Successful licensing of business processes : how to measure performance of licensing in a sports environment

(1)

Successful Licensing of Business

Processes

How to Measure Performance of Licensing in a Sports Environment

Margot van der Voort 10659048

Friday March 6, 2015; Final version

MSc. In Business Administration – International Management University of Amsterdam

Supervisor: Erik Dirksen MSc. Second supervisor: Dr. Ilir Haxhi

(2)

Preface

In the first place I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my thesis

supervisor Erik Dirksen, who has been very helpful providing comments and feedback on my work. Several meetings lead to clear insights into the structuring and continuation of this research.

Also I would like to thank the coordinator of my internship at InnoSportLab Den Haag, Cees van Bladel. He and his colleagues provided useful input for both my

internship and my thesis. Also a few useful contacts have been provided for both my research and my future career for which I am very thankful.

Last but not least I want to thank all the people that I interviewed for their time and answers which proved to be very useful and shed light on the problems to be resolved in the research.

Statement of originality

This document is written by Margot van der Voort 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

This study seeks to understand when licensing of business processes is successful in a sports environment. The question is not only when it is successful but also how to measure its success, and to know when the found measures are appropriate. From reviewing literature a conceptual framework is derived together with six working

propositions. It connects three strings of literature being licensing, business processes and knowledge transfer. To come to an answer on the research question, a series of in-depth interviews are held with people from different backgrounds, but all active in a sports environment.

The results imply that the most important factor in the success of licensing of business processes in a sports environment is the proper transition of business process knowledge to the licensee. This can be done best through continuous and intensive personal communications. The transfer of personnel to the licensee’s company appears the best way to ensure successful knowledge transfer. Also we can conclude that the five proposed key performance indicators are all appropriate to measure the success of the licensing of business processes in a sports environment. These performance indicators are cost, quality, customer satisfaction, innovativeness, and value creation. A last important finding is that a license is a dynamic agreement and its success lies in the treatment as such.

(5)

1. Introduction

Nowadays, the papers are full of articles regarding health, and hardly any

newspaper does not have a special sports section. This emphasizes the big role that these two subjects play in today’s society. With aging population and growing obesity

problems – obesity is common disease number 1 in the US (Jaeger, 2013) - come the questions on how to positively influence health inter alia through sports. With this growing awareness of health issues come innovative companies that respond to this development. Especially for professional sports the questions are always how to be faster, better, stronger and athletes differentiate from each other through, sometimes ground breaking, innovations. As Cochran (2010) noted there is a clear emergence of sports analytics, signalling the link being made between sports and science. Because of the competitive and secretive nature of professional sports, sports analytics’ results and methods are usually internal by nature and thus not published (Coleman, 2012). But not only professional athletes use innovations in sport, also new forms of sports and physical education are developed to get both the elderly and younger generations involved in physical activities. These innovations are often unknown outside and therefore used only in the country of origin. However, since obesity and aging populations are not credited to one country in specific, there might be huge benefits in creating international sport innovation sharing programs. This research is being performed within this framework of sports as a whole and sports innovation in particular.

When we translate the issues as described above to International Business (IB) literature the clear first area of research is licensing. The term licensing is most

commonly used to refer to the process in which firm A (the licensor) drafts a contract with firm B (licensee) to gain access to and the right to use knowledge, resources or other products of firm A in exchange for a licensing fee (Arora, Fosfuri & Ronde, 2013;

Bianchi, Chiesa & Frattini, 2011; Fosfuri, 2000; Lichtenthaler & Ernst, 2012). Licensing is a term descendant from the field of foreign market entry-mode literature. In this field of research three main modes of foreign market entry are

identified, being contracts, wholly owned subsidiaries (WOSs) and joint-ventures (JVs) (Brouthers & Hennart, 2007). From a knowledge exploration view, firms should make a

(6)

choice to either generate new technological knowledge internally through their own research and development or acquire it from external resources (Cassiman & Veugelers, 2006; Lichtenthaler & Ernst, 2012). When technological knowledge exploration happens external to the firm, licensing contracts are important to demarcate intellectual property.

Not only existing technological knowledge can be licensed abroad. In a sports innovation environment, the business processes through which new knowledge is created too can be shared through licensing contracts. Business processes have been said to be the differentiator between companies and allegedly have a tremendous impact on company’s overall performance (Basu & Kumar, 2002; Pan & Wei, 2012; Thomas, Redmond, Yoon & Singh, 2005; Bititci et al., 2011). To measure business processes’ successfulness and contribution to overall company performance key performance indicators (KPI) are often used. However, it differs from project to project and business to business which specific KPIs are used.

Much research has been done on both knowledge transfer in licensing agreements and the influence of business processes on performance outcomes. However not many literature has devoted its attention to a combination of the two. In this research the aim is to connect these two to provide for an extra dimension in International Business

literature. The contribution to the theory is most importantly a contribution to licensing theory since it aims to provide performance indicators for the licensing of business processes.

It also has a practical contribution, for the methods suggested in this research are being used in an actual project in which business processes of a sports innovation firm are being licensed abroad. This research can also help other companies that aspire to transfer their business processes through licensing. It provides a measure that can be used both in theoretical and practical contexts.

The key question here is to know how the output of both the licensor and the licensee can be measured to compare them to calculate the success of the license

agreement. Since measuring performance can be very situation specific, it is important to know what is correct in which situations. The research question is thus formulated as follows:

(7)

When is licensing of business processes in a sports environment successful? What are the performance indicators of licensing of business processes in a sports environment?

Why and in which situation are these indicators the right ones?

An important remark on this question is that the answer to this question may very well differ between for-profit and not-for-profit organizations. Non-profit organizations can for example aim for a goal that is bigger than the companies’ goals. Here one can think of for example municipalities aiming for multiple public goals, research institutes aiming on helping the society as a whole or innovations that stimulate the general well being of people. In these cases, the drivers for business process knowledge sharing might be very different from those of a for-profit organization.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. First the literature review highlights the development of the resource- and knowledge based view, elicits how business processes are deemed to influence overall companies’ performance, gives different views on licensing as international business entry mode and discusses how knowledge can best be transferred. After this a conceptual framework is being made which links licensing to business processes and knowledge transfer. From this framework a few working propositions are derived which will be tested to answer the research question. This section is followed by a description of the data and research methods after which the companies, and their business processes, from the interviewees will be further explained. Then the analysis results will be discussed. These results are then critically investigated in the discussion after which a conclusion is drawn.

