Complementary resources and (sustained) competitive advantage : multiple case study on synergy between business units within GVB Rail Services

(1)

Complementary resources and (sustained) competitive advantage

- Multiple case study on synergy between business units within GVB Rail Services –

Name:

Michel Huijsmans

Student number:

10730893

Date of submission: January 30, 2017

Study qualification: Executive Programme in Management Studies – Strategy Track

Institution:

Amsterdam Business School

(2)

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Student, Michel Huijsmans, who declares to

take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other

than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the

work, not for the contents.

(3)

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to answer the question how resources and capabilities of business units lead to competitive advantage of a focal business unit. Many theories described at an organizational level how to gain competitive advantage, but studies regarding the interaction between business units to create a competitive advantage are limited. With a single case study within GVB Rail Services this question is analyzed. To gain research data semi-structured interviews were conducted and available documents were analyzed.

As described by the transaction cost theory (TCE) activities should be divested when using the market will be less costly. The resource based view (RBV) disagrees with this statement when resources or capabilities of those activities are of value for the core activities. Results show that the competitive advantage of a focal business improves. Other important results of this research show the influences of the relation between business units where the principal can be dependent on the agent. Also the results show that the synergy between the business units is important because this could be a strengthening or weakening factor.

The main contributions of this research is the understanding how business units can be mutually dependent with the knowledge which is shared and the relational aspects which influences their competitive advantage. This allows managers to improve the decision making process to divest or invest.

(4)

1 Introduction

In the past decades, a lot has been written about synergies between business units within organizations and the importance of core competencies. For example Strikwerda & Stoelhorst (2009) illustrated the fundamental tension between the need for firms to exploit synergies and their need for clear accountability. Main aspects of synergy within an organization are the resources, capabilities, competencies and core competencies of an organization (Barney, 1991; Prahalad & Hamel, 1990). The resource-based view (RBV) (Wernerfelt, 1984) explains how organizations gain a competitive advantage using variables such as resources, capabilities and core competencies (Barney, 1991; Prahalad & Hamel, 1990). Prahalad & Hamel (1990) define that core

competencies form the collective learning of the organization, especially how to coordinate diverse production skills and how to integrate multiple streams of technology. Prahalad & Hamel (1990) also state that if core competence is about harmonizing streams of technology, it is also about the organization of work and the delivery of value involving many levels of people and all functions. In the search for efficiency or cutting cost, organizations sometimes decide to outsource activities which they see as problematic and thus move non-core activities outside the organization. When activities are outsourced this could also lead to put outside

competencies, knowledge and perhaps ‘hidden value’, and as Prahalad & Hamel (1990) explain, it is those activities which can drive competitive advantage. With the statement of Prahalad & Hamel (1990) as basis the RBV variables are discussed as important factors in making the decision whether to outsource activities or not. Counterpart of the RBV is the transaction cost economics (TCE), this theory focuses on cost minimization as the organizational necessity (Williamson, 1979). In comparison to the RBV the TCE view place the transaction costs in the center of analysis (Coase, 1937), RBV variables are subservient in this view. Barney & Hesterly (1996) criticized the TCE view with the RBV aspects, they state RBV logic suggests that creating and exploiting transaction specific investments under conditions of uncertainty is essential if firms are to gain long-term success. Other critique Barney & Hesterly (1996) have on TCE is that it tends to understate the costs of organizing transactions within the firm and that TCE understates the role of social and cultural forces in economic activity. Researchers Gilley & Rasheed (2000) discuss in their paper the choice of outsourcing activities through the RBV and the TCE view. Regarding this research an important discussion in the paper of Gilley & Rasheed (2000) is that based on TCE aspects, activities could be outsourced but the RBV would

(6)

disagree because there will be a decline of innovations and knowledge which could lead to entrance of new competitors. When just considering financial aspects, a separate business unit can be seen as a non-profitable unit. For example R&D activities do not generate high profit, but they could in many respects be very valuable to other business units (Hafeez, Zhang and Malak, 2002).

1.1 Research gap

After reviewing the literature it can be concluded that there is a limited focus on the interactions and dependencies between the business units of an organization in the creation competitive advantage. Prior research focuses primarily on an organization in relation to the market (other parties). Researchers like Strikwerda & Stoelhorst (2009), Davis et al. (1992), Black & Boal (1994) go into more detail in their research regarding the role of synergies and resources of business units within organizations. Nevertheless, this

improved insight only gives a limited understanding about the mutual dependency business units have on each other and how that can influence the competitive advantage of a business unit.

1.2 Research question

In the process of deciding to outsource activities it could be valuable to understand if and how business units can influence the value of other business units with non-core activities. Black & Boal (1994) contribute with their paper to the understanding of how specific relations or resources need to interact to create a (high) sustained competitive advantage. This research goes further on the question how the competitive advantage of a business unit can be influenced by another business unit that is a potential candidate for outsourcing. This research investigates the mutual dependency of business units and the contribution of one business unit to the competitive advantage of another business unit. To address and understand the interrelatedness of business units this research focuses on the shared resources/capabilities and their VRIN attributes (Barney, 1991). Thereby the main question for this research is: “How do resources and capabilities of business units interact to create competitive advantage of a focal business unit?”. The contribution of this research is to reveal how business units interact and which variables in the relation between business units are strong. From a practical point of view the results of this research will contribute to the strategic decision making process of divesting or investing in resources to gain a sustained competitive advantage for a business unit. Also the results bring to light that a business unit could have a potential competitive advantage compared to substitutes or rival

(7)

organizations and thereby can be valuable for other business units. As an example, a focal business unit can be seen by the firm as a ‘non-core’ activity, but possibly those activities are underestimated and could add value to other business units. This would imply that a business unit has a hidden value that influences the synergy between them and the value of both. Enriching the knowledge about the importance of non-core

competencies / activities of an organization will enrich managers’ input in their decision whether to outsource or not.

1.3 Thesis road map

At first the key concepts regarding resources and competitive advantages are worked out to understand the current knowledge about the use of (VRIN) resources in competitive advantage. These concepts are evaluated and a the conceptual framework and the preliminary propositions are given. Subsequently, chapter 3 describes the methodology of this thesis. The case is described and how data is collected and analyzed. Chapter 4 describes the results of the different cases. Throughout the analysis the final propositions emerged and are described in chapter 5. The results of the analysis are discussed and compared with the available literature in chapter 7. And finally in chapter 8 the conclusions, limitations, and possible future research are given.

