Cen

tre f

or

Str

ate

gic

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

gC

en

tre f

or

Str

ate

gic

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

g

Sustainable Collaborative enterprise: Understanding failures, create and

distribute value based on contribution(based on the first year research)

Joniarto Parung

Supervisors : Professor Umit S. Bititci and Dr. Jillian McBride

          

Cen

tre f

or

Str

ate

gic

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

gC

en

tre f

or

Str

ate

gic

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

g

Outline

• Research design

• Contributions

• Background

• Benefits of collaboration

• Literatures review and analysis

• Requirements

• Proposed model

• Preliminary Case study

• Future research

          

Cen

tre f

or

Str

ate

gic

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

gC

en

tre f

or

Str

ate

gic

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

gResearch Problem

Literature review Previous study

Theory Building

Documentation

Documentation

validation

Requirements Specification

Develop Model

Research Design

          

Cen

tre f

or

Str

ate

gic

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

gC

en

tre f

or

Str

ate

gic

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

g

Contributions:

The contributions of this research will be:

•To develop better understanding of the collaboration process and its key success factors

•To develop a new comprehensive approach in creating and distributing

value for collaborative enterprise.

changingof customersexpectation

          

Cen

tre f

or

Str

ate

gic

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

gC

en

tre f

or

Str

ate

gic

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

g

Globalisation &Regionalisation

AdvancedTechnology Government

Policies

Increased competition

ProductVarieties

Product costShort productlifecycles

IncreasedComplexity &Uncertainty

NewProduct & service

Performance

No time to learn and do by ourselves

Collaboration

Background

(Adapted from KPMG, Netherlands, 1996)

          

Cen

tre f

or

Str

ate

gic

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

gC

en

tre f

or

Str

ate

gic

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

gCollaboration Benefits (Adapted from Lewis, 1990; Huxham,1996; Parker, 2000; McLaren et al., 2002)

1. Planning and Design Process reduce time in design reduce cost decrease risk of failure increase capabilities and competences2. Production Process increase asset utilisation reduce time increase quality achieve scale economies in production reduce inventory increase skill, capabilities and competences3. Delivery and marketing Process enhance customer services increase market share rapid access to the market increase order fulfilment time increase response to the customers’ complaint

          

Cen

tre f

or

Str

ate

gic

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

gC

en

tre f

or

Str

ate

gic

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

g

70 % of collaborations

fail

What are the main causeof failures?

Existing condition

Initial Problem

Inter-personal/group relationship

Outcome performance

organisational

LiteraturesReview Analysis

AmbiguousCriteriaAmong Partners

Short-termassessment

Literature Review and Analysis

          

Cen

tre f

or

Str

ate

gic

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

gC

en

tre f

or

Str

ate

gic

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

g

Inter-personal/group relationship reason

Outcome performance reason Organisational and structural reason

DESCRIPTION

Caused by relational problems among participants in personal or in group

Caused by poor outcome performance of the collaboration.

Caused by mismatch and dissatisfaction of the participants against organisational structure, system, culture and procedure.

MAJORCAUSES

Lack of trust, poor communication, lack of commitment, and little attention is given to nurturing the close working relationship, etc

Fail to improve participants’ knowledge, skills & competence; fail to adding new values for products, fail to facilitate new product development, fail to improve productivity, fail to achieve financial benefits, etc

Mismatch of corporate culture, Lack of share benefit, due to the unclear criteria and unclear factors in distribute benefit, etc.

PASTEXPERIENCES

The collaboration failure between Avon and Liz Claiborne (Segil in Elmuti and Kathawala, 2001).

The collaboration failure between KLM and Northwest (Zineldin and Bredenlöw, 2003)

The collaboration failure between Volvo and Renault (Bruner and Spekman, 1998)

The main causes of failures

          

Cen

tre f

or

Str

ate

gic

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

gC

en

tre f

or

Str

ate

gic

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

g

It is:RelevantDynamic

integrated

How toCreate?

Differentiate collaborationForms based on “things” to be shared

Determine what are the Mutual Value proposition (and its priorities)

To the key stakeholders

Determine what are the contributions(and its level of importance)

Of each participants

Need toCreate a

comprehensivemodel

Requirements :

LiteraturesReview and Analysis

          

Cen

tre f

or

Str

ate

gic

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

gC

en

tre f

or

Str

ate

gic

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

g

Form of Collaboration in term of

“what are they shares”

Share risks&

Benefits

Share System

Share data & Information

Value Proposition to

Employee

Share holders

Customers

Share risk & benefits

1.

2.

3.

1.

2.

3.

1.

2.

3.

Share system

1.

2.

3.

1.

2.

3.

1.

2.

3.

Share data & Information

1.

2.

3.

1.

2.

3.

1.

2.

3.

How to Share

Benefit?

Proposed model ….(1)

Adapted from PLAN technical Committee Collaboration, April 2002

Cog

nitiv

e C

olla

bora

tion

Coo

pera

tive

Col

labo

ratio

nD

ata

ex

chan

ge

          

Cen

tre f

or

Str

ate

gic

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

gC

en

tre f

or

Str

ate

gic

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

g

Company-1

Company-n

Collaborative enterprise customers

External factors

Customers

get bette

r

products,

better

service, at a

better p

rice…

etc

Collaborative enterprise increased

Benefits to be shared among participants

Value

generato

r

as

contri

butor

to CE

Distribute benefit based on the contribution

Share benefits based on companies’ contributions

Proposed model ….(2)

          

Cen

tre f

or

Str

ate

gic

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

gC

en

tre f

or

Str

ate

gic

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

g Value Generator

Criterion Sub-criterion (instrument for measuring)

Weighting

Company’s Effort

Operational Performance Employee ProductivityCost reduction

Time consumed Management man-hourOperator man-hour

Intellectual Capital

Customer capital LoyaltyBrands/ image

Structural Capital Data bases in support CEPatentsSubstitution level

Human Capital CompetenceExperiences

Financial Cost

Participation cost in CE Investment cost Maintenance costProduction cost

Example of value generator

          

Cen

tre f

or

Str

ate

gic

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

gC

en

tre f

or

Str

ate

gic

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

g

Preliminary case study

• Developing and sharpen the criterion and value proposition of the model

• Developing improved data collection and measurement of the participants’ contribution

• Validation of the model

Future Research