Baarn, 23 maart 2011

BOTS “ Waardecreatie door samenwerking”

Het programma

2

Time Activities

16:30 – 17:00 Ontvangst

17:00 – 17:15 Welkom en kick-off

17:15 – 18:00 Presentatie Hans Hopmans De ruilmarkt van waarde en vertrouwen: de mismatch tussen inkopers en verkopers"

18:00 – 18:45 Presentatie Dries Faems "Het managen van waardecreatie in innovatiegerichte samenwerking: contractuele en/of relationele strategieën"

18:45 – 19:30 Discussie

19:30 – 20:30 Diner + borrel

1

2

3

4

5

6

#

Waardecreatie wat betekent dat voor jou?

3

=

Door wereldwijde veranderingen neemt het belang van samenwerking toe

4

•  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

Echter, veel organisaties vragen zich af hoe dit te organiseren

5

•  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

6

Duurzame commerciële relaties trusted value management™

Hans Hopmans, 2011

Waarom komen écht succesvolle zakelijke B2B relaties zo

moeizaam tot stand?

SW-MHB016-2003-06-12-SIR-V1 8

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

Veel inkopers en verkopers knevelen elkaar in het

machtsdenken.

WHAT is making B2B Relationships sustainable

Strategic Fit

Value Trust

Collaborative Model

The Trusted Value Model ™ Managing sustainable B2B relationships

Hans Hopmans, 2008

Mastering Time-2-Act

vertrouwen

Waardecreatie produkt + functionaliteit + toegevoegde waarde

Resultaat Wat krijg ik?

Produkten, Diensten, Services, Infrastructuur

etc.

Afhandeling Hoe krijg ik het?

Leveringsproces, Interactie, Interface

etc.

Emotie Wat voel ik erbij?

Imago, Reputatie, Experiences

etc. + +

Prijs Hoeveel kost het?

Prijs, Fluctuaties, Differentiaties,

Korting etc. Moeite

Wat moet ik ervoor doen? Tijd, energie, sores, onveiligheid

etc. +

Meer omzet

kwaliteit flexibiliteit

service innovatie

Minder kosten risico

kapitaalbeslag inspanning

tijd

Waardecreatie produkt + functionaliteit + toegevoegde waarde

1.  Sales (Product Mix x Price x Quantity)

2.  Customer Responsiveness

3.  Timely Supply (delivery & fulfilment)

4.  Transport & Distribution

5.  Quality of Products & Services

6.  Overhead Costs

7.  Operating Process / Procedures Efficiency

8.  Cost of Materials & Production

9.  Inventory

10.  Asset utilization

11.   Productivity

12.  Innovation / R&D

13.  Cash Management

14.  Risk Management

15.  Supply Chain Relationships

16.  Change/Response Ability

Waardecreatie terreinen (economic value) 1.  Verkoop (Produkt Mix x Prijs x Volume)

2.  Reactievermogen op klantwensen/-klachten

3.  Tijdige levering / nakoming afspraken

4.  Transport & distributie

5.  Kwaliteit van Produkten & Diensten

6.  Kosten van Bedrijfsvoering / ondersteunend proces

7.  Operationele werkprocessen & procedures

8.  Kosten van materialen en produktie

9.  Inventaris, voorraad

10.  Gebruik/produktiviteit van investeringen

11.   Algemene productiviteit

12.  Innovatie / Onderzoek & Ontwikkeling

13.  Geldstroom / kaspositie / werkkapitaal

14.  Risico Management

15.  Relaties / Relatiekwaliteit in de waardeketen

16.  Veranderkundigheid / Reactie-vermogen

Business trust

Economic Value +

Social Value

Vertrouwen is geen

‘soft’ issue

Competenties Karakter

Competenties know-how / skills bereikte resultaten

innovatiekracht executiekracht

verbindingskracht

Karakter integriteit / respect

consistentheid transparantheid

loyaliteit / intentie betrouwbaarheid

luisteren naar de klant /leverancier

maatschappelijke bijdrage

middellange termijn relatie

(contract termijn)

toekomstbestendige duurzame

relatie (impact termijn)

korte termijn relatie

(concurrent termijn)

geen relatie, (tenzij er geen

alternatieven zijn)

waardecreatie

vertrouwen

laag

hoog

hoog

Competentiesknow-how / skillsbereikte resultateninnovatiekrachtexecutiekrachtverbindingskracht

