Plataformas e novas formas de competir

Agora, voltar ao "Mongo e os gigantes" e relacionar com "Platforms Are Transforming How We Need To Compete":

"Clearly, much has changed since Porter wrote his book nearly a half century ago. Today, we live in a networked world and competitive advantage is no longer the sum of all efficiencies, but the sum of all connections.  Strategy, therefore, must be focused on widening and deepening links to resources outside the firm.
.
So we increasingly need to use platforms to access ecosystems of talent, technology and information.
...
So this new era of platforms offers great opportunities, but also great challenges. We now need to design our organizations for agility, empathy and interconnectedness, rather than for scale, dominance and efficiency."

Considerar também "Investors Today Prefer Companies with Fewer Physical Assets":

"Since the industrial revolution, companies have raced to accumulate the most raw materials, properties, plants, and equipment, believing that owning and having more was the equivalent of being worth more.
...
suddenly, in the digital age, the physical assets that the big industrial companies have acquired are becoming more and more burdensome."

Acerca dos "service ecosystems" (parte II)

Parte I.

"Traditionally, the majority of views on markets in the marketing literature has been grounded in neoclassical economic thought, which views markets as ‘a priori’ realities that emphasise ‘products’ as the foundational ingredients in all business activities
...
Markets viewed from a service ecosystems perspective, on the other hand, are neither seen as predetermined nor static, but as being continually ‘performed’ through the enactment of practices of systemic actors and their direct and indirect connections. [Moi ici: Mercados não como um dado mas como uma variável] In other words, this view highlights the participation of multiple actors, who interactively and interdependently exchange and integrate resources in ways that are much broader than restricted exchanges.
...
Consequently, a service ecosystems view of markets highlights that value co-creation practices are not limited to producer and consumer dyads, but that markets are continually formed and reformed through the activities of broader sets of social and economic actors. Kjellberg and Helgesson (2006, 2007) view markets as the ongoing results of three types of practices: (1) exchange practices, (2) normalizing practices, and (3) representational practices. Exchange practices are routinized activities related to economic exchanges in a market (including restricted exchange); normalizing practices are those that contribute to establishing rules or social norms related to a market; and representational practices are those that depict what a market is and how it works."

Trechos retirados de "Extending actor participation in value creation: an institutional view" de Heiko Wieland, Kaisa Koskela-Huotari & Stephen L. Vargo, publicado por Journal of Strategic Marketing, 2015

Acerca dos "service ecosystems"

Em 2004 um desafio profissional num cliente levou-me a descobrir os ecossistemas da procura quando ainda eram um tema obscuro.
.
Quando ano depois descobri a service dominant logic foi amor à primeira vista. Todos os anos procuro apanhar o que se vai escrevendo e sinto que vamos todos esticando a nossa capacidade de desenvolver uma interpretação da realidade. Ainda me lembro de em 2011 escrever esta série "Não é armadilhar, é perceber os clientes dos clientes" para sublinhar que quando se trabalha ao nível do ecossistema a concentração no cliente não é necessariamente a perspectiva mais adequada.

"the division of actors into dichotomies such as ‘producers’ and ‘consumers,’  ‘paying’ and ‘non-paying’ customers, and ‘adopters’ and ‘non-adopters,’ is based on narrow, unidirectional, transactional, and dyadic views on value creation and delivery.
...
this perspective moves away from linear and sequential creation and flow perspectives of value toward the existence of more complex and dynamic exchange systems of actors (i.e. service ecosystems), in which value creation practices are guided by institutions (i.e. rules, norms, meanings, symbols, and similar aides to collaboration) and, more generally, institutional arrangements (i.e. interdependent sets of institutions).
...
define service ecosystems as relatively self-contained, self-adjusting systems of resource-integrating actors connected by shared institutional arrangements and mutual value creation through service exchange. According to the service ecosystems perspective, value co-creation resides in the intersections of all actors and resources that are integrated, including resources and actors that influence value co-creation indirectly. Thus, this view underlines the complex and dynamic nature of social systems, through which service is provided, resources are integrated, and value is co-created. It urges marketing scholars and practitioners to abandon the producer and consumer divide and to see all parties as resource-integrating actors with the common goal of co-creating value for themselves and others. Instead of ‘single-actor’ centricity, such as customer or company centricity, the service ecosystems perspective urges balanced centricity [Moi ici: Como não recordar "Não é armadilhar, é educar" e "Plataforma nos materiais de construção" ] and a more generic actor conceptualization.
The definition of service ecosystems also points to the dynamic and self-adjusting nature of these systems. ‘Each instance of resource integration, service provision, and value creation, changes the nature of the system to some degree and thus the context for the next iteration and determination of value creation’. Consequently, the dynamic and self-adjusting nature of ecosystems broadens and extends the concept of value-in-use to the notion of value-in-context. Value-in-context implies that value is not only always co-created, but also always contingent on the accessibility, evaluation, and integration of other resources and actors and thus contextually specific. Hence, value needs to be understood in the context of the social system in which it is created and evaluated."

