DDHA 8801 Week 10 Alliance Governance Example

Course	DDHA 8801 Building Healthcare Brand and Alliances
Week	Week 10
Paper type	Alliance governance section
Length	About 1,030 words, 6 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Walden University
Program	Doctor of Healthcare Administration (DHA)
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for DDHA 8801 Week 10

Who Decides What in the Bayshore and Lakeshore Joint Care Alliance: Decision Rights by Domain, Reserved Powers, an Escalation Ladder With Time Limits and What Happens When It Ends

Student Name

Walden University

DDHA 8801: Building Healthcare Brand and Alliances

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title lists the four parts of the governance section in the order a reader will need them when the partners first disagree.

Who Decides What in the Bayshore and Lakeshore Joint Care Alliance: Decision Rights by Domain, Reserved Powers, an Escalation Ladder With Time Limits and What Happens When It Ends

Purpose of This Section

This section of the alliance agreement between Bayshore Health and Lakeshore Therapy Network, both composite organizations, sets out how the two will make decisions in their joint care alliance. The alliance pairs Bayshore's orthopedic surgeons with Lakeshore's physical therapists to deliver a joint first visit, shared work plans and coordinated rehabilitation for adults with hip and knee arthritis in Brown County, Wisconsin. The partners agree on the goal. This section exists for the first decision they both want to make differently.

Decision Rights by Domain

The table assigns each domain to one decider. Shared decision making is limited to the three domains where the alliance creates something neither partner owns alone: the first-visit protocol, shared capital and shared data. Everywhere else, the partner that bears the consequences decides and the other is consulted.

Table 1

Decision Rights by Domain

Domain	Decides	Consulted	Informed \|
Physical therapy protocols	Lakeshore	Bayshore orthopedic director	Joint clinical council \|
Surgical indications and protocols	Bayshore	Lakeshore clinical director	Joint clinical council \|
Joint first-visit and work-plan protocol	Joint clinical council	Both medical and therapy staffs	Both chief executives \|
Joint care brand, name and public claims	Bayshore	Lakeshore marketing lead	Joint steering committee \|
Lakeshore's own name and brand	Lakeshore	Bayshore marketing lead	Joint steering committee \|
Capital at the partner's own sites	Each partner for its own sites	The other partner if joint care space is affected	Joint steering committee \|
Shared capital above $250,000	Joint steering committee	Both finance officers	Both boards \|
Staffing levels and hiring	Each partner for its own staff	The other partner for joint care roles	Joint steering committee \|
Shared measures and data exchange	Joint data committee	Both privacy officers	Joint steering committee \|

The joint clinical council has three clinicians from each partner; the joint steering committee has the two chief operating officers and one board member from each partner.

Reserved Powers

Two powers are reserved and cannot be overridden by any joint body. Lakeshore reserves the clinical judgment of its therapists: no protocol adopted by the joint clinical council may require a Lakeshore therapist to deliver care the therapist judges inappropriate for a patient, and the therapist may document the disagreement and refer the patient back to the surgeon. Bayshore reserves the Joint Care brand: no public statement, advertisement or patient material may use the Joint Care name or make claims about it without Bayshore's written approval. Each partner also reserves its own name, its employment relationships and its contracts with payers.

These reservations reflect the concern Gulati and Singh (1998) identified in alliances: that partners worry about the other taking more than its share of the value they create, and choose governance to limit that risk. Here, each partner protects the asset most central to its identity.

Escalation Ladder

A disagreement moves up the ladder only if it is not resolved at the rung below, and each rung has a time limit so that no disagreement sits unresolved by default.

At the first rung, the joint care operations manager from each partner meets within five business days of a written notice of disagreement and has ten business days to resolve it.

At the second rung, the joint clinical council, or the joint steering committee for nonclinical matters, considers the issue at a meeting called within ten business days and decides within twenty.

At the third rung, the two chief executives meet within fifteen business days and have thirty days to agree.

If the chief executives cannot agree, the deadlock provision applies.

Deadlock Provision

The partners have named in advance a neutral mediator, a retired health system executive with no financial ties to either party, who will hear both sides within thirty days and issue a written recommendation. The recommendation is not binding. If either partner rejects it, that partner may give notice to begin the unwinding process below, but the alliance continues on its existing terms during the notice period. Reuer and Ariño (2007), studying the contracts behind strategic alliances, found that partners include more detailed provisions, such as those for termination and dispute resolution, when the alliance involves more coordination and more at stake, which is the case here.

What Happens When the Alliance Ends

Either partner may end the alliance on 180 days' notice, with or without a deadlock. During that period, both partners will continue to treat patients already in a joint care episode until the episode ends or the patient is transferred with a written handoff. Shared data will be returned or destroyed according to the data exchange agreement, and each partner keeps its own records. Lakeshore will remove the Joint Care name from its clinics and materials within 90 days of the end date. Shared capital purchases will be divided by an agreed formula in the capital schedule. Neither partner will solicit the other's employees for twelve months after the end. Patients will receive a letter from both partners explaining where to continue care, so that the end of the alliance is not experienced as the end of their treatment.

