O ecossistema à volta de uma organização

"Implementing a human-centered strategy must begin by contemplating in some detail which groups are important to us, assessing their role in driving the outcomes we seek, and understanding what needs to happen to support our remarkable journey. With this knowledge we can identify and prioritize the actions we need to implement.

There are many ways to group the constituencies and stakeholders we must consider. Here’s my preferred way to organize them.

1. Consumers: Seems simple enough, but we must be sure to include current customers, lapsed customers, and prospects, i.e., all the important individuals we seek to acquire, grow, retain, and spread our story.

2. Tribes: I’m using this term, at least broadly, in the way that Seth Godin did in his 2008 book of the same name: “a tribe is a group of people connected to one another, connected to a leader, and connected to an idea.” The interplay among members of our target consumers’ tribes is what helps us gain insight into their collective needs. Importantly, tribes are central to spreading our brand’s story.

3. Networks: The principal difference between a network and a tribe is that while many of the dynamics may be similar, there is less organization around a leader and a shared idea. Your book club is probably a tribe. Your group of Facebook friends or Instagram followers is a network.

4. Employees: It’s not a new idea to include an organization’s employees (or “associates” or “team members” as many retailers call them) explicitly in our strategy. In human-centered retail there are two emphasized factors. One is to include and connect them to the broader view. The other is to be sure to dial in more of the emotional considerations.

5. Investors: Without capital, few enterprises can achieve their goals, so we may find ourselves borrowing money and/or seeking equity funds.

...

6. Collaborators: This used to be more straightforward. Every organization has different partners in their success: product vendors, marketing agencies, delivery companies, and so on. They are all included in this group.

...

7. Our Community: Getting involved in city-wide or neighborhood activities has often been an arrow in the “quiver of local, independent retailers, but being mindful of both the critical inputs and our impact on the places we live is moving to the forefront.

...

8. The Planet: Although one would hope that corporations and governing bodies alike would pay more attention to this, for the most part it isn’t happening."

Trechos retirados do capítulo 13 "Essential #2: Human-Centered" de Remarkable Retail.

"we wouldn’t consistently choose efficiency over effectiveness"

"Most efforts at becoming customer-centric are well intentioned. Most people charged with implementing such initiatives are doing the best they can. The underlying reasons that most companies aren’t close to being customer-centric are varied. 

...
Yet all too often the reason comes down to this: we are only pretending to care. Because if we really cared, we wouldn’t consistently choose efficiency over effectiveness.
...
Many problems rest in basic survey design and structure. We may be measuring our performance against what we have predetermined are important purchasing variables that may have once been valid but no longer are. We may be talking only to current customers, when more relevant insights could come from listening to lapsed customers and/or prospects.
...
once we understand that people buy the story before they buy the product, we have to expand our view of what goes into a purchase decision. It’s rarely all about the product or customers simply trading off price against functional features and benefits.
...
The second challenge of historical approaches is limiting our view of the people (individually and collectively) who need to be considered and enrolled in our efforts to drive remarkable results. Clearly a laser focus on our target consumers is critically important. Yet the journey to remarkable requires a broader system of people (those who work for us, with us, are connected to us), processes, practices, technology, and so on that must be engaged to drive the outcomes we desire."

Aquele "we wouldn’t consistently choose efficiency over effectiveness" fez-me logo recordar disto:

Trechos retirados do capítulo 13 "Essential #2: Human-Centered" de Remarkable Retail.

Conhecer o cliente do cliente

Muitas empresas não deviam esquecer este aviso, "DO YOU KNOW YOUR CUSTOMER’S CUSTOMERS?"

Pode ser a diferença entre o fracasso e o sucesso.

"What do you know about the kinds of prospects your best customers are trying to attract?
...
The best way to refer qualified new customers is to know as much as you can about their ideal customer profile."

Cada vez mais o caminho passa por trabalhar para além da relação diádica e passar a trabalhar em rede, em ecossistema.

As relações como a plataforma mais importante

"By the early 1990s, IBM was losing billions every year, running out of cash and close to bankruptcy.
...
Why was IBM able to survive while so many other IT companies didn’t make it?  I’ve thought a lot about this question.  In my opinion, IBM’s survival was made possible by three major factors: talent and R&D investments; trustful relationships; and wise leadership.
...
Trustful relationships.  Another critical survival factor are the trustful collaborations with clients, business partners, research communities, and other stakeholders that take years to build.[Moi ici: O papel de um ecossistema]
...
“From the beginning, as a maker of complex machines IBM had no choice but to explain its products to its customers and thus to develop a strong understanding of their business requirements.  From that followed close relationships between customers and supplier.  Over time these relationships became IBM’s most important platform - and the main reason for its longevity.”
...
Wise leadership.  In April of 1993 Lou Gerstner became IBM Chairman and CEO, the first outsider appointed to the position.  This was, in my opinion, the third major factor in IBM’s survival.
...
He imbued the IBM workforce with a strong sense of urgency, prodding it to address the serious problems the company faced.  He surrounded himself with executives who knew the company well and understood what needed to be done.
...
Early in his tenure he was faced with a few critical decisions.  IBM’s previous leadership had been working on a plan to break up the company into a loose federation of thirteen so-called baby blues.  But, after talking to a number of IBM’s key customer, Gerstner reversed the decision. Customers told him that IBM was much more valuable as an integrated company that could help them solve complex problems and build industry solutions than as a provider of piece parts or components."

Trechos retirados de "Getting Through Highly Uncertain Times - Some Lessons Learned"

Uma lição para as PME portuguesas

Qualquer negócio, do maior ao mais pequeno, está representado na figura acima. Qualquer negócio só tem direito à existência se conseguir atrair e manter uma plateia com "peso" suficiente para o sustentar e impedir que caia no abismo.

Uma plateia, qualquer plateia é composta por vários tipos de intervenientes - um ecossistema. No entanto, os mais importantes, os mais "pesados", são os que pagam pela oferta, são os clientes.

Os clientes não são todos iguais. Há clientes que valorizam sobretudo o preço, há clientes que valorizam sobretudo o serviço feito à medida e há clientes que valorizam sobretudo algo inovador ou diferente.

Quando falamos de leite, aprendi há muitos anos, falamos da commodity alimentar por excelência:

"Milk is the ultimate low-involvement category, and it shows. Only 10% of the international sample (in Denmark, Germany and Spain the number is less than 5%) would expect the private label version to be of a lesser quality."

