Myrna Flores
email: myrflores@hotmail.com

Daniel Guevara

Martin Herrera

Daniel Guervara

Key Roles and Process to Foster Successful Firm-University Collaborations: the CEMEX Case

Keywords: Firm -University Collaboration, Open Innovation, Knowledge Markets, Knowledge Seeker, Broker, IP Entrepreneur

de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

Introduction

Growing global competition requires companies to be more competitive, improving their productive and business processes to operate in a leaner way. Enterprises are constantly under pressure not only to offer high quality products with competitive prices, but also to be constantly innovative offering new products and services to the international and borderless markets.

Research and Development to achieve innovations is a very costly, risky and lengthy process. As a consequence, it is difficult and challenging for companies to innovate in short periods of time in an ever increasing global market where customers' needs change quickly and the products' life cycles get shorter (Flores M. 2006a, Flores M. 2006d).

In this context, Henry Chesbrough from the University in Berkley defined the traditional innovation process as a Closed Innovation Model. The reason is that all innovation activities are located inside the company from the ideas creation, development process, sales and marketing. In this case, companies think that they are the best on their field; they have enough knowledge and resources inside their firm boundaries to develop such new solutions. Although this innovation model has been followed by many companies he argues that it cannot satisfy the fast changing demands of global customers in a changing society. As a result, Henry Chesbrough (2003) proposed a new concept which we coined the Open Innovation model as the use of purposive inflows and outflows of knowledge to accelerate internal innovation, and expand the markets for external use of innovation.

Universities play a critical role as a source of fundamental knowledge, therefore should contribute in the formation of new collaborative environments increasing the innovation capabilities and continuous improvement. Universities can in fact be considered as a focal element for the development and dissemination of new knowledge and technologies for the design, development and commercialization of new products and processes [START_REF] Flores | Industry -University Collaborative Networks for New Product Development: The Case of IIT Madras, India[END_REF], Flores, 2006c One of the lessons learned of these latter collaborations is the definition of a clear process for CEMEX in which projects' outputs can be translated into valuable intangible assets which match the following criteria:

• It must add value: it does not need to be new but it must at least represent an enhancement developed by CEMEX over an existing tool or process.

• It must be useful: Intangible Assets are not measured by their cost but by their usefulness; usefulness means that it must enhance CEMEX operations, like increase efficiency, lower costs, etc.

• It must be shareable: it should be helpful for at least two CEMEX Business Units Furthermore, and part of the collaborative context, there are two additional concepts that are relevant while co-developing new intangibles; these latter are known as the Knowledge Market and the Intellectual Capital. A Knowledge Market fosters to create the knowledge required to innovate and therefore create more value. It is characterized by informal or formal relationships between independent partners, interested to collaborate in a win-win way.

In such a collaborative space different actors are required, which in most cases are: Knowledge Owner, Seeker, and Broker. Within the context of the CEMEX Research and Networking model, in the next section different roles have been identified to enable successful collaborations.

One outcome of the Industry-University collaboration is related to intangibles creation. A way to identify those intangibles created and also to measure their value contribution is through the Intellectual Capital. This approach groups all the intangibles in three, as follows [START_REF] Guevara | Monitoring intellectual capital: a case study of a large company during the recent economic crisis[END_REF]):

• Human Capital: This group includes the different assets of the person, such as knowledge backlog coming from training, skills, innovation competency, among others. Also, this group is part of the core competence underpinnings of the organization and it is rented to the business. In other words, the human capital includes those assets that return home after the business day is closed.

• Structural Capital: This group includes all of those assets that remain at the organization, as some could say that reside inside the walls right after persons go home. Here are included all processes, methods, systems and also intellectual property such as patents and trademarks.

• Relational Capital: Among the human and structural capital, there is another group of intangibles that has a direct relation to the activities employees perform outside the organization that involves external entities such as customers, government authorities, communities, etc. This grouping method is considered to identify the value contribution of intangible assets in the organization.

Inputs, Outputs and Key roles to Enable an Open Innovation Model

As a result of the lessons learned of approximately 50 different collaborative research projects carried out with several Universities since 2007 and based on a detailed literature review analysis, the following are proposed as key elements and actors to enable successful and sustainable open innovation projects in which both tacit and explicit knowledge is exchanged among them to obtain the expected results.

1. Input: a technical or business problem to be solved and the knowledge required to solve it 2. Knowledge Seeker: Entity or person with the need to resolve a technical or business problem using external resources applying the Open Innovation model. This actor belongs normally to the Firm and will become part of its R&D projects.

Knowledge Owner:

Entity or person with the technical or business knowledge needed to resolve the Seeker's problems while using public or private funds to perform the required research. This actor in many cases is a researcher from a University, and could also be a consultant or an expert working in an Association or any other organization. 4. Knowledge Broker: Entity or person that bridges and manages the collaboration between the Owners and the Seekers. Also and before the collaboration between the Firm and the University starts, it is its responsibility to establish and agreement between the Firm and the University around the final intangibles expected due to the collaboration, as well as the commercial strategy of the new Intellectual Property (IP) created, whereas the IP is the formal documentation for the intangibles co-created or enhanced. However and depending on their functions and responsibilities, this role could be divided in two: one for the Firm and the second for the University side. a) Firm Broker: The broker at the firm will facilitate the right understanding of the problem to clarify the project objectives and scope to look for an external partner. This latter will make sure that the knowledge owner has the right competencies and expertise to start a collaboration with the Seeker. In such context, the broker should focus so that that the Seeker and Owner collaborate to solve the problem. For that purpose a collaborative plan with key milestones will be defined in which both sides commit to deliver the outcomes. b) University Broker: As in the case of the Firm, it has been observed that some Universities count with specialized brokers that look forward to match the knowledge developed in the University to sell it externally and develop a knowledge market in the form of IP, Licenses, basic or consulting projects to solve problems in the Industry, 5. Intellectual Property Entrepreneur: Entity or person in charge of selling/buying the IP generated during or after collaboration, as agreed by the Brokers and must be settled before the collaboration starts. It is responsible of royalties' agreements and contractual terms and conditions for licensing IP. This actor is found in some firms, for example this is an important role within CEMEX Research Group organization.

Output (Intangible Assets):

The main deliverable of the collaboration turned as intellectual property (IP) that fulfills the requirements to be commercialized.

Fig. 1. Key Roles to enable an Open Innovation Model for the Firm -University

Figure 1 depicts how the actors interact under a co-development environment to create a knowledge market. In here are identified the three types of the Intellectual Capital that are developed during the knowledge exchanges among the different actors. For example, as soon as the project is kicked off, the Human Capital intangibles are "adjusted" or enhanced at the Seeker and Owner roles; this is due to the fact that their interactions would transfer and enrich the knowledge, experience and others that are hold by the actors.

Similar to the enhancements of the intangibles belonging to the Human Capital, there are other intangible improvements on the Intellectual Capital. Continuing with figure 1, there are shown some relevant outcomes of the collaboration and they are related to the intangibles of the Structural Capital group. For this type are considered new patents, products, or technology that creates more value for the Firm. Moreover, the Relational Capital intangibles are enhanced as well. The improvements are more related to the relationships of the actors, and also to external entities such as new customer relationship. Regardless of the group of intangibles, it is important to highlight that the intangibles enhanced or created after and during the collaboration have a direct and high impact on the business value creation.

A Ten Step Generic Process to Co-Create Intangible Assets

The different actors in the collaborative open innovation context interact among them in order to create value for both organizations. However, the interactions should be organized in a structured way to increase the expected successful outcome, which is to solve a problem and develop intangible assets that could be further replicated in a company or third parties.

