Capability-based Value:
+ Supplier’s production planning improves (S13) + The planning of supplier’s business strategy
improves (S10)
+ Customer’s supply chain mgmt. improves (C9) + Supplier’s resource usage improves (S8) + Supplier’s product development improves (S7) + The supplier can make more customer oriented
investment (CS7)
C = The effect for the customer S = The effect for the supplier CS = The effect for both parties Number = How many times the effect occur in the causal maps
Figure 20. Co-created value through transparency in buyer-supplier relationships.
The results also indicated that the sacrifices (i.e. risks) for transparency usually relate to information leakages to competitors where the leakages for the supplier’s competitors were believed to be more common. This usually leads to decreased competitiveness when the competitors are able to utilize the leaked information for their benefit. Lastly, decreased competitiveness leads to decreased revenue and profitability which was usually believed to occur more often for the supplier than for the customer. Similarly with these findings, previous researches argue that transparency causes the risks of information leakages to the competitors or it can be misused for the receiver’s own good (Lamming et al. 2005: 558– 561; Kajüter & Kulmala 2005: 200; Suomala et al. 2010: 91–93).
Table 16. Comparing the value-creating effects of different transparency types.
Capability-based Integration-based Operational
Performance-based Financial-based
Supplier’s costs awareness improves (+S6)
Collaboration for cost reductions
improves (+CS11) Total costs reduce (+CS12)
Profitability improves (+C8/+S8)
Supplier's weak efficiency can be revealed (-S4)
Deliveries can go to supplier's competitors (-S6)
Competitiveness improves (+C8/+S4)
The benefits of cost reductions can be shared evenly (+CS5)
Information can leak to competitors (-C2/-S5)
The price of supplier’s product declines (+C5) Revenue grows (+C3/+S4) Profitability decreases (-C2/-S5) Revenue decreases (-C1/-S5)
Customer’s supply chain mgmt. improves (+C9)
Delivery accuracy improves (+C9/+S13)
Profitability improves (+C8/+S8)
Supplier’s resource usage
improves (+S8) Costs reduce (+C9/+S7) Production planning improves (+C4/+S13) Unnecessary work/rush orders decrease (+CS5) Competitiveness improves (+C5/+S4)
The price of supplier’s product declines (+C4) The decisions can be made
at the wrong level (-CS4) Collaboration increases (+CS9) Costs reduce (+CS7)
Profitability improves (+CS7) Suboptimization increases (-CS4) Communication improves (+CS5) Efficiency/productivity improves (+CS7) Unnecessary work decreases (+CS6) Competitiveness improves (+CS4) Costs increase (-CS5) Supplier’s product development improves (+S7)
The customer can utilize supplier’s
knowledge better (+C11) Costs reduce (+CS12)
Profitability improves (+C8/+S10) The exchange with the supplier
increases (+S10)
Competitiveness improves (+C9)
Revenue grows (+C9/+S5) The supplier can participate in
customer’s product development (+S8)
The manufacturability of the products improve (+CS7) Trust increases (+CS4) Technical characteristics of
the products improve (+CS5) Information can leak to competitors
(-C8/-S4)
Competitiveness decreases (-C4/-S4)
The customer's competitors can utilize information (-C8) The planning of supplier’s
business strategy improves (+S10)
The planning of future collaboration improves (+CS12)
Competitiveness improves (+CS5)
Both parties can grow profitably (+CS10) The supplier can make more
customer oriented investment (+CS7)
Collaboration increases (+CS8) Cost effectiveness improves (+CS4)
The planning of customer’s sourcing strategy improves (+C7)
Customer's risks of bad sourcing decisions declines (+C4) The customer is not willing to continue the collaboration (-S6) Information can leak to competitors (-CS4)
C = The effect for the customer, S = The effect for the supplier, CS = The effect for both parties, Number = How many times the effect occur in the causal maps
Cost Transparency Supply Transparency Organizational Transparency Technological Transparency Strategic Transparency
The results also indicated that different types of transparency had different value-creating effects as Table 16 above demonstrates. For example, the value-creating effects of all the other transparency types except supply transparency related to integration-based value. Moreover, supply transparency had only the positive value-creating effects without significant value-destroying effects such as risks. Therefore, supply transparency seems to be suitable also in the transactional relationships without the aims to increase collaboration and transparency in other areas. For example, the parties can improve their capabilities and operational performance by sharing transparent supply information during delivering the standardized product as efficiently as possible. However, this situation limits the value creation possibilities in the buyer-supplier relationships because it does not enhance integration-based value as other transparency types.
When the parties try to co-create value as much as possible in the buyer-supplier relationships, they have to aim for more collaborative relationships and use all five transparency types in a balanced way. The balanced way means that the negative effects such as the risks of transparency should be balanced in the relationship so that the benefits of transparency exceed its sacrifices for both parties’ viewpoints. This suggestion is in line with the Eggert & Helm (2003: 103) and Hultman & Axelsson (2007: 634) which have proposed that transparency needs to be balanced rather than maximized in different buyer- supplier relationships. Table 16 indicates that the value-destroying effects were believed to happen more often to the supplier than to the customer in cost transparency whereas technological transparency caused the risks to the customer rather than to the supplier. Therefore, the level of transparency should be balanced in a way that the supplier provides transparent information on its costs whereas the customer should provide transparent information on its technology in order to share the risks of transparency and co-create value as much as possible. Lastly, companies should allocate their limited resources to only a few collaborative and strategic relationships and try to increase the level of transparency in the most important relationships because transparency requires allocated resources and causes costs.
5.4 Development suggestions
This chapter describes the framework for value co-creation and value capture through relationship transparency. It also provides the development suggestions for the appropriate level of transparency in the supply network with using the framework. The framework in Figure 21 below is based on the assumption that the levels of the transparency types should vary slightly in order to get a balance because each type of transparency has unique requirements as well as value-creating and value-destroying effects which need to take into account. V A L U E C O -C R E A T IO N P O T E N T IA L 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1