Collaboration business models - rapport

Collaboration and Business Models in the Creative Industry

Exploring heterogeneous collaborations

Commissioner: IIPCreate Authors: Remco Kossen Peter van de Poel Isabelle Reymen Date: March 2010

Collaboration and Business Models in the Creative Industry Page 2 of 47


PREFACE

This report is the result of the IIP Create project "Collaboration and business models in the creative industry". Collaboration and business models are one of the key themes of the Strategic Research Agenda of IIP Create. IIPCreate is one of the Innovation platforms of ICT Regie, stressing the importance of the creative sector. The report describes a) important and relevant literature, b) important stakeholders, and c) best practices and problems on collaboration and business models in the creative industry. The aim of this report is to inform and convince policy makers, knowledge institutes and practice of the importance of the topic and indicate areas for further research in the near future. It should provide the basis information for a proposal and consortium on the topic.

Based on a request from IIP Create, Isabelle Reymen from Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e) and Catholijn Jonker from TUDelft wrote a project proposal in Spring 2009, which was accorded by IIPCreate in August 2009. It was one of the Ways of Working (WoW) Projects, coordinated by Anne Nigten. The project was performed from September 2009 till March 2010 by two master students of TU/e, Remco Kossen and Peter van de Poel, under supervision of Isabelle Reymen.

dr.ir.arch. Isabelle is Assistant Professor Design Processes at the Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e) and working in the Innovation, Technology Entrepreneurship, and Marketing Group (ITEM) of the Department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences. The research conducted in the ITEM group relates to the areas of New Product Development, and Entrepreneurship and Commercialization of New Technology. Education is mainly provided in the programs "Innovation Management" (Master) and "Technische Bedrijfskunde" (Bachelor). Entrepreneurship related education activities take place in the Brabant Center of Entrepreneurship, a collaboration between the University of Tilburg and the TU/e.

B.Sc. Peter van de Poel finished his Bachelor Industrial Engineering and is enrolled in the Operations Management and Logistic master at TU/e. He plans to graduate this summer.

B.Eng. Remco Kossen finished his bachelor Mechanical Engineering and is enrolled in the Innovation Management master. He plans to graduate this summer.

We especially like to thank people who made this study possible. First of all, we like to thank Catholijn Jonker for her support in writing the proposal. Also very important was Anne Nigten for representing the WoW projects on a higher level in IIPcreate. We like to thank Geleijn Meijer (director of IIP Create) and Patricia Heukensfeldt Jansen and Frits Grotenhuis working for IIPCreate for their support of our project, also financially, and for arranging all contract‐related aspects. Content related expertise in the field of collaboration and business models was obtained from the TU/e Department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences, group of Innovation, Technology entrepreneurship and Marketing (www.item‐eindhoven.nl). Especially Hans Berends and Ksenia Podoynitsyna provided constructive feedback during the project.


TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface..................................................................................................................................................... 3 Summary.................................................................................................................................................. 5 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 7 2 Research Approach .......................................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Overall Approach .................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Identification of Important Stakeholders ................................................................................ 8 2.3 Identification of Best practices and Problems ......................................................................... 8 2.3.1 Data Collection ................................................................................................................... 8 2.3.2 Case Selection..................................................................................................................... 8 2.3.3 Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 9

2.4 Literature Review.................................................................................................................... 9 3 Literature Review........................................................................................................................... 10 3.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 10 3.2 The Creative Industry............................................................................................................ 10 3.3 Collaboration ........................................................................................................................ 12 3.4 Business Models ................................................................................................................... 13 3.4.1 What is a business Model? ............................................................................................... 13 3.4.2 Frameworks of Business Models....................................................................................... 13 3.4.3 Type of Business Models .................................................................................................. 16

3.5 Collaboration and Business Models ...................................................................................... 17 3.5.1 Open Business Models: ‘Inside‐out’ and ‘Outside‐in’........................................................ 17 3.5.2 Co‐development partnerships .......................................................................................... 19

3.6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 19 4 Important Stakeholders.................................................................................................................. 20 4.1 Stakeholders Interviewed ..................................................................................................... 20 4.2 Other Stakeholders in the Creative Industry ......................................................................... 22 4.3 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 23

5 Best Practices and Problems .......................................................................................................... 24 5.1 Collaboration in the Creative Industry .................................................................................. 24 5.1.1 The importance of having a network ................................................................................ 24 5.1.2 Formalization and contracts & IP ...................................................................................... 24 5.1.3 Communication & trust .................................................................................................... 26 5.1.4 Heterogeneity in Size and Discipline ................................................................................. 26

5.2 Business models in the Creative Industry.............................................................................. 28 5.3 Collaborative Business Models.............................................................................................. 30 5.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 32

6 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 33 7 References ..................................................................................................................................... 35 8 Interview notes .............................................................................................................................. 36 9 Appendices..................................................................................................................................... 37 9.1 Interview Protocol entrepreneur .......................................................................................... 37 9.2 Interview Protocol – information brokers ............................................................................. 39 9.3 Business Models ................................................................................................................... 41


SUMMARY This report is the result of the IIP Create project "Collaboration and business models in the creative industry". Collaboration and business models are one of the key themes of the Strategic Research Agenda of IIP Create. The report describes a) important and relevant literature, b) important stakeholders, and c) best practices and problems on collaboration and business models in the creative industry. The aim of this report is to inform and convince policy makers, knowledge institutes and practice of the importance of the topic and indicate areas for further research in the near future. It should provide the basis information for a proposal and consortium on the topic.

Collaboration in the creative industry is indeed very important. There are several reasons for collaborations between partners in the creative industry. For example, creative businesses (ZZP, start‐ups, SME,) often lack resources to leverage their creativity into successful products whereas other (larger) companies often lack creativity and speed to exploit their IP. Based on our study, we see heterogeneous collaborations in the creative industry as collaborations a) between different type of partners: e.g. ZZP, SME, start‐ups versus e.g. large corporations, knowledge institutes, cultural institutes, b) between partners from different disciplines (different Beta disciplines like mechanical engineering, electrical engineering etc., but also alfa and gamma disciplines), and c) with different positions in the value chain/on different topics, e.g. concept development, marketing and customer involvement, supply chain, etc..

Important problems recognized in collaborations in the creative industry are a) economic valuation of creative/cultural value is difficult since this value is to a great extent intangible, which often rises problems with the protection of IP or in the attraction of money; b) differences in culture and approach between partners (e.g. formality, hierarchy, scale). Since the creative industry employs approximately 30% of the Dutch employees, the collaboration problems are not incidental but structural; most of the interviewees state that it is difficult.

Important enablers for collaborations in the creative industry seem to be subsidies (like Point One), development environments (like Fablab), networks (like social networks), and communication and trust (versus formalization, contracts and IP). Practitioners invented numerous ways (best practices) to overcome typical problems with heterogeneous collaboration. Many entrepreneurs are involved in (large) networks and use strong‐ and weak ties relationships. These relationships enable them to attract money and raise funds, get (free) juridical advice, and/or start new cooperation’s. Many of them state that communication and trust are essential in maintaining these networks. Furthermore, entrepreneurs show a great amount of creativity in creating business models. Some offer a diversified product/service portfolio to extent the number of possible income channels. Others are involved in numerous subsidy programs. Some even create unique distribution channels.

Two dominant type of business models could be identified in the creative industry, namely creators, in which products are created and sold to buyers (physical as well as intangible assets are being sold) and brokers, facilitating sales by matching potential buyers and sellers, of mainly intangible assets (based on the framework of Malone, 2006). Some other business model related aspects we found are: every model is unique; alignment of the partners' business models is essential in fruitful collaboration; and open innovation (inside‐out and outside‐in) stimulates collaborations and enables new ways of doing business. Despite the large amount of professional attention to business models, academic literature on business models is scarce. We could identify several frameworks of business models and types of business models. But insight on the design and development of business models for (heterogeneous) collaboration is limited, let alone specific to the creative industry. Empirical research based on some good (and bad) practices may help to create insight in the development of effective business models


and create guidelines to design business models useful in the creative industry. So although some best practice exist, more research towards effective business models for collaboration in the creative industry is needed. It should enhance both scientists and practitioners to fully exploit the opportunities in the creative industry.

Also guidelines and support is needed to face the many challenges when setting up heterogeneous collaborations. This has not been covered widely in the literature, and also in practice, little is known. Many of the interviewees acknowledged that most collaborations are designed by their gut feelings. Insight in the development and guidelines for the design of business models for different type of (heterogeneous) collaborations is definitely missing. In order to create useful guidelines, many different streams in the literature need to be synthesized, like literature on partnerships, inter‐organizational collaboration and open innovation, and applied to the creative industry. For research purposes, selecting a specific area in the creative industry is thereby needed, e.g. the music industry.

Some specific questions for further research on business models for heterogeneous collaborations are How to create and appropriate value

‐ with business models that combine different types of value, not only economic value, but also immaterial value (like cultural value, social value, knowledge value, idealistic (e.g. sustainability) value)?

‐ with a business model that is both innovative and still accepted in the industry? (What determines a business model success, to be accepted?)

‐ with (not‐used) IP of larger organizations (Philips Research, TNO,etc.), based on collaboration between larger organizations and SME/creative ZZP in a win‐win situation? (idea of big player, make business with small player) (valorisation)

‐ based on collaboration between creative ZZP/SME and larger organizations in a win‐win situation? (idea of small player, scale up with large player)

‐ in interface between big players and users/ZZP/SME? (e.g. platform development between professional content providers and users)?

How to support value creation and appropriation

‐ in inter‐organizational business models? (Business models that do not belong to one organization, but to the value chain; next to the business models of partner organizations.)

