Project: Bachelor thesis
Assessing to what extent the competitive advantage models strategic intent and simple rules are applied in SME's in the Netherlands
Case study
Strategy & Organization Eugène Hoogstad
Date: 10-07-2020 Words: ~ 8900 Willem Spigt, 11322268
Statement of Originality
This thesis is written by Willem Spigt who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are 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.
Table of contents
1. Abstract……….. Pag. 6
2. Introduction……… Pag. 7
3. Theoretical framework ………... Pag. 8 4. Research design………...….. Pag. 13 5. Conceptual Models……...……… Pag. 16 6. Results………... Pag. 18
7. Discussion……… Pag. 24
8. Conclusion……...……….……… Pag. 27
9. References………...……… Pag. 29
1. Abstract
Strategic management has produced many different models to measure competitive advantage over the years. Doing empirical research on these models has lagged in the meantime especially on strategic intent and strategy as simple rules. Both models are discussed in this paper with their characteristics and the underlying assumptions when the authors designed them. From the theoretical framework, 5 variables have been identified per model to measure the extent to which they are applied in practice. Both concepts are tested by conducting interviews with founders of the SMEs located in the Netherlands. The interview data is labelled with open codes and linked to the axial codes and selective codes. The main findings in this study are that strategic intent is more applied in larger enterprises and to a lesser extent in the ones with a smaller workforce. Furthermore, strategy as simple rules are used more in a broad sense and are often not linked to individual unique processes.
2. Introduction
We are currently living in a world that is more prone to change than ever before. Jan Rotmans describe it as: “we do not live in an era of change, but in a change of era”(Rotmans, 2017). Strategic management can play a vital part in addressing the challenges businesses face in this tumultuous environment. Although strategic management is a relatively young field in academic research, it has produced plenty of concepts and frameworks to help managers make well-considered strategic choices for their businesses. Two competitive model frameworks that are useful for these challenges to tackle are strategic intent and strategy as simple rules. Strategy as Simple rules was created to navigate through the increasing complexity of the business environment. This is established by implementing some key processes to gain a competitive advantage. Strategic intent approaches it differently and central to the theory is the stretch between the existing resources and the desired goal, better known as putting the “essence on winning” (Prahalad & Doz, 1987). The two concepts can be seen as a counter-reaction to the strategic planning theory that was popular among managers in the 1960s (Mintzberg, 2000). Strategic planning gained critique over the years since it can result in systemising strategic thinking and therefore eliminating creative thinking. Furthermore, the plans often don’t work since the circumstances change as time progresses and the plan becomes obsolete (Mintzberg, 2000). Strategic intent and strategy as simple rules are praised for their absent of explicit planning and therefore deal better with flexibility and complexity.
Problem definition
On strategic intent and strategy as simple rules there is relatively a small amount of empirical studies conducted. Especially comparing the two concepts with each other has not been done by researchers thus far. Performing this research will provide insights under which circumstances and to what extent they are used in practice. Additionally, it will provide an overview of the shortcomings of the concepts and where they when they are best applicable for explaining competitive advantage. Furthermore, it will bring nuance to the set-up theories. Since it will be applied on existing companies, it can yield interesting findings for business managers which is not there yet. Based on the results they can determine to implement parts of strategic intent or strategy as simple rules in business operations or to better leave them out. To fill this practical and theoretical gap of knowledge, the following research question has been formulated: To what extent are the competitive advantage models strategic intent and simple rules are applied in SME's in the Netherlands?
To answer the research question, a literature review will be conducted on competitive advantage and the two concepts associated with this topic: strategic intent and strategy as simple rules. Subsequently a conceptual model is drawn to illustrate how the different variables in this research are related with each other. In the result section the interview data will be analysed and the two competitive concepts will try to explain the competitive advantage of the firm in the case study. Lastly, the discussion section will give answer on the research question and recommendations on further research will be given.
3. Theoretical framework Introduction of concepts
Simple rules are rules that save time and effort by simplifying and focusing of processing the information (Eisenhardt & Sull, 2001). Eisenhardt and Sull (2001) introduced strategy as simple rules and mentioned that it will help companies to flexibly capture unanticipated, and unforeseen opportunities. Davis et al. (2009) states that a strategy that is based on simple rules is critical in unpredictable business environments. Often simple rules grow out of experience, especially when mistakes are made. Notable is that some sort of outline of simple rules already exists in the organization. An mindfull manager can be the one to notice them and make them explicit (Eisenhardt and Sull, 2001).
Strategic intent can be defined as a compelling statement about the future the organization is heading towards. The term “strategic intent” was conceived by Hamel and Prahalad (1989). During the 1980s and 1990s the limitations of the strategic theories that existed became apparent for companies especially in uncertain business environments (Mintzberg, 1994; Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, & Lampel, 1998; Jarzabkowski & Kaplan, 2015). Planning in corporations did often fail during this period. Therefore developing a new way of strategy became in need for executives (Mintzberg, 1994). What is deliberately lacking in strategic intent is that the explicit planning is not desired (Prahalad & Doz, 1987). Therefore, there is a lot of room for the interpretation on how that intent can be realized. Several definitions for intent were collected by Mantere (2007) from the various papers that Hamel en Prahalad have written on strategic intent. He concluded that the following definition can be given to strategic intent: “Goal for which one cannot plan, long term-goal, long term orientation.” Hamel and Prahalad (1989) explain that strategic intent is more than simply a statement of vision or future direction. They emphasize in their paper that strategic intent is future focused
on ‘winning’. It sets organization goals that need employee’s commitment and effort and will result in getting access to resources in a creative way and has stability over time. Mantere connect to this by stating that strategic intent is more than a simple statement of company goals. Furthermore, the corporate level decision must create an environment where the employees are fully integrated into the process and executive on their task beyond the rational acceptance (Hamel & Prahalad, 1994). Another way it is described is that’s about reaching the future first and, challenging the status quo by changing the industry rules, boundaries and standards. Strategic intent helps to ensure companies that activities are contributing to their core competencies (Day, 1994), and overcoming the constraints of limited resources. This phenomenon is defined by Hamel and Hamel and Prahalad as "stretch" (ambition beyond the firm's current resources). This so called “stretch” will ensure the integration of new resources/capabilities in the upcoming time to take on the new challenges encountered in the environment (Hamel & Prahalad, 1994)
Differences of the competitive concepts
To compare the different competitive models, this can be done by the means of the different strategy schools that Mintzberg has identified in 1998. He identified ten different schools which can then be subdivided into two categories: the prescriptive and the descriptive school. The body of thought at the prescriptive approach is putting more emphasis on the planning and logical thought processes and proposing the best way to implement strategies. (Mintzberg, Lampel, Quinn and Ghoshal, 2004). Whereas the descriptive approach focuses on how the strategy is put into practice in the real world of business. Furthermore, the strategy formation can be realised by using experience, the strategy is therefore a process of learning, adjustments and experimentation. In the descriptive approach the school strategies can develop incrementally and the business adjusts to the environment over time (Mintzberg, Lampel, Quinn and Ghoshal, 2004). The way the prescriptive and descriptive formulate strategy differ as well. In companies that use a prescriptive style the primary focus is the process of strategy formulation. Whereas the descriptive school put more emphasis on the content of the strategy. Strategic intent can best be ascribed to the resource based view which is part of the prescriptive category of the strategy schools. Central in the Resource Based View (RBV) is that it takes an ‘inside-out’ view on the competitive advantage of an organization (Madhani, 2010). The two main assumptions in the resource based view are that there is a unique bundle of tangible and intangible assets. This is better known as resource heterogeneity. Furthermore, resources,
especially intangible capabilities, are ‘sticky’. This means that such resources are difficult to imitate. Better known as ‘resource immobility’. Barney, one of the key contributors to the development of the literature of the Resource based view defined competitive advantage as: “When a firm is able to implement a value creating strategy not simultaneously being implemented by any current or potential competitors” (Barney, 2001). Strategic intent looks for internal capabilities that other companies struggle with, and capitalizes on that by exploiting the opportunities to maximize profit and market share.
