prove 09 - special panel session on next generation collaborative networked organizations

Next Generation Collaborative Networked OrganizationsSpecial Panel Session

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)

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

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”

Universidade Federal

De Santa Catarina

copyright 2009


• Foreword– David Romero, Panel Chair

• Aims and Scope• Presentations:

– Panelist 1: IECOS Network, Manufacturing, Mexico• Arturo Molina, David Romero, Joaquín Aca

– Panelist 2: Virfebras Network, Manufacturing, Brazil• Rolando Vallejos, Ricardo Rabelo

– Panelist 3: Swiss Microtech Network, Manufacturing, Switzerland & China• Michel Pouly

– Panelist 4: Orona Innovation Network, Manufacturing, Spain• Joseba Arana, Luis Berasategi

– Panelist 5: ServQ, Consulting Network, Europe & US• Andrew Crossley

– Panelist 6: Teaching, Research & Healthcare Networks, Australia• Peter Bertok

– Panelist 7: CEMEX Network, Construction, Switzerland• Myrna Flores

• Discussion Questions• Conclusions• Acknowledgements• Event Pictures

Index

copyright 2009


The panel session offered to the audience an overview of the current industrial and society practices regarding different emerging and established collaborative forms, highlighting the challenges, trends and research opportunities to better understand the Collaborative Networks paradigm and its implementation requirements in the real world.The case studies presented in this e-book are intended to provide a set of examples of Collaborative Networked Organizations in truly industrial or society environments, serving both the purpose of giving a brief account of the state-of-the-art of implementation of CNO concepts, methods and tools in real practice, as well as an evidence on what works and still remains as a challenge or research opportunity for the Next Generation Collaborative Networked Organizations in the industrial landscape and the academic world.As the Collaborative Networks scientific discipline continues its consolidation with a stronger theoretical foundation, a growing number of application cases in industry and society are becoming important to document in order to better understand the requirements for the creation of successful collaborative forms and to provided best practices for their sustainable operation in different domains and application environments.Main conclusions reached during this lively interactive forum appointed towards the need of a collection of successful and non-successful case studies of CNOs for a better understanding of their lifecycle, and this e-book stands for a first effort in this direction.

David Romero, Panel Chair

Foreword

copyright 2009


• The panel session was organized with the aim of sharing the experiences and lessons learned from a group of practitioners for the establishment and management of the Next Generation Collaborative Networked Organizations.

• The panel session will introduce a number of industrial cases that have been studied from both a theoretical and practical perspective to validate and demonstrate the applicability of collaborative networks concepts, methods and tools as a contribution to help facing the Next Generation Collaborative Networked Organizations challenges.

• The panel session scope will cover different regional manifestations of collaborative networks, especially in the manufacturing industry, and will depict their main strengths and current challenges in order to manage successful Collaborative Networked Organizations.

Panel Aims and Scope

copyright 2009


Arturo Molina, David Romero, Joaquín Aca [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Tecnológico de MonterreyIECOS S.A. de C.V., Mexico


Integration Engineering and COnstruction Systems

IECOS Network

copyright IECOS 2009


• IECOS…– Creation– Business Model– Business Framework– Value Proposition– Operational Model– Build-to-Order Strategies– Brokerage Experiences– ICT-Infrastructure– Key Successes Factors– Evolution– Lessons Learned

Agenda

Virtual Enterprises

Virtual Industry Cluster

Virtual Enterprise

Broker

Competencies

Technology Processes

Product

Virtual Enterprises


Virtual Enterprise

Broker

Competencies

Technology Processes

Product

Build-To-OrderSupply Chain

Strategy

Mex

ican

-Indu

stry

Mexican-Industry



From the Academic World to the Industrial Landscape…

• IECOS was created in 2000 by the Center of Innovation in Design andTechnology of the Tecnológico de Monterrey, Mexico as a successful spin-off from the COSMEGVE EU-ALFA Project in which concepts like: Virtual Industry Cluster, Virtual Enterprise and Virtual Enterprise Broker were developed.

IECOS Creation

• IECOS creation was triggered by the need of having a brokerage company responsible for thecreation and operation of Virtual Enterpriseswithin a Metal-Mechanic Virtual Industry Clusternamed:

“Mexican-Industry”…in Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico.



IECOS creation was based-on two determining factors:

1. The need for identifying collaboration business opportunities as the main strategy to bring together/attract the founding members of the Mexican-Industry Virtual Cluster.

2. The necessity to support the development of SMEs competencesand the integration of their capacities to approach those opportunities recognized by means of Virtual Enterprises creation.

IECOS business model is based-on a “competency integrator model”between engineers and manufactures to satisfy high volume and

high variability in products in the manufacturing industry.

IECOS Business Model



IECOS Business Framework

Virtual Enterprise Broker


Virtual Enterprise

Operation/Dissolution



Enterprises

Design

Implementation

Operation

Search/SelectBusinessOpportunities

Search/SelectPartners

Formation/Commitment

BusinessOpportunityExploitation

Conception

Identify CC

Build CC Deploy CC

Protect CC

Product

ProcessesTechnology

Competences

ClusterBuilding

ClusterMarketing

EnterpriseQualification

Competence Information

Molina et al. (1998): Framework for Global Virtual Business



IECOS is an engineering company which is focused on innovation technology projects through the integration of the capabilities and

competences of its allies (universities, research centers, technological companies) and partners (Mexican-Industry and other enterprises)

IECOS Services

• IECOS Supply:Offering manufacturing services through the integration of the competences of its associated manufacturing partners in order to fulfill the customer requirements.

• IECOS Engineering: Offering the development of new manufacturing processes and manufacturing systems as solutions for the efficient and effective production of customers’ products.

• IECOS Technology: Offering technical and managerial capabilities for the development and commercialization of new products.