Trechos retirados de "Extending actor participation in value creation: an institutional view" de Heiko Wieland, Kaisa Koskela-Huotari & Stephen L. Vargo, publicado por Journal of Strategic Marketing, 2015

Plataforma nos materiais de construção

Os trechos que se seguem, retirados de "Rethinking the Value of Customers in a Digital Economy", estão escritos com exemplos e a pensar na economia digital:

"As platform companies ... relentlessly disrupt — and redefine — mainstream industries, we see network effects as their “secret sauce” for success. Network effects increasingly determine innovation opportunity, value creation, and growth in digital markets.
...
Technically, economists say network effects — known also as network externalities — exist when the value of a product or service to users increases as the number of users grows. But this traditional definition is woefully incomplete. Quality of use — and users — matters as much or more to value creation as quantity. In other words, how networks are used is as important as how much they are used.
...
The crucial economic and business insight should be obvious: Network effects turn users into assets. Enabling network effects empowers users/customers to both directly and indirectly create new value. Network effects don’t merely create more value for more users, they make users more valuable to both the enterprise and to each other. Network effects, therefore, are special economic phenomena because they make their contributors more valuable to everyone in and on the network.
...
The more users participate, and the more innovatively they engage, the more value — and valuable data and experiences — can quickly be generated. In turn, the more value created, the more users — and innovative uses — materialize.
...
Understanding the impact of network effects should fundamentally shift strategic investment perspectives toward investing in one’s users. As noted, in digital economies, sustainable success comes not just from improving products, services, and user experiences, but from improving customers, clients, channels, and suppliers, as well. Networks make that possible and affordable. The next step is for marketing and innovation executives to explicitly address key questions about assessing returns on their network-effects investments and making it easier for users to participate and create connections.
...
network effects are about “customers creating value for other customers.”
.
If customers are viewed as king in today’s platform markets, it’s only because the kingdoms they rule are now larger and more valuable thanks to their networked nature."

E recuo ao final dos anos 90... quando conheci e trabalhei com um grupo de empresas: a casa-mãe produzia um material de construção e tinha uma empresa industrial que usava esse material como matéria-prima.
.
A casa-mãe controlava essa empresa com uma preocupação: o objectivo não era maximizar o lucro ou o poder dessa empresa a jusante mas o de criar valor para todos os clientes da casa-mãe. A empresa funcionava como criador de novos mercados, desenvolvendo novos produtos que disponibilizava aos "concorrentes", dando apoio técnico para resolver problemas com máquinas e receitas de fabrico aos "concorrentes". Por exemplo, a empresa recomendou-me a vários "concorrentes" para os apoiar na certificação da qualidade ou na marcação CE. Quanto mais os concorrentes da empresa estivessem bem, mais a casa-mãe vendia e mais a categoria como um todo seria forte.
.
Tudo começou a ruir nos últimos dias de Outubro de 2008... mas a plataforma estava lá e a funcionar bem num sector o mais analógico-tradicional possível.

Prestes a cometer um crime (parte II)

"Profitability = Intellectual Capital X Price X Effectiveness"
.
Volto a pegar nesta equação... para a usar na leitura de "The Open Economy":

"To understand Apple’s problem, let’s look at the iPhone, which makes up more than 60% of the company’s revenues. In terms of raw materials, it’s probably not worth more than a few bucks, yet people gladly pay $649 to buy one. The difference, MIT’s Cesar Hidalgo argues in his new book, Why Information Grows
.
, is what he calls “crystallized imagination.”
...
Apple is a very special company because it has mastered the art of crystallizing imagination in its products in such a way that they are more desirable—and hence more valuable—than anything anyone else can produce. The problem for Apple, however, is that there is a lot more imagination in the world than Apple can control by itself.
...
The truth is that we can’t think of competitiveness as a strictly internal matter anymore. We no longer operate in an industrial economy in which we can gain competitive advantage merely through engineering greater efficiency. Rather, we need to widen and deepen connections.
.
So we can’t continue to think of success in terms of clawing our way to the top of the heap. Rather, we need to learn to position ourselves at the center of networks. Nobody, not even a company as special as Apple, can succeed alone."