(8)

2 Key concepts

This research focuses on the interrelatedness of separate business units within an organization. In order to understand this relation this research looks at what the business units need from each other and what will happen when one of the business units will be outsourced. Because of the focus on activities/competencies of business units the resourced-based view (RBV) will be the basis for this research. As the focus on variables resources, capabilities and competencies are more appropriate to understand, a focus on financial aspects will therefore be limited. The theoretical framework should help to obtain an overview about the interrelatedness of business units and how they influence the value of each other.

2.1 Resource-based view

Where in the IO-perspective the strategic task center on competitive positioning is key (Porter, 1980), the RBV perspective rejects the relationship between the organization and its context (Scarbrough, 1998). The RBV states that internally generated competencies, not competitive positioning, are seen as critical to a firm’s competitive performance (Scarbrough, 1998). Also this perspective is in line with the importance of (intangible) assets as the main source of competitive advantage and internal synergy between business units (Strikwerda & Stoelhorst 2009). Because of the RBV perspective this research is mainly focused on the RBV aspects of competitive advantage.

In the research of the interrelatedness of separate business units and their relation to each other it is key to understand what their individual resources are and which resources they need. This understanding is essential for a business unit because the characteristics of the resources are important for its strategic management and resource position (Wernerfelt, 1984). Another influence on the position of business units is the role of

organizational knowledge as this knowledge is central to a proper understanding of the nature of resources, competencies and capabilities (Scarbrough, 1998). Scarbrough (1998) discusses that the competitive behavior is not the result of a positioning within a wider environment, but of certain unique and intrinsic features. Different kinds of competitive behavior being related to different business unit characteristics (Scarbrough, 1998).

(9)

2.1.1 Resources

By resources is meant anything, which could be thought of as a strength or weakness of a business unit (Wernerfelt, 1984). It is important to have resources that cover four attributes: valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable and non-substitutable (VRIN) (Barney, 1991). By understanding the interrelatedness of business units the VRIN variables become interesting for this research because it focuses on the resources as influencing parts of the organizational competitive advantage (Barney, 1991). Addressing the joint VRIN variables of the business units it could make it possible to understand why and how the interrelatedness of business units works. And by understanding the interrelatedness in this way the resource position can be defined as barrier and thereby as partially analogous to entry barrier (Wernerfelt, 1984).

In the research of Barney (1991) different resources are pointed out. Firstly resources are the “physical capital resources” such as technologies that are used, plants and equipment, geographical location, and access to raw materials. Secondly resources are the “human capital resources”. In this category fall internal training,

experience, judgment, intelligence, relationships and insight of individual managers and workers. Thirdly resources are “organizational capital resources” by which are meant the formal reporting structure, formal and informal planning, controlling and coordinating systems, as well as informal relations among groups within a firm and between a firm and those in its environment.

2.1.2 Capabilities

The difference between resources and capabilities is not very clear (Grant, 1991). Grant (1991) defined that resources are inputs into the production process, they are the basic unit of analysis and a capability is the capacity for a team of resources to perform some task or activity. In the view of Hafeez, Zhang and Malak (2007) capabilities are formed through the coordination and integration of activities and processes, and are the product of the collective learning of individual assets. Capabilities are not part of resources because of their dynamic “doing” nature (Hafeez, Zhang & Malak, 2007). Capabilities of a business unit are the central competitive dimension of knowing how to create and transfer knowledge efficiently within an organizational context (Kogut, Bruce & Zander, 1992). As described by Kogut, Bruce & Zander (1992) organizations are social communities that use a set of higher-order organizational principles to transform individuals and social expertise into economically useful products and services. They argue that firms exist because they provide a social community of voluntary action structured by organizing principles that are not reducible to individuals.

(10)

And organizations serve as more than mechanisms through which social knowledge is transferred, but also through which new knowledge or learning, is created. Capabilities are defined by Kogut, Bruce & Zander (1992) as a composite of individual and social knowledge. Dierickx & Cool (1989) have pointed out that the existence of substitutes of a capability threatens to render the capability obsolete because it will no longer be able to create value to the buyer. As the different theories about capabilities describe it is important to understand the role of the capabilities, because those influence the market position of a business unit. VRIN capabilities are important for the market position of a business unit because this capability creates value to the buyer (Barney, 1991). In relation to the prior described importance of synergies and interrelatedness of business units, capabilities are therefore an important influence (Strikwerda & Stoelhorst, 2009).

2.1.3 (Core) competencies

Competencies of a business unit are valuable capabilities to enable to deliver an essential customer benefit (Hafeez, Zhang and Malak, 2007). Also Hafeez, Zhang and Malak, (2007) state that competencies are usually a network of capabilities rather than single activity-based activities. The interrelatedness of business units is also dependent on the competency a business unit possesses. Understanding the role of a competency in an outsourcing decision is important (Prahalad & Hamel, 1990), therefore this is also valuable for this research regarding the value of using each other´s competencies. Companies who are not fully committed to preserving core competencies are placing knowledge outside an organization by outsourcing activities. In this situation the contractor will benefit from this situation because they are learning from the organization that is outsourcing the activities (Prahalad & Hamel, 1990). Companies who are divesting activities could destroy (future) stability of their competencies (Prahalad & Hamel, 1990). “Core competencies are the crown jewels of a company and, therefore, should be carefully nurtured and developed” (Hafeez, Zhang, Malak, 2002, pp.1). With this

statement the core competencies become important in the research of understanding the interrelatedness and value creation of separate business units towards each other. Prahalad & Hamel (1990) define that core competencies are the collective learning, especially how to coordinate diverse production skills and how to integrate multiple streams of technology. They also state that if core competence is about harmonizing streams of technology, it is also about the organization of work and the delivery of value, it thus involves many levels of people and all functions. Another role of core competencies is being a source of future product development (Hamel & Prahalad, 1994). As Hamel & Prahalad (1994) describe this: core competencies are the “roots” of

(11)

competitiveness and individual products and services are the fruit. This statement is also important in the question what the interrelatedness is of different business units. Agha (2012) did a research on the relationship between core competences, competitive advantage and organizational performance. The results confirm the varying importance of core competence dimensions on competitive advantage and performance. To remain competitive and obtain competitive advantages, managers can try to increase performance by managing each dimension of core competence (Agha, 2012). Also it is important to realize that some functions and processes should never be outsourced (Boguslauskas & Kvedaraviciene, 2015). To achieve maximum benefit from outsourcing, processes and sources of information that are fed into them must be carefully evaluated. After this self-examination it is possible to distinguish between core and non-core processes. This evaluation of Boguslauskas & Kvedaraviciene (2015) is essential before any outsourcing decision.