 Vender leite é um negócio de preço. Qualquer negócio de preço é um negócio de eficiência, é um negócio de volume. Recordemos Marn e Rosiello:

Se o negócio é preço o modelo rola à base disto:

Neste postal recente, "O que mais ninguém lhe conta (parte II)" contei o caso de uma vacaria em Portugal com cerca de mil vacas, quando o tamanho médio das vacarias rondava há uns anos as 30 vacas. Na parte I desse postal perguntava:

Como é que num negócio em que o que conta é o preço (logo o custo), uma exploração com 30 vacas, ou 50 vacas, pode competir com uma de 500 ou de 900 vacas? (900 é só o número médio)?

Na parte I desse postal admirava-me com um vacaria americana com 9 mil vacas. Neste postal de 2012, "A verdade que não nos é contada, acerca do leite" citei uma breve referência a uma vacaria que teria 30 mil vacas:

"One farm in Indiana has 30,000 cows, and is a tourist attraction, with its own off-ramp on the interstate."

 Como é que num negócio em que o que conta é o preço (logo o custo), uma exploração com 900 vacas, pode competir com uma de 30 mil vacas?

Se optarem pela concorrência perfeita não podem ponto! Por isso, metem os políticos ao barulho e nasce o pernicioso activismo político associado ao leite.

Se o negócio é preço não há mistério, como diria Roger Martin. Se o negócio é preço não há arte, há ciência, há algoritmo:

Se o negócio é preço a abordagem a seguir é a do pragmatismo que me surpreendeu na altura. As formigas no piquenique em, "Faz sentido continuar a apostar num negócio?" (Julho de 2006).

Daí não ser de espantar esta evolução:

"Em 25 anos (entre 1989 e 2013) desapareceram 90 mil explorações e reduziu-se o efetivo animal em mais de 140 mil vacas leiteiras, o que corresponde a variações negativas de, respetivamente, 92,2% e 34,7%.
Esta evolução traduziu-se sobretudo na eliminação de explorações pecuárias com um número reduzido de efetivos e consequente aumento da dimensão média dos efetivos por exploração (de cerca de 4 vacas por exploração para aproximadamente 34 vacas por exploração)."

Ontem à noite, ao folhear a Bloomberg Businessweek do próximo dia 2 de Março comecei por apanhar uma foto que me fez recordar a tal vacaria portuguesa com cerca de 1000 vacas:

Em "The Dairy Farm of Your Imagination Is Disappearing" encontrei a tal vacaria com 30 mil vacas que referi no postal de 2012 citado acima:

"This is Fair Oaks Farms, an Indiana tourist attraction designed to entertain road-weary families and deliver them back to the highway reassured that American agriculture is headed in the right direction. With more than 33,000 cows that pump out some 300,000 gallons of milk daily, it’s also quite a bit more.
...
In Wisconsin alone, between two and three family dairy farms go out of business every single day. (Some of these farms still operate, but no longer as dairies.) That rate has held steady for about three years, which is particularly striking given how few farms remain left to fail. In the early 1970s, the state had more than 75,000 dairies. Today it has about 7,400.
...
Half of Minnesota’s dairy farmers failed to break even for the year. There, too, thousands of dairy farms have simply vanished.
.
In the midst of this mass extinction, a counterintuitive fact remains true: Americans are consuming more dairy products than ever before, primarily because yogurt and cheese have compensated for a steady drop in fluid milk consumption. Americans consumed 646 pounds of dairy per person in 2018—the highest consumption rate in 56 years.
...
As small farms fold, the balance of production tilts further toward huge, efficient, industrial dairy operations that can more easily weather price downturns and manage a razor-thin profit margin through the power of scale.
...
“Thirty years ago, when I got started, if you would have asked me what a large farm was, I probably would have said 15 or 20 cows, [Moi ici: Conseguem imaginar a vertigem da evolução durante estes 30 anos?]
[Moi ici: Comparar com Portugal]
...
Today, more than 53% of America’s milk is produced by less than 3% of its farms. That helps explain how, in the face of a massive reduction in the number of total dairies, the U.S. continues to produce more milk and cheese than the market consumes—in 2019, America’s cheese surplus reached 1.4 billion pounds.
...
“Now, what we see, obviously, is economies of scale having happened in America—big get bigger, and small go out,” Perdue said. “I don’t think in America we, for any small business, have a guaranteed income or a guaranteed probability of survival.” Maybe he was just stating a hard truth, but to a farmer like Yager, it sounded as if the architects of the U.S. dairy industry had all but agreed on a shared assumption: Small farms are destined, sooner or later, to fail.
...
“Every time you come up with a plan to maybe make things better, I just feel like there’s someone who’s already a step ahead of you,” Yager says. “So what do you do?” [Moi ici: Competir no negócio do preço é estar sujeito ao efeito da Rainha Vermelha. Correr, correr, correr desalmadamente para conseguir ficar no mesmo sítio]
.
A lot of people go out of business.
...
“There’s got to be something other than saying, ‘Well, you have to be big to survive,’ ” he says. [Moi ici: Reacção típica de quem apenas conhece uma alternativa e julga que todos os clientes são iguais e valorizam as mesmas coisas. Recordo dois exemplos franceses aqui e aqui. Recordo um exemplo inglês com leite biológico completo e a aposta na diferenciação] “Maybe this is getting a little radical, but it reminds me of medieval times. Like we’re going back to that. We’ll have our kings—the owners, the corporations—and then we’ll have all the people who work the land. That didn’t work well centuries ago. Because taking ownership, taking pride—that’s what makes things really work. We’re gonna lose that. And think about conservation. Think about water quality. I don’t think you find land conservation, water quality, and animal care any better, anywhere in the world, than you do on these family farms. You absolutely will not!”
...
Amid all that angst, some farmers have found a way to profit on smallness itself.[Moi ici: Malta do calçado, estão a ver o exemplo?]
.
Paul Aubertine grew up on a plot of land overlooking the St. Lawrence River on the northern edge of New York state, near Cape Vincent. He was poised to be the seventh generation of his family to take the reins of the 50-cow dairy farm, but in 2002 his father and grandfather determined they couldn’t keep the business afloat any longer. Aubertine went to college, pursued a career in sales, and started a family.
.
The older he got, the more he recognized and valued all that had been lost. There’d been 35 or 40 dairies in the community when he was growing up; now, wracking his brain, he could come up with four. “I really wanted my kids to experience what I’d experienced, to give them the chance to grow up on a farm and be exposed to the same thing,” he says.
.
He and his brother-in-law, a computer scientist, decided in 2015 to restart the dairy. They crunched the numbers and saw that trying to compete with the 1,000-cow mega-dairies on their terms was a recipe for disaster. “I’ve never had an interest in having employees, and $300,000 tractors, and all the other stuff you need for that,” says Aubertine, who’s now 37. Instead, they decided to produce milk that could be certified as grass-fed and organic. Their cows would graze in the field. Aubertine would buy no herbicides, no grain feed, no nutritional supplements, no hormone treatments. Instead of acquiring the huge, high-powered heifers that produce 90 pounds of milk a day, he assembled a herd of smaller cows that might give him 35. Because of the animals’ reduced stress, he could keep them on the farm longer, saving on livestock costs.
.
“I’m a realist, and I expected bumps on the road, but—and I shouldn’t say this out loud, probably—but it’s been beyond my expectations, what we’ve been able to do,” Aubertine says. The price he commands for grass-fed organic milk isn’t double that of regular milk, but it’s close, and his expenses are a fraction of what a modern dairy would require. He can raise his kids, take them on vacations, buy nice things, and preserve precisely the things about dairy farming that he believed were worth preserving."