In this section a ten step generic process is proposed by the authors for an effective collaboration (Edmondson et Step 1 Identify the need for collaboration: In this step one of the actors, such as the Seeker, Owner or Broker identifies a technical or business knowledge gap. Within the firm, the knowledge seeker is motivated to search for external collaboration to develop a solution taking advantage of knowledge or expertise created previously by the owner.

Step 2 Request to solve the problem with external knowledge: This step requires a formalization and clear definition of the problem or need to be solved during the collaborative project with the usage of external knowledge. The project objective, scope and key deliverables are defined. Also, at this point the need is translated in an ad-hoc and common "language" that could be understood between the Seeker and the Owner. In CEMEX, to facilitate the problem definition, the firm broker provides standard templates that have been designed to support the knowledge seeker define the problem in a simple way.

Step 3 Identify and select Knowledge Owners: Once the problem is clarified between the Seeker and the Firm Broker, the next step is to identify the Owner who counts with the most advanced experience to solve the problem. In many cases knowledge owners are recognized by their high quality of publications either in journals, books or conference presentations. In CEMEX, the Broker is responsible of this activity.

Step 4 Bridge Seeker and Owner: In this step the connections between the Seeker and the Owner are built and formalized. Person-to-person interactions emerge; for example, the Seeker would be a Firm employee, and for the Owner would be the subject-matter expert or scientist in the University. In this step the working plan, deliverables, culture matching and intellectual property strategy are formalized and documented in detail. The interactions management and collaboration working plan and deliverables would be performed and monitored preferably by the Broker. Also and as part of the Broker functions, at this step all necessary agreements are established for the collaboration and they must be related to the final intangibles expected as co-created or enhanced due to the collaboration; also here is agreed the Intellectual Property (IP) strategy and partition of possible royalties if commercialized. It is important to remark that the owner of the IP must be CEMEX.

Step 5 Collaborate to co-create intangible assets: The Seeker and Owner start collaborating accordingly to the plan and deliverables as intangible assets should be co-developed on time. During this step it is relevant to monitor the trustiness between Seeker and Owner, the interactions accordingly to the working plan, and it is also very important to verify the high quality of the knowledge transferred; all these activities are performed by the Broker. Additionally, is important to mention that in CEMEX the LEAD (Learn, Energize, Apply and Diffuse) project management methodology (Flores 2009) has been developed and implemented to facilitate seekers and owners to collaborate with a clear deliverables and milestones to be delivered by the CEMEX-University teams.

Step 6 Deliver knowledge assets as Intangibles: This is almost the final step of the collaboration. Here arise all the intangibles co-created by the interactions. The new intangibles should be protected according to the firm´s IP strategy; or it could be as new knowledge appropriation, implying that Owner knowledge is adequate to technical problem description and uses license from Owner by Seeker.

Step 7 Select relevant Intangibles: The results of the firm-university collaborative project will be assessed to identify if they can be considered intangibles. Those that are relevant for the Firm should be documented and protected and might be also commercialized depending on the firm´s IP strategy.

Step 8 Protect Intellectual Property: After the intangibles resulting from the collaboration have been selected, at this step is implemented an agreed strategy to protect them and sell or license the intellectual property as follows: New process, model, product, brand, among others. However, the IP protection could be such as new process, model or operating system as Trade Secret, product or material as Patent or Trademark, and also software or document as Copyright. It is important to clarify the IP strategy and proportionality before starting the project. At this point, the IP Entrepreneur is involved in the process to let the firm´s Broker know about new intangibles protected as IP.

Step 9 Monitor Intangibles performance: The new knowledge co-created as intangibles should be monitored as intangible assets using an open innovation scorecard classifying them into the three Intellectual Capital groups presented before: Human, Structural or Relational. Also, it is recommended that the Broker monitors the intangibles created and transferred internally and externally to the organization.

Step 10 Commercialize IP internally and externally: The firm´s IP Entrepreneur identifies potential markets to sell or license the intangibles protected as the result of these collaborations. Also and in some cases, this actor identifies and buys or licensees IP coming from other organizations.

The CEMEX-University Collaboration Process

Figure 2 presents a 10 steps process that has been followed in most of the collaborations with Universities in order to perform high impact projects for CEMEX. It is important to mention that there could be four potential scenarios triggering the process: 1) The Seeker at CEMEX looking for solutions for the firm, 2) The Owner (researcher at a University) proposing to implement a novelty in CEMEX, 3) The Brokers proposing to test or investigate about a futuristic trend in CEMEX which has not been yet implemented, 4) Solve a gap identified based on the discovery of external best practices or trends. In the process, the dot-lines from step 7 to step 10 highlight the area where intangibles are selected, protected and commercialized. This is because those steps are related to the intangibles management after the collaboration and also are proposed to gain more value after the commercialization of such intangibles.

Conclusions

This paper integrates the following three key concepts: Open Innovation, Knowledge Markets and Intellectual Capital as key enablers to co-create intangible assets for CEMEX when collaborating with Universities. It is also highlighted that most innovative firms and Universities require the definition of specific actors such as Knowledge Seekers, Brokers and IP Entrepreneurs. To conclude, a process has been proposed to facilitate firm-university collaboration to co-create intangible assets.

  al, 2012; Fisher and Atkinson-Grosjean, 2002; Perkmann et al, 2011; Pertuzé, 2005).

Fig. 2 :

 2 Fig. 2: Industry University Collaboration process in CEMEX

  ). Several highly innovative companies, such as Nokia, IBM, Intel, General Electric, among many others, have developed open innovation strategies to launch joint initiatives with Universities to catalyze their innovation process. As a result, CEMEX Processes & IT has launched more than 50 collaborative projects since 2004 with different Universities, Consultants and Associations in the Americas and Europe. Additionally, the role of Business Process Research and Networking Sr. Consultant was integrated in the Processes & IT team to coordinate the open innovation efforts.

1. 1 Seeker's need at CEMEX 2. Define Problem 3. Source 4. Bridge 5. Collaborate 6. Deliver 8. Protect IP 9. Monitor • For case 1.1 and 1.3 Broker and Seeker work on a new project proposal to define the problem to be solved • For case 1.2 Broker and Owner work on collaborative project proposal . • For case 1.1 and 1.3, Firm Broker looks for knowledge Owner • For case 1.2 Firm Broker looks for knowledge Seeker • Broker connect Seekers with Owners • Broker communicate agreed policies • Seeker and Owner define collaborative project in detail. • Existing knowledge is shared and new knowledge is created during project execution. • Brokers monitor interactions and progress • Agreed final project deliverables are documented and communicated by Seeker and Owner • In most cases Owner publishes final project

' ' ' 's results

in the academic environment • As agreed, Brokers together with IP entrepreneurs protect intangibles in form of: patent, trademark, copyright or other • Brokers and IP entrepreneurs monitor the value generation of the intangible assets 7. Select Intangible Assets 10. Commercialize • Project deliverables which have a high feasibility for commercialization are selected. They are now called intangible assets

	1.2 Knowledge Owner's proposal	1.3 Broker's idea	1.4 Business Gap	• IP Entrepreneurs sell intangible assets
	1.

Identify the need to start a collaboration


Dario Antonelli
email: dario.antonelli@polito.it

Giulia Bruno
email: giulia.bruno@polito.it

Teresa Taurino
email: teresa.taurino@polito.it

Agostino Villa
email: agostino.villa@polito.it

Conditions for Effective Collaboration in SME Networks Based on Graph Model

Keywords: SME networks, collaboration, graph models

Collaboration represents an increasing tendency among Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), since the possibility of being a cooperative partner of a network allows the achievement of development strategies, either to improve production processes or to increase competitiveness. The objective of the paper is to propose and apply a new methodology to model manufacturing SME networks in terms of graph matrices, in order to identify some conditions that can foster an effective collaboration among partners of a SME network. A classification of SME networks in four typologies named "Marshallian Network", "Supply chain network", "Hub and Spoke network" and "Scientific Park" will be introduced. For each typology a graph-based model will be used to find out limits and critical points that can hinder the SME collaboration, or focal points for the interaction reinforcing.

