Rawhide Brewery Case Summary

Mini-Case Study 1: Rawhide Brewery
Tanja Leonard
Dr. Natalie Walker
GBA 398 Integrated Perspectives on Business
Saint Leo University
18 March 2018

Abstract
This case study dives into the two proposals and the counterproposal between Rawhide Brewery and Tabby. The proposals are both with their flaws. Proposal one claims that Rawhide is making the same things as Tabby, but they may have different processes. In proposal two, Rawhide believes that they should have more control in the decision-making process since their debts are guaranteed to them. Such decision-making should be done by whomever is best qualified to do so. The counterproposal suggests a more shared responsibility in the decision-making process, and that arguments would

Decision making over a wide variety of issues should not be based on who guarantees a loan but who is best qualified to decide an issue, it varies from issue to issue and expertise. Rawhide deciding on hiring of management, purchasing equipment, compensation package, relocation borrowing, suppling, outsourcing, and delivery schedules affect the bottom-line. Tabby produces quality products resulting in increasing sales. Rawhide is able to affect this production process in their decision-making responsibilities. Tabby decides formulas but not productions, process, or equipment. Tabby controls supplier decisions but not outsourcing of other operations. Outsourcing leads to loss of

Assumption is that there will be few disagreements and both companies are similar enough in policy, philosophy, and operations that disagreements would be few. This is not always the case, but the counterproposal has more upside than proposals one and two, where decision making is divided. Decision-making and voting on issues with arbitration is a better way to go. There is more equal representations and more sharing of ideas. Proposals one and two lead to perpetuate separation of companies while the counterproposal has a better chance of resulting in a more integrated and cohesive single company. Forbes suggests that the strategic fit of merger partners involves the same products, services, technology, and manufacturing methods. Do the key people fit in with the policy and philosophy? This kind of integration is important to the decision-making process and the manufacturing process. Other important issues to ensure proper functioning is non-competition agreements, agreements on approvals required by other parties to material contracts and customer and supplier contracts. All these are better decided by shared decision-making rather than designated