Although 100 Hours work alongside other organisations, they have not fully utilised collaboration. Thomson et al (2007) stated collaboration to be where one person or group work with another person or group to accomplish a goal. One of the strategic decisions 100 Hours should consider is to collaborate with other organisations as it could bring competitive advantage over other charity organisations.
In most cases, competitive advantage usually allows an organisation to obtain a higher sales or profit margin by exploiting the advantage they have over their competitors (Ehmke, DATE). However, as 100 Hours end goal is not to maximise profit for their own personal gain, they can utilise competitive advantage to sustain and maintain current and future projects they wish to do.
Ehmke (DATE?) stated many reasons for organisations to collaborate:
Access to resources – from the business analysis of 100 Hours, it is evident that one of the problems is lack of resources. Through collaboration, 100 Hours can share resources, such as financial resources, with other organisations, which will free up funds for them to use to sustain or maintain other projects.
Shared risk – if a project of 100 Hours were to fail, they would have to deal with the repercussions by themselves, which could lead to a huge loss of funds. If they were to collaborate on a project, and it failed, then all parties involved would have to deal with the consequences which would relieve pressure on 100 Hours.
Efficiency – One of the weaknesses of 100 Hours was their vision being too big and so they could not achieve every strategic decision they could do. With projects being done more efficiently, more strategic decisions could be achieved due to the potential time and funds being saved through collaboration
Careful of Collaboration
Research carried out by Hansen and Nohria (2004) found some weaknesses to collaboration:
Unwillingness of employees – if employees of...