pro-ve 11 - special panel session on next generation collaborative networked organizations

Next Generation Collaborative Networked Organizations3rd Edition -Special Panel Session

Special Session Organizing Committee

David Romero (ITESM, Mexico City), Ricardo Rabelo (UFSC, Brazil), Alexandra Klen (Axia),Leandro Loss (Axia), Arturo Molina (ITESM, Mexico City), Fabiano Baldo (UFSC, Brazil),

PRO-VE’11São Paulo, Brazil , 17-19 October 2011

3rd Edition SPECIAL PANEL SESSION ON

Towards the Next Generation Collaborative Networked Organizations: International Challenges, Trends and Research Opportunities

“Value Co-creation & Co-Innovation Strategies in Collaborative Networks: Emergence in different Industrial Domains”

Universidade Federal

De Santa Catarina

CNOsCase Studies

SIG

copyright 2011


• Foreword– David Romero, Panel Chair

• Aims and Scope• Presentations:

– Panelist 1: FAGOR GROUP´s Innovation Network, Spain• Luis Berasategi and Xabier Gorritxategi

– Panelist 2: Dynamic and Collaborative Business Networks in the Fashion Industry, Italy &Portugal

• Ahm Shamsuzzohaa, Timo Kankaanpaaa, Luis Maia Carneiro, Ricardo Almeida, Andrea Chiodi, andRosanna Fornasiero

– Panelist 3: Griffith University School of Information and Communication Technology, Australia• Ovidiu Noran

– Panelist 4: The Portuguese Via-verde Case Integrated Mobility Services, Portugal• Luís Osório

– Panelist 5: Evaluation of Collaborative Networks: Case Study of Brazilian Virtual Enterprises,Brazil

• Paulo Stecklow, Ralfh Varges Ansuattigui, Antonio José Caulliraux Pithon– Panelist 6: VIRTUAL CITY ERP NETWORK: A common ICT platform for enhacging buiness

collaboration, Colombia• Manuel Fajardo

– Panelist 7: Aprovale e Aprobelo, Brazil• Rolando V. Vallejos, Kadígia Faccin, Janina Macke

• Discussion Questions• Conclusions• Acknowledgements• Event Pictures

Index

copyright 2011


Foreword

Continuing the success of the 1st and 2nd Special Panel Session on “Next GenerationCollaborative Networked Organizations: International Challenges, Trends & ResearchOpportunities”, as part of PRO-VE 2009 and PRO-VE 2010 - Working Conference on VirtualEnterprises; this year for 3rd time in a roll, the special panel session took place as part ofPRO-VE 2011 edition, offering academics and industrials the opportunity to continue studyingcurrent collaborative practices in emerging and established Collaborative NetworkedOrganizational forms in the market and society.The case studies presented in this third e-book are intended to keep providing a set of realpractical examples of Collaborative Networks manifestations in different domains andapplication environments, serving both the purpose of capitalizing on successful valueco-creation and co-innovation strategies as well as drawback approaches in order to helpnetwork managers to improve their strategic planning and management towards moreeffective and efficient processes to generate value and innovate in collaborative endeavors.As the Collaborative Networks scientific discipline continues contributing with innovativeand competitive concepts, methods, models and tools to different research and businesspractice communities to cope and respond to major challenges in times of economicturbulence and rapid societal changes, documenting and disseminating how this large bodyof empirical knowledge is being strategize (instantiated from theory to practice) by industrialgenerals becomes a must to gather all possible contributions from successful and non-successful strategies to develop better reference models and toolkits to support collaboration.Main conclusions reached during this lively interactive forum appointed in the direction of keepmoving the experimentation beyond academic laboratories (theory) into living labs (practice)to put into real test all collaborative theoretical innovations, and this e-book stands for a thirdeffort in this path after the publication of the first and second e-books in 2009 and 2010.

David Romero, Panel Chair

copyright 2011


• The panel session was organized with the intention of sharing not just successfulCNO case studies stories, but also non-successful ones, aiming to makethe most of their positive and drawback experiences and lessons learnedfrom a group of practitioners for the establishment and management ofthe Next Generation Collaborative Networked Organizations.

• During the panel session, the audience and the panelists developed a betterunderstanding on the current issues on creating and managing collaborativenetworks in different domains and applications environments, and togethercrafted potential solutions to face these challenges based on all the participants’knowledge and experience.

• The panel session covered different regional manifestations of collaborativenetworks, introducing a number of successful and non-successful industrialcases that have been studied from both theoretical and practical perspectivesin order to capitalize on best practices and common errors (experiences)towards an enhanced collaborative networks strategic planning and operationmanagement.

Panel Aims and Scope

copyright 2011


Luis Berasategi: Innovation Researcher & [email protected] S. Coop.

Xabier Gorritxategi: Innovation [email protected]

FAGOR S. Coop.

FAGOR GROUP´sInnovation Network


copyright 2011


My professional background:• Engineer … and frustrated musician.• Since 2001, in IKERLAN´s Strategic Innovation.

My real job:1. Make new friends with the innovation staff of the company.2. Think up good questions that help my new friends to find

good answers.3. ‘Know who knows’, contact them and introduce to my new

friends.4. Organize happenings to meet all these people.

Panelist Short Biography

Our blog• Blog: http://redesdeinnovacion.net/

copyright 2011


• Introduction

• Network Overview

• Network Creation

• Network Operation

• Network Management

• Conclusions

Agenda

copyright 2011


Introduction (1/3)

FAGOR´s HistoryA cooperative group called Fagor founded more than 55 years ago,

a true social innovation, and a revolution at the time.

ECONOMICAL BENEFIT + SOCIAL BENEFIT

FAGOR´S Mission

A European group, made up of peoplecommitted

to offering innovative products

to improve the quality of life ofpeople in the Home

solutions

copyright 2011


Introduction (2/3)

copyright 2011


Introduction (3/3)

• Lowering of retail prices

• Increase in prices of raw materials

• Concentration of the distribution

• Loss of negotiating power

• Appearance of Low Cost manufacturers

• Manufacturers moving to Low Cost Countries

• Slow-down of Western European markets

Sector context:

copyright 2011


Business group made up of 210 companies 7th in the ranking in

Spain

Network Overview (1/3)

Billing€ 10.459 million

Near 90.000 workers

copyright 2011


ElectronicsDesign,Interaction design

GasElectronics, Thermodynamics, Vibrations and noise, Mechanical Engineering, Nutrition, Design, Interaction design,Technology

Hobs, Top loading Washing-machines, Tumble dryers, Dishwashers, Ovens, Microwave ovens, Extractor hoods

Kitchens, Front loading Washing-machines, Top loading Washing-machines

Cooling, Front loading Washing-machines, Dishwashers, Ovens, cookware, Comfort, Furniture