Introduction

Collaboration represents an increasing tendency among Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs). It is considered an effective solution allowing the achievement of development strategies [START_REF] Antonelli | Identifying and exploiting the collaboration factors inside SMEs networks[END_REF][START_REF] Villa | Supporting collaboration in European Industrial Districts -The CODESNET approach[END_REF][START_REF] Taurino | Analysis of Potential Collaborations in SME Networks[END_REF][START_REF] Villa | Promoting SME cooperative aggregations: main criteria and contractual models[END_REF][START_REF] Bruno | An ontology-based model for SME network contracts[END_REF], either to improve production processes or to increase competitiveness based on innovation and quality [START_REF] Ravazzi | Economic aspects of industrial automation[END_REF][START_REF] Michaelides | Collaboration networks and collaboration tools: a match for SMEs?[END_REF][START_REF] Bogataj | Efficient location of industrial activity cells in a global supply chain[END_REF][START_REF] Antonelli | Pattern Recognition from Data Collection on Industry Networks[END_REF][START_REF] Taurino | An insight into Innovation Patterns of Industrial Districts[END_REF].

SME managers usually show a traditional individualistic attitude [START_REF]Managing Cooperation in Supply Network Structures and Small or Mediumsized Enterprises: Main criteria and tools for managers[END_REF]. Unfortunately, small businesses often suffer in globalized markets from fierce competition in terms of products, labor and finance. On the contrary, being an independent but cooperative partner of a network could be a real possibility to obtain advantages for the SME. For example, by integrating skills of all the network partners the realization of more complex products it's possible; by cumulating SMEs capabilities, manufacturing volumes can increase; by sharing workers and resources, the effects of fluctuations of market demand can be reduced [START_REF] Mezgár | Co-operative production planning for smalland medium-sized enterprises[END_REF][START_REF]A Road Map to the Development of European SME Networks -Towards Collaborative Innovation[END_REF][START_REF] Bengtsson | Coopetition" in Business Networks -to Cooperate and Compete Simultaneously[END_REF][START_REF] Camarinha-Matos | Taxonomy of Collaborative Networks Forms, Final document of the FInES Task Force on Collaborative Networks and SOCOLNET -Society of Collaborative Networks[END_REF].

In the authors' experience (based on the development of the EU-funded project "Collaborative demand and supply networks -CODESNET [START_REF]COllaborative DEmand and Supply NETwork, European Coordination Action[END_REF]), to complete the huge amount of papers and books published on the collaboration among SMEs, a simple and easily usable model of SME networks is required. It also represents, for the manager, an instrument for the analysis of convenience of collaborative relations in the SMEs network

This paper aims at developing a model of a SME network in terms of a graphbased scheme. The graph model provides a representation of the structure of connections among SMEs and the basic information that any manager has at disposal. Based on this simple approach, four graphs of different network types will be identified. The introduced classification is able to characterize a very large number of different SME aggregations: from industrial districts, to clusters, to poles of competitiveness, up to scientific parks.

The main goal of this paper is that, by considering the configuration of an industrial network to which a manager of a SME could be interested to participate, he/she can assess whether the network is able to support its own activities and its own business, by assuring further profit.

The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the SME network classifications deriving from the experience gained from the CODESNET project. Section 3 introduces the graph-based SME network models and analyzes the four typologies of SME networks in terms of matrices derived from graphs. Finally, Section 4 draws some concluding remarks.

Classification of Network Types

The utilization of a graph formulation appears to be an important tool in order to provide a layout of a SME network. It also offers a starting point for modeling and analyzing flows and connections between the companies belonging to the network itself. To obtain a graph representation of a SME network, each enterprise (or a group of enterprises grouped according to appropriate criteria and to the desired level of detail) can be modeled by a node of the graph. The arcs between nodes correspond to possible links connecting SMEs; the connections can be either physical (i.e. exchange of materials, resources) or informative (i.e. exchange of information and know-how, transfer of orders).

The classification of the SME network structures has been obtained by using both the available literature on the topic and the concrete examples derived from the CODESNET database. For the derivation of the model, data of 160 industrial networks from 11 different European countries have been used. The classification consists of four graph-based configurations, illustrated in the following figures. In each figure, the network boundaries are represented by a rectangle, the small and medium enterprises belonging to the network, by the numbered circles and connections between SMEs by arcs. For formal issues without a loss of generality, a source node (named S) and a destination node (named D), if not belonging to the network, are introduced as external nodes.

The most common configuration is denoted as Marshallian-Italianate network [START_REF] Markusen | Sticky Places in Slippery Space: A Typology of Industrial Districts[END_REF]. A simple topological representation is given in Fig. 1. This network is characterized by a set of SMEs, each of them can both provide and receive products / services / information from the others; this can be easily seen by the high number of arcs connecting the nodes. The node n.1 can be considered as a source node belonging to the network. Thus, the main characteristic of this topology is that it allows the presence of cycles.

Two examples of networks with this topological structure can be found in Europe. The first example is the Gold District of Valenza ("Distretto Orafo di Valenza"), an industrial district of the North-West Italy specialized in the jewelry production with an important role in the international market. The second district is the ShannonSoft, a network of Software activity in the Shannon Region in Ireland. In both these examples and in all the networks of the first type of configuration, the geographical proximity and the similarity in producing play an important role for the growth of the network.

A second type of SME aggregation has been identified as "supply chain" or, more generally, "multi-stage supply chain" [START_REF] Bogataj | Efficient location of industrial activity cells in a global supply chain[END_REF]. At the right, in the previous Fig. 1, a structure of a Multi-stage supply chain is represented: arrows represent links typically with an exchange of material or components. In the figure, the node n.8 can be considered as a destination node belonging to the network. An example of this organization is the Footwear District ("Distretto delle Calzature di Fermo"), located in the Center of Italy, specialized in the production of shoes. Products are differentiated in order to cover different market stratification (shoes for man, women and child): to this aim, the chain is composed by stages with a number of parallel SMEs. Unlike the previous configuration, in this network cycles are not allowed.

Some SME aggregations can be described in terms of Hub-and-spoke configuration [START_REF] Markusen | Sticky Places in Slippery Space: A Typology of Industrial Districts[END_REF], owing to the presence of a leader in the network that will affect the decisions of all other partners. A simplified graph representation of the hub and spoke type with one leader and five SMEs is given in the next Fig. 2. This configuration does not allow cycles and the lead node has a number of entering edges very higher that the other nodes, so it can be considered as a destination node belonging to the network.

The Eyewear District ("Distretto dell'Occhiale di Belluno") in North Italy has a similar configuration: there are 5 leading firms corresponding to important brands of international fame, and around them a network of 1.500 small and medium enterprises specialized in the production of components or in particular production processes. In addition to these three models that represent very fixed and ruled interactions among SMEs, there is another kind of aggregation, mainly exploited by high-tech production and/or service supply. Since the nature of such aggregation is mainly oriented to R&D, this configuration is named Scientific Park (or "pole of competitiveness" in France) [START_REF]Managing Cooperation in Supply Network Structures and Small or Mediumsized Enterprises: Main criteria and tools for managers[END_REF].