(8)

2. Literature Review

In International Business literature the main goal was often to find what factors create firms’ sustained competitive advantage. As first proposed by Barney (1991), a firm’s resources are to be seen as the main drivers. Barney (1991, p. 99) suggests “that firms obtain sustained competitive advantages by implementing strategies that exploit their internal strengths, through responding to environmental opportunities while

neutralizing external threats and avoiding internal weaknesses”. This view has from then on been called the resource-based view and elicited that resources should be valuable, rare, inimitable and non-substitutable or organizational (Peng, 2001).

From their research, Kogut and Zander (1992) conclude that, “what firms do better than markets is the sharing and transfer of the knowledge of individuals and groups within an organization”(p. 383). In their paper they divide knowledge into information (explicit knowledge) and know-how (tacit knowledge). They state: “if knowledge is only held at the individual level, then firms could simply change by employee turnover” (p. 383). This is however not deemed true since there is a social and interpersonal aspect to all knowledge. This is also where the know-how aspect of knowledge is important, since it is not only important to know a lot, but it is also important how this knowledge is used and dispersed within an organisation (Kogut & Zander, 1992). A last remark that is made is that, for a firm, “switching to new capabilities is difficult, as neither the knowledge embedded in the current relations and principles is well understood, nor the social fabric required to support the new learning known.” (Kogut & Zander, 1992, p. 396)

This knowledge-based view, as it has been called in subsequent literature, can be seen as a specific form of the resource based theory. In his research, Dunning (1998, p. 47) notices the “emergence of intellectual capital as the key wealth creating asset”. As mentioned earlier, resources can be seen as the drivers of sustained competitive advantage when they are valuable, rare, inimitable and non-substitutable or

organizational. Knowledge, whether it is corporate or individual, meets all these four criteria.

(9)

2.1 Literature on Business Processes

Not only the development and selling of explicit knowledge is important. For a company to be operating in a profitable way, its business processes through which value is created are just as important as the knowledge the firms posses (Dennis, Hayes & Daniels, 1999). According to Paswan and Wittman (2009) successful businesses “do not just sell products and services. They perfect a business system and then sell the know-how and benefits of that business system” (p. 173). Much existing literature has focused on distinguishing what makes firms flourish or fail. The way in which business is carried out has been said to add significantly to corporate value (Kettinger and Grover, 1995; Altinkemeyer, Gzelik & Ozdemir, 2011). This stream of literature has been founded by Hammer (1990) who first suggested that there was a need to redesign business processes to account for a fast changing world. Kettinger and Grover (1995) define business processes as “a set of logically related tasks that use the resources of an organization to achieve a defined business outcome” (p. 11). According to Bititci et al. (2011) the view of business processes as main drivers of excelling performance is distinct from other views because it not only places emphasis on the activities performed, but also how they are connected and how work flows through them to produce efficient and effective results.

Business processes can be seen as a specific kind of knowledge, and can be associated with the know-how part as described by Kogut and Zander (1992). According to Conner and Prahalad (1996) “tacit knowledge, which is only learned through personal experience, is an example of know-how that is hard to transfer ex ante” (p.477). From this we can conclude that experiences lead to new knowledge on how to operate daily actions. So business processes itself can be written down in manuals and manuscripts, how to use these, however, is learned through personal experience only. As elicited by Kogut and Zander (1992) and Conner and Prahalad (1996) it is very important to find a way to come from this tacit personal knowledge (know-how) to corporate knowledge, so that it will not go lost with employee turnover.

Business processes or business process management (BPM) has been extensively researched and it is assumed that it needs to match with a company’s culture to

(10)

successfully lead to added corporate value (vom Brocke et al., 2014). In their study, vom Brocke et al. distinguish ten principles of good business process management. Also, Altinkemeyer et al. (2011) find that business process reengineering leads to better performance and productivity, but they do not elaborate on initial business process management. Together with Kettinger and Grover (1995), who state that affecting business process change is the only way to leverage core competencies and to achieve competitive advantage, this indicates clearly that business processes are assumed to influence the achievement of general company goals.

Company goals that are affected by business processes are overall enhanced competitive advantage, measured by market share, revenues, and qualitative measures as customer satisfaction, and innovation, measured in patents filed or new products

generated (Paswan & Wittmann, 2009). Tang, Pee and Iijima (2012) also highlight this by stating that organizational innovation leads to improved competitiveness of the

company. Together with other researchers (Basu & Kumar, 2002; Pan & Wei, 2012) they suggest to measure performance outcomes by using Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). KPIs are quantified derivatives from companies’ strategic objectives. They can usually be divided into categories of quantity, quality and efficiency (Pan & Wei 2012) or more specific cost, quality, customer satisfaction, innovation and value creation (Bititci et al. 2011).

Overall the business process literature can be summarized as follows and schematically represented in figure 1. A firm’s business processes are the core of the scheme that have inputs, being the requests from customers. They have controls that influence how the activity is performed (like schedules, budget and standards). Then on the other side there are the so-called mechanisms that represent the tools and resources necessary to perform the task. Here we can think of qualified staff that has the knowledge to perform the business’ processes. When we take all of this into consideration, the business processes create a certain output. This output is, or leads to, sustainable competitive advantage through or complementary to innovations, either in product or process outcomes when the business processes are successful (Tang et al., 2012). This

(11)

output, and the extent to which it leads to sustainable competitive advantage, can be measured using key performance indicators.

Figure 1 - Business Process

Source: Enserink et al. (2010)

2.2 Literature on Licensing

Much has been written on the subject of licensing. Licensing has emerged from entry mode literature, which focuses on the way that companies enter foreign markets. If a firm wishes to operate abroad it can choose between extending abroad by setting up either a Wholly-Owned Subsidiary (WOS) or a Joint-Venture (JV), or through contracts with for instance suppliers, licensees, foreign distributors or franchisees (Brouthers & Hennart, 2007). It has been argued by multiple scholars (e.g. Hennart, 1988; Erramilli & Rao, 1990; Erramilli, Agarwal & Dev, 2002) that contracts are the entry mode with the lowest investment from the contractor. In this paper we focus on the specific contract form of licensing. We can speak of a licensing agreement when a firm A decides to

(12)

provide firm B access to and the right to use either firm A’s knowledge, resources or anything that A possesses in exchange for a fee.

When we look at licensing literature it soon becomes clear that most literature is written on the why question of licensing. What is it that makes licensing so attractive to firms that want to go abroad? Arora and Fosfuri (2003) make a significant contribution in answering this question and put their focus on the financial incentives for licensing. These can be divided into revenue effect and dissipation effect. The revenue effect consists of the rents earned by the licensee that will accrue to the licensor through licensing payments, which is logically a positive influence of the licensing contract. The dissipation effect is the erosion of the profits of the licensor due to increased competition and knowledge diffusion.

