The Wall Street Journal article by Siler, When Business is all fan and games, is about a company that was formed under a partnership in 2002. It mainly explores not only the start but also the growth of the business. Additionally it gives a rather detailed account of the contribution, views and character of one the co-founder of the company, Eric Hautemont. Three parties run the company.
As aforementioned, the article informs the reader about the start and the development of the company. It outlines the different roles that the partners have played in realizing the success of the company. Mr. Hautemont and the co-founder of the company, Mr. Kaufmann are actively involved in the development of games which are the company’s major products. After developing a given game, the go a step further to demonstrate to their audience how it is played. One of the major challenges that they faced when coming up with their business was the discouragement that they faced from their first potential audience who “brushed the pieces off the board” immediately after they had demonstrated it to the client. Despite this challenge, they have managed to sell “more than two million physical copies” and “more than 1.8 million copies of the digital version” of the game since 2004 (4). The company has developed to acquire global clients.
The company began after the three partners bought the rights to a game. All the partners were also involved in the choosing the title of their products or rather games; setting its atmosphere and the rules. Additionally, they oversee the process of the development of new products, which the author notes as the “manufacturing of the wood, resign and plastic game pieces and the cardboard playing surface” (7). Each of the partners is also actively involved in the development of visual outlook of the game. The company does not outsource personnel for the development of the digital version of their games/products. One of their clients is Apple inc., which also helps them to market their products around the globe.
Partnership’s rights are determined at the outset of the partnership, and the scope of the such rights can vary from state to state. However, there are universally accepted rights such as accounting on demand; use of partnership property in building the business and carrying out their day to day functions; inspection of books and records; participation in management; adding new partners; sharing profits and losses; return of capital; return of advances; and indemnification. The three partners who run Days of Wonder are able to exercise their rights. For instance, they develop several aspects of the any give game; they have a say on the features of the game; they get to interact with their clients especially in generating sales for the company. They are also involved in the management as well as in the running of the day-to-day activities of the company.
All partners in a partnership have some authority to commit or bind the other partners to the consequences of their actions. A partner could typically express three types of authority-express authority, implied authority and apparent authority (Wallace 162; Gu 125). Express authority is the power specifically given to a partner. Implied authority encompasses the authority to commit company resources to complete tasks necessary to fulfill decisions made through a partner’s express authority. A partner’s apparent authority enables him to do things that are legitimate and reasonable, especially within the normal practices of the partnership’s industry. The article seeks to bring out the authority that each of the partners have in the growth and development of the business venture. As highlighted above, all the partners are actively involved in running the company. However, the author does not tell audience why Mr. Hautemont, the co-founder of the company, seems to have much say than the other parties in the partnership.
Besides being actively involved in the development of the company’s products, Mr. Hautemont has made significant decisions that have a great impact on the company-seemingly without the opinion of the other two parties involved in the partnership. For instance, the author notes that Hautemont’s “philosophy led him to vow that he would never have more than 20 employees” (10). Since a partnership serves the interests of all the parties, the decision about the number of employees should be the collective decision of all the partners ((Gibbs, and Andrew 85). Additionally, he decides the number of games that the company publishes per annum. According to Siler, his go-slow strategy makes the company not to publish more than one game per year (11).
Another aspect that article does not address properly are the roles of the three partners in the company. It gives a detailed description of Mr. Hautemont such as his career prior to the partnership, his interests and his position in the company besides being a co-founder. However, the author does not give such a treatment for the other parties. Additionally, the article does not clearly spell out the names of the third party.
In the 21st century, the strategy discussion has re-awoken to the critical importance of firms working with other firms. Whether under the banner of a networked firm, the extended enterprise, strategic alliance, the more academic-sounding “inter-organizational relationships’ or simply partnering, most firms are looking to gain competitive advantage through collaborative initiatives (Hunter, and Allan 95). The demands of the market place, the scale of business generated through partnering, and the benefits from successful collaboration now underline the essentiality of business partnering. This phenomenon has not been clearly addressed in the article since the author does not mention any firms that Days of Wonder might have collaborated with to enhance the tremendous success of the company.
The ability to use exact figures in showing the level to which the company has grown is commendable. The author also noted the exact number of employees working for the company. However, such figures should be accompanied by the sources e.g. the company records, reports etc. This enhances the validity of the data used in compiling any piece of written work (Ruef 208).
The reason why I chose the article is to enhance my understanding about how partnerships operate. I have learned that the running of a partnership as well as its success involves the contribution of all the parties involved. I have also learned that a member of a certain partnership might express more authority as is the case with Mr. Hautemont. However, this may not cause any harm to the business especially when the partner has the best interest of the company at heart since the decisions that Hautemont has made are geared towards improving the quality of their products. Generally, every partner should seek to fully exercise their rights, authorities and privileges a partner may have in a given business arrangement.
Works Cited
Gibbs, Richard, and Andrew, Humphries. Strategic Alliances and Marketting Partnerships:
Gaining Competitive Advantage through Collaboration and Partnering. London, GBR: Kogan Page Ltd, 2009. Print.
Gu, Minkang. Hong Kong University Press Lawe: Understanding Chinese Company Law.
Hong Kong, Hong Kong University Press, 2010. Print.
Hunter, Ian S., and Allan, Jane B. HR Business Partnerships. Abbingdon, Oxon: Ashgate
Publishing Group, 2006. Print.
Ruef, Martin. Entrepreneurial Group: Social Identities, Relations, and Collective Action.
Princeton, NJ: Princetone University Press, 2010. Print.
Wallace, Robert. Strategic Partnerships: An Entrepreneur’s Guide to Joint Ventures and
Alliances. Chicago, IL: Dearborn Trade, A Kaplan Professional Company,2004. Print.
