Presentaciones multimedia

In the following section, we will introduce two value network analyses that were conducted during this research. We have chosen for two distinct cases, one in the emerging smart meter market [3.6], one in the Fibre to the Home (FTTH) market. Both cases lend themselves ideally for value network analysis, as both are emerging markets. From the value network introduced, different possible configurations can be built. A comparison of the different configurations can then indicate the pros and cons of each configuration.

Mapping actors on the value network is the key step in building the value network configuration. As such, it is important to have a clear view on the existing actors, but also on possible new emerging actors that can take up roles in the network. In this section, we will introduce the most important actors in both the smart meter and the FTTH market.

3.2.1 Smart meter market actors

The introduction of smart meters in the residential setting is expected to change the existing electricity market value network significantly. Currently, metering at

the consumer side is performed using mechanical meters, which are manually read once a year by the distribution system operator (DSO). The meter is also owned by this DSO. The main functionality of smart meters is providing data connectivity between the meter and the backend. As this is the main business of telecom operators (Telco), this actor is also included. The third actor we identify is the energy service company (ESCO). With the availability of a smart meter, companies, like energy providers, but also new non-existing actors, have a direct connection with their customers. This opens opportunities to have tailored offers for different customer segments, steering of appliances, etc. With these three actors, the different value network configurations will be built in section 3.3.1.

3.2.2 FTTH market actors

In the broadband market, different players can be observed. When taking a closer look at the market in e.g. Belgium, the DSL incumbent and the cable operator (CO) are the two dominant players. They are vertically integrated, covering three streams, infrastructure, connection and content and application. The DSL incumbent is the former monopolistic operator, which was forced to open up his infrastructure for new entrants, the so-called other licensed operators (OLO) or alternative network operators (ANP). This decision to open up the network was enforced by the national regulatory authority (NRA). While the other players are typically (partially) private owned companies, the NRA is a government institution. As a result, this player will have clearly different objectives compared to the private players.

In more recent years, different other players have entered the broadband market, trying to claim a share of the revenues. The most well-known players are the over the top (OTT) players. These players have a clear focus on content and applications. Examples are multinationals like Youtube, Google, Facebook, etc. Since we observe a clear tendency away from vertical integration, the different actors can be clustered according to the three streams, infrastructure, network and services. These actors are the physical infrastructure provider (PIP), the network provider (NP) and the service provider (SP). These actors can be separate market players, e.g. an OTT and an OLO, but can also be integrated in different business units from the same player, e.g. the vertical integrated CO. There exist a lot of examples in Europe today where new players emerged as PIP actor. In Sweden, municipalities have been the driving force in the deployment of FTTH infrastructure. Other players, like utility providers, can also participate in this role.

The final important actor we want to introduce is the consumer. He is typically the one at which the total value network configuration is aimed. By purchasing services or products, he injects the necessary money flow into the value network.

3.2.3 Interactions between actors

From the description above, it is clear that with different actors active in the same value network, interactions between these actors will emerge. These emerging interactions can be identified through the value network analysis, where value exchanges are indicated between different roles. When actors are mapped on these roles, the value exchanges will be either internal for the actor, or between different actors. In addition, different value network configurations will result in different interactions between actors. By comparing these configurations, it will be possible to indicate the interactions between the different actors and how they impact the value network.

The assessment of the interactions can be performed on four different parameters. The technical design reflects how the chosen configuration impacts the underlying technology of the proposed solution. For example, when the value network configuration requires an open access model, where different players can interact with the underlying product or service, the technical design will require an interface capable of handling multiple players. The business implications of the chosen configuration are equally important. These cover the operational aspects of the interactions. Again, in an open access model, with split responsibilities between different streams in the value network, the implementation of service level agreements (SLA) is a business implication. The third parameter covers the impact on the consumer. The more actors are active in the value network configuration, the higher the possible impact on the customer, especially if he interacts with all these players. Typically, a single point of contact (SPOC) is preferred for the customer. Finally, competitive aspects of the value network configuration are assessed. In a vertical integrated model, where roles are taken up by a single actor, the possibilities for competition are very low. However, when moving towards a value network with multiple actors involved, the opportunities for competition and cooperation increase.