective Strategies in Selecting Quality Faculty. A Paper Presented at the International Conference for Community College Chairs, Deans, & Other Instructional Leaders, AZ.
Witcher, B. J. and Chau, V.S. (2010) Strategic Management: Principles and Practice. USA: Cengage Learning EMEA.
Survey Questionnaire for Customers
Part I. Demographic Profile
Directions: Provide details in this survey. Your name is optional for privacy.
Part II. Survey Questions
Directions: Read each item carefully. Then, check the column where your responses lie through Likert Scale. See the legend below.
Legend:
SA = 5 A = 4 U = 3 D = 2 SD = 1
SA – Strongly Agree; A – Agree; U – Undecided; D – Disagree; SD – Strongly Disagree
Survey Questionnaire for Employees
Part I. Demographic Profile
Directions: Provide details in this survey by writing your personal profile. However, you may not write your name since it is optional.
Part II. Survey Questions
Directions: Read each item carefully. Then, check the column where your responses lie through Likert Scale. See the legend below.
Legend:
SA = 5 A = 4 U = 3 D = 2 SD = 1
SA – Strongly Agree; A – Agree; U – Undecided; D – Disagree; SD – Strongly Disagree
Survey Questionnaire for Authorities
Part I. Demographic Profile
Directions: Provide details in this survey by writing your personal profile. However, you may not write your name since it is optional.
Part II. Survey Questions
Directions: Read each item carefully. Then, check the column where your responses lie through Likert Scale. See the legend below.
Legend:
SA = 5 A = 4 U = 3 D = 2 SD = 1
SA – Strongly Agree; A – Agree; U – Undecided; D – Disagree; SD – Strongly Disagree
