Design

The partnership proposition canvas: designing your value network

Posted on July 5, 2013October 19, 2014 by Bart Doorneweert

[Ed. 17-10-2014 We have an updated version of this partnership tool]

Alex Osterwalder’s business model canvas is proving to be an indispensable tool in the process of business model innovation. It trawls your sets of ideas for those innovations where you can improve on, or create novelty in bringing value to the customer. Also, there are exciting new developments to this tool, such as the value proposition canvas, which can be used as a plugin. The business model canvas is ideal for gearing your business for market disruption, toppling your competitors with a proposition that best fits to current customer needs.

Yet, there is one important aspect in the process of market disruption, that the business model canvas doesn’t take into account in detail, namely the value network, located at the back-end of the business model. As Clay Christensen, and Richard Rosenbloom (1995) wrote,

“The key consideration is whether the performance attributes implicit in the innovation will be valued within networks already served by the innovator, or whether other networks must be addressed or new ones created in order to realize value for the innovation.”

Forging the value network partnerships, which are required to make your business model work, is not an easy task. Potential partner businesses are already part of other existing value networks, and it is often not self-evident for them to engage with you in a partnership; they would rather stay in the relations they’re currently in. The upshot is that in order to realize a new business model, we not only need to convince our end users to prefer our idea, but we also have to motivate others within the value network to stop using our competitors. In this blog post I will present a prototype of a new business tool, that helps you in designing your partnerships, and intends to work seamlessly together with the business model canvas.

Available tools
It is my experience in discussing key partnerships with the business model canvas, that the discussion remains constrained to what I would need as a complement to my own business model, ie. what I would like to use my value network for. But a partnership is not just about my business model. It is a two-way relation. The questions I see myself asking in addition are:

What position do I have in approaching potential partners? What can I offer that is of value to them?
How can I assess the balance between what I offer my partner, and what I obtain in return?
How can I best utilize these returns from my partnership for use in my own business model?

… and I keep guessing about the answers.

There are tools out there, value mapping being the most prominent of them. You can find a great feature of this tool in Vijay Kumar’s latest: 101 Design Methods. However, the inherent problem with this tool is that is primarily an analytical tool. It does not carry the conversation forward to creating the actionable hypotheses, which are required to validate a new business model. Just like the business model canvas, value mapping only provides guidance on possible outcomes for thinking about partnerships, not on how to specifically arrive at an outcome. There is thus a need for asking even better questions about your business model, making your thinking on partnerships more granular.

A prototype tool for discussing partnerships
Something that comes closer to a resolve of this issue is the value network exchange process between two partners that Verna Allee (2008) describes in het work. Verna defines an exchange relation in a value network as a 3 step process:

value input to the relationship (what do you bring to the table?)
value enhancement (how can you enhance the value you can provide to your partner?)
value conversion (how can you make use of the value that your partner holds?)

Expanding on this, I’ve broken these 3 steps down into 8 building blocks. Each building block contains its own questions that need to be asked in order to achieve the flow of value between your business model and a specific partner.

The content of this table can be rendered into a canvas structure. I have dubbed this the partnership proposition canvas.

The partnership proposition canvas (v0.4): rendered from The Business Model Canvas (BusinessModelGeneration.com)  and licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Un-ported License

How does the partnership proposition canvas work?
This canvas can be used either as a stand-alone tool, or in conjoint design with the business model canvas, as a zoom-in tool. You can use the partnership proposition canvas when you have validated the primary hypotheses relating to your value proposition-customer fit, and are looking to validate the rest of your business model. As Steve Blank explains in the (free!) Udacity Lean Launch Pad class: you can’t begin early enough with exploring potential partnerships.

The partnership proposition canvas has a two level relation with the business model canvas. First, key activities and key resources need to match in both. Secondly, “usable forms” in the partnership proposition canvas need to be relevant and applicable in any of the other building blocks of the business model canvas. This way you can indicate how a specific partnership adds value. The added value from your partnership can be evaluated by comparing the cost structure of the partnership, with the returns from application of the “usable forms” in your business model canvas.

