Værdiskabelse ved tillid

Kapitel 3 – Teoretisk ramme

trustor and more specifically on their perceptions of each others’ past behavior. Integrity is important in a supply chain because of the presence of numerous players with sometimes con-flicting goals and the existence of written and oral promises to be fulfilled.“

trustor and more specifically on their perceptions of each others’ past behavior. Integrity is important in a supply chain because of the presence of numerous players with sometimes con-flicting goals and the existence of written and oral promises to be fulfilled.“

Trust in predictability

Trust in predictability – “Predictability reflects the trustor’s belief that a trustee’s actions (good or bad) are consistent enough that it can be forecasted in a given situation. It is based on the premise that organizations are consistent, stable, and predictable in relation to past pat-terns of behavior. Relationship development explained by this type of trust depends on an ability to predict outcomes with a high probability of success, which is key to the effective and uninterrupted operation of a supply chain.”

Overordnet kan tilgangen til relationens management altså inddeles i to hovedgrupper/skoler:

”a behavioural or humanistic” og ”economic” (Cousins, 2002, s. 72), hvor netværksteorien fokuserer på den første og TCA på den anden. De to tilgange komplimenterer hinanden (Skjøtt-Larsen, 1999, s. 108), hvilke derfor også er gældende for tillid.

“Competence Trust

“Competence Trust – The trust that the other party has the ability to be able to produce what the contract requires.”

Det er endvidere Cousins opfattelse, at tillid og risici er to sider af same mønt, hvor tillid ud-gør det kendte og risici det ukendte, og går videre til at sige (Cousins, 2002, ss. 71-72)., at:

”Partnership relationships do not exist, rather there are ranges of varying collaborative rela-tionships, all of which are competitive”

“Organisations do not trust each other, they manage risk based on business case decisions.”

“A‘relationship’ is not an entity; it is a process. Like any process it needs to be focused on a definable outcome. That outcome can range from cost savings through to joint product devel-opment and problem solving. Once the focus (output) is decided the appropriate relationship can be developed.”

I forhold til relationer og tillid er Cousins endnu mere kritisk over for tilgangen fra TCA og netværk, og har et særdeles klart synspunkt omkring værdiskabelse og virksomhedsrelationer, hvilket giver sig udtryk i dette rammende citat:

“This paper takes the view that companies are in business to make money (private sector) or to save money (public sector), either way they will want to maximise. Therefore the issue here is not about trust, but rather how to optimally manage the situation. It must be remem-bered that all firms are ‘snakes’; they are maximisers and satisfiers concerned with their own survival and self-interest. If that self-interest is best served by working closely with another firm then they will do so. However, when that interest is no longer served, rest assured, they will bite you!” (Cousins, 202, s. 81)

Synliggørelsen af værdiskabelsen er et meget fremherskende ønske fra management side, da resultatet af business beslutninger og samarbejdsrelationer godtgøres for den fokale virksom-hed og/eller individer. Værdien (value, output, result) kan have karakter af mange forskellige ting, eksempelvis økonomiske, politiske, tekniske og sociologiske, mens der i virksomheds-øjemed ofte ses på de økonomiske jf. diskussionen fra Cousins. En lignende tilgang til værdi-skabelse vil også være til stede i et konsulentprojekt, da netop værdiværdi-skabelsen af samarbejdet med konsulentressourcen er i fokus jf. Introduktionen (afsnit 1).

Kapitel 3 – Teoretisk ramme

Fra Hald et al. gives et netop et framework for ”attraction in buyer-supplier relationship”, hvor netop tillid og value præsenteres i samme funktion og udtrykt i nedenstående ligning (Hald et al., 2008, s. 3):

Fra Hald et al. gives et netop et framework for ”attraction in buyer-supplier relationship”, hvor netop tillid og value præsenteres i samme funktion og udtrykt i nedenstående ligning (Hald et al., 2008, s. 3):

• “Party’s Attraction = F[P[Expected value]; P[Trust]; P[Dependence]]”

• “Party’s Attraction = F[P[Expected value]; P[Trust]; P[Dependence]]”

o Hvor, “F[y] is the attracted party's attraction function towards the attractive party in question.”

o Hvor, “F[y] is the attracted party's attraction function towards the attractive party in question.”

o Hvor, P[x] is the attracted party's perception function towards the outcome of x.”

o Hvor, P[x] is the attracted party's perception function towards the outcome of x.”

