managing synergy in collaborative enterprises
Post on 17-Feb-2017
233 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [Texas A & M International University]On: 03 October 2014, At: 02:39Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Production Planning & Control: The Management ofOperationsPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tppc20
Managing synergy in collaborative enterprisesU. Bititci a , T. Turner a , D. Mackay a , D. Kearney c , J. Parung a & D. Walters ba Strathclyde Institute for Operations Management , DMEM, University of Strathclyde ,James Weir Building, 75 Montrose Street, Glasgow, G1 1XJ, UKb University of Western Sydney , Sydney, Australiac Supply Network Shannon , Limerick, IrelandPublished online: 23 Aug 2007.
To cite this article: U. Bititci , T. Turner , D. Mackay , D. Kearney , J. Parung & D. Walters (2007) Managing synergyin collaborative enterprises, Production Planning & Control: The Management of Operations, 18:6, 454-465, DOI:10.1080/09537280701494990
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537280701494990
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Production Planning & Control,Vol. 18, No. 6, September 2007, 454–465
Managing synergy in collaborative enterprises
U. BITITCI*y, T. TURNERy, D. MACKAYy, D. KEARNEYx, J. PARUNGy andD. WALTERSz
yStrathclyde Institute for Operations Management, DMEM, University of Strathclyde,
James Weir Building, 75 Montrose Street, Glasgow G1 1XJ, UK
zUniversity of Western Sydney, Sydney, Australia
xSupply Network Shannon, Limerick, Ireland
The purpose of the paper is to better understand the reasons behind high failure rates incollaborative enterprises. This research follows a constructive research methodology. Theexplanation phase reviews the literature to develop an understanding of the reasons behind thehigh failure rates in collaborative enterprises. The construction phase develops the synergymodel to assess readiness for collaboration. The testing phase validates the synergy model,through workshops with 11 companies. The description phase analyses the results and developsconclusions. It seems entirely possible to develop assessment frameworks to establish anorganisation’s readiness to collaborate. The results show the four perspectives of the synergymodel to be valid, thus providing an initial step towards developing a better understanding ofthe factors we need to consider to create sustainable collaborative enterprises. The results arelimited to data from 11 companies who were already engaged in a network. Further research isrequired with larger sample sizes, and with independent companies, to substantiate theconclusions. The synergy model provides an original and practical way of assessing anorganisation’s maturity towards collaboration as well as providing mechanism for facilitatinga discussion between enterprises considering collaboration.
Keywords: Collaboration; Synergy; Audit
1. Introduction and purpose
It is now an accepted fact that in the 21st century
competition will be between value-chains, which
efficiently and effectively integrate their competencies
and resources in order to compete in a global economy
(Bititci et al. 2004). Similarly the SME’2000 conference,
which was held in Bologna, concluded that
SMEs belonging to networks are often more
competitive and innovative than those operating
in isolation. When working together, SMEs can
increase their focus through specialisation in
functions that are complementary within their
networks.
In today’s global economy, companies are trying to
re-invent their businesses and maintain their competitive
advantage through collaboration. Collaborative prac-
tices, such as supply chains, value chains, extended
enterprises, virtual enterprises and clusters, are becom-
ing commonplace.Through collaboration, companies aim to share
resources, share and exchange information, reduce
risks, reduce cost, reduce time-to-market, reduce deli-
very-time, increase market-share, increase asset-utilisa-
tion, increase skills and knowledge, increase customer-
services, and so on (Lewis 1990, Kanter 1994, Huxham
1996, Parker 2000, McLaren et al. 2002, Sahay 2003).Despite the fact that collaboration has significant
benefits, earlier studies also identified a high failure rate
amongst collaborative companies (Lewis 1990, Elmuti
and Kathawala 2001, Zineldin and Bredenlow 2003).
These works identify many factors as the drivers for*Corresponding author. Email: u.s.bititci@strath.ac.uk
Production Planning and ControlISSN 0953–7287 print/ISSN 1366–5871 online � 2007 Taylor & Francis
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journalsDOI: 10.1080/09537280701494990
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tex
as A
& M
Int
erna
tiona
l Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
2:39
03
Oct
ober
201
4
success and failure, and go on to develop a betterunderstanding of the reasons behind these failures(Ohmae 1992, Kanter 1994, Das and Teng 1998,Kalmbach and Roussel 1999, Huxham and Vangen2000, Child 2001, Daniels and Radebaugh 2001).This paper explores the reasons why a large number
of collaborative enterprises fail, and goes on to developa synergy model that would increase the chances ofsuccess for future collaborative enterprises through acollaboration readiness assessment. The purpose of thepaper is to disseminate the results of the research workcarried out in order to
. Better understand the reasons behind failure ofcollaborative enterprises.
. Develop the synergy model and the correspondingmaturity model to facilitate assessment of colla-borative readiness of organisations.
. Test the use of the synergy model in a developingcollaborative enterprise in Ireland to identifypotential weaknesses and development needs.
