Análisis y comparativa de indicadores

 SYSTEMS  PROCESSES  KNOWLEDGE LEADERSHIP CULTURE HUMAN CAPITAL HUMAN CAPITAL

leadership approach, that really determines the capture and leverage processes (Collins et al, 2002; Agri Chain Solutions, 2002).

The representations in Figures 3.9 and 3.10 also serve to illustrate the conceptual leap from the preferred supplier relationship to a value chain relationship. Many of the dyadic buyer-supplier relationships referred to in the research literature are represented by the preferred supplier or strategic partnering relationship, such as the Proctor & Gamble relationship with Wal-Mart in the grocery sector, or the Li & Fung relationship with The Limited in the fashion sector (Walters, 2006). Perhaps the New Zealand Merino Company model warrants greater attention from the research community in extending the value chain model as this research seeks to do with WoolConnect. In strategic partnering the discrete inter-firm boundaries of the traditional transactional relationship are relaxed.

“Partners in a strategic partnering relationship recognise each other as an extension of their own firm; …both partners perceive the partnership as exclusive and not easily imitated by the competition.” (Mentzer et al, 2000)

Such relationships require a high degree of cooperation between the partners and involve time and effort and investment in the relationship which may not be easy to recover (Mentzer et al, 2000). Networking can be seen as reconceptualising organisational boundaries, reorganising work undertaken and the creation and the distribution of wealth, transforming the dyadic perspective of relationship marketing into a multi-firm network context (Jarrett, 2004).

Figure 3.9: Value creation in a linear chain of relationships

The value chain relationship representation in Figure 3.10 shows a higher order relationship where the exchange of information between chain partners traverses several links in the chain. The Agrifood sector provides many examples of business practice, particularly where product identity preservation through the chain is critical (Goldsmith & Bender, 2004), and in fibre chains such as WoolConnect, where relationships and information exchanges traverse several steps in the chain and offer multiple opportunities for information exchange and learning (Walter, 2006; Jarratt, 2004).

Figure 3.10: The locus of value in multi-relationship chains

(From Collins et al, 2002 p320)

The research literature contains diverse views concerning the evolution and practice of supply chain management, which partly reflects business practice, from its logistic origins and channel theory (Lancioni, 2000). On the one hand there is the focus on the physical movement of goods through the management of the supply chain where the focus is on cost and supply. This is viewed from the perspective of the firm, particularly in large organisations with defined functional responsibilities, or from a cross organisational perspective through relationships with other chain partners, usually on a dyadic basis (Ballou et al, 2000; Lambert & Cooper, 2000). Lean thinking, efficient consumer response (ECR), category management (in food retailing) and quick response (QR) in the fashion industry are concepts, often supported by modern business systems, underlining the more sophisticated development of supply chain management (Coughlan et al, 2006; Juttner et al, 2007).

At another level the focus is on whole-of-chain approaches, often referred to as value or demand chain management where the focus is on marketing concepts and the consumer (Lee, 2001). It appears from the literature that some of the traditional academic logistics specialists are advocating a more consumer focussed approach to cooperation and collaboration in the chain, requiring cultural change and learning supported by the harnessing, sharing and development of appropriate capabilities (Juttner et al, 2007; Walters, 2006; Christopher, 2000). This process is further emphasised by the increasing demand by consumers for information along the lines outlined in Table 3.1 above (food safety, biotechnology, animal welfare, environmental assurances) that is shifting competitiveness away from tangible assets to value added and wealth creation through knowledge management. Knowledge becomes a strategic asset of the firm transcending the more mechanistic view of the supply chain analysis (Sporleder & Moss, 2002).

When change is endemic, “...successful companies are those that consistently create new knowledge, disseminate it widely throughout the organisation, and quickly embody it in new technologies and products. These activities define the ‘knowledge-creating company’, whose sole business is continuous innovation.” (Nonaka, 2000 p96)

Creating new knowledge depends on tapping the tacit and often highly subjective insights, intuitions and hunches of individual employees who see themselves as committed and identify with the mission of the organisation. Many Japanese companies are seen as living organisms with a collective sense of identity and fundamental purpose and a shared understanding of what the company stands for and its future. In such a knowledge creating environment, managerial roles and responsibilities, organisational design and business practices need to be thought about differently (Nonaka, 2000).

This thesis, supported by the literature, proposes that the paradigm shift involved in any new model for Australian agriculture offers opportunities for sustainable competitive advantage through capturing and managing knowledge. This involves transformational learning for chain participants (Gow et al, 2002), generative as much as adaptive learning (Jarratt, 2004), leading to the development of new competencies and capabilities, such

that the value chain concept becomes the implementation of the learning chain and a source of competitive advantage.

The TQW projects also are examples of the value of greater involvement by woolgrowers with higher levels of the chain. Clearly there are issues to be addressed in the design and implementation of such initiatives for their success. One outstanding benefit of the TQW projects was it provided far more information than the traditional system (Champion & Fearne, 2002). Additional success factors included the involvement of a knowledgeable project manager; an alliance with a retail partner who provided detailed feedback; access to market relevant information; supply management to specifications; and chain partners willing to change their practices (Lowe & Perkins, 2002).

The focus of this research is directed at the Australian Agrifood sector generally, but particularly at the traditional broad acre commodity industries where the development of chain knowledge, skills and capabilities appears to have lagged the transformation in international and domestic markets. This is particularly apparent in the wool sector irrespective of the messages from various industry reviews. The New Zealand Merino Company model appears to offer concrete evidence of the potential for more competitive performance. This research addresses the experience of WoolConnect as a case study to determine the development of chain awareness and hence the impact on learning, the development of individual skills and capabilities as well as organisationally, on the various enterprises involved with WoolConnect.