4. 4
Door wereldwijde veranderingen neemt het
belang van samenwerking toe
• De zoektocht naar goedkopere arbeidskrachten leidde tot
het exploreren over grenzen heen
• Snelle technologische ontwikkelingen ondersteunen het
leggen van global contact
• Wereldwijde concurrentie dwingt tot snellere time to
market
• Het klimaatprobleem leidt tot het bundelen van krachten
voor een gezamenlijke aanpak
• Organisaties bundelen krachten om een nieuwe markt te
betreden of een groter marktbereik te realiseren
5. 5
Echter, veel organisaties vragen zich af hoe
dit te organiseren
• Hoe ga je om met controle versus vertrouwen
• Hoe voorkom je opportunistisch gedrag
• Wat is de basis om een goede samenwerking te
organiseren
• Hoe kan je het optimale uit de relatie halen en waarde
creeren
• Hoe ga je om met behoud van intellectual property in een
relatie waarin concurrenten samenwerken
• Hoe zorg je ervoor dat verschillende partijen eenzelfde
doel nastreven
7. Waarom komen écht succesvolle
zakelijke B2B relaties zo
moeizaam tot stand?
8. Verkoop is nog steeds
negatief kritisch over Inkoop:
1. Praten over Kosten, Doen in Prijs
2. Inkoop wil KT-scoren (spreadsheet-relatie)
3. Gatekeeper i.p.v. netwerkbouwer
4. Focus op Afhankelijkheidsreductie
5. Onprofessionele bejegening
Bron: Feedback van ISAM-studenten 2004-2011
SW-MHB016-2003-06-12-SIR-V1 8
8
10. WHAT is making B2B Relationships sustainable
Strategic
Fit
Value Mastering
Time-2-Act Trust
Collaborative
Model
The Trusted Value Model ™
Managing sustainable B2B relationships
Hans Hopmans, 2008
12. Resultaat Afhandeling Emotie
Wat krijg ik?
Produkten, Diensten,
+ Hoe krijg ik het?
Leveringsproces, + Wat voel ik erbij?
Imago, Reputatie,
Services, Infrastructuur Interactie, Interface Experiences
etc. etc. etc.
Prijs Moeite
Hoeveel kost het?
Prijs, Fluctuaties, Differentiaties, + Wat moet ik ervoor doen?
Tijd, energie, sores, onveiligheid
Korting etc. etc.
13. Waardecreatie
produkt + functionaliteit + toegevoegde waarde
Meer Minder
omzet kosten
kwaliteit risico
flexibiliteit kapitaalbeslag
service inspanning
innovatie tijd
14. Waardecreatie terreinen (economic value)
1. Sales (Product Mix x Price x Quantity) 1. Verkoop (Produkt Mix x Prijs x Volume)
2. Customer Responsiveness 2. Reactievermogen op klantwensen/-klachten
3. Timely Supply (delivery & fulfilment) 3. Tijdige levering / nakoming afspraken
4. Transport & Distribution 4. Transport & distributie
5. Quality of Products & Services 5. Kwaliteit van Produkten & Diensten
6. Overhead Costs 6. Kosten van Bedrijfsvoering / ondersteunend proces
7. Operating Process / Procedures Efficiency 7. Operationele werkprocessen & procedures
8. Cost of Materials & Production 8. Kosten van materialen en produktie
9. Inventory 9. Inventaris, voorraad
10. Asset utilization 10. Gebruik/produktiviteit van investeringen
11. Productivity 11. Algemene productiviteit
12. Innovation / R&D 12. Innovatie / Onderzoek & Ontwikkeling
13. Cash Management 13. Geldstroom / kaspositie / werkkapitaal
14. Risk Management 14. Risico Management
15. Supply Chain Relationships 15. Relaties / Relatiekwaliteit in de waardeketen
16. Change/Response Ability 16. Veranderkundigheid / Reactie-vermogen
18. Competenties Karakter
know-how / skills integriteit / respect
bereikte resultaten consistentheid
innovatiekracht transparantheid
executiekracht loyaliteit / intentie
verbindingskracht betrouwbaarheid
luisteren naar de klant /leverancier
maatschappelijke bijdrage
19. hoog
toekomstbestendige
korte
duurzame
Trust Drivers termijn relatie
relatie
Competenties Karakter (concurrent termijn)
(impact termijn)
know-how / skills integriteit / respect
bereikte resultaten consistentheid
innovatiekracht transparantheid
executiekracht
verbindingskracht
vertrouwen
loyaliteit / intentie
betrouwbaarheid
geen relatie, middellange
luisteren naar de klant /leverancier (tenzij er geen termijn relatie
maatschappelijke bijdrage alternatieven zijn) (contract termijn)
laag
Terreinen van Waardecreatie hoog
1. Sales
waardecreatie
9. Inventory
(Product Mix x Price x Quantity)
2. Customer Responsiveness 10. Asset utilization
3. Timely Supply 11. P roductivity
(delivery & fulfilment)
4. Transport & Distribution 12. Innovation / R&D
5. Quality of Products & Services 13. Cash Management
6. Overhead Costs 14. Risk Management
7. Operating Process / 15. Supply Chain Relationships
Procedures Efficiency
8. Cost of Materials & Production 16. Change/Response Ability
20. Managing Sustainable B2B Relationships
Strategic
Fit
Value Mastering
Time-2-Act Trust
Collaborative
Model
The Trusted Value Model ®
Managing sustainable B2B relationships
Hans Hopmans, 2008
21. Operational Strategic
Effectiveness
= Positioning
Run the same Choose to run a
race faster different race
23. Strategic Positioning
Creating a unique and sustainable value
proposition, with a different tailored value chain,
with clear tradeoffs, performed by activities that
reinforce each other.