2. Methodology
This research follows a classic constructive researchmethodology (Kasanen et al. 1993, Meredith 1993,Kaplan 1998) through the explanation, construction,testing and description phases.At first, the relevant literature is studied in detail to
develop a better understanding of the reasons behind thehigh failure rate of collaborative enterprises. Thesereasons are then categorised and aggregated, againbased on this literature, which resulted in the construc-tion of a synergy model that would increase the chancesof success for future collaborative enterprises. Againbased on the earlier findings of the research, i.e. reasonsfor failure, the synergy model was further developedinto a maturity model that could be used as an audittool to assess the collaborative readiness oforganisations.The synergy model was then tested with a newly
forming collaborative network based in Ireland. Thiswas done on a self-assessment basis through a half-dayworkshop with senior managers/owners of the partici-pating businesses. The objective of the workshop was:
1. For the participants to develop a good under-standing of the synergy model.
2. To facilitate the participants to conductan open and honest self-assessment against thesynergy model.
3. To elicit the participants’ perceptions of the levelof maturity an organisation needed to attain to beconsidered ‘ready to collaborate’.
To achieve these objectives, the workshop was
structured in two phases as follows:
Phase 1. The education phase
The research team provided an overall introduction to
collaboration and provided a definition of terminology
used to eliminate any ambiguity.Case studies on the success and failure of
collaborative enterprises were provided by the research
team, with a specific focus on the reasons behind
the failures.The facilitated discussion led to the research team
providing an overview of the reasons behind failure of
collaborative enterprises, which in turn led to the
introduction of the synergy model.
Phase 2. The self-assessment phase
Here the research team explained each criterion of
the SM and facilitated discussion around
these. Throughout, the participants were asked
to make a judgement against the following two
questions:
1. Against the criterion provided how would you
assess your maturity right now?2. What level of maturity do you think you need to
reach for the collaboration to be successful and
sustainable?
This was achieved by each participant placing an x to
mark their current maturity level and a to X indicate the
maturity level they needed to attain before they
consider themselves ready to collaborate. Where
two participants represented the same organisation,
they were asked to work as a team to make a joint
judgement.Throughout the self-assessment phase, the facilitators
were careful not to lead the participants towards a
particular judgement by having a specific discussion
about a participant’s organisation. Emphasis was placed
on ensuring that the participants understood what was
meant by each criteria and the final decision with
regards to how each participant positioned their
organisation in the maturity scale was left to the
individual’s judgement.Following the workshop, responses from the
11 companies were collated in a spreadsheet and
graphics (as illustrated in figure 2 later) were produced.
The outcome of the self-assessment process and its
results were discussed with the participants of
the exercise to assess completeness, usability and
usefulness of the tool from the perspective of
its potential users, as well as for drawing generic
conclusions.
Managing synergy in collaborative enterprises 455
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tex
as A
& M
Int
erna
tiona
l Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
2:39
03
Oct
ober
201
4
3. Background literature
3.1 What is collaboration?
Collaboration literally means working together.The term is often used when individuals or organisationswork together towards some common aim. The follow-ing are the most common definitions of collaboration:
. Joining of power between two or more companiesfrom the same or different countries in order toimplement a particular operation (Parker 1994).
. A distinct mode of organising with a positive,purposive relationship between organisations thatretain autonomy, integrity and distinct identity,and at the same time, the possibility to withdrawfrom the relationship (Cropper 1996).
. A process in which organisations exchange infor-mation, alter activities, share resources andenhance each other’s capacity for mutual benefitand a common purpose by sharing risks, respon-sibilities and rewards (Himmelman 1996).
. A positive form of working in association withothers for some form of mutual benefit (Huxham1996).
. Links between companies to create and support aservice or product for its service life, including finaldisposal (Jordan and Michel 2000).
As all the above definitions are similar to one another,the definition adopted by this research is: collaborationis a number of autonomous organisations workingtogether, pooling and sharing resources, information,systems and risk for mutual benefit.
3.2 Why do companies collaborate?
When collaborating, organisations share resources,share and exchange information and complement eachother’s weaknesses. Table 1 summarises the potentialbenefits of collaboration. Thus, collaboration provides amechanism by which risks are shared (and thusminimised) and opportunities maximised quickly bybringing together the right mix of competencies andcreating a critical mass.
3.3 Why collaborative ventures fail?
Evidently, many studies report that, although thenumber of collaborative enterprises is increasing, 70%of collaborative enterprises fail (Lewis 1990, Harbinsonand Pekar 1998, Zineldin and Bredenlow 2003).The literature contains a number of examples that
typify why collaboration fails. The most commonly
quoted examples include:
Honeywell/Ericsson (Zineldin and Bredenlow 2003). It isclaimed that collaboration between these two organisa-tions failed due to localised interests, lack of commit-ment, lack of trust and failure to understand eachother’s needs.
Ikea and its suppliers (Zineldin and Bredenlow 2003).When Ikea’s sales volume declined many of its strategicpartners in Denmark and Sweden went bankrupt.
NWA/KLM (Elmuti and Kathawala 2001, Zineldinand Bredenlow 2003). After investing $400 billion, thecollaborative was considered a failure attributed largelyto ineffective communication between the two organisa-tions. Consequently there were large losses for bothorganisations.