In terms of graph representation (Fig. 2 on the right), the nodes can be considered as inserted in a pre-existing network (light gray in the picture) of services and experience that can create contacts between enterprises that join the Scientific Park. In this configuration, connections are very flexible and more informal than in the other configurations. The typical feature of a Scientific Park is that each node is connected directly with the source and the destination nodes (due to the pre-existing network) and all the possible edges between nodes can be activated or interrupted at any time. The exchanges between such companies does not concern materials or components but is an exchange of information (knowledge, data, models, ideas) and services, thanks to the underlying network of partners specialized in ICT and support to the innovative activities. The pole EMC2 in the "Pays de la Loire" in France, is an example of Scientific Park specialized in the sector of naval construction, aeronautics, yachting and the automotive industry. Another example is the Patras Science Park in Greece which strategic objective is to establish an Innovative Business Area in the Region of West Greece.

Recognizing Conditions for Effective Collaboration from Graph-Based Network Model

The modeling of a SME network requires to take into account two main aspects:

• the type of connecting structure, that means the organization of links among SMEs and the definition of types of flows on those links; the model of the connection structure is called "structural model" of the network; • main functionalities to be performed in order to assure an efficient, effective and convenient management of operations of all SMEs in the network: that can be done through a "functional scheme".

Functional Scheme

The main functionalities that characterizes the SME network management organization can be modeled with a "functional scheme" [START_REF] Bruno | An ontology-based model for SME network contracts[END_REF]. The model is useful to give a visual representation of activities such as contribution of partners to the network management committee (if it exists); generation of production and financial strategies by the network committee; translation of strategies into activity plans to satisfy customers orders.

For the evaluation of the network performance, the basic element that should be recognized through the "functional scheme" is the network management committee in terms of its composition and its management tasks. The presence of a committee in a SME aggregation assures a coordination potential; its lack requires existence of a reciprocal trust among SME managers and, possibly, a coordination agreement.

Structural Scheme

From the structural point of view, a SME network can be represented in terms of a graph G=(V,E), where V is the set of vertices and E is the set of edges or arcs. Typically, a vertex can be referred to a component SME, while an edge can represent a SME-to-SME connection.

For the scope of the present analysis concerning network of manufacturing SMEs, the graph under consideration is referred to the physical part flows (i.e., the logistic connections among SMEs).

The following different types of matrix representations could be identified for a graph G [START_REF] Chachra | Applications of Graph Theory Algorithms[END_REF][START_REF] Villa | Hybrid Control Systems in Manufacturing[END_REF] modeling of a considered real SME network, -the incidence matrix M [nodes vs edges] that identifies the links outgoing from each node, i.e. the existence of output flows from a given SME;

the adjacency matrix R [nodes vs nodes] that specifies the existence of all the connections among the nodes, i.e. the existence of flows from a SMEs towards another SME;

the path matrix P [paths vs edges], that specifies the flows of products between two SMEs operating as suppliers and customers for the production of a specific product; the matrix P, for a particular product, is obtained by placing, for each path, a mark in correspondence with the edges (i.e., column) that belong to the working sequence of the product itself;; -the distance matrix L [nodes vs nodes], where each element is a certain "magnitude" associated to each edge. The value associated to the edge can be, for example, the geographic distance between the two connected SMEs, the economic cost or the time associated to the transfer of products between the two enterprises. The modified distance matrix L^ [paths vs nodes is obtained by placing, for each path associated to a particular product, the average production flow in correspondence with the SMEs (i.e. column) involved in the production.

Referring to the Marshallian-Italianate network type, an evident measure of potential strong collaboration among SMEs is the high number of connections, then high value of NCO. A significant number of non-null element in the path matrix P in Fig. 3 makes evidence of several loops, then another indication of good collaboration.

In a Multi-Stage network (see Fig. 1), each stage is a set of "parallel" SMEs, and each SME in a same stage could implement different work phases. Then, different parallel supply chains could exist, thus corresponding to low value of the NCH indicator and high value of the NSC one.

In any type of SME network, existence of independent supply chains can be a cause of a network subdivision into potentially competing and conflicting parts, mainly if the separations between any two supply chains is strong (low NCI).

A different situation occurs in case of a Hub-and-Spoke network, where partial chains could exist, but all converging on a same hub SME. Then, the NSC indicator will be low.

Specific considerations are required by the Scientific-Park type network, where two graphs exist: one composed by the SMEs already operating, and the other defining the set of all links that the park management committee can make at disposal of other new SMEs (i.e. an underlying network whose links can be activated in the future). The former network can have small NCO and almost null NSC. The underlying network, on the contrary, must be characterized by high NCO. Whilst no indicators can be computed for "empty" nodes.

Conclusions

In this work a bottom-up approach has been used to develop models for SMEs networks analysis. Thanks to the huge experience of analysis gained during the CODESNET project, a classification of different type of SME network has been derived from practices and formally modeled by two models. As shown, the different types of SME networks can be described by a set of matrices (adjacency matrix R, incidence matrix M, path matrix P, distance matrix L and modified distance matrix L^), in structural terms, and by the functional scheme, in terms of management. A procedure of analysis is also introduced in order to give a guide to conduct the SMEs network analysis and evaluation by the definition of a list of indicators. This represents a significant result of the paper since both the structure and the functionality of a SME network can be associated with few but significant indicators. The two models introduced constitute an important instrument to answer to SME manager requirement: to be able to decide having knowledge of the most critical conditions and information affecting the decision. So, in case a SME manager would like to estimate if its SME could have a profitable return becoming a partner in a network, this approach can give him/her preliminary approximated but significant criteria for taking a decision: whether trying to find an agreement with the network partners or the committee, or not. The type of network and its management, as currently operating, can give him/her the answer.

Fig. 1 .

 1 Fig. 1. Graphs of a Marshallian-Italianate network on the left and Multi-stage Supply chain network on the right, where S is the source node and D is the Destination node.

Fig. 2 .

 2 Fig. 2. Graphs of a Hub and Spoke network on the left and of a Scientific Park on the right.

This set of matrices can support the analysis of any type of SME networks and allows to recognize some conditions of either strong or weak collaboration among SMEs.

A sufficient analysis of a real SME network, based on above matrices, can be done by knowing the following "basic data": a) for each product type manufactured by the network, o the average flows to be produced per unit time (i.e., production volumes); o the working sequence (i.e., the sequence of SMEs involved to apply the required manufacturing activities); b) for each component SME, the actual production capacity value, expressed in terms of the global volume of products per unit time that can be processed by the SME, in the average. The analysis steps to be applied to a given SME network can be illustrated as follows: 1 st step: Compile the following matrices M, R, P, and L^; 2 nd step: Compute the production capacity of each SME, by summing all production flows reported in the same column of the modified distance matrix L^, associated with the considered SME. 3 rd step: Apply a cutset recognition procedure to the path matrix P in order to identify any group of paths (i.e., groups of products that can belong to a same "product family") and the related set of SMEs (that could belong to a same "supply chain"). 4 th step: Compute the following indicators:

network connectivity index (NCO), i.e. the number of non-null elements in matrix R, corresponding to the number of connections among SMEs;

network utilization balance (NUB), in terms of the percentage number of SMEs for which the difference between the computed production capacity (at step 2) and the actual capacity value (type b data) is greater than a given "sufficient utilization" lower bound;

network separation into chains (NSC), i.e. percentage number of recognized independent supply chains, if any, referred to the number of component SMEs;

network chains independence (NCH), in terms of the percentage number of links (i.e., cutsets dimensions) connecting the recognized supply chains, if any;

number of network bottlenecks.