Koruna and Jung (2004) distinguish six different objectives of externally leveraging technology. Starting with generating revenues, then gaining access to other companies’ technological portfolios, establishing industry standards by diffusing own knowledge across competitors, intended or unintended infringements of intellectual property may be identified in order to profit from infringements, increasing the speed of R&D through learning effects and lastly the cross-licensing of intellectual property to ensure freedom to operate. However these six objectives all are substantially supported, building on other literature, one main driver seems to exist. A very big share of licensing literature focuses on the licensing of technological knowledge and this is seen as a means for companies to extract more value from their intellectual assets (Arora et al., 2013; Arora and Fosfuri, 2003; Lichtenthaler and Ernst, 2007; Udell, 2014; Stockwell, 2003). As Bianchi et al. (2011) note, extracting revenue from the sale of (technological)

knowledge remains a challenge for most firms. External Technology Commercialization (ETC) has increased since the ‘90s because products have increased in technological content, product life cycles have shortened, competition has intensified and intellectual property regimes have been strengthened (Lichtenthaler & Ernst, 2007). Also Sinha (2010) together with entry mode literature scholars like Hennart (1988) find that, since licensing is said to require little investments, it is often chosen prior to a firm’s choice

(13)

between export or foreign direct investment. This is done to gain information on the potential of the market and the country in which the licensee is situated.

As noted previously, licensing is mainly used as a means to transfer technological knowledge across firms and potentially borders. However there are far more possible subjects of licensing. One can think of patents, which can form an extension of

technological knowledge but aren’t necessarily this, brand’s name, logo and with that the image it has to the outside world. However, licensing can also be used as a tool for collaborations between universities and business where a business funds a certain research project of which the outcomes will be available solely to that company

(Veugelers & Cassiman, 2004). As a last possible subject for licensing one can think of not only the information and knowledge that is already existent within a company, but also the licensing of the processes through which this and new knowledge is created.

When we acknowledge that the transfer of knowledge is the main business in licensing, than the questions considering intellectual property become increasingly important. Several authors (Lichtenthaler & Ernst, 2007; Yang & Maskus, 2001; Fosfuri, 2000) notice that stronger intellectual property regimes reduce imitation risks, licensing costs and increase the licensor’s rent share. However, they also notice a strengthened monopoly position of the licensor that can in turn lead to fewer initiatives to innovate and license.

A last big theme in licensing that can’t be overlooked is that of the compensations involved in licensing agreements. As licensees access or acquire knowledge from the licensor, they are ought to pay. This can take place in various forms but mostly include a fixed fee paid in advance, royalties as a set percentage of the units produced from the license by the licensee or a combination of the two (Aulakh, Cavusgil & Sarkar 1998). Apart from the revenues made from the compensation schemes, the specific structure is also believed to influence the ability to monitor and influence the licensee. With a fixed fee, the price is already paid and the licensor gets no extra benefits from the licensees’ profits, so little involvement can be expected. However, a licensor will be involved and dedicated to the licensee more if a royalty fee or a mixed scheme is pursued for the licensor gains extra profits according to the welfare of the licensee.

(14)

The success of licensing agreements is not easy to measure. After all, every licensing agreement is very different, if only for the subject being licensed, the

compensation scheme used or the intellectual property rights involved. This is also why multiple authors emphasize the need to structure the contract in such a way that there is little to no possibility for unwanted and unexpected changes. The most important part of the licensing agreement according to Auge (2014) is to structure the contract well, to explicitly state what is to be shared and to make specifications enforceable. When this is done, a licensing agreement can be judged on its successfulness depending on what the initial wanted outcome was.

2.3 Literature on Knowledge transfer

When companies engage in licensing, the key question becomes how to transfer knowledge to other companies and abroad. Foss and Pedersen (2004) find in their research that “organizational factors affect knowledge processes as well as the relation between knowledge processes and multinational corporation (MNC) performance” (p. 341). Also they state “costs of transfer arise because firms control heterogeneous knowledge elements that they wish to… deploy in different contexts” (p. 342). These findings stress the importance of knowing how knowledge can be efficiently and successfully transferred within and across organizations and borders.

In knowledge transfer literature different answers exist to the question why companies want to transfer knowledge. A first view is that knowledge creation happens mainly in universities, while knowledge application is used mainly in firms (Lavie and Drori, 2012). When this is the case, collaborations between knowledge institutes and commercial businesses are formed. In these collaborations, the main object is to transfer knowledge from one entity to the other (Veugelers & Cassiman, 2004). In their paper, Lavie and Drori (2012) call this the commercialization of knowledge. Another view on the question why there is so much emphasis on knowledge transfer is a very critical one. Grant and Baden-Fuller (2004) note that not all knowledge-based alliances are formed because a company wants to acquire another firm’s knowledge. They suggest that

(15)

of knowledge becomes less of an issue, so this paper focuses mainly on the efficiency of the application of knowledge and implies that this efficiency increases when more links are made between companies. Even though this thesis focuses on the acquisition of knowledge, rather than accessing of knowledge, Grant and Baden-Fuller’s point only emphasizes the need for inter-firm collaborations.

We note that much literature on knowledge transfer is directed at within-firm collaborations. With this we can think of knowledge flows from and to subsidiaries (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000) and between business units (Argote & Ingram, 2000). Knowledge transfer in organizations is defined as “the process through which one unit is affected by the experience of another” (Argote & Ingram, 2000, p. 151). The question is to what extent we can compare their results to those of between firm knowledge transfer. The findings of Gupta and Govindarajan (2000) are that knowledge flows into

subsidiaries are positively associated with richness of transmission channels, motivation to acquire knowledge and the capacity to absorb incoming knowledge, whereas Argote and Ingram (2000) focus on the structure of organizations. They state that any

organization exists of members, tasks and tools and that knowledge resides within these components and in the connections and networks among them. According to their paper, people are the most important bearers of information and know-how because “people are capable of adapting knowledge from one context to another” (p. 164). For the transfer of information this means that moving people helps to transfer knowledge. However they also note ‘modifying’ people as an effective way of transferring knowledge. With this modifying of people the focus is on the training and education of employees in order to facilitate learning.