General Motors/Daewoo (Zineldin and Bredenlow 2003).This collaborative venture failed because of trust in therelationship and failure to understand each other’sexpectations. General Motors blamed Daewoo forinappropriate labour relations andDaewoo blamed General Motors for failure to promoteaggressively.
Volvo/Renault (Bruner and Speckman 1998, Elmuti andKathawala 2001). Failure of this collaborative venture isattributed to misalignment and lack of coordinationbetween management teams due to differences inleadership style and organisational culture.
Research to date has identified eight key reasons thatmay cause a collaborative enterprise to fail. These are:
1. Lack of commitment by one or more of the partners(Ohmae 1992, Zineldin and Bredenlow 2003). Thisis usually a symptom of one or a combination ofthe following reasons. Lack of commitment canlead to problems with trust and eventual failure ofthe relationship.
Table 1. Typical benefits of collaboration.
Reduced. . .. Risks. Costs—development, distribution, fulfilment, etc.. Time to market. Delivery time. Inventory
Increased . . .. Market share. Assets utilization. Quality. Flexibility and responsiveness. Skill and knowledge. Critical mass
Lewis 1990, Kanter 1994, Huxham 1996, Lummus and Vokurka 1999,
Stank et al. 1999, Holmberg 2000, Ireland and Bruce 2000, Parker
2000, McLaren et al. 2002, Sahay 2003.
456 U. Bititci et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tex
as A
& M
Int
erna
tiona
l Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
2:39
03
Oct
ober
201
4
2. Failure to identify a common ground (Parker 1994).Here, typically, the internal and external valueproposition of the collaborative venture has notbeen made explicit. That is, the partners cannotanswer the question: ‘What additional competitiveadvantage is the collaboration going to createand for which markets/customers and/orshareholders?’
3. Unrealistic objectives of partners (Huxham 1996).This is because, at the outset, the expectations ofeach partner had not been shared and madeexplicit.
4. Failure to fulfil objectives and needs of partners(Huxham 1996, Zineldin and Bredenlow 2003). Oneor more of the partners pull out or lose commit-ment because their expectation is not being met.This may be due to having unrealistic expectationsat the outset, but it is most commonly due to thelack of understanding of each other’s expectations.
5. Failure to focus on customers needs (Dryer et al.2001). There are instances where the unique sellingpoint and value propositions are forgotten, mainlydue to internal management difficulties of thecollaborative enterprise.
6. Focusing on individual short-term benefits ratherthan focusing on long-term benefits collectively(Zineldin and Bredenlow 2003).
7. Unfair distribution of benefits due to ignorance ofeach other’s competencies and contribution. This isexacerbated by the absence of commercial andoperational business models dealing with this issue(Gomes-Cesserres 1999, Donlon 2000, Inkpen andRoss 2001, Das et al. 2003).
8. Absence of an operational system to manage thecollaborative enterprise (Kanter 1994, Gomes-Casseres 1999, Elmuti and Kathawala 2001). Eachpartner has their own management systems, whichthey use to manage their own business. But whomanages the collaborative enterprise? It is usuallymanaged collectively. It is, therefore, critical that
management systems are in place to provide thepartners sufficient visibility to allow them tomanage the collaborative enterprise.
3.4 What are the conditions in which collaborationworks?
Porter’s (1980, 1998) work on regional industrialclusters identifies a number of conditions, whichfacilitate regional industrial competitiveness wherecluster members benefit individually. In effect, clustersare also a form of collaboration. These conditions areillustrated in figure 1 below.
In addition, previous research into team working alsoprovides some valuable insights. In effect, team workingis collaboration between the members of the team formutual benefit. In our view, a collaborative enterprise isnot so much a team of organisations than a team ofpeople. The work of MacBryde and Mendibil (2003)is particularly relevant as they classify performancefactors as:
. Teaming factors. These are factors that ask thequestion; ‘Is the team capable of working together?’Thus covering issues such as the chemistry, culture,trust, etc, between team members.
. Process factors. These are the performance objec-tives and criteria of the business process withinwhich the team is working.
. Team management factors. These are environ-mental factors within which a team has to work.It raises the question: ‘Has the management createdthe right environment for the team to work andsucceed as a team?’
4. Development of the synergy model
From the literature it seems that there are a number offactors that can cause collaborative enterprises to
FIRMSTRATEGY,STRUCTUREAND RIVALRY
DEMANDCONDITIONS
RELATED ANDSUPPORTINGINDUSTRIES
FACTORCONDITIONS
Figure 1. Porter’s diamond of factors in regional competitiveness.
Managing synergy in collaborative enterprises 457
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tex
as A
& M
Int
erna
tiona
l Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
2:39
03
Oct
ober
201
4
succeed or fail. Having reviewed the literature table 2illustrates how the ‘reasons for failure’, identified earlierin the paper, map on to Porter’s diamond (Porter 1980,1998) and the teaming performance factors (MacBrydeand Mendibil 2003).From table 2, it seems that, although there is a degree
of synergy between Porter’s diamond, team performancefactors and the reasons for failure of collaborativeenterprises, the categorisation of the reasons for failureseems to require an alternative model to aggregate,categorise and describe these reasons. Thus the fourperspectives of the synergy model:
1. Strategic synergy. To ensure that theparticipants have a common ground and thattheir individual objectives and expectationsare understood and are consistent with compe-tencies and contribution of each partner, as wellas the additional value and competitive advan-tage to be delivered through the collaboration.