O que é um ecossistema?

"WHAT IS A BUSINESS ECOSYSTEM?
.
The confusion about ecosystems starts with the question of what they are and how they differ from other forms of organization. We use a simple definition: a business ecosystem is a dynamic group of largely independent economic players that create products or services that together constitute a coherent solution.
.
This definition implies that each ecosystem can be characterized by a specific value proposition (the desired solution) and by a clearly defined, albeit changing, group of actors with different roles (such as producer, supplier, orchestrator, complementor).
...
Modularity. In contrast to vertically integrated models or hierarchical supply chains, in business ecosystems, the components of the offering are designed independently yet function as an integrated whole.
...
Customization. In contrast to an open-market model, the contributions of the ecosystem participants tend to be customized to the ecosystem and made mutually compatible.
...
Multilateralism. In contrast to open-market models, ecosystems consist of a set of relationships that are not decomposable to an aggregation of bilateral interactions. This means that a successful contract between A and B (such as phone maker and app developer) can be undermined by the failure of the contract between A and C (phone maker and telecom provider)."

Trechos retirados de "Do You Need a Business Ecosystem?"

Value - where, how, who, when

"The fact that customers and firms have different value-creating processes implies value is created in different domains and is no longer entirely in the firm’s control. Managers are increasingly aware of the need to understand customers’ roles in firms’ activities, such as those evident in service process blueprinting or customer journeys. The increasing roles of customer participation amplifies the need tounderstanding how customers orchestrate value.
...
Rather than the components of a service being absolute, they are treated as relative to alternative services and evaluated against an individual reference point. In other words, aspects beyond the exchange, product, service or interaction may constitute value as experienced by the customer. Sometimes value elements are invisible to the firm and independent of the firm. Moreover, value is not only inherent in the offering itself but also in elements only indirectly related to a specific service provider. In other words, customer value can be conceptualized as including both customer-defined and relativistic aspects with value-adding or value-decreasing characteristics.
.
Where is value created? Researchers suggest that value is formed in three domains: in the company’s world through value-in-exchange; through co-creation through customer-company interactions, that is, joint value creation; and in the customers’ world through value-in-use, otherwise known as independent value creation. Value arises in customers’ internal and external contexts based on both individual and collective elements. Hence, value is not only based on customers’ experiences with provider-created elements but can emerge outside the domain of the service provider in the customer’s world. We will now turn to a discussion of how value is created, who creates value, and when value created.
.
How is value created? As mentioned, value is seen as inherent in the interaction between the customer and provider, but value also emerges through interactions with other customers. Recognizing the impact of other customers on value formation, we acknowledge that value is created based on individual and communal experiences.
.
Who creates value? Value co-creation research highlights the important contributions of the customer to the value creation process. Recently there has been a shift away from dyadic value creation to a focus on networks and systems, to the interaction among multiple actors, and more recently to ecosystems. Despite this, practitioner and researcher attention to communal and networked value is low. The lack of attention to the communal influence of customers on value is problematic, as different forms of communities increasingly network and link customers and customer-to-customer interactions are increasingly relevant sources of value.
.
When is value created? Classic service research focuses on service encounters which implies that value is created solely within the service interaction. In contrast, a relationship marketing perspective emphasizes a longer timeframe that includes both before and after purchase. Irrespective of these differences in length, the underlying backdrop is the customers’ experience of the time of the service process. More recently, a broader notion of time has been called for that includes consideration of the past, present, and the future of the customer, not just the service process. Accepting that value is created not only in the interaction between the customer and the provider (and service system) extends the time-frame of value to the cumulated reality as experienced by the customer."

Trechos retirados de "Strategies for creating value through individual and collective customer experiences" de Kristina Heinonen, Colin Campbell e Sarah Lord Ferguson, publicado por Business Horizons 2018.

Planear a execução de uma estratégia

Um artigo interessante que toca em várias ideias que pratico no meu trabalho com as organizações e que há muitos anos descrevo aqui no blogue.

"Step one is to recognize your dependencies, i.e. your key stakeholders. [Moi ici: Desenhar o ecossistema de partes interessadas, um clássico deste blogue] You may think that this will be easy. And in a small business, like a convenience store, it initially is: customers, employees, suppliers, and owners. But then you become aware that some of the employees are also owners, and the complexity grows.
.
The trick is to identify stakeholder roles. The same group of stakeholders can occupy more than one role.
...
An essential second step, and one that I’ve been guilty of not stressing enough with clients, comes with the word “target.” It’s vitally important to identify your “target customer” before moving forward. [Moi ici: Outro clássico deste blogue, a identificação dos clientes-alvo]
...
Isolating the target customer has massive implications, including in other stakeholder groups. ... Your strategic plan can’t be all things to all customers. So, take your time here to clearly define your target customer.
...
The third step requires you to work out what your organization wants from each key stakeholder group for your organization to prosper.[Moi ici: Quando pensamos no que é que a nossa organização quer de uma parte interessada isso ajuda-nos a perceber se um segmento em particular faz sentido para o posicionamento da nossa organização]
...
The fourth step is to identify what these stakeholder groups want from you. These are the key decision-making criteria that stakeholders use when interacting with your business. For example, these might include the factors influencing the decision to purchase from you (customers), work for you (employees), supply to you (suppliers) or invest in you (shareholders). [Moi ici: Outro clássico deste blogue e a base para a elaboração dos mapas da estratégia] 

...
Strategy design, your fifth step, involves deciding what your organization’s positions will be on the identified strategic factors for each key stakeholder group. [Moi ici: Desenhar os mapas da estratégia] This is shaped by the objectives you’ve set for your organization and the knowledge you’ve gleaned about your stakeholders’ current and future needs on strategic factors.