Strategy as simple rules cannot be fully ascribed to one of the ten schools that Mintzberg classified. However, Strategy as Simple rules can be assigned to the prescriptive school since it puts more emphasis on the process instead of the content.
It can also be partly identified to the learning school. The central idea at the learning school is that management focuses over time what does work, and what doesn't work. These lessons are afterwards integrated in their overall plan of action. This school of strategy assumes that the world is too complex to develop strategies all at the same time. Therefore, plans need to emerge in small incremental steps when the organization adapts to their environment (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand and Lampel (1998). It also argues that there are more people in an organization than just the leader. But this is not reflected in the strategy as simple rules that employees are eligible to make decisions. When it is talking about decision making it mostly refers to the managers in the paper. This can be concluded from the following quotes: “thick manuals of rules can be paralyzing. They can keep managers from seeing opportunities and moving quickly enough to capture them” “if managers wait until the opportunity flow dries up before shifting processes, it’s already too late” “no one can predict how long an advantage will last. An executive must manage, therefore, as if it could end all tomorrow” (Kathleen M. Eisenhardt and Donald Sull, 2001). However, the learning school is part of the descriptive school and therefore strategy as Simple Rules cannot be fully allocated to this school of taught. Since strategy as Simple Rules merely focus on the process and can therefore be better allocated to.
Strategy as simple rules distinguishes itself from the “traditional way of thinking about competitive strategy”, in the original paper an example is given that Yahoo’s competitive advantage cannot be measured by the traditional ways. It argues that the competitive advantage cannot be ascribed to an attractive industry structure. Additionally, there is intense rivalry in the sector and a limited number of barriers to entry. Furthermore, it argues that Yahoo does not possess unique or valuable resources. How can competitive advantage then be explained?
Strategy as simple rules states that advantage comes from “successfully seizing the fleeting opportunities”. It does not build it competitive advantage from leveraging the core competencies but it emphasis on the key processes and translates them into simple rules. Subsequently a pattern potentially can arise from the rules that are based on the processes and has the chance to create economies of scope and long-term competitive position (Kathleen M. Eisenhardt and Donald Sull, 2001). Strategy as simple rules is therefore substantially different from strategic intent since this competitive advantage model is merely about first creating a strategic intent and when that is in place it focuses on leveraging the resources the company must achieve this vision. This is often done in stable markets and is not applied in complex markets where strategy as simple rules is developed for.
Process, content and context
Another way to categorize the schools of management is invented by Stoelhorst (2008). Stoelhorst provides a framework and argues that there are three separate categories strategic management can be divided in: The process of strategy, the content of strategy and the context of strategy. The process of strategy asks the questions: where do strategies come from. The content of strategy asks: What are good strategies? The context of strategy asks How will the environment affect the process or content of the strategy? (Stoelhorst, 2008).
Thereby Stoelhorst moves away from the conventional way of thinking that there is one best way to develop strategy and argues that there are many ways. He reasons that strategic management must deal with complexity and therefore not one single strategy to approach it (Stoelhorst, 2008). Stoelhorst therefore criticizes the in his words “standard model”. This model assumes that the strategic management will follow the following three steps: first strategy analysis is conducted, then the strategic choice and lastly the strategy implementation. The model originates from the design school and the planning school that both can be categorized in the prescriptive school. The resource-based and positioning school added that the internal environment and the external environment needs to be incorporated. This approach is dominant in the way strategic management is explained. An opponent of this rational and top-down way of strategy is the process school (Stoelhorst, 2008).
Stoelhorst summarized the process school as the following; Strategy is a collective learning process. The collective team is learning, and therefore the leader must learn as well. In this process of learning the CEO can be the leader to make sure this is implemented in the
organization. There is therefore endless amount of strategies that potentially can be implemented. The process is more important than the content, therefore there are no thoughtful, well-considered strategies that are implemented. Instead there is the focus on the process of strategic learning which creates an atmosphere in which new strategies can emerge. The way of collective thinking is reinforced by stimulating to have a look at the occurred events so that lessons can be learned and this can be implemented in the new strategy (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand and Lampel 1998).
Similarities of the competitive concepts
Both the strategic intent as the strategy as simple rule have in common that they assume that it is hard to imitate each other's strategy. Strategy as simple rules initially seem easy to copy, however this is not the case. This is because the opportunities and outcomes can vary so widely it is difficult to decode the rules from outside the company. It is possible to try imitate the processes but rules are very often the result of trial and error and are therefore hard to imitate by competitors. Furthermore, when the simple rules are fully implemented it is often too late because the opportunities that were presented are already captured by the competitors. This resembles with the idea that is central in the RBV that resources are immobile. Not only the tangible but also the intangible (Barney, 2001).
Furthermore, the similarity the two concepts have in common is that improvements involves every one of the organization. Strategic intent argues that the task of the management is not to communicate in a traditional way of downwards but to collect new ideas from an upwards way of communication (Hamel Prahalad, 1989). Whereas at strategy as simple rules argues the process you use to develop simple rules is as important as the simple rules that are created. Involving a wider base of your employees will result in a better understanding of what value can created in the firm (Sull & Eisenhardt, 2001). Frank Buytendijk described strategic stretch as an elastic band. If you only pull from one side the other side of the band will move to the same direction. Therefore, you can only stretch if you pull the band from both sides. This idea implies that when you stop pulling it will go back to the neutral position. Therefore, it necessary to create a stretch relative to the resources you have available, otherwise the firm will go back to average performing (Bayt, 2018). This way of thinking is also reflected in strategy as simple rules. It argues that strategies can go stale and sometimes the rules need to be reconsidered. Switching to new process strategies payed off for a variety of companies that are discussed in the paper. Therefore, rejuvenate your strategy can be a wise for the long term.