Agora, comparar o que penso acerca da concorrência em Mongo aqui, com este pre-crime para satisfazer os incumbentes e a reacção destes outros incumbentes noutras paragens. Depois, voltar a ler aquele trecho "we need to learn to position ourselves at the center of networks". Depois, talvez estudar o que Esko Kilpi reflecte sobre as redes.

Na equação, aquele Capital Intelectual não é, quase sempre, sobre os conhecimentos académicos dos operários, dos executantes, (afinal é o mesmo operário que salta do Vale do Ave para Munique), é sobre a capacidade de decisão dos que têm poder e autoridade para mudar as empresas e/ou as associações.
.

Sonho? Tomo a nuvem por Juno? Ou será o jornalismo do Estranhistão?

E Mongo no jornalismo? (eheheh não confundir com jornalistas mongos)
.
E jornalistas a trabalharem directamente para os seus leitores?
.
E jornalismo que já não vive de textos a servirem de engodo para a publicidade, mas baseado num outro modelo de negócio: clientes-leitores que pagam os artigos que querem, que precisam, que têm interesse em ler.
.
Em vez de salvar o jornalismo servindo os clientes overserved, com preços e custos cada vez mais baixos, apostar nos clientes underserved. Não é novo neste blogue:

• "Quem é a audiência? (parte I)"
• "Era interessante, muito mais"

Recordo também este postal de ontem, "Abraçar a mudança em vez de tentar incorporá-la", não são os jornais estabelecidos que vão aproveitar a oportunidade, são os que já não têm nada a perder e têm modelos mentais limpos, sem custos afundados. Quem? Os jornalistas!!!
.
Recordo também este outro postal de ontem, "O poder potenciador das redes no Estranhistão", em vez dos jornais do passado, redes de jornalistas.
.
Como já aqui afirmei várias vezes, perante este cenário:

Os jornais concentraram-se em fazer o que a UTAO defende, a procura está em baixo porque o produto é caro. E o produto é caro por causa dos custos fixos. Logo, há que despedir jornalistas caros e enxamear as redacções de estagiários. Logo, há que gastar menos dinheiro em investigação e comprar mais a centrais de notícias. Logo, há que incluir cada vez mais opinião (nunca me esquecerei de apanhar na TV Carlos Abreu Amorim a falar do tema da semana, a resposta americana ao Katrina... onde estão os especialistas?). Desta forma, tornaram os jornais cada vez mais, menos interessantes para os seus potenciais leitores. O leitor do preço vai para a net, o leitor que quer mais, que quer investigação, que quer rigor, que não quer propaganda travestida de informação fica underserved e aspira a algo de diferente, (até a minha mãe, até a minha mãe, e não consigo explicar o significado do que vou escrever a seguir em toda a sua dimensão, deixou de comprar o Público), a algo com mais qualidade, a algo com mais atributos.
.
Era tão bom que isto "Plataforma portuguesa dedicada a jornalismo financiado por leitores é lançada na terça-feira", fosse uma genuína reacção de jornalistas interessados em aproveitar uma oportunidade de negócio para servir os leitores underserved...
.
Era tão bom que fosse mais um pontapé no modelo económico do século XX e do seu teorizador Robert Coase

Bottom-up, bottom-up, bottom-up (continuação)

"What Erdős realized is that if networks develop randomly, they are highly efficient. Even with a lot of nodes, you need relatively few links. Moreover, the larger the network, the less links you need, proportionately, to connect everything together."
.
Trecho retirado de mais um brilhante postal de Greg Statell "The Story of Networks".
.
Conseguem imaginar uns aprendizes de feiticeiro reunidos, crentes de que são capazes de fazer crescer uma economia com milhões de agentes?
.
Infelizmente consigo... giram em torno da Assembleia da Republica em todos os partidos:
.
"When agent/artifact space changes structure rapidly, foresight horizons get complex. To succeed, even survive, in the face of rapid structural change, it is essential to make sense out of what is happening and to act on the basis of that understanding. Since what is happening results from the interactions between many agents, all responding to novel situations with very different perceptions of what is going on, much of it is just unpredictable a priori. Making sense means that interpretation is essential; unpredictability requires ongoing reinterpretation. Hence our conclusion that the first and most important strategic requirement in complex foresight horizons is the institution of interpretive practices, which we have called populating the world, throughout the firm, wherever there are agents that initiate and carry out interactions with other agents--that is, at every locus of distributed control."
.
Trecho retirado de "FORESIGHT, COMPLEXITY AND STRATEGY" de David Lane e Robert Maxfield.