1
Supply chain integration in public supply
networks
Exploring the energy transition context
Author:
Maarten Timmermans, S2554658 Supervisors:
Aline Seepma MSc.
Prof. dr. Dirk Pieter van Donk
Abstract:
2
Table of content
1. Introduction ... 3
2. Theoretical background ... 5
2.1. Energy transition characteristics ... 5
2.2. Linking energy transition characteristics and collaboration ... 6
2.3. Supply chain integration ... 8
2.4. Research framework ... 8 3. Method ... 10 3.1. Case selection ... 10 3.2. Data collection ... 12 3.3. Data analysis ... 12 4. Results ... 13
4.1. Characteristics of energy transition ... 14
4.1.1. Large scale developments ... 14
4.1.2. Timeframe that spans at least a generation (25 years) ... 16
4.1.3. Multi-level interaction ... 17
4.2. Dimensions of supply chain integration ... 18
4.2.3. Informational integation ... 18
4.2.2. Operational integration ... 21
4.2.3. Relational integration ... 22
4.3. Cross-case analysis ... 23
5. Discussion ... 25
5.1 Implications for theory ... 28
5.2 Implications for practices ... 28
5.3 Critical reflection ... 29
6. Conclusion ... 29
References ... 31
Appendixes ... 36
Appendix A: interview protocol ... 36
Appendix B: table with concepts and related questions ... 38
Appendix C: detailed summary of coding process ... 40
3
1. Introduction
Collaborations between public and private organizations are full of difficulties. These difficulties arise as tensions on differences in core business, values and strategies. These difficulties are present since private firms tend to focus mostly on market share and profit, and public firms on risk reduction and public objectives (Klijn & Teisman, 2003). Despite these difficulties, public and private organizations have the urge to collaborate because a public-private partnership facilitates synergy. This is the creation of a product that would not have been possible without public-private collaboration (Klijn & Teisman, 2003). This urge is reflected in the Dutch government implementing policies aimed at transitioning towards sustainable energy, which require multi-level and public-private collaboration (Hölscher et al., 2019). The novelty of the energy transition and its governance systems lead to a challenge since prominent structures and mechanisms to govern the energy transition are lacking, and thus need to be designed and structured to maintain long-term sustainability (van Asselt et al., 2018; Abbott, 2017). The shape of a collaboration in such a context is interesting to explore to gain a better knowledge on how public-private collaborations are shaped in context of energy transition.
The public sector has been described as “part of a complex web of players whose roles are subject to the social and political demands of both the community and government” (Callender, 2011, p. 21). The public sector is linked to the energy transition context through the required interactions with the private sector (Hölscher et al., 2019). The energy transition context and its interactions are also considered to be a complex phenomenon (Cherp et al., 2011). It is proven that when a supply chain is more complex (e.g. in energy transition context), integration activities that bring partners closer within this supply chain hold a positive contribution to supply chain performance (Gimenez et al., 2012). As an extension of this, Callender (2011) claims that a lack of alignment can cause challenges for performance management. These sources suggest a positive relationship between integration and performance, especially in complex chains such as the energy transition and the public sector.
4 transition is researched in explorative ways (Solomon & Krishna, 2011; Verbong & Geels, 2007), and how it links to policy practices (Diercks et al., 2019; Fagerberg, 2018; Kemp, 2010; Stokes & Breetz, 2018). Policy aimed at energy transition is known to enhance innovative developments relying on top-down authority followed by bottom-up initiatives (Fagerberg, 2018; Hölscher et al., 2019). As different aspects of either supply chain integration (SCI), public-private collaboration and energy transition have been researched, a gap in literature lies with the absence of research aimed specifically at SCI in public-private relationships in context of energy transition.
The relevance of filling this gap in literature lies with the need for public sector integration and the lack of understanding this topic holds in an energy transition context. The goal of this study is to find how public-private supply chain integration is shaped by the ongoing energy transition. This is led by the following research question:
How is public-private supply chain integration shaped in the context of the current energy transition in the public-private sector?
In support of the research question and explanatory aim of this paper, a qualitative research approach is applied (Barratt et al., 2011). This will take shape as semi-structured interviews. This form of research is suitable for explanatory research and to gain a better understanding of emerging phenomena in the real world (Flynn et al, 1990; Meredith, 1998).
5
2. Theoretical background
In this chapter, the energy transition and SCI will be handled to provide more background information in these themes. First, the energy transition context and its most important characterstics will be discussed to gain better knowledge on this subject. Second, these characteristics will be linked to collaboration to understand how they relate to the topic of SCI. Third, as SCI is not understood in the context of energy transition, the most important insights from SC literature will be discussed. Finally, all aspects will be combined in the research framework that is used to steer data collection and analysis in this research.
2.1. Energy transition characteristics
An energy transition “implies a significant increase in the availability and affordability and affordability of modern energy services and, in some particular contexts, this may also mean an increase in carbon intensity” (Bridge et al., 2013, p. 332). In general, a transition can be described as “a transformation process in which existing structures, institutions, culture and practices are broken down and new ones are established”, or “a continuous process of societal change, whereby the structure of society (or a subsystem of society) changes fundamentally” (Loorbach, 2007). The transition from a fossil-based energy system towards one that relies largely on renewable energy is seen as the existing structure that receives a fundamental change. In order to give more meaning to the concept of energy transition, Rotmans et al. (2000) provide three characteristics of societal change, that can be linked specifically to energy transition:
1. It concerns large scale technological, economical, ecological, socio-cultural and institutional developments that influence and reinforce each other;
2. It is a long term process that covers at least one generation (25 years);
3. There are interactions between different scale levels (niche, regime, landscape).
Linking Rotmans et al.’s (2000) characteristics to an energy specific transition, the transition from coal to oil in the twentieth can be thought of when looking at the first characteristic (Smil, 2010). This transition covered large scale developments on different dimensions. In the light of the current energy transition, the large scale developments on aforementioned aspects should contribute to an increase in availability and affordability of renewable energy sources.
6 Efficient inter-firm collaboration is required for developing emergent supply chains (Anastasiadis & Poole, 2015). Anastasiadis & Poole (2015, p21) also state that key dimensions of emergent SC’s are inter-firm relationships among key-actors and chains of information flows. This implies that for operating in the emerging supply chain of renewable energy, a collaboration focussing on information sharing and inter-firm relationship is fitting.
