文稿教案文案u2 conceptual model of value transparentcy in supply

EuropeanManagementJournalVol.24,Nos.23,pp.206213,ó2006Elsevier.s.0263-2373AConceptualofValue-TransparencyinSupplyRICHARDLAMMING,UniversityofThispaperpresentsamodelofhoworganisationsmightemployValue-Transparency(V-T)asaresourcewithinsupplyrelationships.Themodelrefutesclassicalmodelsofbuyer- rrelation-shipswhichassumeahierarchywhereustomersspecifyanddemandrstoconformoracqui-esce.V-Tispresentedasapotentresourceforexploitingandexpandingtheinnovativecapabili-tiesofinter-organisationalworking.TheselectiveapplicationofV-T,withinadelineatedprojectframework,isproposedasanalternativetothetraditionalcustomer-rhierarchyanditsinstitution-basedprocesses.ItisproposedthatV-Tmightrepresentanewresourceorinnovativecapabilityforcustomersand ó2006Elsevier :Value-transparency,Innovation,Know-ledge,Businesscase,ChampionsTraditionally,firmshavebeenable,asacoreattri-bute,tocontrolin-housethedesign,deliveryanddis-tributionofproductsorservices(seeQuinn,1999).Overthelastdecade,observershavenotedashiftinpowerfromproducerstocustomersinseveralsectors.Thecombinedeffectsofglobalisationofoperations,greatlyreasedavailabilityofmarketinformation(facilitatedbytheinte,whatistermed‘reach’(Erridge,FeeandMcIlroy,1998),andtheemergenceof‘choice’asabasiccustomerrequirement,haveledinmatureindustriestothede-miseoftheproducer-driven,massproductionpara-digm.Recognitionhasgrownoftheneedforfirmstorespondtotheemergingmarketconditions(i.e.

changesintheirexternalselectionenvironment)withthatarecomplexanddynamic.Tomeettheseturbulentconditionsfirmsfrequentlyneedtoaccessdiversesetsofcapabilitiesandresourcesthatliebeyondtheirownassetbase.AsDyer&Singh,(1998:661)putit,‘Firmswhocombineresourcesinuniquewaysmayrealizeanadvantageovercompet-ingfirmswhoareunabletodoso.Thus,idiosyn-craticinter-firmlinkagemaybeasourceofrelationalrentsandcompetitiveadvantage’’.Asare-sult,thecompetenciesandassetsheldbyrsofgoods,services,materialsandcomponents,(or,moreaccuray,thesupplyrelationshipsconnectingsuchfirmswiththeircustomers)haveassumedanewsig-nificance,presentinganopportunityforfirmstoac-cessalternativeknowledgepoolsandskillsets.Inthetraditionalmodel,inwhichafirmwouldde-velopallitskeycompetenciesin-house,supplyrela-tionshipswouldbeofimportanceonlyasthecontextsurroundingtheartefactorserviceprovided–prob-ablytoaspecificationlaiddownbythecustomer.Intheextremeform(characterisedbymassproductionpurchasing)suchspecificationwouldbeidiosyn-craticanddogmatic,tocommoditizetheitemssup-plied,sothatthecustomermightbuyonpricealone.Asend-marketsdevelop,soformerlydistttechnologicalfieldsconvergeandproducts reasinglymulti-technological(CantwellandFai,1999,Grandstandetal.,1997).Inevitably,giventhehighcostsofgainingandmaintaininginvestmentsandexpertiseinmanyproductandservicetechnolo-gies,thein-houseorinternalcapabilitiesofanyoneorganisationcannotsustainablysupplyalltheneces-sarycapabilities.