...
The sixth step is continuous improvement. Recognize that no matter what you decide, there is no certainty in the result once you embark on implementation via an action plan and scorecard.
...
 Be prepared to adjust. View your strategic as being locked in an intimate tango with your key stakeholders. This dynamic perspective encourages openness, innovation and a preparedness to change."

Trechos retirados de "6 Steps to Make Your Strategic Plan Really Strategic"

Aprender com o futuro (parte I)

Depois de ter visto os vídeos apresentados em "Generative Listening" fui em busca da bibliografia de Otto Scharmer e fixei-me em dois títulos:

• Theory U: Leading from the Future as It Emerges
• The Essentials of Theory U: Core Principles and Applications

O primeiro título tem tudo a ver com as conversas oxigenadoras... e também com o tema do calçado e do têxtil precisarem de uma nova abordagem, para ultrapassarem um modelo que parece que ficou fora do seu prazo de validade. Daí o "leading from the future as it emerges"... o futuro agir como a causa... o retorno ao bom velho Ortega y Gasset "O meu presente não existe senão graças ao meu futuro".

Entretanto, optei pela leitura do "The Essentials of Theory U: Core Principles and Applications" porque aparece como um resumo das ideias do autor. Ontem de manhã, apesar da chuva, mergulhei numa caminhada e leitura:

“We live in a moment of profound possibility and disruption. A moment that is marked by the dying of an old mindset and logic of organizing. And one that is marked by the rise of a new awareness and way of activating generative social fields. [Moi ici: Mais tarde o autor descreve o significado deste termo] What is dying and disintegrating is a world of Me First, bigger is better, and special interest group-driven decision making that has led us into a state of organized irresponsibility. [Moi ici: Até aqui o bigger is better a levar tareia. A malta que se reúne nos Encontros da Junqueira continua mergulhada no século XX]
What is being born is less clear. It has to do with shifting our consciousness from ego-system to eco-system awareness—an awareness that attends to the well-being of all.  [Moi ici: Tudo acerca dos ecossistemas do negócio e da regra de maximização do bem comum]
...
 [Moi ici: Corro o risco de usar e abusar do exemplo de Zapatero que ainda há dias referi em "O paradoxo dos peritos", mas reparem no trech que se segue] My first insight is quite elemental. There are two different sources of learning: (1) learning by reflecting on the past and (2) learning by sensing and actualizing emerging future possibilities.
.
All traditional organizational learning methods operate with the same learning model: learning by reflecting on past experiences. But then I saw time and again that in real organizations most leaders face challenges that cannot be responded to just by reflecting on the past. Sometimes past experiences are not particularly helpful. Sometimes they are the very obstacles that keep a team from looking at a situation with fresh eyes.
.
In other words, learning from the past is necessary but not sufficient. All disruptive challenges require us to go further. They require us to slow down, stop, sense the bigger driving forces of change, let go of the past and let come the future that wants to emerge.
But what does it take to learn from the emerging future? When I started to ask this question, many people looked at me with a blank stare: “Learning from the future? What are you talking about?” Many told me it was a wrongheaded question.
.
Yet it was that very question that has organized my research journey for more than two decades. What sets us apart as human beings is that we can connect to the emerging future. That is who we are.   We can break the patterns of the past and create new patterns at scale.
...
Let me say this in different words. We have the gift to engage with two very different qualities and streams of time. One of them is a quality of the present moment that is basically an extension of the past. The present moment is shaped by what has been. The second is a quality of the present moment that functions as a gateway to a field of future possibilities. The present moment is shaped by what is wanting to emerge. [Moi ici: Ah! Ortega y Gasset] That quality of time, if connected to, operates from presencing the highest future potential. The word presencing blends “sensing” with “presence.” It means to sense and actualize one’s highest future potential. Whenever we deal with disruption, it is this second stream of time that matters most. Because without that connection we tend to end up as victims rather than co-shapers of disruption.”

Lembram-se de Boyd e da rapidez? Quando não se conhece o futuro, quando se procura aprender com o futuro que está a emergir, a rapidez é fundamental, e as organizações são tanto mais rápidas quanto mais colaborativa for a aprendizagem de todos e por todos. Não chega o líder iluminado.

Continua.

Acerca da co-criação de valor

"In co-productive terms, value is manifested thanks to the 'enabling' which the supplier brings to the customer's own value creating activity. By 'enabling' we mean 'supporting', or 'making possible'.[Moi ici: Tudo a ver com o uso da oferta como um input a ser processado pelo cliente na sua vida. A mesma oferta é processada por diferentes tipos de clientes de diferentes maneiras e, por isso, terá valores diferentes para cada tipo de clientes. Se a mesma oferta está disponível no mesmo local para todos os tipos de clientes, alguns vão considerar a oferta como demasiado cara, ou como suspeitosamente barata. Admitindo que possa fazer sentido trabalhar para mais do que um tipo de cliente, talvez faça sentido usar marcas diferentes, ainda que o 'hardware' seja o mesmo, para enviar diferentes mensagens e sinais para diferentes tipos de clientes]
...
Rather than being objective or subjective, interactive value is in fact, `actual'. It is 'actual' in the sense that it requires action on the part of both the customer, and his or her customers, and the supplier for the value to become (actually) possible. Once the actions take place, they become facts. Actual value is thus dependent on 'action' and interaction, which upon taking place 'actually', becomes 'factual'. With this understanding of customer valuation, the notion of 'end customer' — a customer at the end of a value chain that passively receives the value produced by the supplier — has lost its significance. [Moi ici: Isto não invalida que certos tipos de clientes não saibam, ou não precisem, ou não queiram criar mais valor com uma oferta. Porque a noção de valor não é a do produtor, mas a daquele que vai operar a oferta com um fim em vista. Como comprar azeite virgem extra de marca de nicho, para depois só o usar para fazer refogados] Somebody buys an offering, seeking to co-create value with others, for themself, for the other, and/or for third parties. We buy in order to create value, with others or in relationship to them. And we seek value-creating opportunities, which guide much of our buying. Understanding these value-creating opportunities for one's customers becomes the true challenge for any seller. [Moi ici: O vendedor pode fazer o papel de consultor, de formador do cliente, ajudando-o a perceber como uma determinada oferta pode fazer mais sentido e ser mais útil para a criação de valor percebido realmente como tal] The interface between one's customers and their own different customers, establishes the value that one's customers are seeking to produce. It is the supplier's role of actually helping customers to create value (with their counterparts) that convinces a customer to buy from that supplier. [Moi ici: A importância de ir para além da relação diádica e perceber o ecossistema do negócio]
...
The connotations that a given interaction holds for us, how we value it, are subjected to the particulars of the situation in which the interaction takes place. ... Offerings are thus valued 'contingently', that is, depending on which they are connected.
...
The offering consequently is not something that exists, independently, in itself. It both resulted from and contributes to a bundle of activities that enable the buyer to perform his or her activities in a different way than if the offering had not been bought. It is the outcome of these intended activities that creates some form of satisfaction for the buyer.
...
Facilitating customer value creation is, within the co-productive point of view, the raison d'être for a firm. This perspective shifts the focus of strategic attention from actor or 'activity' to interaction."
...
What competes is the offering, not the actor. Offerings are the output produced by one (or several) actor(s) creating value — the `producer' or 'supplier' — that becomes an input to another actor (or actors) creating value — the 'customer'....Offerings are thus both outputs and inputs. Acknowledging and incorporating the specific individual requirements of each customer implies that customers cannot be simply treated en masse as anonymous, 'average', de-personalized 'product markets'. Customer requirements can be better understood by knowing how each customer is producing value for themself and in turn, for their customers. A company's offering have value to the degree that customers can use them as inputs to leverage their own value creation with their own counterparts."