The third characteristic covers an interaction between involved stakeholders on different scale levels, known as the multi-level perspective (Fagerberg, 2018). The landscape level, also known as the macro level, contains immaterial and material elements: the material infrastructure, societal values, political culture, demographics and natural habitats. The public sector is highly involved in the energy transition landscape through the policies the government implements aimed at innovations (Fagerberg, 2018). The regime level, or meso level, covers the shared interests, assumptions and practices that can be viewed as standards. The niche level, or micro level, covers existing technologies or individual actors (Rotmans et al., 2000). As collaboration increases performance (Gimenez et al., 2012), it is deemed important in also the energy transition context. To gain a better understanding of the link between energy transition and collaboration, this is handled in the following paragraph.
2.2. Linking energy transition characteristics and collaboration
7 Knowing that the supply chain for renewable energy is emergent and that chains of information flows and inter-firm relationships are key elements of an emergent supply chain (Anastasiadis & Poole, 2015), the question remains how this affects the manner and intensity of collaboration within such a context. As Anastasiadis & Poole (2015, p5) state: “In many developing and emerging economies, inter-firm linkages are haphazard, market strategies and collaboration are uncoordinated”, contrasting the mentioned importance of alignment. The connection between the level of collaboration and maturity of a supply chain has been modelled by Berry et al (2000) in four phases, where each following phase points towards a higher level of collaboration and governance needs as a supply chain matures. The first phase of maturity is the autonomous firm phase, which is characterised by a lack of collaboration and interaction between buyers and suppliers. The second phase is the serial dependence phase, where dominant players start investing in relationships within the supply chain. In the third phase, the reciprocal dependence phase, long-term relationships are established and information sharing is growing more important. The fourth and final phase is the mutual dependence phase. Here, collaborations are established on the basis of mutual trust and interest. It is anticipated that in early phases, collaboration will largely have an economic focus. In later phases collaborations are more likely to involve social and technical elements.
8 opinion regarding results. Private actors aim their focus on market share and profit and prefer to limit investments. A proven method to manage such a relationship is a contractual division of responsibilities (Klijn & Teisman, 2003).
2.3. Supply chain integration
Being discussed often in empirical and conceptual papers, supply chain integration does not have an established definition or construct that unambigouosly depicts the concept (Gimenez et al., 2012). Flynn et al. (2010, p. 59) define the concept as: “the degree to which a manufacturer strategically collaborates with its supply chain partners and collaboratively manages intra- and inter-organization processes.” This definition depicts the focus of SCI on both strategy and process level, which is why this definition is chosen for this paper. The concept SCI can be distinguished in many ways, and it is interpreted to have dimensions in different ways. Many authors identified SCI to contain internal and external integration (Campbell & Sankaraln, 2005; Petersen et al., 2005; Zailani & Rajagopal, 2005), some approached SCI as if it consists of just one dimension (Marquez et al., 2004) and others consider it to have multiple dimensions (Gimenez & Ventura, 2005; Koufteros et al., 2005).
In this paper, the well accepted catagorization of Leuschner’s (2013) identification of dimensions of SCI are used because this catagorization is based on a wide spread dverging, though related, views. The first of Leuschner’s (2013) dimensions is information integration, which refers to the sharing of information, collaborative communication and technologies that act as support among firms in the supply chain. The second dimension of integration is operational integration. This dimension encompasses the joint activity development, work processes and coordinated decision making between firms. The final dimension of SCI is relational integration. This refers to the implementation of a strategic connection among firms that operate in the same supply chain, that is characterized by commitment, trust and long-term orientation. Added to this, Leuschner et al. (2013) identified that 4 scopes exist within SCI: integration with suppliers, customers, internal and external. This research will focus on the latter.
2.4. Research framework
9 interaction between the three scale-levels macro-, meso- and micro-level with respect to innovative solutions enhancing energy transition. It is known that the public sector is highly involved in the macro-level through the policies it implements, meaning that an interaction between three levels implies collaboration within and between public and private sector, pointing towards supply chain integration. SCI is clarified by considering three dimensions of integration: information integration, operational integration, relational integration (Leuschner et al., 2013).
Yet, looking at existing research, a lot is known about SCI and transitions, but it remains unclear how the dimensions of SCI are shaped in the energy transition contex and the characteristics it holds, specifically in public-private relationships. This gives rise to the need for an extensive research on the relation between these topics, which results in the following research question:
How is supply chain integration shaped in the context of the current energy transition in the public-private sector?
By answering this question, the identified gap in existing literature will be filled through extensive researchand thus contribute to existing literature by adding knowledge on this specific concept. The unclear relations between the characteristics of energy transition and dimensions of SCI that is being researched can be visualized with the conceptual framework in figure 1:
Figure 1: Conceptual framework of the research
10
3. Method
The main goal of this paper is to investigate how supply chain integration is shaped by the context of energy transition in the public service sector. The research aim is of explanatory nature, since it focusses on how SCI is shaped in energy transition context and how these concepts are related (Barratt et al., 2011). For this, a multiple case study is used because this is a proven method suitable for this type of research (Blumberg et al., 2014). In an explanatory research experiences and context of actors are considered to be critical (Benbasat et al., 1987; Bonoma, 1985). In this paper this entails experiences on how information or activities are shared or how characteristics of energy transition can be recognised in the networks involved. These things can be best captured by a case study. Also, a case study is considered particularly suitable when exploring real-life phenomenon in-depth (Yin, 2009). The real life phenomenon explored in this paper is SCI in the context of energy transition, specifically in the selected cases.
