| Course | GB528 Global Strategy |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 5 |
| Paper type | Partner evaluation |
| Length | About 1,090 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GB528 Unit 5
What Each Partner Will Want in Five Years: A Unit 5 Partner Evaluation for an Indonesian Paint Venture
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GB528: Global Strategy
Unit 5 Partner Evaluation
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The paint maker, both conglomerates and every figure are composite and illustrative; the research and sources cited are real.
The Two Candidates
Partner A is a family conglomerate with interests in consumer goods distribution, building materials and property. Its distribution arm reaches about [11,000] building-materials shops across Java and Sumatra, the islands where most of Indonesia's decorative paint is sold. Until two years ago it distributed a Japanese paint brand, which ended the arrangement and set up its own sales network. Partner A's leaders have said they want to stay in paint.
Partner B is a listed maker of roofing sheets and ceramic tiles. Its dealers are strongest on Kalimantan, Sulawesi and the eastern islands, where growth is faster but volumes smaller, and its presence on Java is modest. It has no paint business and describes the venture as a way to add a product line for its dealers.
Exhibit 1: The Two-Column Evaluation
Geringer (1991) distinguishes task-related selection criteria, the skills and resources a partner brings to the venture's work, from partner-related criteria, the qualities that make cooperation work, such as compatible goals, trust and similar management styles.
Task-related: distribution reach. Partner A: high on Java and Sumatra. Partner B: high outside Java, low on Java.
Task-related: knowledge of the paint trade. Partner A: high, from years distributing paint. Partner B: low.
Task-related: logistics. Partner A: a large truck fleet and warehouses. Partner B: inter-island shipping arrangements for heavy building materials.
Task-related: financial strength. Partner A: strong but private, with less disclosure. Partner B: listed, with audited accounts.
Partner-related: goals in five years. Partner A: likely to want its own paint brand. Partner B: likely to want a strong product line for its dealers.
Partner-related: governance and transparency. Partner A: family-controlled, decisions concentrated in the founder's family. Partner B: professional management and public reporting.
Partner-related: past alliance behavior. Partner A: its last paint partnership ended when the brand owner took distribution in-house. Partner B: long-standing supplier relationships with foreign firms in tiles.
Partner A brings what the venture needs most today and is the partner most likely to become a competitor; Partner B is safer and weaker where the market is.
The Five-Year Question
Hamel (1991) found that alliance partners often enter a learning race, each trying to absorb the other's skills, and that the partner who learns faster can outgrow its need for the alliance. Partner A has the strongest motive to learn: it lost a paint business once and knows the trade. Through the venture it would learn how Ohio Valley formulates and tints, which shops buy what, and how to manage painters' loyalty. In five years it might have the knowledge to start its own brand.
Partner B has less to gain from learning paint making and more from keeping a stable product line for its dealers. Its five-year goal is compatible with the venture's. But choosing B would leave the venture weak on Java, where most of the market is.
Testing the Choice With Numbers
In composite estimates, the venture with Partner A would reach about 6 percent of the national decorative paint market within five years, because most of that market is on Java and Sumatra. With Partner B, the venture would reach about 3 percent, strong in the outer islands but slow on Java, where it would need to build its own sales force. The difference in Ohio Valley's share of five-year operating profit is roughly $20 million. The cost of the protections needed for Partner A, mainly owning tinting machines and running the venture's own shop data systems, is about $6 million over the same period. On these figures, Partner A with protections is worth more than Partner B without them.
What Due Diligence Must Confirm
Before signing, Ohio Valley should confirm Partner A's actual shop coverage by sampling shops in three provinces, review the terms on which the Japanese partnership ended, and meet the family members who would sit on the board of commissioners. It should also confirm that Partner A's other businesses do not include products that compete with paint, such as wall finishes or waterproofing coatings.
Recommendation
Choose Partner A, because distribution on Java is the venture's decisive asset, and protect against its likely ambitions through the term sheet. Explore a separate distribution agreement with Partner B for the outer islands once the venture is established.
Exhibit 2: Governance Term Sheet
Ownership: Ohio Valley 60 percent, Partner A 40 percent.
Board: an Indonesian limited liability company with a board of commissioners and a board of directors. Ohio Valley nominates the president director and finance director and a majority of commissioners; Partner A nominates the sales director.
Technology: formulas and the tinting system are licensed by Ohio Valley to the venture, not contributed. The license ends if the venture ends or Partner A's share is sold to a third party.
Tinting machines: owned by the venture, not by the distributor, and placed in shops under the venture's contracts, so shop relationships stay with the venture.
Non-compete: Partner A and its affiliates may not make or distribute other decorative paint in Indonesia during the venture and for three years after it ends.
Exit: Ohio Valley holds a call option on Partner A's share after five years at a formula price; either party may sell to the other on deadlock after mediation.
Information: monthly sales by shop and region available to both parties, so that neither depends on the other for market data.
Bamford et al. (2004) emphasize that successful joint ventures settle governance, decision rights and exit terms before launch. The tinting-machine clause addresses Partner A's most likely route to independence: owning the relationships with shops.
Risks
Partner A may reject the non-compete or the machine ownership clause. If so, the venture is not worth forming with A, because the risk the clauses address would be unmanaged. A second risk is cultural: decisions in a family group can move fast but depend on a few people. Monthly board meetings in the first year and a joint operating committee would help.