IECOS Value Proposition



IECOS Operational Model

Virtual Enterprise Broker: Core Competence Deployment & Protection

Virtual Enterprise: Operation and Execution

Universe: Availability of Capabilities and Capacities

Virtual Industry Clusters: Core Competence Selection & Development

HUB of Integrated e-Services

CNC Machining

Plastics &Rubbers

Die & Tools

EngineeringDesign

Assembly & Fabrication

ProductDesign

MoldMaking

InjectionMolding

e-Marketing

e-Brokerage

e-Engineering and e-Supply

e-Planning

e-Productivity

Molina et al. (1998): Framework for Global Virtual Business



IECOS BTO Strategies (1/3)

Molina et al. (2007): Virtual Enterprise Brokerage: A Structure Driven Strategy to Achieve Build-to-Order Supply Chains



IECOS Brokerage Experiences

Business Process ConfigurationEnterprise ParticipationCollaboration Opportunity

Collaborative Product Manufacturing

PCMP1

P2

P3

OrderFulfillment

P1:Sourcing P1+P2: Production

P3: Package P3:Distribution

P1:Sourcing P1+P2: Production

P3: Package P3:Distribution

SupplierRelationshipManagement

P3: Supplier’s Evaluation P3: Suppliers Monitoring

P3: Supplier’s Development

P3: Supplier’s Evaluation P3: Suppliers Monitoring

P3: Supplier’s Development

Product Commercialization

ComercialBiomédicoRamírez

ComercialBiomédicoRamírez

P1

P2

P3P4

Obtaining Customer

Commitment

P1: Market Analysis

P2: Sales Process

P1: Market Analysis

P2: Sales Process

P1: Understand Necessities P3+P4: Product Support

P2: Commercialization P2: Promotion

P1: Understand Necessities P3+P4: Product Support

P2: Commercialization P2: Promotion

CustomerRelationshipManagement

New Product DevelopmentP1

P2

P3 P4

Product Realization

Process

P1: Research P1+P2: Design

P3: Engineering P3: Prototype

P1: Research P1+P2: Design

P3: Engineering P3: Prototype

P1+P2: Product Design

P3+P4: Product Development

P1+P2: Product Design

P3+P4: Product Development

Customer DrivenDesign



IECOS ICT-Infrastructure

e-Pl

anni

ng

e-M

arke

ting

e-B

roke

rage

e-En

gine

erin

g

e-Pr

oduc

tivity

e-Su

pply

Virtual Industry ClustersVirtual Breeding Environments

Virtual EnterprisesVirtual Organizations

Virtual Enterprise Broker

e-HUB Integrated e-Services Center for Virtual Business

e-HUB PYMECREATIVA

Information Base

e-Productivity e-Marketing e-Brokerage e-Supply e-Engineering

e-Business

UserEnterprises

Profile

IMMPACDiagnostic

e-Quality assurance

Improvement Opportunities Identifier

Promotion SuppliersSearch

Production Order

Following.

Engineering Functional Services

ProductsCatalogue

ClientsSearch

Match-making

Allies + Tools

Wizard for New Products Development

ManufactureExecution

CO-SOURCING

User Request

New Products

CAD CAMCAE DFMA

Simulation File transfer Inverse Engineering

OthersCAD CAMCAE DFMA

Simulation File transfer Inverse Engineering

Others

www.pymecreativa.com

Creation of Information Technologies for Added Value Industrial Networks

e.g. Virtual Enterprises



• IECOS success depends on its capacity to guarantee customer satisfaction in terms of quality, cost reduction and delivery timebased-on an efficient supply chain management.

• IECOS Build-to-Order strategy provides a well recognized competitive advantage to the firm over its rivals, thanks to a unique build-to-order supply chain approach to respond to the demands of new business opportunities requiring: (a) high levels of customization, (b) customer driven innovation, (c) volume flexibility, (d) short-cycle time, (e) none inventory costs and (f) supply chain integration.

• IECOS ICT-Infrastructure known as “e-HUB” (Integrated e-Services Center for Virtual Business) makes possible to reduce the critical troublesome that traditionally limits SMEs competitiveness, allowing the exploitation of new collaboration business opportunities through Virtual Enterprises creation.

IECOS Key Success Factors



IECOS Evolution

1997

2000

2001

2006

COSME Project: GVE (Global Virtual Enterprise)

VEB

VIC

VE

Enterprise

Creation of Information Technologies for Added-Value Industry Networks

European COllaborative networked organization

LEADership Initiative

Mexican Industry Project: Seven clusters in

metal mechanic and plastic industry

Broker: Agent looking for business

opportunities, executing projects by joining cluster members´ competencies

Collaborative W

ork



• A brokerage service is a must to find business opportunities and to coordinate properly their development within a Virtual Industry Cluster towards Virtual Enterprises creation.

• Main VIC members’ characteristics should be:– Interest and commitment from their managers, – Acting with ethical values in any negotiation, – Willingness to collaborate and cooperate, and – Trust between partners.

• SMEs priorities are:– Find new customers, and– Participate in business opportunities development (new revenues).

• Project management is key successful factor.

IECOS Lessons Learned



• Prof. Arturo Molina is the President of the Tecnológico de Monterrey, Campus Mexico City. He received his PhD degree in Manufacturing Engineering from Loughborough University of Technology, England in 1995, his University Doctor Degree in Mechanical Engineering from the Technical University of Budapest, Hungary in 1992, and his Master’s Degree in Computer Science from the Tecnológico de Monterrey, Campus Monterrey, in 1992.

• Prof. Molina is member of the National Researchers System of Mexico (SNI-Level II), Mexican Academy of Sciences, and member of IFAC TC-WG5.3 on Enterprise Integration and Enterprise Networking, IFIP WG5.12 on Enterprise Integration Architectures and IFIP WG5.3 Cooperation of Virtual Enterprises and Virtual Organizations.

• Furthermore, Prof. Molina has been involved in many Latin-American and European projects oriented to the creation of virtual industry clusters, virtual organization breeding environments and virtual enterprises, and together with Mr. David Romero*, he has co-authored the first complete toolkit integrated by a VBE reference model, a business process management framework and an instantiation methodology to create,operate, evolve and dissolve breeding environments.

