NIST GCR 06-889 - Findings from the Advanced Technology Program's Survey of Joint Ventures
10. The Structure and Governance of ATP-supported Joint Venture Projects
Joint venture projects can be structured and governed in a variety of ways and the balance of power among the members of the joint venture can also vary in significant ways. The Survey of ATP Joint Ventures explores the structure of ATP-supported joint venture projects, the formal and informal balance of power among the members of the joint venture, and partners' satisfaction with various aspects of governance in the joint venture.
Survey Questions |
Which of the following best characterizes the structure of your joint venture?
- One project leader; other partners have supporting roles
- Some partners are principal participants, other partners have supporting roles
- All partners have equally important roles, there are no supporting roles
In terms of the formal agreement among joint venture partners, to what extent did some partners have more power than other partners in areas such as decision-making and rights over the joint venture's output?
In terms of the informal agreement among joint venture partners, to what extent did some partners have more power than other partners?
Consider the formal Joint Venture agreement and other governance procedures developed by your ATP joint venture. How satisfied were you with the Joint Venture agreement with regard to:
- Protection of intellectual property or proprietary information contributed by joint venture partners
- Ownership of new intellectual property developed by the joint venture
- Resolution of disputes or disagreements among joint venture partners
- Verification of work task performance among joint venture partners
|
Note: Only statistically significant results are reported in this publication.
Nearly half of the respondents characterized their joint ventures as having principal partners and supporting partners (see Figure 10.1).
- Almost half of the respondents stated that the structure of their ATP-supported joint ventures are best characterized by the statement "Some partners are principal participants, other partners have supporting roles." Relatively few respondents described the partners of their joint venture as having equally important roles.
Figure 10.1 - Respondents' characterizations of the structure of their ATP-supported joint venture projects |
 |
Larger joint ventures were more likely than smaller joint ventures to describe the structure of their ATP-supported joint ventures as having principal and supporting partners (see Table 10.1).
- Respondents representing joint ventures with 6 or more partners were more likely than those
representing joint ventures with 2 partners to describe the structure of their ATP-supported joint
ventures as having principal and supporting partners.
- Similarly, respondents representing joint ventures with 6-1 0 partners were more likely than those
representing joint ventures with 3-5 partners to describe the structure of their ATP-supported joint
ventures as having principal and supporting partners.
Table 10.1 - Percent of respondents who described the structure of their ATP-supported joint ventures as having principal and supporting partners, by joint venture size |
| Number of joint venture partners |
Percent of respondents who described the structure of their ATP-supported joint ventures as having principal and supporting partners |
| 2 partners |
30% |
| 3-5 partners |
45% |
| 6-10 partners |
64% |
| 11+ partners |
61% |
Respondents across different ATP technology areas differed in their views of the best characterization of the structure of their ATP-supported joint venture projects.
- Respondents representing Manufacturing projects were more likely than projects representing other technology projects to describe the structure of their joint venture projects as having principal and supporting partners (see Table 10.2).
Table 10.2 - Percent of respondents who described the structure of their ATP-supported joint ventures as having principal and supporting partners, by technology area |
| Technology Area |
Percent of respondents who described the structure of their ATP-supported joint ventures as having principal and supporting partners |
| Chemistry & Materials |
38% |
| Biotechnology |
33% |
| Electronics & Photonics |
46% |
| Information Technology |
42% |
| Manufacturing |
67% |
With respect to the formal agreement among the members of the joint venture, most respondents reported that some partners in the ATP-supported joint venture had more power than others in areas such as decision-making and rights over the joint venture's
output (see Figure 10.2).
- More than half of the respondents stated that some members of the ATP-supported joint venture had more power than other partners to a moderate or large extent.
Figure 10.2 - In terms of the formal agreement among joint venture partners, extent to which some partners had more power than other partners in areas such as decision-making and rights over the joint venture's output |
 |
Small companies were more likely to report that some partners in the ATP-supported joint venture had more formal power than others in areas such as decision-making and rights over the joint venture's output.1
- Small companies were more likely than large companies to report that, with respect to the formal joint venture agreement, some partners in the ATP-supported joint venture had more power than others in areas such as decision-making and right over the joint venture's output (see Table 10.3).
Table 10.3 - Percent of respondents who reported that some members of the ATP-supported joint venture had more formal power than other partners to a moderate or large extent, by company size |
| Size of company |
Percent of respondents who reported that some members of the ATP-supported joint veneture had more formal power than other partners to a moderate or lage extent |
| Small companies |
64% |
| Medium-size companies |
57% |
| Large companies |
49% |
With respect to the informal agreement among the members of the joint venture, most respondents reported that some partners in the ATP-supported joint venture had more power than others (see Figure 10.3).
- Two-thirds of the respondents stated that, with respect to the informal agreement among the members of the joint venture, some members of the ATP-supported joint venture had more power than other partners to a moderate or large extent.
Figure 10.3 - In terms of the informal agreement among joint venture partners, extent to which some partners had more power than other partners |
 |
Respondents representing larger joint venture partnerships were more likely to report that, with regard to informal relations among the joint venture partners, some partners in the ATP-supported joint venture had more informal power than other partners.
- Respondents representing joint venture partnerships with 11 or more partners were more likely than those representing joint venture partnerships with 2 partners to report that some partners in the ATP-supported joint venture had more power than others, with respect to informal relations among the joint venture partners (see Table 10.4).
Table 10.4 - Percent of respondents who reported that some members of the ATP-supported joint venture had more informal power than other partners to a moderate or large edxtent, by number of joint venture partners |
| Number of joint venture partners |
Percent of respondents who reported that some members of the ATP-supported joint venture had more informal power than other partners to a moderate or large extent, by number of joint venture partners |
| 2 partners |
54% |
| 3-5 partners |
69% |
| 6-10 partners |
70% |
| 11+ partners |
75% |
Respondents across different ATP technology areas differed in their views of the informal balance of power among the partners in the joint venture.
- Respondents representing Manufacturing projects were more likely than those representing Electronics & Photonics projects to state that some partners in the ATP-supported joint venture had more power than others, with respect to informal relations among the joint venture partners (see Table 10.5).
Table 10.5 - Percent of respondents who reported that some members of the ATP-supported joint venture had more informal power than other partners to a moderate or large extent, by technology area |
| Technology Area |
Percent of respondents who reported that some members of the ATP-supported joint venture had more informal power than other partners to a moderate or large extent |
| Chemistry & Materials |
84% |
| Biotechnology |
74% |
| Electronics & Photonics |
58% |
| Information Technology |
66% |
| Manufacturing |
75% |
The majority of respondents expressed satisfaction with various areas of governance within their ATP-supported joint ventures (see Table 10.6).
- When asked to consider various aspects of governance within the ATP-funded partnership, six in ten respondents, or more, indicated that they were either satisfied or very satisfied with these governance areas (see Table 1 0.6).
Table 10.6 - Percent of respondents who reported that they were satisfied or very satisfied with various aspects of governance within their joint venture partnerships |
| Satisfaction with the Joint Venture agreement and governance procedures with regard to: |
Percent of respondents who reported that they were satisfied or very satisfied |
| Protection of intellectual property or proprietary information contributed by JV partners |
77% |
| Ownership of new intellectual property developed by the JV |
88% |
| Resolution of disputes or disagreements among JV partners |
60% |
| Verification of work task performance among JV partners |
60% |
____________________
1. For ATP, small companies have fewer than 500 employees, large companies are Fortune 500 companies, and medium size companies are all others.
Return to Table of Contents or go to next section of Survey.
Date created: August 2, 2006
Last updated:
September 1, 2006
|