2. Operational synergy. To ensure that each partner’sinternal management processes and difficulties areunderstood and resolved, and that customerfocused operational systems extend across organi-sational boundaries.
3. Cultural synergy. To ensure that the mindset,organisational culture and management styles arecompatible between partners and there is asufficient level of trust and commitment in place.
4. Commercial synergy. To ensure that the short andlong term expectations, benefits and risks areunderstood and appropriate agreements have beenput in place with regards to distribution of risks, aswell as benefits arising from collaboration.
5. The synergy model
In this section we will describe the structure and thecontents of the synergy model. In summary it comprises:
. Four perspectives, i.e. strategic, cultural, opera-tional and commercial.
. A set of assessment criteria under each heading.
. A maturity scale for each heading.
The development of the four perspectives has beenexplained in some detail in the previous section. Theassessment criteria under each heading were alsodeveloped from the literature on success and failure ofcollaborative enterprises. The reader will note that theassessment criteria presented in tables 3 to 6 closelyfollow the reasons for failure, as summarised in table 2earlier. To enable objective assessment of each criteriona five-point maturity scale has been developed specific to
each criterion. Although, due to space restrictions, it hasnot been possible to include the full details of thematurity model, the self-assessment tool can be accessedat http:\\www.smecollaborate.com. However, as arough guide, the five levels of maturity are:
1. Initial. Unpredictable or does not exist.2. Embryonic. Basic understanding of requirements
but not able to apply.3. Defined. Basic understanding of requirements and
with a basic ability to apply.4. Standardised. Requirements well understood and
competently applied.5. Optimising. Fully competent and able to demon-
strate leadership.
5.1 Strategic synergy
There are two elements to this section of the model. Thefirst part requires an organisation to be self-aware, i.e.understand its strategic and operational environment.The second part requires the organisation to becollectively aware, i.e. to understand its collaborativepartners, each partner’s objectives and expectations,what each partner is going to contribute to thecollaborative enterprise, as well as the new valueproposition of the collaborative enterprise. Table 3illustrates criterion used to assess both parts of strategicsynergy.
5.2 Operational synergy
This section of the model also comprises two parts.The first part focuses on operational processes andcontrols internal to an organisation, to ensure that itsown house is in order in the first place. The second partexplores the maturity of cross-enterprise processes toassess the ability of the organisations to coordinatetheir operational business processes beyond theirindividual boundaries. Table 4 illustrates the criterionused to assess both parts of operational synergy.
5.3 Cultural synergy
This section of the model focuses on organisational andpeople related issues and is designed to assess culturaland organisational compatibility of the partneringorganisations. Table 5 illustrates the criterion used toassess cultural synergy.
5.4 Commercial synergy
This section of the model focuses on assessing the clarityand robustness of commercial arrangements for all the
458 U. Bititci et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tex
as A
& M
Int
erna
tiona
l Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
2:39
03
Oct
ober
201
4
Table
2.Mappingoftherelevantliterature.
Commonreasonsforfailure
ofcollaborativeenterprises
Portersdiamond
(Porter
1980and1998)
Team
perform
ance
factors
(MacB
rydeandMendibil2003)
Dim
ensionsof
thesynergymodel
Commonground(Parker
1994)
Firm
Strategy,
Structure
&Rivalry
Dem
and
Cond’s
Relatedand
Supporting
Industries
Process
Factors
Team
Manag’t
Factors
Strategic
synergy
Additionalvalue(Parker
1994)
Additionalcompetitiveadvantage(Parker
1994)
Objectives
ofpartners(H
uxham
1996,
Zineldin
andBredenlow
2003)
NeedsandExpectationsofpartners
(Huxham
1996,Zineldin
andBredenlow
2003)
Competencies
andcontribution
(Gomes-C
asseres
1999,Donlon2000,
Daset
al.2003)
Customer
needs(D
ryer
etal.2001)
Operational
synergy
Managem
entdifficulties(D
ryer
etal.2001)
Operationalsystem
s(Kanter1994,Gomes-C
asseres
1999,
Elm
utiandKathawala
2001)
Operationalbusinessmodel
(Gomes-C
asseres
1999,
Donlon2000,Inkpen
andRoss
2001,
Daset
al.2003)
Commitment(O
hmae1992,Zineldin
andBredenlow
2003)
Factor
Conditions
Teaming
Factors
Cultural
synergy
Trust
(Ohmae,
1992;Zineldin
andBredenlow,2003)
Focusingonshort
term
benefits(Zineldin
andBredenlow
2003)
Commercial
synergy
Distributionofbenefits(G
omes-C
asseres
1999,Donlon2000,
Inkpen
andRoss
2001,Daset
al.2003)
Commercialbusinessmodel
(Gomes-C
asseres
1999,Donlon2000
Inkpen
andRoss
2001,Daset
al.2003)
Managing synergy in collaborative enterprises 459
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tex
as A
& M
Int
erna
tiona
l Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
2:39
03
Oct
ober
201
4
partners in the collaboration. It ensures that partnersare aware of each other’s commercial robustness andthat any agreements concerning risk, IPR and gainsharing are robust, clear and transparent. Table 6illustrates the criterion used to assess commercialsynergy.