Panelist Short Biography

*Romero & Molina: Virtual Organisation Breeding Environments Toolkit: Reference Model, Management Framework and Instantiation Methodology, Journal of Production Planning & Control


Rolando Vallejos, Ricardo [email protected], [email protected]

Ftec – Faculty of Technology – Caxias do Sul, BrazilUFSC – Federal University of Santa Catarina – Florianópolis, Brazil


Virtual Organization of Mould and Die Industries of Brazil

VIRFEBRAS

copyright Virfebras 2009


• VIRFEBRAS overview

• VIRFEBRAS creation – history and processes

• VIRFEBRAS operation

• Lessons learned and best practices

• Current difficulties and challenges

Agenda



Network Overview

• Network of mould & die SMEs.• Placed at Caxias do Sul City, South of Brazil.• Created in 1999, but legally established in 2004.• Initially having 13 members, including some competitors.

Second largest pole of M&D in Brazil:~200 companies~1800 employees



Network Creation (1/6)

Motivation for its creation: enhancing companies’ competitiveness

Loss of business due to low production scale and capacity

Market Requirements:- Lower costs- Higher quality- Shorter delivery date

Operation Requirements:- Quicker response to quotations- More precision in the quotations- Lower production costs

Market Reality:- More demanding customers- Market volatility / instability- Much higher competition &

number of M&D companies in the World

Market Reality:- More demanding customers- Market volatility / instability- Much higher competition &

number of M&D companies in the World




- Low level of people qualification (at all levels).- Difficulty to keep up to date to advanced technology and manufacturing processes.

- Very low level of R&D as well as of collaboration with universities and other companies.

- Very traditional business model.

Strategy

Reality (before the VBE creation):

CNO /Virtual Enterprise

paradigm




FIRST PHASE

VIRFEBRAS was essentially created without solid methodologies, i.e. fundamentally in an ad-hoc way.

Some concepts from the European PRODNET project (ended in 1999) have been taken into account besides some studies on similar initiatives over the world.

Its creation was lead by University of Caxias do Sul, but extremely pushed by a group of 13 M&D companies.




FIRST PHASE

Main difficulties & goals:

Too heterogeneous companies:

Need for harmonizing them in terms of collaboration culture, processes and basic IT (only CAD systems and e-mail were used);

Lack of trust among partners:

Several meetings, travels and visits among companies.Exchanging of contacts, best practices, etc.

Lack of awareness about how good and how bad they were:

Preliminary and basic benchmarking.

Lack of basics on CNO:

Some training, short courses and many talks from experts.A number of research experiments were developed together with UFSC.




SECOND PHASE (still current)

Main difficulties & goals:

IT covering only very classical processes:

Basic IT is used, and a centralized web-based information system was implemented. More advanced ICT is now required. Many actions are still carried out in face-to-face meetings.

Still need for trust reinforcement:

Expansion of trust from operational / information levels to strategic / business levels.

Lack of awareness about how good and how bad they were:

Second phase of a comprehensive benchmarking.

Need of more solid foundations for guiding VIRFEBRAS to evolve:

AMBIANCE methodology, which is based on knowledge management.



Network Creation (6a/6)

AMBIANCE Methodology & Framework & System (Vallejos 2005)

KM ReferenceModels

E-Cognos(EC Project)

ECOLEAD(EC Project)



Network Creation (6b/6)

Why a Knowledge Management centered approach ?!

Essentially because it was realized that the most natural way VIRFEBRAS members collaborated and made the VBE to evolve was via an intense exchange of information and knowledge “alive”and somehow informally.

Therefore, it was essential, regarding this VIRFEBRAS culture, that this knowledge could be captured and organized as well as could be used as the basis to pave its evolution.

Benchmarking was the main key element which has been leveraging VIRFEBRAS evolution.



From VBE Foundation to VE Operation & Dissolution- Current Status

VIRFEBRAS / VBE foundation

VBECreation

VECreation

VEOperation

VEEvolution

VEDissolution

1st Phase 2nd Phase

1999-2004 2004-2009

3rd Phase

AMBIANCEAd-Hoc AMBIANCE+

“ECOLEAD”gradual & evolving way

2010-201…



Network Operation (1/2)

• Virtual Enterprises are created with members of VIRFEBRAS.• There is not a global broker. Instead, the company which gets

the business look at VIRFEBRAS members and acts as the VE manager, selecting any members it wants.

• Usual criteria applied in the partners’ selection:1. VIRFEBRAS information system (partners’ capabilities and capacities).2. VIRFEBRAS benchmarking (comparison between performance indicators

related to operational / technological processes).3. Previous businesses involvement. • Once members are selected, they share the mould design, discuss

quotation, processes, etc., in meetings.• A member can be involved in many VEs simultaneously, either as

manager or partner.• A member can do business out of VIRFEBRAS.



Some Observations

• The establishment of the VIRFEBRAS VBE helped companies to create a new culture of work – now much more based on collaboration – and to be better prepared for the market.

• VIRFEBRAS entrepreneurs started sharing information and learned that they usually have similar problems. Nowadays they normally share solutions and practices.

• The creation of the VBE brought several standardization initiatives, reflected in the processes, sheets, forms, mould models and ontologies.

• VIRFEBRAS members affirmed that the VE theory applied to SME competitors is valid, and that through joining forces it waspossible to have access to new technologies, to share information and knowledge, to qualify employees, to contract research projects and to tune consultancy’s works.



Some Observations

• VIRFEBRAS members are convinced that a VBE is a collaborative network that must be in constant evolution, where the first paradigm to be broken is trust.

• It is possible to conclude that through joining core competencies, SMEs, even being competitors, became more competitive, offering a larger spectrum of products, developing new markets and serving additional potential customers.

• All VIRFEBRAS members grew in infrastructure, technology, knowledge and hired more employees.



• The start up phase of a collaboration network between competitors needed specific efforts for generating trust among the network members. At least in the beginning, no sophisticated approaches are necessarily required.