Information Rights

Each partner has a right to the information it needs to exercise its decisions. Bayshore receives a monthly report from Lakeshore on therapy start times, visit volumes and outcome scores for Joint Care patients, and Lakeshore receives a monthly report from Bayshore on first-visit volumes, waiting times and surgical referrals. Either partner must notify the other within two business days of any serious safety event, regulatory inquiry or public complaint involving a Joint Care patient. Information rights are written separately from decision rights because a partner that cannot see what is happening cannot use the rights it holds.

Review

The joint steering committee will review this section every two years, and after any use of the deadlock provision, to see whether decision rights still match how the alliance actually works. Gulati (1998) notes that alliances evolve as partners learn about each other, and governance written for the first year may not fit the fifth.

References

Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19(4), 293-317. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199804)19:4<293::AID-SMJ982>3.0.CO;2-M

Gulati, R., & Singh, H. (1998). The architecture of cooperation: Managing coordination costs and appropriation concerns in strategic alliances. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(4), 781-814. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393616

Reuer, J. J., & Ariño, A. (2007). Strategic alliance contracts: Dimensions and determinants of contractual complexity. Strategic Management Journal, 28(3), 313-330. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.581

What the DDHA 8801 Week 10 instructions ask for

The governance week asks for the clauses that decide who rules when partners disagree. Lead with a table listing the domains the alliance touches and naming for each one the party with the final say, the party whose view is sought and the party merely told. Below the table, state the reserved powers neither partner will surrender. Set out an escalation ladder with a time limit at each rung so disagreements cannot stall. Describe the deadlock provision by kind, such as a neutral third party or rotating casting vote. Explain what happens when the alliance ends, including patients in mid-episode, data and brand. Add information rights and a review clause. Keep each provision specific enough that two partners in conflict would know exactly what happens next.

Inside the DDHA 8801 Week 10 example

The section opens by naming the partners and the alliance's purpose. Table 1 assigns nine domains, and the text explains why shared decisions are limited to the first-visit protocol, shared capital and data. The reserved powers section protects therapists' clinical judgment and the Joint Care brand, citing Gulati and Singh. The escalation ladder sets four rungs with meeting and decision deadlines. The deadlock provision names a neutral mediator with a nonbinding recommendation, citing Reuer and Ariño. The ending section covers patients in treatment, data return, removal of the brand, shared capital and non-solicitation. An information rights section sets monthly reports and two-day notice of serious events, and a review clause citing Gulati closes the section.

Reading the DDHA 8801 Week 10 rubric

Governance sections are graded on completeness and enforceability. A decision rights table by domain is expected, with one decider per domain where possible. Markers look for reserved powers stated plainly. An escalation ladder with time limits earns credit because it prevents stalemate by default. Deadlock and termination provisions are often explicit criteria, and vague clauses lose marks. Information rights show sophistication. Citations from alliance governance research should support the design, and the section should read as an agreement rather than an essay. Graders often test a section by imagining a real disagreement and checking whether the text settles it.

DDHA 8801 Week 10 help: mistakes that cost marks

Students often write governance as principles, such as "the partners will collaborate," which settle nothing. Assign each domain to a decider. Name what each partner will never give up. Put deadlines on every rung of the escalation ladder. Decide in advance how deadlock is broken. Plan the ending while the partners still like each other. Add the information each side needs to use its rights. For an alliance your organization is negotiating, we can prepare a governance section built on a decision rights table. Test your draft against one realistic dispute, such as a therapist refusing a protocol, and trace exactly what happens at each rung.

Get a DDHA 8801 Week 10 example written to your instructions

Drop the prompt, the rubric and the alliance scenario the classroom is using into the desk, and a governance section with a decision rights table, escalation, deadlock and exit terms comes back to you. First one free, 24 to 48 hours. Executed agreements an organization holds are its own property and are never reproduced here.

More DDHA 8801 papers and DHA samples

DDHA 8801 Week 10 questions, answered

Where can I find a free DDHA 8801 Week 10 sample paper?

The alliance governance section, with its decision rights table, is free to read here.

How are decision rights assigned in the DDHA 8801 Week 10 example?

By domain, with one decider for each and shared decisions limited to the first-visit protocol, shared capital and data.

What powers are reserved?

The therapy network keeps its therapists' clinical judgment, and the health system keeps the Joint Care brand.

How is deadlock broken?

A named neutral mediator issues a nonbinding recommendation, after which either partner may begin a 180-day unwinding.

What happens to patients when the alliance ends?

They continue care until their episode ends or are transferred with a written handoff and a joint letter.