Products


FR PLSP

Anthropology

Home solutions

Knowledge

copyright 2011



FAGORGROUPInnovationNetwork

copyright 2011


Network Creation (1/4)

axis1: axis2:

axis3: axis4:

our networked collaborativeinnovationsystem

based on a practical and open methodology adapted to our needs

cross & international

efficient & open

multi-product, multi-technology &multi-competence

Home appliances & Home solutions

copyright 2011



®TALAI-SAREA REFERENCE MODEL

®TALAI-SAREA METHODOLOGY

INTERVENTIONS DIRECTORY

INNOVATION CNO ACTIVITY MODEL

INNOVATION CNO ACTOR MODEL

copyright 2011



THE COLLABORATION SPACE

THE DNA OF THE COLLABORATIVE INNOVATION

THE RESULTS MEASUREMENTTHE RESULTS

MEASUREMENTTHE STRATEGIC ORIENTATIONTHE STRATEGIC ORIENTATION

THE ORCHESTATION OF INNOVATION CNOTHE ORCHESTATION OF INNOVATION CNO

THE INNOVATION FACTORY

INNOVATION CNO ACTIVITY MODEL

copyright 2011



INNOVATION CNO ACTOR MODEL

copyright 2011


Network Operation (1/2)

copyright 2011



KNOWLEDGE AREASKNOWLEDGE PARTNERSHIP

VBE: INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

WHAT MUST WE KNOW ?

WHO KNOWS?

PVC

VT

VO

BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES

IDEA CONCEPTSPATENTS

PRODUCT CONCEPTSPRODUCT PROTOTYPES

PVC: KNOWLEDGE AREAS INTELLIGENCE

RESEARCH & EXPLORE

SIGNSINTERPRET

VO: PRODUCT INNOVATION

PROJECT DEVELOP

CONTINUE/HOLD/KILL DECIDE

VT: NEW CONCEPT IDEATION

IDEATE ASSESS & CHOOSE

copyright 2011



FGiF: Innovation Forum

FGiC: Innovation Committee

INTRA Innovation Network Orchestration

BGiC: BG Innovation Committee (each BG)

FGkA: KA Coordination Meeting (each KA)

IF

IFIF

IF

copyright 2011


KIpB: Knowledge Intensive partners board

BGsP: Business Group strategic partnership


INTER Innovation Network Orchestration

IF

IFIF

IFFGiF: Innovation Forum





copyright 2011


KIpB: Knowledge Intensive partners board

BGsP: Business Group strategic partnership


LLmB: Living Lab management board

INTER Innovation Network Orchestration

IF

IFIF

IFFGiF: Innovation Forum





PERSON OPEN channels Orchestration

CAsN: Cooper-Activistas Social network

copyright 2011


Which main lessons have been learned as a CNO/VBE manager?

• The fundamentals of the strategy should be transparent to the members ofthe CNO to leverage resources and intentions.

• An efficient and not excessively bureaucratized focus is needed when deployingthe Governance mechanisms, while bearing in mind that orchestration must be anever-ending task throughout the existence of the CNO.

• To create and strengthen ties and relationships with agents outside the organizationavoid hiperconectivity and promote decentralization permitting “free-radicals”, peoplethat mistrust bureaucracy but believe in what they do, to act with independence.

• To manage very different cultures respecting openness and collaboration ininnovation within the CNO (among countries, among BGs, between BGs and KAs,among partners, etc.) requires leadership.

Network Management (1/4)

copyright 2011


Which managerial best practices have been adopted along the CNO/VBE life?

• The project team, led by the Innovation Director with the support of a processfacilitator, which coordinates interventions for the deployment of the CNO. Also helps tobuild a sense of partnership and cooperation, by fostering an atmosphere of trustand collaboration amongst network actors in the various scenarios.

• The framework serves to bring order to all the networked activities and actors withan integrated vision and permits us to share a common language amongstpartners.

• The interventions are small and rapid actions that have been launched early andcontinually throughout the life of the project. They are iterative and incremental withthe emphasis on laying the foundations of the Innovation CNO operation.

• The development of managerial tools has enhance efficiency as:1) the innovation roadmap; and 2) the innovation portfolio


copyright 2011


What problems are you facing in the administration of your CNO/VBE?

Solutions orientation requires new knowledge & new actorsIntra-entrepreneurs supported by general managerNew resources allocationEmpowerment of “Free radicals” inside/outside the organizationBusiness Model innovation

Non linear process and non tangible assetsCommon language setting and useInnovation activities and actors recognition and integrationAll produced assets in the innovation portfolioNetworked Innovation scorecard (to improve)

High complexity of the network:Network of network design and maintenance (to improve)Templates and ways of doing kept under the same format to enhance efficiency.Logic and flexibility focus

IP management with partnersClear and shared IP strategies definition (on going)Lawyers intervention


copyright 2011


What problems are you envisaging in the administration of your CNO/VBE?

• What happens if the leader goes? How to maintain necessary skills in the CNO?


Comprehensive set of skills. How to implement OI. Mortara et al, 2009

copyright 2011


Where it is headed the FAGOR GROUP´s Innovation Network in the future?

• Sustenance:• of non-stop orchestration activities oriented to effectiveness and results.

• Enhancement:• of buy-in of the general framework from the intra-organizational network.• of trust amongst all agents from the inter-organizational network.

• Transformation:• from a product oriented organization to a solution oriented organization.• from a firm-centric organization to a person-centric organization.

Conclusions

copyright 2011


Ahm Shamsuzzohaa, Timo Kankaanpaaa, *Luis Maia Carneiro, Ricardo Almeida, Andrea Chiodi, Rosanna Fornasiero

[email protected]

University of Vaasa, Finland; INESC Porto, Portugal; Synesis Consortium, Italy; CNR-ITIA, Italy

Dynamic and Collaborative Business Networks in the Fashion Industry


copyright 2011


Agenda

• Business Case 1: Textile and Apparel

• Business Case 2:Footwear

• The Net-Challenge Framework

• Conclusions

copyright 2011


Business Case 1: Textile and Apparel

• Network members (initial situation):

copyright 2011



• Context- This business is related with the production of uniforms

that are made of three pieces of clothing.• Members of the Business Community (12 members):

• Concept and production- Engineer-to-Order

- Objectives- To produce thousands of pieces;- To respect functional and technical aspects;- To get good prices and the best delivery dates.

Fabric(Riopele)

Dying(1)

Logistics(3)

Manufacturing(3)

Components(3)

Garment design(RFS)

copyright 2011



• Relations between members:– Customer supplier in the begining, evolving to higher levels of

collaboration.

• Governance model:– Riopele is assuming the coordination of the Business

Community and its operating costs.

• New members:– New members are carefully selected to join the community.– Members have to be qualified before they can be selected for

critical operations. Qualification information can be shared.

copyright 2011



Form Phase

Goal:• To create a quotation for a Business Opportunity;• One VO is created for each Business Opportunity.