• The members of a network can not be forced to share sensible information. They should realize this importance for themselves (i.e. for the business) and for the success of the whole.

• The written formulation of ethic rules and of operational procedures seems to be one of the key success factors in networks between competitors. These written documents support the growing of trust into the operational system.

• Regarding the particular way VEs are created inside VIRFEBRAS, members realized that the CEO position should be alternated among the members.

• ERP systems have been introduced too early, provoking some fears in the managers. It is only now been re-introduced.

• Benchmarking showed to be a crucial mechanism to boost VBE competitiveness.

• From 13 to 8 companies: the importance of adequate methods for selecting & preparing companies to get into the VBE.

Lessons Learned & Practices



“After growing 30% in the last couple of years, we keep on enlarging our physical installations as well as investing on newer technologies and human resources. We never imagined the power we had working together, in a co-operative way”. Mr. Gelson de Oliveira, current VIRFEBRAS CEO.

Lessons Learned & Practices



Lack of tools for CNO processes has been an obstacle for the application of CNO concepts at a larger scale.It is not possible to measure how much businesses and profits have increased due to the VBE e AMBIANCE. However, it is very much clear the benefits they brought and how better companies are nowadays.A more comprehensive IPR & governance models start to be extremely important as long as companies reached another level of maturity and professionalism.VIRFEBRAS is now in a crucial decision point: – stay as is = “basic” level compared to other VBEs & competitors;– or invest a lot towards a new level of competition = high

investment on non-machinery issues.

Current Difficulties & Challenges



• Prof. Ricardo Rabelo is an associate professor of the Department of Systems and Automation at the Federal University of Santa Catarina in Brazil, where he heads the Intelligent Manufacturing Systems group. He obtained his PhD in Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing from the New University of Lisbon, Portugal, in 1997.

• His current areas of interest include: collaborative networks, service oriented architectures and interoperability, multi-agent systems, knowledge management, and human-centered decision support environments.

• Prof. Rabelo has been involved in many Brazilian and European research projects and program committees of international conferences. He has supported the creation of VIRFEBRAS network and he is currently supervising a pos-doctoral research by Dr. Fabiano Baldo towards creating a methodology for the creation of VBEs as well as launching the basis for the creation of a new VBE in the south of Brazil.



Michel Pouly [email protected]

Swiss MicrotechTramelan, Switzerland


Swiss Microtech Enterprise Network

SMT Network

copyright Swiss Microtech 2009


• Swiss Microtech…– Overview– Creation– Operation – Management– Conclusions

Agenda



Network Overview

SMT is a network of industrial SME founded in 2001

7 small SME (12-80 collaborators) of the mechanical manufacturing sector in Western Switzerland

Production of highprecision parts, 90%

export worldwide




SMT creation reasons

Threads

- customers reduce thenumber of their suppliers

- competition from lowwages countries

Opportunities

- Become completesolution suppliers throughalliances and cooperation

Weaknesses

- small / very small SME- highly specialized SME- poor commercial skills

Strengths

- strong technical skills- high productivity(machine and manpower)

- stable social environment




SMT creation process

1998 report on the current strengths andweaknesses of the regional screwmachining industry

1999 10 enterprises ask for support to start anetwork research project (EPFL)

2000 - 2001 project running

2000 6 enterprises leave the boat…

2001 the “Fab Fours” create SMT




SMT creation process

2001 - 2004 3 new members join SMT

2005 - 2007 Research project with EPFL to set up and collaborate with a partner network in China

2006 - 2008 ECOLEAD research project (pilot CNO)




Questions about the creation process

more than 80 companies attended the report presentation event

Why only 10 were interested to collaborate ?

6 companies left the before the end

What are the reasons of this ?




A typical Virtual Organization for business…

Milling of the semi-finished product : RAVINE SACenterless grinding : ADAX SASurface treatment : ESTOPPEY-REBER SA

VO creation : - requests coming from different sources posted- first VO for quotation set up, partner selection

is the “best constellation” (prices, delays etc.).VO execution : - one unique company takes the lead.




Ravine SA

ADAX SA Estoppey-Reber SA

QC

QCNormaloutsourcing

Milling

Centerless grinding Surface treatment

Trust allows workshop to workshop direct transfer of parts with the minimum of time, costs, papers and control !



Main lessons learnt as a VBE manager…

Network Management (1/4)

Managing SMT is like managing a club :- there are very active, active and less active members- the members’ rights and duties must be clear- the workload must be low and equally shared- conflict resolution must be defined in advance- “management by persuasion” styleThe network management is based on :- a charismatic President- a broadly accepted Coach



Main lessons learnt as a VBE manager…


The condition of success are :- high trust level between the members- a shared common business ethic- strict respect of the SMT chart of rights and duties- long term thinking : not all members can have animmediate profit

- be ready to give before receiving- get rid of free riders

Almost only human aspects !



Adopted best practices within the VBE live to improve its management…

• Reach first successes (common buying and participation to fairs, business) as soon as possible

• Monthly face to face meetings to enforce trust• Install a simple remote conference tool (GotoMeeting®)• Launch common research projects to improve SMTECOLEAD : - competence management

- knowledge sharing- common ontologies with the Chinese network

DecoCHina : - partnership with Chinese companies




Current problems or challenges faced…


SMT could become a closed club reluctant to admit new members:- which additional competences should be added- until now, no entrance fees requested

Change of ownership / CEO

Collaboration spirit to be transferred to the lower levels



Conclusions

Questions and research needs (1) :

CNOs are now well known and studied :- Why so few industrial applications ?- How to foster the collaboration spirit ?- How to motivate SME to join CNO ?- How to boost the creation of CNO ?

What is missing and what can researchers do ?