6. Case study
The synergy model and the audit tool were applied in anetwork of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)based in the west of Ireland. The network is facilitated
by Enterprise Ireland, with a view to preparing theparticipating SMEs for collaboration, and encouragingthem to develop small collaborative enterprises—toallow them to bid for and win international contractsthey would not be able to win otherwise.
The entire network consists of 16 companies rangingfrom 10 to 700 employees in size. The authors wereengaged to conduct a workshop to educate the networkon benefits and pitfalls of collaboration and to facilitatea self-assessment workshop against the synergy modeldeveloped as part of this research. The event took placein June 2004 with 11 companies participating in the self-assessment exercise. All the participants were key
Strategic synergy - Part 1: Self-awareness
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
PEST 5-Forces SWOT Core competencies Value proposition
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
Average
Strategic Synergy - Part 2: Collective-awareness
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Objectives Yourcontribution
Partners New Value Gain sharing Strategicsynergy
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
Average
Operational synergy - Part 1:Internal processes
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Internal process Mng. Int. business processes
Int. Support systems Team-work
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
Average
Operational Synergy - Part 2: Cross-Enterprise Processes
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Management processes
Performance manag.
Extended business proc.
Cross enterprise teamworking
AB
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
Average
Cutural synergy
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
ManagementCulture
Trust &Commitment
OperationalCulture
ManagementAgility
Risk Sharing
SystemsSharing
InformationSharing
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
Average
Commercial synergy
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Commercialrobustness
Risk prevention IPR agreements Financing/funding
Gain ShareAgreements
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
Average
Figure 2. Collective self-assessment results.
460 U. Bititci et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tex
as A
& M
Int
erna
tiona
l Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
2:39
03
Oct
ober
201
4
Table 3. Assessing strategic synergy.
Maturity level
Assessment criteria 1 2 3 4 5
Strategic synergy. Part 1: Self-awareness. Awareness of global political, economic, social and technological forcesthat affect the competitiveness of the organisation.
. Global awareness of competitors, suppliers, new-entrants, substitutes,customers.
. Understanding of company’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities andthreats with respect to the PEST and competitive forces above.
. Clear understanding of the core competencies of the organisation whichare difficult to replicate.
. Clarity and focus of the value proposition.Strategic synergy. Part 2: Collective-awareness. Clear and specific views on what a company wants to get out of thecollaboration.
. Clear recognition of the competencies that the company is bringing to thepartnership.
. Clear understanding of the competencies and capabilities partners arebringing to the partnership.
. Clear understanding of the new value that will be generated through thecollaboration.
Clear views on how the new-gains and risks should be shared between thepartners.. Unanimous understanding and agreement by each partner on: Otherpartner’s objectives; partners’ contributions; new value proposition; gainsharing.
Table 4. Assessing operational synergy.
Maturity level
Assessment criteria 1 2 3 4 5
Operational synergy. Part 1: Internal processes. A clearly defined/articulated process that enables the management tomanage the performance of the internal business and support processes inline with the strategic objectives of the business.
. Clearly defined business processes for the key business processes of theenterprise, e.g. generate demand, develop product, fulfil order, supportproduct.
. Clearly defined processes for the internal support systems, e.g. HRD andM, quality systems, IT systems, financial and risk management systemsand processes.
Operational synergy. Part 2: Cross-enterprise processes. A clearly defined continuous process that facilitates strategic conversationto take place between partners ensuring that decisions are unanimous,explicit, unambiguous and locally meaningful.
. A process that provides visibility into the performance of thecollaborative enterprise. This means that some partners should be ableto look into the performance of other partners’ processes whereappropriate.
. Clearly defined business processes across the collaborative enterprise,crossing the boundaries of each partner enterprise.
. Cross enterprise team working.
Managing synergy in collaborative enterprises 461
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tex
as A
& M
Int
erna
tiona
l Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
2:39
03
Oct
ober
201
4
decision makers in their businesses, typically ownersand/or directors. The workshop followed the processdescribed earlier in this paper in section 2. Figure 2summarises the results of the self-assessment exercise forthe group of 11 companies that participated in theexercise.
7. Findings
The following paragraphs summarise the findings ofthe research and the interpretation of the data presentedin figure 2.
7.1 General findings
Even though most of the participants were able toarticulate their core competencies quite precisely, mostfound that their level of self-awareness was largely inmaturity levels 2 and 3. The participants suggested that
a minimum maturity level of 4 would be required toparticipate successfully in a collaborative venture.