Research design
The focus of this research is to get a better understanding which competitive concepts is used more often in practice. To compare these two concepts this research will make use of a case study. Yin (1994) defined case studies as ‘“research situations where the number of variables of interest far out- strips the number of datapoints’’ (Yin, 1994, p. 13). Therefore, a demarcation needs to be made in the data that is collected. Data in the case study method can be collected in several ways. In this research, qualitative data will primarily be used via conducting interviews. It was decided to interview a wide variety of managers/owners of companies that are active in different industries that are situated in the Netherlands. More specifically, the people interviewed are founders or directors of SMEs. This study will largely rely on deductive reasoning but will additionally use grounded theory (inductive) to add to the existent knowledge base of the two competitive models. The reasons why it’s chosen to analyze both inductively and deductively will make sure that an open and unbiased view that the data is not forced to fit the proposed framework.
To ensure to have a rigid case study the ‘‘natural science model’’ will be applied during this research. The main four criteria that that arise from this model are: construct validity, internal validity, external validity, and reliability. Construct validity will be established by making use of the triangulation of different data sources. This also entails to look from different angles to the same phenomenon, this can be realized by interviewing companies that operate in different industries and different people. To ensure internal validity during this research there is a constant seek to falsify the relations between phenomena in the data (Popper, 1959) Only if there is no reason to refute the existence of a relationship the statements that are made should be acknowledged as valid. Furthermore, this research will make use of pattern matching. Therefore, the empirically observed patterns will be compared with the predicted ones in previous studies on strategic intent and strategy as simple rules (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994; Eisenhardt, 1989). External Validity is established by contributing to the existence base of case studies that are previously done. This case study can be a part of the chain for theory development that will result in analytical generalization. To realise reliability this research strategies there are several strategies applied. To begin with, all the interview participants receive a copy of transcripts of the interviews. This makes it possible to check whether the statements that have been made have been correctly interpreted (Carlson, 2010). Furthermore, when data is extracted from the interview, it first must be verified that it is accurate by comparing it to the context before it is used in the analyses (George, 2004).
Measuring strategic intent
Strategic intent can be described as the "heart" of strategy. Despite that strategic intent is more than three decades old, there has been a scarcity of of empirical papers testing the strategic intent theory. Hamel and Prahalad (1989) proposed specific measures for future empirical papers. They suggested future researchers must use accounting measures to detect the corporate intent. They specifically proposed the use of capital expenditures of the firm, such as R&D intensity and marketing intensity to measure which moves corporations make to enter new markets or introducing new products. Another way of measuring new corporate competitive advantage that should be done by managers are the following: create a sense of urgency, develop a competitor focus at every level, provide employees with the skills they need to work effectively, Give the organization time to digest one challenge before launching another and establish clear milestones and review mechanisms (Hamel & Prahalad, 1989). Since this research relies on interview data this is a more suitable way to collect the data than the first mentioned method. Therefore, the following framework can be build that includes the predictor variable and the and the related question that covers the different topics.
TYPE OF PREDICTOR VARIABLE:
HOW IS IT MEASURED:
Pv1 Sense of urgency To what degree is a sense of urgency created by intensifying weak signals in the environment of the business that need to improve?
PV2 Competitor focus
To what extent can employees of the firm benchmark
themselves against best in class competitors in the industry?
PV3 Provide skills To what degree are trainings given on topics such as problem solving, value engineering, and team building given to the employees?
PV4 One challenge at the time
To what degree are their priorities in taken on certain challenges in the firm? Are several goals introduced at the same time or is their one ambitious goal at the time?
PV5 Setting milestones Are there clear milestones set in the firm and how are they awarded when achieved?
Measuring strategy as Simple rules
According to Eisenhardt and Sull, 2001 there are three distinct approaches for managers to compete in the business world. They either “build a fortress and defend it”; “they can develop unique resources”; or “they will pursue fleeting opportunities by using simple rules”. Each way requires a different capabilite sets and works best under different business
circumstances. Strategy as Simple rules consists of an unique set of significant strategically processes and a few simple rules to guide them. These strategic processes need to be at the place of the company where the opportunities are the biggest (Eisenhardt and Sull, 2001). These processes can consist of a variety of things, such as product innovation, a spinout or tapping into new markets (Eisenhardt and Sull, 2001). By assessing many companies in unpredictable and turbulent markets, Eisenhardt and Sull discovered that the simple rules can be divided into five broad categories. These categories are the following: How-to-rules, Boundary rules, Priority rules, Timing rules and Exit rules. The different categories are elaborated in the figure below.
Figure 1. Strategy as simple rules categories explanation with examples (Eisenhardt and Sull, 2001)
In this research the original design op the Strategy as simple rules paper will be used to measure competitive advantage. Interview questions are connected to the variables that predict to what extend strategy as Simple rules is used in the firm in this case study.
TYPE OF PREDICTOR VARIABLE:
HOW IT IS MEASURED:
PV1 HOW-TO-RULES What makes the process of the company unique? Are there specific unique rules that are implemented by experience?
PV2 BOUNDARY RULES Which opportunities in the firm can be pursued and which not? Are there criteria rules implemented in the firm which opportunities can/cannot be pursued?
PV3 PRIORITY RULES What are the priorities by making decisions on allocating resources in the firm? Which criteria are there designed to determine which project/idea has priority above the others?
PV4 TIMING RULES At what pace does there need to play into the opportunities that arise within the company? Are there rules for maximum amount of time a product is in development for example?
PV5 EXIT RULES When to pull out from yesterday’s opportunities, which measurements do you use to determine to quit with a project?
3. Conceptual models
The following conceptual models can be drawn up for the two competitive models:
Figure 3. Conceptual model strategy as Simple rules
Background information interviewed companies
Publisher Bois le Duc is founded in 2007 and is situated in 's-Hertogenbosch. The publisher produces professional magazines for both the bathroom and the wellness industry. THe main revenue comes from advertisements and subscriptions. Currently there are 5 employees working in the organization who are not on the payroll.
De Boer Machines is a company that has been developing, producing and selling molding machines for over 75 years; their main revenue comes from soft mud installations for the largely international coarse ceramic industry. In addition, De Boer Machines takes care of the assembly and maintenance of machines and installations for companies. Currently de Boer machines employs around 100 people in their headquarters in Wijchen.
The BikeBoys is founded in 2016 and sells bikes to exchange students who want to purchase a quality bike for a fair price. Thijs de Ligt & Rendel Hijlkema started a pilot in 2016 and sell now approximately 500 bikes per year. At the beginning of the academic year they have approximately 15 people who work for them to hand out the bikes to the exchange students. The Personal Growth lab is a startup founded in Amsterdam in 2014. The company core activities are centered around personal development. This involves publishing articles and guides to help people work more effectively. The personal Growth Lab currently consists of 3 employees.