Actions:To define main activities and its dependencies;Collaborative planning assumes a critical role;To establish the characteristics for each activity:

– Starting date and finish date;– Partial deliveries;– Responsible partner;– Price.

Critical Partners:Fabric Partner, Printing Partner (Dying), Manufacturer.

copyright 2011



Adopted methods and tools (from the Net-Challenge

framework)

NetX-TechFashion

Share ideas

Share documents

and technical files

Exchange user to user messages

Promote forums and

blogs

Organize physical meetingsPublish

and promote

the business

Classify and organize

major partners

Collaborative planning

Monitoring & Event

management

Performance management

copyright 2011



Performance Management

Key Success Factors:• Lead Time;• Response time to quotations;• On-time delivery;• Cost;• Quality.

Key Performance Indicators:• Percentage of on-time deliveries;• Lead time;• Response time (time needed to produce a customer quotation in response to

a request for quotation);• Quantity promised;• Quality (in the material, in the final product);• Percentage of rejections.

copyright 2011


Business Case 2: Footwear

• Today the footwear market requires more and more highvalue products where aesthetic and functional featuresneed to be merged together.

• Production of high value added shoes in terms of comfort,healthy and sustainability requires skilled and experiencedactors to be involved along the whole value chain.

• Need of flexible networks to answer to many small orders–lot 1.

• Footwear production is very much modularized and SMEsare collaborating and adapting production to the needs.

copyright 2011



Synesis can offer to its customers a full support over the complete lifecycle of footwear, starting from conception to production and distribution.

Focus is on global market for customized products:• Product customization is based not only on style but also on structure of

the product.

• Special attention is given to customization aspect that strongly depends onmorphological differences, e.g. body measures and proportions.

Specific target groups are: fashion shoes, healthy and personalizedshoes.

Italian Converter is a fabric provider which can be both:• Supplier of Synesis - when Synesis has to produce a shoe collection in

ETO scenario for a customer.

• Customer of Synesis - when Italian Converter has to test some fabric to see its applicability in the footwear sector.

copyright 2011



EXTENDED ENTERPRISE

SYNTHETIC MATERIAL SUPPLIERS

LEATHER SUPPLIERS

(TANNERIES)

EXTERNAL DESIGNERSLAST

MAKERS

DESIGN

MANUFACTURING

PACKAGING

FACTORY

CAD/CAM/CAE

FINISHING &

PACKAGING

STITCHING

DISTRIBUTION NETWORK

CUSTOMERS

LASTING & INJECTION MOULDING

COMPONENT MANUFACTURERS

CUTTING

LAST MAKERS

FOOTWEAR PRODUCERS,

STYLISTS

CAD-CAM SUPPLIERSMATERIAL SUPPLIERS

Italian Converter

SOLE, INSOLE, ACCESSORIES SUPPLIERS

ERP, PDM SUPPLIERS

MACHINE TOOL BUIDERS

REGISTERED CONSUMERS

INTEGRATED PRODUCER

Synesis

The companies of the business case in the overall scenario...

copyright 2011



Needs of the companies:

• Objectives– Sharing information and data on product and components both

during design and production.– Increase speed in comunication among different partners

producing different components.– Increase flexibility during operations to answer quickly to customer

requests.

• New members in VO are invited to the BC by members already inthe community.

• Performance management of partners to be monitored.

copyright 2011



Screenshot of the Product Concept Module:

General info on the product

Detailed info on components

copyright 2011



ETO scenario – Form VO – description of components:

copyright 2011



ETO scenario – Operate VO – Deploy order duringmanufacturing process:

copyright 2011



CTO -Make a product variant:

• Making a customized productvariant basically depends onthe need of specific customerrequirement.

• Customer can configureda variant through selectingcomponent/feature fromthe basic platform. In makinga product variant, VO brokercalculate the price and leadtime and send the quotationto the customer.

copyright 2011



• Benefits:– Shorter response times.– Flexibility.– Easy access to information from different user. – Shared environment where to find. – Synesis, in its role of “innovation supporter” for SMEs could.

help them to use such a platform.

• Barriers/difficulties:– Low IT background in SMEs.

copyright 2011


Net-Challenge Framework

copyright 2011


Focus in the Development ofMethods and Tools

• Complex products:– Large number of components and/or– Customized products.

• Non-hierarchical networks:– No single organization dictating or defining the rules.– Collaborative decision making.– Where SMEs can avoid getting their margins squeezed by large

companies in traditional supply chains.

• Examples of non-hierarchical networks:– Business Communities that are not controlled by a large company.– Virtual Organizations where several organizations share the risk

and the decision making process.– Different organizations coordinate different VOs (projects).

copyright 2011


NET-CHALLENGE: ICT Platform

Business Community Management

VO Formation and Operations Management

Collaborative Planning

Monitoring and

Event Management

Perform

ance M

anagement

PartnerSearch Product

Platform & CTO

ProductConcept

&BOM

copyright 2011


Community management and Collaborative planning

copyright 2011


Event management

copyright 2011


Product configurator

copyright 2011


Conclusions and Future Developments

• Business Communities were promoted to allow SMEs to Form VOsto respond to market opportunities and avoid the dominance of largecompanies.

• The ICT tools allow the quick and easy creation and operation of suchVOs.

• Specific scenarios for ETO and CTO were developed for complexproducts design and manufacturing.

• A product configurator was used to facilitate the configuration andcustomization of products.

• In the analysed cases the qualification of the claimed capabilitiesby community members or independent entities was consideredan important factor.

copyright 2011


Ovidiu [email protected]

Griffith UniversityBrisbane, QLD Australia

Griffith UniversitySchool of Information and

Communication Technology


copyright 2011


• Dr. Ovidiu Noran is a lecturer at Griffith University (IT, Enterprise Architecture).• He is a Structural and Civil Engineer, Master of Info & Com Technology and

has a PhD in Enterprise Architecture.

• 10 years commercial experience in building and IT consultancy.

• 7 years teaching / research in IS / IT / Enterprise Architecture.

• Author of several book / chapter / journal / conference publications on CNOs.

• Member in program committees, professional associations, standardizationcommittees.

• Interested in developing methods to create specific methods for the creationand operation of CNOs and their VOs in various areas: manufacturing,environment, disaster management, etc.

• Other areas of interest: service oriented architectures and interoperability,knowledge management, serious games application to Enterprise Architecture.


copyright 2011


This case study presents the application of Collaborative Network (CN)and Virtual Organisation (VO) concepts in the tertiary education sector.Although the scenario presented does not fit completely in the currentdefinitions of these concepts, adopting CN and VO concepts hassignificantly benefitted the project.

Contents:

• Network Overview

• Network (and VO) Creation

• Network (and VO) Operation

• Network (and VO) Management

• Conclusions

Introduction

copyright 2011


Griffith University comprises several schools located at differentgeographical locations. The School of Information and CommunicationTechnology (ICT) within Griffith University comprises three members(previously within a Faculty of IT, now dissolved) situated in threelocations. Griffith University schools act as a Collaborative Network thatis able to create Virtual Schools such as the School of ICT.