Angelita Moutin
email: angelita@usp.br

Segoria Gasparotto

Fábio Müller Guerrini
email: guerrini@sc.usp.br

A Practical Management Model for Supporting Virtual Organizations Creation within their Breeding Environments

Keywords: Model, VBE, VO, EKD Methodology

Among the various manifestations of collaborative networks in the literature, the Virtual Breeding Environment (VBE) has highlighted in the economic scenario since its implementation can provide the creation of Virtual Organizations (VO). The objective of this paper is to propose a practical model for supporting virtual organizations within their breeding environments, under the analytical approach of networks. The research method used is the study of multiple cases, involving eight VBEs of the manufacturing sector. The methodology that will support the creation of the proposed model is called Enterprise Knowledge Development (EKD), comprised of models of goals, concepts, business rules, actors and resources, processes and requirements and technical components. It is hoped that this model can enable the generation of concrete possibilities of facilitating the operation of the network as a whole. Additional topics will be presented in further work.

Introduction

The occurrence of multiple forms of relationships among companies is a topic that has been discussed in the literature recursively. Thus, there is a growing convergence of views of different schools for a better competitive performance that should focus not only on individual company alone, but primarily on investigating the relationships among companies and with other institutions [START_REF] Prahalad | The future of competition: Co-Creating Unique Value with Customers[END_REF]. In this context, collaborative networks arise, which with the advance of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) allow regionally distributed and heterogeneous entities can share resources, skills and risks, in order to reach common goals. Aiming at a better promotion of the conditions for the establishment of virtual organizations, there are environments for creating virtual organizations (Virtual Breeding Environment -VBE), which correspond to a set of organizations and institutions that have great potential for collaboration. [START_REF] Irigoyen | Virtual breeding environment: Working & sharing principles[END_REF], [START_REF] Swierzowicz | Social requirements for virtual organization breeding environments. IN: Leveraging Knowledge For Innovation In Collaborative Networks[END_REF].

The possibility of creating a virtual organization triggered during the operation phase of a network VBE has been one of the main mechanisms of corporation survival, since it allows different entities to offer products and services in a global market [START_REF] Baldo | A framework for selecting performance indicators for virtual organisation partners search and selection[END_REF], [START_REF] Boukadi | A Multi-layer framework for virtual Organizations Creation in Breeding Environment. IN: Collaborative Networks For A Sustainable World[END_REF]. In this context, the basic assumption is that the entities that are part of a VBE are prepared to collaborate [START_REF] Morris | The Entrepreur´s business model: toward a unified perspective[END_REF], [START_REF] Vallejos | Towards the development of a framework to create a virtual organization breeding environment in the mould and die sector[END_REF]. This preparation should include common infrastructure, documented agreements, mutual trust and work patterns. [START_REF] Afsarmanesh | methodologies, and tools supporting establishment and management of second-generation VBEs[END_REF].

Regarding the determination of models that describe briefly the operational phase of a network VBE, it is observed as the current stage, a lack of published works on this topic. The literature presents some proposed models for collaborative networks as [9], [START_REF] Millet | The SCOR model for the alignment of business processes and information systems[END_REF]. The proposition of Camarinha-Matos and Afsarmanesh [START_REF] Camarinha-Matos | Creation of virtual organizations in a Breeding Environment[END_REF] lists the necessary elements of a collaborative network in a reference model -ARCON (A Reference model for COllaborative Networks). From this model, Romero and Molina [START_REF] Romero | VO breeding environments & virtual organizations integral business process management framework[END_REF] propose a reference model for the creation of virtual organizations, placed in the context of a VBE. This model has the following steps to create virtual organizations: a) identification and characterization of opportunities, b) project planning, c) research and selection of partners and competence, d) negotiation, e) detailed planning, f) assignment and g) launching.

However, these models do not predict a systematic overview of how the concepts are related to the processes for supporting virtual organizations creation within their breeding environments. Since the primary purpose of a VBE is to establish necessary conditions for the creation of a virtual organization, the purpose of this paper therefore is to systematize the concepts and processes involved in the steps of creating virtual organizations, within the operational phase of the VBE. From the literature review and the support of the EKD methodology, the model of concepts will then be developed. Through of the multiple cases studies, the processes model is developed.

Literature Review

Organizational Modeling

In the context of modeling, a model can be understood as an abstract representation of a system, which will be used as a guide for development. A model may also be important to manage the operation of a system during its life cycle [START_REF] Vernadat | Enterprise modeling and Integration: principles and applications[END_REF]. Thus, some effort has been undertaken for the development of models, such as: ARCON [START_REF] Camarinha-Matos | On Reference Models for Collaborative Networked Organizations[END_REF], FEA [15], SCOR [START_REF] Han | Developing a collaborative supply chain reference model for a regional manufacturing industry in China[END_REF] and VERAM [START_REF] Zwegers | VERAM: Virtual Enterprise Reference Architecture and Methodology[END_REF].

The methodology EKD (Enterprise Knowledge Development) provides the basis for understanding and support for organizational changes, as well as help in developing information systems that support the organization. Models that are part of the EKD methodology are [START_REF] Bubenko | Appendix B -EKD User Guide. Hypermedia and Pattern Based Knowledge Management for Smart Organisations -HyperKnowledge[END_REF] -a) models of objectives: concentrate on the description of the ideas of the organization, what they want to achieve or avoid; b) models of concepts: represent the entities, attributes and relationships among them; c) models of rules: used to set and maintain the rules formulated and consistent with the model of objectives; d) models of actors and resources: used to describe how different actors and resources are related and how they relate to other models; e) models of processes: used to define the process of the organization, and the way in which they interact with and deal with information and materials; f) models of components and technical requirements: used when the proposition of EKD methodology is to help define the requirements for the development of an information system. From the justifications, the EKD methodology will be used to build the proposed model, since it fosters systematic analysis, understanding, development, documentation and organization of morphological components for the creating virtual organizations by VBE.

Environments for the Creation of Virtual Organizations

A Virtual Breeding Environment (VBE) is a set of organizations and their supporting institutions, endowed with human conditions, financial, social, structural and organizational potential for the creation of virtual organizations. A virtual organization is a temporary network of companies or combination of capabilities that share resources and purposes aiming at a common goal within a given period, in response to the opportunities eventually presented to them. At every opportunity, the mission, responsibilities, competences are established and risks are shared. [START_REF] Camarinha-Matos | Elements of a base VE infrastructure[END_REF].

Since one of the main functions of VBE is to promote the creation of virtual organizations, the ARCON model was instantiated culminating in a set of steps for this purpose. [START_REF] Romero | A virtual breeding environment reference model and its instantiation methodology[END_REF]: a) identification and characterization of the opportunity, b) project planning of virtual organization, c) search and selection of partners, d) negotiation, e) detailed planning, f) assignment and g) launching. The model of concepts was developed to represent the phase of operation of the collaborative VBE network for creating virtual organizations (Fig. 1):

Research Methodology

This research was conducted in three stages. The first, a survey was conducted in bibliographic databases to find articles in journals related to the objects of this study.

The databases used were the Web of Science, Science Direct, Emerald, Compendex and Elsevier. The keywords considered to start the search were collaborative networks, virtual breeding environments and virtual organizations. The papers were selected based on the analysis of the impact factor of the journals that is published in the Journal Citation Report (JCR) indexed by the Institute for Science Information (ISI) and the abstracts to identify the main articles that could contribute to this research. In the second stage, multiple case studies were carried out with eight VBEs. Initially the VBEs administrators were contacted by email and phone. Among the nine VBEs contacted, seven advisors e one administrator (Mexico, Switzerland, Brazil, United Kingdom, Ireland, Italy, Germany and Spain) returned the emails confirming the possibility and interest to participate in the research, and indicated respondents that knew more deeply the working of VBEs surveyed. The purpose of the questionnaire was to understand the process of operationalization of VBE with respect to the creation of virtual organizations [START_REF] Yin | Case study research: design and methods[END_REF]. The last stage was the development of an organizational modeling based on the EKD methodology. Considering the purpose of this study, a process model was developed to represent the stages of creation of virtual organizations, by VBEs surveyed.