Karakterintegriteit / respectconsistentheidtransparantheidloyaliteit / intentiebetrouwbaarheid

luisteren naar de klant /leverancier maatschappelijke bijdrage

Trust Drivers

1. Sales (Product Mix x Price x Quantity)

2. Customer Responsiveness

3. Timely Supply (delivery & fulfilment)

4. Transport & Distribution

5. Quality of Products & Services

6. Overhead Costs

7. Operating Process / Procedures Efficiency

8. Cost of Materials & Production

Terreinen van Waardecreatie

9. Inventory

10. Asset utilization

11. Productivity

12. Innovation / R&D

13. Cash Management

14. Risk Management

15. Supply Chain Relationships

16. Change/Response Ability

Managing Sustainable B2B Relationships

Strategic Fit

Value Trust

Collaborative Model

The Trusted Value Model ® Managing sustainable B2B relationships

Hans Hopmans, 2008

Mastering Time-2-Act

Operational Effectiveness

Strategic Positioning

Run the same race faster

Choose to run a different race

=

Operational Effectiveness

Assimilating, attaining and extending best practices

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.

24"

Differrent race

Same race

Faster race

Trust level Value Impact

Shaping markets►matching strategy

Managing Sustainable B2B Relationships

Strategic Fit

Value Trust

Collaborative Model

The Trusted Value Model ® Managing sustainable B2B relationships

Hans Hopmans, 2008

Mastering Time-2-Act

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.

Baarn, 23 maart 2011

Presentatie Dries Faems

Managing value creation in R&D alliances

Dr. Dries Faems

Associate Professor, University of Twente Research Fellow, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

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

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

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)

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

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

Illustration: •  JET: High-tech SME, specialized in the development

of advanced inkjet printheads •  GRAPH: International company active in imaging

industry

Governance Level Operational Level Managerial Level

SSH Alliance

ESH Alliance

Narrow contractual interface structure

Broad contractual interface structure

Limited joint sensemaking on unexpected technological

problems

Negative goodwill trust dynamics

Extensive joint sensemaking on unexpected technological

problems

Positive goodwill trust dynamics

Rigid application of

contract

Flexible application of

contract

Contract compliance behavior

Joint sensemaking on unexpected technological problems further reduces

Negative goodwill trust dynamics

Search for qualitative solutions

Joint sensemaking on unexpected technological problems further increases

Positive goodwill trust dynamics

Negative competence trust dynamics

Lowered expectations of feasibility of project

Positive competence trust dynamics

Heightened expectations of feasibility of project

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

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.

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

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)

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)’

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

Conclusion •  Importance of boundary spanning

individuals to bridge differences in organizational culture

(1) Innovation Context of

Interfirm project

-Explorative versus exploitative

-Modular versus architectural

- Incremental versus radical

(2) Structural Design of Interfirm Project

- Governance structure

- Contractual design: * Formal contract (complexity + content) * Psychological contract

- Organizational design

(3) Relational Quality of Interfirm Project

-  Degree of interfirm trust (goodwill + competence)

-  Degree of interfirm conflict (task + relational)

-  Degree of communication

(4) Performance of Interfirm

Project

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?

•  Questions and Comments? •  Other Challenges?

•  Your own experiences?

48

Samenwerkingsvormen

De bouwstenen van iedere samenwerking

49

Jullie mening

50

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

51

Bedankt!

Stefan Schaap +31 6463 21980 s.schaap@kirkmancompany.com

Sanne Meijboom +31 6394 72045 s.meijboom@kirkmancompany.com