PROTECCIÓN CONTRA PLAGAS FORESTALES

perspective that transcends the capabilities to be a good line manager. They are masters of the informal network.” (Spekman et al, 1998 p768)

3.7 Alliance Competencies, Capabilities and Organisational

Learning

The recurring theme in this study is the struggle for many in the Agrifood sector to move from a traditional static commodity based business, essentially pushing homogeneous products through spot markets, to one focussed on a more consumer demand-driven market requiring differentiated products, continuous process innovation and highly specialised product delivery and customer support systems (Gow et al, 2002). Confronting these changes and capturing value in highly uncertain marketplaces requires a different set of skills, resources and capabilities from the commodity firm’s existing core competencies. It begins with ‘strategic intent’, establishing an aspirational level involving innovation in the way the firm competes by creating a ‘misfit’ between current

resources and ways of using resources. This ‘misfit’ is achieved through exceeding the firm’s current resources and capabilities and through ‘leveraging’ intra-firm resources against those of others to create new core competencies (Hamel & Prahalad, 1996).

“The very essence of competencies is that they often include an intangible component, such as tacit knowledge of personnel; this makes them difficult to imitate or trade in the market place.” (Gow et al, 2002 p21)

Capabilities (repeatable patterns of action in the use of assets to create, produce and deliver offerings) become distinctive competencies when they create value for the chain in ways competitors have difficulty imitating (Gow et al, 2002; Blois & Ramirez, 2006). The basic tenet of resource-based theory is that firms compete on the basis of their resources and capabilities (Bryan, 2004). In the 26 years since Levitt (1980) argued businesses needed to augment their products, Blois & Ramirez (2006) agree this remains an effective strategy for product differentiation using new or existing capabilities, but such capabilities can also add value for customers.

Social capital research provides insights on the development of capabilities between businesses involved in relationships and networks where the focus is on creating and sharing knowledge (Walter et al, 2007). Knowledge management reasoning applied to the US food industry, typically characterised by weak ties and sparse relationships, demonstrated that accumulated intangible assets, such as category leading brands, could change the fundamental characteristics of the supply chain, such as high embeddedness, high social capital, more easily exchanged tacit knowledge, higher levels of trust and the limitation of opportunistic behaviour (Sporleder & Moss, 2002). The development of social capital is demonstrated in the New Zealand Merino Company model as one of the non-financial benefits of the contract model forming the basis of that chain.

“Traditionally merino growers have had no direct linkage to the purchasers of their wool and have only been able to identify the exporter who undertook the auction transaction. Export market and end product ‘destination’ have typically

been unknown. In contrast, the contract model forms a direct link between growers and retail brands, which allows growers to strongly identify with and feel a sense of connection to the contracted retail brands and manufacturers. In effect, the wool contract becomes a vehicle for a range of other communication activities.” (RMSG, undated p155)

Collins et al (2002) focus on the way members of alliances, especially members of food and fibre chain alliances, can learn from one another to create competitive advantage. Product and financial flows in chains are linear (Figure 3.9), whereas relationships in chains, often involving more than two chain participants, are non-linear and may exist in clusters or nodes which are, in effect, centres of learning (Figure 3.10). As a result chain partners develop knowledge and capabilities that are sources of competitive advantage which are captured in the intangible assets of the firm. These can be viewed (Figure 3.8) as a core of processes, systems, databases and structures that are under the control of management, surrounded by an outer layer of human resources that are influenced but not directly controlled by management. Mediating between the core and the outer layer is the organisation’s culture and leadership which influences the organisation’s ability to capture new learning or leverage its intangible assets for competitive advantage through relationships developed by the organisation’s human relationships (Collins et al, 2002). To return to the New Zealand Merino Company model, the way in which woolgrowers are able to relate to their brand partners through regular feedback workshops demonstrates how the ‘locus of value’ enables the development of skills and capabilities across the chain reinforced through the development of social capital across the chain.

“This change has been dramatic in that now it is common to hear a grower refer to themselves as an ‘X Grower’ or a ‘Y Grower’ and as being part of the ‘Y Club’ where Y is a retail brand purchasing their raw material requirements via NZM under long term forward contract. This self identification illustrates the strength of growers’ association to the end users of their fibre and can translate to a desire to improve raw wool quality and farm management practice. As a result, the implications of the contract model can be far reaching and provide opportunities

for the targeting of other peripheral communication and technology transfer/extension programs.” (RMSG, undated p155)

Figure 3.8: The intangible assets of the firm

(Collins et al, 2002 p319)

On the one hand the organisation aims to capture the knowledge and expertise held by its employees (tacit knowledge) within its own structure, systems, processes and databases which together represent the accumulated captured experience of the organisation. In the other direction the aim is to leverage these systems across the whole organisation. Therefore value chains are about capturing strategic information as a result of preferential relationships with other firms in the chain and incorporating this knowledge into the internal processes of the firm. As indicated above, leadership and culture, which are partly, if not totally, under the control of management, mediate the flows between these different classes of soft assets. Culture can act as a brake on the capture and leverage flows, hindering the competitiveness of the firm. It is these mediators which determine flow velocity and hence agility and competitiveness. It is management’s ability to mould the culture of the firm, and to transform it from a command and control to a dispersed

CORE COMPETENCIES