3.1. Case selection
11
Organizations Sector Function Length (m)
A1 Public Local government: province 62
A2 Public Local government: municipality 56 A3 Public Local government: municipality 66 A4 Private Network administrator/utility 60 B1 Public/private Network administrator/utility 89
B2 Private Housing company 51
B3 Public Gas trader 40
Table 1: case selection
The first selected network, network A, is a province in the north of the Netherlands. This provence is involved in the energy transition through a certain “task force” called RES (regional energy strategy). The goal of this collaboration is to realise a regional energy strategy for the whole province, aimed at transitioning towards renewable energy. Collaborating in this RES are three local governments: the board of the province (A1) and two municipalities (A2&A3). These local governments are selected because governments are known to be central in a transition context (Fagerberg, 2018). Added to this, network administrator A4 is selected to represent the private party in this public-private collaboration who is expected to be involved in multi-level interactions and large scale developments, as presented by Rotmans et al. (2000). These multiple organizations have been interviewed to research the interactions between these involved stakeholders. An additional document (D4) regarding A3’s approach to the RES have also been analyzed to increase the reliabilty and validity of the research, by safeguarding against observers bias (Jick, 1979, Barrat et al., 2011). This group of organizations forms four cases: the interorganizational relationship A1, A2, A3 and A4 have with their partners.
12 process in the province that can affect the parties involved and collaborative agreements made by B2 respectively.
Figure 2: Networks of selected cases
3.2. Data collection
The collection of data has primarily been done through semi-structured interviews. The interview protocol is tied to existing theory that has been used as a base for the structure of the interview, but the questions are open to gain insight in the more specific context (Gioiaet al., 2013). The interview protocol is linked to the relevant concepts in the theoretical background, which is shown in appendix B. By using these interview questions, information regarding the involvement in energy transition is sought after. Also how the firm in question interacts or collaborates with partners involved, on the three levels of integration (Leuschner et al., 2013) with regard to the energy transition. The interview questions including explanation can be found in appendix 1. In order to ensure validity and reliability of the collected data, some techniques have been used presented by (Noble & Smith, 2015). The participants have been invited to comment on the transcript of the interview to reduce the influence of a bias on the validity. Also, a comparison case has been used to seek out differences and similarities to ensure different perspectives.
3.3. Data analysis
13 extracting the most relevant pieces of information from the transcripts as quotes or sentences, labelled as first-order codes. Then, all quotes have been labelled with interpretive codes, describing the content of the quote. These interpretive codes have then been divided into third order code themes, matching the theoretical structure of this paper by following the characteristics of energy transition and three dimensions of SCI. This process is depicted below in table 2, and in more detail in appendix C.
Quote Interpretive codes Code theme
“So they conveniently had a party to share their sustainability paragraph with. That is a base of trust between the housing corporations and B1 by pronouncing a common goal” – B1
Mutual trust Relational integration
Table 2: coding process
Using this data, for each firm has been decided to what degree they comply with the characteristics of energy transition and how they perform on the dimensions of SCI. This performance is based on the description of Leuschner’s (2013) dimensions of SCI. When all elements are highly present in a case, this case will score very high on that related dimension. The more elements of the Leuschner’s (2013) description are absent, the lower a score will be. Subsequently, the cases have been compared within and between both networks to look for patterns of similarity of differences. This is used to come to a conclusion on how SCI and its dimensions are shaped in the context of energy transition and its characteristics.
4. Results
14 4.1. Characteristics of energy transition
4.1.1. Large scale developments
In network A, organization A4 is involved in innovative developments and are immideately affected by this, which requires them to develop as well by upgrading their electricity network. This development also flows through to a development of new laws that gives space for more network capacity. Since this organization is involved in multiple large-scale developments this involvement is considered high. This involvement is depicted with a quote below:
“In the past years, SDE subsidies for large scale solar parks have emerged. Developers reacted on this, as is their right, and found cheap land to build solar parks. The infrastructure here, mostly countryside, is originally quite thin… …what causes a mismatch between existing infrastructure and what is needed.” – A4
Looking at the local governments collaborating in the RES, existing and already planned projects have been adressed in order to reach their common goal of 2,3 terrawatthours of energy produced by 2030. Apart from A1, all other parties involved mention that the degree of development could be higher but that this doesn’t match with the overarching envirnmental policy of A1, who wishes to maintain the calm empty outdoor view of the area. A remarkable development in network A is the use of a bottom-up initiative by A3, where inhabitants are asked to provide input for the content of new sustainable projects. The developments by these local governments affect several dimensions, but are not strikingly innovative. Therefore, the involvement in developments by these three local governments is moderate.
15 A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 Large-scale developments Strategy building for energy transition concerning mostly existing project, law, policy; Acceptance is said to be high, but some partners consider the developments to be a bit thin. Strategy building for energy transition concerning mostly existing projects, law, policy, bottom-up initiatives; local acceptance is high but A2 feels RES can develop more Strategy building for energy transition concerning mostly existing projects, bottom-up initiatives, law, policy; high acceptance from residents on bottom-up initiative, A3 feels RES can develop more Subsidies, energy initiatives(solar fields), law, network upgrades; moderate-high acceptance, municipalities are positive, energy generators moderate due to negative effects of law developments Implementing heat network, solar-thermal systems, heat centres, RES, subsidies; moderate acceptance from residents due to lack of knowledge on developments
All houses to label A, heat network implementation; high acceptance due to financial gains of residents Feasibility studies on energy projects, stimulating green-gas production; moderate acceptance due to lack of knowledge on developments
Timeframe start RES 2017, end RES 2030 start RES 2017, end RES 2030, 2050 free of gas: currently research phase start RES 2017, end RES 2030 start RES 2017, end RES > 2030 start 2014, end > 2035
start unclear, end > 2035
Involved until end, currently research phase Multi-level interaction Government influences through law and policy; involved with municipalities, organizations and locals Government influences through policy; involved with province, municipalities, organizations and locals Government influences through policy; involved with province, municipalities, organizations and locals Government influences through subsides, laws and permits; involved with province, municipalities, organizations and locals Government facilitates existence; involved with organizations, municipality and locals Influenced by government and municipalities, involved with organizations and locals Influenced by government as financial support, involved with companies and municipalities
16 which B1 is involved they score high on this characteristic. The involvement of can be seen in its agreement to make all of their houses sustainable up to energy lable A. This is something they are actively working on and are trying to keep the pace high. This goes along with the heat network of B1, to which B2 is connecting a part of its houses. These developments result in a high involvement.
When looking at how the mentioned developments are received by their eventual users and those it affects, the acceptance of A4’s developments is mostly positive. The users of the network will be able to use the new sustainable power thanks to the upgrades and laws making a higher amount of energy traffic possible. The generators of energy may experience some difficulties that come along with the needed maintenance of this network. The alternative to this would be even more costly, so the generators of energy have no real choice but to accept the developments. Therefore, the acceptance of these developments are considered moderate-high. The acceptance of A1, A2 and A3’s developments in the RES are said to be high, especially that of A3 who receives positive signals from locals on their bottom-up approach.