2.2 Competitive advantage

Barney (1991) describes competitive advantage as implementing a value creating strategy, which is not simultaneously implemented by any other competitor (current or potential) thus preventing those others to duplicate the benefits of this strategy. The resources and capabilities are important for the competitive advantage (Wernerfeld, 1984; Barney, 1991). Understanding the competitive advantage of a business unit the 5-forces model of Porter (1979) can be used to gain an overview of the market position. With the analysis of the 5-forces a business unit can address the gaps in the competitive advantage. According to Porter (1979) the market position is dependent on the strengths of the forces of the business unit. A limitation of the 5-forces model is that it is unable to address intellectual capital/property as a determinant of differentiation between business success and failure (Hafeez, Zhang and Malak, 2002). Therefore this research focuses on the RBV perspective and especially the synergy between business units to understand the influences business units have on each other. Black and Boal (1994) did research and created a configurational network approach to resolve the problem of not understanding the importance of resources. This configuration of factors and relationships allows the creation of a resource that has the needed strategic characteristics of valuable, rare, inimitable and organized to utilize. Following this identification of relationships makes it possible to understand the level of competitive advantage. Through the VRIN attributes of the resources the different types of

(12)

resource will create a competitive parity. A resource that possesses the valuable and rare attributes creates temporary competitive advantage. The possibility for sustained competitive advantage will only be created when a resource has all the VRIN attributes.

2.3 Synergies

Prior studies described the importance of synergistic effects that create value by having business units that support and complement each other (Porter, 1980). The need for a strong and stable synergy across business units is important because one of the main causes of capital market inefficiencies is information asymmetry between shareholders and managers (Strikwerda & Stoelhorst, 2009). Porter (1987) proposed that relatedness among business units comes from two fundamental sources: transferring skills or expertise and sharing activities. Because of relatedness of business units the level of synergy among business units is enhanced, it constitutes a major potential source of competitive advantage for the business units (Davis, Robinson, Pearce, Park, 1992). Synergy can increase the efficiency and/or the effectiveness with which business units produce and provide products to their markets (Porter, 1980). Due to economies of scope market earnings will increase by improving sharing of knowledge or capabilities (Teece, 1980). To economize on transaction costs the objective of organizations is to reach a complementary configuration, so related businesses or divisions are managed in active juxtaposition with one another (Teece, 1980). As Teece (1980) states, interdependence across business units reduces production costs when economies of scope are assessed on the common and recurrent use of proprietary knowhow or a specialized and indivisible asset. The revenue enhancement synergy is another method to create more money; in this concept the key is to generate more money from current customers (Quain, Sansbury, LeBruto, 1998). According to Quain et al. (1998) opportunities are overlooked by managers because they focus on the daily activities and miss out on the increasing profit. For this research the different kinds of synergies are important so as to understand what the role is of the relation between the business units. Also an insight can be created about why business units don’t see the opportunities regarding a competitive advantage they have together.

(13)

2.4 Preliminary conceptual framework

Starting the research a literature review has a focus (Eisenhardt, 1998) on the concept of (core) competencies that are used in the relation between business units. Search items that were entered at search engines such as www.google.nl, scholar.google.com, and lib.uva.nl were “Dependency & (core) competencies”, “Mutual dependency & resources”, “Outsourcing non- and core competencies”, “Mutual dependency business units”. In the reviewed literature it is clear that researchers are aware and address the importance of organizational sharing knowledge and learning, synergy, within an organization for creating value (Porter, 1980; Strikwerda & Stoelhorst, 2009). Despite the results found on synergy the available literature is limited to only a focus on the effects of RBV variables towards the competitive advantage of the whole organization. In general the role of RBV variables in the strategic decision making process has been studied a lot. For example authors such as Wernerveld (1984), Scarbrough (1998), Hafeez, Zhang & Malak (2002) address that resources are important for a firm’s strategy and that unique and intrinsic feature of an organization results in its competitive behavior. For an organization it is key to keep in-house its own (core) competencies in order to have competitive advantage (Prahalad & Hamel, 1990) and those aspects must be carefully nurtured (Hafeez, Zhang & Malak, 2002). With the discussions of authors such as Boguslauskas & Kvedaraviciene (2015) and Gilley & Rasheed (2000) one may say the knowledge about value of resources in the decision making of outsourcing and thereby by strategic decisions is saturated. Nevertheless, there is little research available regarding the effects separate business units have on each other as a result of their relation. Davis, Robinson, Pearce & Park (1992) make a

contribution towards the interrelatedness of separate business units but it doesn’t make clear which variables are creating value towards other business units. In the research of Black & Boal (1994) a more detailed effect on the competitive advantage by using (strategic) resources has been examined. With the results of Black & Boal (1994) factors and relations are addressed regarding resources in the business unit relations that possess the strategic VRIN characteristics and therewith create a (sustained) competitive advantage. The literature makes clear which VRIN attributes of resources could lead to a competitive advantage. But it is not clear in the interaction between the business units how non-valuable resources of a focal business unit become valuable with the complementary resource (influences) of another business unit. Understanding the interrelatedness between the uses of resources between business units can provide managers with more insights to make the right strategic decision regarding the resource to choose whether to divest- or invest in a resource.

(14)

Understanding the interrelatedness can be valuable for the crucial role of management in the success or failure of use of the full power of the synergy of an organization (Strikwerda & Stoelhorst, 2009).

A limitation of the reviewed literature is that the mutual dependency in the interrelatedness between business units is less examined. The importance of the interrelatedness between business units is mentioned in previous literature but not how the separate business units complement each other to gain a competitive advantage. Understanding the interrelatedness could make clear how business units can create value towards each other. Also managers who set out a strategic path can get some guidance in their decision making process with the knowledge about the influences business units interactions have regarding the competitive advantage. Throughout the literature review the following conceptual framework has emerged.