(Theemphasisonthesustainabilityofafirm’smarketofferingreflectsboththeheight-enedpaceandpressureofmarketsandthetualcomplexitythatmustbeAACONCEPTUALMODELOFVALUE-TRANSPARENCYINAACONCEPTUALMODELOFVALUE-TRANSPARENCYINUseofconcurrentengineeringandothertime-basedstrategiesdiffersfromapurely‘in-housestrategy’inrecognisingthatitisnotjustthescalebutthepaceofinnovationthatpromotescollectiveorcombinato-rialworking(Spanneretal.,1993;CoombsandMet-calfe,2002).However,ifitwerethecasethatacceleratingaparticularproductinnovationcouldsustaincompetitiveadvantage,thenthein-housemodelmightsuffice(i.e.ifallafirmhastostospeedupitsinternalprocesses,newproductdevel-opmentcouldbeconductedentirelyin-house).Thefirstorderadaptationofthein-housemodelwouldthenbeselectiveandlimitedoutsourcing,identifyingwhiightbedelegatedtootherfirmsonacase-by-casebasis.Itmayalsobethattheexploi-tation(andthereforecommercialrecovery)oftech-nologiesinwhichthefirmdoesinvestisreliantuponsharingitwithothers,sothatitmaybe‘‘bene-ficiallyexhausted’’beforeit esredundant(i.e.technologyrentsmayberedefinedintermsofcom-plementaryassetsorsharedcompetencies).Infact,thepreponderanceofandtheirpropensityforshort-termexploitationpresentsamorecomplexchallenge:itisnecessarytoacceleratedevelopmentprocessesinordertomeetthenecessaryandexternallydrivenmarkettimingandtoembracethendcomplexarrayofthatliebeyondtheimmediateunderstandingorcompetenceofthefirm.Tosupportthis,ratherthanoutsourcingfroma‘vantagepoint’(Lamming,1996),thefirmmustbeginwiththeassumptionthattherswhoseofferingsmakeuptheproductorservicetobedto-markethavepotentialandcrit-icallyimportanttechnologicalinputstomakebeyondthoseassociatedwithcurrentcontracts.Thus,it esapparentthattosustainacompeti-tivepositionfirmsmustcollaboratewithrsinnewways;ratherthansimplythesourcesofarte-facts,rs esourcesofknowledge,skillsandexpertise,orinnovationcapabilities,inadditiontothecoreofferingofartefacts.Withininter-organi-sationalrelationships,theprocessoflearningmaysimplybetheexchangeofknowledgeoritmaybeaformallyco-ordinatedprocesssuchasajointven-ture.Althougheachfirmmaystillhaveitsownsetoffirm-specificcapabilities,itcannotbeassumedthatthesecapabilitiesareacquiredsolelythroughantlearningprocesswithinthefirm.Whatarebeingconsideredherearecomplemen-taryassets(Teece,1986)or‘cross-firmcapabilities’(CoombsandMetcalfe,2002).tunitiesisinfluentialindeterminingthelevelofco-operationthatafirmiswillingtoundertakebeforecommencingwithaninter-organisationalrelation-ship.Althoughthemarketisultimaytheoverallselectiondevice,thereisamultitudeofdifferentac-torsshaafirm’stechnologicalpathway(regula-

tors,consumers,competitors).However,inordertoavoidtheriskrelatedtothelaunchofanewproductorprocess,intra-firmpre-selectionandtestingproce-firm’ternalselectionenvironmenthelpstodefinetechnicalandeconomicopportunities,itremainstheresponsibilityofthefirmtosearch,identifyandexploittheseopportunities(McKelvey,1997).Accord-asitproposesandselectsfromalltheavailablealter-natives,itsfinalselectionbeingdeterminedfirstbythefirm’sinternalselectionenvironment,intermsofitscompetencies,routinesandpastexperiencesand,second,bythenatureofitternalinctions.Thelessonhereisthatforafirmtoremainstableandsolventitstechnologicalautonomyisessential.butessentiallysupportiveimperative.Although,bothfirmsmayreasetheirrangeoftechnologicalopportunities,throughexpandingtheircomplementaryandcoreknowledgebases(McKelvey,1997)thepartiestoasupplyrelationshipmustfirstweighupthebenefitsofinnovatinginiso-lationthosearisingthroughcollectiveaction.Classicstudiessuggestedthatfirmstendedtopursuethatrelatedtotheirexistingknowledgebases(Teece,1988).However,thereasingcom-plexityanddiversityofmodern geststhatfirmsmaybedtoaccessnew,unrelatedknowledgepools(Cavusgiletal.,2003; al.,1998;Prahalad,1998).Thefactthat rmaybeinanentirelydifferentsectorfromthatofthecustomer(e.g.amicroelectronicscompo-nentsproducersupplyingavehicleassembler,oracaterersupplyinganairline)meansthattherichnessofsharedselectionenvironmentsmaybeimmediateandextensive.