The Cookie Company is a group of companies that is specialized in making merchandise clothing and textile products for major entertainment brands and sell their products to chain stores in Europe. They buy the licenses of big brands such as Disney and Marvel. The Cookie company is founded by Sabine Hulsman in 1996 and has currently 60 employees.
Results
In this section, the most interesting findings are discussed to what extent strategic intent and strategy as simple rules are applied in business operations of the companies. The results are discussed by using quotations of the various interviews.
Strategic intent
The results that emerged from the first predictor variable with the associated question: To what extent is a sense of urgency created in the business environment to work on new projects or products? Has produced varying results. Two of the interviewees stated that especially at the introduction of a product an atmosphere of urgency was created. This can be concluded from the following two quotes: “In the beginning, of course, a lot when we just started. We were pushing each other a lot and seeing where the demand was (Interviewee 3).” “I think that especially with the introduction of the first magazine. There were already existing professional magazines in the market and then we came up with a new professional magazine (Interviewee 1).” Whereas the second interviewee stated that the sense of urgency is created on a continuous basis and thus not only at the introduction of a new project/product. This can be derived from the following quote “Continuous, our existence is based only on us improve our products / product range continuously changing, adapting and improving (Interviewee 2).”
A similar result was yielded from interviewee number 5: “We are currently looking at and researching which materials are more sustainable and we will continue this journey. It continuously adjusts the story since you can adjust sustainability on several points.”
Another way in which a sense of urgency was created was done by interviewee 4. He said the following when was asked how urgency was created:
“We do this by setting multiple deadlines. We always create a sense of urgency by setting deadlines. I actually try to always show the importance of a project in showing the bigger picture of which the project is part of (Interviewee 4).”
Therefore, it can be concluded that creating a sense of urgency is created in every company that is interviewed. However, a discrepancy can be made in the companies that only apply it at the beginning of a project and the ones that have the feeling present on a continuous basis.
Interestingly, the companies which makes the feeling continuous are also significantly larger in size than the companies that create the feeling only at the introduction of a new project.
The following results can be conceived from the answers on the question: To what extent can employees of the firm benchmark themselves against best in class competitors in the industry? The results show that very often companies do not have benchmarks on an individual level. Most of the times it only could be measured on general performance indicators that were leading for everyone and are therefore not tailored to the tasks of an individual. In the first interview the more general benchmarks can be noticed by the following quote "Everything that is high-end should advertise in our professional magazine. (Interviewee 1)." We also see this pattern recur in the next quote: “We then strategically look at what other companies offer in terms of price or offer and then we try to offer it cheaper (Interviewee 3).” This pattern is even more apparent when the fourth interviewee said the following
We do not have a fixed checklist or processes against which we can measure ourselves ... The employees themselves have no insight into who they can measure themselves against. It is about whether we are on schedule and how it is with the quality of a
project (Interviewee 4).
The results show with full conviction that there is a lack of benchmarks on an individual level in the SME in the Netherlands.
The following results arose from the question that was asked to the interviewees: To what degree are trainings given on topics such as problem solving, value engineering, and team building to your employees? Interestingly, 4 out of the 5 companies that were interviewed did not give trainings to their employees. The smaller enterprises that were interviewed during this research indicated that more mutual coaching is given to each other than a third party is brought in to achieve this. “It mainly comes from the reflection on our actual results. We have completed a certain project, after which we always take a moment to see what our results were and where we could do better (Interviewee 4).” A similar situation was outlined in interview 1: “Training is not really given, I work with journalists who have 30-35 years of industry experience and know what they are doing…..They are strongly coached by my chief-editor.” And this also applies to the third interview: "Not a lot of training, but we try to show how bicycles work and how online payments work (Interviewee 3).” What was interesting is that the larger companies indicated in the interview that they are either working on it or want to start it in their business operations.
Rarely, we no longer have an HR manager. After all, more attention should be paid to [training] within the company. The last three HR managers were all women who were very
busy getting through the day talking to everyone, but built nothing in insights / methods / courses (Interviewee 2).
This quote clearly indicates that given is one of the priorities of the company to give trainings to their personnel, is not implemented in the company yet due to unfavourable HR circumstances in the company. Interviewee number 5 was the only one who indicated that a lot was being done to organize training for the workforce. This became evident in the following quote: “Actually, we have now focused quite a lot on training and education company-wide. Where do they get stuck, or which direction do they want to go (Interviewee 5).” However, the same interviewee indicated that these trainings were not always purely to improve the performance of the company, this can be derived from the following quote: It doesn't always have to be very interesting for the company, it is also often about whether people like it. The data shows that only a limited amount of attention is paid to providing training to boost the company's performance.
The fourth predictor variable that could measure to what extent strategic intent is measured was by the following interview question: Are several goals introduced at the same time or is their one ambitious goal at the time? In general, the results showed that the challenges that are introduced in the enterprises ran side by side simultaneously. Interviewee one indicated the following: “This is something that usually develops over time. Restyling the magazines, always striving for a more beautiful and better and that it is even more in line with high-end (Interviewee 1).” And therefore clearly indicates that several challenges are introduced at the same time. This way of operating the business can also been seen at the second company that is interviewed: “All running parallel. The challenges within our products run simultaneously. Multiple projects are introduced side by side instead of a large project (interviewee 2).” However, interviewee 4 showed signs of introducing a central challenge at a time and introducing a new one when the first one has sunk in. This can be detracted from the following quote: “When a product is just finished, we first look at the quality of the product. This is paramount, then conversion is considered. They follow in quick succession (Interviewee 4).”
The last predictor variable to determine to what extent strategic intent is applied was measured by asking the interviewees the following question: To what extent are there clear milestones / goals to be achieved in the company and how are they celebrated when they are achieved? The interview data showed mixed results between the companies.
“There are goals, we want to grow in the beginning of the year and now we just want to keep it ..So if we set too optimistic targets and the bicycles are not sold, then we have a problem.
We have storage for only 50-100 bicycles. (Interviewee 3)”
This quote clearly points out that there is not a stretch between the resources available in the company and the desired goal that it wants to achieve in the future. Whereas interviewee 4 indicates that clear milestones helped the performance of the firm: “The more specific you make the goals, for example deadlines or selling products, are mainly the goals we set. This helps to make the product better and finish them faster (Interviewee 4).”
Clear mechanisms of how an individual employee performs are not strongly present in the collected data. Individual achievements are more likely to be measured on the team performance and financial rewards are linked to this. This is apparent from the following statements:
“If it's at least 50/50 that we're working on, the employee in Personal Growth Lab will get 10% of that product's sales.(Interviewee 4).” “The profit distribution is not calculated on a project, but is calculated over the entire year. Individuals who have been at the basis of an innovation are individually financially rewarded (Interviewee 2).”