Figure 1 Preliminary conceptual framework

With the focus of this research on how business units interact and complement each other, one important aspect to keep in mind is that in order to gain competitive advantage resources must be a source/capabilities that has a greater value than similar resources in competing parties (Barney, 1991). In this research the value of a resource/capability is related to two different dimensions. First the value of the resource within and for business unit X must be determined. Secondly the influence of this resource/capability on business unit Y must be understood. Since valuable resource should create competitive parity this leads to the following preliminary proposition 1: “If business unit X has valuable resources/capabilities that are complementary to non-valuable resources/capabilities of unit Y, this leads to a competitive parity of business unit Y”.

With only a valuable resource there is an equal position relative to competitors. Therefore it is important to have a resource that is rare as well in order to gain a temporary competitive advantage (Barney, 1991). The basis for the following proposition is to understand how a business unit can distinguish itself from competitors.

Resources focal business unit Y

V R I N

Resources business unit X

Type of competitive advantage business unit Y (P3) (P2) (P1) (P3) (P2) (P1)

(15)

How other business units contribute on that position is the focus in the following preliminary proposition 2: “If business unit X has valuable and rare resources/capabilities that are complementary to non-valuable and not-rare resources/capabilities of unit Y, this lead to a temporary competitive advantage of business unit Y”.

As preliminary proposition 2 implies, a business unit (Y) gains a temporary competitive advantage by using the temporary competitive advantage of the other business unit (X). According to the theory resources must be also inimitable and non-substitutable for an organization to evolve to a sustained competitive advantage that could create a stronger market position (Barney, 1991). Because of the use of resources at different dimensions the question arises if this is also necessary in case of business unit interrelatedness. That is why emerged the last preliminary proposition 3: “If business unit X has valuable, rare, inimitable and non-substitutable resources/capabilities that are complementary to non-valuable, not-rare, imitable and substitutable resources/capabilities of unit Y, this leads to a sustained competitive advantage of business unit Y”.

(16)

3 Research methodology

3.1 Type of research

The blueprint for this case study research follows the phases that are described by Eisenhardt (1989). Because prior research has a limited focus on the influences of VRIN resources (Double VRIN) at the interrelatedness between business units this research will have an explorative character. Through the exploratory study this research tries to discover what is happening and to gain insights (Saunders, 2012). A case study is quite suitable for this kind of research. The outcome will help expanding the current limited available theory (Eisenhardt, 1989). The use of a case study is also a well-fitted method for answering the ‘how’ question of this research (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2013). In addition the case study will be used as a research strategy to understand the dynamics that are present within single settings (Eisenhardt, 1989).

3.2 Case study

Comments from colleagues of the researcher at GVB Rail Services led to the topic of this research. Some colleagues stated that they would be better off with divesting/outsourcing another business unit, where others on the other hand disagreed with such statement. After the literature study related to those statements GVB Rail Services proved to be a suitable case to conduct the research. The elements of the research and the chosen case (by the researcher) will fulfill the theoretical categories and form together a “purposefully selected” case (Eisenhardt, 1989). This research captures the circumstances and conditions of an everyday situation whereby is assumed that the cases are informative about the experiences of the organization and thereby also known as a typical research (Yin,2013).

GVB Rail Services is an ‘old’ governmental organization. Despite GVB Rail Services has become a private organization it is still 100% owned by the city of Amsterdam (GVB Holding NV Jaarverslag 2015). GVB Rail Services is the contractor, and therefore responsible for the strategic management and maintenance of the railroad structure in the region of Amsterdam. GVB Rail Services consists of three business units (Kerntaken, Rail Services; Sub-afdelingen Rail Services). Together those business units perform a chain of activities to manage and maintain the railroad of Amsterdam. Each business is responsible for different kind of activities.

(17)

Asset management is responsible for long term and short-term railroad maintenance plans. Asset management is also the party that initiates other maintenance activities to other business units and other parties. Project management is the agent of Asset management and third parties to perform the project management and/or the construction design of new, reconstruction and maintenance projects. To execute the work Project management contracts the Construction business unit or third parties to perform the activities in the field. Constructions accomplish the maintenance and/or build new installation in the field. Construction is active in a wide spread area of different techniques. Examples of activities are maintenance on ICT components, railroad structures and electricity supply. GVB Rail Services had a monopoly position because the principal (City of Amsterdam) was obliged to award the contract to GVB Rail Services. But over the last years GVB is trying to make their working activities more profitable because the government and/or shareholders expect them to work more competitive in comparison to the private sector (GVB Holding NV Jaarverslag 2015). This change is needed because the government is cutting subsidies and comparing the costs of GVB Rail Services to those of private organizations. With this move of the government to look at other parties, forces such as ‘Rivalry among existing competitors’ and ‘Bargaining power of buyers’ (Porter, 1979) become a threat to GVB Rail Services. With the knowledge of the changing market GVB Rail Services needs/needed to take action and different types of change programs have been implemented. Examples of change programs: reducing employment costs by doing the same activities with the less people, searching for a more efficient process with information

technology, and cutting off activities by outsourcing them. Unclear is if during the decision making process of a change program the interrelatedness of the business units is taken into account.

The relation between the three different business units of GVB Rail Services will be the unit of analysis in order to understand the interrelatedness. In the current situation the contract for the activities is awarded by the City of Amsterdam to GVB Rail Services as a whole and not to the separate business units. As described earlier the activities are the responsibility of GVB Rail Services but the activities are conducted by separate

businesses/organizations that (can) work individually. With the knowledge of the researcher and the business plan of GVB Rail Services (Business plan Rail Services 2015-2019) the three relations are described as follows.

(18)

Figure 2 Interaction between the business units within GVB Rail Services

(1) “Asset management & Project management relation”, in this relation Asset management is the principal and Project management is the client for the work to be performed. Asset management makes plans for new projects and Project management is the party who has to manage that all the activities will be done at a quality level that Asset management has defined with internal and external stakeholders. (2) “Asset management – Construction”, in this relation Construction is the contractor of asset management for the daily maintenance activities. Daily maintenance is split up into two activities. One activity is corrective maintenance, which means when there is a malfunction within the infrastructure Construction is responsible for fixing or resolving the malfunction. The other activity within this relation is preventive maintenance, which is planned by Asset management and done by Construction. Preventive maintenance activities are inspections on and maintaining the installations. (3) “Project management & Construction relation”, in this relation the business unit Project management contracts the Construction business unit. Project management gives the instruction to

Construction to realize new or replacement activities related to the infrastructure. With GVB Rail Services as the case the three interactions between the business units will be the unit of analysis, therefore an embedded single case design is set up (Yin, 2013). This results in an embedded single case design where six embedded units of analysis are defined.

