"a collection of powerful actors pursuing their agenda"

Há vinte anos que aprendi a trabalhar no desenho de paisagens competitivas, ou de ecossistemas da procura. Por isso, fico triste com o sub-aproveitamento, por parte das empresas, do tema das "partes interessadas" introduzido pela ISO 9001.

Algo do género:

1. Determinar Partes Interessadas: Identificar as partes relevantes para o sistema de gestão da qualidade (SGQ), que podem incluir clientes, fornecedores, empregados, reguladores e outros que possam afetar ou ser afetados pela qualidade da organização. Traduzido em: Listar um conjunto de partes interessadas consideradas relevantes
2. Avaliar Necessidades e Expectativas: Avaliar as necessidades e expectativas dessas partes interessadas, particularmente aquelas que são relevantes para o sistema de gestão da qualidade. Traduzido em: Listar os requisitos relevantes dessas partes interessadas relevantes
3. Obrigações de Conformidade: Determinar as obrigações de conformidade, que podem incluir requisitos legais, normas da indústria e obrigações contratuais relacionadas com a qualidade. Traduzido em: Lista de obrigações de conformidade e dos requisitos que decorrem delas
4. Monitorização Contínua: Monitorizar e rever as informações sobre as partes interessadas e os seus requisitos relevantes, garantindo que o SGQ permaneça alinhado com estas expectativas.

Criam-se estas listas e está feito. Poucos se interrogam, por que se criam estas listas, o que se faz com elas. Depois, brinca-se com coisas sérias. Ainda esta semana numa auditoria de acompanhamento o auditor sugeria a uma empresa, "Por que não colocam a entidade certificadora como parte interessada?" Porquê? Pergunto eu. Para quê? Qual o valor acrescentado disso para o negócio?

Ao iniciar a leitura do capítulo 6 "The Discipline of Political Savvy" do livro "The Six Disciplines of Strategic Thinking" de Michael D. Watkins encontro o tema das partes interessadas apresentado sob um ponto de vista interessante. O autor enquadra-o no âmbito das movimentações políticas dentro das organizações, mas eu aplico-o facilmente à relação com as partes interessadas.

"The higher you go, the more political organizations become. This is partly because the people at the top are intelligent and ambitious [Moi ici: Uma empresa e as suas partes interessadas são como as pessoas no topo de uma organização]. They have agendas [Moi ici: É preciso considerar os interesses de todas as partes envolvidas. Algo que falta no ponto 2 da lista acima e que considero no link anterior] - both in the business and in terms of recognition and advancement - that they aspire to advance. Further contributing to politicization at the top is the fact that the problems to be solved and decisions to be made at that level are more ambiguous. There seldom are "right" answers, so there is vigorous debate over the best way forward. The combination of ambitious people and ambiguous problems means that politics becomes a primary driver of outcomes at the highest levels of business. To develop and realize your goals, you must think strategically about building and sustaining alliances inside your organization. [Moi ici: Recordo o racional desenvolvido neste exemplo a partir dos jornais]

In addition, you need to be proactive in shaping the external political environment in which your organization operates. This means establishing and managing critical relationships with customers, suppliers and other key players in the value chain, such as joint venture and alliance partners. It also means teaming up to influence the powerful institutions that shape the "rules of the game," including governments at multiple levels, non-governmental organizations, the media and investors.

In seeking to influence the rules of the game, it's helpful to imagine you are a corporate diplomat.

International diplomats seek to protect and advance the interests of their nations by fostering relationships, building alliances and negotiating agreements. As a corporate diplomat, you must learn to do the same to protect and promote the interests of your business.

...

What does it mean to think politically about organizations? The starting point is to visualize your business (and its external environment, too) as a collection of powerful actors pursuing their agenda - combinations of organizational and personal objectives they are trying to achieve. 

...

To achieve your objectives, you need to identify potential winning coalitions - the people who collectively have the power to support your agenda - and think about how you will build those coalitions. 

...

Think too about potential blocking coalitions - those who collectively have the power to say no - and how you can avoid having opposition coalesce. Who might ally themselves to try to block your agenda, and why? How might they seek to oppose you? If you have insight into where opposition might come from, you can work to neutralize it."

