What managers really think about networks?

by Katri Valkokari & Tiina Valjakka

“Business relationships are neither bright nor dark, but rather represent a combination of the two”*

Business networks as well as other collaborative settings, such as partnerships and alliances, are characterized by the co-existence of negative effects (several tensions, uncertainties and opportunism) and positive elements (trust, commitment, win-win).

We were interested in managers’ perspectives related to these advantages and disadvantages of relational business practices associated with the operations in business networks. Thus, we built and tested a set of metrics through interviews, thematic group discussion, and a pilot survey with 22 companies participating in an industry academia research program that develops relational practices in business networks in the context of the manufacturing industry. (see REBUS). The survey questionnaire, with 18 statements presented below, was designed based on the preliminary data and the research framework.

Positive Negative
Performance of network 1) strengthen growth of business and profitability

2) enhance access to new markets

1) increase the risks of our business

2) increase the expenditures of our business

Practices – networks as goal oriented entities 1) enhance an effective division of labor with our partners

2) increase available resources and capabilities

3) enable more flexible contracts

1) hamper new business ideas and innovations

2) decrease willingness to renew and develop

3) increase dependency on network members

Information – networks as knowledge creating platforms 1) enhance integration of ICT systems with our partners

2) enhance access to knowledge that is critical to our business

1) lead to the concealment of information and information-dependency

2) cause  knowledge leaks and the risks thereof

Socialisation – networks as controlled social systems 1) increase mutual trust in our business relationships

2) enhance comradery with our partners

1) hamper our independent decision-making

2) weakens our position in business relationships

Business networks was defined in the survey as “a set of companies and potentially other organisations (a minimum of three network actors) connected to each other for the purpose of doing business on a relational basis” (e.g., Halinen and Törnroos, 2005).

The networks are considered an especially important means to access new markets, knowledge and resources

Based on the answers, it can be concluded that the respondents have distinctively positive view on networks and their effects on business performance. In the positive statements the average value of all the respondents’ answers was over 4 (agree), in 1-5 Likert scale whereas in the negative statements the average remains under 2,5 (between 3= don’t know and 2= disagree).

scale

The three most supported statements were positive statements: business networks 1) enhance access to new markets, 2) enhance access to knowledge that is critical to our business, and 3) increase available resources and capabilities.  This support a more general conclusion that potential drivers of networking – based on relational practices – lie more in intangibles, i.e., the effects on future competitiveness. The technical or tangible enablers in turn, are assigned lower importance by the respondents. From the negative aspects side, the results indicate that managers, while believing in the growth-boosting effects of networks, also acknowledge that this may be associated with specific costs of ‘losing’ something valuable. However, networks do not seem to weaken a firm‘s position or the ‘incentives’ for business development

When comparing the negative and positive statements, it can be concluded that the respondents consider knowledge and resource sharing an important reason for operating in business networks. On the other hand, the risks related to knowledge leaks were considered an important issue, which also highlights the importance of joint rules for knowledge management practices in business relationships and networks. While the respondents in our case recognized the potential hazards, they clearly have a positive view of the influence of networks on business performance, i.e., the managers perceive the overall outcome of networks and relational business practices as clearly positive.

*Abosag I., Yen, D.A. & Barnes, B.R. 2016. What is dark about the dark-side of business relationships, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 55, May 2016, pp. 5-9

Valkokari, K., Valjakka, T., Viitamo, E. & Vesalainen, J. Management over boundaries in the network era – what do managers really think about networks? 32th Annual IMP conference, “Change and transformation of markets, networks and relationships, 30 August – 3 September 2016, Poznan, Poland, IMP Group.

 

 

 

Lost in Network? Network picturing as a tool in dynamic network management

By Tiina Valjakka and Katri Valkokari

This post illustrates how picturing networks from different actors’ perspectives affects the network management and facilitates the building of new connections. It is based on a paper we presented last month in the IMP 2015 Conference in Kolding, Denmark. The aim of the paper is to extend understanding of strategic management in dynamic business networks, especially from the viewpoint of SMEs operating in a B2B context.

moniverkosto

Firms are simultaneously acting in various networks in different roles (see picture above).  Each of the actors has its own perception of the network and its position within it. Managers’ understanding of perceptions across boundaries is a key to a firm’s success in networked business ecosystem, where knowledge and resources are dispersed and value co-creation requires integration of resources. Drawing from the management point of view, our preliminary research question was: How to picture and combine the different network perspectives in order to better manage the business network?

