View/Open - Scholarly Commons Home

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Serious Holdings a company owned by the Eric Watson controlled by both Cullen Sports and, KA-NO.3 Trustee Limited (New Zealand Companies Office, 2008b). The overarching purpose of the NZRL is best reflected in the first of many ‘objects’ detailed in their constitution: “Promote Rugby league: promote, foster and develop Rugby League throughout New Zealand, from ‘grass roots’ level to international level, and govern Rugby League throughout New Zealand” (New Zealand Rugby League, 2007, p. 8). The NZRL is recognized by both SPARC and the Rugby League International Federation (RLIF) as the governing body for Rugby League in New Zealand (Coffey & Wood, 2007). In June 2008, SPARC initiated an independent review of the NZRL to address a combination of financial and governance issues. One of the independent review committee members was the CEO of the Warriors. In terms of the NZRL-Warriors relationship, it has been described as “inextricably intertwined” (Jessup, 2005, p. C17). In the same article, the NZRL General Manager was reported to have said “If our relationship with the Warriors was compromised in any way we'd have serious concerns” (Jessup, 2005, p. C17). 1.2.3 Basketball The New Zealand Breakers first participated in the Australian National Basketball League (NBL) in 2003. NZ Breakers Basketball Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of the parent company ProTeam Holdings (New Zealand Companies Office, 2008a). Paul Blackwell and Hibiscus Independent Trustees Limited are the two shareholders in ProTeam Holdings. Both the Federation of International Basketball Associations (FIBA) and SPARC as the national governing body for the sport of basketball in New Zealand recognise Basketball New Zealand Incorporated (BBNZ). The BBNZ constitution lists its mission as: 6
“to be New Zealand’s leading participation game” (Basketball New Zealand, 2006, p. 1). Unlike the other examples, Basketball New Zealand has never had a financial interest in the Breakers and has not had the need for any government intervention in its affairs. 1.3 Research Problem The three NSO-PSF relationships outlined clearly meet Contractor and Lorange’s (2002) criteria of an alliance, as described earlier. NSOs and PSFs are distinct and autonomous organisations but they are linked by a common interest in the same sport. New Zealand’s small population and limited resource base only increases the need for this relationship to be effective and functional. The PSF organisations that the Breakers, Warriors and the Wellington Phoenix compete against in their respective leagues do not have the luxury of an exclusive relationship with their national governing bodies. Similarly, the national governing bodies in Australia are not able to develop quality relationships with a single professional sport franchise, without the risk of being accused of favouritism. In both respects, the ability of the New Zealand NSOs and PSFs to acquire some source of competitive advantage over their rivals exists because their competitors do not easily replicate these relationships. However, the mere existence of these relationships is not itself sufficient. The key is the extent to which these organisations are able to draw value by learning from their partner. The ability to understand fully the intricacies of a NSO-PSF relationship in New Zealand as source of competitive advantage compared to those Australian based PSFs is beyond the scope of this research project. However, it is clear that the ability of each organisation to learn from the other is a fundamental antecedent to a relationship that adds value to both organisations, which in turn can lead to improved performance by both organisations in their respective markets. 7
Page 1 and 2: Determinants of Inter-Partner Learn
Page 3 and 4: 3.3 Data Sources...................
Page 5 and 6: INDEX OF FIGURES Figure 1: Case Stu
Page 7 and 8: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to of
Page 9 and 10: DEDICATION I would like to dedicate
Page 11 and 12: CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Backgrou
Page 13 and 14: Harvey, 1997). However, the study o
Page 15: take over management of the Knights
Page 19 and 20: transparency and receptivity to lea
Page 21 and 22: CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Int
Page 23 and 24: To summarise this section, transfer
Page 25 and 26: separated into internal and externa
Page 27 and 28: least some form face-to-face contac
Page 29 and 30: experiences with a view to improvin
Page 31 and 32: are amongst the most important fact
Page 33 and 34: Whether learning becomes self-susta
Page 35 and 36: alliance. Organisations with a pref
Page 37 and 38: uncontrolled access. Organisations
Page 39 and 40: additional factor influencing recep
Page 41 and 42: The rationale for this research was
Page 43 and 44: the organisation and the relationsh
Page 45 and 46: By keeping accounts of the research
Page 47 and 48: number of questions where developed
Page 49 and 50: interviews. Not only was there the
Page 51 and 52: The next section focussed on the se
Page 53 and 54: the opportunity to archive the data
Page 55 and 56: 3.4.4 Communication A major factor
Page 57 and 58: three determinants of learning deve
Page 59 and 60: the type of organisation but not th
Page 61 and 62: CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS 4.1. Introductio
Page 63 and 64: een one of the factors that had res
Page 65 and 66: Interestingly NSO3 made this commen
Page 67 and 68:
some duplication, then, there’s c
Page 69 and 70:
[I]t’s mainly the management, but
Page 71 and 72:
Other participants supported this b
Page 73 and 74:
[the sport] in the country. And tha
Page 75 and 76:
communication, April 18, 2008). Thi
Page 77 and 78:
[W]e’ll come back from the intern
Page 79 and 80:
[PSF1], and [PSF2] and ... the owne
Page 81 and 82:
When probed further as to why this
Page 83 and 84:
In certain areas the NSO1 thought i
Page 85 and 86:
However in an unusual move, likely
Page 87 and 88:
Since I’ve come on board, and cer
Page 89 and 90:
obviously doing it. So on that leve
Page 91 and 92:
PSF6 also reiterated this, wanting
Page 93 and 94:
with them, you never know what you
Page 95 and 96:
the answer: I think as I said, we
Page 97 and 98:
access....so, in return for univers
Page 99 and 100:
important.....we’re opening up ou
Page 101 and 102:
It was clear that there had been so
Page 103 and 104:
When questioned about who was the t
Page 105 and 106:
We have three full time coaches her
Page 107 and 108:
wanting to know more, I guess, yes,
Page 109 and 110:
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 5.1 Introducti
Page 111 and 112:
Both organisations are collaboratin
Page 113 and 114:
Hamel’s (1991) study that argued
Page 115 and 116:
financial issues. However one parti
Page 117 and 118:
5.4 Receptivity of Organisations in
Page 119 and 120:
5.5 Future Research There are a num
Page 121 and 122:
REFERENCES Alexander, T., Thibault,
Page 123 and 124:
Contractor, F. J., & Lorange, P. (2
Page 125 and 126:
Inkpen, A. C. (2002). Learning, kno
Page 127 and 128:
New Zealand Companies Office. (2008
Page 129 and 130:
Tsang, E. W. K., & Kwan, K.-M. (199
Page 131 and 132:
Area Research Question Appendix 1:
Page 133 and 134:
Appendix 2: AUTEC Ethical Approval
Page 135 and 136:
Appendix 3: Participant Information
Page 137 and 138:
How do I agree to participate in th
Page 139 and 140:
Appendix 4: Participant Consent For
show all

View/Open - Scholarly Commons Home

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?