Eindhoven University of Technology is interested in studying these questions in the creative industry and welcomes collaborations with enthusiastic partners. We would like to combine knowledge creation according to academic standards, with developing guidelines that can be used for improving value creation and appropriation in the creative industry.


1 INTRODUCTION The creative industry is an important (Dutch) industry. Approximately 30% of the Dutch workforce is employed in this area (SRA, 2009). The rise of this new sector over the last years has led to a significant amount of opportunities for the economy and its entrepreneurs. However, the different nature and innovativeness of this industry gave rise to a number of new and difficult challenges (SRA, 2009). As a result of these challenges, there is a demand for support in creating (new) business models and for guidelines for collaboration between the involved parties.

Specific for the creative industry are heterogeneous collaborations. The creative industry is characterized by many Small & Medium sized enterprises (SME’s) and Freelancers or "Zelfstandige Zonder Personeel" (ZZP)1. They lack resources to leverage their creativity to bring successful products to the (global) market. Bigger companies and multinationals do have the possibilities to bring creative products to the market, however often lack creativity and entrepreneurial spirit. Collaboration between these heterogeneous parties could therefore create interesting opportunities for both parties. Other heterogeneous collaborations can be established with cultural institutions, knowledge institutes etc. Supporting the organization of these processes of collaboration between heterogeneous partners and the creation and appropriation of value for all stakeholders in these collaborations is of crucial importance for the sector. Up till now it is however unclear how to do so effectively and efficiently.

The aim of this study is to identify relevant stakeholders, literature, and best practices and problems on collaboration and business models in the creative sector. The scope of the study is defined as: “Collaboration and business models between heterogeneous partners within the creative industry”2. The creative industry is well‐delineated to ICT related creative industry. Only the Dutch situation is looked at. The study should be seen as a first step in creating insight and support for business models and collaborations in the creative industry.

First, academic literature regarding business models and collaboration is reviewed and analyzed, and described in Chapter 3 of this report. Secondly, important stakeholders regarding business models and collaboration in the Dutch creative industry have been listed in Chapter 4; their background range from entrepreneur of a new venture, to consultant on business models and subsidy coordinator within a multi‐national. Finally, best practices and problems regarding (heterogeneous) collaborations and business models in the creative industry have been analyzed and are reported in Chapter 5, based on interviews with creative SME’s and Freelancers, cultural institutions, multinationals, consultancy, and researchers. The report starts in the next chapter with a discussion of the research approach and ends with a conclusion summarizing the main findings and discussion of the directions for future research.

1 ZZP is a typical Dutch term for an entrepreneur without having personnel. It is often one person who offers products or services and therefore sends a bill to his customers. (www.wikipedia.nl) 2 Samenwerking en business modellen tussen heterogene partners in de creatieve industrie


2 RESEARCH APPROACH

2.1 OVERALL APPROACH The main goal of this study is to identify relevant stakeholders, literature, and best practices and problems on collaboration and business models in the creative sector. For each sub goal, the methodology to obtain it is described. In general, the research follows a design science approach (Romme and Endenburg, 2006), aiming to link research with practice and being focused on contributing simultaneously to both scientific knowledge as knowledge useful in practice.

2.2 IDENTIFICATION OF IMPORTANT STAKEHOLDERS At the start of the project, several names and links were provided by IIP Create and Anne Nigten, coordinator of the Ways of Working projects, as a starting point to look for important stakeholders. These were extended by desk research and the "snowball principle", by asking interviewees for other interesting or important stakeholders. It was looked at stakeholders in knowledge institutes, consultancy, larger companies, SME and cultural institutions. There are two important limitations to this method: (1) actors who are not connected by any of our sample will not be located; and (2) it highly depends on the pre‐defined list to catch all major players, without isolating sub‐set of actors within the creative ICT industry. In total 30 have been identified. This list is far from complete, but is at least representative of the diversity in the sector. The list should be extended in a dynamic way in the future, to capture recent developments.

2.3 IDENTIFICATION OF BEST PRACTICES AND PROBLEMS

2.3.1 DATA COLLECTION To identify best practices and problems on collaboration and business models in the creative industry, an explorative qualitative research approach was followed, best suiting the limited knowledge available yet. Interviews were the main source of data. Furthermore, publicly available information on internet was used.

For the interviews, a focused (i.e. semi‐structured) interview protocol was used to collect data regarding the difficulties and best‐practices of collaboration between heterogeneous partners and their business models. A different set of questions was used for interviewing entrepreneurs (interview protocol in Section 8.1, in Dutch) and for knowledge brokers (in Section 8.2). The former focuses on the practice and problems the entrepreneurs (start‐ups, SME's, larger corporations) experience; and asks for other examples and important stakeholders in the sector. The latter focuses on the problems, challenges and trends seen by knowledge institutes regarding collaboration and business models in the creative industry, their knowledge of good and bad practices and also on links to other stakeholders and important knowledge. In some interviews with entrepreneurs, some questions about their business model were added. As a frame of reference, the Business Model Canvas from Osterwalder & Pigneur (2009) was used; it is discussed in more detail in the literature chapter.

2.3.2 CASE SELECTION Based on the identification of important stakeholders (see Section 2.2), a subset. was made for interviewing. In total 16 interviews were held. Each interview still brought new insights; saturation was thus not yet reached, but resource limitations forced to stop here. Table 1 classifies the interviewees into the following categories: size of organization (in number of employees or Small/ Medium / Large / Extra Large), Function of interviewee, expertise of interviewee, artifacts produced by the organization and the extent to which a company is subsidized. The expertise of the interviewee has three categories:


Entrepreneurial expertise (expertise of the interviewee in starting and running new businesses), Creative expertise (involvement and knowledge of the interviewee in the creative industry) and Business Model/Collaboration expertise (expertise of the interviewee when it comes to the creation of business models in a collaborative setting). The artifacts produced by the organization are knowledge, services, or physical products.

Name Size Function Interviewee

Expertise of Interviewee

Artifacts produced by organization

Subsidized

E. C BM / Col

Knowledge Services Products

The Experience Economy

S Co‐founder / Director

0 + + 60% 40% 0% 0

Yvonne Kirkels, researcher

L Ph. D. ‐ ‐ + 100% 0% 0% +

Serious Toys 3 Co‐founder / Director

0 0 + 0% 0% 100% ‐

Waleli 4 Founder / Director

+ + + 0% 60% 40% ‐

CCF 1 Director ‐ + + 0% 50% 50% +

Verkeersgame 2 Co‐founder 0 ‐ 0 0% 0% 100% 0

NYOYN 6 Founder + 0 + 0% 0% 100% ‐

De Waag Society 57 Manager ‐ + + % % % + Mediagilde 2+ Director 0 + + 0% 100% 0% + Cap Gemini L Consultant ‐ ‐ + 0% 100% 0% ‐ Point One M Manager ‐ ‐ + 0% 100% 0% + Prof. Grefen, researcher

L Professor ‐ ‐ + 100% 0% 0% +

Alice in Eindhoven 1 Director ‐ + 0 0% 100% 0% + TNO XXL Consultant ‐ + + 33% 33% 33% 0 Patchingzone M Founder /

Director + + 0 30% 70% 0% +

TABLE 1: OVERVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION OF INTERVIEWEES

2.3.3 DATA ANALYSIS The data of the interviews was combined and structured and inductively coded into main themes (e.g. use of network, importance of IP, communication, trust, business model). Afterwards the results were compared to the literature.

2.4 LITERATURE REVIEW Scientific literature was searched for the topics (heterogeneous) collaboration and business models. Most important and most relevant papers were cited. This overview is in no sense complete, but is, according to us, a relevant representation of important literature. Mostly, general literature was found, not specific for the creative industry. For information on the creative industry, mainly (SRA, 2009) was used.


3 LITERATURE REVIEW

3.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter shows the results of a literature review which aims to describe the specific factors and elements that relate to (heterogeneous) collaborations and business models in the creative industry. Although this review does not pretend to be exhaustive, it aims to cover as many relevant aspects as possible. Note that the goal has been to include as many relevant aspects as possible, not to describe all characteristics in the utmost detail.

The reviews start with the definition and characterization of the creative industry (Section 3.1). The subsequent section provides a brief overview of specific elements that relate to collaboration (section 3.2). Section 3.3 is solely devoted to the definition and use of business models; special attention is given to the business model of Osterwalder and Pigneur (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2009). Section 3.4 focuses on the interrelation between collaboration and business models. The final section (Section 3.5) provides a conclusion.

3.2 THE CREATIVE INDUSTRY The creative industry is an important (Dutch) rising industry. This rise is mainly caused by the increased production flexibility (largely due to the increased IT technologies) and the growing reflexivity in consumption (SRA, 2009). This reflexivity in consumption implies that customers buy products that engage their personal identity. Apple users, G‐Star wearers, or 2nd hand shop customers all identify themselves with the image and status of the brand. Or, to put it differently: “(the) creative life‐styles (of customers) will affect private and community life, work styles and citizenship” (SRA, 2009, p. 10). As a result, creativity is an important input into all sectors where “design and content form the basis of competitive advantage in global economics markets” (Flew, 2002).

The Creative Industries Task Force Mapping Document was one of the first documents that distinguished and defined the creative industry (Smith, 2001). It defined creative industries as “activities which have their origin in individual creativity, skill and talent and which have the potential for wealth and job creation through generation and exploitation of intellectual property”. Besides this often cited definition (see e.g. (Cunningham, 2002, Flew, 2002) the creative industry is also defined as follows “(the creative industry) contains all who are creating in relative autonomy, operate in a social network, live a local ecosystem and deliver their goods where they can on the world” (IIPCreate, 2010). This ‘all’ in the preceding definition is often referred to as the ‘creating’ class. This class is characterized by members that behave similar and who can be seen as autonomous. “They optimize experience and expectation, and strive towards total acceptance of invisible technology in ambient intelligent environments” (IIPCreate, 2010; SRA, 2009, p.10).