Adjacent to this view is that of Minbaeva, Pedersenm Björkman, Fey and Park (2003). They also link the use of HRM practices to knowledge transfer. Training, performance appraisal, promotion, compensation and communication all have a positive impact on knowledge transfer when aimed at increasing knowledge transmission. Minbaeva et al. (2003) add to this perspective by proving that ability and motivation are the main determinants of the absorptive capacity of a company. When this absorptive capacity increases, knowledge transfer improves.

(16)

Absorptive capacity (ACAP) is a term defined by Zahra and George (2002, p. 186) as “a set of organizational routines and processes by which firms acquire, assimilate, transform and exploit knowledge to produce a dynamic organizational capability”. With this definition they divide absorptive capacity into four complementary dimensions. Another distinction is made between potential, acquisition and assimilation, and realized, transformation and exploitation ACAP. When these four capabilities are all maximized, it will eventually lead to competitive advantage through increased strategic flexibility, innovation and performance.

Scientific know-how is said to be highly uncertain and non-codifiable which results in high transaction costs and systemic failures of knowledge transfer (Veugelers & Cassiman, 2005). In contrast to this statement is that of J. Kang, Rhee and K.H. Kang (2010) who find that the more tacit, difficult and/or important the knowledge to be transferred is, the more communication takes place with knowledge sources. As we saw before, communication is believed to improve the successful transfer of knowledge (Minbaeva et al., 2003). However, one might also see this as a confirmation for Veugelers and Cassiman’s (2005) statement, since more communication is needed to ensure successful knowledge transfer, thus emphasizing the challenges encountered, making failure more likely.

Strategic literature is found to be intertwined with literature devoted to psychological processes of knowledge transfer. Simonin (2004) makes an important contribution by clarifying a way in which knowledge transfer can successfully take place. In his view, it starts with the learning intent of the receiving party. If the intent to learn is present, the first step to successful knowledge transfer has been taken. The next important aspect is the learning capability of the receiving partner. A person or organization needs to have the resource-, incentive- and cognitive-based capabilities to learn. When these prerequisites are met, knowledge transfer can take place. However, in his model,

knowledge ambiguity and knowledge tacitness play a key role. Tacit knowledge appears to lead to knowledge ambiguity that negatively influences the transfer of knowledge.

As elicited before, a clear distinction can be made between explicit and tacit knowledge. One can derive only from the name that explicit knowledge is knowledge that

(17)

is clearly defined, structured and articulated in a form so that it can be easily transferred among individuals. Tacit knowledge is the exact opposite of this and entails any

knowledge that is not clearly definable and often results from personal experiences and social encounters. Also tacit-knowledge is said to have ties to a company’s structure, culture and characteristics that make it hard to transfer across organizational borders (Choi & Lee, 1997).

In their paper, Choi and Lee (1997, p. 36), distinguish “four levels of tacit knowledge acquisition and transfer: individual-specific, organization-specific, industry-specific and market knowledge”. In this case, tacit knowledge is said to be individual- and/or organization-specific, and thus cannot be as easily exchanged. Among others (Kang et al., 2010; Zander & Kogut, 1995; Simonin, 2004), they underscore the key of interpersonal contact to transition tacit knowledge.

Also supporting the view that there exist different levels of tacitness are Zander and Kogut (1995). They explicitly state “it would be nonsensical to believe that there is a single dimension called tacitness” (p. 79). They derive five constructs from Rogers’ (1980) and Winter’s (1987) researches which represent the degree to which a capability can de communicated and understood. Only two of these constructs appear to be

significant being ‘codifiability’ and ‘teachability’. “The more codifiable and teachable a capability is, the higher the ‘risk’ of rapid transfer” (Zander & Kogut, 1995, p. 85). In this research, this construct of tacitness is adopted as such. A last important finding is that shared elements between new and already acquired knowledge increases the speed of the learning process (Zander & Kogut, 1995), which will also be taken into account.

2.4 Summary Literature Review

Even though much literature has been aimed at explaining how knowledge can be transferred, how and why licensing works and how business processes add value, little has been written on the transfer of business processes. When we adopt the view that having good business processes is a prerequisite for corporate value creation, it seems interesting to export this knowledge of how to do business (abroad) as a way of earning more profits.

(18)

In this research, the focus lies on licensing as foreign market entry mode. The present literature on licensing is mainly focused on the licensing of technical knowledge. Even though this literature is pretty extensive, little has been written on the licensing of business process knowledge. The licensing of business processes can be useful in situations where two separate organizations aim for the same outcome, and one has superior business processes allowing the firm to achieve its goals. In this situation the licensor can decide to engage in a contractual agreement with a licensee to use the same business processes since they prove to be successful. This can either lead to increased competition between licensor and licensee, or can improve both companies’

(19)

3. Conceptual Framework

To get a better understanding of the topic being researched it is important to link the literature on business processes, licensing and knowledge transfer. In this conceptual framework a few links are assumed which result in propositions that will be researched in the remainders of this study.

In this research Kettinger and Grover’s (1995) definition of business processes as “a set of logically related tasks that use the resources of an organization to achieve a defined business outcome” (p. 11) is adopted and used. Subsequently business processes are made the subject of licensing. In this paper, licensing is seen as a process through which a licensee can gain access to and use a licensor’s specific knowledge, whether it is information and/or know-how. It is thus assumed that knowledge acquisition rather than accessing is the main driver for licensing. For the acquisition of knowledge, a replication or imitation of the knowledge is created at the licensee. When we combine this view with the definition of business processes as described above the first two working propositions can be set up.

WP1 Licensing of Business Processes is more successful the more the licensee imitates all processes within the licensor’s organization

WP2 Licensing of Business Processes is more successful if the outcomes of the licensee resemble that of the licensor

Another two assumptions can be made when we transfer literature on Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to licensing literature. KPIs are used to measure the outcome of a company and are quantified company objectives. When we want to license the way a company does business, it is only reasonable that also the measures to analyse a company’s performance are adopted by the licensee. A second important working proposition is that of which KPIs to use when licensing business processes. Bititci et al. (2011) propose the use of five categories being cost, quality, customer satisfaction, innovativeness and value creation. These categories are created for the purpose of

analysing business process performance and are thus hypothesized to be licensed together with business processes themselves. We suggest adopting these five dimensions also in a sports environment. This results in the following working propositions.