Looking at network B, B3 works on innovative projects that not many locals know the details of. The lack of knowledge on these subjects can give rise to skeptical behaviour, for example on a project where hydrogen is developed by infusing carbon underground. This causes the acceptance to be moderate. B1’s heat network affects many inhabitants and forces them to switch from gas to heat. A lack of knowledge gives rise to skepticism towards this new network. Apart from inhabitants, housing corporations appear to be more accepting towards this network. Agreements have been made between B1 and housing corporations to connect a certain amount of houses on the new network, since it helps the housing corporations in reaching their targets for sustainability. This variety of positive and negative reactions ragarding B1’s network aims towards moderate accaptance. B2’s developments will ultimately lead to lower energy bills for residents, and the local municipality is positive about their sustainability initiatives. This gives B2’s developments a high acceptance.
4.1.2. Timeframe that spans at least a generation (25 years)
17 Added to this, developments made on municipality level are said to be in the research phase, pointing towards a low maturity of the energy transition market. In the network B, the earliest collaborative actions in light of the energy transition have been identified in 2014 by B1. This is with the aim of making their city free of gas by 2035. However, this is considered to be too soon and it is expected to take much longer. This also confirms the timeframe of at least a generation. Also, B3 mentions that in most of their projects no investment decisions have yet been made, meaning that the research phase is still in commence. This implies a relatively infant energy transition supplychain on this specific area.
4.1.3. Multi-level interaction
In network A and the RES, multiple levels of governments interact together and with both companies and locals. The interactions detected here are often network interactions, since all respondents are involved together in a mutual process. The interactions with locals happens mostly through bottom-up initiatives and informational meetings organized by municipalities. This is something that is part of the micro-level. Also part of this is the actions of companies, such as A4. The actions of this player inetract with parties on the level of national government, which holds influence over their permit, and local governments with which it collaborates in developing sustainable energy strategies and projects. The meso-level in this case is the effect of local governments, who affect common believes with their actions regarding energy transition. The interactions crossing this level are with the national government and with companies and locals. The macro-level involved in this case is the national government implementing policy and law. This mobilizes the whole energy transition in it’s core. This level interacts with the other levels mostly through the effect of it’s policy and law. Apart from this, it interacts by hiring research institutions on both the meso and micro-level. Network A is considered to be one that covers all levels of society due to the collaboration between governments of different levels, companies and the involvement of locals. The quote below characterizes this collaboration in network A.
18 In network B, the interactions are similar. Here, the micro level also consists of locals and companies such as B1 and B2. The meso-level consists of the local government. The macro-level again consists of the national government. Interactions between all three macro-levels have been identified in this network, making the degree of multi-level interactions high. The local government interacts with companies by coöperatingly working towards sustainable housing, or by creating a joint venture with a local utility company in the shape of B1. This company on its turn interacts with companies to aim for green housing and affordable rent. The national government interacts in this network through B3, a 100% state owned company. This is a direct interaction between macro and micro level, end als meso-level through B1 involvement in multiple research projects that can end up changing peoples views on certain energy initiaives. Network B is also considered to interact with all levels of society due to the influence of government through the (partially) public organizations and collaborations with B2. The organizations B1 & B2 interact with locals, widening the spread of interactions in this network.
Organizations Large-scale
developments/acceptance
Timeframe Multi-level interactions
A1 Moderate/high Match High
A2 Moderate/high Match High
A3 Moderate/high Match High
A4 High/moderate-high Match High
B1 High/moderate Match High
B2 High/high Match High
B3 Low/moderate Match High
Table 4: organizations in relation to characteristics of energy transition
4.2. Dimensions of supply chain integration 4.2.3. Informational integation
19
A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3
Information integration
Everything is shared but private knowledge; weekly; concerns policy and new developments; no information system Everything is shared but private knowledge; weekly; concerns policy, new developments and advice, no information system Everything is shared but private knowledge and sensitive strategy; weekly; concerns policy, developments, difficulties and worries; no information system Everything is shared but private knowledge, partners sometimes late with crucial data which can be stringent, data sharing can be costly for receiving partners; weekly; concerns network details & effects, developments, difficulties; information tool available for municipalities Everything is shared but private knowledge; continuously; concerns network details & effects, developments, operational details, innovation flow of housing; no information system Some information is sensitive, highly restricted; monthly and incidental; with colleague organizations mostly developments and advice, with B1 possibilities for improvement & alignment of operations; no information system Public knowledge is shared, transparent in information, partners sometimes less transparent due to private info; periodically in research groups; concerns gas and its possibilities and difficulties; no information system Operational integration Enhanced by people making setups for collaborative projects; concerns development of strategy, contracting research institutions; agreements for long-term collaboration in RES, agreements are documented Influencing factors not detected; concerns development of strategy, organization of informational meetings; agreements for long-term collaboration in RES, agreements are documented Influenced by higher policy and viewpoint of citizens; mostly concerns development of strategy cases, organizing informational meetings; agreement for long-term collaboration in RES, agreements are documented Depends on common interest; concerns development of strategy cases, calculating impact of strategy & developments; agreement for long-term collaboration in RES, agreements are documented
Depends on trust and available personnel; concerns joint solution for debt of residents, alignment of network and house construction, joint organization of informational meetings;
20
Relational integration
Some goals conflict others', relational tension with some partners, long-term commitment with partners, Relationship with A4 positively developed, experience in collaboration positively effects relationship, good relationship with adjacent municipalities, operational agreements based on trust
Goals not fully shared, hesitant in collaboration due to negatively
experienced past events, relation with other municipalities is good, with local initiatives not so good
Good relationship with partners, long term commitment, mutual trust not highlighted
Collaborates based on mutual trust and shared goals, values collaboration with local partners, long term commitment with partners
Collaborates based on mutual trust and shared goals, long-term commitment with partners No relational commitment, acts out of financial motivation and interest in energy transition; projects selected on shared goals
21 sharing is costly because raw data has to be processed by personell for each request. This makes it less attractive for smaller parties to use the data that A4 can provide. A4 developed an online tool with which municipalities can gain knowledge on the electricity network and base their decisions on this, making continuous information sharing possible. A4 intends to share as much as they can, but some factors make this more difficult like the costs of data sharing. Also the delay in received information from municipalities is negatively affecting the degree of informational integration. On the other hand, the presence of an information system that opens possibilities to continuous information sharing contributes to the level of information integration; therefore it is considered to be moderate.
