DOES ROBOTICS FIRM GREYORANGE STILL NEED LOGI?
CASE STUDY SOLUTION
e
pl
m
SYNOPSIS
In mid of 2023, Akash Gupta, CEO of GreyOrange Ltd. (GO), an Atlanta-based robotics firm was faced with
Sa
the dilemma of whether GO still needed its exclusive technology partnership with LOGI, a leading US-based
contract logistics firm, for their future growth and success in the US market. The partnership which started in
2018 had been instrumental in GO’s entry and expansion in the US market and had helped GO establish itself
as a leading provider of robotic solutions in the warehouse automation space. But GO’s dependency on LOGI
n
as a channel to the market had increased. When the management of LOGI changed in 2022, the relationship
reached a hiatus as the new management had different preferences. A renegotiation had become inevitable.
tio
Many options were on the table including a complete discontinuation of exclusivity leading to an open
relationship, continuation of exclusivity with revised pricing terms, and continuation of exclusivity terms with
an expanded scope of products supplied by GO. Gupta was faced with many uncertainties: did GO still need
lu
the safety net of LOGI to sustain their growth in the US or was it ready to go it alone?
So
OBJECTIVES
• Recognize an increasingly popular mode of corporate innovation (start-up supplier program).
• Recognize the potential synergy and complementarity between technology startups and large corporations.
• Appreciate the value that cross-border technology partnerships provide to startups with international
ambitions, and for large corporations who desire to augment their technological portfolio.
• Recognize the challenges in making such partnerships work.
• Vicariously experience how start-ups have to navigate trade-offs between access to partner’s resources
on one hand and autonomy and uncertainty on the other hand. (Resource Dependence Perspective).
The Case Solution Starts From page 6
, e
pl
m
Sa
ASSIGNMENT QUESTIONS
1. How would you classify the relationship between GO and LOGI? Did LOGI make the right decision
n
in choosing this mode of collaboration? What factors worked in favor of the partnership initially?
2. Why did the performance challenges in the first few projects occur? How could that have been avoided?
tio
3. How did the conditions that motivated the formation of the partnership in 2018 change by 2023?
4. How did it impact the commitment of both firms in the partnership?
5. Should GO push for continuing an exclusive relationship or embrace an open relationship? Present the
lu
Risks and Benefits for each option and be prepared to justify your decision.
6. If GO decides to push for continued partnership, what proposals can it bring to the table to make the
So
deal compelling for LOGI?
7. How should LOGI’s management assess the potential of continued partnership with GO?
The Case Solution Starts From page 6
, e
pl
m
Sa
n
tio
lu
ANALYSIS
So
1. How would you classify the relationship between GO and LOGI? Did LOGI make the right
decision in choosing this mode of collaboration?
The partnership should be classified as a “start-up supplier” program as noted in the suggested readings
(Kurpjuweit & Wagner, 2020; Weiblen & Chesbrough, 2015). This is also a form of outside-in corporate
innovation, a concept introduced and propagated by Weiblen & Chesbrough (2015). This essentially refers
to sourcing of new knowledge and capabilities from outside ecosystems of innovative firms. Such
partnerships are on the rise primarily because of two reasons- 1) many new technological fields have been
spawned in the past two decades and it is hard for a single organization to develop expertise in these new
fields while maintaining their existing core focus. 2) Literature has noted a great complementarity between
large corporations and startups when it comes to working on innovation projects (Weiblen & Chesbrough,
The Case Solution Starts From page 6
,5. If Gupta decides to push for continued partnership, what proposals can it bring to the table to
make the deal compelling for LOGI?
As hinted in the case, GO could propose expanding the exclusivity terms to newer products in its portfolio.
It can be deduced from Case Exhibit 3 that GO’s products have different levels of competitive strength.
Especially in their software capabilities, GO is ahead of competitors. So, it can be expected that LOGI will
be interested in having exclusive access to the improved orchestration capabilities of GreyMatter software
platform. However, because this capability is valuable and rare, GO should be able to exploit it
commercially at a good premium before competitors catch-up. How will Gupta argue for a premium for the
software from LOGI within the exclusivity framework is an interesting aspect of the discussion.
Gupta also cannot discount the fact that there is a potential for GO to grow revenues with a premium price
e
pl
m
Sa
n
tio
lu
So
The Case Solution Starts From page 6
, EXHIBIT -1: RISKS AND BENEFITS OF CONTINUED PARTNERSHIP VERSUS AN OPEN
RELATIONSHIP
Continued exclusivity Relationship
Benefits Risks
Revenue Certainty Missed opportunities with other logistics players
who may be fast following.
Stable operations: high engineering costs will be GO’s competitors face reduced competition and
covered may gain ground very quickly.
Potential additions of more marquee brands to the Potential addition of other products to exclusivity
list of GO’s end-users list and tough price bargain.
Safe testing grounds for new product additions Loss of control over product roadmap.