TRechos retirados de "Prime Movers" de Rafael Ramirez e Johan Wallin. 

Os especialistas

Quem segue este blogue sabe o quanto recomendo às PMEs que fujam do campeonato do preço mais baixo, e comecem o longo caminho que as pode levar a competirem pelo serviço à medida.

Num projecto onde estive envolvido este ano, a certa altura apresentei este sistema:

Outro tema recorrente no blogue é o da participação e desenvolvimento de ecossistemas de negócio.

Entretanto, em "Niche work if you can get it":

"Whatever you’re going to do, do it well. Sounds obvious. But deciding precisely what to do — or whether to keep doing it — is often hard for companies as they look to distinguish themselves, stay competitive, and adapt to changing market forces.
...
In our work with companies, we ask them to define themselves in terms of one of nine customer experience archetypes — value propositions described in terms of the experience they create for customers. One of those archetypes is the specialist: the company that chooses to do one thing and do it uniquely well. For these niche players, the problem of focus is, literally, a question of identity itself.
...
Specialists come in two basic types. The first finds its niche in a particular product or service. [Moi ici: O velho exemplo da artesã de Bragança, os casos em que o produto não pode ser alterado sob pena de se perder a autenticidade. ]
...
The second type of specialist focuses on a particular group of customers.
...
All specialist companies exist to solve a specific type of problem, or do a specific type of job, for customers that have a specific set of needs. To win by being narrow, they do six things:
.
1. They own, maintain, and demonstrate specialized knowledge.
...
2. They demonstrate their knowledge.
When customers recognize specialists’ expertise, they feel that they’ve put themselves in not just good hands but the right hands. Thought leadership marketing — white papers, presentations at industry conferences, and the like — is therefore a powerful tool, serving as a complementary proof point to execution. Testimonials, references, awards, and certifications are other forms of tangible evidence of superior knowledge. [Moi ici: Quem ler isto e já trabalhou comigo há-de sorrir, e reconhecer o que os desafio a fazer para subirem na escala de valor. Voltando à figura lá em cima, mais apoio técnico tem que ter por trás, mais know-how e o contacto de quem precisa desse know-how. Como vão reconhecer que uma empresa os pode ajudar?]
...
3. They select the right customers and set appropriate expectations.
...
Specialists don’t squander time, talent, and attention on customers who don’t need their specialized capabilities.
...
4. They compete on value, not price. Specialists’ sales processes are almost invariably consultative — partly to display their skill to a prospective customer, but also to vet the customer’s suitability for them.
...
If you try to make price your differentiator, you’ve surrendered your credentials as a specialist.
.
This means specialists need ways to deal with procurement departments, many of which are designed to encourage price competition and offer little opportunity for potential providers to showcase unique capabilities, especially in the early phases of the procurement process. (Another strong argument for amassing credentials.)
...
5. They seek and leverage the strategic value of partners and collaborators.
Focused they may be; lone wolves they are not. All companies participate in business ecosystems — networks of suppliers, distributors, competitors, “frenemies,” and others. Winning specialist companies are particularly adept at creating and keeping mutually beneficial relationships in their ecosystem.
...
6. They know the difference between expansion and distraction.
...
As Michael Porter points out, the pursuit of growth often blunts the edge of differentiation. More than any other kind of business, specialists need to keep that edge honed."

Ecossistemas e serviço

Um pequeno artigo com uma pérola para reflexão:

"The paper aims to introduce and conceptualize customer ecosystems as perspective on service. In this paper we discuss implications of considering not only the customer but the customer’s ecosystem when designing and operating service business. A customer ecosystem is defined as systems of actors related to the customer that are relevant concerning a specific service. [Moi ici: Isto faz-me pensar em Drucker. O cliente nunca compra o que o fornecedor pensa que está a vender. Um ecossistema não é uma função do que se produz, o output, mas uma função do input no sistema do cliente] This means that the customer ecosystem is defined based on a specific service. ... The customer’s ecosystem represents a constantly changing influencer affecting the customer’s activities and service experiences.
...
This paper proposes a customer ecosystem perspective on service. The focal point is not what the provider does to produce a service offering but what the customer does with the service as part of her own dynamic and collective ecosystem. [Moi ici: Cá está] ... Value is not created in providers’ service (eco)systems, instead value is experientially formed in the customer’s ecosystem. The core of customer ecosystems is not the co-creation of value in interaction, instead the core is how the customer configures meanings and constructs value in relation to her own ecosystem influenced by the customer’s goals, positions and roles and the whole social context."

Não é correcto desenhar um ecossistema do negócio sem equacionar a estratégia da organização, sem equacionar a sua proposta de valor e os clientes-alvo.

Na semana passada uma primeira reflexão sobre o tema numa empresa gerou um mapa como o que se segue:

Por onde circulam os produtos e serviços, por onde circula a informação, por onde circula o tempo.
Clientes, clientes dos clientes, utilizadores, prescritores, influenciadores.