Network Overview

Loc1 Loc3

Loc2

ICT VS

F

Uni (CN)

Loc4A

B

C G

IH

D

E

copyright 2011


Collaborative Network Creation Reasons

• To meet changing conditions, there was a need to create preparednesswithin the Faculty and University to offer multidisciplinary / combinedprograms.

• This should happen promptly when an opportunity is present.

• The organisation (‘school’) offering the programs should look like asingle unit from outside (single point of contact, public image, etc.).


CONCLUSION: There was a need to create a structure similar toa Collaborative Network creating Virtual Organisations with variouslife durations to meet opportunities in tertiary education.

copyright 2011


ICT Virtual School Creation Reasons

Pre-Virtual School situation: three organisations with similar profile andunder same Faculty and the University ‘umbrella’, however:

• products (programs, courses) with the same name having different structures,e.g. ‘Bachelor of Information Technology’ containing different courses andcourses with same name but different structure.

• different organisational structure – inter-operation problems.

• different funding approach by the University – frictions between schools.

• different approach to clients (student intake) – different performance.

• competition rather than cooperation (e.g. rejecting students when full ratherthan sending to the other two schools!).


copyright 2011


Collaborative Network / Virtual School Creation Process

• Insufficient previous experience available within the Faculty orUniversity.

• Initially driven from above (Pro Vice Chancellor) and via HumanResources / ad-hoc.

• Subsequently Working Party and Implementation Committee /subcommittees created.

• Initial lack of trust by schools’ staff fuelled by improper consultation.

• Lack of a roadmap / method obvious in initial meetings.


copyright 2011


Collaborative Network / Virtual School Creation Process

• Subsequently an Enterprise Architecture advisor provided a three-stage method creating a specific activity set for the project at hand:

– Elicit important concepts / entities.

– Create models detailing the interactions between these.

– ‘Tell the life story’ of the project and product (CN and VOs) = createactivity models showing ‘what to do next’ (always the biggest problem).

• CN and a VO were created using the models (albeit lack of modeldetail triggered teething problems).

• CN formed directly by schools within University (Facultysubsequently dissolved for different reasons).


copyright 2011


Collaborative Network Operation – Specific Aspects

• The schools typically have less autonomy than enterprises onwhether to join or leave the collaborative network. However,it is their decision on partner selection and product creation.

• When an opportunity is identified (e.g. market for programs / degreerequiring multidisciplinary knowledge), relevant schools get togetherand design (curriculums of) the product(s) required.

• The options available are 1) offer product(s) under an existing schoolname (lead partner) or 2) create a ‘virtual school’ offering it.

• Whichever option is selected, the resources belong tothe participants, local management structures do not changeand participation duration is linked to the products’ life cycles.Hence, VO principles are observed to a large extent.


copyright 2011



Virtual School Operation - Specific Aspects

• An additional management layer is added to the existing participantschools management – typically a Head of (Virtual) School and a(Virtual) School Committee (plus other committees only if necessary).

• While not operating under own names during the Virtual School, afterits dissolution the participant schools are able to promptly resumeoperation under initial conditions.

• Participant schools also offer ‘local flavours’ of products – e.g.specialisations in Virtual School programs available only locally.

copyright 2011



Lessons Learned (from problems encountered):During CN / VO creation:

• Network and Virtual Organisation creation and operation require amethod understood and agreed upon by all stakeholders.

• The models created for this purpose must be detailedto the necessary level.

• Especially the human aspects – roles, duties, etc. must be clarified inadvance to avoid chaos on VO operation start.

• Thus, proper time and resources must be allowed forthe Collaborative Network creation and for building preparednessfor prompt VO creation.

copyright 2011



• Conflict management must be addressed during CN/VO creation,not operation.

• Trust must be gained between participants within the CN in advance.Human processes cannot be successfully rushed.

• Infrastructure (high speed link, teleconferencing) help but cannotalways substitute face to face interaction – especially the top layer(for VO) management must travel and spend time in all participants’locations.

• Enforcing product consistency at the lowest detail is not feasiblehere.

Lessons Learned (from problems encountered):During CN / VO operation:

copyright 2011



• Interventionist style of top layer management, sometimes requiredto get things moving or reach agreement - resulting in conflictingperceptions of staff about its role, authority, etc.

• Reduced, but still significant effort required to maintain consistencyin the products offered by and resources allocated to participants.

• Continuing low level of financial independence / discretionary fundsof the network and VO from the University (contrary to plans andexpectations).

• Change of high-level policies at University level following legislativechanges due in 2012 in Australia (changes in CN / VO membership).

Some current and future problems and challenges:

copyright 2011


Conclusions

Although perhaps not perfectly fitting the typical descriptions,adopting CN and VO paradigms in this tertiary education project hashelped significantly as the wealth of experience in this domain couldbe put to good use. Thus, among others:• it has given a sense of direction and brought structure to the project.

• the potential problems were identified in advance, most were solved.

• solutions / scenarios were able to be built based on previousCN / VO case studies.

From our point of view, the CNO and VO concepts and experience canbe used and benefit projects in situations that do not always seemto completely match the current definitions provided.

copyright 2011


Luís Osó[email protected]

ISEL/GIATSI

The Portuguese Via-verde CaseIntegrated Mobility Services


ISEL

copyright 2011


History Sketch

• The Via-verde company was created in 1985to manage highways and bridges toll payment.• It was a partnership between Brisa (Highway

concessionaire) and SIBS (bank clearing company).• The Via-verde brand becomes associated to electronic

payment in highways.• By 2001… The Via-verde company/service was

exclusively tolling.• Meanwhile other concessions were created joining

the Via-verde and making this way a National wideelectronic toll payment service.

ISEL

copyright 2011


CNO Creation

• In 2001 Brisa developed in a partnership with Galp andCaixa Geral de Depósitos (CGD bank) a new businessmodel:• Extend the electronic toll payment to parking lots and gas

stations;• The toll payment is based on an on-board-unit (OBU)

based on the Dedicated Short Range Communication(DSRC) technology based on 5.8 GHz;

• The first approach was difficult considering:• The underlying technology complexity (costs).• Organizations were not prepared (fear to share existing

profits; misunderstanding potential business growth).

ISEL

copyright 2011


Identified Problems

• In 2002, Brisa has established an innovation departmentnow Brisa’s owned independent company,Brisa Innovation and technology (BIT).

• Identified problems:• The business model missed to construct a common

understanding about the value to use DSRC basedelectronic payments in parking lots and gas stations:

• Clients that pay close to the dispenser do not go tothe forecourt (gas station) shop.

• Costs for clients to adhere to the new service were notaccepted.

• Participating organizations had to share new costs(technology and payment transaction costs).