(20)

WP3 The success of the Licensing of Business Processes can be analysed by implementing the KPIs from the licensor in the licensee company and comparing outcomes from both companies on these KPIs

WP4 The main Key Performance Indicators in Business Process Licensing in a sports environment are cost, quality, customer satisfaction, innovativeness and value creation

Drawing from knowledge transfer literature a few other assumptions can be made when connected with licensing of business processes. Knowledge is believed to have an explicit part, which can be easily transferred through manuscripts and memos, and a tacit part, which is hard to transfer across company and country borders (Choi & Lee, 1997). Tacit knowledge is said to be gained through experience and also interaction with other individuals. This way personal encounters with individuals becomes a very important part in the transition of tacit knowledge (Kang et al., 2010; Zander & Kogut, 1995; Simonin, 2004). Also business processes are not just tasks in itself, but also considers how work flows through these processes and how this leads to efficient and effective business outcomes. Business processes knowledge thus also has an explicit and an implicit part. From this we derive the following working proposition:

WP5 Licensing of Business Processes concerns the transfer of tacit knowledge and is thus transferred more successfully with increased and continuous communications between personnel from licensor and licensee.

The last working proposition considers the flows from licensee to licensor. Licensing is often considered successful when the licensee received the information and know-how well. However, it is also important to see what the licensor can get from a contractual agreement. As argued above, the foremost reason for licensing is extracting revenue from company specific knowledge. When we look at licensing of business processes, it can however be more valuable to also receive feedback on the licensed business system instead of merely creating revenue from selling it. Therefore the following is hypothesized:

(21)

WP6 Licensing of Business Processes is more successful when a feedback possibility is created and used by the licensee in order to further perfect the business processes

To summarize the working propositions they are included in figure 2 below, which clearly illustrates the assumptions when it comes to the licensing of business processes in a sports environment.

Figure 2 - Conceptual Framework

Firm’s Business Processes Input Request from customer Output Products, competitive advantage, innovations C o n tr o ls Sc h ed u le s, b u d ge ts , st an d ar d s M ec h an is m s To o ls , r es o u rc es Firm’s Business Processes WP2 Input Request from customer Output Products, competitive advantage, innovations WP1 C o n tr o ls Sc h ed u le s, b u d ge ts , st an d ar d s M ec h an is m s To o ls , r es o u rc es Li ce n se K n o w le d ge /E xp er ie n ce W P 6 P ay m en ts Licensor Licensee Q u ali fie d s ta ff WP5 K P Is W P 3 , W P 4

(22)

4. Data & Research Method

In this chapter the data and research method used will be explained. Given that this study is explorative of nature, and since it seeks to extend existing literature, a multiple case study design is employed. As elicited by Eisenhardt (1989, p. 534), a “case study is a research strategy which focuses on understanding the dynamics within single settings”. If multiple cases are studied, a more generalizable conclusion can be drawn from the analysis.

Since this master’s thesis is written whilst doing an internship, and this company forms one of the cases, the data will mainly be collected in and around the environment of the company. The company is aimed at sports innovation and wishes to deploy its methods abroad. The cases selected are all within a sports environment to limit the bias in data collected.

The interviews held are with people from the company itself (InnoSportLab The Hague), the municipality of The Hague, Delft University of Technology, including its Sports Engineering Institute, and Southampton Solent University. A bit more distant from the specific internship case are interviews with people from Ajax, KNVB(Royal Dutch soccer federation), DesignGoed, and EPSI (European Platform for Sports Innovation). A last interview is held with the chairman of the Belgian Flanders Bike Valley. All

interviewed people should be involved in business activities abroad concerning knowledge sharing within a sports environment. In this way a clear delineation of our ‘population’ from which cases are drawn (Eisenhardt, 1989) is made to again limit the bias of the research. A list of all interviewed people with their names, functions and respective companies can be found in Appendix A. In chapter five an illustration of all companies is provided together with their core business processes that can be or are being licensed.

To study all these cases, interviews are held. They are held either in person or via Skype and one interview is conducted by sending the questionnaire by email. Within each company or institution a single key person is interviewed according to a set

questionnaire. Through semi-structured interviews it is made sure that all the important topics are being covered while also leaving room for in-depth questions and supportive

(23)

explanatory text developing from the interview in that moment. All interviews are, with consent of the interviewee, be recorded and transcripted afterwards to make sure no important data derived from the interviews is lost. The reason why interviews are being used as main method for data collection is that it provides specific, in-depth knowledge on the subject and some context-specific/expert knowledge. The questions asked in the interviews can be found in Appendix B, and the transcript of all interviews in Appendix C.

In each interview the topics addressed are the same. All interviewees are asked several questions on the topics of sports, licensing of business processes, KPIs and knowledge transfer. By ensuring coverage of all these subjects, continuity across interviews is established.

After a transcript is made of all the interviews, they are further analyzed using a computer program called NVivo. The data is first analysed within cases after which cross-case patterns are sought (Eisenhardt, 1989). To make good use of this program a few codes are developed. Using the working propositions as a starting point the codes are made. By following this procedure, a theoretical proposition analysis strategy is being used as suggested by Yin (2013). This way, useful quotes are found which either support or reject the working propositions. The codes used are the following:

- Sport: The first code is “sport”. It, as the name suggests, is a collection of statements considering the importance of sports to the interviewees. It is divided into two sub codes being described below.

o Personal: The code “personal” describes to what extent sports are important to the interviewees in their personal lives.

o Organisation: The second code is “organisation” and entails both the comments on how important sports are to the organisation that the interviewees are active in and the way in which sport affects their role within that organisation.

- Success of lic. of BP: A very important code is that of ‘success of licensing of business processes’. This code entails all quotes considering what make the

(24)

licensing of business processes successful in general and is specified within three sub codes.

o Imitation of BP: The first code ‘imitation of business processes’ is a collection of answers referring to the extent to which the licensor’s business processes should or should not be imitated by the licensee.

o Outcomes of BP: The next code is ‘outcomes of business processes’ which serves to find to what extent licensing can be seen as more successful when the outcomes of the licensee resemble that of the licensor. Also quotes considering the extent to which you can compare those at all are shared under this code.

o Similar KPIs: The third sub code considering the successfulness of licensing is ‘similar KPIs’. All statements that are about the similarity of KPIs between licensor and licensee are collected in this code. Also statements considering the adoption of vision and objectives are summarized in this code since KPIs are said to be the quantified vision and objectives of a company.