Network pictures can be seen, and utilized as:

  • Business actors’ subjective mental frameworks of their surroundings, and thus as sense-making tools that underlie decision-making in networks
  • a tool used by researchers and practitioners to grasp actors’ understanding of their surrounding business network(s)
  • boundary-spanning mechanisms which serve as an interface between different organizations

In our case study, we utilized network picturing as a tool for strategic management in a SME. We first draw two focal company perspectives; factory and sales, identified their most important connections, and described the roles and content of interaction with these first-level partners. The other network perspectives depicted were end-users’ network pictures from different customer segments. These network pictures, snapshots from different network actors’ perspectives, were then utilized for drawing the network management perspective. Network picturing resulted in the identification of new relevant network actors and needs for building connections to them.

The managerial challenge is to guide the development within business networks. Often, companies anchor themselves to a single vision of their customer needs and network structures, which may preclude considering the viewpoints of other network actors. Many businesses have a complex nature, and network picturing gives a possibility to see beyond the most obvious and traditionally closest actors. Our study highlighted that in order to act as a change driver in their business environment, a SME must have broader connections than the relationships with the direct customers and suppliers.

Reference

Valjakka, Tiina; Valkokari, Katri; Kettunen, Outi. 2015. Utilizing network picturing in the management of dynamic networks. IMP Group. 31th Annual IMP Conference and Doctoral Colloquium 2015 “Organizing Sustainable BtoB Relationships – Designing in Changing Networks”, 25 – 29 August 2015, Kolding, Denmark.

The rules of the game: How to survive and thrive in Business, Innovation, and Knowledge Ecosystems

by Katri Valkokari

“How dreadful… to be caught up in a game and have no idea of the rules.” –Caroline Stevermer In Sorcery & Cecelia or The Enchanted Chocolate Pot

The purpose of this blog post is to describe the rules of the game (i.e., the logic of action) in the three different ecosystem types: business, innovation, and knowledge ecosystems (see Figure below), while these three ecosystem types are interconnected from the viewpoint of the ecosystem actor. For practitioners, the aim is to shed more light on how the different types of ecosystems differ and demonstrates that different models are needed in order to operate in different ecosystems.

ecosystems

In business ecosystems as well as service or industrial ecosystems, the economic outcomes and business relationships between actors are highlighted. The approaches of innovation (eco)systems and regional clusters focus on mechanism and policies fostering the creation of innovative startups around so-called regional hubs or clusters. Finally, knowledge ecosystems have their main interest and outcome in creation of new knowledge through joint research work, collaboration, or the development of knowledge base. The table below clarifies how the ecosystem types differ in terms of their outcomes, interactions, logic of action, and actor roles.

Table: Characteristics of ecosystem types

Business ecosystems Innovation ecosystems Knowledge ecosystems
Baseline of ecosystem Resource exploitation for customer value Co-creation of innovation Knowledge exploration
Relationships and connectivity Global business relationships both competitive and co-operative Geographically clustered actors, different levels of collaboration and openness Decentralized and disturbed knowledge nodes, synergies through knowledge exchange
Actors and roles Suppliers, customers, and focal companies as a core, other actors more loosely involved Innovation policymakers, local intermediators, innovation brokers, and funding organizations Research institutes, innovators, and technology entrepreneurs serve as knowledge nodes
Logic of action A main actor that operates as a platform sharing resources, assets, and benefits or aggregates other actors together in the networked business operations Geographically proximate actors interacting around hubs facilitated by intermediating actors A large number of actors that are grouped around knowledge exchange or a central non-proprietary resource for the benefit of all actors