ISEL

copyright 2011


Understanding Problems (1/2)

• A first R&D project “Brisa-Park” was developed in apartnership between Brisa Innovation and ISEL/GIATSIto understand the problem and propose a new strategy:

• The key DSRC was exclusive from a unique technologysupplier (Q-free);

• Costs to adapt parking barriers and parking managementsystems to cooperate with Via-verde were very expensive;

• Six different parking infrastructure architecture wereidentified, making integration efforts expensive, complexand sensitive to failure.

ISEL

copyright 2011


Understanding Problems (2/2)

• In gas stations the Via-verde underlying technologybecame many times no operational:• Gas station concessionaires didn’t see too many advantages

to promote the new payment service.• Printer paper was not substituted on time making the payment

with Via-verde un-operational.

• A poor perception of mutual advantages of participatingorganizations:• Maintenance management became also a problem considering

the complex interdependency among installed systems.

ISEL

copyright 2011


Rethinking the Network (1/2)

• A process to develop an open technology infrastructurewas initiated:• Obtain competencies in DSRC technology.• Invitation of a second supplier for the DSRC technology:

• Interoperability problems resulting from specificimplementations (“proprietary” standards).

• The cost of a road side equipment (RSE) also knownby antenna reduced to 1/3.

• To reduce investments of new adhering organizations:• The new open infrastructure (ITSIBus SOA) was deployed

(integrated) by Via-verde as a service (monthly renting).

ISEL

copyright 2011


Rethinking the Network (2/2)

• The Brisa Innovation and Technology (BIT) companyplays the role of technology integrator (provider) forthe Via-verde network.• In a partnership with parking and gas station system

providers.

• The business relations among the network partners.• Contractual relations follow predominantly manual

procedures.• The technology management is managed by BIT.

ISEL

copyright 2011


The future

• An integrated workbench to manage such acollaborative network (CNO).• Tools to support:

• (creation in this case was a long process difficult to modeland automate ?).

• Manifestation/negotiation/joining.• Operations management.• Evolution (new services).

• Establish a novel preparedness level (VBE).• IT infrastructures prepared for the cooperation.

• Adaptable (preferably dynamically) to new services orchanges to existing services.

ISEL

copyright 2011


Paulo Stecklow, Ralfh Varges Ansuattigui, Antonio José Caulliraux [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Evaluation of Collaborative Networks:Case Study of Brazilian Virtual Enterprises


Centro Federal deEducação Tecnológica

CEFET/RJ

copyright 2011


• Paulo Enrique Stecklow graduated as Electrical Engineer at Gama FilhoUniversity and is obtaining a Master´s Degree in Technology at CEFET/RJ andhis research focus is Awareness in Work group.

• Ralfh Varges Ansuattigui graduated as Electrical Engineer at CEFET/RJ in1984 and worked at The Military Institute of Engineering until the end of 2001.After concluding a specialization and several other courses on the ICT area,started to work as a Systems Analyst at The Technological Center of The Armyin Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, where he stays up to now. He is about to obtain aMaster’s Degree in Technology and his research focus is KnowledgeManagement.

• Antonio José Caulliraux Pithon is a professor of the Department of ElectricalEngineering at the Federal Center of Technological Education in Rio de Janeiro(CEFET/RJ), Brazil, where he heads the NTC research group. He obtainedhis Ph.D. in Production and Systems Engineering from University of Minho,Guimarães, Portugal in 2004. His focus of research covers collaborativenetworks, knowledge management and awareness in CSCW.

Panelists Short Biography

copyright 2011


Agenda

• Prodweb overview.

• Prodweb creation – history and processes.

• Prodweb operation.

• Lessons learned and best practices.

copyright 2011


• Established in Passa Quatro, south of The State of Minas Gerais,Brazil.

• Created in September 2008.• Started with 4 members, presently has 13 members.

Network Overview

copyright 2011


Network Creation

Prodweb’s establishment was based on two determining goals:

1. Development of software and solutions for the web.

2. Management of sites and digital contents to promote itscustomers on the web .

Prodweb strives for “quality and flexibility to serve –unconditional support” to quickly meet their customers needs.

copyright 2011



CRM/HelpDesk

PARTNER

SkypeMSNSocial NetworkE-mail

Communication Technology

copyright 2011



Main lessons learnt as Prodweb’s manager...

♦ The main conditions for success are:

- Perfect communication with customers;

- Shared common business ethic;

- Trust among members of the group.

♦ Physical proximity of members of the production team

facilitates:

- Quickly resolve disagreements;

- Provide better customer service.

copyright 2011


Best practices adopted:

• Service training;

• Quality of production;

• Frequent briefings / brainstormings to improve

communication and design;

• Production by iterations;

• Weekly face to face meetings.


copyright 2011



Currently detected problems are:

• Communication failures are major weaknesses;

• Difficulties operating in an abstract and virtual

environment;

• Collaborative climate is not a reality.

copyright 2011


Questions and research needs:

♦ Collaboration space (physical and virtual) is needed;

♦ Greater integration between virtual and physical group;

♦ Improve research on human aspects during interactions.

Conclusions

copyright 2011


Manuel Fajardo [email protected]

Colombian Entrepreneur

VIRTUAL CITY ERP NETWORKA COMMON ICT PLATFORM FOR ENHANCING BUSINESS

COLLABORATION


copyright 2011



• Mr. Manuel Fajardo currently is an independent speaker and consultant oncollaborative networks and value co-creation.

• Mr. Fajardo holds Bachelor degree in Systems Engineering and Master’sdegree on Knowledge Engineering from the Universidad Politécnica deMadrid. Also, he is a certificated international coach on Balanced Scorecard.

• During 14 years he worked as the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) ofISAGEN, Colombian company dedicated to energy generation, constructionof projects, and commercialization of energy solutions.

• As a CAO, Mr. Fajardo had the opportunity to lead and manage high levelteams based on modern working practices towards the achievement ofbusiness units operating as enterprise integrated processes. Particularly, Mr.Fajardo was responsible for the project management to establish a corporatecollaborative strategy, and designing and implementing a virtual organizationalmodel at ISAGEN.

copyright 2011


Introduction

Initiative Drives

• High costs for consulters.

• A growing market in the software industry against a limit offer.

• Corporate Responsibility: Strategy & Society.

• Productivity and Competitiveness at Enterprise level and Regional level.

• Human Capital Potencial.

copyright 2011


City Framework (1/7)

ERP ImplementationBig companies case*

• ERP Suppliers

• Software suppliers

• Hardware suppliers

• Professionals

• Consulting

Cost : MM US$Certification Cost/ employee: > US 5000Capabilities: OwnManteinance Cost/consultant/day: > US 600Collaboration level: FewMarket: Dominated by 1 o 2 suppliers

Camarinha-Matos & Afsarmanesh, 2008

copyright 2011



ERP Implementation

• ERP Suppliers

• Software suppliers

• Hardware suppliers

• Professionals

• Consulting

SMEs Case*Implementation cost: US1 MillónCertification cost/employee: > US 5000Capabilities: OwnMainteinance Cost/consultant/day: > US 600Collaboration Level: FewLess than 5% with ERP solution

Camarinha-Matos & Afsarmanesh, 2008

copyright 2011



AN OPPORTUNITY TO COLLABORATE

THE IDEA

• Many SMEs and Big Firms decide to adopt the same ERP.• Make their own market.• Students and professional are in the base of the solution.• Universities and support institutions play an important role.