(TheUK’sMinistryofDefenceLogis-ticsOrganisationreferstotheresultofsuchoverlap-scanningas‘sharedworkingenvironments.’)Thenecessity,andurgency,ofleveragingcross-firmcapabilitieshasledtothedevelopmentoftheconcep-tualmodelproposedinthispaper.Sofarthepaperhasproposedthatinter-organisationalrelationshipsreasinglyprovidehighlycreativerelationships.These,wedefineassupplyrelationshipsthatcontaininimitablesharedcompetencies,goingwellbeyondtherequirementsofextantcontracts,whichmayberedefinedintermsofcomplementaryassetsorsharedcompetencies.Forthecustomer,thisraisestheissueofdealingwithtechnology-richrsinamannerthatcreatesasharedasset(e.g.knowl-edgeorwayofworking)thatanothercustomerof rwouldfinddifficulttoreplicate;thisisanew fortraditionalpurchasing.How-everwearenotsuggestingthattechnology-creativemeans‘hightechnology;’nordoesitimplylargesizeorextensiveR&Dactivity.rsmayholdquitesimpleknowledgethatcanunlockpotentialinacus-tomerwithinacreativerelationship.Althoughtherearemanyrecordedapproachestoleveragingcross-firmcapabilities(forexamplejointventures,alliances,partnerships),theapproachtakenhereistodevelopanother:thatofValue-Transparency(V-T).Havingshowntheneedforfirmstoembracetheexchangeoftechnological(andwithit,commer-cial)dataandknowledge,andafterpresentinganinterpretationofthecomplexityofselectionenvironmentsthatfirmsface,wenowturntothedevelopmentofaconceptualmodelforValue-Trans-parency.Thismodelisintendedbothtoestablishthecharacteristicsandbasicmechanicsoftheconcept,andtoserveasthebasisforpracticalapplicationoftheconcept,viadecision-makingsupporttoolsforTheconceptualmodelhasbeendevelopedthroughcollaborationwithfourUKhightechnologymanu-facturingcompanies,usingaparticipativeactionre-searchapproach,setheaimoftheresearchwastoimprove,inpartnershipwiththefirms,specificandtangibleaspectsofinter-organisationalworking.Practitioners(intheparticipatingfirms)wereencour-agedtoprovideinputandfeedbackthroughoutthedurationoftheproject,specificallythroughtheuseofsearchstyleconferences(followingGustaven,2001).Consequently,theconceptualmodelwasshapednotonlybytheperceptionsoftheresearchersbutalsobythepractitionersinthecontextoftheirownperceptionsandtheirownworkingenviron-ment.ThisisinlinewithKemmis,whohighlightsthat:‘Practicalactionresearchersaimjustasmuchatunderstandingandchangingthemselvesasthesubjectsofapractice(aspractitioners)aschanging esoftheirpractice.’(Kemmis,2001,p.92).Ifouridentificationofafundamentalbasisforacon-ceptofV-Tliesintheimplicationsoftechnologicalimperativesandtheoreticalmodelsofthefirm,itsdevelopmentisgroundedinbothobservedandstud-iedpracticesandcontingencieswithinrealfirms.Previously,wehavecontendedthattraditionalbusi-nesspracticestendtoblockorcorruptcross-firmcapabilities(Lammingetal.,2005b);evenwhatmaybeperceivedasmorerecentpracticesormodernpracticescontinuetheseeffects.(ForacomparisonofopenbooknegotiationseeLammingetal.,2005b.)Previousresearchhassuggestedthatconcen-trationuponleveragingthevantagepointsofcus-tomerorr(Lamming1996),asopposedtoconcentratinguponleveragingthepotentialoftherelationship,appearsendemictosupplyrelation-ships(Lammingetal.,1996).Theterm‘Value-Transparency’isadevelopmentof‘costtransparency’asoriginallyproposedbyLam-ming(1993:214).Reflectingtheissuesofcommercial