The creative industry is defined by the ICTInnovatie Platform as including gaming, social software, Artificial intelligence, disclosure cultural and personal heritage, new media, wearables and ambient technology. This study uses an adapted version of this definition.

In this study, the creative industry is defined as including gaming, disclosure cultural and personal heritage, new media, wearables and ambient technology. In this study, specific attention is paid to ICT related companies.


The creative industry differs from the so called cultural industry. Cunningham mention that it differs at least on two factors (Cunningham, 2002, p. 7). First, “content creation will become more important than it is in the current content industries. Distribution, not production, is where most profit‐making currently occurs”. Second, “the creative industries will be characterized increasingly by their being inputs into other (service, but also manufacturing and even primary) industries”. As a result of these (and more) differences, the industry faces several challenges of which some are introduced below.

Gap between idea generation and production. The first challenges the creative industry is facing, is related to the existence of a gap between idea generation and production. Despite the numerous ideas generated, the economic exploitation is often limited (SRA, 2009, p. 6). This is mainly caused by the fact that engineers and designers ‘cannot find each other’ and due the existence of broken links in the knowledge chain (SRA, 2009, p. 22).

Lack of creativity versus lack of resources. Small companies often lack resources to leverage their creativity into successful products. Larger companies on the order hand often lack the creativity and speed to exploit their IP. As a result, smaller and larger businesses need cooperate together to create and develop products. This co‐creation however is often hindered due to the large differences between the cooperating companies.

Valuing creativity? A third challenge can be found in the changing nature of the value system. Instead of tangible assets, intangible assets (R&D, creativity, and people) increasingly represent company’s value. But how do, for example, “investors value such things as research and development; intellectual capital; organizational capital (e.g., business strategies and networks); reputational capital (brand recognition); and information technology?” (Tepper, 2002, p. 165). Buiguis et al. (2000, p. 42) state that “(although) we want to quantify this capital (...) on a generally understood format this ambition is, however, (often) frustrated by the multidimensionality of intangible knowledge capital (…)”.

Protection of creativity. Another problem is related to the protection of creativity. Buiguis et al. (2000, p. 48) distinguishes 4 stages of control of property. They argue that intangibles are the most abstract of the 4 stages implying that they are the most hard to control and hence to protect. As a result, cooperating companies starting exchanging intangibles are quite prudent and often use large, detailed contracts to protect their own intangibles (often IP). Furthermore, they depend heavily on the legal system.

Important Challenges in the Creative Sector

FIGURE 1: IMPORTANT CHALLENGES IN THE CREATIVE SECTOR


Attracting money. Most businesses in the creative industry face difficulties in attracting traditional money via bank loans. As a result, they need to attract venture capital not only to grow their business but even to start them (Bilton, 2007, p. 120).

As a result of all these challenges, it is not surprisingly that Tepper mentions “unquestionably, many of the old governing assumptions about economic life are changing” (2002, p. 166). As a result, traditional (IP) cooperation‐ and business models can no longer be applied and become out‐dated. Not surprisingly, Tepper states on the same page that “perhaps (the) most crucial is the need to link our research and our strategies for “measuring” the creative industries to realistic, tangible, and practical policy goals”. The remainder of this literature review is therefore devoted to the search for these new researches and strategies either in the creative industry or in collaborations.

3.3 COLLABORATION Collaboration is well defined by Anderson (1995, p. 58) as ‘a strategic mode of integration in which two or more organizations co‐operate on parts or all stages of production, from the initial phase of research to marketing and distribution. Collaborative agreements can be short‐term or long‐term and encompass a spectrum of co‐operation that lies between outright merger/ acquisition and arms‐length market transaction’.

The rationale behind collaborations can vary. Among others, De Man (2004) mentions getting access to market, increasing efficiency, getting access to new competencies, and the sharing of R&D risks as potential drivers for collaboration. Arku (2002) identified the reasons for collaborations while accounting for the size of the company. He showed that one of the largest reasons for smaller companies to collaborate is to get access to technological know‐how or to specialized skills. Main reasons for larger companies seems to be to penetrate new geographical markets or to product markets.

FIGURE 2: MOTIVATION FOR COLLABORATION

If people start to cooperate, whether it is intra‐ or inter organizational, they need to adapt to the new situation and get training to understand the cooperating partner. Cross‐functional training can help them to become aware of their own standards and culture and that of the others. Not surprisingly, an extant body of literature is devoted to the topic of team composition, cross functional training, cultural diversity.

In this study, collaboration between heterogeneous partners is defined as collaboration between organizations of different sizes; e.g. multinationals (Philips) versus ZZP or Medium‐ and Small Businesses (NYOYN, Serious Toys) and of different kind, e.g. start‐ups with knowledge or cultural institutes. The focus is on heterogeneous partners in the creative industry.


3.4 BUSINESS MODELS

3.4.1 WHAT IS A BUSINESS MODEL? ‘Business model’ is a frequent used and misused term in literature and today’s business. There are however, many different definitions in literature. Here are some examples of what different authors think is a business model;

• A business model describes the rationale of how an organization creates, delivers and captures value.(Osterwalder, 2009)

• A concise representation of how an interrelated set of decision variables in the areas of venture strategy, architecture, and economics are addressed to create sustainable competitive advantage in defined markets.(Morris et al., 2005)

• A business model is an abstract representation of some aspect of a firm’s strategy; it outlines the essential details one needs to know to understand how a firm can successfully deliver value to its customers. (Magretta, 2002)

• The business model provides a coherent framework that takes technological characteristics and potentials as inputs, and converts them through customers and markets into economic outputs. (Chesbrough and Rosenbloom, 2002)

• We define a business model as a representation of a firm’s underlying core logic and strategic choices for creating and capturing value within a value network. (Shafer et al., 2005)

What we can learn from these different definitions is that business models perform two important functions; (1) they create value; (2) they deliver value to a customer; and (3) they capture the value and turn it into economic output.

In this study, a business model is defined as a set of assumptions about how a firm creates and appropriates value for all its stakeholders (Dorf and Byers, 2005).

3.4.2 FRAMEWORKS OF BUSINESS MODELS In literature many authors have defined a business model framework wherein they argue to capture all the aspects of a business model. There are many different frameworks which vary slightly in structure and attributes. A framework very often used is the one of Morris et al. (2005) and Osterwalder and Pigneur (2009). This section will discuss both frameworks

3.4.2.1 FRAMEWORK OF MORRIS To develop a useful framework, it must be reasonable simple, logical, measurable, comprehensive and operationally meaningful. Therefore the authors proposed a framework which consists of three specific levels of decision making; (1) the foundation level; (2) proprietary level; and (3) Rules level. These levels represent the different managerial purposes of the model. The foundation level addresses basic decisions that all entrepreneurs must make (e.g. how to create value? For whom to create value?). The proprietary level purpose is to enable development of unique combinations among decision variables that should result in marketplace advantage. This level makes it possible to customize the framework and focus on how value is being created within the 6 decision variables, which will be discussed hereafter. The rule level, enables the framework to be useful, and delineates guiding principles governing execution of decisions made at level one and to. (Morris et al., 2005)

Morris (2005) specified 6 different factors, which can be applied on the 3 levels discussed above. They differentiate between;

1. Factors related to offering (how do you create value?) 2. Market factors (whom you create value for?)


3. Internal capability factors (what is your source of competence?) 4. Competitive strategy factors (how do you competitively position yourself?) 5. Economic factors (how do you make money?) 6. Growth/exit factors (what is your time, scope and size ambitions)

The business model, thus results in a matrix with 18 different sections, wherein a unique business concept can be developed or described. The latter is done for Southwest Airlines, as illustrated in Figure 3. This hopefully gives some insights in how this method works.

FIGURE 3: CHARACTERIZING THE BUSINESS MODEL OF SOUTHWEST AIRLINES (MORRIS ET AL., 2005)

3.4.2.2 BUSINESS CANVAS BY OSTERWALDER Another recent developed framework by Osterwalder and Pigneur (2009) is applied very often in practice because it is plain and simple. Their so called ‘business model canvas’ (Figure 4) allows to easily describe and manipulate business models. It consists out of nine basic building blocks that show the logic of how a company intends to make money. The Business canvas and the nine building blocks are illustrated and discussed below.


FIGURE 4 BUSINESS MODEL CANVAS (OSTERWALDER & PIGNEUR, 2009)

1. Customer Segments (CS): An organization serves one or several customer segments. It can serve a mass market which is often the case in the consumer electronic market. It can however also serve niche markets which are most likely to be found in an intensive supplier‐buyer relationship as is the case in the car industry. More types of customer segmentation can be distinguished like Segmented, Diversified and Multi‐sided platforms customer segments.

2. Value Propositions (VP): A business seeks to solve customer problems and satisfy customer needs with value propositions. Value proposition can for example focus on the newness of the product, its performances, the associated risk reduction, or its customization. Furthermore, they can either be quantitative or qualitative.

3. Channels (CH): Value propositions are delivered to customers through communications, distribution, and sales channels. They involve different phases like the creation of product awareness or the convincement of customers to actually buy the product. Channels can either be direct or indirect and either be an owned channel or a partner channel.

4. Revenue Streams (RS): Revenue streams result from value propositions successfully offered to customers. These can come from direct asset sale, usage fees, licensing, brokerage fees or advertising. Furthermost, pricing can be different depending on the type of revenue stream. Pricing can be dynamic (i.e. prices change based on market conditions) such as auctions real‐time market, yield management and negotiation. Prices can also be fixed (i.e. predefined prices are based on static variables) such as list price, product feature dependent, customer segment dependent and volume dependent pricing.