Matching the partnership proposition canvas with the back-end of the business model canvas

The “usable form” building block should contain elements, which fit back into the business model canvas.

2 Examples
I’ve worked out two cases to demonstrate how the partnership proposition canvas works. The first is case of a company that has really taken its partnership strategy to the next level: the relation between Nespresso and its machine manufacturers. The second is a relationship gone sour: the relation between Apple, and its component manufacturer Samsung.

Nespresso and the machine manufacturers
Nespresso’s business model is famous for the relation it has set up with its partners, the machine manufacturers. The manufacturers have their own distribution channels through which they market their versions of the Nespresso machines. This dramatically increases the reach of the Nespresso concept, because once you buy the machine, you’re also stuck to buying the coffee pods.

But what would compel these manufacturers to make their distribution channels available? The partnership proposition canvas below shows how this is done

Machine manufactures have 3 assets that Nespresso doesn’t have, namely manufacturing facilities, a product distribution network, and product marketing. These are the desired assets that Nespresso wants to make use of.

Nespresso offers manufacturers three propositions: a license for using their technology to build the machines, a co-branding opportunity for marketing them, and providing a one-stop-shop for product returns. Nespresso’s condition for giving out this proposition is that the manufacturer co-designs its machines with Nespresso, and that they co-design the machine advertisements. This is firstly to safeguard the overall look and feel of the Nespresso concept. Also this compact supports changes to machine designs as the Nespresso R&D department periodically comes up with new technologies. As a deliverable to the arrangement, Nespresso includes the machines in their advertisement activities. On top of that Nespresso also offers to market the machines through its own Nespress.com and flagship stores, and defective machines back if they’re still under warranty.

What does Nespresso get in return that it can utilize for its own business model? Firstly of course, the mentioned access to the manufacturer’s distribution channel. But there’s more! The offer is apparently so appealing to manufacturers, that Nespresso is even able to seize a percentage of the sales of the machine through the Nespresso stores out of the deal, as well as a small license fee. When looking at the bottom line of this partnership, it creates more than enough value to offset the cost of running the partnership.

Apple and Samsung
The Apple-Samsung relationship dates back to 2005. Apple was looking for a stable supplier that could realize the replacement of the hard disk drive in its iPods with flash memory, and could at the same time meet the supply requirement for its upcoming line of other portable devices. At that time there weren’t many players out there who could supply that technology at the volumes and quality required by Apple: “Whoever controls flash is going to control this space in consumer electronics,” Steve Jobs said. Not only did Samsung fit the requirement as a supplier of flash memory, it also would deliver processors, and screens of high quality for iPods, iPhones, and iPads, fitting to Apple’s huge quality and energy saving demands.

So, what does this partnership look like?

Apple offers Samsung an exclusive procurement relation, where Apple will only buy its desired components from Samsung on a long-term basis. The steady growth in sales of i-devices backs the long term value of the proposal. Also, joint development of processors is a crucial part of the deal, as that requires capabilities that Apple doesn’t have on itself. As a deliverable, Apple purchases components, and shares sales projections, so that Samsung can coordinate its supply. The tricky bit of this arrangement is though that Samsung has also become very active on the mobile devices market since initiation of this partnership on 2005. That’s why the compact includes a confidentiality agreement, where Samsung’s components division is forbidden to share Apple sales forecasts with its mobile devices division.

Currently this relationship appears to be outlasted. Where Apple initially took advantage of the fact that Samsung was the largest manufacturer of flash drives in the early days when sales for the iPod really started to grow, Samsung has now turned into Apple’s main competitor on the mobile devices market. The confidentiality arrangement is put under pressure as the rivalry between the two companies on the consumer market heightens. Now that Samsung’s advantage as a flash drive manufacturer has lost significance due to more able rivals being active on the market, and due to the fact that it is directly competing with Apple, the relationship is downgraded. It is reduced to a basic component supplier relationship with limited added value (and potentially it is even a leaky risk!). Quite clearly, the relation is under pressure, and Apple needs to innovate with new relations and new partners.