Market shaping e o timing

"In market shaping as in comedy, timing is everything.

...

shapeability: is your market system currently hot and malleable, or frozen stiff?

...

mapping the life of market ecosystems over sustained periods, our work has confirmed that markets can behave quite differently over time. Long eras may exhibit relative calm and stability
some gradual development, perhaps, but more or less constant basic structure and rules of the game. Punctuating the stability, however, come times of turbulence. At such points, the market undergoes rapid changes
and perhaps becomes a completely different market ecosystem. 

Savvy market shapers seek to time their efforts to coincide with these latter periods of instability, rapid change, or discontinuity.

...

While acknowledging the issue of timing is as much art as science, we offer three more generalized and enduring signs of shapeable markets. First, any major shock or crisis brings turbulence.

...

Short of obvious shocks or crises, a second sign of a shapeable market is rising dissonance or debate in the market
from controversy to simply a buzz abroad that “something should change.” Such dissonance is an especially strong indicator of a market-shaping window if it is sustained for a long period of time or if it seems to be increasing in intensity rather than gradually subsiding. Finally, the recent history of the market ecosystem may also divulge clues about its malleability. Recent studies suggest that markets that have assumed their current form through a government-led process or the deliberate market-shaping efforts of a particular firm are more susceptible to continued market shaping than those which have evolved organically, without strong influence from any particular market actor."

Vivemos tempos maduros para a aplicação generalizada da capacidade de "moldar mercados". 

Trechos retirados de  SMASH: Using Market Shaping to Design New Strategies for Innovation, Value Creation, and Growth de Kaj Storbacka e Suvi Nenonen.  

"pitching a win-win-win “story”

Três ideias fundamentais retiradas do primeiro capítulo do livro SMASH: Using Market Shaping to Design New Strategies for Innovation, Value Creation, and Growth de Kaj Storbacka e Suvi Nenonen. 

Os mercados são mais do que para trocar valor, também servem para co-criar valor:

"The Function of a Market System Is Exchange, for the Purpose of Value Creation 

Specifically, markets are CASs of exchange, for the creation of value. And we do need to be very specific about that. Common definitions which include exchange but omit use-value and the value creation aspect sound curiously zero-sum, as though the same resource is simply being shuffled around the system in a grand version of the children’s birthday game pass-the-parcel.

...

Just as markets divide into supply and demand, so does value divide into exchange value to the supplier and use value to the customer/user. In a firm-focused, production-centric view such as the traditional business strategy approach, value too easily comes to mean what is really only exchange value - the value to the producer or seller - or, worse still, the price.

…

A user will willingly pay a higher price if she can get more use value out of the product. So use value should be integral to the firm’s market view, and any way to increase use value offers potential gains in exchange value right back. This is where co-creation comes in. The firm’s product is only one component in the customer’s use value."

Os mercados não são um dado, são uma variável:

"Markets Are Socially Constructed, so You Can Reconstruct Them, too

Markets are social systems.

…

The key point for us is that, being socially constructed, markets can be consciously reconstructed. Because humans can be persuaded, incentivized or, where laws or sheer market power are involved, coerced by other humans, the firm has a means of influencing the human agents and their creations. This is how you can turn social reconstruction to your advantage. Fundamentally, viewing markets as shapeable systems suggests that opportunities are not precursors of strategy; rather they are outcomes of deliberate efforts to shape markets. ... We should not make strategy for a company - we should make strategy for the system. [Moi ici: Isto é tão bom!!! Urdir um ecossistema. Daqui: "

Uma empresa que trabalha com o BSC começa por determinar quem são os clientes-alvo! Uma empresa que trabalha com o BSC e comigo, para além dos clientes-alvo tem também de determinar qual é o ecossistema da procura."] Furthermore, strategy ought not to be viewed as winning a zero-sum game; nor ought the focus to be on competing. On the contrary, it should clarify how the company can engage in collaborative activities with market actors (suppliers, customers, and partners) in order to improve the creation of the use value. Companies that can promise improved value creation for several actors simultaneously are the ones most likely to be successful in shaping their respective markets.