5. Key Resources (KR): Key resources are the assets required to offer and deliver the previously described elements. These can be physical, intellectual, human, and financial.


6. Key Activitities (KA): describes the most important things a company must do to make its business model work. Mostly key activities are categorized as follows: production, problem solving (i.e. new solutions for individual customers) and platform/network (e.g. Ebay, Microsoft and Visa credit card)

7. Key partnership (KP): This aspect describes the network of suppliers and partners that make the buisness model work. Companies forge partnerships for many reasons and partnerships are becoming a cornerstone of many business models. Overall there are three motivations for creating partnerships: (1) optimization and economy of scale, which is the most basic form of a partnership and is designed to optimize the allocation of resources and activities; (2) Reduction of risk and uncertainty is another motivation to partner with other companies; and (3) few companies own all the resources to perform the activities, so they partner to get acquisition of particular resources and activities.

Osterwalder (2009) furthermore distinguishes four types of partnerships: Strategic alliciances (between non competitors), Coopetition (strategic partnership between competitors), Joint Ventures and Buyer‐supplier relationship.

8. Cost structure (C$): this describes all costs incurred to operate a business model. Low costs structures are more important to some business models than to others. Therefore, you can distinguish between two broad costs structures: Cost driven and value driven. Many companies, however fall somewhere in between.

9: Customer relationship (CR): Customer relationships are established and maintained for each specific segment. These relationships may differ widely; it can be a relationship that can be defined as personal assistance, co‐creation or self‐service for example.

3.4.3 TYPE OF BUSINESS MODELS Some literature tried to investigate the types of business models there are. One example is the research of Malone et al. (2006). They differentiate two dimensions of what a business does. The first dimension is about – what types of rights are being sold? – which give rise to 4 basic business models;

(1) ‘the creator’ – buys raw material or components from suppliers and transforms or assembles them to create a product sold to buyers;

(2) ‘The distributer’ – Buys a product and resells essentially the same product to someone else;

(3) ‘The landlord’ – Sells the right to use, but not own, an asset for a specified period of time;

(4) ‘The Broker’ – Facilitates sales by matching potential buyers and sellers. (Malone et al., 2006)

The Second dimensions is about ‐ what kind of asset is involved? – Which also gives rise to 4 other dimensions: (1) Financial Assets; (2) Physical Assets; (3) Intangible Assets; and (4) Human Assets. This results in a total of Sixteen Business models Archetypes as illustrated in Table 2.


Financial Physical Intangible Human

Creator Entrepreneur

(Kleiner Perkins)

Manufacturer

(GM)

Inventor

(Lucent Bell Labs

Human Creator3

Distributor Financial Trader

(Merril Lynch)

Wholesaler/Retailer

(wall Mart)

IP Trader

(NTL Inc.)

Human Distributor4

Landlord Financial Landlord

(Citygroup)

Physical Landlord

(Hertz)

Intellectual Landlord

(Microsoft)

Contractor

(Accenture)

Broker Financial Broker

(Charles Schwab)

Physical Broker

(eBay)

IP Broker

(Valassis)

HR Broker

(EDS)

TABLE 2: BASIC BUSINESS MODEL ARCHETYPES (MALONE ET AL. 2006)

3.5 COLLABORATION AND BUSINESS MODELS More information on business models for (heterogeneous) collaborations can be found in the literature of open innovation and open business models, and co‐development partnerships. Co‐development partnerships are used more and more to improve innovation effectiveness (Chesbrough and Schwartz, 2007). For this way of working, innovative business models are in need, which embody mutual working relationships between two or more parties, and which can promote innovation effectiveness. Note that this literature is mainly focused on the viewpoint of large corporations, and not from the viewpoint of the SME or ZZP.

3.5.1 OPEN BUSINESS MODELS: ‘INSIDE‐OUT’ AND ‘OUTSIDE‐IN’ Open Business Models are derived from an article written by Chesbrough (2003) who introduced Open Innovation. Traditional business models center around the idea of developing products around internal technologies. However, by using external parties, R&D expenses can be reduced, innovation output can be increased, and partnering can open up new markets that may otherwise have been in accessible. “Open Business Models can be used by companies to create and capture values by systematically collaboration with outside partners. This may happen from the ‘outside‐in’ by exploiting external ideas within the firm, or from the “inside‐out” by providing external parties with ideas or assets lying idle within the firm” (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2009).

An Open Innovation environment, companies commercializes its own innovation and ideas, as well as innovation and ideas from other firms. Boundaries between a company and its environment are porous, enabling innovations to move easily ‘inside‐out’ (i.e. from the firm to its environment) or the other way around from ‘outside in’. ‘Outside‐in’ innovation occurs when firms bring, external ideas, innovations, technology, or IP inside the boundaries of the firm, and with the help of these externalities, apply this in new products or services. Since companies focus on their core‐competence, these ‘outside‐in’ processes are increasingly happening in industry. ‘Inside‐out’ innovation occurs when firms license or sell their ideas, innovation, technology, or IP. Licensing models, joint ventures, and spin‐offs are most used within these Open Business Models.

3 These models are illegal in the US and most places today because they involve selling human beings. They are included here for logical completeness.


FIGURE 5 ‐ OPEN INNOVATION (CHESBROUGH, 2003)

For our study, heterogeneous collaborations between small and big firms are very interesting, how do their business models look, or should like? There are two generic patterns; the previous discussed ‘outside‐in’ and ‘inside‐out’ Business Models with typical characteristics (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2009) (Table 3)

TABLE 3 ‐ DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OUTSIDE‐IN AND INSIDE‐OUT BUSINESS MODELS (OSTERWALDER & PIGNEUR, 2009)

Outside‐In Pattern Inside‐Out pattern

Key Partners: External Organizations, sometimes from completely different industries, may be able to offer valuable insights, knowledge, patents, or ready‐made products to internal R&D groups

Value Propositions: Some R&D outputs that are unusable internally – for strategic or operational reasons – may be of high value to organizations in other industries

Key Assets: Building on external knowledge requires dedicated activities that connect external entities with internal business processes and R&D groups

Key assets: Organizations with substantial internal R&D possess much unutilized knowledge, technology, and IP. Due to sharp focus on core businesses, some of these otherwise valuable intellectual assets sit idle. Such businesses are good candidates for an ‘inside‐out’ open business model.

Key Resources: Taking advantage of outside innovation requires specific resources to build gateways to external networks

Revenue Streams: By enabling others to exploit unused internal ideas, a company adds ‘easy’ additional revenue streams.

Costs: It costs money to acquire innovation from outside sources, But by building on externally‐created knowledge and advanced research programs, a company can shorten time‐to‐market and increase its internal R&D productivity

Channels: Established companies with strong brands, strong Distribution Channels, and strong Customer Relationships are well suited to an Outside‐in open business model. They can leverage existing Customer Relationships by building on outside sources of innovation


3.5.2 CO‐DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIPS Collaborations can have serious positive effects but can also bring serious hazards. Chesbrough (2007) identified four essentials aspects which affect the successfulness of a co‐development partnership;

1. Objectives of the partnership 2. Asses the capabilities you require 3. Business model alignment 4. Future collaborations

The most used objectives which drives partnerships are: increase profitability, shorten time to market, enhance innovation capability, create greater flexibility in R&D and expansion of market access. Each objective involves different implication for co‐development (co‐creation) and partner selection. And therefore, it is difficult to generalize business models, because each partnership is different.

Another aspect is the type of capability a company’s needs. Needs can be classified by their importance for a company. Chesbrough and Schwartz (2007) classified them into three categories: Core, critical and contextual. Core capabilities are vital to a company’s running business. Partnerships in this category are the most important, and it is important to manage these (mostly none to very few) partners as best as possible. Partnerships which affect critical capabilities are important, but not core to the overall business, however it may be core to the other partner. Contextual capabilities are necessary but not of value adding for a business. Partnerships involving creativity are as discussed before often hard to value, and for that reason also hard to put them into a certain category.

A source of many problems within collaborations can be the misalignment of the partner’s business model. “Aligned Business Models are complementary; if you execute your model well, your partner will benefit, and vice versa” (Chesbrough and Schwartz, 2007). By assessing a partner’s business model and comparing it to yours, one can create alignment and develop more valuable partnerships (Chesbrough and Schwartz, 2007).

Last, by thinking of future opportunities and not only the current needs you enhance the successfulness and efficiency of collaborations. As Jeff Weedman, Vice President of P&G, once said: “The second deal takes 1/2 the time of the first deal. The third deal takes 1/3 the time, and so on. And subsequent deals are not only faster, they tend to be more profitable” (Chesbrough et al., 2006)

3.6 CONCLUSION This chapter identified a number of challenges and characteristics of the creative industry. Among others, this industry is characterized by valuation difficulties and a lack of resources. These characteristics give rise to specific challenges for small creative companies, for example when it comes to IP protection and the attraction of money. One method to overcome these challenges is to create (structural) collaboration ties with other companies since it can lead to new market‐ and competencies access. For these heterogeneous collaborations, specific business models might be needed.

Despite the large amount of professional attention to business models, academic literature on business models is scarce. We could identify several frameworks of business models and types of business models. But insight on the design and development of business models for (heterogeneous) collaboration is limited, let alone specific to the creative industry. Empirical research may help to identify specific structures and patterns in the business models with heterogeneous collaboration. So although some best practice exist, more research towards effective business models for collaboration in the creative industry is needed. It should enhance both scientist and practitioners to fully exploit the opportunities in this challenging area.