Wrap-up
The partnership proposition canvas is a first attempt at creating an actionable tool that can support design from the back-end of the business model. It is informed by value web mapping tools that analyze how an industry’s value network exchanges value. Insights from such analytical tools can be used in the partnership proposition canvas to create actionable hypotheses for experimenting with new relationships in your value network, helping you build a strong business model.

The tool is still at an early stage and will be prototyped by more practitioners over the coming weeks. I hope that this blog post has captured your interest. If so I would really like to invite you to give this canvas a spin, and provide me with straight up feedback on how it works for you. More to come in this space!

Download the partnership proposition canvas template in powerpoint with stickies here:

The partnership proposition canvas v0.4

Key take aways:

1)   Value networks matter for business model design
2)   Your key partner relations are more specific than mere supplier relations. You are often looking for complex forms of (non-monetary) value from your partners to support your own business model operations, and you need to deliver something matching in return.
3)   Your partnership is temporary. What you need in search mode is different than the partnership you will need in execution mode, and even then your relations won’t last forever. Your partnership is thus likely to develop over the period of developing your business. The partnership proposition canvas can help you adapt to those upcoming requirements.

—————–
I would like to express my gratitude to Ernst Houdkamp for reviewing this blog post before publishing, encouraging me to make it as simple as possible. I hope this has worked out. I will be prototyping this canvas together with Ernst over the coming weeks to observe how it is used and learn about the needed refinements.

Literature used:

Allee, V. (2008), “Value network analysis and value conversion of tangible and intangible assets” Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 9 Nr. 1, pp 5-24

Christensen, C.M. and Rosenbloom, R.S. (1995), “Explaining the attacker’s advantage: technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network” Research Policy, 24, pp. 233-257

“Your focus is not my priority”

Posted on December 5, 2012December 7, 2012 by Bart Doorneweert

Together with Niti Bhan, I organized a workshop in November 2012, for a group of Dutch stakeholders (private sector, research, government, NGO’s), who contribute to and collaborate on sustainable development in agricultural value chains from developing countries. The workshop’s purpose was to provide for an opportunity where these stakeholders could come together and reflect on their work for their targeted groups of subsistence farmers. It was an opportunity provided by the Dutch Ministries of Economic Affairs and Foreign Affairs. Here’s my take of what went down.

The setup for the experience
To bring focus to the discussion that was to take place, Niti and I purposely put the farmer at the centre stage for the day; the farmer being the ‘user’ of the knowledge about and technology for innovations that can bring sustainable development. We developed several so called design challenges. In these challenges, break-out groups were anointed to be a specific actor in value chain. They were charged with the task of introducing several sustainable (or good) agricultural practices (GAP’s) to specific farmers (tea in Kenya, coffee in Cameroon, and cocoa in Ivory Coast), taking a set of specified constraints into consideration.

Structure of the design challenge

We set the scene with a great introduction by Niti. Her work showed some of the patterns in the effects that uncertainty in cash income and in time, has on organizing life, work, and consumption in the informal rural economy. The intent of providing these insights was to invoke thinking on how closely and in what way stakeholders involve their users and user needs in the design of the actual value chain development programs they implement. We gave our groups full access to design support from the excellent JAM design studio (who also created all the presented visuals). The design sheet as shown above was simple enough, and the support competent enough to allow the group of non-designers to engage in a user-centered problem-solving exercise.

Insights on the multi-stakeholder working process
When the break-out groups re-convened after their design exercises, we asked each group to present their ideas, and discuss their assumptions and constraints with the audience. Across all presentations we discovered an interesting pattern. Participants found themselves to be confronted with an inability to associate with the user, deeming that area of the value chain apprehensive for conjecture about farmers’ needs, and too far removed in terms of values. In our attempt to lower the barriers to applying the user-centered approach through a free-form exercise, we apparently raised an inherently imbedded barrier to consider the user. Rather, participants insisted to direct their problem-solving attention to a more abstract, distant level of thinking (the value chain), or a particular part of the value chain that is more closely associated with Western values (working from the perspective of Nespresso, rather than the coffee farmer).