A primary motivation for utilising ecosystem concepts in management studies has been the desire to exploit self-organizing properties of natural ecosystems. Although formal authority is invisible in man-made ecosystems, they are not entirely self-organized: they are organizational designs that are held together on the condition that their members are in formal or informal agreement about shared purpose (baseline) and operation modes (logic of action). Previously, research has typically focused on only one of the ecosystems at a time, when in the real-world systems the interest of actors (i.e., organisations), who are the ecosystem inhabitants, come bundled together with multiple ecosystem parts. In an ecosystem, each actor has their own role to play and, in this way, they view the partially overlapping ecosystems from their own unique perspective. Thus, relationships and interactions between ecosystems types need to be analyzed at several levels in order to understand how connections flow between different ecosystems in the real business world.

All these ecosystems are dynamic, changing, and also changeable through ecosystem orchestration. Different organisms (i.e., species in natural ecosystems or actors with complementary roles in man-made ecosystems) are necessary to keep the ecosystem balanced, and removing one can cause a chain reaction felt throughout the entire ecosystem. Biological ecosystems are characterized by one or more equilibrium states, where a relatively stable set of conditions exist and maintain a population or nutrient exchange at particular levels. It is, however, important to note that the equilibrium of biological ecosystems is seldom optimal from the viewpoint of all species in the ecosystem. Thus, an ecosystem always induces both competition and cooperation, which leads to the selection and adaption of species. And, despite hitherto mainly positive approaches to man-made ecosystems, which have typically perceived ecosystems as positive and collaborative systems, that is also true within business, knowledge, and innovation ecosystems. In order to survive and thrive in an ecosystem, the essential point is to understand that different forms of interaction are required in different ecosystems.

Reference:

Valkokari, K. Business, Innovation, and Knowledge Ecosystems: How They Differ and How to Survive and Thrive within Them. Technology Innovation Management Review; 5(8) pp.17-24. http://timreview.ca/article/919

Keywords:

business ecosystem, innovation ecosystem, knowledge ecosystem, ecosystems, platforms, communities

Parvi pyrähtää uuteen lentoon

”Parvessa lentämisen taidossa keskeistä on suunta, liike ja tarkoitus, joita ohjaa toimijan positio ekosysteemissä” (professori Jukka Vesalainen, Vaasan yliopisto)

Parvi3- projektissa muodostettu reittikartta ekosysteemiseen liiketoimintaan jäsentää parvimallin hyödyntämistä verkostomaisen toiminnan kehittämisessä eri toimijoiden näkökulmista. Reittikartta on työkalu, jonka avulla luodaan uusia ajatuksia verkostojen hyödyntämisestä. Samalla se auttaa hahmottamaan verkostokumppaneiden odotuksia yhteisten tavoitteiden muodostamiseen.  Siten uusia näkökulmia ja mahdollisuuksia ekosysteemiseen liiketoimintaan voi parvikäyttäytymisen lisäksi löytää myös luonnon muiden yhteistyömallien avulla.

parvikuva

Erityisesti pk-sektorin toimijat voivat parvimallia hyödyntämällä saada uusia näkökulmia verkostojensa orkestrointiin. Keskeistä on avoin ja vuorovaikutteinen kommunikointi verkoston yhteisestä tulevaisuudesta, tavoitteista ja keinoista. Nopean verkostoitumisen avain on jatkuvasti valmiina oleva parven yhteisöllinen ydin. Näin jokin verkoston osa voi pyrähtää lentoon lyhyelläkin varoitusajalla. Tämä edellyttää toimijoilta uskallusta heittäytyä parven kehittämiseen ja keskinäistä luottamusta, joka mahdollistaa nopean reagoinnin avautuviin liiketoimintamahdollisuuksiin.

20141203_Parvi³_reittikartta_ekosysteemiseen liiketoimintaan_final

Lisätietoja:

Projektiryhmän yhteinen julkaisu: http://www2.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/technology/2014/T152.pdf

Reittikartta: http://prezi.com/m54d5bpw78b-/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy&rc=ex0share

Kalvot: http://www.slideshare.net/KatriValkokari/parvi-reittikartta-ekosysteemiseen-liiketoimintaan