4 IMPORTANT STAKEHOLDERS One goal of this study was to identify important stakeholders in the field of business models and collaboration in the creative industry. This chapter describes the stakeholders and briefly discusses them. They range, from small‐ to larger businesses and from commercial (profit) focused towards research focused organizations, as also depicted in Table 1. A selection of the important stakeholders has been interviewed.

4.1 STAKEHOLDERS INTERVIEWED The stakeholders which have been interviewed are mapped to the extent they are subsidized and to the artifacts they produce (i.e. physical products, services or knowledge), see Figure 6.

For all the stakeholders who have been interviewed, a brief description is given below (listed in alphabetical order);

Alice in Eindhoven ‐ Han le Blanc is director of the Alice in Eindhoven, a platform which aims to stimulate, represent and promote the creative industry in the region.

Cap Gemini ‐ Bas van Oosterhout works at CapGemini and offers consultancy services to listed company when it comes to new business models.

Creative Conversoin Factory – Hans Robertus is director of the CCF. The CCF aims to valorize unused IP from Philips to (starting) entrepreneurs, offering all kinds of support to the entrepreneurs. Its director is Hans Robertus., also in search these entrepreneurs who can receive all kind of coaching. At the moment CCF has 2 projects in the pipeline.

De Waag Society – Frank Kresin. This nonprofit company coragnization aims to develop creative technology for the creative industry. They develop concepts, pilots and prototypes for the market, half under own label, half as a subcontractor.

Waleli

Yvonne Kirkels

Serious Toys

NYOYN CCF

Verkeersgame

Waag Society

Cap Gemini

Point one

Paul Grefen Alice Eindhoven

Sander Limonard (TNO)

Patchingzone

Mediagilde

Experience economy

Subsidized

Inde

pend

ent

Physical products Services Knowledge

FIGURE 6 ‐ MAP OF STAKEHOLDERS INTERVIEWED


Fontys / TU/e Yvonne Kirkels Ph.D. researcher. Her study focuses on the role and importance of knowledge brokers in a network, in the creative indusrtry.

Mediagilde – Auke Ferweda. Mediagilde situated in Amsterdam is a new media incubator that coaches and facilitate starting entrepreneurs.

NYOYN – Bart van Gogh. Like Serious Toys, NYOYN develops interactive learning material for children. Their main product ‘Sound Steps’ has been sold several times and it is expected larger sales volumes are sold in the near future. Bart is an experienced business man. The IP in their products is licensed from Philips.

Patchingzone – Anne Nigten. Patchingzone is a transdisciplinary laboratory for innovation where Master, doctor, post‐doc students, and professionals from different backgrounds create meaningful contents. Anne Nigten applies the process patching approach as a main methodology for creative research and development.

Point One – Ronald Begeer. Point one is an innovation program originated by the Dutvh higtech induestry, knowledge institutions and the Ministry of Economic Affairs. It translates the worldwide developments from nano‐electronics, embedded systems and mechatronics into social relevant problems.

TNO ‐ Sander Limonard works at the research institute TNO at the Information and Communication Technology Department. His main research focuses on new business models in new media ventures.

TU/e ‐ Paul Grefen In his book ‘Mastering E‐business, IT enabled business models’ Prof. Paul Grefen of TU/e explains the domain of e‐business in a well structured way, covering the complete spectrum from business aspects to technology aspects, including attention for business models.

Serious Toys ‐ Willem Fontijn is cofounder of Serious Toys and former employee of Philips Research. They operate in the e‐learning market focusing on interactive products for kids. They bought IP from Philips which is the core of their main product ‘TagTile’.

The Experience Economy – Albert Boswijk. The goals of the Experience Economy are to become the leading body of expertise in Europe in the field and to close the gap between theoretical concepts and an integrative body of knowledge. They aims to study, develop, and improve methodology for implementation of experience strategies and concepts.

Verkeersgame ‐ Together with his companion, Olivier Verstappen aims to become a competitive player in the online training market of travel licenses by offering real life car simulation tools (and theory questions).

Waleli ‐ Situated in Amsterdam, Waleli’s founder Syte Hamminga aims to develop a commercial hit using wireless technology. In able to found his multiple projects he offers unique brainstorm services directed at creating multiple applications for their IP.


4.2 OTHER STAKEHOLDERS IN THE CREATIVE INDUSTRY Besides companies and persons who have been interviewed, there are other interesting stakeholders as well. Other stakeholders can be separated into two parts; (1) stakeholders who are interesting because of their knowledge about business models and/or knowledge about heterogeneous collaborations; (2) stakeholders who have experience on heterogeneous collaboration in practice. This list is far from complete, but should be seen as a first inventory, which can be used in future to set up collaboration.

Name Knowledge Practice Description Andrew Bullen X IIPCreate EU coordinator (for EU projects) ASMI X AMSI ‐ the Amsterdam Centre for Service Innovation ‐

is focusing on research and education in "management of innovation in service firms and service organizations"

Jeroen van Mastrigt X HKU – reserach on design models for interdisciplinary teams.

Kai Pattipilohy X Diversion aims to create useful and creative products for the society thereby focusing on social innovative products.

EXER X EXER is a company specializing in leisure and cultural event organization

Liesbeth Jansen X Director of the westergas fabriek ‐ livinglabs Redesign me X Redesign is a co‐creation platform enabling business

to join forces in creating products. Shapeways X 3D printing company which allows consumers to print

their own creative physic products. Because they created a community, they are able to develop cheap 3D printing solutions. This company is a spin‐off by Philips.

Volle kracht X Small design firm, with an interesting business model ICT Kring Delft Martijn Kriens

X X

X X

ICT Krings Delft aims to connect ICT knowledge and experiences in the regio. The idea of iCrowds is that by letting many people collaborate through social software it is possible to create exceptional results. Much more than the results of just a bunch of individuals working together.

Novay (Telematica Instituut Twente)

X X Novay connects businesses, knowledge institutes‐ and partners, and governmental instititutions to foster ICT innovations.

Syntens X X Syntens is a network of advisors that assists businesses in their innovation processes. Remco Bakker of Syntens focuses on the ICT industry and on the creation of business models.

TABLE 4: OVERVIEW OF STAKEHOLDERS


4.3 CONCLUSION The list of stakeholders shows a large variety of persons and organizations relevant in one way or the other to the topic of this study. Further research should definitely focus on some specific sub‐sector or type of collaboration in order to deliver useful guidelines to improve practice and create academic insight.


5 BEST PRACTICES AND PROBLEMS From the interviews, best practices and common pitfalls have been identified and from some interviewees, insight in their business model was obtained. The first section discusses most important issues on collaboration which are; (1) the importance of having a network; (2) problems related to formalization, contracts, & IP; (3) communication and trust; and (4) heterogeneity in size and discipline. The next section discusses business models used within the creative industry and will give case descriptions when appropriate. Subsequently, business models for (heterogeneous) collaboration are discussed. The chapter ends with some conclusions.

5.1 COLLABORATION IN THE CREATIVE INDUSTRY

5.1.1 THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING A NETWORK Many of the interviewees mentioned the importance of having a network. A network allows you to tap into new knowledge, and it can create brokerage opportunity by linking people, firms, or technologies to create new products.

Tap into different knowledge / competences

TU/e researcher Yvonne Kirkels mentioned the importance of tapping into knowledge beyond your network. A network can generate interesting opportunities via strong and weak ties. She defined strong ties as direct friends whereas weak ties are defined as connections via a ‘friend of a friend’.

An example of a weak tie relation that enabled a business to grow can be found at NYOYN. A good friend of the director Bart was well connected to a private investment network that provided NYOYN the necessary money to start its business. Waleli had the opportunity to use a strong tie relation to fund its business. The person that funded his business believed in the entrepreneurial experiences of Siete Hamminga and bought business shares.

Create brokerage opportunities

Mediagilde recognizes that linking people to other people enables business opportunities. They create brokerage opportunities by connecting people within their network and strive to arrange for financial support for 60% of their clients. A group that businesses find hard to approach is talented students with potential entrepreneurial skills. Mediagilde aims to close this gap by proactively search for talented students via the launch of business cases and campus activities. Yvonne Kirkels also mentions this gap by explaining the role of brokers in closing structural holes. A structural hole exists when businesses are in need for collaboration but unable to find each other. A broker can bring these businesses together and close the hole. Han Le Blanc of Alice Eindhoven indicated that development environments like Fablab are also very much stimulating collaborations and supporting innovation.

5.1.2 FORMALIZATION AND CONTRACTS & IP Almost all interviewees mention the Intellectual Property challenges in the creative industry. This is not surprising since IP is one of the most valuable assets of an organization and companies. However, protecting IP leads to various problems that seem to be strengthened by the type of industry and the extent to which creative companies collaborate with larger organizations.


Type of industry

Most creative companies manufacture services or products of which the technique is hard to protect. This is according to Auke Ferwerda (Mediagilde) mainly because most creative companies are to a large extend software based or use techniques that can be used by anyone (like GPS or RFID). The main added value of creative companies can be found in the combination of techniques or in the uniqueness of their applications. As a result, companies try to protect these combinations or applications but this is often difficult. Furthermore, it takes considerable time before a patent is granted. As a consequence, creative software companies often put more emphasis into being first to the market, than to secure their IP.

A good example of this IP securing versus time dilemma can be found in the area of Iphone application development. Almost all software companies are able to manufacture all existing Iphone programs. However, the value is not situated in the program itself. Instead, the main value is created by the company that brings the products earliest to the market.

Note that for creative companies of which the IP is mainly positioned in the hardware, like NYOYN or Serious Toys, IP protection is a much bigger issue than for software companies (Gogh, 2009; Hietbrink, 2009). These, and more characteristics of this industry will be discussed in more detail in one of the next sections.

