Core methods | about 45 minutes | free
Analyse a strategic relationship and test a proposed move against relative dependence and response time.
An original introductory relationship exercise. It does not reproduce the book's pattern catalogue or claim that one numerical ratio captures strategic power.
This is original learning material, not a reproduced official course. Mechanical checks have determinate answers within the stated case. Worked comparisons for open judgements show defensible reasoning, not the only possible model. Specialist pedagogical review is not recorded.
Fictional case: a local repair network needs a specialist supplier to complete 60% of its jobs. The network accounts for only 5% of that supplier's sales. Finding and qualifying an alternative supplier would take six months. The network has promised residents completion within one month. The supplier can change its delivery terms with two months' notice. Neighbouring networks use the same supplier but have not agreed to cooperate. A proposal says 'negotiate harder because we are a large organisation'.
Use paper, your own drawing tool or the notes below. Attempt each step before opening its comparison. Describe a diagram in words when that is more accessible.
Produce: A two-direction dependence account with the purpose of each actor.
The repair network depends heavily on this supplier for its present offering. The supplier has relatively little sales dependence on this one network. The percentages are indicators of asymmetry, not a complete power measure: margins, scarce expertise, switching costs and reputation could change the assessment. The network's organisational size alone does not establish bargaining strength.
Produce: A comparison of notice, response time and the resident promise.
Two months' notice is shorter than the six months needed to qualify an alternative, leaving a four-month response gap under the stated assumptions. The one-month completion promise may be incompatible with supply disruption. A strategy that requires switching instantly has failed a timing test before any negotiation begins.
Produce: Two moves, their preconditions and likely counterpart responses.
Begin qualifying an alternative before disruption, accepting the cost of maintaining options. Or explore joint purchasing and shared qualification with neighbouring networks, but only if they agree and the arrangement is lawful and practical. The supplier may respond through service guarantees, pricing or prioritisation. Do not treat neighbours' resources as already controlled by the network.
Produce: A signal and a conditional decision.
If a second supplier can meet quality requirements within three months rather than six, the response gap changes. If neighbours cannot cooperate, discard the assumed collective bargaining position. Track supplier concentration, qualification progress and actual resident waiting rather than reporting the number of negotiation meetings.
These checks test the supplied case, not your overall competence. Open answers and model variants still need your judgement.
A SWOT list declares 'strength: we are big' and concludes the supplier must accept any terms.
Examine the particular relationship, each side's alternatives, dependence, fit and response time. Organisational size is not identical to power in every relationship.
The supplier now depends on this network for 40% of its sales. What follows, and what does not?
The relationship may be more mutually dependent, creating different negotiation possibilities and risks. It does not prove the network should threaten withdrawal or that the supplier has no alternatives. Investigate profitability, capacity, other customers and the cost of damaging the relationship.
A different model can be defensible when its purpose, assumptions and reasoning are explicit. A contradiction, incorrect unit, invented fact or unacknowledged change of purpose needs repair. Keep both your first attempt and revision.
No sign-in or submission is required. Notes are not sent by this practice tool. Use fictional information, not identifiable client or learner data. Saving stores this page's attempt only in this browser; clearing browser data can remove it. Export a copy to keep it elsewhere.
The complete original case above is free. Links below distinguish exercises from explanations, recordings, software and paid study. Reading a page or drawing in a tool is not itself a model check.
Check how strategy depends on relationships, relative power, fit and timing; then test your dependency model.
Public method account inspected. The full pattern catalogue is not reproduced here.
Further reading for each framework row, including the separate references associated with transposing theory.
Public sharing confirmed; approach and theory bibliography inspected. The presence of a reference does not establish that it contains self-check exercises.
Continue from introductory relationship modelling to the fuller method and its pattern repertoire.
Course description inspected; paid content not accessed.
Choose another practice area · Task-only version · Worked-answer version