Strategy as Simple rules
The first predictor variable that was agreed to determine strategy as simple rules was with the following question: What makes the process of the company unique? Are there specific unique rules that are implemented by experience? The results showed that most of the firms had an unique way of process active in their business. Interviewee 1 indicates:
“I didn't want people on my payroll. I only used freelancers. This means that everyone can work from their own location. This is a great advantage in terms of flexibility and in terms of wage costs (Interviewee 1).” And clearly points out that it maintains a different way of operating from its competitors in the same branch. Furthermore, another interviewee also indicates that their process is unique since they use different sizes of bikes:
We mainly focus on exchange students. We have a lot of small bicycles, of which we differ in comparison with Swapfiets. For example, a swap bike has only 1 frame. This can be
difficult for Chinese exchange students. Secondly, we accept all types of payments (Interviewee 3)
However, one of the interviewees stated that it doubted the process of the business that he operates is unique: “Product is based on what the customer said. I think this is not unique, but it is something that many other companies do not do (Interviewee 4).” It can be concluded that most of the interviewed companies have a unique process implemented in their business. The next predictor variable was examined by asking: Which opportunities in the firm can be pursued and which not? Are there criteria rules implemented in the firm which opportunities can/cannot be pursued? The results showed that 3 of the 5 firms seek for opportunities within their core competencies. This can be concluded from the following quotes: “We have a frame; in fact, you can offer any product you want. We look at what we have already had experience with (Interviewee 4).” “It has to be within our core business. I once had a time when I went slightly another direction, I lost a lot of money on that. It has to add something else we don't implement it.” Additionally, the results showed that there were also more demarcated criteria were drawn up by two enterprises. “Scalability and automatization is actually the framework in which we operate when we start creating new products”. “Technical and financial criteria. This week we wanted to apply a new technique in the stripping machine. We have also communicated this technique to the customer, but the technical sensitivity is too high.” Although these criteria are more demarcated they are still widely interpretable. Therefore, the data shows that companies tends more towards applying the boundary rules in the broad sense then in a concrete way.
To the third predictor variable the following interview question is connected: What are the priorities by making decisions on allocating resources in the firm? Which criteria are there designed to determine which project/idea has priority above the others? This yielded interesting results. Every enterprise indicated that it had priority rules. The main pattern that arises from the data is that the priority rules they were drawn up often were indirectly related to financial performance of the firm. This is evident from the following quote “Scalability comes first. Ultimately, this goes hand in hand with company-wide profitability. If indeed the product is hugely scalable, and perhaps yields slightly less profit, the scale ability can compensate for this
by far (Interviewee 4).” Furthermore, the priority rules were not formulated very specifically and more in a broad sense. This can be deduced from the following quotes: “A priority is that it should support or strengthen the current two magazines. There must be a possibility to derive a synergistic advantage from it (Interviewee 1)”. Synergistic advantage is a very broad and vague concept and it does not clearly explain what exactly it means in its business operations. The same goes for the next quote “The technical possibilities are more important than whether it is financially profitable. Our installations are capital intensive. We respond to the security of the product (Interviewee 2).” Technical possibilities also a comprehensive and broad concept that is widely interpretable and therefore not specific. Another interviewee presents a more delineated way of what the priorities criteria are for introducing new products.“ Our priorities are whether it suits the customer. We can also challenge the customer. We must keep our existing production and sales channels satisfied (Interviewee 5).”
The results for variable number four were obtained by asking: At what pace does there need to play into the opportunities that arise within the company? Are there rules for maximum amount of time a product is in development for example? A limited amount of data has been collected by asking this question. The question was often not considered appropriate for the interviewed companies. Despite this, it can be said that there are no timing rules in the companies since the answers were given were in a very broad sense and no well-grounded specific rules were followed. This can be concluded from the following quote “You look at your own capacity and possibilities and you look at what the competition is doing in that area” “That can go very quickly. This is because we are a small company You can start a project with a lot of enthusiasm and this can stop very abruptly (Interviewee 4). It clearly states that projects are started on flexible terms and that this is not linked to a fixed factor and therefore timing rules are absent. The last predictor variable that determines to what extend strategy as simple rules is used can be detected by asking: When to pull out from yesterday’s opportunities, which measurements do you use to determine to quit with a project? Several clearly formulated exit rules emerged from the data. One of them can be deduced from the following quote:
Given the team we have and the specialism we have built up, I could add a third professional magazine. However, our research has shown that the advertising market is not big enough to
This quote indicates that stopping with a product is directly related to how well the advertisement market is performing and based on their own research. Another example of this exit rule is described in the interview with the Personal Growth Lab: “Criteria is if, for example, something will result in too much potential hassle. We used to have products that we knew if we were going to create this, there will be a lot of communication going back and forth (Interviewee 4).” The exit rule that is applied is connected to the potential unnecessary time-consuming activities which must be executed when a new product is released. Contrary to these results there were also a company that indicated that there were no real exit rules present in their company. The company indicated that solutions were sought for ongoing projects rather than that they were being halted: “We never really stop [a project], we do change. In the 20 years that I have been with de Boer, I have only once experienced that what we have delivered has taken back and the payments have been refunded” Therefore we can conclude that in general companies have some sort of exit rule in their business, although it should be noted that a small number of companies actually had to implement this.
Discussion
First the strategic intent main results will be compared to the theoretical framework and subsequently the result of strategy as simple rules will be tested if it is consistent with the theory.
Strategic intent
The results showed that a sense of urgency was created in every company. However, there was a difference in at what time the sense of urgency was created. This was partly created in the beginning of a new product and part of it on a continuous basis. This is not entirely in line with the proposed theory how strategic intent should be created. A sense of urgency should be created from weak signals in the business environment and not only at the introduction of a new product (Hamel & Prahalad, 1994). Furthermore, companies do not have benchmarks on an individual level. Most of the times it only could be measured on general performance indicators that were leading for everyone and are therefore not tailored to the tasks of an individual. This is inconsistent with the line of thoughts of the predictor variable. Companies should have benchmarks that are based on the competitor’s performance to put the essence on winning (Prahalad & Hamel, 1994). This was not the case with the interviewed companies. Interestingly, 4 out of the 5 companies did not provide trainings to their personnel. The smaller enterprises that were interviewed during this research indicated that more mutual coaching is
given to each other than a third party is brought in to realise it. This is contrary to what is indicated in the theoretical framework. There it is argued that trainings will help the employees to perform to the best of their ability which will result in a better overall performance of the firm (Prahalad & Hamel, 1994). Training does not mean that feedback is given to each other. In general challenges that are introduced in the enterprises ran side by side. However, there was an outlier who indicated that goals were introduced one after the other. Therefore, most of the results are not in line with the theory of strategic intent. The theories explicitly argue that challenges should be introduced one at the time to let the them sink in before announcing a new one (Prahalad & Hamel, 1989). Milestones that were introduced in the company were not a stretch between the resources available in the company and the desired goal that it wants to achieve in the future. There was a high probability that the individual performance was measured on the team performance and financial rewards were linked to this. This contradicts the milestones predictor variable. This variable assumed that individual milestones must be set up to keep track of the extent progress is made and delighted behaviour is rewarded. Although the data shows good behaviour is rewarded, it is because of the team performance and not on an individual basis.