Extra IP problems due to heterogeneous collaborations

Due to the complexity of protecting (creative) IP, larger companies depend heavily on specialized lawyers. Philips, for example, has an internal Intellectual Property and Standards department employing more than 300 professionals worldwide. To put this into contrast, De Waag Society has one fulltime internal lawyer assisting in IP issues and contract formulation. Juridical advice can however also be attracted externally. Mediagilde paid about 50.000 euros to have a set of highly detailed contracts covering all relevant IP issues.

Typically these companies expect smaller companies to act at the same juridical level and specialism as they start to cooperate. However, smaller companies and starting entrepreneurs often lack people, time and money to face these complicated IP issues as noted by Bart van Gogh (NYOYN). And although in some cases larger partner companies are willing to share their resources most small companies fail to respond adequately to the juridical demand of larger companies.

A typical example of this problem is illustrated by NYOYN. NYOYN was one of the first companies starting to work with IP of Philips. Philips however approached NYOYN multiple times as if they were a big, established multinational company by sending them multiple contracts (30+ pages). NYOYN in turn failed to respond adequately to these contracts since they did not have the time and knowledge to read and understand them in detail. As a result, NYOYN almost decided to quit their cooperation with Philips and to not use its IP.

Although both Philips and NYOYN acknowledge this problem and state that they both learned their lessons, other companies also address this issue. Serious Toys owner Wilbert Hietbrink stated that IP negotiations are often very time consuming, and force them to shift their focus which slow down their product market introduction.


5.1.3 COMMUNICATION & TRUST There are many operational variables which affect a successful collaboration. However only a couple of these have been mentioned frequently in our interviews of which Good communication and Trust the most. Many of our interviewees acknowledged these aspects and gave examples of its importance in successful collaborations.

Good communication

According to Waleli and Mediagilda, communication is one of the most important ingredients in successful collaboration. Especially in the first stage of the collaboration with external parties, it is of significant importance to identify the mutual needs and expectations.

Siete Hamminga also emphasized the importance of clarity, honesty, realistic and openness in communication. Therefore, Waleli communicates in the first stages of a partnership about what to expect, and for which price. This way of doing business leads to clarity further downstream the supply chain.

Trust

Trust is a second and essential ingredient in any true collaboration. Trust between partners is most important, you can gain trust by being realistic, honest and clear all the time. Hamminga gained confidence by its investors by winning an important entrepreneurial competition in the Netherlands, and due to his realistic view of its own business.

Trust can also be gained by proof of ability, which can be either be shaped by previous successful experiences or by acknowledgements of third parties. Van Gogh has been asked to be one of the leaders of NYOYN since he showed 15 year experiences in an international construction company.

Another way to gain trust is the acknowledgment of your work by a third party as mentioned by Auke Ferwarde. When, for example, ideas or products have been promoted on sites like Engadget or Gizmodo, they have been acknowledged by important gadget gurus and already received marketing attention.

From this section it can be concluded that communication shapes the collaboration process. Good communication in pre‐stages of a co‐development will pay‐off in the end. Furthermore, trust between companies is another essential ingredient in true collaboration, and can be gained by proof of ability, and by being realistic, honest, and clear all times.

5.1.4 HETEROGENEITY IN SIZE AND DISCIPLINE Heterogeneity between firms is another important determinant in successful collaborations. Heterogeneity can either be specified by size (e.g. small companies vs big companies) or by discipline (e.g. artistic vs Commercial). This paragraph will address both forms of heterogeneity and supports them with examples out of our 16 interviews.

Small vs. Big (trust vs. Legal)

Many interviewees stress the problems which occur while collaborating with external parties. One example has already been given which described how NYON got overloaded with contracts by the legal department of Philips. Because of the difference in size, Philips is able to have a specialized department which can arrange all legal issues. A company like NYON, which consists


out of only a few people, does not have the money, nor a specialized person to arrange such legal issues. Van Gogh who received the legal report with miscellaneous clauses, did not agree with this way of working and did not sign the contract. He believes that Philips does not understand how big companies should cooperate with smaller companies. An important driver for Philips to act like that is to lock out any risks. They want to secure their investments, mostly by an upfront payment, and by securing their benefits when an IP will become successful. Because smaller companies do not have these legal abilities, their only solution is to drive on trust and simple contracts.

Another example of differences between small vs. big is the case of Hietbrink and his company Serious Toys, which is an spin‐out of Philips Research. Philips is mainly interested in products/IP’s which have a potential market value bigger than €10.000.000. For SME’s this is a huge market potential and most products/IP do not reach this limit, especially not in a few years. Therefore, problems can occur because small and bigger companies measure on another scale and have different expectations. Because Philips did not see the market potential, Serious Toys bought the IP of Philips together with investors. This is quite ordinary because normally Philips never sells their own IP.

Differences in small and big do not only produce problems but creates chances as well. This is an important driver for the existence of Waleli. Waleli excels in developing and championing projects within bigger firms, and act as broker to bring technologies to the market. The company is unable to put them in the market themselves, due to the lack of distribution channels which are difficult to manage and master. For this reason they need the bigger companies. Why these bigger companies cannot put their own technologies to the market is because they simply don’t have the right structure and culture to do it as acknowledged by Hamminga and Boswijk. Also Boswijk acknowledges this issue, and recognizes the inability of larger firms in commercializing their own IP.

Difference in discipline

According to Frank Kresin from De Waag Society, successful innovations are most likely to happen on the intersection of two different disciplines. Especially when two totally different disciplines work together, you most likely can gain new insights (e.g. GPS and Pacemaker). However, when collaborating with other heterogeneous partners, it is very often the case that people ‘speak a different language’ which causes problems. Creative people think different and act different than for example Business People. Besides the difficulties, there are clear‐cut advantages of heterogeneous collaborations, since added value is very complementary. Solutions to solve these difficulties are scarce, and very case specific.

From this discussion, the following can be concluded. First, the size of the company matters and the difference in discipline matter. Heterogeneity can cause problems in collaboration but also creates chances, such as brokerage opportunities, or companies can find a very different but incredibly complementary partner which enhances collaboration performance.

Since larger companies mostly cover a big part in the value chain (e.g. Philips develops, sells, and services medical devices) they are very powerful whereas smaller companies typically cover a small part in the value chain (e.g. by developing a good idea). Hence, when it comes to physical products, smaller companies often need larger companies to bring their product to the market.


5.2 BUSINESS MODELS IN THE CREATIVE INDUSTRY The business models of most interviewees have been depicted in a business model framework (see Appendix 8.3) with the use of the business model canvas of Osterwalder. From these business models, some specific remarks have been made with respect to business models in the creative industry of which some are discussed below.

Customer Segments

Osterwalder distinguishes different ‘building blocks’ in a business model. One of these blocks is called ‘Customer Segments’. Typically, an organization serves one or several customer segments like a mass‐ or a niche market. A customer segment typically represents a specific type of end consumer. As will be discussed, the customer segment of a product or service has a significant influence on the business model. This implies that the manner in which revenues is earned not only depend on the product or service, but also on the end consumer as illustrated in the following case.

The Creative Conversion Factory aims to valorize Philips unutilized Intellectual Property. At this moment, one of CCF’s projects is related to the application of intelligence routes in buildings. These routes can assist individuals to find their way in complex buildings or large areas like hospitals or tradeshow. However, a typical hospital visitor is not willing to pay for this extra functionality whereas a typical businessman at a tradeshow will pay up to 20 euro’s for this functionality. As a result, the selling strategy and associated earnings differ due to the difference in end consumers.

Channels versus Strategic Partners

Two other building blocks in Osterwalders canvas are called ‘Channels’ and ‘Strategic Partner’. A channel is used to expose and sell the product to the end consumer whereas a strategic partner is often used to increase the value of the product. A typical channel can be a retail store that sells your interactive child toy. An example of a strategic partner is a specialized company that produces the learning material for this interactive toy. One of the key differences between channels and strategic partners is that the latter often is a cost factor whereas the former is an income factor. The positioning of a (potential) collaborator as either a channel or a strategic partner has a main influence on the business model as showed by NYOYN and Serious Toys, both offering comparable children toys.

NYOYN aims to bring ‘learning, mobility and interaction’ together in their products thereby mainly focusing on children. Their newest product Sound Steps is a product that uses sounds to instruct children to make specific combinations on the so called ‘interactive tiles’.

Serious Toys is a similar company like NYOYN. It aims to merge fun and personal development thereby mainly focusing on the learning need of the individual child. Their product TagTile instructs children to position pieces at a specific place on their interactive board.

Besides their comparable products and customer segment, NYOYN and Serious Toys have more in common; they both lack the knowledge to manufacture market specific learning material. As a result they need to cooperate with

FIGURE 7: SOUNDSTEPS(SOURCE: NYOYN.COM

FIGURE 8: THE TAGTILE (SOURCE: SERIOUSTOYS.NL


educational publishers and didactical child experts (pedagogues). However, the arrangement of this cooperation differs between NYOYN and Serious Toys.

The first goal of Serious Toys was to convince a large educational publisher of the added value of their product. It was reasoned that the conviction of this publisher would lead to the manufacturing of learning material (Strategic Partner) as also the selling of the product (Channel). Although this goal, the conviction of a large publisher, has been met Serious Toys faces two main problems. First, although the publisher agreed to develop the material, they don’t give it the attention needed and fail to allocate sufficient resources to the project. As a result, the manufacturing speed of the material slows down. Second, since the publisher is an extreme powerful source, Serious Toys have been put under pressure to share much of the potential benefits. This implies that for each product sold, Serious Toys needs to share a lot of their revenue with the publisher.

