The Value Net (parte III)

Continuado daqui.
.
"Changing the game is hard. There are many potential traps.
...
The first mental trap is to think that you have to accept the game you find yourself in. Just realising that you can change the game is crucial. There's more work to be done, but it's far more rewarding to be a game maker than a game taker. (Moi ici: A grande libertação é descobrir que o mercado onde uma empresa compete não é uma condenação eterna mas uma situação que pode ser alterada. Quando se toma consciência dessa realidade, abre-se um horizonte novo... descobre-se a possibilidade de construir o seu próprio futuro)
.
The next trap is to think that changing the game must come at the expense of others. Such thinking can lead to an embattled mind-set that causes you to miss win-win opportunities. (Moi ici: Nunca é demais recordar as palavras de Hermann Simon "Lear to compete peacefully: Peaceful competitors built an entire market strategy around preserving or increasing profit. They refuse to see themselves locked in a zero-sum competition for market share, which fosters a "kill or be killed" mentality. They would rather be different than be the ultimate "winner." Trecho retirado de "Manage for Profit. Not for Market Share")
...
Another trap is to believe that you have to find something to do that others can’t. When you do come up with a way to change the game, accept that your actions might well be imitated. Being unique is not a prerequisite for success... (Moi ici: Recordar Steve Blank "Why Pioneers Have Arrows In Their Backs")
...
The fourth trap is failling to see the whole game. What you don't see, you can't change.
...
The fifth trap is failing to think methodically about changing the game. "

The Value Net (parte II)

Continuado daqui.
.
"Designing the Value Net for your business is the first step toward changing the game. The second step is identifying all the elements of the game. According to game theory, there are five: players; added values, rules, tactics and scope - PARTS for short. These five elements fully describe all interactions, both freewheeling and rule-based. To change the game, you have to change one or more of these elements."
.
"Players come first. As we saw in the Value Net, the players are customers, suppliers, substitutors, and complementors. None of the players are fixed. Sometimes it's smart to change who is playing the game. That includes yourself. (Moi ici: Recordar "Subir na escala de valor"; "Como é o ecossistema da sua organização?" e "Trazer os não-clientes para a equação da criação de valor")
.
Qual o ecossistema da sua empresa? Quem intervém?
Quais são as oportunidades de cooperação e de competição nas relações que se podem estabelecer e desenvolver com clientes, fornecedores, concorrentes, complementadores? O que é que os muggles não conseguem ver? Quais as hipóteses de tornar o mercado menos perfeito?
É possível, faz sentido, mudar alguns jogadores? É possível trazer novos intervenientes para o jogo?
Quem tem a ganhar ou a perder com a sua entrada em jogo? 
Recordar "Não é armadilhar, é educar" e "Não é armadilhar, é arte"
...
"Added values is what each player brings to the game. There are ways to make yourself a more valuable player- in other words, to raise your added value. And there are ways to lower the added values of other players. ... Just as you shouldn't accept the players of a game as fixed, you shouldn't take away what they bring to the game as fixed, either. You can change the players' added values."
.
Qual é o seu valor acrescentado? O que é que a sua empresa traz para o jogo?
Como é que esse valor acrescentado pode ser aumentado? 
Qual é o valor acrescentado que os outros intervenientes trazem para o ecossistema? É possível ganhar com a limitação do seu (deles) valor acrescentado?
...
"Rules give structure to the game. In business, there is no universal set of rules;  a rule might arise from law, custom, practicality, or contracts. In addition to using existing rules to their advantage, players may be able to revise them or come up with new ones. ... Rules determine how the game is played by limiting the possible reactions to any action. To analyze the effect of a rule, you have to look forward and reason backward"
.
Que regras ajudam a sua empresa? E que regras a prejudicam?
Que novas regras gostava que existissem para beneficiar a sua empresa? Que contratos, por exemplo, gostava de poder assinar com clientes e fornecedores?
A sua empresa tem poder para impor essas regras? Alguém pode ajudar a que isso aconteça? E alguém pode contrariar essa vontade?
...
"Tactics are moves used to shape the way players perceive the game and hence how they play. Sometimes, tactics are designed to reduce misperceptions; at other times, they are designed to create or maintain uncertainty. ... We've changed the players, their added values, and the rules. Is there anything left to change? Yes - perceptions there is no guarantee that everyone agrees on who the players are, what their added values are, and what the rules are. Nor are the implications of every move and countermove likely to be clear. Business is mired in uncertainty. Tactics influence the way players perceive the uncertainty and thus mold their behavior. Some tactics work by reducing misperceptions - in other words, by lifting the fog. Others work by creating or maintaining uncertainty - by thickneing the fog." (Moi ici: Escrevo este fog e... não posso deixar de o associar a estas frictions em "Value Creation and Value Capture with Frictions")
.
Como é que os outros intervenientes vêem o jogo? Como é que essas percepções afectam o jogar o jogo?
Que percepções faz sentido manter? Que percepções pretende mudar?
Pretende que o jogo seja mais transparente ou mais opaco?
...
"Scope describes the boundaries of the game. It's possible for players to expand or shrink those boundaries. ... After players, added values, rules, and tactical possibilities, there is nothing left to change within the existing boundaries of the game. But no game is an island. Games are linked across space and over time. A game in one place can affect games elsewhere, and a game today can affect games tomorrow. You can change the scope of a game. You can expand it by creating linkages to other games, or you can shrink it by severing linkages. Either approach may work to your benefit."
.
Qual o âmbito do jogo actual? Faz sentido alterá-lo? 
Faz sentido ligá-lo a outros jogos?
Faz sentido alterar as ligações a outros jogos?
.
Ao olhar para tudo isto não posso deixar de pensar no business model canvas de Osterwalder...
.
Questões adaptadas daqui.
.
Continua.