Hald et al. argumenterer for at ”order to improve value transferal and even value creation in buyer–supplier relationships, it is not enough to optimize and/or coordinate management and control mechanisms.” (Hald et al., 2008, ss. 1-2).

Hald et al. argumenterer for at ”order to improve value transferal and even value creation in buyer–supplier relationships, it is not enough to optimize and/or coordinate management and control mechanisms.” (Hald et al., 2008, ss. 1-2).

Hald et al. anvender både sociologiske og økonomiske elementer i deres framework, og hvor de medtager tillid fra den sociologiske del. Tillid siges at findes og skabes i enhver social in-teraktion. Fra Mayer et al. (Mayer et al., 1995) benyttes de grundlæggende elementer for tillid (Mayer et al., 1995, ss. 717-719):

Hald et al. anvender både sociologiske og økonomiske elementer i deres framework, og hvor de medtager tillid fra den sociologiske del. Tillid siges at findes og skabes i enhver social in-teraktion. Fra Mayer et al. (Mayer et al., 1995) benyttes de grundlæggende elementer for tillid (Mayer et al., 1995, ss. 717-719):

”Ability

”Ability, is the set of competencies that allow a party to perform in some area. Thus, if attrac-tion is the force drawing a buyer and a supplier closer together, ability is a competency or value potential of the actor. Ability is therefore already included in our buyer/supplier value perception constructs. Benevolence and integrity on the other hand are not included.”

“Benevolence, is “the extent to which a trustee is believed to want to do good to the trustor aside from an egocentric profit motive”

“Integrity, on the other hand is a characteristic related to the trustee that is made visible if “the trustee adheres to a set of principles that the trustor finds acceptable”

Hald et al. angiver endvidere, hvordan de tre elementer (perceived expected value, perceived trust, perceived dependence) påvirker hinanden og sætter niveauer på sammenhængen. Ni-veauerne sættes til lav, middel og højt, hvilket gør dem mere operationelle. NiNi-veauerne kan ses også som værende (minus, neutralt, plus), hvilket omdannes til simpel en numerisk skala (-1, 0 og 1). Der antages en positiv korrelation for elementerne ”perceived expected value” og

”perceived trust” til ”resultant percieved attraction”, og der antages en negativ korrelation for

”perceived dependence”, ud fra Hald et al. argumenter (Hald et al., 2008, ss. 7-8). Antagelsen om sammenhængen kan ses af nedenstående figur (Figur 8).

Figur 8 – Expected value, dependence and trust in conjunction of perceived attraction Figur 8 – Expected value, dependence and trust in conjunction of perceived attraction

Num ber

1 High + 1 H igh + 1 High + 1 Hig h + 1

2 High + 1 Low - -1 High + 1 Hig h + 1

3 High + 1 Low - -1 L ow - -1 M edium Ne utral 0

4 Low - -1 H igh + 1 High + 1 M edium Ne utral 0

5 Low - -1 Low - -1 High + 1 M edium Ne utral 0

6 Low - -1 H igh + 1 L ow - -1 L ow - -1

7 Low - -1 Low - -1 L ow - -1 L ow - -1

8 High + 1 H igh + 1 L ow - -1 L ow - -1

Kilde: Egen tilvirkning fra H ald et al ., 2008, s. 8

E xp ected V alu e Pe rceive d dep ende nce Perceived t ru st Resulta nt pe rceive d attraction

Ud fra ovenstående sammenhængende med de numeriske værdier, er det muligt at gennemfø-re en matematisk analyse via multipel gennemfø-reggennemfø-ression, idet der er otte ligninger der underbygger funktionen. Fra analyserne (bilag 13 a & 13 b) ses det overraskende, at ”perceived depen-dence” ikke bidrager signifikant til forklaring af ”perceived attraction”, hvorfor der vælges at se bort fra ”perceived dependence”. Hald et al. funktion ser nu ud som følgende:

• Party’s Attraction = F[P[Expected value]; P[Trust]]

Funktionen kan ændres i forhold til tillid og value, og ser således ud:

• Trust = F[P[Expected value]; P[Party’s attraction]]

• Expected value = F[P[Trust]; P[Party’s attraction]]

Fra ovenstående angives en sammenhæng for tillid, tiltrækning og value, hvormed value (værdiskabelse) ved tilliden bliver synlig. Tillid kan dermed sige noget om ”Expected value”

og ”Party’s attraction” i sammenhæng med disse.