With respect to collective-awareness, the maturitylevel ranged from 2 to 4—with 4 being the minimumlevel of maturity required to collaborate successfully.Most companies were quite clear about their ownobjectives from a collaborative venture (level 4) butnot quite sure of others’ objectives, motivations andcontributions (levels 2 and 3).
The maturity of internal operational systems averagedat level 3, whilst the maturity of collaborative opera-tional systems averaged at level 2—with 4 being theminimum target for both categories. In fact the maturityof collaborative operational systems was rated ratherlow, particularly with respect to having defined extendedbusiness processes.
The cultural maturity of the organisations rangedbetween levels 1 to 4—with level 3 being the average.Once again, level 4 was identified as the minimum levelof maturity required to collaborate successfully.
Table 5. Assessing cultural synergy.
Maturity level
Assessment criteria 1 2 3 4 5
Cultural synergy. Management culture and style: Level of compatibility of senior manage-ment culture and behaviour between the partners.
. Trust and commitment: The level of trust and commitment at seniormanagement levels between partner organisations.
. Operational culture: Level of compatibility of operational culture andbehaviour between
. Management agility/responsiveness: Capability and flexibility for rapidchange of processes, responsibilities, structures, etc., between partners.
. Risk sharing: Level of risk partners that are prepared to share.
. Systems sharing: The level of systems the partners are prepared to share.
. Information sharing: The level of information the partners are preparedto share . . . e.g. V high, IP, market intelligence; Med, commercial andperformance data; Low, training, suppliers.
Table 6. Assessing commercial synergy.
Maturity level
Assessment criteria 1 2 3 4 5
Commercial synergy. Commercial robustness: The clarity and transparency of the financialposition of each partner.
. Risk prevention: The availability, clarity and robustness of a riskmanagement strategy.
. IPR agreements: The availability of IPR agreements.
. Financing/funding: The clarity and transparency of financing/fundingarrangements to all partners.
. Gain share agreement: The availability, clarity and transparency of anagreement on how the gains are to be shared.
462 U. Bititci et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tex
as A
& M
Int
erna
tiona
l Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
2:39
03
Oct
ober
201
4
Similarly, commercial maturity also rangedbetween levels 1 and 4—with 3 being the average.However, in this case the minimum level of maturityrequired is highlighted as 5 in order to collaboratesuccessfully.
7.2 Specific findings
The data suggest that the participating companies havedeveloped a slightly higher level of strategic synergy(2.95) compared with the cross-enterprises operationalsynergy they have developed (2.23). The likely reasonbehind this is that the companies, being part of aformalised network, already knew of each other’sbusiness and had been talking about collaboration atthe network meetings for approximately 9 months.Thus, they had developed a better understanding of eachother’s businesses, competencies, contribution and soon. In contrast, they had not developed a cross-enterprise operational synergy, as they had not identi-fied an opportunity to collaborate, thus having tounderstand and develop cross-enterprise operations inany great depth.Company F was already in a successful collaborative
relationship with another company that was not one ofthe participants. This collaboration, company F and itspartner (another SME in the west of Ireland), werecollaborating to supply completely assembled interiorlighting units to the Swedish automotive industry,whereas the other participants in the workshop werenot involved in a collaborative venture of similarintensity. This, therefore, explains F’s relatively higherdegree of collaborative maturity in all areas. However,F’s management does not seem to be as confident oftheir maturity in cultural and commercial issues com-pared with strategic and operational issues. This may bethat, as they have experienced collaboration, they cansee greater opportunities to improve in these areas.With respect to strategic synergy, at the outset
the research team predicted that a low score in Part 1(i.e. self awareness) would automatically affect thePart 2 (i.e. collective awareness) score, in that the teamdid not expect to see a collaborative-awareness scorehigher than a self-awareness score. The data shows thisnot to be the case. Companies A, B, H, J and K all showgreater collaborative-awareness than self-awareness.Only company C shows a lower level of collaborative-awareness. This phenomenon may be explained in oneof two ways:
1. There is no dependency between self-awarenessmaturity and collective-awareness maturity. Thismay be due to the fact that some companies mayfeel that they do not have sufficient information
relating to their own strategic orientation but theyhave sufficient information relating to others’objectives, competencies, contributions, and so on.
2. There is indeed a strong link between the two.Low-maturity in one’s own strategic orientation(self-awareness) may lead to a rather naı̈ve self-assessment of one’s collective-awareness.
Unlike strategic synergy, under the heading of opera-tional synergy, the internal management systems seem tohave higher levels of maturity compared with cross-enterprise management systems. This result is as predic-ted by the research team. As most of the organisationsfeatured operate to formalised management systems,such as ISO9000 or similar, they show relatively higherdegrees of internal operational synergy but thesepractices do not cross organisational boundaries.
8. Conclusions
This paper has reviewed the reasons behind high failurerates of collaborative enterprises. It has classified thesereasons under four generic headings: Strategic, opera-tional, cultural and commercial. It then went on tointroduce the synergy model developed to provide anaudit tool to facilitate the assessment of an organisa-tion’s, or a number of organisations’, readiness tocollaborate.
