Claves del derecho de redes empresariales. AAVV

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ contrasts with the key process of securing, which addresses retaining existing members. In case of rival networks addressing RubberNet’s members, it is again a joint effort by the network HQ and co-members to retain them. However, in contrast to attracting, the extant member-retailer base plays the essential role since social mechanisms seem to be the most effective retention method. However, the network HQ plays a central role in encouraging and offering opportunities for these social bonding mechanisms. For example, the general assembly of all members is organized such that it allows members to meet and chat even before and after the “formal” meeting parts; a big and swaying dinner party is an important ritual that is included in the annual meeting program, as is the desire to involve the retailers’ families to allow for additional social bonds to develop. These social events are also encouraged on the regional level, and actively supported by the coaches as well. Potential candidates to leave the network are then addressed by co-members rather than the network HQ; this process is surprisingly effective.

      Overall, this study shows that networks can have effective processes in place to attract and keep members in competitive environments. It also shows that, at least for networks of a non-trivial size, a balance between centrally administered, analytical processes and resources (for example, through a network central management organization) and more evolutionary, social processes is useful in achieving these goals (Albers et al., 2013).

      The results of the study also indicate that networks should develop process and mechanism repertoires that enhance tactical flexibility. As shown herein, the two top level processes of attracting and securing follow different logics (analytical attracting process vs. evolutionary securing process) and involve the network actors in different roles.

      Networks should also consider employing exit barriers for their members to inhibit members that want to leave. The distinct logic and the degree to which such barriers are used needs to be considered carefully as the ongoing membership of an unwilling and potentially destructive member might come at higher total costs than its value for the network.

      Firms in network-intensive environments should watch networks closely and critically assess the perceived membership imperative. To do so, adequate criteria to evaluate membership benefits are required. Also, firms need to monitor attractive industry partners and pay attention to their network affiliation, as well as their goals and satisfaction degree, to optimize timing in their approach.

3.3. Competition in Network Governance

      A final domain of decisive influence on network performance is its organization and ongoing management, an issue that is often addressed under the label of network, or alliance, governance (Albers, 2005). The failure of many networks is attributed to ineffective governance structures, involving either misaligned organization in their formation, or failure to adapt over time (Reuer, Zollo & Singh, 2002; Sampson, 2004).

      At any given point in time, various governance solutions exist (Albers, 2010; Albers, Wohlgezogen & Zajac, 2013; Ebers & Oerlemans, 2013); therefore, networks compete on structures to manage their processes and members. Independent of their concrete parameter values and desig+n nuances, and thereby paying tribute to the sheer amount of possible configurations of organizations, institutional economists describe three essential forms of economic coordination: markets, hierarchies, and hybrids (Williamson, 1985, 1991). Each of these forms is, according to transaction cost economics (TCE), suitable (that is, efficient) in a different context. However, in some industries, different governance forms exist under seemingly similar conditions, also with regard to TCE’s criteria. For example, in the German less-than-truckload (LTL) business, a logistics market that generated overall revenue of more than €6 billion in 2010, business networks (“hybrids” in TCE) compete with integrated, large firms (“hierarchies” in TCE terms), as Table 2 shows.

       TABLE 2: Top 10 firms in the German LTL market in 2008

Pos.	Organization	Sales in €M
1	Dachser	594
2	IDS (network)	450
3	Deutsche Bahn	425
	Schenker (Deutsche Bahn)	425
4	System Alliance (network)	400
5	Deutsche Post	350
	DHL Express (Deutsche Post)	350
6	CargoLine (network)	338
7	CTL (network)	335
	Hellmann (Partner System Alliance)	310
8	24plus (network)	248
9	ABX Logistics	203
10	S.T.a.R. (network)	159

      Source: Albers &Klaas-Wissing (2012)

      In this industry, six out of the top 10 players have consistently represented cooperative business networks over many years. The formation of LTL cooperation networks is seen as one of the most promising strategies by which small and medium-sized firms can build a geographically expanded and denser transportation network in order to generate economies of scale. In this setting, a well-organized network can create a competitive product portfolio to shippers and challenge the large integrated logistics corporations. In addition, it can compete with regard to inventing and testing organizational solutions (Klaas-Wissing & Albers, 2010). This question was targeted in an empirical analysis of two very different, yet seemingly successful networks in the German LTL business, called “Alpha” and “Beta” for reasons of confidentiality (Albers &Klaas-Wissing, 2012).²⁵¹

      The Alpha network has a turnover of more than one hundred million Euros and belongs to one of the largest LTL business networks in Germany. Members employ a privately held limited liability company (LLC) to serve as a central alliance management unit. The alliance offers a dense national transportation network, consisting of more than 130 local depots, owned by its more than 100 partner companies that are all small and medium-sized logistics firms. The partner companies are shareholders in the network HQ. In addition to its equity capital base from its members, Alpha LLC is financed by handling and administration service fees from the daily operational business with the partner companies.

      In addition to the legal requirements that stem from the legal form of the network HQ (the LLC), Alpha’s network organization is influenced by two constitutive properties: the relatively large number of alliance members, and its business model value focus. Due to the large number of investing members who also hold similar Alpha equity proportions, voting rights are widely dispersed. Network members have only limited influence on managerial decisions concerning strategic matters. As a consequence, Alpha’s board of directors possesses extensive authority to define the strategy, set up the general operation rules, and design network infrastructure. In fact, a single member can either agree with the board’s strategic decisions or leave the alliance (exit option).

      Regarding the value focus to its network partners, Alpha provides a proprietary, fully fledged hub-and-spoke production network and an IT platform that allows for consolidated and efficient LTL transportation within Germany and that is open to any non-member logistics service provider. The network HQ is responsible for maintaining, developing, and optimizing the production network and IT platform in order to ensure structural stability, operational efficiency, and system interoperability.

      The network members are mainly responsible for feeding and defeeding the route network. In the course of their ordinary business activities, they acquire LTL consignments from their local customers and execute transportation services, such as local pickup and delivery, as well as operating regular line haul connection(s). As far as Alpha network operations are affected, the network partners have to adhere to the specifications (for example, quality) and operational instructions (for example, timetables for line hauls, process guidelines) issued by HQ.

      The second LTL network is the Beta network. Beta also belongs to the top ten of the German LTL service providers, but exhibits quite different features compared to its rival Alpha. Only a few more than 10 logistics service СКАЧАТЬ