Strategy as simple rules
The results showed that most of the firms had an unique way of process active in their business. Although there was one company indicated that he was unsure whether there was an unique process in his company. This is right in line with the established theory. The theory assumes that companies need have a unique way of process to navigate through the complex environment of business to succeed. Which opportunities can be pursued were determined based on if it whether it was within their core competency. Additionally, the results also showed that there were at companies more demarcated criteria were drawn up by two enterprises. Therefore, it is partially in line with the theory. Strategy as simple rules prefer having rules that are not to broad and are more related to a single process instead of wide variety of processes. Since core competencies is not a strictly defined concept it cannot be identified as a simple rule. The same goes for scalability and automatization that was indicated as the framework by one of the interviewees. Every enterprise indicated that it had some sort of priority rules. The main pattern that became visible is that the priority rules they drawn up often were indirectly related to financial performance of the firm. However, it should be noted that the rules were not formulated very specifically and more in a broad sense. Timing rules were not really present in the data. This was mainly due to the fact that the question has not been asked in every
interview. The data did show that there were fixed rules that had been drawn up on when to respond to opportunities in the businesses. Lastly the exit rules results were mixed. Some indicated that solutions were sought for ongoing projects rather than to stop them entirely. Whereas others had specific exit rules which were sometimes the same as their priority rules. This contradicts the strategy as simple rules theory since it is argued that there are five distinctive categories of rules and is therefore not in conformity with the theory (Eisenhardt & Donald Sull, 2001).
Limitations
Since the interviews were conducted in a short time spawn the time to reflect on the data was limited. This limited the possibilities to thoroughly evaluate if shifting the scope of the research would be interesting and necessary. However, since the research relies on a deductive way of doing research there are limited ways of deviating from the set-up framework. In addition, the companies interviewed were very different in terms of size and sector and therefore it is difficult to draw generalizations to what extent the two competitive models are applied in practice. However, this did create interesting results that there is difference between small size and medium size businesses. Another limitation was that the interviews were conducted via Zoom. This resulted in challenges by transcribing the interview data. The internet connection was not always stable, making it difficult to transcribe and potentially misinterpreted the interview data. Another limitation of this study is that putting the essence on the drafted theory that can involve some inherent limitations in the way the data is approached and therefore it is more likely that supportive evidence will be founded for the theory that is tested. Although the questions that were asked in the interviews were open-ended, some of the participants might interpreted some cues to answer the questions in a certain way to agree in with the questions to please the researcher.
In the literature review, there were limitations regarding the available scientific papers that were written on strategy as simple rules. Since this is a relatively new way of strategy formulation, there are thus far no prescribed way to empirical test the competitive advantage of companies using this framework. Therefore, there had to be found a way to test simple rules. Furthermore, there are critiques on the strategic intent construct since it entails imprecise definitions in the phrases and keywords that are used in explaining the concept. One of the key words and phrases that is used in their “obsession with winning’, which misses a clear definition what this precisely means and therefore can result in different ways this is interpreted (O’Shannassy, 2016). According to Yin (2009) Case studies can become a synonym for a lot
of freedom in the way the research is designed. He also argues that the biggest concern is the lack of a methodological guideline of conducting a case study. Since this research uses secondary data there are issues regarding this way of collecting data. The data that is used includes unpublished literature, and will therefore not always be verified and is not peer reviewed. Furthermore, there is the risk that there are biases in the way the original data is collected. Since you have little insight into the way this data is collected it can have a negative effect on the reliability of your results.
Future Research
There are several gaps in the knowledge that are represented in this thesis. One of them is to which school of strategy the Simple rules can be categorized in. Therefore, it would be interesting to conduct an elaborate literature study to examine if strategy as simple rules can be ascribed to the existing schools of strategy or that it should have a school for its own. For further research, it would potentially be interesting to apply the two competitive advantage concepts on five companies that operate in the same industry. This could yield different results compared with the ones from this research. The contradictions in the theory will perhaps become more explicit than is the case in this study. Furthermore, it would be interesting to apply the theory to bigger organizations since strategic intent potentially is more suitable for corporations than for small businesses. Lastly it would be interesting to ask another variety of questions in the interviews which potentially can yield different results.
Conclusion
The aim of this research was to asses to what extent the competitive advantage models strategic intent and simple rules are applied in SME's in the Netherlands. This research shows that both models are used to a limited extent in business operations. Strategic intent is more applied in larger enterprises and to a lesser extent in the ones with a smaller workforce. There was only Furthermore, strategy as simple rules are used more in a broad sense and are often not linked to individual unique processes. For the predictor variables, the following can be concluded for strategic intent: There was overwhelmingly evidence that a sense of urgency is created in every company and there is a lack of benchmarks on an individual level. A limited amount of attention is paid to providing training and the challenges that are introduced in the enterprises ran side by side instead of introduced after each other. Lastly, individual achievements are more likely to be measured based on the team performance than on an individual basis. For strategy as simple rules the following can be concluded for the predictor variables: almost all
of the business had an unique process active in their business. There were a few businesses that used boundary rules in their operations. Persuasive results were found on that companies use priority rules in their decision-making process. Due to incomplete data there were no indications that timing rules were used. Lastly, exit rules were present at a select number of companies.
Literature
Barney, J. B. (2001). Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of management, 27(6), 643-650.
Bingham, C. B., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Furr, N. R. (2011). Which strategy when. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53(1), 71-77.
Carlson, M., Oehrtman, M., & Engelke, N. (2010). The precalculus concept assessment: A tool for assessing students’ reasoning abilities and understandings. Cognition and Instruction, 28(2), 113-145.
Gabow, O. S., & Kinyua, G. Relationship Between Strategic Intent And Performance Of Kenya Commercial Bank In Nairobi City County, Kenya.
George, M., & Apter, A. J. (2004). Gaining insight into patients' beliefs using qualitative research methodologies. Current opinion in allergy and clinical immunology, 4(3), 185-189.
Irwin, T. (1989). Aristotle's first principles. Clarendon Press.
Madhani, P. M. (2010). Resource based view (RBV) of competitive advantage: an overview. Resource Based View: Concepts and Practices, Pankaj Madhani, ed, 3-22.
