David Frederick's | iAIR BLOG

Consulting, Innovation, Strategy, Vision, Education, & Ideation

Archive for the ‘Strategic Alliance’ Category

Visualizing 15 Years Of Acquisitions By Apple, Google, Yahoo, Amazon, And Facebook

Hi Folks,

Its been a while! I wanted to share a very interesting article from Josh Constine and Tech Crunch about 15 years of acquisitions by leading tech giants. Check this out. Pretty interesting stuff.


Visualizing 15 Years Of Acquisitions By Apple, Google, Yahoo, Amazon, And Facebook

You grow old, you slow down, and you die. That is, unless you can inject some fresh blood. After watching the last generation of tech giants wither or stagnate, today’s juggernauts are relying on acquisitions to keep them young and relevant. Check out the interactive infographic below to compare the size, frequency, and focus of the last 15 years of acquisitions by Apple, Amazon, Google, Yahoo, and Facebook.

Business insurance provider Simply Business created this infographic, which is only available here on TechCrunch. Each dot’s size represents the price paid for that startup if it was disclosed. Scroll over them for a link to learn more about the deal. The plus and minus buttons in the top right let you zoom in on specific time periods. Select categories at the top to filter for certain types of acquisitions. The Frequency toggle reveals phases when companies did heavy buying. And you can click any of the tech giants’ logos to view a complete list of their full-scale acquisitions (small acqui-hires excluded). Sorry to our mobile readers, but it’s much easier (possible) to navigate this on the web.

Trends crystallized by the Simply Business infographic include:

The drought of acquisitions by Yahoo in 2011 and 2012 before Marissa Mayer began her buying spree after being named CEO.
Apple has kept the price of its acquisitions low despite its huge cash reserves, as it prefers to buy for technology rather than market share.
Facebook accelerated its talent-focused acquisitions following its IPO to combat brain-drain.
While Steve Jobs saw acquisitions as a “failure to innovate,” Tim Cook has been proactive about buying companies to bring new intellectual property to Apple.
There was a recession in acquisitions in the “Rest In Peace: Good Times” era from 2008 to 2009.
Social, mobile, and hardware acquisitions have come into favor as search, media, and advertising buys have waned in the past few years

And the biggest acquisitions (with disclosed prices) by the giants were:

  • Apple – Anobit ($390 million), AuthenTec ($356 million)
  • Amazon – Zappos ($900 million), Kiva Systems ($775 million)
  • Google – Motorola Mobility ($12.5 billion), Nest ($3.2 billion), DoubleClick ($3.1 billion), YouTube ($1.65 billion)
  • Yahoo – Broadcast.com ($5 billion), Overture ($1.83 billion), Tumblr ($1.1 billion)
  • Facebook – WhatsApp ($19 billion), Instagram ($1 billion, closed at $715 million)



Written by David Frederick

February 26, 2014 at 12:01 PM

Learn More from Your Proposals

I found this article of great interest and value. Having studied at Harvard’s PON and negotiated global business deals, this article will provide some very interesting and valuable insight into creating value and mutual gains outcomes when working on complex international business deals. If you conduct, participate in or plan and execute complex business deals, this will be of interest to you. Check it out!


Learn More from Your Proposals

Adapted from “Lessons from Abroad: When Culture Affects Negotiating Style,” by Jeanne M. Brett (professor, Northwestern University) and Michele J. Gelfand (professor, University of Maryland), first published in the Negotiation newsletter, January 2005.Harvard Law School – PON.

Imagine that you have identified a great opportunity to expand your business by negotiating a joint venture with another company. You need to get information about this company’s needs and priorities. Which of the following options would you prefer?

A. Ask the other side about their priorities and give them only a little information about your own.
B. Do not ask direct questions; instead, be indirect and try to deduce what the other side’s priorities are by listening to their reactions to your proposals.

Around the world, negotiators understand the need to find wise tradeoffs that improve outcomes for all. But how do you get the other party to reveal the information you need about preferences and priorities?