3.3 Data collection

3.3.1 Semi-structured interviews

For an explorative research an open interview is preferred (Saunders, 2012, Yin, 2013). Using an open or non-structured interview could lead to off-track results because there are a many other relational research aspects besides the use of each other’s resources. Also this research focuses at the role of resources and their VRIN attributes in the interrelatedness between business units within one organization and makes the research

Project management Construction Asset management 1 3 2

(19)

more specific. Based on the reflection of the research goals (Saunders,2012) the researcher decided to use a semi-structured interview. Via a semi-structured interview the subject and directions are given but the interviewees have the opportunity to go off-track, also semi-structured interviews are a commonly used method to find causal relationships between variables (Saunders, 2012).

Questions that came up during the literature study and the research gap that was found formed the continuation for this research (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2013). Before the start of the series of interviews the researcher prepared interview questions (Appendix 1) that where built up on the basis of the literature study and research question. The interview questions formed the guidance during the interviews (Saunders, 2012). The interview questions where built up to understand how the interviewee in general looks at the organization, the other business unit, and their own business unit. Following, the interview is going further in understanding the relation and the influences of business units on each other by using each other’s resources.

All the interviewees are working within GVB Rail Services and were asked about their own business unit and another business unit. In the table below one is able to see which interviews took place, which interviewee represents which business unit and which influencing business unit the interviewee is asked about.

Table 1 Conducted interviews

All the interviewees are working in positions from which they can provide reliable information about their vision of the relation with the other business unit. They have a management position of a business unit or they are responsible for activities related to the interaction with other business units or other parties.

Interviewee Case number Own business unit _{business unit}Influencing Interviewee 1 Interviewee 2 Interviewee 3 Interviewee 4 Interviewee 5 Interviewee 6 Interviewee 7 Interviewee 8

Interviewee 9 Case 5 Asset management Construction Interviewee 10 Case 6 Construction Asset management

Project management Asset management

Case 1

Case 4 Construction Project management Construction Project management

Case 3

(20)

3.3.2 Secondary data

To understand the situation in a broader perspective than only the perspective of the interviewees, organizational information is used which is related to the research subject (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2013; Saunders, 2012). The documents are of different types. Business plans are used to understand what the goals are of the organization, and how management looks at the importance of the relation between business units. Also organizational development initiatives and consultancy reports are used. Those documents describe and give insight regarding the actual concerns and focus of the process of improvement in the business units. Those documents were available on the organization SharePoint or were provided by the manager of the researcher.

3.4 Operationalizing the concepts

Because of the explorative character of this research, the researcher’s main goal is to let the interviewee talk as less structured as possible. As described in the previous paragraph, despite that an open interview is preferred in an explorative research, a semi-structured interview is used here to be sure the VRIN attributes of resources or capabilities are addressed that are used in the relation. At first the researcher asked the interviewees about their own perspective of the organizational goals and the main activities of their own and the other business unit. This is to obtain an understanding how interviewees position their own business unit and the other business unit and how these business units are related. Subsequently is asked if and why the activities of their own business unit and those of the other business unit are core- or non-core activities. In the next step the researcher tries to find out what the value is of those activities relative to competitors and what influences this value. This to determine if a resource (such as firm equipment, experience, relationships, coordination systems) and/or a capability is seen as capacity for a team of resources to perform some task or activity. Knowing what the resources and/or capabilities of both business units are, the researcher subsequently searched for how business units use those resources and capabilities or how they are influenced by them. Therewith the

interviewees are asked about how the business units interact and work with each other in order to understand how the resources and/or capabilities are used in the work processes and how they are complementary to each other. Understanding which activities are shared when business units work together should reveal how the interaction makes the position of both business units stronger or weaker relative to working with other parties. This should make clear whether the activities of a business unit are influenced by the other business

(21)

unit. Examples of possible influences are that activities of a business unit become (more) valuable because a business unit has access to a resource or capability, which is possessed by another business unit. Or another possibility could be that two business units using own resources that are complementary and thus create a valuable capability to gain competitive advantage.

3.5 Data analysis

During the first phase of the analysis the researcher searched for patterns, insights, or concepts in the data that seem promising related to the research question by looking at the data from different perspectives (Yin, 2013). With the results of this first step the initial code framework was expanded with new codes (referred to in appendix 2). After the second phase wherein feedback was also given by an adviser a final set of codes was defined, and the code framework was ready to be used (final codes in appendix 3).

Analyzing the data was supported with the software program QDA; this program supports the analysis in coding and categorizing the qualitative data. The code framework which was defined in the previous phase is used in this program. The data was categorized in the format of the code framework. Through the coding and first phase of analysis a base for the further research was set. Important aspects that were indicated by the interviewees were coded and categorized within QDA. Codes are used and defined as follows (1) “Resources / activities” are related to where the business units are responsible for and what makes the activities important. (2) “Outsourcing” describes the role of activities outside the organization or activities that possibly will be outsourced in the future. (3) “Knowledge” is related to the role of types of knowledge that is necessary to do the activities and if it is available or not. (4) “Relational aspects” is about how the communication works, the feeling about another party, what kind of activities are shared, etcetera. (5) “Business unit interaction” is related to the other codes but is more specific on how business units interact with each other. Which activities overlap each other, where do they only touch each other, or there is no interaction. (6) “Competitive

advantage” refers to statements that are related to the creation of a (sustained) competitive advantage. Important to note is that during the interviews the interviewees were asked about their vision on the organization, the other business unit and their own business unit.

(22)

To categorize the answers of the interviewees the transcriptions are coded in the appropriate dimension. Those dimensions will not be taken into account during the analysis. Thereby the totals of the percentages in the frequency tables will never be 100%.

In the search for extra data to confirm the findings of the interviews different organizational documents were found and used. During the analysis of the documents all important statements and conclusions were noted. The analysis of documents showed that the content of the documents are not about the interaction of the business unit but only about an organizational perspective. An enumeration of the content of the documents is as follows, (1) Programmaplan GVB RS NEXT Outputsturing, Planvorming, Beheer en Data (7-8-2013): Is a presentation about which aspects within Rail Services have to be changed to improve the maintenance process for the principal. Specific goals are described which the principal desires. (2) “Business plan RS 2015-2019 (13-11-2014)” is a business plan based on the future plans regarding Rail Services. The main content is a SWOT-analysis, description of the mission and vision of the organization, and strategic plans for the next contractual period. (3) “Kerntaken Rail Services (12-02-2015)” describes the main activities of Rail Services and the specific activities of the business units. (4) “MJBP RS (12-06-2015)”, this document is an update of the business plan of the year before. There is a recap of the SWOT-analysis and a more detailed plan how to realize the

organizational goals. (5) “Optimaliseren informatiemanagement assets (14-10-2016)” is a project description how to improve the information management regarding the physical assets that the business units maintain.