Interessante que a proposta de valor do lado direito é bem diferente da do lado esquerdo.

Trechos retirados de "A customer ecosystem perspective on service" de Päivi Voima, Kristina Heinonen, Tore Strandvik, Karl-Jakob Mickelsson, Johanna Arantola-Hattab

"Triggering and facilitating capabilities"

Parte I e Parte II.

Excelente lista de actividades que podem ser trabalhadas para desenvolver o desafio de construir um ecossistema.

"Our data analysis yielded two distinct types of market-shaping capabilities: triggering and facilitating. Triggering capabilities generate new resource linkages by directly influencing various market-level characteristics. They focus on re-designing exchange, re-configuring the network, and re-forming institutions. Facilitating capabilities relate to the creative ability of the firm to determine which triggering capabilities are applied and how. They enable market-shaping by discovering the value potential of new resource linkages, and augment the impact of the triggering capabilities by mobilizing relevant intra- and inter-stakeholder resource integration.
...
Triggering capabilities: Generating new resource linkages...
We identified three aggregate themes, or triggering capability sets: capabilities related to re-designing exchange, re-configuring the network, and reforming institutions.

Facilitating capabilities: Enabling and augmenting market-shaping.
We identified 17 properties describing the creative abilities of the firms to determine which triggering capabilities should be applied and how. These are further categorized into four concepts or facilitating capabilities. We identified two aggregate themes or facilitating capability sets

Trechos retirados de "Capabilities for market-shaping: triggering and facilitating increased value creation" de Suvi Nenonen, Kaj Storbacka and Charlotta Windahl, publicado por Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science em Abril de 2019.

"resources are not, but rather become"

Interessante apanhar este artigo de Nenonen e Storbacka ao memo tempo que apanhei as disputas em torno da actualidade da ideia de Milton Friedman sobre a prioridade do lucro. É claro que o lucro é uma prioridade, mas já não pode ser a prioridade num mundo em que a assimetria de informação diminuiu e o poder passou para as mão dos clientes. Neste mundo faz cada vez mais sentido trabalhar o ecossistema:

"The aim of market-shaping is to enhance the value creation and realization for stakeholders in a market. Value creation happens when resources are combined in novel ways, the key being the ability to create, access, deploy, combine, and exchange them. ... it is not so much the attributes of resources that matter, but the linkages between them. This emphasizes a dynamic aspect of resources and their potentiality: resources are not, but rather become, i.e., what is a resource (and its value) is determined when linked and integrated with other resources. [Moi ici: Isto faz-me lembrar um tweet que apanhei ontem. Um partido brasileiro de extrema esquerda acusava Mises de ser nazi e de defender que o valor não é gerado pelo trabalhador. Enfim, Mises era judeu e teve de fugir dos nazis. O que é que os marxistas empedernidos dirão desta corrente cada vez mais forte de que o valor não é criado pelos produtores (trabalhadores, máquinas, gestão), mas acontece na mente e na vida de quem utiliza e processos os recursos que adquiriu. Isto joga com a ideia de que o mesmo recurso pode ser utilizado/valorizado por diferentes clientes, com resultados muito diferentes]
...
Key is therefore resource orchestration, in the sense of how managers structure, bundle, and leverage a firm’s resources. [Moi ici: O arquitecto de paisagens competitivas...]
...
To successfully shape a market for increased value creation, the shaping firm requires capabilities not only to add, combine and deploy the firm’s own resources, but also the resources of a network or system of organizations and individuals, with the aim to enable new types of resource linkages and integration patterns. In this process, access to resources becomes as important as ownership.
...
we view market-shaping as a purposive process by a focal firm to (1) discover the value potential of linking intra- and inter-stakeholder resources in novel ways, (2) trigger changes in various market characteristics to enable the formation of new resource linkages, and (3) mobilize relevant stakeholders to free up extant resources for new uses."

Continua.

Trechos retirados de "Capabilities for market-shaping: triggering and facilitating increased value creation" de Suvi Nenonen, Kaj Storbacka and Charlotta Windahl, publicado por Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science em Abril de 2019.

Aguentar 15 minutos sem comer o marshmallow (Parte II)

Parte I.

Aguentar 15 minutos sem comer o marshmallow é um desafio de um clássico da Psicologia.

O Financial Times de ontem aparece com o seguinte artigo de opinião "Companies should concentrate on maximising their profits":

"Corporations are not just profit-making machines. They are complex social organisms, embedded in the society from which they grow. And as such they have both obligations and rights. But bringing back the Friedman doctrine would bring much-needed clarity to discussion of the role of the corporation. Americans are just waking up to the possibility that many big tech companies are not public-spirited entities that just happen to make a profit on the side. Would this recognition have come sooner without what Friedman called "the cloak of social responsibility"? what if Facebook explained and justified its actions in terms of shareholder value rather than the larger mission of "bringing the world doser together"? Would e-cigarette maker Juul have been welcomed into high school classrooms if its stated intent was to make money off kids, rather than improve their health? Would Wework have got so far so fast if its founder's effusions about social mission were taken as evidence of organisational over reach rather than standard expressions of corporate good intentions?
...
Bring back the Friedman doctrine, and maybe we'd have a more honest conversation. Do I want to dedicate myself to maximising shareholder value? Or do I want to consider one of the other institutions — from universities, to non-profits, to public service —which truly are mission-driven? But if we freed corporations from the need to do more, then the rest of us would have to act."

 Continuo a crer que esta ideia de Friedman já não é aplicável no mundo actual, um mundo mais complexo, um mundo a precisar de ecossistemas em vez de relações diádicas, um mundo sem clientes-reféns. Não ter paciência, não saber levar a água ao seu moinho, focar-se no imediato... dá azar.

"a would-be market-shaping firm must understand ..."

Artigos de Nenonen e Storbacka são sempre um must read.