Distance to the user (drawn in synthesis of workshop findings)

This inability to associate with the users had impactful implications for ways in which the groups constructed design solutions. The approaches used were vertical in nature, thinking only within the bounds of what would directly associate with production of a particular agricultural commodity. In their thinking on solutions, people diverted to general principles (tea production provides for income, and thus makes the farmers happy), and then divided the relevant principles into disciplinary segments (like finance, training, agronomy, trade, etc).

A solution to the cocoa problem, but does the cocoa farmer want it? (workshop output)

Our groups’ working assumption appeared to be that creation of a conducive environment around the user (relating to the group’s particular focus area) would convince the user to adopt sustainable farming practices. Our working groups would define the elements of this conducive environment by using expert statements about the needs of the users. Expert opinion was thus applied as a substitute for direct understanding of the user. It provided the working groups with the sense of control they needed to make design decisions, relieving them from the uncertainty of the exercise. The upshot was that our groups created a logical construct for their solutions which circumvented the farmer, working around their own design constraint of not holding applicable user insights.

Experts say… (drawn in synthesis of workshop findings)

How would these insights translate to adoption of solutions?
Though it may seem a sensible way of working, the dependency on expert input actually creates a marketing problem for transferring innovations for sustainable development to farmers. Expert insight appears to displace the use of actual user-related insight to influence design. On top of that, the negotiation process underlying the solution which is provided, conducted by stakeholders here, leaves no control to the user to adapt it to her priorities.

The proposition as it is currently made (drawn in synthesis of workshop findings)

Such approach would thus preclude any method for calibrating a solution configuration to match to the priorities that are part of the mindset of the user. In fact the project’s offer could even be considered as a potential liability from the perspective of the user, who has to find (negotiable) ways to control for uncertainties like available time and money. “Your focus is not my priority” would be the mode of cooperation with farmers, likely causing mounting problems with trust, and adoption.

Perspective for bridging the values gap with the user
The value chain could in potential be used to achieve development results. But the workshop exercise has shown that we need to pay more attention to creating suitable interfaces for the exchange of values. This entails consideration of the following aspects:

First of all, it’s important to take segmentation of the targeted users into account. For instance, there is a world of difference between subsistence and below subsistence smallholder farming. Who do we want to target, and not to target?
Related to the first point, decision makers for value chain programs will need to obtain a higher sense-level about the user. This need not require an extensive profiling, but just enough up to date information containing a minimum level of scope and detail about the target user persona’s. This will support a more lateral perspective in decision making for solution development.

Sampling and segmenting your users

Uncertainty is inherent to the challenge of value chain development in the informal economy. Experimentation is a far more likely management approach to deal with that constraint, than expert opinion. Before rolling out large programs, decision makers should at least have tested the smallest number of core features of the idea in their most minimal form with targeted users. Experiments could invite smart and small feedback loops to validate the concept, and inform decision making.

These points are a challenge to development. Allocation decisions by donors are not aligned to such approaches. Also, I have focussed much on insights that could help in increasing the likelihood of success. But in fact, in innovation practice, it is actually more common to learn from failure. In the way development is currently organized there are incentives to rather obscure failure than obtain traction in learnings from it. This is another barrier that needs to be overcome. Ultimately we need a vision on how we further our learning in development. We need to come to a discussion level of ideas where N.G.O.s are able to say to donors, ‘Don’t fund this, it doesn’t work.’ – should that apply.
——————

This is the fourth piece in a continuing series of posts (starting here) on what the role of human-centered design could be in development work. I’m working on this together with Niti Bhan, who will also be posting her observations at her Perspective blog. Posts are categorized as VCD

Share this page

Share this page