Research shows that Western negotiators typically share information by asking questions about each other’s preferences and priorities—assuming the other party is trustworthy and answering truthfully—and giving information to reinforce the exchange. This direct approach can be used to identify tradeoffs that can be accumulated into a final, multi-issue proposal. It reflects the American preference for explicit, context-free communications.

Now consider how managers in Japan, China, Hong Kong, Thailand, and Russia glean information about one another’s preferences and priorities. Research conducted by Wendi Adair of Cornell University’s Johnson School of Management, Tetsushi Okumura of Shiga University in Japan, and Jeanne M. Brett of Northwestern University found that Japanese managers made many more proposals than did U.S. managers.

Subsequent research by Adair and Brett indicates that, beginning in the first quarter of their negotiation, non-Western negotiators were using proposals significantly more frequently than were Western negotiators. This difference was sustained until the last quarter of the negotiation, when Westerners’ proposal rate rose to match that of non-Westerners.

Gathering information about relative preferences and priorities from proposals requires highly developed inferential skills and a “big picture” approach. Doing so is common in collective cultures, where context matters and indirect communication is the norm. When proposals include all the issues in a negotiation, Western negotiators should be able to work effectively in this environment. But consider that Asian negotiators do not limit themselves to multi-issue proposals; they also make more single-issue proposals than Western negotiators.

Drawing inferences from a pattern of single-issue proposals requires a heavy focus on context. Imagine a two-issue negotiation over price and delivery. The other side offers a delivery date that you don’t explicitly reject; you then offer a price. Now it’s the other side’s turn to build toward a settlement based on his delivery date and your price. Suppose the other party makes an alternative offer on price, keeping in mind its prior offer on delivery. If your counterpart tracks your reaction to these alternative proposals, he can start deducing your priorities.

Westerners can do this cognitive work, of course—it is just a matter of preference regarding how to exchange information during negotiation. The message from Asian cultures: there is more than one way to get information in a negotiation. When negotiators are reluctant to share information directly, try proposals and look for the pattern of preferences revealed by changes in the proposals over time.

Written by David Frederick

May 31, 2011 at 10:43 AM

How to Manage Virtual Teams

You know, I have had a lot of experience in managing disparate virtual teams in multiple competencies. In fact, when I pioneered the first electronic digital musical instrument (keyboard) solely built on a Windows operating system with COTS parts, it was with a team based throughout the U.S., Europe and Taiwan. Bringing software developers, manufacturing, sourcing, marketing, sales, R&D, components, etc. together as a multi-disciplined team working toward a common goal I think was enhanced by the fact that we were virtual. It forced us to communicate regularly, effectivly and clearly. Also, remember this was before all the cool stuff we have now on the web and Web 2.0 collaboration solutions.

But early on and before this time, one of my more infamous motto’s was; “You can manage remotely, but you can’t lead remotely”. Over time and experience, I have come to think differently. Not only can disparate virtual teams be effective, but they can be led by strong leaders to accomplish enormous tasks productively and effectively. I have seen this both on a regional/national and global scale.

In today’s “connected” market and work place, there is no excuse for lack of productivity and success if you have a strong leader, clear communications and buy in from all constituents. Remember, some people need to have social “live in- person to person” interaction on a daily basis. They do not make good virtual team mates. Regardless, I read this article and found it to be spot on and very relevant in today’s connected market. Hope you enjoy it!


How to Manage Virtual Teams
By Frank Siebdrat, Martin Hoegl and Holger Ernst
July 1, 2009
Dispersed teams can actually outperform groups that are co-located. To succeed, however, virtual collaboration must be managed in specific ways.

TEAMS ARE THE typical building blocks of an organization: They provide companies with the means to combine the various skills, talents and perspectives of a group of individuals to achieve corporate goals. In the past, managers used to co-locate team members because of the high levels of interdependencies that are inherent in group work. Recently, though, more and more companies are beginning to organize projects over distance, with teams increasingly consisting of people who are based in dispersed geographical locations, come from different cultural backgrounds, speak different languages and were raised in different countries with different value systems.