“What we want to do is share our knowledge and vision so that we can together, because we cannot do it alone, make the smartest choices to succeed the energy transition” – A4 In network B, B3 limit themselves to sharing public information, but do consider themselves to be relatively transparent. Some of their partners are less keen on sharing information, because they value the information as sensitive. The frequency of sharing depends on the projects they are involved in, and if there is budget for involvement in a specific project. A central information system is absent. The balance between the absence of an information system, periodical contact and their stance on information transparancy results in moderate information integration for B3. B1 regards itself as a very open player who is willing to discuss everything, as long as it is subject to restrictions regarding data protection. It holds great importance for B1’s process to be properly intagrated with regard to information. Their frequency of contact with partners is continuous, enhanced by periodical meetings. An integrated information system is absent, but it’s value is recognised. Development of such a system has yet to start. The absence of an information system in this case seems to be somewhat compensated by continuous information sharing with some of their key partners. This causes B1’s information integration to be high. B2 has continuous contacts with important partners, and periodically with others. Apart from sensitive information, practically everything is shared. An integrated information system is absent, as most data is shared in conventional ways. Here again, information integration is high due to the high frequency of information sharing and the transparant stance of B2.
4.2.2. Operational integration
22 performs which specific activities. This points towards coordinated decision making. For A1 and municipalities A2 & A3, this is also considered to be high since they are involved in the same collaborative process. All parties involved in this collaborations agreed on a shared goal of 2,3 terrawatthour produced by 2030. Every individual player agreed to come with a plan which will later be designed in an actual strategy. This collaboration is a joint process between all parties in network A. In network B, B3 primarily interacts with partners via a plain buyer-supplier relationship:
“Our relationship is just buyer-supplier actually” – B3
Their take on operational integration manifests itself in their involvement in feasibility studies for certain projects, where they are mainly financially involved and share specific knowledge on gas related subjects. In these collaborations, their shared activity is to attend periodical meetings where developments and plans are discussed. Agreements here are made on what party does what. B3’s primary role as buyer-seller of gas causes the degree of operational inegration to be moderate. In the case of B1, Long-term agreements have been made with housing corporations to work towards gas-free housing. With these parties, mutual activities are rich. Also with contractors, where the actual heat network is implemented, are always active. The operational integration of B2 is considered high as well, as they work closely with B1 but also with other housing corporations and the local municipality. With all these organizations, collaborative activities are shared. Inbetween these parties, agreements are made regarding goals and activities which are documented. This collection of positive signs on collaborative activitiy causes the degree of operational integration to be high for both B1 and B2.
4.2.3. Relational integration
23 operational integration. As part of the RES network, A1 has made long-term agreements with shared goals. Also experience in collaboration with the parties involved is present. However, A1 is mentioned as a carrier of relational tension due to its contradictory stance towards wind-energy that it can enforce through the authority B1 holds. Although the final goals are shared, this is a large point of friction that is sometimes conflicting in goals and wishes of multiple municipalities. This relational tension takes off strength from the commitment and long-term orientation, which ultimately causes the relational integration to be moderate.
In network B, B3 is mostly involved in plain buyer-supplier relationships where both parties aim for profit as commercial target. In research projects this player shares the goal of a succesfull energy transition, as a relational connection. Apart from this shared goal, B3 mentions not to focus on relational developments and highlights it’s economic purpose. Therefore, relational integration is low for B3. B1 builds relationships based on trust and shared circumstances. Relationships with local firms are said to be successful and close, as can be seen in the quote below:
“When we go to housing corporation X, we only have to walk across the bridge and we are there. That way it is very approachable and possible to easily and quickly maintain that relationship.” – B1
Also long-term orientation with several parties is found in this case, and commitment to a shared cause is what drives B1. This together results in high relational integration by B1. Looking at B2 relationships are built on trust and shared goals. Through these shared goals, long-term orientation is central in their collaboration. In this collaboration, B2 commits itself to this goal and tries to make housing sustainable at a high pace.
Organizations Informational integration Operational integration Relational integration
A1 Moderate High Moderate
A2 Moderate High High
A3 Moderate High Moderate
A4 Moderate High Moderate
B1 High High High
B2 High High High
B3 Moderate Moderate Low
Table 6: Organizations in relation to dimensions of SCI
4.3. Cross-case analysis
24 between the observed timeframe and the expected timeframe. For a more detailed explanation of these scores, an aggregated table can be found in Appendix D. Using this overview, similarities and differences are sought.
Developments Timeframe
Multi-level Information Operation Relation
A1 M Y H M H M A2 M Y H M H H A3 M Y H M H M A4 H Y H M H M B1 H Y H H H H B2 H Y H H H H B3 L Y H M M L
Table 7: aggregated results for comparison
When looking at the involvement in large scale developments, it can be seen that A4, B1 and B2 score high on this characteristic. Remarkable here is that B1 and B2 also score high on all dimensions of supply chain integration. The difference here is that A4 only scores high on the dimension of operational integration. However, the organization A4 intends to be highly integrated with regard to information but fails to do so through a delay of information from its partners and unavoidable costs that come with some cases of data sharing. The overall similarity between these cases is thus that they are all highly involved in large-scale developments and intend to be highly integrated with regard to information. In the same line of reasoning, it seems that a high degree of information integration is enabled by a high involvement in large-scale developments since the organizations that are not highly involved in large-scale developments fail to score high on information integration. Another possible reason for the pattern in information integration is that the organizations that score high on informational integration are all (partially) private organizations. In the case of A4, their stance on informational integration is positive but fails to emerge due to actions of its public partners. The pattern here is that all public organizations fail to score high on informational integration, which limits A4’s level of information integration.