Multiple Case Studies

Data were analyzed, organized and systematized by EKD modeling methodology. To do this, first, the questionnaires and conversations with respondents of VBEs were printed. This information was important for making the current status model. The next model was the future status model. This model was the result of analysis and comparison with literature and the current status model. The process model of the current status demonstrates how the VBEs in the phase of operationalization perform in order to create virtual organizations (Fig. 2). The analysis of the current status allows us to understand the processes of the organization, identify the actors and resources involved, the dependencies among the actors and business objectives.

Fig. 2. How the VBEs perform to create virtual organizations within their breeding environments

According to survey respondents, an opportunity (Process 1) can arise through external market or among entities that are already part of VBE. Who usually performs the step of identifying opportunities is the broker. Then the broker performs the step of search and selection of partners (Process 2), in order to meet the identified opportunity. From opportunities and partners selected, the VBE manager prepares a Work Breakdown Structure project (Process 3) for the new virtual organization. Definitions of governance (Process 4) contained in the contract establish the rights and duties among members of the virtual organization. The planning stage (Process 5) involves the preparation of a schedule of operation of the virtual organization, from the integration of activities, deadlines and the people responsible of this. Finally, the stage of launching (Process 6) involves putting a virtual organization in operation, by activating the services and notification of members. From the literature review and multiple cases studies (which presented the current status of how VBEs perform the steps of creating VO) it was possible to build a framework (Table 1) containing the changing needs. In other words, it could be identified what are the elements that both the literature and the VBEs recommend for the creation of virtual organizations. The comparison between the recommendations of the literature and the findings from multiple cases studies led to the process model proposed for this paper (Fig. 3). The proposed process model has six processes: an opportunity (Process 1) can arise through external market or among entities that are already part of VBE. Who usually performs the role of identifying and characterizing opportunities is the broker. In order to automate the process of identifying opportunities in a VBE, Demsar, Mozetic and Lavrac [START_REF] Demšar | Collaboration opportunity finder[END_REF] developed a tool called CoFinder (Collaboration Opportunity Finder). The tool compares the potential opportunities for collaboration with the essential skills stored in a database provided by the VBE. Then, the broker executes the search and selection of partners (Process 2), in order to meet the identified opportunity. Ermilova and Afsarmanesh [START_REF] Ermilova | Modeling and management of Profiles and Competencies in VBEs[END_REF] proposed a tool called PCMS (Profile and Competency Management System) whose purpose is to organize and manage a repository of expertise of the organizations that are part of the VBE, as well as the resources and capabilities demanded. From opportunities and partners selected, critical activities related to the creation of virtual organizations are established, among them: who is responsible for virtual organization, how risk sharing among the partners occur, how the sharing of information and treatment of privacy issues should be (Process 3). Definitions of governance (Process 4) establish the rights and duties among members of the virtual organization. Detailed planning (Process 5) involves the preparation of a contract and schedule of operation of the virtual organization. The launching (Process 6) involves placing a virtual organization in operation by configuring the infrastructure of information technology and communication, resource allocation, activation and notification services of the members involved.

Conclusions

Over the past years, various entities (such as research centers, companies, universities and government agencies), motivated in part by the process of internationalization of the economy and partly by the highly competitive global markets, have seen collaborative networking as great opportunity for sharing knowledge, uncertainties, risks and opportunities. In this context, a VBE is strategic for the creation of virtual organizations, especially because the phase of operation can enable the creation of virtual organizations. But note that there are difficulties for the creation of virtual organizations, such as agility, trust, negotiation and finding partners. Studies have shown that there are few studies that establish a systematic framework for the creation of virtual organizations, from the operational phase of the VBE. With the aid of the EKD methodology, a model of concepts was developed to understand the concepts, roles, benefits and challenges of VBEs for creating virtual organizations. From the comparison between the recommendations of the literature and the current situation of the creation of virtual organizations by VBEs, a process model was proposed. The determination of the model that includes the operation phase of VBE should help in the systematization of knowledge, generating the possibility to visualize the steps of creating virtual organizations as a whole, as well as allowing the researcher to find gaps that may be more explored in future research.

Fig. 1 .

 1 Fig. 1. model of concepts

Fig. 3 .

 3 Fig. 3. Process model proposed for creating virtual organizations by VBEs.

Table 1 .

 1 Recommendations for creating virtual organizations (Overview of Literature x VBEs)

	Literature Recommendations	VBEs -Multiple Case Studies
		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
	Identification and characterization of the opportunity
	Project planning of virtual organization
	Search and selection of partners
	Negotiation
	Detailed planning
	Assignment
	Launching


Hendrik Jähn
email: hendrik.jaehn@wirtschaft.tu-chemnitz.de

A Comprehensive Approach for the Management of Virtual Enterprises Including Performance Analysis, Provision of Incentives and Allocation of Income

Keywords: Production Management, Virtual Enterprise, Performance Analysis, Business Modeling

This conceptual paper focuses a comprehensive business model for service-oriented collaborative networks and Virtual Enterprises. In that context an innovative concept for the operative controlling of enterprises operating in order-specific configured collaborative systems is introduced. This approach includes a variety of methodologies. The main part of that approach considers income allocation based on the realised performance. Therefore a concept for the order-specific performance analysis has been developed. Additionally incentive mechanisms are considered. By the help of that approach new impulses for the operative enterprise management and controlling are available.

Motivation

An increasing number of production and supply processes are completed by collaborative systems. The reasons for that development are mainly of financial nature. However, enterprise-spanning cooperations cannot always act without frictions. Thus, an effective business model for service-oriented production and network management is required for the coordination both the cooperation and the value-adding process. Methods for the order-specific partner selection and preparation of offers are already available. However the challenging task of income allocation and process-related performance analysis mostly still remain unclear. This fact constitutes a major problem to be solved. The present contribution addresses these issues and focuses appropriate solutions.

Currently applied approaches of cooperations controlling are usually the classic corporate controlling methods. For this reason, the specific requirements of cooperation management are considered unsufficiently. This often leads to unsatisfactory results. The introduced framewerk and its methods represent an extension of the current controlling instruments. The main advantage is the high degree of adaptability. This allows a flexible applicability for the user, which is not available when standard instruments are applied. That fact represents a significant value added and expands the capabilities of cooperation management significantly.

Initial Situation, Problem Formulation and Research Object

Actors, who track an objective on their own, are by trend less successful than those, who align themselves and cooperate. On this note, cooperation forms an important precondition for evolution, as only those persons involved will survive in the long run and establish oneself in competition successfully, who adjust best to the given environmental conditions and who apply the most effective and most successful survival strategies. Cooperation is a very successful strategy in most of the cases. With regard to economy, similar conclusions can be drawn. As a general problem statement it is obvious that cooperation needs a comprehensive framework for controlling and management. That topic is focused in the next sections.

It is clear that cooperations not only bring benefits but also incur costs. However in the following it is assumed that only cooperations form when the (additional) benefit exceed the (additional) costs. In general, although independent enterprises act successful on the market, cooperation often generates additional capabilities. These allow for an even more successful market participation, provided that those advantages are not compensated by frictional or coordination losses between the cooperating partners.