survivalandtechnologicalimperativesdiscussedabove,theconceptofV-Tisproposedasonepoten-tialmodeofoperationwithinaninter-organisationalrelationshipinasupplywork.Specificallyitaddressestheneedforuncorruptedexchangeorsharingofsensitiveinformationandknowledgebetweenacustomerorganisationanditsr.Conceivedasatwo-wayprocess,itrepresentsman-agedriskforbothparties,withidentifiableaddi-tionalreturnsthatmaybeassociatedwiththatrisk.Thedevelopmentofthetermreflectstheobservationthatboththenatureoftheknowledgeorinformationexchangedandtheresultofitsmutualexploitationrelatetopotentialvaluethatmayaccruewithinbothpartiestotherelationship.Itisconcernedwiththecreation,nurtureanddeliveryofvalueforthebene-fit,andthus existenceofbothparties(Lammingetal.,2005a).Thus,thefocusofV-Tisnotaboutimprovingrela-tionshipsperse,butonspecificworkingpracticesthatrelatetobothparties’survivalandcompetitiveness.Itisbasedintheoriesofmanagingtechnology,groundedincriticismofestablishedpractices,andaimedatpracticesrelatedtothesurvivalandsuccessoffirmswithinsupplworks.TheChoiceofValue-TransparencyTocharacterisetheconceptofV-Tbetweentwoorganisations,weemployametaphortakenfromgeology.Ithastheinherentlimitsofallmetaphors(RamsayandCaldwell2002)butisusedhereonlyafterextensivetrialingwithindustrywhereithasbeenenthusiasticallyreceived.(ForamoreextensivediscussionoftheuseofthismetaphorseeLammingetal.,2004.)Exploringthenotionoftransparencywithpractitio-nershasledustoadoptingacategorisationtakenfromgeology:thatofthecharacteristicsofmineralsintermsoftheamountoflightthatcanpassthroughthem(seeTable1,whichappliesthemetaphortosupplyrelationships).Weusethebehaviouroflightasanogyforthetransferofinformationorknowledgeinrelationships;asametaphorforvari-ousstatesoftransparency(andnon-transparency)withinwhichweidentifyValue-Transparency:This‘device’suggeststhatV-Tisadynamic(andthusmanageable)propertyofarelationship,notacharac-teristicorattribute:itdoesnotneedtobeinactionallthetime.Inourmetaphor,thelightisogoustoinformationorknowledgeinasupplyrelationship,seitmustbetransferrediftheproposedmutualbenefitsaretoarise.Pragmatically,ratherthanexhibitingsimply‘opaqueness’,‘translucency’or‘clarity’inapureform,supplyrelationshipsarelikelytocontainelementsofallthreecharacteristics,inavarietyofTable1ManageableModesofExchangeinValue-TransparencyasDerivedfromaGeological Geology:lightshiningonorthroughapieceofmineralInsupplymanagement:(informationexistinginorsharedbetweentwo

LightcannotpratethesurfacesnorpassthroughthestructureofthesubstanceForanyofavarietyofreasons,informationcannotbesharedbypartywiththeotherbetweenthepartiesonthissubjectbutthisconstraintisacknowledgedbyboth

Lightcanenndexitthesurfacesthesubstanceandpassthroughitsstructure,butisdistortedorpartlyobscuredinthepassageRestrictedinformationonthissubjectmaybeshared,e.g.butinterfaceconditionsorpartialdata.UsedinValue-Transparencythisispositivebutlimitedcollaboration.Ifusedtactically,itmaybeakinto‘cheating’