The Value Net (parte I)

Estou a tentar lembrar-me mas já não consigo recordar qual a fonte que ontem me fez chegar a "The Right Game: Use Game Theory to Shape Strategy" de Adam Brandenburger e Barry Nalebuff, publicado em Julho de 2005 pela HBR.
.
Interessante como um artigo escrito há 16 anos descreveu tão bem, não só o meu percurso, mas também o de muitos autores que nos últimos 10 anos se têm dedicado ao fenómeno da originação de valor.
.
Ainda há dias em "Os mercados como configurações (parte IV)" reflectia sobre isto:
.
"Unlike war and sports, business is not about winning and losing. Nor is it about how well you play the game. Companies can succeed spectacularly without requiring others to fail. And they can fail miserably no matter how well they play if they make the mistake of playing the wrong game.
.
The essence of business success lies in making sure you’re playing the right game. How do you know if it’s the right game? What can you do about it if it’s the wrong game?
...
For rule-based games, game theory offers the principle, To every action, there is a reaction. But, unlike Newton’s third law of motion, the reaction is not programmed to be equal and opposite.
...
For freewheeling games, game theory offers the principle, You cannot take away from the game more than you bring to it. In business, what does a particular player bring to the game? To find the answer, look at the value created when everyone is in the game, and then pluck that player out and see how much value the remaining players can create. The difference is the removed player’s “added value.” In unstructured interactions, you cannot take away more than your added value.
.
Underlying both principles is a shift in perspective. Many people view games egocentrically—that is, they focus on their own position. The primary insight of game theory is the importance of focusing on others—namely, allocentrism. To look forward and reason backward, you have to put yourself in the shoes—even in the heads—of other players. To assess your added value, you have to ask not what other players can bring to you but what you can bring to other players." (Moi ici: Perfeito!!! Na linha do que escrevi em "Não é armadilhar, é educar!" sobre as empresas que tiram os olhos do chão)
.
Segue-se uma frase que merece ser lida, re-lida e re-lida:
.
"Successful business strategy is about actively shaping the game you play, not just playing the game you find." (Moi ici: "Os mercados como configurações (parte IV)" resumido como poesia numa única frase)
.
"You can't see all the ramifications of the program without adopting an allocentric perspective." (Moi ici: Quem são os intervenientes no jogo? E voltamos ao esquema de ontem:

Quem participa? O que é que cada um procura e valoriza? Como criar uma sintonia, um alinhamento na cadeia da procura?)
.
"Looking for win-win strategies has several advantages. First, because the approach is relatively unexplored, there is greater potential for finding new opportunities. Second, because others are not being forced to give up ground, they may offer less resistance to win-win moves, making them easier to implement. Third, because win-win movez don't force other players to retaliate, the new game is more sustainable. And finally, imitation of a win-win move is beneficial, not harmful.
.
To encourage thinking about both cooperative and competitive ways to change the game, we suggest the term coopetition. It means looking for win-win as well as win-lose opportunities.
...
The game of business is all about value: creating it and capturing it. Who are the participants in this enterprise? To describe them, we introduce the Value Net - a schematic map designed to represent all the players in the game and the interdependencies among them.

The Value Net describes the various roles of the players.

...
The Value Net reveals two fundamental symmetries in the game of business: the first between customers and suppliers and the second between substitutors and complementors. Understanding those symmetries can help managers come up with new strategies.
.
Managers understand intuitively that along the vertical dimension of the Value Net, there is a mixture of cooperation and competition. It's cooperation when suppliers, companies, and customers come together to create value in the first place. It's competition when the times comes for them to divide the pie.
.
Along the horizontal dimension, however, managers tend to see only half the picture . Substitutors are seen only as enemies. Complementors, if viewed at all, are seen only as friends. Such a perspective overlooks another simmetry. There can be a cooperative element to interactions with substitutors.
...
Designing the Value Net for your business is the first step toward changing the game. The second step is identifying all the elements of the game. According to game theory, there are five: players; added values, rules, tactics and scope - PARTS for short. These five elements fully describe all interactions, both freewheeling and rule-based. To change the game, you have to change one or more of thse elements."
.
Continua
mm