The synergy model was applied in a collaborativenetwork with 11 SMEs participating in the exercise. Theself-assessment exercise concluded that:
. In order to collaborate successfully a maturity levelof 4 or 5 would need to be achieved by eachparticipating organisation.
. All of the participating organisations were short ofthe required maturity levels with most averaging atlevels 2 and 3.
. Companies who have already collaborated success-fully are likely to have higher maturity levels.
. The format of the audit tool is considered to beusable and results can be obtained quite quickly.
. All participants have considered the self-assessmentexercise a useful activity with the results helping tofocus on the key issues each enterprise needs toaddress, in order to be ready to collaborate. Thus, itis a useful tool for formulating development plans.
. The synergy model and the audit tool, whilst beingvalid, would require further trails and amendmentsin order to prove its completeness.
It seems that it is entirely possible to develop assess-ment or audit frameworks to establish an organisation’sreadiness to collaborate. Furthermore, companies
Managing synergy in collaborative enterprises 463
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tex
as A
& M
Int
erna
tiona
l Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
2:39
03
Oct
ober
201
4
and networks are quite prepared to participate inself-assessment exercises in order to understand their
own strengths, weaknesses and development needs. In
fact the audit tool provides a useful mechanism
to facilitate the necessary conversations between
companies who are about to embark on a collaborative
venture.The results of the research presented here is limited in
two ways. First, the synergy model and the audit tool
developed have only been tested in an environmentwhere the participants, having used the model and the
tool, provided their opinions on their completeness,
usefulness and usability. Further longitudinal research
will be required to further test and validate the model.
Secondly, the validation has been based on a single
experiment with only 11 companies participating. It will
be necessary to use this model in other settings with
different cultural characteristics and so to develop a
better understanding of the relative remits and limita-
tions of the model and the audit tool.In conclusion, the work presented in this paper
provides an initial step toward developing a better
understanding of the factors we need to consider to
create sustainable and successful collaborative
enterprises.
References
Bititci, U.S., Martinez, V., Albores, P. and Parung, J.,Creating and managing value in collaborative networks.Int. J. Phys. Distrib. & Logist. Manage., 2004, 34(3/4), 251.
Bruner, R. and Spekman, R., The dark side of alliances:Lessons from Volvo-Renault. Euro. Manage. J., 1998, 16(2),136–150.
Child, J., Trust—The fundamental bond in global collabora-tion. Org. Dynam.s, 2001, 29(3), 274–288.
Cropper, S., Collaborative working and the issue sustain-ability. In Creating Collaborative Advantage, edited byC. Huxhan, 1996 (SAGE Publications Ltd: London).
Daniels, D.J. and Radebaugh, L.H., International Business,9th ed., 2001 (Prentice-Hall Inc.: Upper Saddle River).
Das, T. K. and Teng, B.-S., Resource and risk management inthe strategic alliance making process. J. Manage., 1998,24(1), 21–42.
Das, S., Sen, P.K. and Sengupta, S., Strategic alliances: Avaluable way to manage intellectual capital? J. Intel. Capital,2003, 4(1), 10–19.
Donlon, J.P., Monster under the bed. Chief Executive, 2000,162, 62–68.
Dryer, J.H., Kale, P. and Singh, H., How to make strategicalliances work.MIT Sloan Manage. Rev., 2001, 42(4), 37–43.
Elmuti, D. and Kathawala, Y., An overview of strategicalliances. Manage. Deci., 2001, 39(3), 205–218.
Gomes-Casseres, B., Competing in constellations: Acid test ofyour alliance strategy, in Annual Summit of the Associationof Strategy Alliance Professionals, Chicago, 1999.
Harbinson, J.R. and Pekar, P., Smart Alliances, 1998 (CA:Booz, Allen and Hamilton Business Press: San Francisco).
Himmelman, A.T., Rationales and contexts for collaboration.In Creating Collaborative Advantage, 1996 (SAGEPublications Ltd: London).
Holmberg, S., A system perspective on supply chain measure-ment. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. & Logist., 2000, 30(10), 847–868.
Huxham, C., Collaboration and collaborative advantage.In Creating Collaborative Advantage, 1996 (SAGEPublications Ltd: London).
Huxham, C. and Vangen, S., Leadership in the shaping andimplementation of collaboration agendas: how thingshappen in (not quite) joined-up world. Acad. Manage. J.,2000, 43(6), 1159–1175.
Inkpen, A.C. and Ross, J., Why do some strategic alliancespersist beyond their useful life? Calif. Manage. Rev., 2001,44(1), 132–148.
Ireland, R. and Bruce, R., CPFR: Only the beginning ofcollaboration. Supp. Chain Manage. Rev., 2000, September/
October, 80–88.Jordan Jr, J.A. and Michael, F.J., Next GenerationManufacturing: Methods and Techniques, 2000 (John Wiley& Sons Inc.: New York, NY).
Kalmbach, C. and Roussel, C., Dispelling the myths ofalliances. Outlook Special Edition, 1999, October, 5–32.
Kanter, R.M., Collaborative advantage: The art of alliances.Harvard Busi. Rev., 1994, 72(4), 86–108.