.

THE COLLABORATIVE NETWORK PARADIGM IS USEFUL AS A SOLUTION APPROACH

copyright 2011


Solution Approach – CHARACTERISTICS

• SMEs share the same platform over the Cloud.• SMEs use ERP as a network service.• The ERP implementation is not payed (this one is personalized).

• The generated productivity is higher than costs per use.• Integrated enterprises, partners and support institutions participate in

a CO-CREATION process with market/society.• CNO members are clients as well.• In a near future, the CNO will sell its competence to potential clients in

an evolving process.

THE NETWORK POWER MAKES POSSIBLE TRANSFORMING INDIVIDUAL EFFORTS INTO CITY INITIATIVES


copyright 2011


CITY INITIATIVE CHALLENGES

• Formalize public-private alliances within a long-timeframe perspective, but with results in the short-term.

• Generate high-quality jobs with ERP global and businessmanagement certifications.

• Generate collective knowledge to transform them in cityassets for new developments.

GO FORWARD TO A NEW WAY TO WORK TOGETHER BASED ON A HIGHER INNOVATION AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE CONFIGURATION

WITH ECONOMIC SENSE


copyright 2011



BENEFITS• ICT costs reduction.• A collective leapfrog towards higher productivity.• SMEs provided with global connectivity• Achievement of city goals impossible to reach individually.

copyright 2011



WHY SOFTWARE?

Key factors:

• Community formation.• Business growing.• Promote communication between people, places and ideas.

WHY ERP?

Key factors for a digital platform construction:

• Productivity improvement.• Making part of a global supply network.• Facilitate experiences to customers.

copyright 2011



LONG-TERM GOALS GENERIC STRATEGY

1. Implement the basic software in SMEs alliances.Base case = 300 SMEsImplementation cost = US$ 0.00

2. Provide support and maintainace service in the ERP Base case = 800 personsCertification cost = US$ 0.00

3. Develop competences in software development *

* See Capabilities Network Creation

1. Network collaborative working.

2. The ERP as a city service.

3. Development of Triple-Helix (Academia + Government + Industry).

4. Leadership, culture and human capital.

copyright 2011



VALUE PROPOSITION

1. FREE ERP

2. Helpdesk + Cloud computing services

3. 50% reduction of consultation costs

4. Intangible assets construction based on knowledge.

CUSTOMERS

• SMEs• Big firms• City

copyright 2011



VALUE PROPOSITION

KEY PARTNERS• Universities• ERP supplier.• Graduates + undergraduates• Equipment (hardware) suppliers.• Telecom suppliers.• Public Institutions.• Financial Institutions.

CAPABILITIES

• ICT services managed based on ITIL© Governance.

• Project Management based on PMI©.

• Business analytics for innovation.

• Collaboration.

VALUE CONFIGURATION

• Long-term public-private alliances (e.g. VBE)

• Virtual community of certified graduates (e.g. PVC)

• Brokers, Projects (e.g. VO), Teams (e.g. VT) and service management.

• Government Network• Strategy

copyright 2011



VALUE CONFIGURATION

COSTSNetwork Creation

Implementation US$ 13,800,000.00

(300 SMEs) Education

US$ 8,000,000.00(800)

Cloud computingUS$ 7,500,000.00

Communications US$ 4,000,000.00

Staff (5%)US$ 1,665,000.00

TOTAL US$34.965.000.00

REVENUESNetwork Creation

SMEs (300 x US$15,000)Big firms (40 x US$50,000)TOTAL US$ 6,500,000.00

Network OperationYear 1

Pay per Use US$ 51,400,000.00

CUSTOMERSVALUE PROPOSITION

copyright 2011



Challenges ahead…

• Awareness aboutnetworks nature andpotential.

• Methodologies andpractice deposition.

• Resolving conflicts ofinterest.

• Avoid the “NIH”syndrome.

• Collective interestspreservation ratherthan individualinterests.

• “Holism” and longterm development.

• Combine differentinstitutes in the sameproject.

• Find sponsors.• Universities network

as a VBE with activemembers.

Knowledge

Institutional

Leadership

copyright 2011



Reasons for belonging to the alliance…

Trust Perspectives

Organizational

Social

Behavioral /Management

Technological

Financial/Economical

Msanjila & Afsarmanesh, 2008

copyright 2011



SMEs• PMI project practices. • ITIL service standards.• Certified consultants. • City project.

SMEs• PMI project practices. • ITIL service standards.• Certified consultants. • City project.

Undergraduate and Graduate• City project.• Perspective and mobility.

Undergraduate and Graduate• City project.• Perspective and mobility.


Trust Perspectives

Organizational

Social


Technological


copyright 2011




Trust Perspectives

Organizational

Social


Technological


SMEs• Members contributions• Productivity higher than operational cost

• Free ERP Implementation

SMEs• Members contributions• Productivity higher than operational cost

• Free ERP Implementation

Undergraduate and Graduate• Free certification.• Competitive returns.

Undergraduate and Graduate• Free certification.• Competitive returns.

copyright 2011




Trust Perspectives

Organizational

Social


Technological


SMEs• ERP world‐class.• Digital platform.• Preparing for the future.

SMEs• ERP world‐class.• Digital platform.• Preparing for the future.

Undergraduate and Graduate• Global knowledge.• New access.• Professional formation.

Undergraduate and Graduate• Global knowledge.• New access.• Professional formation.

copyright 2011




Trust Perspectives

Organizational

Social


Technological


SMEs• Ethic code.• Good management code.• Members recognized bytheir economic authority.

SMEs• Ethic code.• Good management code.• Members recognized bytheir economic authority.

Undergraduate and Graduate• Ethic code.• Good management code .• Possibility to be a shareholder.

Undergraduate and Graduate• Ethic code.• Good management code .• Possibility to be a shareholder.

copyright 2011




Trust Perspectives

Organizational

Social


Technological


SMEs• Qualified employeesgeneration.

• Institutional strength.• Social networkdevelopment.

SMEs• Qualified employeesgeneration.

• Institutional strength.• Social networkdevelopment.

Undergraduate and Graduate• Meeting point

“software café”.• Member from a virtualcommunity .