3.6 Reliability and validity

To ensure the reliability of the interviews the researcher evaluated interview questions after two interviews. All the relational aspects seemed to be mentioned by the interviewees and new insights arose. According to the researcher the intermediate results indicated the interview questions to be properly functioning as guidance for the interview. The transcriptions of the interviews were coded in the QDA software so the analysis would be performed consistently to strengthen the reliability of the analysis. Interviewees were informed (a few days) before the interview about the subject and asked to think forward about the subject so the causal conclusion based on the study is warranted and thereby strengthening the internal validity of the research (Yin, 2013). The interviews were held in a closed meeting space or in the office of the respective manager, this was another effort to positively influence the validity of the research as well as restricting disturbance to a minimum. In

(23)

spite of that a few interviews were interrupted by phone calls or urgent questions for the managers. According to the interviewer those interruptions didn’t affect the results of the interview. All interviews were recorded and transcribed afterwards. Notes were made during the interview where the interviewee objected to recording the interview. Directly after the interview the interviewer processed the notes. The interviews took approximately 45 till 60 minutes. All the interviewees seemed to be concerned about the subject and talked openly. Another way to improve the validity is that the documental data and the replies given by the

interviewees are combined (Yin, 2013). To validate the findings from the interviews the results were compared with descriptions regarding the cases in the documentation of GVB Rail Services.

(24)

4 Results

4.1 Within case analysis

The following paragraphs are a description of each case that has been researched. This within-case analysis helps to cope with the high volume of data in the analysis (Eisenhard, 1989). And in an early phase of the analysis this also could help to become familiar with every independent case as unique patterns of each case will emerge before general patterns are set (Eisenhardt, 1989). Further in the analysis this familiarity of each case could strengthen the cross-case analysis (Eisenhardt, 1989). In the analysis of the cases the researcher focused on how interviewees value the activities of their own business unit and how they value the interaction with another business unit. And therewith the focus on the complementary effect of the resource of other business units on their own business unit.

4.2 Case 1: How resources of Asset management are complemented with resources

of Project management

Figure 3 Asset management complemented Project management

The most mentioned categories in the relation and influence of Project management on Asset management are knowledge and relations. These are shown in table 1 of appendix 3. To get more in more detail table 2 of appendix 3 shows the first 50% of the codes that have been used during the coding.

In general the interviewees describe the core-activities of both business. According to the interviewees all the unnecessary activities are already outsourced. As described by the interviewees Asset management possess resources that can be categorized in the human- and organizational capital. The human capital resources of Asset management are related to the knowledge and experience that asset management has on how to predict and plan the future maintenance plans. The organizational capital resource of Asset management is the actual formal and informal planning of the maintenance activities.

Asset management

Construction

Project management - Knowledge

- Experience

- Creating maintenance plans

- Knowledge - Relations

(25)

The resources that interviewees describe about Project management can be categorized as human capital resources. Knowledge is the main resource and is based on the experience how to do the activity and also the possession of relations with different stakeholders. The capability of Project management is to conduct the activities on time and at a desired quality level, with those resources. The interviewees state that activities of Project management therefore are valuable. For example in some cases Asset management needs to make fast decisions to keep on going without losing time/money, Project management helps Asset management with supporting arguments for their decisions. As interviewee 2 state: “We have short cuts, making fast decisions, and are able to manage dynamically arrangements. Can arrange things together informally. That’ s making the difference of what third parties are doing. We work face to face and that’s easier and that’s the strength. Therefore is has to be 1+1=3.” [“We korte lijntjes hebben, snel kunnen besluiten en dus dynamisch dingen kunnen regelen. Informeel dingen met elkaar kunnen regelen. Dat is het verschil met als derden het doen. We werken face-to-face dat gaat veel makkelijker dat is de kracht. En daardoor moet 1+1 3 zijn.”]. The knowledge of Project management is seen as rare by Asset management, but on the other hand interviewees (of both parties) tell that those activities are imitable and thus seen as a potential threat. Using the knowledge of each other the interviewees tell that important relational factors are ‘trust’ and being ‘helpful’. As the interviewees say those factors positively influence the synergy that makes the position of both parties stronger relative to competitors. For example interviewee 1 said: “Where do we strengthen each other? Yes, that’s what I just said sharing knowledge. Towards them, and they towards me. Trust. I think that’s where we strengthen each other, that’s my experience, I think that’s the most important” [“Waarin wij elkaar versterken. Ja dat is toch wel kennis uitwisselen wat ik net al zei. Ik richting hun of zij richting mij. Vertrouwen. Daarin versterken wij elkaar denk ik wel, dat is wel mijn ervaring dat denk ik. Volgens mij is dat het meest belangrijke”]. Interviewee 2 described also a situation where the knowledge of project management is too low. In this case Project management isn’t able to support Asset management in the necessary activities at an exactable quality level. At this moment both parties accept the lower quality but this interaction should be improved to gain a stronger and qualitative better relation, according to the interviewee. This makes Project management weak at that point.

(26)

4.3 Case 2: How resources of Project management are complemented with

resources of Asset management

Figure 4 Project management complemented by Asset management

In this case the influence of Asset management on Project management has been analyzed. In table 3 and 4 of appendix 3 the results of the categories are shown. With a 15,0% share of coding, knowledge is an important factor in this analysis. As 4th_{category ‘Relational aspects’ have in this case a percentage of 8,9% which is}

notably lower in comparison to the 13,9% of case 1. This could be explained by the fact that interviewees in this case see their relation strictly as “ask and demand” between a principal and an agent.

The interviewees were asked about the activities of their own business unit and that of the other business unit. About both business units interviewees say that all the activities are core activities and that non-core activities are already have been divested. The question about what makes the activities of Asset management valuable the interviewees described the human- and organizational capital resources, such as knowledge, experience and making maintenance plans. The resources that Project management possesses are described by the interviewees categorized in the human capital resources. Main resources are knowledge, experience and the relations that Project Management possesses. Another resource, which is categorized as an organizational capital resource, is the formal and informal planning of the activities to get the work done in line with the demands of the principal. Important and related to the planning of activities is the capability of Project

management to get the work done on time and at an acceptable quality level with all the internal- and external stakeholders.