Mantere, S., & Sillince, J. A. (2007). Strategic intent as a rhetorical device. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 23(4), 406-423.
Mintzberg, H., Ghoshal, S., Lampel, J., & Quinn, J. B. (2003). The strategy process: concepts, contexts, cases. Pearson education.
Mintzberg, H. (2000). The rise and fall of strategic planning. Pearson Education. Murray, A. I. (1988). A contingency view of Porter's “generic strategies”. Academy of management review, 13(3), 390-400.
Parnell, J. A., Parnell, J. A., & Jones-Sepulveda. (2019). Nonmarket Strategy in Business Organizations. Springer International Publishing.
Pateman, H. A. (2015). The role of strategic intent in collaboration: knowledge creation and transfer in the Australian logistics industry: part A (Doctoral dissertation, University of Tasmania).
Porter, M. E. (2008). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. Simon and Schuster.
Popper, K. (1957). Philosophy of science. British Philosophy in the Mid-Century (ed. CA Mace). London: George Allen and Unwin.
Appendices
Interview 1
Geïnterviewde: Ron Spigt Interviewer: Willem Spigt
Introductie
‘’Welkom, Fijn dat je het interview met mij kan afnemen. Ik ben Willem Spigt, ik studeer Future Planet Studies en ik ben nu in mijn bachelorscriptie eindfase. Ik ben op zoek respondenten voor mijn onderzoek en hierom heb ik jou benaderd. Ik heb tien vragen voor u en ik vroeg mij af wie jij bent en bij welk bedrijf je werkzaam bent.’’
‘’Mijn naam is Ron Spigt, sinds 13 jaar heb ik een eigen uitgeverij. Hiervoor heb ik ook in loondienst bij verschillende uitgevers gewerkt. In loondienst heb ik verschillende vakbladen opgezet en 13 jaar terug had ik besloten dat ik eigenlijk ook alles zelf kon doen. Dertien jaar terug heb ik mijn eerste vakblad uitgegeven en ruim tien jaar terug heb ik een tweede vakblad opgezet.’’
In hoeverre wordt er een gevoel in de bedrijfsomgeving gecreëerd van urgentie om aan nieuwe projecten of producten te werken?
‘’ Ik denk dat met name bij de introductie van het eerste vakblad [urgency created at launch first product]. Er waren al bestaande vakbladen in de markt en toen kwamen wij met een nieuw product/vakblad. We waren met zijn allen erover eens dat het een ‘high-end’ vakblad moest worden[employees all on the same page]. Want de bestaande vakbladen schreven hier niet over en hadden er ook geen verstand van[seeing opportunities in the market]. Deze vakbladen kregen echter wel alle advertenties. Wij wilden met ons blad een podium vormen voor meer design/ontwerp op het gebied van keukens. Ik heb hiervoor vormgevers, journalisten en redacteuren geselecteerd. Uiteindelijk zijn we tot een
totaalproduct gekomen waarvan wij wisten dat het nog niet beschikbaar was op de markt en na onderzoek bleek hier wel een duidelijke behoefte aan te zijn [need for product was confirmed].’’
Mag ik aannemen dat het tijdschrift dus gebaseerd is op de mogelijkheden en kansen die lagen in de markt?
‘’Ja, zodoende hebben we drie jaar later een vakblad gepubliceerd op het gebied van badkamers. Er zit wat synergie tussen de vakbladen [introduction based on synergies]. Een designer bij het vakblad keukens kan je ook interviewen voor het andere wellness vakblad. Adverteerders kunnen ook in alle twee de vakbladen adverteren[introduction based on synergies]. Abonnees kunnen ook op beide bladen een abonnement nemen. Hieruit halen we met alle twee de tijdschriften een schaalvoordeel.’’
In hoeverre kunnen werknemers van het bedrijf zich vergelijken met de concurrenten die actief zijn in de branche? Zijn er bijvoorbeeld benchmarks waaraan ze zich kunnen meten?
‘’ Stel dat Miele een persconferentie houdt, dan zijn de collega’s van de collega-vakbladen ook aanwezig. Tijdens deze persconferentie zijn ook zelfs de publieksbladen aanwezig (Libelle, Margriet), alleen zij weten vakinhoudelijk erg weinig. Daarom merk je dat een bedrijf het vooral leuk vindt om met de vakpers (ons) te spreken, omdat zij vooral
inhoudelijk veel weten. Afhankelijk van de aanbieder, want als deze in een lager segment zit dan kunnen ze beter met onze collega’s overweg, ligt de interesse. Zo gauw iemand in het
hogere segment zit dan weten ze dat ze met hun verhaal het best bij ons aanwezig kunnen zijn. Het is niet om denigrerend te doen, maar we halen een klein beetje onze neus op ten aanzien van de journalistiek, vormgeving en drukwerk van de andere collega’s. Wij vinden onszelf veruit de beste. Het wordt ook zo door de markt gezien[considering themselves as the best in class].’’
Hoe kan je de kwaliteit concreet meten, gebruiken jullie hier technieken voor?
‘’Je hebt leeskring onderzoeken [way of measuring broad performance]. Daarnaast spreken we met onze adverteerders. Adverteerders maken een keuze en zo gauw het meer aansluit bij het podium wat wij bieden (dat is meer high-end), zie je ook dat high-end
adverteerders meer bij ons gaan staan dan bij de andere vakbladen. Andersom is het ook zo.’’
Er is een verschil waar de focus van jullie vakblad ligt ten opzichte van de anderen, maar om te kijken naar de benchmarks zou je kunnen stellen dat hoogwaardige bedrijven die
adverteren in jullie tijdschriften een meetlat zou kunnen zijn, klopt dit?
‘’Alles wat high-end is zou in principe bij ons moeten adverteren. ‘’[way of measuring performance]
In hoeverre wordt het personeel trainingen aangeboden om het personeel zo effectief mogelijk te laten werken? Denk hierbij aan teambuilding, trainingen, statistische analyse trainingen of trainingen op het gebied van waarde creatie?
‘’ Trainingen worden er niet echt gegeven, ik werk met journalisten die al 30-35 jaar ervaring in de branche hebben en ze weten waar ze mee bezig zijn.[Trainings not necessary] Ze weten dat ze het nu op een ander niveau moeten doen. Zij worden sterk gecoacht door mijn hoofdredacteur. Hij heeft heel duidelijk een bepaald doel en coacht de andere
journalisten om tot dat niveau te komen [Internal coaching}. Ikzelf als uitgever coach mijn vormgever om datgene te krijgen wat ik voor ogen heb, maar technisch niet zelf kan[Internal coaching]. Daarnaast hebben we een jaarvergadering. Tijdens deze vergadering bespreken we alle cijfers en hoe het gaat met de collega vakbladen[Comparing results with competitors], maar we maken er ook een leuk uitje van[Teambuilding]. Meestal bezoeken we museum of
hebben we een architectuur uitje en vervolgens eten we met elkaar. Daarnaast bezoek ik alle beurzen en daardoor zit je veel in het buitenland met elkaar en dat maakt het werk ook leuk[Teambuilding].’’