Conclusions

Questions and research needs (2) :

UserCNO IT network

ERP / CAD database

ERP / CAD database

ERP/ CADDatabase

ERP / CADDatabase

Data sharing between legacy IT systems



• Mr. Michel Pouly is an Electrical Engineer from EPFL. • His background covers an extensive industrial curriculum in the field of

automatized flexible manufacturing systems. • He is a part time senior scientist and lecturer at EPFL and also a

consulting engineer. • Leader of the study on the turned parts supplier industry in Western

Switzerland, Leader of the Swiss Microtech creation project, Leader of the DecoCHina project (Swiss-Chinese industrial CNO), Responsible for piloting the Swiss Microtech participation as demonstrator of state-of-art CNO concepts, methods and tools as part of the FP6 ECOLEAD project.

• Author of different articles on CNOs; particularly interested by their human aspects.



Joseba Arana, Luis Berasategi [email protected], [email protected]

IKERLAN Techn. Research CentreArrasate - Mondragón


New Products and Servicesfor

Elevation SectorOrona Innovation Network

copyright Orona 2009


• Introduction

• Network Overview

• Network Operation

• Network Management

• Conclusions

Agenda



Introduction

ProductsServices

New marketsNew likesNovelty

GlobalisationProduction costsDifferentiation

Offer marketCustomer demand

Customisation

Characteristic 4:INTEGRAL OFFER

Characteristic 3:EVOLUTION

Characteristic 2:COMPETENCE

Characteristic 1:ADAPTABILITY

Characteristic 5:TECHN. EVOLUTION

ProductsProcesses

Re‐adaptation

STRATEGIESVision,Alliances

PROCESSESEffectiveness,Efficiency,Flexibility

APPLICATIONS

SYSTEMS

InteroperabilityMovilityInternet

DATAINFORMATION

StandardsSemantics

PEOPLE

Responsibility Self Mgmt Cooperation

OronaInnovation Network



Introduction

ORONAstands as the Spanish leading

company in the lift industry

• > 250 independent companies• > 100,000 workers

• 3,500 workers• 85 countries



Network Overview

Industrialcompanies

Consulting

SectorialR&D

AppliedResearch

BasicResearch

Core Group

+++ Other Associated companies

Research Centres

Universities

Subsidiaries



In 2002, ORONA promoted the creation of ORONA Innovation Networkin order to:

• Discover new technological opportunities• Translate them into innovative product ideas

Challenges:

• Generate value based on technology to increase competitiveness• Generate critical mass with advanced knowledge• Leverage resources:– Share cost– Share risk– Concentrate knowledge– Favour co-specialization

• Create trust based on collaboration:– Increase knowledge acquisition– Develop new competences

Network Creation



• No formal methodology• Based on the history of collaboration in specific projects• 3 fundamental axis:

– Growth of R&D investments– Creation of EIC (Elevation Innovation Centre)– Stable Framework Agreement with University (Mondragón University)

and IKERLAN for technology collaboration.• Defining the “Collaboration Spaces”:

Network Creation

Projects Projects Projects Projects Projects Projects Projects

Tecnology Innovation Framework Tecnology Innovation Framework

Strategic Planning Strategic Planning



Network Operation

INDUSTRIAL PARTNERSTechnology Platform

ORONA EIC

IKERLANMGEP

ELECTRA

MCC

HERREROS

ZABALA

3a. VO-Technology Platform Dev.Inter-company projects for Technology platform development

3a. VO-Technology Platform Dev.Inter-company projects for Technology platform development

3b. VO-New Product Development

Inter-company projects for New Product Development

1. VBE-OINResearch consortiumCommon research strategyManaged by Technical Committee & Roadmap plan

EXTERNAL CUSTOMERSInnovative products

2. PVC/VT-Technology watch

New technological opportunities & concept ideas



Network Operation

Autopropulsado con contrapeso

Contrapeso motorizado

Batería para auto rescate

Reconocimiento personalizado

Puertas de piso ultraplanas. Ej. empotrables en tabique

Deslizaderas de alto rdto. + Sist. Seg. mecatrónico

Pantalla LCD de plástico flexible.

Paneles cambiables con estética personalizada (tipo Irizar). Paneles para obra y fin de obra

Botonera con carátula cambiable

Base y techo modulares cambiables: obra, fin obra

Estructura autoportante metálica. Cerramientos de hueco de pladur(absorción-aislante)

Rendimiento de hueco >70%

Grupo viajero ligero. Ej. Sector de automoción

Puertas de cabina ultraplanas

Foso 200 y HUP 2500



Network Management

Lessons learned:• Manage an Innovation Network is based on managing the Networked

Innovation process• A long term view must be share among the partners• Efficiency and effectiveness is compulsory• Trust is essential. Trust is based on facts.• Involvement of managers is required as well as involvement of people.• Different focus: All are needed.



Network Management

Three basic elements support the management of the network:

• Strategic roadmap definition• Monitoring of project status• Monitoring assets and results

But the key point is:

Orchestrating



Current challenges:• Involve new partners and networks through the core group• Go into process innovation• Go into service innovation• Build the Innovation Network open to the “persona”• Go into Business Model Innovation

Network Management



Conclusions

• Management of the innovation networks is not only management of partners and competences. The most important task is the orchestration of the activities.

• The content of the strategic roadmap should be shared and sufficiently internalized by the members of the core group.

• Reinforce the importance of articulating innovation according toparameters of efficiency and effectiveness when obtaining results.

• Collaboration space (physical and digital) is needed.• A innovation network scorecard is the best test for the proper

operation of the innovation system as a whole.



• Mr. Joseba Arana is an Industrial Engineer that belongs to IKERLAN, a Technological Research Centre located in the Basque Country.

• He has over 25 years experience working-in and heading different departments within the areas of Design and Production Technologies.

• He has been involved in national and European research projects as well as industry transfer projects within the areas of mass-customization and product configuration.

• Nowadays, he belongs to the Strategical Innovation knowledge area in IKERLAN.

• Present research topics are Innovation Networks and Business Model innovation.



Andrew [email protected]

www.servq.comUK


A Decade of Enterprise NetworksPractical Experience

in Implementing Networks

Delivering the Collaboration Premium

ServQServQ

copyright ServQ 2009


Agenda



ServQ Overview

• Founded in 2001 and specialises in collaborative systems advising on:• Strategy Formulation• Organisational Alignment• Partnering & Alliancing• Implementation

• Designed as a ‘virtual partnership’ with good links to authors and researcher.