The (technical) knowledge and experience of Asset management are valuable resources as an input for Project management to create their working plans. But of concern is the statement of interviewees that what they are doing is actually not rare, like interviewee 4 said: “What happens here isn’t rocket science” [Het is geen rocket science wat hier gebeurt.”]. But on the other hand the ‘historical’ and ‘environmental/relational’ codes have

Asset management Construction Project management - Knowledge - Experience - Maintenance plans

- Getting the necessary activities done - Work with several stakeholders

(27)

high frequencies in the analysis which also prove they have a valuable character to influence the success of the realization of the activities. So the actual task may not be rocket science but the specific knowledge is unique. Another notable aspect within this relation is that as an agent Project management is feeling independent from Asset management. As interviewees say when Asset management is outsourced there will be another party and we just do what they ask us to do. It’s interesting to see how for example interviewee 3 describes the interaction black-and-white as “It’s demand and supply, we’re doing what they want” [“Het is vraag en aanbod toch, Wij doen wat hij wil”]. Project management is aware of the fact that when activities of Asset management are done by others, it will influence their own work. Outsourcing activities of Asset management will influence the activities of Project management because they will lose the informal and helpful relation of Asset

management, as described by interviewee 3 “Knowing each other, award each other something” [“elkaar kennen, elkaar iets gunnen.”]. According to the interviewees outsourcing activities is inherent on losing a valuable resource. Also the interviewees describe that working with another party will make the activities more formal and this will result in more work, for example interviewee 4 stated “At a moment where you give the contract to the contractor you need to have a very good program of requirements” [“Kijk op het moment dat je een opdracht geeft aan een aannemer dan moet je een heel goed programma van eisen hebben”]. In this example is meant the contractor will do as less as possible for more money. As the interviewees say the relation between the business units makes them together strong in the market because the business units complement each other. With the combination of activities the business units can provide a complete package of activities relative to other competitors, “Our strength is the complete” [“Onze kracht is het integrale.”] (Interviewee 4). Also the strong historical and environmental/relational knowledge strengthens this position according to the interviewees because it would take much time for competitors to reach a similar level of knowledge.

(28)

4.4 Case 3: How resources of Project management are complemented with

resources of Construction

Figure 5 Project management complemented by Construction

According to the interviewees both business units do only activities that are relevant to the task of the business unit. The non-core activities are purchased from the market and according to the interviewees non-valuable activities already have been outsourced to parties who possess this specialism. Asking the interviewees about what makes the activities of Project management valuable they describe human capital resources such as knowledge about the (technical) infrastructure, experience about how the project management works and the relationships with internal and external stakeholders. The interviewees also describe the capability of Project management to fulfill the task of realizing a project in line with the desired quality and on time with all the stakeholders. About the other business unit (Construction) the interviewees describe the resources knowledge about building the railroad and the relations they have to fulfill the task. Also for Construction the interviewees describe the capability to accomplish a project with different stakeholders in a short time, with the right quality. The resources of Construction are seen as valuable by Project management (the interviewees) because they use them in their activities and to improve their own process. In table 5 and 6 of appendix 3the high share of categories related to resources, competitive advantage, and knowledge is shown.

The resources of their own business unit are seen as valuable because the interviewees state that other parties can’t do their activities as good as they are doing, interviewee 5 stated “Yes, there will come some drawings which you have to build with but there will be several shortcomings in it” [“Ja, dan denk ik dat er wel

tekeningen komen waar je mee moet bouwen maar er zitten dan heel veel tekortkomingen in”]. According to the interviewees other parties couldn’t do (at an acceptable quality level) the activity because they don’t possess resources to perform the activity well because the resources are rare because this is a specific kind of

Asset management Construction Project management - Knowledge - Experience - Knowledge - Relations

(29)

knowledge. In some cases interviewees experienced this lack of knowledge where other parties couldn’t do the activities at an acceptable quality level. On the other hand the interviewees state that the activities of the business unit are imitable but it would take time for the competitor to achieve that specific knowledge, as interview 5 stated “Eventually they will, but it will take some time for them to do it right” [“ uiteindelijk wel. Ja. Maar die gaan er nog een tijdje over doen om het goed te doen.”]. A threat for the business unit is that there are no patents or other contracts that restricts another party to learn and do the activity. Thereby working with another party can be a threat because this “new” contractor gets the insights of the activities and could eventually learn and try to take over the activities of GVB because this contractor has learned the “trick” as well (Interviewee 5). The main valuable aspect in the relation between the business units is the use of knowledge. The knowledge of Construction is valuable and rare but is also a valuable and rare resource for Project management because with this knowledge Project management can do their activities better and have an advantage relative to competitors. For example interviewee 6 states “For Project management it’s valuable to involve Construction in an early stage of the process. They can assess if the contracts are realistic, they can make a practical estimate with the knowledge they have if this will fit or not. It’s good to have a sparring partner like that.” [“Voor het projectenbureau is het waardevol om de uitvoering in een vroeg stadium te betrekken in het traject. Zij kunnen toetsen of de opdracht realistisch is, zij kunnen een praktische inschatting maken met de kennis die ze hebben van buiten of het past of niet. Het is goed om zo'n sparringspartner te hebben.”]. Synergy is according to the interviewees an important factor to improve the overall process of the activities. The use of each other’s knowledge will provide a stronger position for both business units in

comparison to competitors. As one interviewee describes “Knowledge and exchanging this with each other will make us strong in what we do per business unit.“ [“Kennis en dat goed met elkaar uitwisselen maakt ons wel gezamenlijk sterk in wat we doen per afdeling.”]. From another perspective the interviewees describe the informal character of the relation between the business units as a weakening factor on the capability

strengthen each other by using each others knowledge. Because there are no formal quality procedures faults are made in standard processes. This negative influence results in situations where learning doesn’t take place to improve the work process or unnecessary costs are eliminated. On the other hand this is a contradiction with the positive valuable influence of the informal and flexible relation to act on ad-hoc needs of the principal. Important to notice is that interviewees are aware of the fact that the business units need to improve their

(30)

interaction so the work process between the business units will be improved, as interviewee 6 described “We could work more efficient and thereby ensuring that we remain a good party” [“We zouden wel efficiënter kunnen werken en daarmee zorgen dat we een goede partij blijven.].