25. Managing Sustainable B2B Relationships
Strategic
Fit
Value Mastering
Time-2-Act Trust
Collaborative
Model
The Trusted Value Model ®
Managing sustainable B2B relationships
Hans Hopmans, 2008
26. 8 samenwerkingsaspecten
1. Vertegenwoordigen (represent)
De samenwerking richt zich niet op het realiseren van onderlinge transacties maar op het gezamenlijk
behartigen van een gemeenschappelijk belang. Bijvoorbeeld het gezamenlijk optreden naar de
overheid.
2. Leveren (supply)
De samenwerking beperkt zich het slechts leveren van produkten of diensten van opdrachtnemer aan
opdrachtgever. De organisaties hebben verder geen strategische of operationele verbindingen.
3. Ondersteunen (support)
Naast de levering van produkten of diensten ondersteunen de organisaties elkaar bij het soepel laten
verlopen van de pre- en posttransactionele processen.
4. Verbeteren (improve)
De organisaties stellen hun transacties ook in het kader van het realiseren van verbeteringen. Men
zoekt best practices om deze toe te passen in de onderlinge relatie of in de waardepropositie naar de
eindklant.
5. Herverdelen (in/outsourcing)
Organisaties herverdelen de verantwoordelijkheden, investeringen en activiteiten in de onderlinge
waardeketen. Daar kunnen verschillende redenen voor zijn. Deze herverdeling leidt vaak tot een zeer
nauwe samenwerking gedurende tenminste de eerste jaren na de herverdeling.
6. Uitbreiden (expand)
De samenwerking heeft ten doel om door bundeling van krachten het bestaande, bewezen zakelijke
succes van één van de partners ( of van beide partners) uit te breiden zonder daarbij te tornen aan
elkaars rolpositie in de keten. Bijvoorbeeld het samen uitrollen van een succesvol distributieconcept in
andere landen.
7. Vernieuwen (innovate)
Samenwerking richt zich op het functioneel bundelen van krachten (mensen, middelen, technologie,
kennis etc.) om samen nieuwe kennis, produkten, business concepten, proposities te ontwikkelen.
Meestal neemt één van de partners de hoofdrol bij het vermarkten van de innovatie.
8. Ondernemen (enterprise)
De samenwerking richt zich op het samen ondernemen, het echt delen van risico’s en kansen bij het in
de (eventueel nieuwe) markt brengen van (eventueel nieuwe) produkten en diensten.
28. Managing value creation in R&D
alliances
Dr. Dries Faems
Associate Professor, University of Twente
Research Fellow, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
29. R&D alliances
• Formal arrangement between a limited
number of otherwise independent
organizations in which R&D is at least part of
the collaborative effort
30. R&D alliances and innovation performance
• Results of study on Belgian CIS data (Faems,
Van Looy & Debackere, 2005)
– Alliances with customers and suppliers positively
influence incremental innovation performance
– Alliances with universities and knowledge
institutes positively influence radical innovation
performance
– Companies that want to improve existing products
as well as create new products benefit from a
balanced alliance portfolio in which both different
types of alliances are present
31. However!!!
• Failure rate of individual R&D alliances
ranges between 50 and 80%
• In almost 80% of cases, managers from
entrepreneurial firms felt unfairly
exploited by their large firm partners
(Alvarez & Barney, 2001)
32. Value creation challenges in R&D alliances:
• Challenge 1: Minimizing the risk that the
other partner opportunistically abuses
the collaboration
• Challenge 2: Maximizing coordinated
action in the presence of cultural
differences
33. Challenge 1: Mitigating opportunistic behavior
• Two potential strategies
– Contractual strategy: Negotiating a complex contract
at the beginning of the collaboration
– Relational strategy: Building a trustfull relationship
between both partners
• Question 1: Which strategy would you apply
• Question 2: What is the relationship between
both strategies
– Contractual and relational strategies as substitutes
– Contractual and relational strategies as complements
34. Illustration:
• JET: High-tech SME, specialized in the development
of advanced inkjet printheads
• GRAPH: International company active in imaging
industry
35.