25 developments may be traced back to the firms economic focus which is less prominent in the other organizations involved. When looking further at B3’s scores on dimensions of SCI, it is striking that this organization is the only one who does not score high on operational integration. Based on this, it appears that a high degree of operational integration can be expected in most collaborative cases in the context of energy transition. The exception of B3 can possibly be traced back to it’s low involvement in large-scale developments. But it might also be linked to the degree of relational integration, on which B3 also scores low. This can possibly mean that at least a moderate degree of relational integration can only be seen when operational integration is high. In other words: a low degree of relational integration is enabled by a non-high degree of operational integration. If this is the case, or if the low degree of involvement in developments is the cause to this is unclear.
A striking similarity in the found results is that all organizations are highly involved in multi-level interactions and have a timeframe that matches the one of an energy transition. Based on this similarity it seems that when organizations are operating in an energy transition context, the corresponding timeframe always covers at least a generation and multiple societal levels are involved in their collaborative processes, disregarding the degree of large-scale developments. In a similar fashion, this means that when a firm is operating in an energy transition context, it does not nessecarily mean that it is highly involved in large-scale developments.
Comparing both networks, the smaller network B ultimately has more organizations that score high on their involvement in large-scale developments. A pattern here is that the organizations with moderate developments in network A are all local governments. These organizations are mostly involved with policy and law, and thus limiting themselves to only a few area’s of development. Another reason for this can be that all three local government are forced follow the overarching policy of A1, since this is a higher level of government. When for example energy transtion plans are contradicting overarching spatial policy, decisions have to be made that affect all governments involved in network A. Extending this pattern to public organizations in general, B3 also fails to be highly involved in large-scale developments.. However, the reason for this appears to be B3’s economic focus instead of a policy reason like in network A.
5. Discussion
26 show how companies in this specific sector integrate in the context of energy transition based on Leuschner et al.'s (2013) three dimensions of SCI. Using the gathered results, the presented research question can be answered:
How is public-private supply chain integration shaped in the context of the current energy transition?
Since both the timeframe and multi-level interactions hold the same results for all organizations involved, no patterns can be found to link these characteristics to the varying scores on SCI’s dimensions. This means that there are other factors at play than these two characteristics that affect the level of SCI. However, it appears that these characteristics are thus qualifyers for involvement in energy transition on organizational level, as the theory by Rotmans (2008) focusses mostly on a transition context as a whole. As most organizations mention, their timeframe and goals match those of the climate agreement signed in Paris in 2015 (United nations, 2015).
Looking at information integration, this dimension of SCI seems to positively affected by the degree of an organizations involvement in large-scale developments. This connection can be backed up by the theory of Flynn et al., (2016) that is introduced in the theoretical framework of this paper. SCI, in this case information integration specifically, is found to be high due to the uncertainty that comes with the large-scale developments. In a similar fashion, B3’s low involvement in large-scale developments are an explanation for their relatively low score on the dimensions of SCI. Another explanation for the relatively low rate of SCI by B3 is that they are mostly active in the research phase of projects and are no longer involved when actual investments are made. This means that they are only involved in the early stages of a collaboration which is mostly based on economic focus and less on trust (Berry et al., 2000). This links B3’s low involvement in large-scale developments to their relatively low scores on SCI, most specifically relational integration.
27 et al., 2007, p. 2685). These systems are lacking in network A, since A1 enforces its policy top-down on the municipalities.
The difference in information integration is traceable to the public-private nature of the networks involved. It is mentioned by A4 that the public organizations in network A are lacking in the sharing of crucial data, and that the cause to this is partially the culture of the corresponding region. This statement is backed up by Yang & Maxwell, (2011, p. 169) who state that in the public sector “sharing of information and knowledge can involve complex interactions between participating organizations because fo their different origins, values and cultures”. Although this theory is designed for the public sector, it appears applicable when a public organization interacts with a private organization. The cultural differences between A4 and its partners are the cause to the complexity from the public organization’s side in their information integration.
Regarding the second characteristic of energy transition, the researched networks are found to be quite infant since they are operating in the early phases of their timeframe. The effects of this would be, according to Berry et al. (2000) that their collaboration is mostly focussed on economic profits. This appears to be only the case for B3, as is mentioned above. This difference from theory is striking, and cannot be declared using existing literature. It can possibly mean that collaborative transition supply-chain networks mature faster than normal supply chains, or give rise to characteristics of maturity faster than normal supply chains.
Based on these outcomes, the conceptual model can be adjusted as follows:
28 5.1 Implications for theory
The gap in literature shaped by a lack of research on SCI in an energy transition context in publice-private relationships that is adressed in the introduction can now be filled using this paper. Where Rotmans et al., (2008) present three characteritics of a transition context and Leuschner et al,. (2013) presents dimensions of SCI, this paper finds a strong link between the involvement in large-scale developments and the dimensions of SCI with the strongest link to information integration. It also shows that the timeframe that spans a generation and multi-level interactions act as a qualifyer on organizational level, where Rotmans et al., (2000) focus on the transition context as a whole. Regarding private partnerships, barriers to public-private integration are known (Klijn & Teisman, 2003). This paper adds that in an energy transition context involvement in large-scale developments is an enabler of SCI.
Another aspect that this research adds to existing literature is that supply-chain maturity in the context of energy transition can follow a different pattern than normal supply chains or networks. Where Berry et al. (2000) state that infant supply chains focus more on economic profit than trust and relationships, this research faced infant supply chains that have relationships based on trust and long-term commitment. Overall, this paper contributes to literature by finding out how SCI is shaped by the energy transition context in public-private relationships.
5.2 Implications for practices
29 5.3 Critical reflection
Looking back at the method of this research, a strong feature is the spread of public-private network. Two separate networks consisting of both public and private firms have been researched, investigating SCI in two different area’s. In each network, multiple, highly varying players have been interviewed to gain a broad and integrated view of the situation, using multiple angles on the situation. After each interview, the interviewees got the chance to review their transcript and adjust it where needed. Added to this, aditional documents that have been proposed by the interviewees have been analyzed. Because of this, reliable and valid data has been collected. Contrary to these strengths, limitations are also present in this research. The data collection showed difficulties in that not all respondents could make enough time available, or did not have enough knowledge, to fully cover each aspect of the interview protocol. Therefore, the collected data may not always be fully reliable. Added to this, due to recent circumstances around covid-19 it was not possible to meet respondents face-to-face. Instead, the interviews were executed digitally. This negatively affected the dynamics of contact during the interviews.