NYOYN selected another market approach. Instead of contracting a publisher (Strategic Partner), their goal was to convince a large childhood institution (Customer Segment) to demonstrate the benefits of their products. Like Serious Toys, they succeeded in convincing the institution, although no specific learning material had been developed yet. With this institution they developed a prototype of a customer specific application. Furthermore, they formalized that this institution would buy a specified amount of products if this prototype would be developed. Next, they approached didactical experts to mastermind the product.

From this NYOYN versus Serious Toys case, the following can be concluded. First, although the type of products can be comparable between companies, the business models can be different. One of the main factors that influence these models seems to be the market approach. Second, in negotiating with powerful institutions it depends whether they are potential consumer or are potential key partners.

Dividing Earnings

In most collaborations money needs to be divided across all parties. This can be done upfront, but also later on. Three different approaches have been identified during the interviews. First there is the licensing method. In this method, the licensee needs to pay a fixed amount of money per product in which the IP is used. An example of this method can be found in the NYOYN versus Philips cooperation. A second method used can be classified as ‘fixed price’. In fixed price cooperation, one of the collaborating parties pays a fixed amount of money to receive a particular service or product. Waleli often uses this method when cooperating with their clients. A third method is mentioned by Bas van Oosterhout and is often defined as ‘bartering’. In a bartering situation, companies exchange services or goods without any monetary transaction.

Immaterial value

Albert Boswijk of Experience economy indicated the importance of dealing with immaterial value instead of only economic value in business models in the creative industry. Examples of immaterial value are social value, knowledge value, and idealistic (e.g. sustainability) value. These immaterial values are often also created in other than traditional transaction ways, e.g. by generating feedback on user behavior or other types of services. New business models will deal with several types of values. Trust between parties will be essential. The importance of cultural value is also stressed by Han Le Blanc of Alice in Eindhoven.


From these discussions, the following can be concluded. First, the type of customer segment has a clear impact on the business model. Second, not only the power of an institution but also the type of collaboration has a significant impact on the negotiations.

Next to the business model framework, also the type of business model has been analyzed. Table 5 maps the business models of our interviewees into the framework of Malone. As can be seen, most interviewees can be positioned in either the Creator/Physical, Creator/Intangible or Broker/Intangible blocks. Although the lack of interviewees in the other blocks may depend on the choice of our interview methodology (snowball effect), it can also be caused by the fact that these business models do occur less frequently in the creative industry. The lack of dedicated financial focused businesses in the creative industry is, for example, frequently mentioned by our interviewees. Also, the limited availability of wholesalers/retailers in the creative sector hinders companies to bring their products to the market. Furthermore, the channels that exist do have so many power, that creative companies experience difficulties in their negotiating processes with these channels (see e.g. the NYOYN/Serious Toys example).

TABLE 5 ‐ THE CREATIVE COMPANIES IN THE FRAMEWORK OF MALONE (2006)4

Financial Physical Intangible Human

Creator Entrepreneur (Kleiner Perkins)

Manufacturer (GM)

Nyoyn Waleli Waag Society Patching Zone Serious Toys

Inventor (Lucent Bell Labs)

Experience EconomyWaleli Waag Society Verkeersgame

Human Creator5

Distributor Financial Trader (Merril Lynch)

Wholesaler/Retailer(wall Mart)

IP Trader (NTL Inc.)

Human Distributor1

Landlord Financial Landlord (Citygroup)

Physical Landlord (Hertz)

Intellectual Landlord (Microsoft)

TNO

Contractor (Accenture)

Cap Gemini

Broker Financial Broker (Charles Schwab)

Physical Broker (eBay)

IP Broker (Valassis)

Waleli TNO CCF

HR Broker (EDS)

5.3 COLLABORATIVE BUSINESS MODELS Since creative companies often collaborate with other companies one would expect some specific business models for this area. Although the examples are limited, we found some interesting cases/models as described below.

4 Derived from analysis of the interviews. Companies like Mediagilde, Alice Eindhoven, Point One are important enablers for the creative Industry, but are not an creative company themselves. Therefore, these companies are excluded from this table. 5 These models are illegal in the US and most places today because they involve selling human beings. They are included here for logical completeness.


Long Tail business Models

Sander Limonard from TNO showed the Long Tail business model as a typical model for the new media industry as depicted below. At the left hand side of the tail the professional content creators are positioned. Typically, they have great control over the content generated and serve a specific customer market. On the right hand side of the tail, there is the user generated content at platforms such as YouTube. At such platform, the content is mainly uncontrolled, diverse and often only interesting for some of the visitors.

FIGURE 9: THE LONG TAIL BUSINESS MODEL, ADAPTED FROM (ANDERSON, 2008)

In the middle of the tail Sander positions the semi‐professionals. This group of content creators is a mix of professional creators and users starting cooperating. Sander acknowledges that the arrangement of this cooperation is difficult especially when it comes to dividing of earnings and the valuation of content. He furthermore states that there is a lack of clear business models that can guide partners starting to cooperate.

Integrated Business Models.

Bas van Oosterhout is a medium experienced consultant at CapGemini advising businesses about how to structure their business models. He states that ‘current research does not pay significant attention towards integrated business models’. During the interview he shortly introduces the concept of ‘partnering’ in which collaborating companies build one shared business model. However, this model is infrequently used in Europe since most of the European businesses are transactional and sequential oriented. Paul Grefen, researcher at TU/e wrote recently a book on the design of IT enabled business models, which focuses on dynamic collaborations between organizations, where the business model is part of the chain and not of individual organizations. An interesting example of an e‐business model is that of Sellaband. Artists could promote their music via the Sellaband site, and users could comment on their music and buy some kind of shares. When more than 5000 individuals favor the music, the artists are invited to record a CD via the company Sellaband6.

Collaboration in the chain or on core competence

Another interesting concept when it comes to integrated business models is introduced by Ronald Begeer about the development of HDTV. He argued two different collaboration models are used in Point One projects, namely collaboration in the value chain and collaboration on core business. In the development of the HD technology, companies from different

6 Sellaband went bankrupt in February 2010, but some days later a new investor was found and the company continued. The business model thus still seems to work.


perspectives (e.g. cable companies, satellite companies, TV companies) cooperated to transfer HD streaming video live from a camera somewhere in the world, to a TV. Philips and other parties (e.g. UPC) developed and tested a system based on shared protocols and technology. This allowed to reduce the risks in a new technology development process, which is normally very risky. Also Albert Boswijk of Experience Economy indicated that collaboration can take place on different aspects, like concept development, marketing and customer involvement, and supply chain.

5.4 CONCLUSION From the interviews, some tentative conclusions can be drawn:

The creative industry is immense diverse. As can be seen from the description of all the organizations interviewed, they vary heavily in 1) size, 2) operating market, and 3) main activities. Although this illustrates the variety of the creative industry, it makes comparison difficult. For follow up research we suggest to select more homogeneous stakeholders.

Main problems in the creative industry regarding collaboration and business models seem to be the creation and appropriation of (several types of) value for all stakeholders (win win), dealing with organizational differences between collaborating partners, IP related issues, and the development of inter‐organizational business models,

Some examples of best practices could have been identified, like NYOYN. It has also been noticed during the interviews that business models are unique per firm, even when businesses work in the same niche and offer comparable products (see e.g. the NYOYN versus Serious Toys case). The more product/service based companies show the highest variety of business models, whereas companies that operate in new (social) media environments typically have a ‘hit and run’ strategy.


6 CONCLUSIONS Collaboration in the creative industry is indeed very important. There are several reasons for collaborations between partners in the creative industry. For example, creative businesses (ZZP, start‐ups, SME,) often lack resources to leverage their creativity into successful products whereas other (larger) companies often lack creativity and speed to exploit their IP. Based on our study, we see heterogeneous collaborations in the creative industry as collaborations a) between different type of partners: e.g. ZZP, SME, start‐ups versus e.g. large corporations, knowledge institutes, cultural institutes, b) between partners from different disciplines (different Beta disciplines like mechanical engineering, electrical engineering etc., but also alfa and gamma disciplines), and c) with different positions in the value chain/on different topics, e.g. concept development, marketing and customer involvement, supply chain, etc..

Important problems recognized in collaborations in the creative industry are a) economic valuation of creative/cultural value is difficult since this value is to a great extent intangible, which often rises problems with the protection of IP or in the attraction of money; b) differences in culture and approach between partners (e.g. formality, hierarchy, scale). Since the creative industry employs approximately 30% of the Dutch employees, the collaboration problems are not incidental but structural; most of the interviewees state that it is difficult.

Important enablers for collaborations in the creative industry seem to be subsidies (like Point One), development environments (like Fablab), networks (like social networks), and communication and trust (versus formalization, contracts and IP). Practitioners invented numerous ways (best practices) to overcome typical problems with heterogeneous collaboration. Many entrepreneurs are involved in (large) networks and use strong‐ and weak ties relationships. These relationships enable them to attract money and raise funds, get (free) juridical advice, and/or start new cooperation’s. Many of them state that communication and trust are essential in maintaining these networks. Furthermore, entrepreneurs show a great amount of creativity in creating business models. Some offer a diversified product/service portfolio to extent the number of possible income channels. Others are involved in numerous subsidy programs. Some even create unique distribution channels.