Undergraduate and Graduate• Meeting point

“software café”.• Member from a virtualcommunity .

copyright 2011



PERMANENT BROKERS

MARKET ServicesEducationProjects

VBEPVCPVC

VO VT SCMOperational Model

copyright 2011



PERMANENT BROKERS

MARKETServicesEducationProjects

VBEPVC

VO VT SCM Strategic Tier:

• Long term networkconfiguration andmanagement (VBE, PVC).Non-profit organization.

• Create and lead the brokers(profit organization)

• Balanced developing ofinitiative.

Operational Model

copyright 2011



PERMANENT BROKERS


VBEPVC

VO VT SCMProject Brokers:

• Project plan (VO planner).

• Execution (VO coordinator).

• Cases building (knowledgemanagement).

• Service catalog subscription.

Operational Model

copyright 2011


PERMANENT BROKERS


VBEPVC

VO VT SCM


Education:

• Graduate+ undergraduate attraction.

• Portfolio definition.

• Training plan.

• Certification.

• PVC administrator.

Operational Model

copyright 2011


PERMANENT BROKERS


VBEPVC

VO VT SCM


Operational ModelServices:

• Service plan.

• Level service agreement.

• Requirements solving.

• Services chainsynchronization forcustomers.

• Economic evaluation.

• Evaluation of Customersatisfaction.

copyright 2011


Network Evolution

Basic

Advanced

Knowledge Export

Software Development

0 1 32 4 5

• Own market• ERP competence center

• Use new functionality• Enterprise-Clients-Suppliers-Sponsors connection

• Market expands•ERP competence exploits

• New developments• City recognition

years

copyright 2011


Conclusions

• It is possible to generate economic sustainable process with a share valueand social inclusion perspective.

• A MARKET APPROACH where the value is created from enterprises,it DOES NOT REACH the set goals.

• UNIVERSITIES and SMEs productivity have an space to conect and developINTANGIBLE ASSETS based on knowledge.

• The COLLABORATIVE NETWORKS paradigms, methodologies andpractices are bases to support the initiative, THE ISSUE is related tothe institutional LEADERSHIP role.

copyright 2011


Rolando V. Vallejos [email protected]ígia Faccin [email protected] Macke [email protected]

University of Caxias do Sul

Aprovale e Aprobelo


copyright 2011


Prof. Rolando V. Vallejos is Mechanical Engineer fromthe Technical University of Oruro (1987), Master inMechanical Engineering from Universidade Federal deSanta Catarina (1992) and PhD in Industrial Engineeringfrom Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (2005).

He is currently professor at the University of Caxias doSul and has experience in Manufacturing (MechanicalEngineering) and in Production Management (IndustrialEngineering), acting on the following topics: mold anddie manufacturing, manufacturing processes optimization,intelligent manufacturing systems, lean manufacturing,supply chain management, collaborative networkedorganization, with emphasis on Virtual Enterprises andVirtual Organizations.


copyright 2011


Introduction

• The Serra Gaúcha, The GauchoHighlands, is the mountainous region inthe northeastern portion of Rio Grandedo Sul state in southern Brazil.

• This mountainous region is home tomany Brazilians of German and Italiandescent. Consequently, the cities inthe Serra Gaúcha reflect Germanand Italian influences through theirarchitecture, gastronomy and culture.

copyright 2011


• The cluster's production of Serra Gaúcha is responsible for 80%of the national production of wine.

• Brazil occupies the 17th position in the ranking of wine producers in the world.Figured as the fifth largest producer of the southern hemisphere, whichincludes countries of more recent production, exceeded only by Argentina,Australia, South Africa and Chile.

• CNOs: APROVALE and APROBELO

Introduction

copyright 2011


• The Brazilian wine industry is going through some difficulties.In addition to the unfavorable world stage with the intensificationof global competition where wine producing countries implementaggressive strategic actions, there are internal adverse conditions inBrazil:

– low consumption of wine per-capita (1.8 l/pp) compared toArgentina and Uruguay (30 l/pp);

– there is a lack in the culture: moderate drinking wine with meals– high incidence of taxes (42% of the price), in Argentina and Chile

remains at half of that.

Introduction

copyright 2011


• However, some private and even government agencies stimulatethe formation of collaborative networks in southern Brasil. SerraGaúcha became the region where the formation of networks, waseased up by the culture and the history of immigration bringing tolight the culture of mutual assistance and cooperation for the localdevelopment.

• In addition to the networks of cooperation in this emerging industry,other agents form the basis for sustaining the wine industry, such ashigher education institutions and government agencies.

Introduction

copyright 2011


APROVALEThe APROVALE Association was founded in 1995 to meet the legalrequirements of the Geographical Indication in the city of Bento Gonçalves. Thus,six wineries have joined and started this process. Over time the roles of theassociation expanded and, consequently, have expanded goals. TodayAPROVALE has 31 wineries and 25 members not related wine producers,including hotels, guesthouses, restaurants, handicrafts, and other dairies.

APROBELOAPROBELO was founded in 2003 and now has 12 wineries associated.The network is located in the city of Belo Monte do Sul, the former district ofBento Gonçalves, emancipated by Law 9564 of March 20, 1992. Belo Monte doSul is the largest producer of grapes for sparkling wines in the country (largestwine producing city per capita) of 95% rural economy. The municipality has2,242.76 hectares of vineyards planted and ranks fifth in the state.

Network Overview

copyright 2011


APROVALEIt was created to meet the legal requirements of the Geographic Indication.The Vale dos Vinhedos was the first region in Brazil to obtain the indication oforigin of their products by displaying the stamp of Control in Wines and sparklingwines made by the associated wineries. Of the 31 wineries associated, 15 havethe stamp of Geographic Indication. The regulation of IPVV (Indicação GeográficaVale dos Vinhedos), regulates the production (allowing some cultivars),the grapes production system, the geographical development area , productsaging and bottling, products patterns of identity and chemical quality, standardsof identity and organoleptic quality, and product labeling.

APROBELOThe association was idealized to attend goals to develop and encouragethe improvement of wine products produced in the family vineyards, help toorganize and preserve the physical spaces of Belo Monte do Sul in order toleverage local tourism and encourage the process of the population education.


copyright 2011


Both CNOs were also created to qualify their suppliers and get technical supportsupplied by federal and state entities, such as the Brazilian Agricultural ResearchCorporation (EMBRAPA), Rio Grande Association of Enterprises TechnicalAssistance and Rural Extension (EMATER), the State Foundation AgriculturalResearch (FEPAGRO), the Agricultural Research Corporation of Santa Catarina(EPAGRI), the Federal Center for Technical Education of Bento Gonçalves(CEFET-BG) and universities like the University of Caxias do Sul (UCS),University of Santa Maria (UFSM), University of Vale do Rio dos Sinos(UNISINOS) and Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS).


copyright 2011


The entry of a company in the CNOs may be by voluntary request or byinvitation. There are criteria for acceptance or rejection of this company.According to results of research, the main expectation of a company toparticipate in the network is based in the exchange of technical information.