Kaplan, R.S., Innovative action research: creating newmanage-ment theory and practice. J.Manage. Acc. Res., 1998, 10, 118.
Kasanen, E., Lukka, K. and Siitonen, A., The constructiveapproach in management accounting research. J. Manage.Acc. Res., 1993, 5, 243–264.
Lewis, J.D., Partnerships for Profit: Structuring andManaging Strategic Alliances, 1990 (The Free Press:New York, NY).
Lummus, R.R. and Vokurka, R.J., Managing the demandchain through managing the information flow: capturing‘moments of information’. Prod. & Invent. Manage. J., 1999,First quarter, 16–20.
MacBryde, J. and Mendibil, K., Designing performancemeasurement systems for teams: theory and practice.Manage. Deci., 2003, 41(8), 722–733.
McLaren, T., Head, M. and Yuan, Y., Supply chaincollaboration alternatives: Understanding the expectedcost and benefits. Internet Res.: Electron. NetworkingApplic. & Policy, 2002, 12(4), 348–364.
Meredith, J., Theory building through conceptual methods.Int. J. Op. & Prod. Manage., 1993, 13, 3–11.
Ohmae, K., Transnational Management, 1992 (Richard IrwinInc.: Chicago).
Parker, N., Managing the Search for Partners.In Collaboration Management: New Project andPartnering Techniques, 1994 (John Wiley & Sons: NewYork, NY).
Parker, H., Inter-firm collaboration and the new productdevelopment process. Indust. Manage. & Data Syst., 2000,100(6), 255–260.
Porter, M.E., Competitive Advantage, 1980 (Free Press:New York, NY).
Porter, M.E., Clusters and the new economics ofcompetition. Harvard Busi. Rev., 1998, November/
December, 77–90.Sahay, B.S., Supply chain collaboration: The key to valuecreation. Work Study, 2003, 52(2), 76–83.
464 U. Bititci et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tex
as A
& M
Int
erna
tiona
l Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
2:39
03
Oct
ober
201
4
Stank, T.P., Dougherty, P.J. and Autry, C.W., Collaborativeplanning: supporting automatic replenishment programs.Supp. Chain Manage., 1999, 4(2), 75–85.
Zineldin, M. and Bredenlow, T., Strategic alliances: Synergiesand challenges. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. & Logist. Manage.,2003, 33(5), 449–464.
Professor Umit Bititci is Director of The Strathclyde Institute for Operations Management and theProfessor of Technology and Enterprise Management at the University of Strathclyde. He has over20 years of academic and industrial experience working with a range of UK, European and Asiancompanies on Business Transformation, Strategy Management, Performance Measurement, SupplyChain Management and Business Process Improvement. Umit has been responsible for a number ofEuropean and UK funded research and development programmes. To date Umit has published threeedited books and over 140 papers in international journals and conferences.
Joniarto Parung is a Senior Lecturer of Industrial Engineering and Postgraduate School ofUniversity of Surabaya, Indonesia. He holds a Masters degree from ITB Bandung, Indonesia and aPhD from University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK. He has published and presented some of hisresearch and has delivered invited seminars in Glasgow, Singapore, Fontainebleau, Beijing,Allahabad/India and around Indonesia.
Trevor Turner is a Senior Research Fellow in the Centre for Strategic Manufacturing at theUniversity of Strathclyde. He spent 27 years in manufacturing industry in a variety of roles prior toentering academia eleven years ago. He is now using this experience to develop approaches that canbe used to improve and sustain the performance of manufacturing organisations in collaborationwith industrial partners.
David Walters is Professor of Logistics and Supply Chain Management at the Institute of Transportand Logistics Studies at the University of Sydney. He has published a number of textbooks inbusiness and marketing subjects, the most recent Strategic Operations Management: A Value ChainApproach. In addition to his wide teaching experience he has acted as a consultant for a number ofinternational companies.
Denis Kearney is an independent provider of support services to industry with a focus on innovationand collaboration. Denis has led several EU projects across programmes such as BRITE, ESPRIT,IMS, INNOVATION, Leonardo da Vinci and LIFE Environment. He previously managed theAMT Ireland Centre at the University of Limerick for Enterprise Ireland. Denis is the author of theworkbook Collaborating in Business—Delivering Results for Small Organisations.
Dave Mackay is a research fellow in DMEM and a member of the Strathclyde Institute forOperations Management. Dave graduated from the University of Strathclyde in 2000 with an MEngwith distinction in Manufacturing Sciences and Engineering and a diploma in business management.Dave joined Procter and Gamble’s Product Supply division in Seaton Delaval as a productionprocess engineer and subsequently fulfilled project engineering and manufacturing managementroles. In 2005, Dave returned to Glasgow to project manage Competitive Scotland in DMEM at theUniversity of Strathclyde. Since then, Dave has worked with over fifty manufacturing organisationshelping them improve performance. Dave’s research focuses on developing an integrated approachto managing people and systems to deliver sustainable performance improvement.
Managing synergy in collaborative enterprises 465
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tex
as A
& M
Int
erna
tiona
l Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
2:39
03
Oct
ober
201
4
top related