- Important KPIs: The third code as used in the research is ‘important KPIs’. General comments about useful and important KPIs in a sports environment are grouped under this code. The more specific KPIs, which were also mentioned in the working proposition, all have their own sub node to structure the results.

o Cost: All comments considering the KPI ‘cost’ are highlighted with this code. Cost here means cost per year that a company makes.

o Quality: All statements on the extent to which quality of the end product is a useful KPI are grouped under the code ‘quality’.

o Customer satisfaction: All quotes on the usefulness of ‘customer satisfaction’ as a KPI in a sports environment are given this code.

o Innovativeness: All statements regarding the use of ‘innovativeness’ as a KPI in a sports environment are given this code. Also quotes that refer to innovativeness of sports in general and sports companies in specific are coded with this code.

(25)

o Value creation: This code refers to the value being created through the business processes. All statements on the usefulness of ‘value creation’ as a KPI in a sports environment are grouped under this code.

- Knowledge transfer: This fourth code is a collection of comments on how to best transfer knowledge in general and business process knowledge in licenses in general. This code again is split into three sub codes which all consider a specific part of knowledge transfer.

o Intensity of communication: ‘intensity of communication’ refers to the frequency of communications. This could be daily, weekly, monthly, yearly and so on. All answers on this frequency, in different stages of the licensing process, are mentioned in this code.

o Mean of communication: The statements that consider with what means knowledge can best be transferred are grouped under the code ‘mean of communication’.

o Transfer of personnel: The last sub code of knowledge transfer is ‘transfer of personnel’. In this code all comments on transferring of personnel to ensure good transfer of business process literature in licenses are collected.

- Feedback: The last code is named ‘feedback’ and exists of all statements on the use of providing feedback possibilities in a licensing agreement. Both comments on the increased successfulness of licensing of business processes and general comments on feedback from licensee to licensor.

A significant strength of this research design is that it provides expert knowledge on a topic that is nearly unexplored. Also by getting information from both private, and public companies and knowledge institutions, a more overall image of the situation can be drawn. By looking from different angles at the subject, it might even be possible to find differences or similarities in views from a public entity and those from private businesses. However this research design might lead to very specific knowledge that might limit its external generalizability. Also little quantitative data are gathered which makes it nearly impossible to compare different performance indicators on anything other

(26)

than personal experience. This way it becomes hard to generate an objective answer to the questions and thus will the answers be varying between the different parties

interviewed. This is also the main reason that performance indicators are analyzed within their specific context.

(27)

5. Interviewed Companies

In this chapter an overview is provided of the companies in which the

interviewees are working. For all the companies the core business is described and a link between the companies and this thesis is provided. This way some extra in-depth insight is generated into why the interviewees were selected and interviewed.

InnoSportLab The Hague – C. van Bladel

The internship was with the InnoSportLab in The Hague, which is a research facility for InnoSportNL in the area of sailing. InnoSportLab The Hague joins business, competitive sailing and knowledge institutes. ‘At the end of 2010, the lab started at the National Elite Sports Centre at Scheveningen, the home of the Dutch national team and talent teams. The lab initiates projects, brings different parties together, and ensures active support. In addition, InnoSportLab The Hague supports start-ups and companies in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).’ (InnoSportLab The Hague, n.d.)

Both InnoSportNL and InnoSportLab The Hague in specific are operated with the view of generating golden triangles in all projects which means that all projects should make a connection between sport, business and knowledge institutes. The way of working, its business processes, can be licensed abroad to enlarge the impact of innovations and expand the knowledge base across company and country borders.

TU Delft Sports Engineering Institute – A. van Vlaardingen

The TU Delft Sports Engineering Institute was opened only recently on

September 17, 2014. ‘The aim of the TU Delft Sports Engineering Institute is to promote and organize research and education in the field of performance enhancement in elite sports and the promotion of sports, play and exercise to create a healthier society’ (TU Delft Sports Engineering Institute, n.d.). The research is organized in five themes and collaborates with five different faculties of Delft University of Technology. They are also involved in providing research opportunities for their so-called dream teams that are student teams that work for a certain period on a project. Examples of these dream teams are the Human Power Team and Nuon Solar team Nuna which both have won several

(28)

races in their vehicles. The way in which research is organized and supported can be one of the business processes subject to licensing. Other universities might be interested in this way of doing ‘business’.

Delft University of Technology – A. Jansen

Delft University of Technology is a technical university that offers 16 Bachelor’s programs and 35 Master’s programs. Also research at TU Delft, as it is called in Dutch, covers the entire spectrum of science in engineering. Also strong connections with innovations are maintained, among others, through YES Delft, a high tech entrepreneurs center. Also at the faculty of Industrial Design, there is a minor and from next year a specialized master in Sports Innovation. In this minor, and future master, students are challenged in real life projects for companies to come up with innovative products in a sports environment. The way in which this minor and master are organized, and the fact that they exist in itself, can be a source for international collaboration between

universities.

Johan Cruijff Institute – N. Meijer

The Johan Cruijff Institute is a knowledge institute located in Amsterdam, Mexico, Barcelona, Stockholm, Malaysia, and Peru. It is based on the vision of former professional soccer player Johan Cruijff that elite athletes should be supported in their academic career alongside their career in sports. It offers different programs on different levels and in different countries. They already work with several licenses for their international partners to sustain the quality of the education and flexibility for their students. In these international subsidiaries, the vision, objectives and way of working are mirrored to the ideal as portrayed in Amsterdam and Barcelona.

Ajax – D. van Maurik

Amsterdamsche Football Club Ajax (or Ajax) is one of the largest soccer clubs from the Netherlands and is located in Amsterdam. It has been national champion for 33 times since its initiation and has won several European competitions. Not only its first

(29)

team is famous, but it also incorporates the world famous Ajax Youth Training Program. At ‘De Toekomst’ (the future), youth from the age of 8 are trained, monitored and schooled all within the facilities of the soccer club. Subject for international licensing could be the youth academy, its vision and mission or the way of monitoring the players’ development.

KNVB – D. van Maurik

The Royal Dutch Soccer Association (KNVB) is the largest of all sport

associations in the Netherlands and has over 1.2 million members. It makes technical and arbitral decisions on every level of soccer in the Netherlands. It also controls the Dutch national football team. The role of the interviewee is an interesting one since it entails the monitoring of the Dutch national team. The data that are derived from the analyses may be confidential, however, the methods used for the analysis might me a subject of licensing. As was pointed out by the interviewee however, sharing in soccer is very rare since the stakes are high and the risk of leaking sensitive information is high.

Solent University – R. Jones

Southampton Solent University is a university on the south coast of the United Kingdom. It offers multiple undergraduate, postgraduate and professional level courses as well as excellent postgraduate research opportunities. One of the focus points of the universities is sport and this is reflected in the sports and wellbeing research cluster. They also seek international communication with, among others, InnoSportLab The Hague and Delft University of Technology. The international licensing of business processes in a sports environment thus seems very interesting to study from their university point of view.