From a historic point of view, many (successful) types of cooperation and teamwork can be identified within economy. Milestones are the implementation of division of labour in production processes, cp. the example for mass production of pins [START_REF] Smith | An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations[END_REF], a consistent improvement in assembly line production within an industrial environment by Ford or the formation and operation of company cooperations in terms of company networks [START_REF] Miles | Organizations: New concepts for new forms[END_REF] as long-term cooperations [START_REF] Zheng | Strategic Production Networks[END_REF] or virtual enterprises [START_REF] Davidow | The Virtual Corporation, Structuring and Revitalizing the Corporation for the 21st Century[END_REF], [START_REF] Byrne | The virtual corporation[END_REF]. Especially since the middle of the 20th century, economical motivated cooperations are studied increasingly from a scientific point of view. Whereas for the time being primarily economic problems took centre stage, referred to seminal publications of Coase in 1937 where questions of in-house production depth have been debated -a topic, which also concerns the formation of cooperations [START_REF] Coase | The Nature of the Firm[END_REF], since 1980 also economical and information technology-related questions of cooperation have been discussed increasingly. Especially since 1990, networks, virtual enterprises and supply chains are researched intensely, which meanwhile led to a review of general and basic circumstances and the current work focuses on more specialized problems. The article on hand belongs to this category.

In the context of the given problems explained in section 1it is necessary to localise room for improvement of the given methods or to develop new instruments. Currently, there have hardly been any scientific methods available for researching the existing problems in a specific way. Particularly the tasks after completing a valueadded process remain unclear from the scientific point of view in most cases. It is necessary to research possibilities for an improvement of the functional mains operation for manufacturing small enterprises.

The economic environment of important industrial nations, which is characterised by a great dynamic, is affected by divergent interests, as on the one hand, the single enterprises compete against each other and on the other hand, however, they form enterprise networks which take part in the competition as organisational units. Here, the single enterprises as well as the network as the whole construct quest for the maximization of utility, which normally equates the quest for profit maximisation.

Based on that fact, different interests do exist, which need to be consorted in terms of a customer orientation. In this context, customer orientation includes a competitive price as well as the compliance of several consents, e.g. product quality and date of delivery. To reach this target, a permanent monitoring of the value-added process is necessary to be finally able to collect and evaluate the performances of the single enterprises involved in the value-added process after its completion with having regard to appropriate criteria. Against the background of this process subsequently called performance analysis (PA), the problem of the value-added process-related allocation of income (= profit / loss) which is generated by the network participants is of high importance. Undoubted in this context is the relevance of this topic, especially from a practical point of view. Indeed, many enterprises demand clear and flexible standards concerning the allocation income within networks, but for a lack of alternatives, only rough-structured or simple structured and hardly any or no situational arrangements are implemented.

Another problem arises due to the inconsistent and unclear legal framework for order specific configured collaborative networks. Those heterogeneous systems in coincidence with the network managements' point of view are mainly more strategic than operational. Therefor it must be clarified how the interests of an enterprise network as well as those of a single network participants (enterprise division) can be aligned by means of appropriate methods and concepts to ensure their long-term survival and sustainable success. Particularly, possibilities to split up profit / loss on the participating enterprises out of the networked value-added processes in a transparent, righteous and performance-related way need to be developed. In this context, possibilities for an incentive configuration and sanction mechanism for the coordination of interests of groups of actors are considered in detail.

The research project has been accomplished under consideration of a special approach for the coordination and operation of value-added networks. This concept, termed "Extended Value Chain Management" (EVCM) [START_REF] Teich | Extended Value Chain Management -Ein Konzept zur Koordination von Wertschöpfungsnetzen[END_REF] has been developed within the research work for the Special Research Program "Non-hierarchical regional production nets" and is notably analyzing the networking of micro-and small enterprises, which are herein understood as competence cells. Those cells represent elementary organisational units of a non-hierarchical regional production network. According to the definition of the research project they are the "smallest performance unit of the value-added, which cannot be divided meaningfully anymore" [START_REF] Müller | Production planning and operation in competence-cell-based networks[END_REF].

The research project focuses on the organisational form of a competence cell as well as on possibilities to control order specific configured production nets by means of specific measures that a product can be manufactured, which on the one hand totally meets the customer requirements but also maximizes the utility of the enterprises cooperating. In this context approaches for an allocation of income as well as models for an evaluation of accomplished performances and possibilities of an incentive configuration are introduced. With this focussing, the object of investigation has to be ranged into the economic orientated network research with focus on production management. The central control mechanism can be pointed out as major advantage of the approach, which allows for a network management as an entity. Hence, the value-added process can be controlled and coordinated according to the customer requirements and at the same time, the different interests of the network participants can be taken into consideration. Furthermore, the EVCM is a very detailed and for some parts already IT-transformed operator concept, wherein the implementation of profit-and loss allocation can be integrated through an appropriate module. The mechanism of partner selection considers hard and soft-facts [START_REF] Fischer | Optimizing the selection of partners in production networks[END_REF].

Methodologies

The adaptability of models and concepts can be found out on the basis of acceptance by the participating actors. A good model finds a (relatively) broad acceptance, whereas worse approaches are only hardly accepted and are therefore applied to a lesser extent. If an approach will be accepted primarily depends on the affected actors -if they perceive the approach as righteous and fair. At this point the problem arises, that justice and fairness demonstrate qualitative characteristics and are therefore hard to collect. Indeed, fairness and justice can be discussed out of a philosophical perspective, but normally the results do hardly provide any disputatious added value for economic purposes. A fair allocation of income can for example be assumed if the rules and therefore the allocation model, which quantifies the shares of the single individuals, are also considered by them as fair. A rule is then perceived as fair if decision-makers concordantly agree on the application of this standard in advance and if an equal negotiating position for all persons involved can be accepted in this situation. The theoretical foundations form the basis for the development of these models out of an economical perspective as e.g. Network Theory, Decision Theory and New Institutional Ecomonics.

The implemented research projects are based on three individual model pillars with the target to develop a comprehensive and highly adaptable model for an orderrelated allocation of profit and loss within networked production structures under special consideration of the Extended Value Chain Management-approach with integration of incentive and sanction mechanisms. In this context, the cooperation of small-and micro enterprises has been presumed and is represented through competence cells. By developing that model in form of a reference model it can be adapted to the specific needs for application within a reconfigurable production environment. In figure 1 fundamentals behind incentive and sanction mechanisms are illustrated. Within the research methodology, first of relevant economic theories have been checked for its relevance. Here, the assumptions of the New Institutional Economics turned out to be an adequate cover framework [START_REF] Furubotn | Institutions and Economic Theory: The Contribution of the New Institutional Economics[END_REF]. Against the background of networked cooperation structures, the Principal-Agent-Theory in particular becomes very valuable [START_REF] Ross | The Economic Theory of Agency: The Principal's Problem[END_REF], [START_REF] Jensen | Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behaviour, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure[END_REF]. Within this context and under consideration of the framework of the Extended Value Chain Management-concept, possibilities of an allocation of income are focused firstly. Particularly aspects of

Incentive Mechansims Sanction Mechanisms

Mechanisms for the Management of Enterprise Networks

Reduction / Elimination of informational Asymmetries justice with consideration of the assumption of profit maximisation of all actors play an important role. For an integration of incentive mechanisms, it has been reverted to the assumptions of the incentive theory, whereas context-specific modellings could be deviated. Sanction mechanisms on the other hand are primarily derivable from control mechanisms, whereas the control is understood for the purpose of a performance analysis, for which extensive scopes for design are presented. Within the mathematic modelling, concrete suggestions have been made for the implementation of the developed approaches, first of all out of a theoretical perspective. The modelling of the approach of performance analysis can occur on different levels of abstraction. So there is a kind of meta-model or reference model supposable on the one hand, from which a useful approach of performance analysis can be deviated contextually and on the other hand, the deviated approaches have to be enhanced with methods, which allow a use in practice. Within the framework of the research projects, different phases of the phase model have been provided with comparatively detailed methods, so that a useable approach has been developed and simultaneously the demonstration of different approaches occurs, which allow an assimilation of the approach to changing basic conditions. In general, the performance analysis is contained here to a perspective related to the value-added process, whereby a perspective is adopted comparable to the allocation of income and incentive mechanisms, which allow for an aggregation of results of all three model pillars. Here, the focus has always been on the enterprises itself which are a part of a value-added process in form of competence cells as statutory-and economical independently acting organisations.

of the Research Project

The results of the research work are based on three independent model pillars with interfaces on a quantitative basis. The basic structure is illustrated in figure 2. First of all, the issue of methods for the allocation of income has been discussed [START_REF] Jähn | Fundamentals for the Allocation of Financial Benefits in Virtual Enterprises[END_REF]. In that context a rule-based negotiation model between customer and network representant for pricing has been developed. Consecutively different methods of resolution are deviated and demonstrated. Therefor it had to be determined, in which time frame the allocation of profit or loss is strived among the network participants.

As enterprise co-operations within the EVCM-approach primarily operate order

Sanction mechanisms

Incentive mechanisms

Recording of production deficits

Measurement and evaluation of performances

Comprehensive model for the allocation of income of enterprises operating in collaborative networks

Basic model for the allocation of income

Sanction mechanisms

Incentive mechanisms

Recording of production deficits

Measurement and evaluation of performances

Comprehensive model for the allocation of income of enterprises operating in collaborative networks

Basic model for the allocation of income specific (for the purpose of a virtual enterprise), an allocation of income among the participating enterprises after the completion of each order was found to be the most reasonable solution. In consideration of those specific requirements, a consistent framework for the allocation of income based on partial models has been intended and completed. Those models are based primarily on fixed calculation rules and are therefore available in a quantified form. In detail, one can distinguish two-component approaches with allocation parameters, approaches with consideration of expectation of profits of the competence cells and three-component approaches with weightings.

Here, different sub-models have been developed in turn. One of the components is the allocation of income according to the number of participants, to determine a constant share of income. The share of profit or loss also conforms to the portion of costs of one competence cell as a variable component and finally also according to the income conception for the purpose of an expected minimum-profit to integrate the expectations of the competence cell, as the case may be. The shares of income of the components, which need to be allocated, are either determined by use of an allocation parameter (in case of two components) or through weightings (for three components). A further differentiation is possible regarding the conversion of allocation mechanisms. A pivotal-/ peripheral approach or a hybrid form is supposable. A peripheral approach signifies that the participating enterprises include the profits out of a value-added process into their quoted price, which means that an allocation of profits will not be necessary. Although this approach is very popular in practice, as this procedure sooner complies with the procedure of a manufacturing process which was not implemented, also severe disadvantages do exist, e.g. the inclusion of hidden earnings which can lead to exorbitant prices. The pivotal approach however allows for an instance, which coordinates the mechanisms of the allocation of profits and losses. This concept comes very near to the philosophy of the EVCM-approach.

For the configuration of incentive mechanisms in collaborative systems, the target for the permission of incentives exists in motivating the receiver of incentives to a specific action desired by the actor who provides the incentive [START_REF] Jähn | The Application of Incentive Mechanisms for the Participation of Enterprises in Collaborative Networks from an Economic Perspective[END_REF]. Here, different incentive mechanisms are supposable, whereas financial incentives dominate within economy. For the accomplished research project, incentives are first of all understood as configured mechanisms originated by the network management, whereby the focus is not on a complete or extensive consideration, but selective problem areas of the (industrial) production are singled out for which possibilities for implementing financial orientated approaches will be demonstrated subsequently. Algorithmic procedures which can be applied for several network configurations stand here in the foreground. In this context, incentive mechanisms have found consideration as a designing or influencing measure. In the case of permission for incentive for competence cells, there is a direct connection to the cash flows between the network participants. So far only selected applications have been discussed and modelled. Hereto belongs for example the permission for application in case of a missing production capacity within the network and the configuration of incentives in case of a lacking financial attractiveness of an order.

Another important part of the whole concept are sanction mechanisms. Sanction mechanisms as an instrument for a coordination of interests of persons involved -EVCM (Principal) and competence cells (Agents) -also cause cash flows between the network participants and are realized in form of control mechanisms through an approach for an order-related performance analysis of competence cells.

For the quantification of sanctions in form of a monetary amount, a comprehensive approach for the order-related measurement, evaluation and analysis of the performances accomplished by the participants of the collaborative system has been developed [START_REF] Jähn | Value-added process-related performance analysis of enterprises acting in cooperative production structures[END_REF]. The claim of that approach is that in comparison to established concepts of performance evaluation not only measuring and evaluation of performances is included, but also possibilities for their analysis are considered.

The concept includes the procedure in principal based on different phases which either are value-added process-neutral or value-added process-specific. Within the value-added process-neutral phases the performance analysis is arranged and prepared through a determination of relevant performance parameters. In practice numerous parameters can potential be integrated [START_REF] Feldmann | Designing Manufacturing Networks -An Empirical Study[END_REF]. Here, next to the performance parameters based on numbers, e.g. price, date of delivery, response time and product quality soft factors, like the cooperation performance (quality of teamwork) and confidence climate are part of the analysis as well [START_REF] Jähn | Quantitative Analysis of the Soft Factor Cooperation Climate in Collaborative Networks[END_REF]. The identification of relevant performance parameters as well as significant key figures is realized by a netbalanced scorecard. In order to represent different stages of importance the performance parameters and its evaluations are weighted repsectively. Details for the determinations of the weightings and the aspired target level of proficiency fot the performance parameters are determined as well. As a result, a key figure is calculated by means of an adapted benefit analysis, which gives information about the degree of performance of an enterprise. Based on this key figure, sanctions can be calculated in terms of a decrease of profit, if required and applicable.

Under these circumstances, accomplished performances of the competence cell are determined and evaluated by accompanying the value-added process and finally analysed in form of an aggregated key figure (actual output). In case of an inadequate value performance, which can be identified easily through a comparison of target-and actual performance, the share of profit of the affected competence cell will be reduced, which is on par with a sanction. In case of a loss there will be an additional payment. For demonstrating the connection between the degree of performance and the area of sanction, mathematic functions are applied. Furthermore, this approach has been specified further through the introduction of general applicable weighting functions for the single performance parameters, whereby a universal model framework has been created.

Conclusions and Further Research

This contribution introduced an innovative framework for the operative controlling of collaborative systems. That approch is already available in a more detailed manner including clear results and detailed approaches. However the presentation of these concrete mechanisms was not part because of the character of a conceptual papaer. By applying the methods included in the concept introduced, a variety of tools for the allocation of income in combination with incentive and sanction mechanisms are available. The selection of the suitable models has to be made by the particular decision makers themselves depending on the situation occurring. To allow a universal applicability of the models it has been paid attention thereon that a custom made assimilation is normally possible without any further model modification. This especially will be realized thereby that the models could be implemented on a quantitative stage and are therefore easily controllable through selected parameters. It hereby succeeded to expand the operative network controlling with new innovative models and methods of management.

Further research work includes a verification of the assumptions based on empirical data. Furthermore, the existent impairments and limits of modelling are to eliminate. That includes limited number of performance parameters as well as questions of a determination of allocation parameters. For example it is planned to include an ecological performance parameter. Finally after completing the modelling the information-technical implementation and its practical application is planned.

Fig. 1 .

 1 Fig. 1. Mechanisms of the operative controlling.

Fig. 2 .

 2 Fig. 2. Interaction of the model pillars.