LightentersandexitsthesurfacesofthesubstanceandpassesthroughitsstructurewithoutaltionInformationregardingthissubjectissharedcandidly,onaselectiveandjustifiedbasis.Developmentofinformationmayleadtosharedknowledgeandcollaborativeabilitieslocationsatdifferenttimes(orstagesinaproject).Thesethreecharacteristicsarelikelytobedistributedovertherangeofinterfaceprocesses,e.g.purchasemanagerwithsalesmanager;designengineerwithdesignengineer;operationsmanagerwithoperationsmanager;directorwithdirector.Indrawingacontinuumfrom‘opaqueness’inrela-tionships(noknowledgeoneitherside)to‘clarity’inrelationships(fullbuttimeboundknowledgeofa‘localised’topic)wearenotsuggestingthatthereisa‘designedpath’or‘mandatedroute’forsupplyrelationships,fromopaquetotransparent.Inprac-tice,weacknowledge,thematterisnotitive,andismorecomplex.Forexample,(followingthemetaphor),afundamentallynon-transparentrela-tionshipcoulddevelop‘fissures’oftotalV-Tfromalong-termrelationshipbetweenboundary-nelinthetwoOurrelationshipmodesarethereforelimitedtoatypologyfordiscussingV-Tinsupplyrelationships.Afirstapproaightbetoportrayrelationshipsascombiningpointsonthecontinuumfromopaque,whereneitherpartyknowsanythingabouttheother[orasubjectarea],totransparent,whereinformationislyshared(e.g.acommondatabaseorsharedintr).Weuse‘information’asaninitialforvaluebeingadded(foroneorbothparties)throughtherelationshipinterface.Fromourrecentresearch,wehaveidentifiedthreemanageableandtwounmanageablestatesofex-changeforsensitiveinformation.Workingwiththeseinaprojectn,wesuggestitshouldbepossibletodecidejointly(i.e.randcustomertogetherinaboundary-spanningprojectteam)whattypeofsharingisnecessaryandpossibleatwhichstageoftheproject.Thefirststateis‘‘Clarity’’,thesituationinwhichcosts,forwardvolumesandotheroperatingdetailscanbeentirelyopen.Wherethisisnotpossi-bleornecessary,wesuggest‘‘Translucency’’mightbeemployed;partialV-Twherecustomerorrisableto‘ringfence’somefactorsanditisagreedthatthisisnecessary.Thefinalmanageablestatewe

suggestis’’Opaqueness’’wherethereisa‘‘no-go’’area,theinformationpertinenttothestageoftheprojectcannotbesharedandotherwaysofworkingmustbefound.Removingthepressuretorevealsuchdatashould,wesuggest,removemany‘hidden’costsassociatedwithprotection,deceptionandWehavealsoidentifiedtwoperipheralstatesthatap-pearunmanageable,atleastinrelationshipterms.Thefirstis‘‘Dazzle’’,beyondValue-Transparency,wheretoomuchdataispresentedandthereceivercannoteffectivelydealwithit(thismaybeaccidentalordeliberate).Thelastis‘‘BlackHole’’,wherethefac-torsaresodeeplyburiedorcomplexitisnotpossibletoexinorsharethem.Byemployingthisrangeoftypesweavoidthepro-pensitytodubaspecificrelationship‘transparent’orotherwise.Rather,wesuggestthatarelationshipmaycontainone,several,orallofthesetypesandthatthemixandconsistencymayvary,orbealtereddeliberay,overtime(possiblyinaverydynamicmanner).Ourcontingencyapproach,wesuggest,lendsarobustnessandpracticalitytotheconcept.AConceptualModelforTheconceptualmodeldepictedinFigure1aimstoexinhowV-Tmightexistandbeemployedwithinadyadicsupplyrelationshipandthus,eventually,withinthesupplywork.Thetwopartiestothedyad,AandBareshowntotheleftandtherightofthediagram.Therelationshipbetweenthem,forthisspecificencounter(developmentordeliveryofaproductorservice),istheellipticalareaboundedbytheheavy,brokenline.NotethatitisassumedthatmanysuchrelationshipsmayexistbetweenAandBsimultaneously,withdifferentcomplexions,i.e.aproductive,congenialandcollaborativerela-tionshipmaybeassociatedwithoneproductorFigure1AConceptualModelforValue-Transparencyinservicewhileaquitedifferent,adversarial,secretiveandcorruptedaffairmightcharacterisethesupplyordevelopmentofanother.Logically,therefore,itisnotmeaningfultospeakof‘therelationship’be-tweenthetwopartiesinahomogeneoussense,otherthanasanamalgamorganglionofdiverserelation-shipsthatmightbebundledtogethertoformit.ThisviewrelatestoNelsonandWinters’(1982)marketandnon-marketorientedselectionenvironment.Reflectingitsoriginsininnovationandtechnologicalimperatives,themodelofV-Tbeginswiththeexter-nalselectionenvironmentsofthetwoparties.Thesecontainstructural,regulatoryandlegislativefactors,thestrengthsandweaknessofcompetitors,techno-logies(inthewidestsense)marketdemandsandunfulfilledneeds,andsoon(NelsonandWinter,1982).Thecoidenceofpotentialforradicaldevel-opmentliesineachofthetwoenvironments(whichneitherpartycanexploitalone)andprovidesthesparkoforiginalityfortherelationship.Thepotentialvalueforbothpartiesliesinthedifferencesbetweenthetwoenvironments(i.e.onewouldnototherwisecontain,orperhapsevenbeawareof,theother).Theseoverlapenvironmentsarerepresentedbyfoursetsoftwo-wayarrows.Theupperpairshowstheinterybetweentheinternaldecisionmaking(theneo-classicalfocus)andtheexternalenviron-mentbeforetherelationship(ortheinterruptiontoitthatisrepresentedbythenewinputfromtheover-lap)operates.Thelowertwosetsofarrowsshowthesameprocessduringandaftertherelationshipinterlude.Inbothcasestheflowsrepresentedbythearrowsaretheresultofinwardreflectionand

outwardscanningbythetwoparties.Inthelattercase,however,‘outward’referstotherelationship,ratherthantheexternalenvironment.Wehavedepictedthecoalescentformationofanideaoraproposalasawhirlpool,metaphoricallycollect-ingideasfromtheexternalenvironmentthatmaybeunderstoodandexploitedbyA&Bonlythroughcol-laboration.Thewhirlpooldescendsintotherelation-shipasaproposalforanewproductvariant,servicedevelopment,processimprovementandsoon.Togivetheproposallife,thetwopartiesnaprojectofimplementation,representedbythecircularar-rowswithintherelationshipspace.Notethattheel-lipseoverlapswithbothorganisations,representingthenotionofadynamicoperatingspacethatispartlyin‘nomans’land,‘owned’jointlybybothpartiesbutsecuredintoeachthroughboundary-spanningteams.Thecomposition,commitmentandco-ordina-tionoftheseteamshasbeenacriticalissuethatwehaveexploredwithourindustrialpartners,leadingustofocusontheneedfortheidentificationofa‘champion’withineachofthepartners.Markhamhasobservedthattheroleofchampionisoneinwhich‘a(chǎn)nindividualstronglyadvocatesaresearchanddevelopment(R&D)projectandgeneratesposi-tivebehaviouralsupportforitorworkonitsbehalf’(Markham,2000,p.430).MarkhamsuggeststhatoneaspectofchampionsinR&Dprojectsisthattheirroleisperceivedasapoliticalone.Givenboththeinter-organisationalnatureofV-Tanditsemphasisuponopportunitiesratherthanassets,theroleofprojectchampioninimplementingV-Tisbothwider(inthatitcrossesthefirms’boundaries)anrrower(inthatthe‘evangelical’behaviourrequiredislimited).Thenatureofthechampionroleisalignedtothatoftheprojectgenerally.Seinter-organisationalcollaborationtendstobefragile,especiallywhencoupledwiththeneedtosustainintra-organisationalsupport,projectsthatseektointroduceradicalcon-ceptsmustbennedwithboundedaimsandtime-frames.Thechampionsassumeanoverallresponsibilitynotjustforabusinesscaseforintro-ducingValue-Transparency,butwhatoneindustrialcollaboratorcalleda‘caseforbusiness’.Thefirststageofimplementation,orexploitation,istheidentificationoftheexpectedreturnstobothpar-ties(thebasisforaninternalbusinesscaseineachparty,tojustifytheinvestmentabouttobemade,andajointcasereferringtothesuccessoftherela-tionshipbaseduponthisproject).ThisistheConceptstage;thepartiesdiscusstheideaandprioritiseac-tions.ItisattheConceptstage,forinstance,thattheallocationofinlectualpropertyrightswouldbediscussedandpossiblypre-collaborationagree-mentsmightbedrawnuplodgingwhateachpartyalreadyknowsabouttheissue(bothstandardprac-ticesin