The results emerge for competitive gains, since the sharing of technical expertisefrom partners on the process of production or sales, for example, can increasethe productivity of both. In addition, the network helps in development of jointactions, allowing the overall reduction of costs and production, information andconflict resolution between the associates.


copyright 2011



• The importance of assessing social capital incollaborative networks:– high level of social trust and strong reciprocity norms,

reduce the transaction costs;

– social networks attenuate the risks, allowing that theirmembers engage more in innovations;

– social networks facilitate the fast information disseminationand with this, they reduce the asymmetries;

– social networks allow that its members solve easily theircollective problems.

copyright 2011



• The importance of assessing competence incollaborative networks:– to know how to build a common representation to

operational problems and the goals to be achieved;

– to establish a common operative language that representsthe capacity to communicate inside the network;

– to know how to cooperate into a network with differentnorms, cultures, resources and cognitive procedures.

copyright 2011


• Organizational competences are dynamic andcomplex elements that vary with the technologicaladvances and changes in organizational marketingstrategies. This dynamic view of competencesindicates that organizations must continually changeand learn to adapt to the external environmentchanges.

• Drejer describes four elements that are dynamicallyinter-related:

– technology (physical system and tools),– people (the basis of competence development),– organization (formal system of management),– culture (informal organization).


copyright 2011


• The following model - “Collective competence development incollaborative networks” - proposes that network foundation context(especially social capital conditions) is fundamental to establishlearning patterns and the competence development system.

• This system converges to collective competences and competitiveadvantage. However, to keep competitiveness, the network has tomake a choice:

• to change, building new dynamic capabilities using itsorganizational radar and intelligence, or

• to stay inflexible face to the need for change.


copyright 2011


• CNOs strategic goals consist of:

o Strengthening the management of the associations.o Consolidating the position of Vale dos Vinhedos in

the market.o Strengthening the culture of cooperation.o Enhancing the institutional relations of the association with

the community, government and local tourism industry.o Encouraging the continuous quest for excellence of

products and services.o Protecting and preserving the natural landscape and

the cultural identity of Vale dos Vinhedos.

Network Results (1/2)

copyright 2011


And the vision for the future planned by its members isto have stronger associations, with integrated members,committed to the collective development of Vale dosVinhedos, establishing itself as an economically viable andsustainable enotourist destination of excellence.

CNOs have also defined its values:• Cooperation.• Awareness of environmental preservation and economic sustainability.• Respect for the individuality of companies, suppliers and consumers. • Service excellence provided by associated businesses.• Representation.• Ethics.

Network Results (2/2)

copyright 2011


CNOs are formed becausecommon interests of theparticipating organizations.

Once the network is formed,new interests may arise.

We realize that one interestis the exchange of informationand knowledge.

For the network success is necessary to strength the development ofSocial Capital. It was shown that there is a correlation between SocialCapital and competitiveness in organizations that form the CNOsAprovale and Aprobelo.

Conclusions

copyright 2011


Panel Discussion Question

copyright 2011

How to better strategize the large body of empirical knowledge of the Collaborative

Networks scientific discipline?“By strengthening the collaboration between academics and industrial generals in

the development, test and refinement of reference models and toolkits to support collaboration”

“By sharing among CNO managers best management practices and lessons learned in different collaborative forms (e.g. virtual organizations, virtual industry clusters, professional virtual communities, etc.)

and collaborative strategies (co-creation, co-innovation, etc.) – Incentivize knowledge sharing”

“By creating tools to model the value of expectations in collaborative endeavors to support CNO managers expectations and their decision-making process to join, stay or leave a collaborative initiative/project”

“By providing better templates for (collaborative) intellectual property agreements, revenue models and costs structures to support network management”

“By creating better prospective and measurement tools to forecast and measure the performance of a collaborative network (e.g. scorecards, risk management, etc.)”

“By offering solid information and communication technologies, not prototypes, to support virtual collaboration”

“By creating tools to identify and characterize the potential collaboration benefits for an enterprise/organization of joining a collaborative network, allowing CNO manager to clearly understand the potential benefits”


Panel Conclusions

• The panel audience reached some common agreements on important elementsto support a wide adoption of the collaborative networks paradigm in the industriallandscape:

– Working in closing the bridge between the academic and industry worlds.Academy should better balance its research activities between basic andapplied research, in other words, moving more into the direction of userand business-driven living lab research.Industry, on the otherhand, should provideacademy with more opportunitiesto test and refine its innovative concepts, methods, models and toolson the business side (real usage environments).

– Working (academics) in developing such innovative methods and tools beyondprototypes: “real commercial collaborative tools”. There are a lot of inventionsat universities and research centers that need the support of formal technologytransfer processes to ensure that scientific and technological developmentsare accessible and ready-to-use for the industrial generals (e.g. enterprises,organizations, clusters, etc.).

– Working (industrials) in facing the challenges of co-opetition: “collaborationand competition” – investing in collaboration preparedness.

copyright 2011


Session Organizing Committee

David Romero (ITESM, Mexico City) Arturo Molina (ITESM, Mexico City)Myrna Flores (CEMEX, Switzerland) Ricardo Rabelo (UFSC, Brazil) Michel Pouly (EPFL, Switzerland)

Download e-Book:http://www.slideshare.net/davidromerodiaz/prove-09-next-generation-collaborative-networked-organizations

PRO-VE’09Thessaloniki, Greece, 7-9 October 2009

1st SPECIAL PANEL SESSION ONTowards the Next Generation Collaborative Networked Organizations:

International Challenges, Trends and Research Opportunities

“Past, Present and Future of Collaborative Networks: Moving from Theory to Practice”


De Santa Catarina

copyright 2009

Next Generation Collaborative Networked Organizations2nd Edition -Special Panel Session

Special Session Organizing Committee

David Romero (ITESM, Mexico City), Arturo Molina (ITESM, Mexico City)Ricardo Rabelo (UFSC, Brazil), Luca Cagnazzo (UNIPG, Italy)

Download e-Book:http://www.slideshare.net/davidromerodiaz/prove-10-next-generation-collaborative-networked-organizations

PRO-VE’10Saint-Etienne, France, 11-13 October 2010

2nd SPECIAL PANEL SESSION ONTowards the Next Generation Collaborative Networked Organizations:

International Challenges, Trends and Research Opportunities

“Emerging Collaborative Networks in Industry: Sharing Management Experiences”


De Santa Catarina

Università degli

Studi di Perugia

CNOsCase Studies

SIG

copyright 2010

Università degli

Studi di Perugia


CNOsCase Studies

SIG

Panel Acknowledgments


De Santa Catarina

PRO-VE Program Chair: Prof. Luis M. Camarinha-Matos

copyright 2011

pro-ve 11 - special panel session on next generation collaborative networked organizations

Business

collaborative endeavors

panel chair

nonsuccessful strategies

different research

number of successful

nonsuccessful ones

nonsuccessful industrialcases

androsanna fornasiero