• Most of our work is in the EU and USA.• www.servq.com



Our Network

• Our firm has 5 people but interfaces with:• 20+ Associates based on their ‘partnering competence’

and technical delivery skills.• 3 UK universities, 1 with ServQ sponsorship.• 2 US thought leaders on strategy and alliances.• 2 US firms in ‘cloud software’ for strategic cost

management.• 4 research and best practice institutions.• We are a network by design created to compete

effectively with minimum overheads.



Confidentiality

• Client confidentiality is important.• These are our collective and objective observations

from designing, advising on, working with and delivering a series of networks over the 00s. As such they do not necessarily represent the views of individual Clients.

• We have given practical examples around successes and many of the challenges - for delegate reference.



Competition to Collaboration




Business Network A is a VBE

• US based.• Founded mid 00s.• Non-profit focused on bolstering U.S. manufacturing.• Core tenet is Network Centric Manufacturing, which is the rapid assembly

and seamless coordination of dynamic supplier networks to accelerate production and reduce costs.

• Developing solutions that increase supply chain agility, collaboration and coordination.

• Has done considerable work with Department of Defense and NASA to develop and prove out model.

• Now moving into commercial environment, starting with aerospace,defense and energy.

• Has delivered quantifiable results that demonstrated ability to shorten time, reduce costs and lower risk.



Business Network B is a VO

• UK based.• Founded early 00s.• Private funded by retained surpluses and originally time in kind.• Over 20 active participants but managed by shareholding members,

board and trusted contributors.• Designs processes, delivers training and oversees implementation.• Challenges in implementation mid 00s – around balance of network’s

input and outcomes – Leaders vs. Followers.• Overcoming challenges through transparency and engagement of whole

team in strategy.• Growth constrained through some client resistance to engage with good

quality networks compared to large firms/ staff numbers.• Partnering and people skills a core competence by design.• Issues of inputs and outcomes can resurface in slow economy.



Business Network C is a VBE

• EU based.• Founded mid 00s - part public funded.• Has 100+ participants who have had variable inputs.• Managed to date by public sponsored board and staff.• Regionally based & therefore geographically constrained.• Original specification, legal and policy constraints meant cannot

commercially trade, lead or take risks i.e. Cannot be a PRIME VE.• Good ‘how to’ manuals and processes supplied by EU programme.• Funds initial brokerage of opportunities - now has a procurement and bid

support role therefore morphed from a CNO to a VBE.• Facilitates VEs especially in environmental technologies.• Restructuring out original complexity but funding now constrained due

to tightening public sector purse.• Less focus on people aspects. High emphasis on due process, reporting

and governance relates to public sector input.



Knowledge Network D is a CNO

• US based, founded mid 80s.• Membership funded NFP with over 150 active participants.• Managed by elected Board, 2 FT staff and Interest Group Heads.• Produces well regarded ‘how to’ books and manuals i.e. knowledge

creating.• Reviewed strategic direction late 00s – overcome by good membership

teamwork.• Good at building partnerships through a strong President.• US centric until 2007. Expanding internationally because of a strong and

ambitious leadership.• Funding and growth constrained on rate of expansion of new

membership in current recession – made membership more accessible.• Needing to keep output rate up to reinforce member value.• Focus on delivery and marketing of deliverables/knowledge.



Knowledge Network E is a CNO

• UK Based.• Founded 2007.• Hosted by a major university.• Has over 40 active participants.• Very senior representation from industry and government.• Assesses practical policy matters relating to engineering, assets and

whole life cost/sustainability.• People attend to network with each other and contribute to national level

policy matters.• Started as a forum from 2009 has a new ‘spin out’ institution.• Has a web-site for distributing information and proceedings.• Doesn’t yet have a portal so too little interaction between major events.• In the ‘set up stage’ but very good quality teams involved.


IT Deployment

• Network A - Leveraged existing technologies until needs and value were better defined.

• Network B - Specified its portal needs right up front and still uses the same system today. Its ISO9001:2008 & 14001 certification is based around this so IT used – daily.

• Network C - Started off with a bespoke IT approach which has led to some implementation challenges and vendor ‘lock in’ which proved very expensive and risky when compared to A&B

• Network D - Transformed its productivity by investing in a good portal –took a week.

• The advent of SharePoint, on line costing systems, management and measurement systems together with WEB 2.0 is driving more cost effective approaches than were possible even 3 years ago.

• Buy what you need not what the IT people want!



The Collaboration Premium?

● Premium Delivered ○ Partial Premium ◘ Room for Improvement




Technology Design - Lessons

• Information systems enhance networks• Definitely needed for geographically remote teams.• Do not need a bespoke design to get started.• IT people too influential in network set up and design -

when they are the support service.• Where IT is not a core competence outsource it.• Grow IT as you need it not at outset• IT ‘portal’ service providers will outstrip a network’s

in-house skills, unless the network is there to design IT portals.



The ‘C’ Words


The BadThe Good



Overcoming a Lack of Commitment

• Passion and belief• Understand needs and wants - right up

front. • People, trust and transparency issues:

1. Find network’s leaders and followers2. Use a formal partnering process3. Focus on quick wins 4. Beware of transient teams creates

‘conflict’ and underperformance.• Some conflict is a natural part of the team

forming process • How we handle conflict depends on our

emotional and Partnering Intelligence.– See www.partneringintelligence.com



Towards the Collaboration Premium

• Collaboration needs a driver• Look for consensus on how to collaborate• Assess alignment and which

organisations complement core team -supplier network

• Use a conflict resolution system• Difficulties arise from a lack of

transparency and ‘audit’ on inputs and outcomes – gather inputs and outcomes.

• Collaboration Premium comes from coaching and mentoring a ‘trust dividend’and balances of outcome, risk and reward.

• Use some form of Scorecard to set and agree network targets and refer to it.