Designgoed – E. Driessen

Designgoed is a company owned by Erik Driessen who is a product developer with a specialism in sport. Since he is involved in multiple sport minded companies he has done multiple international collaborations mainly in the production of materials.

(30)

However Designgoed can be involved in the whole process from idea to realization, so might also be interested in the licensing of business processes.

EPSI – R. Wijlens

The European Platform for Sports Innovations (EPSI) is a membership-based international networking organization with a strong focus on sport, leisure and health. It organizes multiple events every year to stimulate innovations and set up businesses with a focus on innovative technology. They strive to make connections between sport, knowledge institutions and companies. Since they operate internationally within a sports environment they too have their links to this research.

Flanders’ Bike Valley – M. Hufkens

Flanders’ Bike Valley is one of the first bottom-up clusters of Belgium and was founded only in 2013. It is an open innovation center for the cycling industry and joins SMEs with knowledge institutes and sport. Flanders’ Bike Valley organizes partner-matching events, sets up open innovation projects and will focus on internationalization and incubation (Flanders’ Bike Valley, 2015). Flanders’ bike valley has grown to over 40 members in the last 6 months and perhaps might have valuable information or business processes that could be internationally licensed.

Municipality of The Hague, Urban Development Department – T. Overmeire

The municipality of The Hague is linked to this research in multiple ways. First and foremost it hosts and supports InnoSportLab The Hague. It also connects local SMEs, knowledge institutes and sport. Also as political center of the Netherlands, it is also politically involved in international collaboration. Also, considering sports, they hosted the World Cup Hockey in 2014 and will host the World Championships Beach Volleyball in the summer of 2015. Sport is a part of the education, culture and wellbeing department. However the economic department might have closer links to the licensing of business processes and in the light of supporting innovations they might be interested in creating international alliances in this area.

(31)

6. Research Results

In this chapter the most important results of the analysis are written down. A few key inter-related themes come to the front and will be discussed next, supported by quotes that underscore their relevance.

6.1 Sports

A first important outcome of the research is that all interviewees consider sport as a very important topic in their personal life. Two of the participants in the research were, in the past, members of a Dutch national sport team. Also, 70% of all people interviewed state that sports is the core business of their company and the other 30% sees sport as a market in which to sell and test the products and services provided. This clearly indicates that the research has been performed in a sports environment, which was an important demarcation of the thesis. Apart from statements about sports in general, more specific statements suggest that sport is not always the end but can also very well be the means.

‘Sport is used as a springboard for technical research.’ (A. van Vlaardingen, personal communication, January 26, 2015)

‘Sport is a nice theme through which you can stimulate innovation and business creation.’ (C. van Bladel, personal communication, January 30, 2015)

‘… very interested in sport as a means of developing better health.’ (R. Jones, personal communication, February 6, 2015)

‘Sport is also a business. It can attract innovations and tourists.’ (T. Overmeire, personal communication, February 2, 2015)

As was expected, the reasons why sport is important for a company or institution differ. With universities and other knowledge institutes it is a specific area of research and research application, for private businesses it is seen as a market and for local governments more community goals are pursued.

6.2 Licensing of Business Processes

A reoccurring comment on the success of licensing of business processes is that of flexibility and adjustability. These statements signal that a licensing agreement is

(32)

never a static engagement but is subject to influences from both within and outside the companies involved.

‘[The success of licensing of business processes is] also very dependent on

different factors, people, parties, financial means that attribute to success.’ (A. van Vlaardingen, personal communication, January 26, 2015)

‘The success of this kind of cooperation will depend on the agility that both parties have in order to adjust the contract.’ (M. Hufkens, personal

communication, January 29, 2015)

‘The main value of our organisation is to be flexible, we need to be for our students.’ (N. Meijer, personal communication, January 28, 2015)

Also when specifically asked about the comparability of business processes and their outcomes these arguments keep appearing. When business processes are

implemented into the licensee’s company this calls for specificity. The surroundings of the firm set the conditions for the licensing agreement to work1. This results in a rejection of the first working proposition (WP1) that stated “licensing of business processes is more successful the more the licensee imitates all processes within the licensor’s organization”.

‘…maybe it is just one small step of the whole process that you need to improve your own business.’ (T. Overmeire, personal communication, February 2, 2015) ‘You need to adapt a lot to the environment. It is hard to make one blueprint. Everything has a local flavour’ (R. Wijlens, personal communication, February 4, 2015)

‘You might implement some things, but you customize it.’ (D. van Maurik, personal communication, February 3, 2015)

From these quotes it becomes clear that there needs to be an extra phase in the licensing process in which the business processes of both licensor and licensee are

thoroughly assessed to come to a better view of what, how and where to implement them. For the comparison of outcomes between the licensor and licensee it then

becomes clear that they might not be exact copies but still the outcome of a successful

(33)

licensing agreement. As appears from the answers in the interviews, the output of the licensee appears to be a good measure of how successful the licensing agreement was as eight out of the nine responses are positive on this. An important remark often made is that the outcomes are however only exactly comparable if the circumstances and

environment is comparable. Also the question is how to measure what part of success can be ascribed to the licensed business processes.

‘What is working in one market, when the whole environment and other points are somewhat the same, then you can calculate to your own market, in inhabitants or other measurable standards, so that you can check if you are as successful. Also you need a timeline, it takes some time to come to the maximum exposure and the maximum success.’ (M. Hufkens, personal communication, January 29, 2015) ‘I think you can compare… but you always have to consider the ‘ceteris paribus’ principle which considers keeping everything the same except for the one factor you are purposely changing.’ (T. Overmeire, personal communication, February 2, 2015)

‘I think you are comparing two different things, which are both the result of many different processes, and it is probably very hard to distinguish the influence of the licensed business process on the overall sort of revenues or KPIs.’ (A. Jansen, personal communication, January 26, 2015)

From these statements we can conclude that the second working proposition should be rejected since it stated that licensing of business processes is more successful if the outcomes of the licensee resemble that of the licensor. Some resemblance between the outcomes is still expected, however not a one-on-one copy of the outcomes is expected after licensing of business processes since the environment between two countries always differs. So it is not deemed true that the more the outcomes of the licensee’s firm

resemble that of the licensor, the more successful a license is. With the rejection of this hypothesis however comes the note that still a comparison between outcomes can be useful to then investigate what causes these differences.