Conclusion
The best partner for the venture's launch is also its most likely future rival. The evaluation does not avoid that partner; it designs the venture so that the shop relationships, the formulas and the data that would make Partner A independent stay with the venture.
References
Bamford, J., Ernst, D., & Fubini, D. G. (2004). Launching a world-class joint venture. Harvard Business Review, 82(2), 90-100.
Geringer, J. M. (1991). Strategic determinants of partner selection criteria in international joint ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 22(1), 41-62. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490291
Hamel, G. (1991). Competition for competence and interpartner learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 12(S1), 83-103. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250120908
GB528 Unit 5 instructions, in plain terms
In GB528 Unit 5 you evaluate potential partners for an international alliance or joint venture. Describe each candidate's resources and position. Compare them on task-related criteria, the skills and assets they bring, and partner-related criteria, the qualities that make cooperation work. Consider what each partner is likely to want in the future and how that could change the alliance. Recommend a partner and design governance terms that address the main risk, such as a term sheet covering ownership, boards, technology, non-compete and exit. Close with risks and what due diligence must confirm. Expect about six pages, citing alliance research in APA 7.
Inside the GB528 Unit 5 example
The evaluation introduces both groups. Exhibit 1 compares them on four task-related and three partner-related criteria, citing Geringer, and the highlighted sentence states that the most useful partner is also the likeliest rival. The five-year section applies Hamel's learning race to Partner A's history. A numerical test shows the venture reaching about 6 percent of the market with Partner A and about 3 percent with Partner B, with protections costing about $6 million. Due diligence steps follow. Exhibit 2 sets out the term sheet: 60 and 40 ownership, board nominations, a technology license, venture-owned tinting machines, a non-compete, a call option and shared data, citing Bamford and colleagues. Risks and a conclusion close it.
GB528 Unit 5 rubric: what earns full points
GB528 instructors look for an evaluation that weighs the future as well as the present and a term sheet designed for the chosen partner. Describing each candidate concretely earns early credit. Separating task-related from partner-related criteria shows understanding. Asking what each partner will want in five years, with evidence from its history, carries significant weight. Quantifying the difference between partners shows rigor. A term sheet whose clauses answer the specific risk, such as ownership of shop relationships, shows design rather than template. Due diligence and risks complete it. Geringer on partner selection, Hamel on inter-partner learning and Bamford and colleagues on launching joint ventures are its APA 7 citations.
Common GB528 Unit 5 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Many GB528 Unit 5 evaluations choose the partner with the strongest resources today and stop. Others rule out a strong partner because it could become a competitor, without asking whether governance could manage the risk. A common gap is the clause that matters: a term sheet should protect the specific asset a partner might take, here the relationships with shops. Some writers copy standard terms. Describe both partners, compare them on both kinds of criteria, ask what each will want in five years, recommend one, design terms around its risk and list what due diligence must confirm. Saying when the venture would not be worth forming shows the protections are real conditions rather than hopes, and gives the negotiating team a clear line it should not cross.
Get a GB528 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
Send the partner candidates Unit 5 puts forward, or the case facts about them, plus the rubric. What each brings now is weighed against what each will likely want later, and governance terms tied to the risks found follow. The custom evaluation comes back within 24-48h at no charge the first time; partner details the case omits stay bracketed. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More GB528 papers and MBA samples
- GB528 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- GB528 Unit 2: Industry Analysis
- GB528 Unit 3: Case Analysis
- GB528 Unit 4: Entry Mode Comparison
- GB528 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- GB528 Unit 7: Strategic Analysis
- GB528 Unit 8: Value Chain Audit
- GB528 Unit 9: Implementation Plan
- GB528 Unit 10: Strategy Recommendation
- GB527 Unit 5: Inventory Model
- GB526 Unit 5: Virtual Team Plan
- GB525 Unit 5: Political Risk Assessment
- GB520 Unit 5: Selection Methods Analysis
GB528 Unit 5 questions, answered
What are task-related and partner-related criteria?
J. Michael Geringer separated what a partner contributes to the venture's work, such as distribution, technology or licenses, from qualities affecting how well the partners cooperate, such as trust, compatible goals and past alliance behavior. Most evaluations weigh task criteria heavily and neglect the partner side, which is where joint ventures more often fail. Apply both, and show where they disagree.
How can a paper judge what a partner will want in five years?
From evidence of direction: past alliances and how they ended, recent investments, statements by owners or executives, and where the partner's other businesses are heading. None is proof, so present the judgment as a reasoned expectation. Then design terms that hold up if the expectation turns out wrong, which is the point of governance.
Which governance terms matter most in a joint venture?
Ownership split and board composition, reserved matters requiring both partners' approval, deadlock resolution, rules on technology and intellectual property, and exit provisions such as call and put options. Each term should answer a risk the evaluation identified. A list of standard clauses without that link reads as boilerplate, and graders tend to mark it that way.
Where can I find a free GB528 Unit 5 sample paper?
This page carries a full GB528 Unit 5 partner evaluation of two Indonesian groups for a paint joint venture, with criteria compared, a five-year view, a governance term sheet and APA 7 references.
Why should the venture own the tinting machines?
Owning the machines and contracting directly with shops keeps the shop relationships with the venture. If the partner owned them, it could take those relationships with it and start its own paint business.