petitivecollaborativeproductdevel-opment).Ifthecasesaresound(andapprovedbythenecessaryprocessesineachfirm)theConceptdevel-opsintoaPurpose,themissionstatementforthepro-jectthatwilldeliverthebenefitsoftheConcept.Thisprocessisamutualidentificationofanopportunityinthesupplymarketwhichmightleadtobusinessbenefitsforbothparties.NotethatbenefitsneednotbesymmetricnorsimultaneousforthePurposetomakesensetotheparties.ItisunlikelybutnotimpossibletoimaginethatonepartywouldinvestinaPurposethatbenefitedonlytheother.Onceaproposalhaspassedthroughaformalprepa-ration(ludingriskassessmentandcost-benefitysis,skillsaudit,etc.)stage,theextentant-ureofV-Trequiredforeachstageoftheprojectmaybenned.ThisludesthechoiceofV-Tmodesthataretobeemployedateachstageoftheprojectinordertodeliverthepurpose.Thus,forexample,knowledgeofafactorthatmustremainopaqueforonesideinthefirststagemayberequiredin,say,thethirdstage.Thiscouldbe byphasingtheexchangetoavoiddelaysorguess-workononesideand,ontheotherside,embarrass-mentortheneedtohedgerisksbycorruptingdata.BynningtheV-Tasavariable,manageablere-sourcefortheproject,bothsidesareabletoreducethesurprisesandsthatmightnormallyim-pedesuchwork,precipitatingareturnofthecostsof‘cloakanddaggerworking’.TheprocessesofV-TSelection,Intentandnningmaybeexpectedtooverlapandassumeanitivenature.Followingtheircompletion,theprojectofexploitationtakesce,generatingtheknowledgeflowsreferredtoabove,inadditiontoitscentralpur-pose.Atthefinalreviewoftheproject,thedecision

mightbemadetoendtheengagementortoextendtheconcepttonewpurposes.Thismightbeinwardconsolidation(installingtheconceptasafeatureoftheorganisation,representedbytheinwardspiral)orthereverse,takingtheconcepttoagreaterpur-pose,perhapswithexpandedexpectations.WehaveconsciouslyanddeliberayproposedthattherelationshipwithinwhichV-Tistobeemployedwillbeonlyoneofthemanythatmayexistbetweenthefirmsconcerned.Furthermore,theapplicationofV-Tmustbeforaspecificpurposeinordertomaketheeffort,andrisk,justifiableforbothsides.Accord-ingly,theconceptualmodeltakestheformofapro-jectmanagementapproach.InordertomanagetheprojectwithV-TanddelivertothePurpose,wesug-gestthatthefirmswillneedto‘ze’thedynamicsofthisrelationshipforaperiodinwhichanyrelevantvariablecanbeheldconstant.Thelengthofthiszeisdirectlylinkedtothetechnologyorproductlife;itwouldnotmakesensetobeengagingon-fidentialityonmatterswhichwilleither eex-posed(e.g.bycompetitorslaunchingnewproducts)orredundant(bysuchproductsmovingthetech-nologicalcompetitiontonewdimensions)intheme.Thus,wehypothesisthattheboundedrelationshiptowhichV-Twouldbeapplicablewillrelatetotechnologicalandcommercialaspectsthatcouldbe‘frozen’forlongenoughforsomethingtobedone(i.e.V-Tusedforcommercialbenefits)butshortenoughnottoimpedeprogressalongalogicalV-Tisnotproposedasaphilosophyoran butasthedeliberate,strategicagreementbytwofirmstoshareinformationonaspec