Over the past 10 years, various studies have investigated the differences in performance of colocated and dispersed teams, quietly assuming that members of the latter never meet in person and members of the former work together in the same office throughout a project. But dispersion is not only a matter of degree; it is also a matter of kind. Most teams are dispersed on some level. They can be spatially separated (from “across the hall” to “scattered worldwide”), temporally separated (spanning different time zones), configurationally uneven (for example, five members in one location and two in another) and culturally diverse. And as past research has repeatedly shown, even the smallest degrees of dispersion, such as working on different floors in the same building, can greatly affect the quality of collaboration.1 In our own study, we have investigated the performance of 80 software development teams with varying levels of dispersion, including those with members in different cities, countries or continents. Such geographically distributed teams have commonly been referred to as “virtual” teams,2 but that label is something of a misnomer, because these groups are very real with respect to the work they can accomplish.

We found that virtual teams offer tremendous opportunities despite their greater managerial challenges. In fact, with the appropriate processes in place, dispersed teams can significantly outperform their co-located counterparts.


: http://sloanreview.mit.edu/the-magazine/articles/2009/summer/50412/how-to-manage-virtual-teams/

Written by David Frederick

September 29, 2009 at 7:08 PM

New Members to iAIR

I am thrilled to announce that 2 of my favorite professors and colleagues have joined the iAIR board of advisors. I am confident in their ability to bring even more competence, experience and insight to the team. They may even contribute to the iAIR blog site. So stay tuned!! Below is their brief bios.


Dr. Ralph Katz, PhD. – MIT Sloan & Northeaster U.

Dr. Ralph Katz is Professor of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Management at Northeastern University’s College of Business and Senior Lecturer at MIT Sloan School of Management. For more than 35 years, Katz has been carrying out extensive management research, education, and consulting on how to build, lead, and sustain the innovation process, with a particular interest in the management and motivation of technical professionals and high-performing groups and project teams.
During these years, Katz has conducted numerous workshops and seminars on innovation and R&D management in many organizations, working with them to improve their management and leadership of innovation incl. their practices, processes, and cultures. Among his more recent clients are major industrial corporations, including Procter & Gamble; Lockheed Martin; Goodrich; EMC; Nokia; Novartis; Medtronic, Tetra Pak; Master Foods, Inc.; Ciba Specialty Chemicals; and the Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos National Laboratories.

He teaches in two MIT Sloan executive programs and leads the Management of Technology and Innovation executive program at Cal Tech. For more than 10 years, he led the Management of Technology and Technical Professionals courses at IBM’s Corporate Technical Institute. Katz has taught in the executive programs of many other universities and was a visiting scholar at INSEAD in Paris during the 2003-04 academic year. His most recent book is The Human Side of Managing Technological Innovation, second edition (Oxford University Press, 2004).

In 1981, Katz was awarded the New Concept Award by the National Academy of Management for “Most Outstanding Contribution to the Field of Organizational Behavior.” He was also the 1986 recipient of R&D Management Journal’s “Best Paper Award” and the 1990 and 1991 recipient of the Academy of Management TIM Division’s “Best Paper Award.” In 2004, his paper in the IRI-sponsored journal, Research-Technology Management, was selected as the Holland Award

Dr. Jay Paap, PhD. – MIT and CalTech

Dr. Jay Paap is President of Paap Associates , a management consulting firm assisting major corporations in a broad range of business and technology development efforts, serves on the faculty of the Industrial Relations Center at Cal Tech, is a Fellow of the Society of Competitive Intelligence Professionals and a PDMA Certified New Product Develop-ment Professional.

Jay provides clients an integrated approach to creating the innovative environment in which to grow their businesses and position themselves for the future. He focuses his services in seven areas: business development strategy, new product development, organization of the technical and business development functions, corporate venturing (aka Open Innova-tion), technology planning, competitive intelligence, and executive education.

Dr. Paap has been active in the management of technology for 40 years, and has consulted with industrial and govern-mental organizations for over 35 years. He is a sought after speaker at public and in-company programs globally and he co-authored the award winning article Anticipating Disruptive Innovation.

Written by David Frederick

April 11, 2009 at 2:00 PM