Regarding the methodology, the developed propositions are based on only a limited number of cases, making it impossible to draw overarching generalizations based on the results. A limitation can be that the cases selected are all present in the northern part of the Netherlands, where SCI in context of energy transition in other area’s remains unexplored. Added to this, the network A consists mostly of local governments. This gives rise to valuable information regarding this collaboration, but it also leaves out a lot of possible other compositions. Contrasting, network B fully consists of companies as no governments are selected in this network. The difficulties in public-private relations were clear from the theory, buy a distinction between local governments and state owned firms has not been made here. This is something that can be valueble to handle in future research. Another possible theme for future research can be how SCI is shaped in the context of energy transition in other area’s or countries.
6. Conclusion
31
References
Abbott KW. (2017). Orchestration: strategic ordering in polycentric climate governance. Working paper, Arizona State University.
Anastasiadis, F., & Poole, N. (2015). Emergent supply chains in the agrifood sector: Insights from a whole chain approach. Supply Chain Management, 20(4), 353–368.
https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-08-2014-0259
Aschhoff, B., & Sofka, W. (2009). Innovation on demand —Can public procurement drive market success of innovations? Research Policy, 38, 1235–1247.
van Asselt H, Huitema D, Jordan A (2018) Global climate governance after Paris: setting the scene for experimentation? In: Turnheim B, Kivimaa P, Berkhout F (eds) Innovating climate governance: moving beyond experiments. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Barratt, M., Choi, T. Y., & Li, M. (2011). Qualitative case studies in operations management: Trends, research outcomes, and future research implications. Journal of Operations
Management, 29(4), 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2010.06.002
Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D. K., & Mead, M. (1987). Strategy in Studies of. MIS Quarterly, 11(3), 369–386. https://doi.org/10.2307/248684
Berry, A. J., Ahmed,A., Cullen, J.,Dunlop, A., & Seal,W. (2000). The consequences of inter-firm supply chains for management accounting. London: CIMA.
Blumberg, B. F., Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2014). Business research methods. McGraw-hill education.
Bonoma, T. V. (1985). Case Research in Marketing: Opportunities, Problems, and a Process. Journal of Marketing Research, 22(2), 199. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151365
Bridge, G., Bouzarovski, S., Bradshaw, M., & Eyre, N. (2013). Geographies of energy transition: Space, place and the low-carbon economy. Energy Policy, 53, 331–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.10.066
32 Campbell, J., Sankaranl, J. (2005). An inductive framework for enhancing supply chain integration. International Journal of Production Research 43 (16), 3321–3351.
Cherp, A., Jewell, J., & Goldthau, A. (2011). Governing Global Energy: Systems, Transitions, Complexity. Global Policy, 2(1), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-5899.2010.00059
Diercks, G., Larsen, H., & Steward, F. (2019). Transformative innovation policy: Addressing variety in an emerging policy paradigm. Research Policy, 48(4), 880–894.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.028
Europese Commissie. (2018). Persbericht - Europese Commissie pleit voor een klimaatneutraal Europa tegen 2050*. november.
Faerman, S. R., McCaffrey, D. P., & Van Slyke, D. M. (2001). Understanding
Interorganizational Cooperation: Public-Private Collaboration in Regulating Financial Market Innovation. Organization Science, 12(3), 372–388.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.3.372.10099
Fagerberg, J. (2018). Mobilizing innovation for sustainability transitions: A comment on transformative innovation policy. Research Policy, 47(9), 1568–1576.
Fagerberg, J., Laestadius, S., Martin, B.R. (2016). The triple challenge for Europe: the economy, climate change, and governance. Challenge, 59 (3), 178–204.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.012
Flynn, B. B., Huo, B., & Zhao, X. (2010). The impact of supply chain integration on
performance: A contingency and configuration approach. Journal of Operations Management, 28(1), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2009.06.001
Flynn, B. B., Koufteros, X., & Lu, G. (2016). On Theory in Supply Chain Uncertainty and its Implications for Supply Chain Integration. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 52(3), 3– 27. 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12106
Flynn, B.B., Sakakibara, S., Schroeder, R.G., Bates, K.E., Flynn, E.J. (1990). Empirical research methods in operations management. Journal of Operations Management, 9(2), 254– 284.
33 Operations and Production Management, 32(5), 583–610.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01443571211226506
Gimenez, C., Ventura, E. (2005). Logistics-production, logistics-marketing and external integration: their impact on performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 25 (1), 20–38.
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31.
Glaser, B., Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies For Qualitative Research. Wiedenfeld and Nicholson, London.
Hölscher, K., Frantzeskaki, N., & Loorbach, D. (2019). Steering transformations under climate change: capacities for transformative climate governance and the case of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Regional Environmental Change, 19(3), 791–805.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1329-3
Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative science quarterly, 24(4), 602-611.
Kemp, R. (2010). The Dutch energy transition approach. International Economics and
Economic Policy, 7(2-3), 291-316.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10368-010-0163-y
Klijn, E. H., & Teisman, G. R. (2003). Institutional and strategic barriers to public-private partnership: An analysis of Dutch cases. Public Money and Management, 23(3), 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9302.00361
Koufteros, X., Vonderembse, M., Jayaram, J. (2005). Internal and external integration for product development: the contingency effects of uncertainty, equivocality, and platform strategy. Decision Sciences, 36 (1), 97–133.
Leuschner, R., Rogers, D. S., & Charvet, F. F. (2013). A meta-analysis of supply chain integration and firm performance. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 49(2), 34–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12013
Loorbach, D. (2007). Transition management. New mode of governance for sustainable
34 Marquez, A.C., Bianchi, C., Gupta, J.N.D., (2004). Operational and financial effective- ness of e-collaboration tools in supply chain integration. European Journal of Operational Research, 159 (2), 348–363.
Meredith, J.R. (1998). Building operations management theory through case and field research. Journal of Operations Management, 16 (4), 439–452.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook. sage.
Noble, H., & Smith, J. (2015). Table 1: Terminology and criteria used to evaluate the credibility of research findings. Evidence Based Nursing, 18(2), 34–35.
Petersen, K., Handfield, R., Ragatz, G. (2005). Supplier integration into new product
development: coordinating product, process, and supply chain design. Journal of Operations Management, 23 (3/4), 371–388.
Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., van Asselt, M., Geels, F., Verbong, G., & Molendijk, K. (2000). Transities & transitiemanagement: De Casus van een emissiearme
energievoorziening. Maastricht, ICIS, MERIT, 83.
Smil, V. (2010). Energy transitions: history, requirements, prospects. ABC-CLIO.
Solomon, B. D., & Krishna, K. (2011). The coming sustainable energy transition: History, strategies, and outlook. Energy Policy, 39(11), 7422–7431.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.09.009
Stokes, L. C., & Breetz, H. L. (2018). Politics in the U.S. energy transition: Case studies of solar, wind, biofuels and electric vehicles policy. Energy Policy, 113(July 2017), 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.10.057
United nations. (2015). Paris agreement.
Verbong, G., & Geels, F. (2007). The ongoing energy transition: lessons from a socio-technical, multi-level analysis of the Dutch electricity system (1960–2004). Energy
policy, 35(2), 1025-1037.
Wüstenhagen, R., Wolsink, M., & Bürer, M. J. (2007). Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy, 35(5), 2683–2691.
35 Yang, T. M., & Maxwell, T. A. (2011). Information-sharing in public organizations: A
literature review of interpersonal, intra-organizational and inter-organizational success factors. Government Information Quarterly, 28(2), 164–175.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.06.008
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods 4th edition. In United States:
Library of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.
36
Appendixes
Appendix A: interview protocol Introduction on the interview: Start of the interview:
Explain before the interview why you are doing this and that you would like to record the interview. Sample text:
I am conducting this interview for my master thesis in the theme of public supply networks, covering networks centered around energy transition. It is part of a more broad study focussed on service supply chains in public sector. This interview will be used to answer my research question How is SCI in the public sector influenced by energy transition? My supervisor and peers can use this interview as data for answering their research question, which means that some of the questions are related to topics of their research. Apart from this interview, I also have interviews planned with (Planned interviews), who are also part of the service supply chain.
I would like to record this interview, in order to transcribe it more easily. Is that okay? I will start with some introductory questions regarding you and your organization, after which I will zoom in on the role of your organisation within energy transition, followed by
collaboration and integration of your organisation and your partners’ with respect to energy transition.
1.General on the organization
Just to gain a clearer image of the firm and person in front of me. And to get the interview started in a casual way.
• What is your organization best known for?
• How many employees does the organization have?
• What is your position/function in the organization?
• How many years of work experience do you have within the organization?
• Can you briefly describe the activities that your organization executes?
• Can you briefly describe the supply chain and your organization’s position in it?
o What market involved?
o Number of suppliers/buyers/partners?
• What is your role in the organization and for how long have you been in this role? • What responsibilities does your role in the organization include?
2. Energy transition
• How would you describe your firms involvement in the energy transition? o What is the goal/strategy?
o What activities are you executing for this cause, and why? • What is the timeframe in which you operate with regard to this aspect? • Can you tell me something about recent developments in this field?
o What sectors are these developments affecting? o To what extent are these innovative developments?
o How do you feel about the acceptance of the developments?
37 Aimed at finding the developments on different aspects and how this firm is involved in this. Also how it interacts with different scale-levels.
• How have you been mobilized into the energy transition field?
• How would you describe the role of the government/public sector in the energy transition process?
The aim of these questions is to find out how the public sector involves in energy transition.
3. SCI
• Can you describe the relationship between your organization and your buyer/supplier/partner involved in energy transition?
o How long have you been working together? o To what aim are you working together?
o How would you describe the level of collaboration you have?
o Were you involved in working together before the start of the energy transition? If so, to what aim?
Information integration related questions
• When do you have contact with your partner organizations and why?
• What information do you share with your partner organizations? What information do they share with you?
• When do you share this information? How many times? In what way?
• What factors do influence the information sharing between you and your partner organizations? • What barriers/enablers do you experience in information sharing?
ICT related questions
• What role does technology play in your relationship
• Does your organization use one or more ICT systems for the same supply chain partner? • For what purpose are ICT systems used?
• Do the ICT systems have any shortcomings regarding inter-organizational collaboration and information sharing? What could be optimized?
Operational integration related questions
• What activities do you perform for the purpose of your partners organizations? • What activities do other organizations perform for you?
• What activities do you perform together with your partner organizations?
• To what extent do you work together with partners organizations and how is that organized? • In what activities/processes do you seek alignment with partner organizations? How? • What barriers/enablers do you experience in performing activities jointly?
Relational integration related questions
• How would you characterize the relationship with your partner organizations? What goes well and what goes wrong?
• What type of agreements do exist between you and your partner organizations? • Who is responsible for making agreements? How does this show in practice?
38 • What do your partner organizations need from you to properly do their job?
• What barriers/enablers do you experience in collaborating with your partner organizations?
Appendix B: table with concepts and related questions
Theoretical concept + definition
Related questions
Energy transition: “a continuous process of societal change, whereby the structure of society (or a subsystem of society) changes fundamentally, with respect to energy systems”
• How would you describe your firms involvement in the energy transition?
• What is the timeframe in which you operate with regard to this aspect?
• Can you tell me something about recent developments in this field?
• How have you been mobilized into the energy transition field?
• How would you describe the role of the
government/public sector in the energy transition process?
Supply chain integration: “the degree to which a manufacturer
strategically collaborates with its supply chain partners and
collaboratively manages intra- and
inter-organization processes.”
• Can you describe the relationship between your organization and your buyer/supplier/partner involved in energy transition?
o How long have you been working together? o To what aim are you working together? o How would you describe the level of
collaboration you have?
o Were you involved in working together before the start of the energy transition? If so, to what aim? Informational integration: “the sharing of information, collaborative communication and technologies that act as support among firms in the supply chain”
• When do you have contact with your partner organizations and why?
• What information do you share with your partner organizations? What information do they share with you?
• When do you share this information? How many times? In what way?
• What factors do influence the information sharing between you and your partner organizations?
• What barriers/enablers do you experience in information sharing?
ICT related questions: these questions are for the study of a peer
• What role does technology play in your relationship
• Does your organization use one or more ICT systems for the same supply chain partner?
• For what purpose are ICT systems used?