The job of the market leader is not to increase own market share at the expense of others, but rather about creating a positive sum game where many market actors grow the market together.[Moi ici: Maximizar o valor para todos os que estão no ecossistema]

…

The pay-off to all the theory above is that it enables you to become a market shaper.

...

“What is this market shaping that you are so worked up about?”

…

Changing the definition of markets from mere exchange mechanisms to a system fostering value creation is not just semantics or purely academic debate. Think about the implications. We’re claiming that, like any other human-made systems, market systems can be changed by companies, governments, and even singular individuals" 

 

Os mercados podem ser trabalhados e manuseados:

"Building on the theoretical insight that, unlike poets, markets are not only born but also made, this strategy takes a new product or service and aims to consciously attract or build the elements of a fully functioning market around it.

…

What are the main ingredients for shaping markets? This is a question that it takes the rest of the book to answer fully. There is no single formula and no linear progression of steps. It’s about a continuous cycle. And there’s a degree of art to it as well as science. Broadly though, market shaping begins with re-focusing your business definition, which also acts as your frame on the market, so that you can see the rich reality of your market system and training it on the slice of the universe of possible markets which you want to start with. You then need to envisage a new shape for that market system that would benefit your firm more, by capturing a share of extra use value you’ll help create (in other words, co-create) for customers. Whichever other players it requires to effect the change, you’ll need to appeal to them by offering a share in the value creation as well. This involves pitching a win-win-win “story” or narrative about your proposed new shape. [Moi ici: Há anos que prego isto. Por exemplo: "Ganhar-ganhar-ganhar porque passa por orquestrar uma relação que traga vantagens não só à clássica interacção diádica, cliente-fornecedor, mas também a outras combinações"] And you’ll need to time the whole intervention to strike when the market is “hot” and malleable.

…

Which firms could practice market shaping? … You don’t need market power in the traditional sense of monopolies and oligopolies. In fact, being big can hinder creative thinking of the kind a new strategy requires if the great idea gets tangled up in the red tape of internal processes. However, you need a good idea _ a vision about how to shape your market into a better re-incarnation of that market - because market shaping works only if you are truly able to improve the market. And remember, “improving” means improvement to others as well, not just to you."

O estilhaçar do século XX

Continua a minha leitura de "Prime movers" de Rafel Martinez e Johan Wallin.

Segundo os autores, quando pensamos na abordagem da criação de valor devemos olhar para a oferta como o resultado de de três conteúdos:

O potencial de criação de valor ao longo de cada uma das dimensões da oferta dependerá do sistema de criação de calor de cada cliente.

Assumir isto e querer fazer parte do processo de criação de valor do cliente, apostando na co-criação de valor, requer o aumento da granularidade ou resolução, para permitir a diferenciação requerida por cada cliente.

Reparem só nesta linguagem usada:

"Enhanced 'granularity' or 'resolution' was not present in the traditional, 'industrial' logic. There, supply and demand factors were considered at a fairly aggregated level, (generic) products and (mass) markets. For example, car manufacturers didn't think of their customers as individuals, but viewed them as a mass of buyers (markets or market segments) who bought the same product.
.
As the potential for interactivity between the firm and its environment increases, being able to specify the contribution of each individual party participating in value co-production is of great help. Instead of throwing products at undifferentiated market 'sinks', in co-productive situations, companies must decide which of their firm-specific capabilities to deploy for each specific customer."

Leio isto e recordo a suckiness dos gigantes.
Leio e isto e recordo o plankton tão querido às Heinz e às Procter & Gamble deste mundo.
Leio isto e recordo Seth Godin:

"The defining idea of the twentieth century, more than any other, was mass.
.
Mass gave us efficiency and productivity, making us (some people) rich. Mass gave us huge nations, giving us (some people) power. Mass allowed powerful people to influence millions, giving us (some people) control.
.
And now mass is dying."