"In addition to sensing and responding to changes in established markets, firms increasingly undertake market-shaping strategies to create new business opportunities.
...
The shaping of markets is nontrivial in that it goes beyond incremental changes occurring in markets through the process of competition. Market-shaping implies purposive actions by a focal firm to change market characteristics by re-designing the content of exchange, and/or re-configuring the network of stakeholders involved, and/or re-forming the institutions that govern all stakeholders’ behaviors in the market. These actions aim at creating new opportunities to link resources of various stakeholders in ways that improve value creation in a market. Hence, the market-shaping firms engage in a process to (1) discover the value potential of linking intra- and interstakeholder resources in novel ways, (2) trigger changes in various market characteristics to enable the formation of new resource linkages, and (3) mobilize relevant stakeholders to free up extant resources for new uses.
...
We contribute to the literature on marketing and dynamic capabilities by identifying two distinct types of deeply embedded repeatable processes that together comprise the market shaping process: triggering and facilitating capabilities. Triggering capabilities generate new intra- and interstakeholder resource linkages by directly influencing various aspects of the market. They focus on re-designing exchange, re-configuring the network, and re-forming institutions. Facilitating capabilities relate to the creative ability of the firm and determine how the triggering capabilities are applied. They enable market-shaping by facilitating discovery of the value potential of new resource linkages; they also augment the impact of the triggering capabilities by mobilizing relevant resources.
...
Research in marketing and management is progressively recognizing markets as networks, systems, or ecosystems, suggesting a need to look beyond the seller–buyer dyad, to see the dyad as part of a larger network or system of stakeholders. This view implies that the locus of value creation moves beyond the borders of the firm, i.e., value is viewed as co-created with a multitude of stakeholders in the market, not only by the firm and for the customer.
...
markets cannot be understood only as a context for production and consumption, but rather as a context for value co-creation.
...
Institutions are schemas, rules, norms, and routines that form authoritative guidelines for the behavior of market actors. The argument runs that markets as value-creating systems are governed by institutions and institutional arrangements that are themselves actor generated. This raises questions as to how institutions are "created, diffused, adopted, and adapted over space and time; and how they fall into decline and disuse".
.
Consequently, to avoid the "new marketing myopia", a would-be market-shaping firm must understand how a larger system of organizations and individuals can co-create value and recognize the institutional arrangements that govern everyone’s behavior in this process."

Continua.

Trechos retirados de "Capabilities for market-shaping: triggering and facilitating increased value creation" de Suvi Nenonen, Kaj Storbacka and Charlotta Windahl, publicado por Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science em Abril de 2019.

Ecossistemas e proposta de valor

Outro artigo interessante sobre ecossistemas e a capacidade das empresas moldarem o mercado em que actuam, "Ecosystem as Structure: An Actionable Construct for Strategy" de Ron Adner, publicado por Journal of Management em Novembro de 2016.

"starting with a clear definition of “ecosystem”—the alignment structure of the multilateral set of partners that need to interact in order for a focal value proposition to materialize
...
The term “ecosystem” has itself grown to encompass an ecology of meanings. A helpful distinction can be made between two general views: (a) ecosystem-as-affiliation, which sees ecosystems as communities of associated actors defined by their networks and platform affiliations; and (b) ecosystem-as-structure, which views ecosystems as configurations of activity defined by a value proposition.
...
Originating as a biological metaphor, the notion of a business ecosystem highlighted the need for strategy to extend its consideration beyond rivals competing within industry boundaries.
...
Ecosystem as Affiliation
...
Iansiti and Levien (2004) define business networks as ecosystems, organized around a keystone species, and “characterized by a large number of loosely interconnected participants who depend on each other for their mutual effectiveness and survival.”
...
This perspective, which I call ecosystem-as-affiliation, places emphasis on the breakdown of traditional industry boundaries, the rise of interdependence, and the potential for symbiotic relationships in productive ecosystems. It focuses on questions of access and openness, highlighting measures such as number of partners, network density, and actors’ centrality in larger networks.
...
Ecosystem as Structure
...
starts with a value proposition and seeks to identify the set of actors that need to interact in order for the proposition to come about. [Moi ici: Mais uma vez, não há um caminho único. Cada empresa terá o caminho mais adequado. Por exemplo, no caso relatado neste vídeo partiu-se da proposta de valor]
...
I offer the following definition of an ecosystem and consider its implications:
The ecosystem is defined by the alignment structure of the multilateral set of partners that need to interact in order for a focal value proposition to materialize.
...
1. “Alignment structure.” Members of an ecosystem have defined positions and activity flows among them. Alignment is the extent to which there is mutual agreement among the members regarding these positions and flows. Different actors may have different end states and end goals in mind.
...
2. “Multilateral.” An ecosystem is inherently multilateral. This means not only a multiplicity of partners, but also a set of relationships that are not decomposable to an aggregation of bilateral interactions.
...
3. “Set of partners.” Being a set, membership is defined (i.e., it is not open-ended). Different actors may have different plans and perceptions regarding the composition of the set. Thus, defined does not mean complete, unvarying, or uncontested; rather, it means that the participating actors in the system have a joint value creation effort as a general goal. The goal may or may not be ultimately achieved. The defining attribute of partners is that they are actors on whose participation the value proposition depends, regardless of whether or not they have direct links to the focal firm.
.
4. “For a focal value proposition to materialize.” Inherent in this definition is an argument that the productive level of analysis for ecosystems in strategy is the value proposition and that the concern is with bringing about the activities required for its instantiation. Focusing on the value proposition—the promised benefit that the target of the effort is to receive, as opposed to what a firm is to deliver—expands the analysis in a natural way to explicitly incorporate partners. Focusing on materialization raises the requirement that partners reach a threshold level of coordination."

Continua.

Criação de nichos (parte II)

Parte I.

"Niche construction: an idea from the evolutionary theory
...
The standard view assigned excessive importance to natural selection, and the selection environment was usually seen as exogenous. The role of organisms was typically reduced to the role of a mediator between the selection environment and the population gene pool.
...
This view has been largely criticized on the grounds that an organism is, in fact, actively changing its environments: the organism chooses it, modifies it, and creates it, and these modifications may become evolutionarily significant. Genotype retention is not linearly caused by environmental conditions. Instead, genes, organism, and environment are intertwined and mutually influencing entities. In response to the traditional model of adaptation— seeing adaptations as solutions to the problems posed by the environment—Lewontin (1983) suggested that organisms and their ecological niches are coconstructing and codefining each other. Organisms both physically shape their environments and determine which factors in the external environment are relevant to their evolution, thus assembling such factors into their niches.
.
The evolutionary process depends not only on natural selection and genetic inheritance, but also on the process of niche construction and ecological inheritance. Niche construction may reduce environmental pressures: e.g., building a burrow or hive will protect organisms and their resources from some nature hazards and predators. Speaking in terms of the fitness landscape, niche-oncstructing species do not climb the local peak of fitness; rather they become landscape shapers, raising new mountains where they never existed before.
...
Respectively, the process of niche construction does not imply strategic assaults on rivals or changes in organizational boundaries through acquisitions and divestments, although the outcome of niche construction transforms the competitive landscape. Rather, it implies sustained changes in the pool of resources in the environment (i.e., outside the organizational boundary), and changes in the knowledge distribution and the typical divisions of labor. Rather than the game by the rules strategy, it is envisaged as the change of the rules of the game—a change that results in reorganization or creation of opportunities."

