Rethinking Competition and Collaboration in Ecosystems: Who Should You Work With?

One of the themes that keeps emerging in the work of the Cambridge Service Alliance is the importance of the ecosystem. We define an ecosystem as the wider network of firms and organisations that can or could influence the way the focal firm creates and captures value through the provision of its products and services. Members of this wider network might include, but are not limited to: collaborators, regulators, clients, customers and consumers, their stakeholders, suppliers and competitors.

Why does an ecosystem perspective matter? The first reason is that thinking about ecosystems encourages executives to take a broader view on the opportunities they face. This argument was first made by Moore in his Harvard Business Review article - "Predators and Prey: A New Ecology of Competition". As the boundaries between traditional industrial sectors break down organisations change the way the create value for their customers. Take a simple example - airlines. Are they in the travel business? After all their primary function is to transport people from A to B? Are they in the entertainment and catering business - they feed and entertain people while on their planes. Are they in the holiday business? Witness the emergence of BA and Virgin holidays. Are they in the telecoms business - think about in flight telecoms and wireless services. Even more extreme examples are seen in electronics and telecommunications. Phone companies now double as internet service providers. They offer on demand TV and video services. They are debating what else they can do given the cables they have running into your house. Utilities companies in general are blurring - water companies will provide gas and electricity. Gas companies will reduce the price you pay if you buy electricity from them as well. An even more radical example is provided by electric vehicles - some are exploring how they might be used as energy storage devices when not being driven. Boundaries between sectors are blurring and disappearing. As they do new opportunities emerge. Being constrained by a logic which says "we are an automotive firm" or "we are a pharmaceutical firm" simply limits innovation and creativity.

This theme of innovation and creativity is a second reason why ecosystems thinking is so important. Firms define often themselves in terms of their markets, customers and competitors. Yet one thing we have seen in our work is the increasingly complex nature of inter-organisational relationships. It is common to see firms competing for some contracts, while collaborating on others. IBM, for example, competes with software vendors such as Oracle and SAP, yet also installs Oracle and SAP systems when their customers want them to. BAE Systems partners with Babcock to deliver services at Portsmouth Naval Base, yet competes with Babcock for other MoD contracts. This complex and nested set of relationships raises some interesting questions. If you define another organisation solely as your competitor there's a danger you miss opportunities for innovation and collaboration. The car industry provides an excellent example. Many car manufacturers have close relationships with (or in some cases own) Dealer networks. They see the Dealer as the primary route to market and the obvious choice for all after-sales service and support. Yet there are loads of small, independent garages that offer vehicle service and support. Often customers prefer these independent garages - they are cheaper, operate with lower overheads and only use genuine original equipment spares when needed. Traditionally the automotive manufacturers have seen these independent garages as the enemy. They take work from the Dealer network, build direct relationships with the end customer and generally disrupt the industry.

But if you draw a broader circle and include these "annoying independent garages" in your ecosystem, you could - as an original equipment manufacturer - start to ask how might we collaborate with these independent garages? Should we offer to manage their spare parts inventories through consignment stocks? Should we provide them specialist tooling and equipment, creating a larger market for proprietary technologies? As the use of telematics and remote monitoring increases, should we - the original equipment manufacturer - sell the engine diagnostic data to independent garages to help them provide better service to their customers? Perhaps the original equipment manufacturer can create a more seamless, integrated and lower cost service for their customers by collaborating with their traditional competitors.

Its only when you start to challenges the assumptions that you hold about how your industry operates and where the boundaries lie that you start to think creatively about the opportunities that are open to you. Taking an ecosystem perspective and broadening your horizon is a great way of thinking about how you might innovate your business model.

Struggling to Make the Shift to Solutions: Write Your Own Obituary

It is clear that organisations across the globe are making the shift to solutions. Often the ultimate aspiration is providing the outcomes the customers (and in some some cases the customer's customers) want and need. Often this journey is described in terms of a service ladder - gradually moving from providing products to supporting the products with spares; through to remote or condition based monitoring; and finally onto contracting for capability or outcomes. While a logical flow and an inherently attractive proposition, successfully making this shift to solutions in reality is challenging. A critical issue is winning the hearts and minds of people who are used to a world of products. If you've always worked in a product or technology centred business then a commonly heard fear is "won't services cannibalise the product business" or put more directly "aren't we sowing the seeds of our own destruction - we'll kill the product business if we are too good at offering solutions".

Hearts and minds are always difficult to win, but one useful trick is to play on this fear. Recently we have been experimenting with asking organisation's to write their own obituary. The exam question we set is "write or record a short obituary for our services business. Imagine we are five years down the road and we haven't made our services business work (while all of our competitors have). What would the press be saying about us? What would they put our failure down to? Who would get the inheritance (e.g. which competitor gets our business and why)".

A simple trick, but the responses that are generated are both illuminating and in some cases humbling. Senior executives start to verbalise ideas like "ACME Inc has divested all of its remote and condition monitoring efforts and sold them to Monitoring-R-Us, a private company specialising in industrial solutions". Five themes consistently shine through these obituaries - the failure of the organisation concerned to keep pace with change; the inability to break away from the product-dominant culture; the need to get closer to customers and really understand their businesses; the reluctance to make the necessary investment - dabbling rather than committing to services and solutions; and missing the opportunity that the era of big data and sensors offers. In another blog I'll try to write more about these issues, but in the short-term if they strike a chord with you, join us in Cambridge on 1st October for the Cambridge Service Alliance conference - "Successfully Making the Shift to Solutions" - where we'll hear from organisations that are making the shift and overcoming the barriers. 