• Mr. Andrew Crossley is a Director of ServQ, ASC Management and the UK Principal of Partnership Continuum, a leading US firm specializing in building partnerships and alliances.

• He has worked in the engineering, project management, construction and consulting industries for over 25 years.

• He is a chartered civil engineer with an MBA from Manchester Business School and an MSc. in Infrastructure Asset Maintenance and Management from the University of Leeds.

• Mr. Crossley is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Marketing, has qualifications in Value Management and is a member of the Institute of Asset Management.

• He is on management and steering groups in the UK and the USA and has held directorships at four UK businesses.

• Mr. Crossley was seconded part time to set-up a not for dividend group sponsored by a government agency between 2006 and 2008.

• He is currently working on a major leadership improvement initiative for small to medium sized businesses in Wales.



Peter [email protected]

Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology


Virtual Organisations for Teaching, Research and Healthcare

in Australia

copyright Bertok 2009


Virtual organisations in different fieldsAustralian examples• Research

Bringing together different organisations for specific research

• TeachingOffering courses from different universities in a unified

framework• Healthcare, community care

Efficiently manage and deliver services

Introduction



Research Organisations

AimSupport the forming of research groups with critical

mass

Organisational supportCooperative research centres

Government supported (https://www.crc.gov.au )Funding provided for a period of several years

A CRC allocates funds to mission-related projectsProject-oriented teams

Team members delegated by the member organisations, but not representing the member organisation

Teams have their own resources



Teaching

AimFlexible delivery of university courses on-line

Organisational exampleOpen Universities Australia (https://www.open.edu.au)

Alliance of seven universitiesOffers degrees in Arts, Business, Education, Engineering,

Health, Information Technology, Law and ScienceA degree can include courses offered by different universitiesCourses needing hands-on laboratory work are not offered

Separate entity (OUA) for coordination onlyMembers individually deliver services (courses) Relies on members’ resources



Healthcare, Community Care

AimsTo deliver health services in a flexible and efficient

mannerTo protect people at risk of abuse, maltreatment or

neglect

Organisational examplesAboriginal health CRC

Alliance of government health agencies and research institutions

Brotherhood of St Lawrence (charity organisation)Cooperation with local government, assessment authorities

and healthcare providers.Protocols for interagency information sharing, privacy and

confidentiality Loose coupling between member organisations’ teams



Technical Infrastructure

Teaching and researchAustralian Academic and Research Network (AARNet)

Rents and operates high-speed links between institutionsProvides specific technical services for cooperation

e.g. Video conferencing and desktop sharing, research applications



Technical Issues

Security and privacyInformation access and usage control• Access rights

Access control for VO participants• Within a member organisation (local access control)• Between member organisations (remote access control)

• Dissemination rights (confidentiality constraints)– Internal data (relating to the VO)– External data (about clients/customers)

Confidentiality of personal information (e.g. medical)



Conclusion

Virtual Organisations – operate in many fields– have specific missions but general organisational frameworks

(organisational setup reflects the nature of the task, not the application area)

Different organisational modelsProject-oriented team model

Team members from different member organisationsUmbrella organisation model

Service delivery by individual member organisationsLoose cooperation model

General support– Organisational

Government funding– Technical

Specialised support for different needs



• Prof. Peter Bertok is an associate professor and member of the Distributed Systems and Networking Discipline Group of the School of Computer Science and Information Technology at RMIT University, Australia.

• He is the Group Leader of the Distributed Systems Research Groupwhich studies topics related to: Distributed systems, Real-time systems and Security in computing.

• He has been involved in different national and international research projects in topics such as: Security in Ad-Hoc Networks; Stateless and State Aware Middleware in Mobile Computing Environments; Peer-to-Peer Computing in Mobile Environments; Security in SCADA systems; Performance of Web Services; Mobile Services; Integrated Infrastructures for Dynamic and Large Scale Supply Chains; Scalable and Robust Mobile Middlewares; and Computer Anomaly Intrusion Detection.



Myrna [email protected]

CEMEX Research Group AGSwitzerland


Collaborative Networks for Innovation

Challenges for Breeding Environments of Enterprises & Universities for Innovation

copyright CEMEX 2009


Why to Network for applied R&D?

• Enterprises need to restructure themselves to be capable of combining considerable flexibility to diversify and customize products in different markets, attract global talent and embed sustainability requirements to deliver innovative products and services

• The challenge is to enable the formation of applied R&D networks both in local and geographically distributed locations to team-up and catalyze the innovation cycle.



Collaboration/Networking Models

1. Industrial Clusters2. Innovative Mileu3. Innovation Systems4. Triple Helix5. Living Labs6. Breeding Environment7. Open Innovation

1. Simultaneous Engineering2. Supply Chain Management3. Extended Enterprise4. Value Chain5. Virtual Enterprises6. Breeding Environment7. Open Innovation

Type 2 National/RegionalNetworking Models

Collaboration as part of a spatial context, innovation for

regional/national competitiveness

Type 1 Intra-Inter Company Networking Models

The Firm as an individual entity or part of a network (not linked to a

specific territory)

Source: Flores M., Towards A Taxonomy For Networking Approaches for Innovation presented at the PROVE06 Conference, Helsinki Finland, September 2006

Are they enough or only confusing the Audience?



Why do we need Breeding environments?

• It is very difficult for one company to count with all the resources, knowledge and experience to develop breakthrough innovations.



Research Question?

• So, if collaboration enables and catalyses innovation providing business opportunities…

why is it so difficult to accomplish?



• Many companies still do not realize which are the benefits for collaborating in networks…

• Available academic “networking” concepts and publications are too complex with fuzzy words…

Lessons Learned / ChallengesLack of Common Understanding



– We work at different speeds.

– It is hard for many academic scientists to apply concepts in real industrial scenarios.

– Good ideas are not enough, collaborative innovation refers to bring products to the market. Researchers in Universities in many cases do not know the company markets and real needs.

– Many research projects with Universities are carried out by students, who in most cased do not have the experience to lead such research initiatives. Continuous interaction and guidance from the sponsor company is needed!