Voltando a Ramirez e Wallin:

"Customers have different priorities in their value creation, and offerings targeted at them reflect these. The characteristics of the offerings can include low-risk solutions; low-cost solutions; broad relationship-based offerings, co-produced with a distributor or not; co-learning initiatives; facility of integration into customer systems; and so on. As customers' value creation conditions evolve, the offerings — and thus the capabilities brought in to make them possible, must be altered.
...
The more the types of 'fit', the more granularity or resolution is required, also with respect to capabilities. From a customer's point of view, a value constellation has an architecture designed around each individual customer, with manysuppliers targeting this customer with different offerings. The logic is the same: offering architecture will be judged in terms of 'fit' with customer value creation."

Aquele, "The more the types of 'fit', the more granularity or resolution is required, also with respect to capabilities", é poderoso. A explosão de tribos e a progressiva incapacidade dos gigantes para se adaptarem ao estilhaçar do mundo da massa. Mongo! Terra de artesãos.

Já cheguei a pensar que Mongo seria de artesãos e suas cooperativas. Talvez um dia, para já ainda é cedo. Antes dessa fase teremos empresas mais pequenas, pelos padrões do século XX,  focalizadas em nichos. Só que com o fim mitigado da geografia, esses nichos têm alguma dimensão.

Move ... to influential “orchestrators.”

"Much more complex than linear supply chains, business ecosystems are groups of companies and other actors (platform providers, government agencies, independent contractors, co-creating customers, and so on) whose contributions come together to produce value. The idea is that each of these parties could benefit if they took a more holistic view of their collective efforts.
...
From research and practice, we are beginning to see evidence that managers who adjust their approaches to fit an ecosystems world are better able to succeed in it.
...
leaders must move from being high-ranking delegators to influential “orchestrators.” In environments where leaders can’t exercise formal authority, and where collaborative triumphs trump individual achievements, they must become sharper in their ability to build communities and inspire alignment.
...
To succeed in the era of platforms and partnerships, managers will need to change practice on many levels. And with the new practices of ecosystem management must come new management theory, also reoriented around a larger-scale system-level view. Both practitioners and scholars can begin by dispensing with mechanistic, industrial-age models of inputs, processes, and outputs. They will have to take a more dynamic, organic, and evolutionary view of how organizations’ capacities grow and can be cultivated.
...
An economy, and in particular a capitalist economy, thrives not only when it has the right tools but when it has the right rules. Recrafting these for the era of ecosystems must be the priority of a group that is an ecosystem in itself—the scholars, consultants, regulators, and of course managers whose work shapes the enterprise of management."

Trechos retirados de "What Management Needs to Become in an Era of Ecosystems"

"It’s the new business model that is stealing your customers, not the product”

“Car dealers now make hardly any money on car sales themselves—less than 10 percent of total net profits. Rather, their profits arise from the sale of financing, insurance, extra warranties, and maintenance, which now represent 67 percent of their net income. Car dealers have evolved and today resemble banks selling financial services much more than they do auto retailers.
...
After all, Uber, Amazon, and Birchbox are all regarded as technology companies, right? I decided to talk to these firms and learn about the new technologies they developed and were leveraging. It soon became clear to me that the initial success of these companies didn’t hinge on new and innovative technologies, but rather on the power of their business model innovations. Similarly, others have argued that even well-regarded “tech” companies such as Google, in their early days, didn’t invent completely new technologies, but rather invented or perfected new business models. These innovations represented the real engine of disruption.
...
Business model innovation is a powerful force of abrupt market-level change, in some cases more powerful than technology. Technology, as Jim Collins put it more than a decade and a half ago in his bestselling book Good to Great, “is an accelerator, never a creator of momentum and growth.
...
Likewise, don’t let an excessive focus on your products prevent you from paying attention to your business. Many executives at incumbent businesses, wedded to their business models, react to disruption by blaming their products. As they see it, all the newfangled lemonade stands out there are stealing customers because they have created better-tasting lemonade. Stop blaming your lemonade! The truth is that the upstart’s lemonade tastes the same as yours, or maybe even worse. It’s the new business model that is stealing your customers, not the product. ”

Agora relacionar com "Today's CEO playbook is outdated. Here are 5 things rising stars should focus on to win in the next decade":