Dus trainingen aanbieden gebeurt meer 1 op 1 en dan je elkaar coacht of bijspijkert?
‘’ Ten aanzien van software, is iedereen is redelijk online. We maken gebruik van alle mogelijke middelen. Dit is learning on the job, en gebruiken we geen externe
middelen[coaching relying on own resources].’’
Hoe worden uitdagingen binnen het bedrijf geïntroduceerd? Wordt dit gedaan door middel van meerdere doelen tegelijkertijd te communiceren naar het personeel of wordt er eerder maar één centraal doel in de belangstelling gezet?
‘’ Een uitdaging zou bijvoorbeeld binnen onze redactionele formule zijn dat we een overzicht maken. Meestal ben ik degene die met het idee komt. Maar de journalisten en redacteuren moet ik dan ook mee te zien krijgen in dit plan. Dit is iets wat zich doorgaans ontwikkeld [continuous improvement}. Het restylen van de vakbladen, het telkens streven naar mooier en beter en nog meer aansluiten bij high-end [several goals at the same time]. Twee jaar terug als een spin-off wilde we ook een evenement organiseren met ons eigen clubje en dit hebben we voor elkaar gekregen. Ook al is iedereen journalist, tijdens dit evenement moesten ze ook op een andere manier bezig zijn[different tasks assigned than original].
Het evenement was een congres en er stonden vier topdesigners te spreken over de toekomst van keukens en badkamers. Wat bleek, met hetzelfde team waarmee je vakbladen maakt kan je ook een congres organiseren[surprise in the things can be realised] . Na afloop was iedereen ook apetrots over het verloop, de realisatie ervan en de response uit de markt.’’
Je zou kunnen zeggen dat er vaak meerdere doelen naast elkaar worden geïntroduceerd bij het uitgeven van tijdschriften, maar sporadisch komt het voor dat er een groot doel wordt gesteld, klopt dit?
‘’ Ja, dit was twee jaar terug en in de toekomst wordt dit misschien nog een keer herhaald, maar is nog niet zeker wanneer [put the same concept in action].’’
Om hierop door te gaan, in hoeverre zijn er duidelijke mijlpalen die er moeten worden gerealiseerd in het bedrijf en hoe worden ze gevierd als ze bereikt zijn?
‘’Een mijlpaal was het tienjarig bestaan van het vakblad DvK (Design Vakblad Keukens, red.). Met name een redactionele reportage hebben we hiervan gemaakt. Een overzicht van alle designers en ontwerpers die we in het verleden hebben
geïnterviewd[Milestone that should be reached].
We zijn niet een week weggeweest als feest bijvoorbeeld [not celebrated], het ging er vooral om dat we een soort van blauwdruk hadden. Deze blauwdruk hebben we kunnen gebruiken voor dit voorjaar, want het vakblad DvW (Design vakblad Wellness, red.) bestond tien jaar[Having a blueprint for the future]. We hebben het als het ware kunnen copy-pasten. Wellicht komt er in de toekomst nog een tweede congres, aangezien we daarvan nu ook een blauwdruk hebben[Having a blueprint for the future].
Wordt iedereen betrokken in deze mijlpalen?
‘’Ja, van columnist tot journalist van redacteur tot eindredacteur tot vormgever[everybody involved in milestones]. En jaarlijks doen we dit ook met de jaarvergadering en een uitje’’
Welke processen/activiteiten in het bedrijf zijn teniet ten opzichte van je
branchegenoten? Zijn deze procesregels ontstaan door eerdere ervaringen binnen een bedrijf of zijn deze al strategisch van te voren geïmplementeerd?
‘’ Toen ik begon als het werken als zelfstandige uitgever wilde ik geen mensen op mijn loonlijst [not having people on payroll]. Ik maakte uitsluitend gebruik van zzp’ers. Dit betekent dat iedereen vanaf zijn eigen locatie kan werken. Dit is een groot voordeel qua flexibiliteit en qua sociale lasten ect [having flexbility]. Met name dat wanneer ik een extra dikke uitgave wil publiceren van mijn tijdschrift heb ik meer kosten, maar ook meer omzet. En met dunnere uitgaves heb ik waarschijnlijk minder advertenties, maar waarschijnlijk ook minder kosten [flexible coststructure].
De mensen staan niet bij mij op de loonlijst, dit betekent wel dat we erg goed moeten plannen en organiseren zodat iedereen zijn/haar tijd kan inplannen[good planning required]. De redactionele formule hebben we in de loop van de tijd zoveel mogelijk aan lopen schaven om tot een soort optimum te komen. Dit was een soort van learning on the job [learning on the job].
Ondertussen, kleine acht jaar terug, had ik een idee om een overzicht te maken van de ‘red dot awards’ en de ‘IF awards’ en ondertussen hebben we hiermee erg goede afspraken. Wij zijn de eerste die alle onderscheidingen krijgen en zodoende met de jaren hebben we dit opgebouwd.
De connectie met alles wat in de designwereld zit is een voordeel voor ons als bedrijf. Vanaf het begin waren er al wat zaken organisatorisch afgesproken omdat we met een groep zzp’er zouden beginnen.’’
Worden er door andere branches ook zzp’ers ingezet?
‘’Wel eens, maar de meeste uitgeverij zijn gewend om in een statig pand te zitten, iedere dag bij elkaar te komen en allemaal te werken vanaf een locatie. Vanaf het begin af aan wist ik dat ik dat niet wilde. Ik wilde mensen niet op de loonlijst om zo flexibel mogelijk te kunnen werken [flexibility is important].’’
Welke kansen in het bedrijf kunnen worden benut en welke niet, zijn hierover bepaalde criteria opgesteld?
‘’ Gezien het team wat we hebben en het specialisme dat we hebben opgebouwd, zou ik nog wel een derde vakblad erbij kunnen nemen [Team has capabilities]. Echter, na
onderzoek is gebleken dat de advertentiemarkt niet genoeg is om een uitgave te laten dragen door de markt[no market opportunties]. We hebben nu een vakblad op het gebied van keuken en badkamers. Woonkamer valt af, maar een logisch vervolg zou een tuin zijn of het
buitenleven tijdschrift zijn. Echter mis je dan wel de synergie tussen keukens en badkamers [no synergies can be achieved]. Daarnaast, bij een derde titel zouden we meer mensen in dienst moeten nemen, ook al zijn het zzp’ers. De extra kosten hiervan zouden
hoogstwaarschijnlijk niet tot een grotere omzet leiden [revenue will not cover costs] . De spanwijdte zou verder ook een probleem zijn. Het is lastig om met drie vakbladen alles goed