4.5 Case 4: How resources of Construction are complemented with resources of

Project management

Figure 6 Construction complemented by Project management

Also in this interaction the results show that human capital resources and synergy have a high share in the analysis, which can be seen in table 7 and 8 in appendix 3. The overall view is that the mentioned resources are valuable. Those resources are according to the interviewees from all categories of resources, examples are physical assets like the factory and the construction equipment, technical knowledge, (internal/external) relations and formal/informal planning. According to the interviewee the business units are dependent on each other because the activities are rare as a result of that others do not possess the historical knowledge,

experience, and relations. The close, flexible, and informal relationship of the business units is according to the interviewees a complementary resource and so this interaction becomes a valuable capability. For example Construction understands what Project management wants throughout their drawings, but when another party sees the drawing they wouldn’t understand what has to be done, as stated by interviewee 7 “But giving those drawings to another party they don’t have a clue what to do” [“Maar geef je die tekeningen aan een ander heeft die geen idee wat die moet doen”]. According to the interviewees the activities of both business units are valuable and rare but they are (eventually) imitable (Interviewee 8). In some cases other parties already do similar activities but at other technical areas or markets. So they possess knowledge about the related techniques but they don’t have the specific and environmental/relational knowledge, interviewee 7’s reaction

Asset management Construction Project management - Knowledge - Experience - Knowledge - Relations - Flexibility

(31)

on this practical situation was “Yes they could do it also, but it is a special activity. They will not just have it mastered” [“Ja hoor, het is natuurlijk wel een aparte tak van sport. Ze zullen dan ook niet zomaar het onder de knie hebben.”]. In this case the threat for the business units is that other parties learn about those aspects and they are thrown back into a competitive parity but there is an opportunity to defend this threat. When other parties will do the activities of Project management Construction sees no problems. At first the expectation is that there is just another principal. But the interviewees describe that eventually there are more aspects that influence a new relation. The current relation between the business units is marked as a flexible and formal relation which should be cherished and has a positive influence on the success of the relation between the business units (Interviewee 8). Working with other parties will influence the way to work; it won’t be without costs that other parties will help with problems or questions. According to the interviewees working with other parties than the other business units leads to a more formal relation, for example interviewee 8 state ”They should define very well what they want, because then you get a good price, when you don’t you will receive more work costs and final reports” [“Die moet namelijk aan de voorkant razend scherp definiëren wat je vraagt want dan krijg je een goede prijs, doe je dat niet krijg je alleen maar meerwerknota's en afleverrapporten.”]. According to the interviewees important factors how business units can complement each other and create competitive advantage are the synergy between the business units and thereby the use of knowledge, and the supply of a total package of activities. Contrary the interviewees describe also situations that in their process faults are made which weaken the process. For example in the informal and minimally controlled process of the creation of construction drawings and subsequently the production of the construction goes wrong because the construction drawings where incomplete or could be interpreted differently. It looks like in some cases both business units don’t learn from it. Despite the fact that those faults have been made before. In this example the cost of invested man hours and materials are considered as lost money, this weakens the interaction between business units.

(32)

4.6 Case 5: How resources of Asset management are complemented with resources

of Construction

Figure 7 Asset management complemented by Construction

According to the interviewee also in this relation both business units are active with only core activities. The interviewee states that all non-core activities aren’t kept in-house and therefore the market is used. Asking the interviewee what is making the activities valuable the answer for both business units is in general human capital resource knowledge in the form of environmental and technical. Therewith related experience is an important factor as well. This explains that in this relation the most frequent mentioned code is knowledge, which can be seen in the table 9 and 10 of appendix 3. Looking at a more detailed level the knowledge is related to the valuable character of resources. According to the interviewees the knowledge both business units possess are important to maintain a strong position. Example are knowledge of (technical) specialisms and knowhow of procedures of the city of Amsterdam which can’t be possessed by others because this is situation specific, as interviewee 9 state “I think that the strength of the organization is the specialist

knowledge of all the assets” [“Ik denk toch met name dat daar de kracht van de organisatie in zit, dus in feite de specialistische kennis van de spullenboel die hier is.”]. The activities of both business units can be imitated and thereby the interviewee states that rare knowledge must be protected. Now the business units still have a strong position because they possess all the knowledge about the installation, from building it till the current daily maintenance. When other parties become responsible for doing the activities they have to build up their experience with the installation (Interviewee 9). For another party this process of learning by doing will take time and is financially expensive, this could be a strength for the business unit in comparison to competitors. The interviewee describes that outsourcing the activities of Construction is not desirable, this because not (directly) working with the installation (and techniques) will diminish or stop the accessibility of this (valuable)

Asset management Construction Project management - Knowledge - Experience - Relations - Knowledge - Experience

(33)

knowledge. Losing that knowledge will put another party in a stronger position. Another important threat according to interviewee 9 is when the business unit loses knowledge about (technical) installations it will be difficult to assess if the activities that are done by other parties are at a proper quality level. Another threat of using another party instead of the business unit Construction is that Asset management becomes financially dependent on the other party. Financial dependency as a consequence of outsourcing activities comes from the loss of knowledge and without that knowledge it’s difficult to understand whether the reward contractors ask is fair or overpriced (Interviewee 9). Important factor in this relation is that Asset management improves their own processes with knowledge from Construction. Maintenance or replacement plans are adjusted with the input of knowledge from Construction. As the interviewee describes it’s about bringing together of the two types of knowledge to create more value. To gain competitive advantage a good synergy between the business units is important. Making this synergy valuable the interviewee mentioned frequently the codes trust, sharing information, and especially the possession of (specialist) knowledge, as interviewee 9 states “It’s about bringing together the specialization and the generalization.” [Het gaat er om het samenbrengen van het specialistische en generalistische”.]

4.7 Case 6: How resources of Construction are complemented with resources of

Asset management

Figure 8 Construction complemented by Asset management

The competitive advantage, knowledge, and resources/activities were the main categories that were mentioned in the interview, which can be seen in table 11 and 12 of appendix 3. In this case the relation between Construction which is influenced by Asset management knowledge is an important factor. This mainly because the interviewee told that using the knowledge Construction and Asset management can improve their activities. This knowledge is also a valuable resource for Construction itself to gain a strong position relative to

Asset management

Construction

Project management

- Experience

Complementary resources and (sustained) competitive advantage : multiple case study on synergy between business units within GVB Rail Services