Lessons Learned / Challenge 2University – Firm Different ways of working



– It is not easy to “measure” how such collaborations will benefit the Enterprise and University in a short and long term.

– Companies measure themselves in terms of “profits or savings” and Universities think on “number of papers” and “number of PhD and Masters thesis”.

– Companies that treat Universities as “consults” do a mistake. Consultants are in most cases “experts” about a topic, Universities in many cases are interested to “learn and explore”about the topic for the first time.

Lessons Learned / Challenge 3University – Firm Lack of tools to measure collaboration



Suggestions

Improving collaboration and networking is a journey. Companies interested to collaborate with Universities for collaborative

research, could consider the following:1. Define a collaboration/networking strategy.2. A roadmap or maturity model to track its progress.3. Identify “key” players with whom to collaborate (internally in

the company and with the partner University).4. Search for research projects that can bring benefits in different time

horizons: 1) short, 2) medium, 3) long term.5. Provide guidelines and clear processes to their employees and

to the partner University.6. Demonstrate and motivate with examples from other companies

(usually multinationals in high-tech sectors).



Conclusions

Is important to:• Understand the “real” business needs

before engaging with Universities in research projects.

• Identify who will be the “internal customer” and “sponsor”.

• Explain to the academic partner that the company expects tailored made solutions with a practical application (not only generic frameworks).

• Foster continuous contact with the University partner.

• Focus on projects that provide win-win results.



• Myrna Flores has a PhD. from the Politecnico di Milano in Management and Industrial Engineering (Italy, 2006), a Post-Graduate Degree on Technologies and Sustainable Development, (India, 2005) and a MSc.in Manufacturing Systems from the Tecnológico de Monterrey, Campus Monterrey (Mexico, 1999).

• She is currently a Research and Networking Sr. Consultant at CEMEX Global Center for Technology and Innovation in Switzerland.

• Her past professional experience includes working at the Institute of Computer Integrated Manufacturing for Sustainable Innovation,Switzerland, as manager of International Research Projects and teaching Six Sigma, Supply Chain and Knowledge Management; at General Electric (GE) in Sourcing Industrial Systems, e-procurement, Corporate Research and Development, and Business Process Simulation activities; and at the Manufacturing Systems Research Center of the Tecnológicode Monterrey, as a researcher in a Collaborative Networks and Virtual Enterprises project and in a AT Kearney/ITESM Benchmarking project.



Question 1

How we can communicate the business people that “collaboration” is a BIG opportunity?

“By showing real success cases… Business people are more ready to believe in other business people”

“Set-up social networks to spread the word” “Clear business cases” “New business models”

“Define advantages of collaboration in business terms: save money, boost sales, new customers, maximize capacity, increase standards”

“Workshops” “Real examples and study cases” “Participation in Business Conferences”

“Advantages of collaboration vs. Disadvantages of competing alone” “Business Book with real cases”

“Create a business oriented Website with: case studies, glossary of terms, directory of local network”

“Key performance indicators to show the impact of collaboration”

“Nightlight the potentiality in emerging collaboration business opportunities in the market”

“Business models: New revenue and costs models based on collaboration”

some post-it ideas...

copyright 2009


Question 2

What we should communicate to Industry? (reference models, business processes,

technology tools, etc.)“Downloadable good practices… best practices, guides and handbooks”

“Modeled business processes” “Simple and successful business examples”

“Examples of real cases in a easy / simple language” “Reference models applied to real cases”

“Business models: strategy, KPIs, processes, ICTs” “First of all, minimal information sharing”

“Business processes, because collaboration impact the way of working… then tools”

“Show new business models and simulate results by designing new business processes”

“Interviews with happy collaboration customers” “Models that are directly applicable to real life scenarios”

“Reference models, Business models, Business processes”

“We should communicate that independently of particular models or processes…collaboration leads to important results such as business increasing, cost reductions, new partnerships”


copyright 2009


Question 3

What type of mechanisms we should use to communicate the collaboration message?

(business cases, workshops, conferences, etc.)“Regional workshops organized by professional associations” “Workshops and Websites”

“Business cases and workshops: It is fundamental to be close and to feel interaction with the businessmen”

“Case studies and demonstration deliverables” “Via workshops and industrial associations”

“Business cases based on workshops centered in an specific area”

“Big local and national events” “More focused meetings with companies, CEOs and managers”

“Business cases, consulting, personal relations.. Focus on clarity”

“Business cases - successful and non-successful” “Face-to-face meetings and online discussion”


copyright 2009


Panel Conclusions

copyright 2009

• The audience of this panel, composed by “academics” and “practitioners”, have reached to some common agreements to support the Next Generation Collaborative Networked Organizations:

– The strong need to consolidate “Collaborative Networks” as a recognized scientific discipline by the academic and industry worlds.

– The necessity to move from theoretical concepts, models, methodologies and prototypes into real business ideas, models, best practices and ready-to-use collaborative tools.

– The call for two different knowledge transfer languages, one oriented to the academic people and another one oriented to the business people.

– The need for “Handbooks” to explain with real successful and non-successful cases how to create and manage successful Collaborative Networks in different domains and application environments.

– The demand for a good balance between scientific conferences, industrial workshops and common forums to bring together researchers, consultants and businessmen in order to share a common vision about Collaborative Networks and their challenges.

– The necessity to clearly identify, characterize, recognize and promote the benefits of “collaboration” as an important strategic business element for organizations’ competiveness and survivability in the near future.


Panel Acknowledgments

Universidade Federal

De Santa Catarina

copyright 2009

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


Panel Audience - Pictures

Panelists: Ricardo Rabelo (Virfebras Network), Arturo Molina (IECOS Network), Joseba Arana (Orona Network)

copyright 2009



Panelist: Peter Bertok (Research, Teaching & Healthcare Networks)

copyright 2009

prove 09 - special panel session on next generation collaborative networked organizations

Business

panel session scope

panel chair

copyright iecos

practice session

monterrey iecos

industrial landscape

manufacturing industry

cemex network