36. Governance Level Operational Level Managerial Level
Narrow contractual Limited joint sensemaking on Negative goodwill trust
interface structure unexpected technological dynamics
problems
Rigid application of Contract compliance behavior
SSH contract Negative goodwill trust
Joint sensemaking on
Alliance unexpected technological
dynamics
problems further reduces
Negative competence trust Lowered expectations of
dynamics feasibility of project
Broad contractual Extensive joint sensemaking Positive goodwill trust
interface structure on unexpected technological dynamics
problems
Flexible application of Search for qualitative
ESH contract solutions Positive goodwill trust
dynamics
Alliance Joint sensemaking on
unexpected technological
problems further increases
Positive competence trust Heightened expectations
dynamics of feasibility of project
37. Conclusion
• Content of the contract substantially
influences trust dynamics in R&D
alliances
• The more the content of the contract is
aligned with the nature of the task, the
higher the probability of value creation
38. Challenge 2: Coordinating across
different cultures
• When they [= entrepreneurial partner] said we want to improve
the performance of the technology they actually meant we
continuously want to invent new products. At the same time,
we [=established partner] were saying: If you want to improve
the performance, you have to focus on your existing product and
make sure that you can produce it in a good way with stable and
consistent quality.
• They [= entrepreneurial partner] solved each problem with a
new one. This is typical in a R&D environment. However, you
need to focus on problems within an existing constellation. You
need to try it step by step. When you come up with totally new
solutions, these solutions will trigger new problems.
• That is a huge clash of cultures. You are all engineers, but you
have different labels after the engineer and it is surprising how
such differences make communication as well as understanding
difficult.
39. Illustration
• Optical Glass Technology (OGT)
Alliance between GCOMP and OPTICS
– GCOMP: International company active in
the domains of metals and materials
– OPTICS: High-tech SME, specialized in the
development of optical lenses
– Purpose of alliance: Development and
industrialization of optical glass lenses for
the automotive industry
40.
41. First year of OGT alliance
• OPTICS makes limited progress in developing industrial
prototypes
– Limited willingness to focus on exploitative activities despite
financial incentives
• GCOMP wanted to commercialize as quickly as possible… [However],
we were specialists. We first wanted to achieve perfect quality before
initiating production. (OPTICS engineer)
– Limited ability to conduct exploitative activities
• The people at OGT really were R&D people… They were not used to
do process engineering. They were working in a laboratory. Their
reasoning was: let s try something; if it works we have a process.
However, this is not our definition of a stable process. (GCOMP
engineer)
– Limited willingness to actively involve established partner
• His [=CEO of OPTICS] expectations were that we would provide
financial support and that he could autonomously continue what he
intended to do…From the start, we had stressed that we were not
solely a financial partner, but that we also would play a more guiding
role. However, I think that he did not understand what this guiding role
exactly implied. (GCOMP manager)
42. Second year of OGT alliance
• GCOMP makes substantial progress in attracting
potential customers. However, industrial prototypes
remain absent
• GCOMP decides to send one engineer on a regular
basis to the facility of OPTICS to gradually influence
the activities at OPTICS
– GCOMP was not to become the driving force of the
activities because that would destroy the innovativeness at
OPTICS. On the other hand, you see that these people,
although they might be innovative, make errors that can slow
down the activities. To handle such a situation well causes
risks. Either you interfere, which may cause the innovators to
leave, or you don t, which may cause the project to result in
nothing (GCOMP manager)
43. Third year of OGT alliance
• GCOMP engineer manages to gradually
establish trustful relationship with OPTICS
engineers
– Each time that I visited them, the intensity of the
discussions was increased. In this way, I gradually
obtained their trust (GCOMP process engineer)
• GCOMP becomes more actively involved in
the technological activities, contributing to the
successful development of industrial
prototypes
44. Conclusion
• Importance of boundary spanning
individuals to bridge differences in
organizational culture
45. (2) Structural Design of
Interfirm Project
- Governance structure
(1) Innovation - Contractual design:
Context of * Formal contract
Interfirm project (complexity + content)
-Explorative * Psychological contract
versus - Organizational design
exploitative (4)
Performance
-Modular versus (3) Relational Quality of of Interfirm
architectural Interfirm Project Project
- Incremental - Degree of interfirm trust
versus radical (goodwill + competence)
- Degree of interfirm conflict
(task + relational)
- Degree of communication
46. Value Creation in
Merger & Acquisitions
• NWO Veni Grant of 250.000 euro to conduct
case study research on value creation in M&A
– How to provide the acquired unit substantial
autonomy to stay innovative and, at the same
time, implement sufficient coordination to realize
synergies?
– How does the presence/absence of prior
collaboration influences the ability to manage the
coordination-autonomy dilemma in M&A?
47. • Questions and Comments?
• Other Challenges?
• Your own experiences?
50. 50
Jullie mening
1. Samenwerking met concurrenten is een illusie
2. De markt is opportunistisch en heeft maar weinig belang
bij echt samenwerken
3. Zonder vertrouwen kun je ook samenwerken en waarde
creeren
4. Inkopers houden te veel vast aan tradtionele klant-
leveranciersrelaties
5. Je kunt pas echt samenwerken als je een gelijkwaardige
relatie hebt
6. Samenwerking is alleen te realiseren indien de belangen
van de partijen gelijk zijn
7. Je gaat alleen samenwerken indien je het niet kunt kopen