(34)

‘…if they are more or less successful there, then the interesting part is what are the differences in the world [causing these differences in outcomes].’ (T. Overmeire, personal communication, February 2, 2015)

6.3 KPIs

The third main theme in the research and the outcomes is that of key performance indicators. All ten respondents consider the vision and objectives a key part of the

company and the driver of all of its business processes. However, two out of the ten state that the rationale between the mission and vision might very well differ between

companies, even when they engage in the licensing of business processes. The other eight all consider some resemblance between the licensor’s and licensee’s vision and

objectives to be necessary in order for the business processes to work. The opinions on transferability of KPIs differ somewhat between the respondents2, however, one answer from mr. Wijlens quite accurately sums up the answers of all other respondents. From the two statements below we can conclude that the third working proposition can be accepted as long as the KPIs are based on more general rather than specific goals of a company.

‘Goals should be similar. Also KPIs can be implemented if they are based on general goals. Where it considers focus areas, you can specify to those parties. A few main KPIs should however be valid in every situation and for every party.’ (R. Wijlens, personal communication, February 4, 2015)

‘It [adopting the licensor’s KPIs] is a good way to check if your business

processes are adopted or licensed in a good way.’ (A. van Vlaardingen, personal communication, January 26, 2015)

When we come to the question which performance indicators to use, the answers are again differing among interviewees. In the interview the fourth working proposition has been addressed by asking to what extent the five suggested KPIs are fit to measure success of business processes in a sports environment on a scale from one to seven where one is completely inappropriate and 7 is completely appropriate. When we calculate the

(35)

average it appears that all five KPIs can be seen as important measures for the success of business processes since the means are 4.9, 5.6, 5.7, 5.1 and 5.8 respectively. This

suggests a confirmation of working hypothesis four. A few remarks can be made however for some specific key performance indicators.

Cost for example is considered a good indicator for performance; however, multiple respondents suggested using cost-benefit, revenue or efficiency as a measure rather than cost on its own.

‘Costs depend on your process, efficiency would be a better indicator for the costs themselves are irrelevant.’ (R. Wijlens, personal communication,February 4, 2015)

Quality of the end product and customer satisfaction come out as most important when not using one respondent’s answer. This was done because the answers were in that interview portrayed on the soccer industry in which quality of the output is hard to

measure and the question remains who the customer actually is, making customer satisfaction immeasurable as well. They both score an average 6.1 on a scale from 1 to 7 indicating that this is a very important measure indeed. They are said to be ‘specifically important for the sports industry, because products get reviewed very critically and the price level gets up pretty high. [They are] not just commodity products that you have to buy, you are choosing to buy it.’ (E. Driessen, personal communication, February 5, 2015)

For innovativeness a strange pattern is signaled. Where all respondents claim that sport is a very innovative business and the market continuously calls for innovations, it does not score highest on the question on key performance indicators. This can be

explained with the following two quotes from which it seems that innovations are a, very important, differentiating, means rather than the goal itself, and also, the actual market for very innovative products is only that of the elite athlete which is a very small market.

‘… elite athletes keep asking for better products all the time, but the market for the products are the masses which are not the most innovative customers. [It is] only a niche that is very innovative.’ (E. Driessen, personal communication, February 5, 2015)

(36)

‘Innovation on itself is not a goal but rather a means.’ (R. Wijlens, personal communication,February 4, 2015)

The last key performance indicator tested on its applicability in a sports

environment is value creation. With a score of 5.8 on a scale from one to seven this is the third most important and applicable key performance indicator of the five. As mr.

Driessen illustrates value creation is very important for the firm. ‘Your organization needs to survive, so you need to create value’ (personal communication, February 5, 2015). However, he also notices that this is not as important for all types of

organizations: ‘… in sports you also have organizations that are active in sports but don’t have commercial goals.’ For these organizations value creation might not be as important as for commercial organization. However it appears that, although the margins might differ, the indicator in itself can be useful.

6.4 Knowledge Transfer

The next important finding is probably the clearest one, since all respondents unanimously agree on this one. All interviewees agree3 on the fact that ‘all knowledge transfer is best done by people communicating’ (R. Jones, personal communication, February 6, 2015). Through this, working proposition five can be accepted without doubt. Also all respondents agree that transfer of personnel is a good way of transferring

knowledge, which further strengthens the idea of increased and more intense contact as an effective means of sharing knowledge. Transfer of personnel is said to aid in

transferring experiences, which further increases depth of knowledge transfer.

‘…only write it or explain it is not enough, sometimes you have to experience it’ (E. Driessen, personal communication, February 5, 2015).

‘[Transfer of knowledge] by exchange of experiences, so have people come over and copy the trick. Some kind of watch and learn.’ (T. Overmeire, personal communication, February 2, 2015)

For the intensity and frequency of communications to ensure successful licensing it appears that the most intense phase is that of knowledge transfer since all ten

(37)

respondents see daily contact through transfer of personnel as ideal. In the initial contact phase it appears that contact is also possible through online communications and more on a weekly to monthly basis. However it ‘… is important for actually agreeing what is being sold and what is being bought’ (R. Jones, personal communication, February 6, 2015). Then the drafting of the contract should be done in a few days, in a few rounds with revisions. After the contracts have been signed, the knowledge is to be transferred, which is as said best done through transferring of personnel. ‘We transfer personnel here to start it off, but only for a few days. We want to keep regular contact after that which would preferably be weekly’ (E. Driessen, personal communication, February 5, 2015). And then in the phase after that, communication becomes less frequent, and often through more distant communication means as Skype, email and phone calls. The last phase entails the execution of the business processes. An important statement was that the contact should persist, but almost never actually does in practice.

‘[There is a] difference between what we should do and what actually happens. We should stay in contact more, but it is becoming much less frequent. It would be good to stay in touch and do a check-up.’ (E. Driessen, personal

communication, February 5, 2015)

This is also where the last working proposition comes in sight. As the above statement already suggests, feedback possibilities increase the positive outcomes of a licensing agreement. It is said to be very important by respondents from all different backgrounds. Working proposition six is thus also accepted.

‘I think it is essential. Giving feedback… and exchange that knowledge, that is essential to the process and the outcomes’ (N. Meijer, personal communication, January 28, 2015)

‘It is of vital importance to have feedback... to keep doing it well’ (E. Driessen, personal communication, February 5, 2015)

‘Both the recipient and the giver [of feedback] benefit… since it can be used to improve the product.’ (D. van Maurik, personal communication, February 3, 2015)

Successful licensing of business processes : how to measure performance of licensing in a sports environment