"Competing in ecosystems.Classical models of competition assume that there are discrete companies that make similar products and compete within clearly delineated industries. But technology has dramatically reduced communication and transaction costs, weakening the Coasean logic for combining many activities inside a few vertically integrated firms. At the same time, uncertainty and disruption both require individual firms to be more adaptable and also make business environments increasingly shapeable. Companies now have opportunities to influence the development of the market in their favor, but this can be achieved only by coordinating with other stakeholders.
.
As a result of these forces, new industrial architectures are emerging based on the coordination of ecosystems  —   complex, semi-fluid networks of companies that challenge several traditional assumptions of business. ... They blur the boundaries of industries: for example, automotive ecosystems include not just traditional suppliers but also connectivity, software, and cloud storage providers. And they blur the distinction between collaborators and competitors: for example, Amazon and third-party merchants have a symbiotic relationship, while the company competes with those merchants simultaneously by selling private-label brands.
...
The playbook for how to emulate these ecosystem pioneers has not yet been fully codified, but a few imperatives are becoming increasingly clear:
.
Adopt a fundamentally different perspective towards strategy, based on embracing principles like external orientation, common platforms, co-evolution, emergence, and indirect monetization
Determine what role your company can play in your ecosystem or ecosystems  —   not all companies can be the orchestrator [Moi ici: Ao orquestrador chamei em 2012 o arquitecto de paisagens competitivas]
Ensure that your company creates value for the ecosystem broadly, not just for itself"

Trechos iniciais retirados de “Unlocking the Customer Value Chain” de Thales S. Teixeira.

"Ecosystem Roles"

"Ecosystem Roles
1. Participants
Ecosystem participants are involved in the key activities: they provide value on one hand (producers) and consume value on the other (consumers). Sometimes, the same participant behaves as a producer or consumer in different moments of interaction: these are roles that one participant can play. Participants can be of different kinds: individuals, organizations, teams…
Most often, beyond the value traded, new value is created in the interaction: as simple as that.
...
2. (Platform) Shapers  [Moi ici: É preciso ter locus de controlo no interior]
Shapers normally provide value to the ecosystem in two different ways: design, execute and evolve contexts for interaction [Moi ici: "relationships are not zero sum games"] (infrastructures, channels), and actively provide services to generate liminal learning and continuous staged improvement.
...
4. (Platform) Stakeholders
External Stakeholders are normally those players that — even if not directly interacting in ecosystem relationships — are interested or impacted by the positive or negative externalities deriving from the ecosystem actualization through the platform.
...
Despite one cannot actually own ecosystems, some entity can certainly own/control a platform strategy, as the latter is made of technology, data and information, narrative, human activities and more."

Trechos retirados de "The Future of Ecosystemic Design"

"seizing enhanced value creating opportunities"

"This increasingly networked ubiquity has given rise to recognition of the apparently inexorable rise of systems, such as so-called "business ecosystems (BE)", in which strategists can design and realize systems of value creation.
...
The notion of industries, just as the notion of value chains, is becoming ever more outdated and hinders strategists from understanding their changing business landscapes and identifying threats and opportunities for realizing value potentials.
.
The construct of "industries" does not allow the strategist to consider uncertainties in the broader contexts that can transform existing playing fields, or that give rise to new ones - such as "nutraceuticals". Focusing strategic attention on industrial sectors, ..., prevents considering or seizing enhanced value creating opportunities.
...
Our research and experience suggests that redesigns of systems that help value to be created, rather than product - and industry - specific competition strategies (and optimization within existing product and technology categories) is called for if something substantial is to be done about opportunities and threats linked to the inefficiencies that we see in business and societies at large today."

Trechos retirados de "Strategy for a Networked World" de Ramirez & Mannervik.

Relacionar com:

"Making good choices is central to business and personal success. Integrative thinking is important because it provides a way out of our natural inclination to lose sight of the bigger picture by taking entrenched positions or to opt for shoddy compromises. Integrative thinking doesn’t choose one solution making a few trade-offs to placate the opposing view. Rather it looks for altogether new creative approaches."

Trecho retirado de "Integrative Thinking Revisited"