Why servitise: Alternative rationales

I have often thought about the reasons why firms servitize (sell services as well as products). Usually I categorise these under three broad headings - economic, strategic and environmental. The economic reasons for servitization include:

1. The challenge of competing on cost - in many developed countries firms find it difficult, if not impossible, to compete on cost alone. The reality is that their underlying costs bases are too high in comparison to lower cost economies and so they have to compete through innovation and differentiation - services valued by customers are one route of differentiation.

2. The installed base argument - in capital goods industries, where products have long-life cycles, the installed base can be significant. In 2010, for example, Boeing had 19,410 commercial planes in operation and delivered 462 new planes, giving a ratio of 42 operational planes for every new plane delivered. Providing service and support for the installed base is a significant market opportunity.

3. Stability of revenues - particularly important in recent years, in many capital goods industries product revenues can be lumpy. Significant revenue is gained when products are sold and delivered, but this doesn't happen every day. Ongoing service and support revenues provide a more stable income stream, smoothing the effect of lumpy product sale revenues.

In strategic terms there are four key reasons for servitization.

1. Locking in customers - a traditional business model that has been used for years. Products are sold at or slightly above cost, money is made on the provision of spares and consumables. Think razors and razor blades; printers and ink cartridges.

2. Locking out competitors - especially important in industries with a high installed base. As demand for high margin service and support grows, new entrants are attracted to the services market. Many original equipment manufacturers make strategic moves to partner with their customers and in doing so seek to lock out potential new entrants to the services market.

3. Increasing differentiation - some customers value the stability that service and support contracts offer. A fixed price can mean predictable maintenance costs and a transfer of risk from the customer to the service provider. These benefits provide a differentiation advantage to original equipment manufacturers.

4. Customer demand - the final strategic reason I often talk about is customer demand, in the sense that customers demand that their providers offer service based contracts. In public procurement, particularly the defence sector, this is becoming an increasingly important trend. Government Departments are asking to contract for capability, by the right to use the assets (ships, ground vehicles and planes), rather than taking ownership of the assets.

A final, and potentially increasingly important, rationale for servitization is the environmental rationale. Here the idea is to question whether transfer of asset ownership is neccessary. Think of car sharing schemes, such as StreetCar and ZipCar, or DVD sharing schemes, such as Netflicks. Do consumers really need to take physical ownership of assets or can we share access to them, thereby reducing the environmental impact of production.

While these three rationales have stood the test of time, the reasons for this blog is I came across a new strategic rationale at a recent conference - the idea of service as a pre-sale opportunity. Volvo Cars run an active programme with their dealers where they seek to persuade them that every service encounter is also an opportunity to build customer loyalty and hence secure a repeat purchase - hence service as a pre-sale. The data that Volvo presented are illuminating. They clearly show that, at least for Volvo Cars, repeat business is a function both of product quality and service quality. How many of your service staff see service as a pre-sale opportunity?

Andy Neely

Director, Cambridge Service Alliance

The Servitization of Manufacturing: Where Does Value Lie and When Is Value Realised?

One way of conceptualizing the servitization of manufacturing is to think about the two questions: (i) where does value lie, and (ii) when is value realised. In traditional manufacturing environments the value lies in products & parts – the physical assets – and value is realised at the point of sale – when the customer pays for the product. Many manufacturing businesses, particularly those with long life cycle products, have recognized that value can also be realized throughout the life of product, especially when products need repair and overhaul. Such firms have a strong focus on the aftermarket and capture significant value through the sales of spares and repairs.

An alternative perspective is to think about value lying in “solutions” rather than “products & parts”. This paradigm puts the emphasis on the outcomes the customer wants, rather than the physical product. The old Theodore Levitt quote “customers don’t want quarter inch drills, they want quarter inch holes” illustrates the point. Many customers don’t want to own the physical products that many manufacturers provide, instead they just want the end result – or the outcome – that the product delivers. When manufacturing firms switch to an outcome focus they often contract for capability, guaranteeing uptime and/or availability of their equipment through life. Rolls-Royce, in its aero-engine business, now contracts for Power by Hour, selling the thrust the engines deliver rather than the engines themselves. A significant advantage of contracting for capability is that the incentives of the customers and the original equipment manufacturers are aligned. In an aftermarket focused model, it is actually in the original equipment manufacturers interest for their equipment to break down, as they realise value when they repair their products and provide spare parts. When contracting for capability or outcomes, however, the original equipment manufacturer only gets paid when their equipment is working, so it is in the original equipment manufacturer’s interest to maximize equipment reliability, something that customers also care about.

One of the challenges of contracting for capability is the issue of risk. If original equipment manufacturers take responsibility for the outcomes their products deliver, effectively guaranteeing results for their customers, they inevitably take on significant risk. The original equipment manufacturer is now responsible for delivering outcomes, not just the product. Some servitizing manufacturers have decided that the risk involved in outcome based contracting is too great and some customers have decided they are not willing to cede control over the outcomes, so they are unwilling to enter into contracting for capability. In such situations there is an alternative approach to offering services - selling knowledge and insight – recognizing that value lies in the solution the original equipment manufacturer offers. Think here of manufacturers that also offer design and development or installation advice. Think of those that have moved into training and consultancy services. They no longer simply sell products. They also sell knowledge and/or insight. Figure 1 brings these four perspectives on servitization together into a single representation, which illustrates the strategic choices manufacturers can consider when exploring how to servitize. These choices are not mutually exclusive. Manufacturers can decide both to be aftermarket and advisory focused, although clearly the different positions require different organizational capabilities.

Figure 1: Conceptualising the Servitization of Manufacturing

Andy Neely

Director, Cambridge Service Alliance