Defining Good Deals in Business Collectives

In the context of a current project at Carleton University to create creating a deal-making platform, this article presents the results of a recent review of the literature to determine: What is a good deal? This is question is asked from the perspective of the stakeholders in the development of a s...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Michael Ayukawa
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Carleton University 2011-03-01
Series:Technology Innovation Management Review
Online Access:http://timreview.ca/sites/default/files/Issue_PDF/april11_osbr.pdf
id doaj-0e5d53b492bd497d8fe8de8de9f00c15
record_format Article
spelling doaj-0e5d53b492bd497d8fe8de8de9f00c152020-11-25T02:25:40ZengCarleton UniversityTechnology Innovation Management Review1927-03212011-03-01April 2011Defining Good Deals in Business CollectivesMichael AyukawaIn the context of a current project at Carleton University to create creating a deal-making platform, this article presents the results of a recent review of the literature to determine: What is a good deal? This is question is asked from the perspective of the stakeholders in the development of a software-based collaboration tool that is designed to help streamline deal development between members. The stakeholders include the creators, the users, and the investors. We answer this question by examining several streams in the literature, all centered on understanding deals and deal-making processes. These streams explore the concept of a win-win deal, how value may be seen differently, and the group processes involved in deal making. A key contribution from this review suggests that deal goodness can be separated based on a Me-We construct: the impact to each and every stakeholder of the deal and the impact to the entire collective (not just the deal stakeholders). This implies one can separate the platform management problem into actor-centric (Me) and linkage-centric (We) domains. This is consistent with the notion of players balancing their self interest with the other stakeholders in the deal (Me-We). This is also consistent with the prospect of managing ecosystem health based on player and network-based metrics. http://timreview.ca/sites/default/files/Issue_PDF/april11_osbr.pdf
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Michael Ayukawa
spellingShingle Michael Ayukawa
Defining Good Deals in Business Collectives
Technology Innovation Management Review
author_facet Michael Ayukawa
author_sort Michael Ayukawa
title Defining Good Deals in Business Collectives
title_short Defining Good Deals in Business Collectives
title_full Defining Good Deals in Business Collectives
title_fullStr Defining Good Deals in Business Collectives
title_full_unstemmed Defining Good Deals in Business Collectives
title_sort defining good deals in business collectives
publisher Carleton University
series Technology Innovation Management Review
issn 1927-0321
publishDate 2011-03-01
description In the context of a current project at Carleton University to create creating a deal-making platform, this article presents the results of a recent review of the literature to determine: What is a good deal? This is question is asked from the perspective of the stakeholders in the development of a software-based collaboration tool that is designed to help streamline deal development between members. The stakeholders include the creators, the users, and the investors. We answer this question by examining several streams in the literature, all centered on understanding deals and deal-making processes. These streams explore the concept of a win-win deal, how value may be seen differently, and the group processes involved in deal making. A key contribution from this review suggests that deal goodness can be separated based on a Me-We construct: the impact to each and every stakeholder of the deal and the impact to the entire collective (not just the deal stakeholders). This implies one can separate the platform management problem into actor-centric (Me) and linkage-centric (We) domains. This is consistent with the notion of players balancing their self interest with the other stakeholders in the deal (Me-We). This is also consistent with the prospect of managing ecosystem health based on player and network-based metrics.
url http://timreview.ca/sites/default/files/Issue_PDF/april11_osbr.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT michaelayukawa defininggooddealsinbusinesscollectives
_version_ 1724850709187264512