Pressure of frequent requests for customization
Uncertainty over the behavior of the new
management. Will they work with a similar
e
collaborative spirit, or will they be transactional and
metrics-oriented.
pl
Open Relationship
Benefits
m
Risks
Sa
n
tio
lu
So
The Case Solution Starts From page 6
CASE STUDY SOLUTION
e
pl
m
SYNOPSIS
In mid of 2023, Akash Gupta, CEO of GreyOrange Ltd. (GO), an Atlanta-based robotics firm was faced with
Sa
the dilemma of whether GO still needed its exclusive technology partnership with LOGI, a leading US-based
contract logistics firm, for their future growth and success in the US market. The partnership which started in
2018 had been instrumental in GO’s entry and expansion in the US market and had helped GO establish itself
as a leading provider of robotic solutions in the warehouse automation space. But GO’s dependency on LOGI
n
as a channel to the market had increased. When the management of LOGI changed in 2022, the relationship
reached a hiatus as the new management had different preferences. A renegotiation had become inevitable.
tio
Many options were on the table including a complete discontinuation of exclusivity leading to an open
relationship, continuation of exclusivity with revised pricing terms, and continuation of exclusivity terms with
an expanded scope of products supplied by GO. Gupta was faced with many uncertainties: did GO still need
lu
the safety net of LOGI to sustain their growth in the US or was it ready to go it alone?
So
OBJECTIVES
• Recognize an increasingly popular mode of corporate innovation (start-up supplier program).
• Recognize the potential synergy and complementarity between technology startups and large corporations.
• Appreciate the value that cross-border technology partnerships provide to startups with international
ambitions, and for large corporations who desire to augment their technological portfolio.
• Recognize the challenges in making such partnerships work.
• Vicariously experience how start-ups have to navigate trade-offs between access to partner’s resources
on one hand and autonomy and uncertainty on the other hand. (Resource Dependence Perspective).
The Case Solution Starts From page 6
, e
pl
m
Sa
ASSIGNMENT QUESTIONS
1. How would you classify the relationship between GO and LOGI? Did LOGI make the right decision
n
in choosing this mode of collaboration? What factors worked in favor of the partnership initially?
2. Why did the performance challenges in the first few projects occur? How could that have been avoided?
tio
3. How did the conditions that motivated the formation of the partnership in 2018 change by 2023?
4. How did it impact the commitment of both firms in the partnership?
5. Should GO push for continuing an exclusive relationship or embrace an open relationship? Present the
lu
Risks and Benefits for each option and be prepared to justify your decision.
6. If GO decides to push for continued partnership, what proposals can it bring to the table to make the
So
deal compelling for LOGI?
7. How should LOGI’s management assess the potential of continued partnership with GO?
The Case Solution Starts From page 6
, e
pl
m
Sa
n
tio
lu
ANALYSIS
So
1. How would you classify the relationship between GO and LOGI? Did LOGI make the right
decision in choosing this mode of collaboration?
The partnership should be classified as a “start-up supplier” program as noted in the suggested readings
(Kurpjuweit & Wagner, 2020; Weiblen & Chesbrough, 2015). This is also a form of outside-in corporate
innovation, a concept introduced and propagated by Weiblen & Chesbrough (2015). This essentially refers
to sourcing of new knowledge and capabilities from outside ecosystems of innovative firms. Such
partnerships are on the rise primarily because of two reasons- 1) many new technological fields have been
spawned in the past two decades and it is hard for a single organization to develop expertise in these new
fields while maintaining their existing core focus. 2) Literature has noted a great complementarity between
large corporations and startups when it comes to working on innovation projects (Weiblen & Chesbrough,
The Case Solution Starts From page 6
,5. If Gupta decides to push for continued partnership, what proposals can it bring to the table to
make the deal compelling for LOGI?
As hinted in the case, GO could propose expanding the exclusivity terms to newer products in its portfolio.
It can be deduced from Case Exhibit 3 that GO’s products have different levels of competitive strength.
Especially in their software capabilities, GO is ahead of competitors. So, it can be expected that LOGI will
be interested in having exclusive access to the improved orchestration capabilities of GreyMatter software
platform. However, because this capability is valuable and rare, GO should be able to exploit it
commercially at a good premium before competitors catch-up. How will Gupta argue for a premium for the
software from LOGI within the exclusivity framework is an interesting aspect of the discussion.
Gupta also cannot discount the fact that there is a potential for GO to grow revenues with a premium price
e
pl
m
Sa
n
tio
lu
So
The Case Solution Starts From page 6
, EXHIBIT -1: RISKS AND BENEFITS OF CONTINUED PARTNERSHIP VERSUS AN OPEN
RELATIONSHIP
Continued exclusivity Relationship
Benefits Risks
Revenue Certainty Missed opportunities with other logistics players
who may be fast following.
Stable operations: high engineering costs will be GO’s competitors face reduced competition and
covered may gain ground very quickly.
Potential additions of more marquee brands to the Potential addition of other products to exclusivity
list of GO’s end-users list and tough price bargain.
Safe testing grounds for new product additions Loss of control over product roadmap.
Pressure of frequent requests for customization
Uncertainty over the behavior of the new
management. Will they work with a similar
e
collaborative spirit, or will they be transactional and
metrics-oriented.
pl
Open Relationship
Benefits
m
Risks
Sa
n
tio
lu
So
The Case Solution Starts From page 6