Trechos retirados de "Niche Construction: The Process of Opportunity Creation in the Environment" de Pavel Luksha, Strat. Entrepreneurship J., 2: 269–283 (2008)

III - Interested Parties: Any Connection to your QMS?

The third video on our series about doing more than just complying with ISO 9001:2015.


Now, about interested parties and what can be their use in developing an aligned quality management system.


I do not say that organizations that want to be certified need to act like in this video. What I say is that organizations that look for business results should consider following an approach around what I propose.

In a world that is running away from the XXth century paradigm, based on just Quality-Cost-Delivery, and into what I metaphorically call Mongo, the planet Mongo from Flash Gordon's adventures, the number of segment of customers is exploding and the need to chose whom to serve and align the business in doing it is becoming more and more critical.

Organizations cannot expect to serve everyone, organizations cannot expect that a simple dyadic relation between customer and supplier will be enough. We are entering in a world of ecosystems.

"making the management of actor engagement a strategic priority"

Os arquitectos de paisagens competitivas, os engenheiros de ecossistemas serão uma função cada vez mais importante.

Recordar:

• Arquitectos de paisagens competitivas
• A importância crescente dos ecossistemas.

"Recently the discourse has developed along four trajectories. First, building on the idea of generic actors, research is increasingly focusing on actor engagement rather than customer engagement. Second, ideas related to collective or multi-actor engagement in networks illustrates how actors are connected and how these connections drive engagement behaviours. Third, informed by the realization that value creation happens in a systemic context, literature is making attempts to be liberated from a dyadic view, thus recognizing how institutional contexts influence actor engagement.
...
Building on this we also argue that, to be free from the restriction of dyadic thinking, engagement needs to be de-coupled from the exchange of property rights. The paper then proceeds by explicating the role of actor engagement as a driver of value creation, which suggests an elevation of actor engagement as a managerial priority.
...
the previously strict roles of producer vs. consumer, or seller vs. buyer are fleeting, as actors can have different roles. An actor-to-actor perspective effectively renders clearly specified and static actor roles  useless. All actors have comparable processes of engagement and what is needed is a generic view of actor engagement.
...
“actors need to be viewed not only as humans, but also as machines/technologies, or collections of humans and machines/technologies, including organizations”
...
need to also understand collective engagement of multiple (individual) actors. The argument is that focusing only on engagement by individual actors may lead to ignorance about aspects that arise from the inherent social embeddedness of actors, i.e., actor engagement by one actor affects resource integration processes between the focal actor and other actors in the service ecosystem.
...
However, all actor engagement happens in an institutional context, in which all actions are governed by various competing institutional arrangements. These arrangements are “interrelated sets of institutions that together constitute a relatively coherent assemblage that facilitates coordination of activity”
...
we posit that the dramatic shifts that we see in the operating environment are elevating the role of actor engagement, making the management of actor engagement a strategic priority.
...
it is not the attributes of resources that make them valuable, but the linkages between them.
...
means that firm size is less important and firms' ability to collaborate more important, and that firms require a systemic view to be able to grasp opportunities for actor engagement with the aim to orchestrate resources in the market system for multiactor value creation.
...
Value creation is related to resource integration, which resonates with Normann (2001), who argues that greater density of resources corresponds to more value. Density expresses the degree to which resources are accessible for integration in a specific actor, time, situation and space combination.
...
Density relates not only to physical resources but also to the density of various forms of socio- cultural resources such as meanings, designs and/or symbols. Consequently, resource density can be improved both by exchange-based and non-exchange-based resource contributions.
...
the ‘economics of connections’, i.e., increased returns through amplified density of interactions between business, people and things. As the density of connections grows, it increases the density of available resources and, thus, make increased returns possible.
...
we suggest that without actor engagement (i.e., resource contributions), no resource integration happens, and no value can be created. From a managerial point of view, this indicates that it is not the connections that increase the returns for a focal actor - it is the ability to mobilize actors in the market system to engage in resource contributions that, combined with other resources, improve resource density and value creation. This creates a clear link between actor engagement and increased returns – firm that have such abilities may enjoy ‘economies of actor engagement’. As we describe later in this paper, this suggests that firms should focus on a new set of capabilities: actor engagement management. To build these capabilities firms can likely build on existing processes and practices developed in connections to the management of customer relationships, supplier relationships and stakeholder relationships.
...
Recent research in strategic management and entrepreneurship suggests that markets should not be viewed as a given and deterministic context, exogenous to the firm. Firms are increasingly conceptualized as active creators of market opportunities, suggesting that markets are not precursors, but rather outcomes of strategy. Firms that have engagement management capabilities can engage in market-shaping activities to generate market innovations that improve the value creation of the market.
...
Managerially this means that to identify opportunities for marketshaping, focal market-shaping actors need abilities to comprehend a larger system of actors, to understand how new resource linkages can be created within this system, to recognize the institutional arrangements that govern all actors, and to mobilize actors for exchange-based and non-exchange-based resource contributions – thus making actor engagement central to market-shaping.
...
research is progressively seeing markets as networks, systems, or ecosystems...
Market systems do not obey simple laws of cause and effect, and they have no center and no central control mechanism. They do, however, evolve from a combination of deliberately designed influence, and random emergence resulting from combinations of various actors' engagement patterns. This indicates a need to understand how market change happens in a balance between deliberate design efforts (and related engagement) by various market actors, and spontaneous emergent developments occurring because of the amalgamation of all actors' engagement.
...
Understanding markets as systems that do not obey simple laws of cause and effect and that have no center and no central control mechanism, and which consist of generic actors that, governed by institutional arrangements, both contribute resources and create value by integrating their resources with the resources of other market actors, questions many of the traditionally dyadic and linear models of management. Instead of assumptions of control of resources and processes, management increasingly need to ‘let go’ and find new ways to manage the engagement of various intra- and inter-organizational actors."

Trechos retirados de "Actor engagement, value creation and market innovation" de Kaj Storbacka, publicado por Industrial Marketing Management 80 (2019) 4–10.