Value Co-Creation in Industrial Buyer-Seller Partnerships ... - Doria

ÁÅ¿ÁÅ¿¿Á¿Á‘ ‘ž ž• Access to both technical and commercial skills• Lower operational costs• Reduced development expenses for both companies• Improved material flow for both companies• Quicker and more cost efficient problem solving• Reduced administration costs• Learning, which can be applied in other relationships• Access to other parts of the network(Ford et al. 2003, pp 91-101)Based on the above discussion on involvement I revise the figure on exploiting differenttypes of interdependencies presented earlier, by exchanging the x-axis from interaction intoinvolvement. The illustration suggests that more involvement is required in achievingeconomies of innovation than in the case of economies of integration. The argument is notthat economies of integration would be possible to achieve with low involvement, but thatthe degree of involvement required for that is likely to be less than in the other two types ofeconomizing suggested. Further the question most likely is not simply about differentdegrees of involvement (less–more), but also about different types of involvement, therationale being that different types of involvement ameliorate the achieving of differentoutcomes. Economies of integration can likely be achieved by being rational and systematic,while economies of innovation will more likely be achieved through being adept andinventive.²©³@´µd´ · ¸©¹´©º’X“T”Z• –X— Õ”^Xš• ›fœ “X— X“X–T“X›TO“M›Z”^“ •· µoµd´©»¼©½O· ´µ ·²d³´µd´'· ¸©¹´©ºÁ à Á ß^Õ˜Mš“T¹@³¼tÆ ¸¼tµ©Ç'¹@³´Èd¸• ›fœ “X— X“X–T“X›TO“M›Z”^“ •ÁÄ Ã ÁÄ ÃÀÁ¿ ¾ ¿ ¾²©³@´µ©´'· ¸©¹´©º¡ “T¢@£Z“M›fœ •Mš ¡Ê · µ½f¸©É Ê ¼©½O· ´µ ·• ›fœ “X— X“X–T“X›TO“M›Z”^“ •Í “Ë “TÌ^Ì Í ˜M— “ˬ ±¤¥ ¦§O¥w¥¦¨¡© ª« ¬ ­j©*® ­w¥*¯°¥j¬ ±Figure 4.6: A revised illustration of the different outcomes as a consequence of exploiting differenttypes of interdependencies84