Two dominant type of business models could be identified in the creative industry, namely creators, in which products are created and sold to buyers (physical as well as intangible assets are being sold) and brokers, facilitating sales by matching potential buyers and sellers, of mainly intangible assets (based on the framework of Malone, 2006). Some other business model related aspects we found are: every model is unique; alignment of the partners' business models is essential in fruitful collaboration; and open innovation (inside‐out and outside‐in) stimulates collaborations and enables new ways of doing business. Despite the large amount of professional attention to business models, academic literature on business models is scarce. We could identify several frameworks of business models and types of business models. But insight on the design and development of business models for (heterogeneous) collaboration is limited, let alone specific to the creative industry. Empirical research based on some good (and bad) practices may help to create insight in the development of effective business models and create guidelines to design business models useful in the creative industry. So although some best practice exist, more research towards effective business models for collaboration in the creative industry is needed. It should enhance both scientists and practitioners to fully exploit the opportunities in the creative industry.

Also guidelines and support is needed to face the many challenges when setting up heterogeneous collaborations. This has not been covered widely in the literature, and also in practice, little is known. Many of the interviewees acknowledged that most collaborations are designed by their gut feelings.


Insight in the development and guidelines for the design of business models for different type of (heterogeneous) collaborations is definitely missing. In order to create useful guidelines, many different streams in the literature need to be synthesized, like literature on partnerships, inter‐organizational collaboration and open innovation, and applied to the creative industry. For research purposes, selecting cases in specific areas in the creative industry is thereby needed, e.g. the music industry.

Some specific questions for further research on business models for heterogeneous collaborations are How to create and appropriate value

‐ with business models that combine different types of value, not only economic value, but also immaterial value (like cultural value, social value, knowledge value, idealistic (e.g. sustainability) value)?

‐ with a business model that is both innovative and still accepted in the industry? (What determines a business model success, to be accepted?

‐ with (not‐used) IP of larger organizations (Philips Research, TNO,etc.), based on collaboration between larger organizations and SME/creative ZZP in a win‐win situation? (idea of big player, make business with small player) (valorisation)

‐ based on collaboration between creative ZZP/SME and larger organizations in a win‐win situation? (idea of small player, scale up with large player)

‐ in interface between big players and users/ZZP/SME? (e.g. platform development between professional content providers and users)?

How to support value creation and appropriation

‐ in inter‐organizational business models? (Business models that do not belong to one organization, but to the value chain; next to the business models of partner organizations.)

Eindhoven University of Technology is interested in studying these questions in the creative industry and welcomes collaborations with enthusiastic partners. We would like to combine knowledge creation according to academic standards, with developing guidelines that can be used for improving value creation and appropriation in the creative industry.


7 REFERENCES ANDERSON, C. 2008. The long tail: Why the future of business is selling less of more, Hyperion Books. ARKU, G. 2002. Collaboration in industry: Empirical findings among small electronics

manufacturing firms in the Greater Toronto Area. GeoJournal, 57, 325‐336. BILTON, C. 2007. Management and Creativity: from creative industries to creative management, Wiley‐

Blackwell. BUIGUES, P., JACQUEMIN, A. & MARCHIPONT, J. 2000. Competitiveness and the value of intangible

assets, Edward Elgar Publishing. CHESBROUGH, H. 2003. The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review. CHESBROUGH, H. & ROSENBLOOM, R. S. 2002. The role of the business model in capturing value from

innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation's technology spin‐off companies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11, 529.

CHESBROUGH, H. & SCHWARTZ, K. 2007. Innovating business models with co‐development partnerships, Research Technology Management; 50(1), 55‐59.

CHESBROUGH, H., VANHAVERBEKE & WEST 2006. Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm, Oxford University Press, USA.

CUNNINGHAM, S. 2002. From cultural to creative industries: Theory, industry, and policy implications. Media International Australia, 102, 54‐65.

DE MAN, A. P. 2004. The Network Economy: Past and Present. The Network Economy. Edward Elgar Publishing.

FLEW, T. (2002). Beyond ad hocery: defining creative industries. IIPCREATE. 2010. ICT Innovatie Platform Creatieve Industrie [Online]. Available: iipcreate.com [Accessed

1/27/2010 2010]. MAGRETTA, J. 2002. Why business models matter. Harvard Business Review, 80, 86‐93. MALONE, T. W., WEILL, P., LAI, R. K., D’URSO, V. T., HERMAN, G., APEL, T. G. & WOERNER, S. L. 2006. Do

Some Business Models Perform Better than Others? MIT Sloan Management Review. MORRIS, M., SCHINDEHUTTE, M. & ALLEN, J. 2005. The entrepreneur's business model: toward a unified

perspective. Journal of Business Research, 58, 726‐735. OSTERWALDER, A. 2009. Business Model Generation, Still unpublished. OSTERWALDER, A. & PIGNEUR, Y. 2009. Business Model Generation. ROMME, A. & ENDENBURG, G. 2006. Construction principles and design rules in the case of circular

design. Organization Science, 17, 287. SHAFER, S. M., SMITH, H. J. & LINDER, J. C. 2005. The power of business models. Business Horizons, 48,

199‐207. SMITH, C. 2001. The Creative Industries Task Force Mapping Document [Online]. London: UK

Government. Available: http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/publications/4632.aspx. SRA 2009. Strategic Research Agenda. ICT Innovation Platform Creative Industry, IIP Create. TEPPER, S. 2002. Creative assets and the changing economy. Journal of Arts Management Law and

Society, 32, 159‐168.


8 INTERVIEW NOTES BEGEER, R. 1/12/2010. RE: Interview Notes: CapGemini. Type to KOSSEN, R. & POEL, P. V. D. BLANC, H.L. 1/25/2010. RE: Interview Notes: Alice in Eindhoven. Type to KOSSEN, R. & POEL, P. V. D. BOSWIJK, A. 10/13/2009 2009. RE: Interview Notes: The Experience Economy. Type to REYMEN, I. &

POEL, P. V. D. FERWERDA, A. 1/4/2010. RE: Interview Notes: Mediagilde. Type to KOSSEN, R. & POEL, P. V. D. GOGH, B.V. 11/25/2009. RE: Interview Notes: NYOYN. Type to KOSSEN, R. & POEL, P. V. D. GREFEN, P. 1/19/2010. RE: Interview Notes:Professor TU/e. Type to KOSSEN, R. & POEL, P. V. D. HAMMINGA, S. 11/6/2009. RE: Interview Notes: Waleli. Type to KOSSEN, R. & POEL, P. V. D. HIETBRINK, R. 10/28/2009. RE: Interview Notes: Serious Toys. Type to KOSSEN, R. & POEL, P. V. D. KIRKELS, Y. 10/14/2009 2009. RE: Interview Notes: Researcher TU/e / Fontys. Type to KOSSEN, R. &

POEL, P. V. D. KRESIN, F. 1/4/2010. RE: Interview Notes: De Waag Society. Type to KOSSEN, R. & POEL, P. V. D. LIMONARD, S. 1/25/2010. RE: Interview Notes: TNO. Type to KOSSEN, R. & POEL, P. V. D. NIGTEN, A. 1/26/2010.RE: Interview Notes: Patching Zone. Type to KOSSEN, R. & POEL, P. V. D. OOSTERHOUT, B.V. 1/12/2010. RE: Interivew Notes: Point One. Type to KOSSEN, R. & POEL, P. V. D. ROBERTUS, H. 11/10/2009. RE: Interview Notes: Creative Conversion Factory. Type to KOSSEN, R. &

POEL, P. V. D. VERSTAPPEN, O. 10/20/2009. RE: Interview Notes: Verkeersgame. Type to KOSSEN, R. & POEL, P,V.D.


9 APPENDICES

9.1 INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ENTREPRENEUR

1. Agenda

1. Bespreken agenda 2. Wederzijdse introductie 3. Toelichting doel project 4. Interview 5. Afsluiten

2. Wederzijdse introductie

• Vertel wat over uw achtergrond en huidige functie. (Wat is uw betrokkenheid bij de "creatieve industrie"?)

• Introductie Remco en Peter. 3. Toelichting project Het doel van dit project is om kennis en expertise te inventariseren op het gebied van heterogene samenwerking en business modellen in de ICT gerelateerde creatieve industrie

• Kennis en expertise. De kennis en expertise wordt verzameld bij kennisinstituten (zoals TNO, Universiteiten), kleine organisaties en grote organisaties.

• ICT gerelateerde creatieve industrie. Deze industrie bevat organisaties die zich onder andere (maar niet uitsluitend) focussen op gaming, sociale software, artificial intelligence, ontsluiten van persoonlijk‐ of cultureel erfgoed, nieuwe media, wearables and ambient technology.

Bij deze samenwerking komen meerdere problemen kijken zoals 'Hoe richten we de samenwerking m.b.t.'

• Verdelen van Intellectual Property • Welk business model te hanteren • Welke samenwerkingsvorm

Dit project probeert beter inzicht te krijgen in de problemen die er spelen en concrete probleem/onderzoeksgebieden bloot te leggen waar zowel vanuit de praktijk als vanuit de theorie behoefte aan is. 4. Interview Inhoud (example for one specific case)

• Wat doet uw onderneming precies? • Hoe is uw bedrijf geworden tot wat het nu is? [Van idee tot realisatie]

o Welke rollen hebben andere partners hierin gespeeld?

• Hoe ziet/zag momenteel uw samenwerking met……. eruit? (Op uw website valt te zien dat u o.a. met ……. samenwerkt(e). )

o Verdeling IP o Business Model


o Type of collaboration o ...

• Van welke kennis kon u gebruik maken m.b.t. het inrichten van een succesvolle

samenwerking?

• Had u gebrek aan kennis m.b.t. het inrichten van een succesvolle samenwerking? Waar was nood/gebrek aan? Wat waren belangrijke aspecten?

o Hoe heeft u een eventueel gebrek aan kennis opgelost?

• Had u het idee ‘de underdog’ te zijn tijdens de onderhandelingen? Hoe heeft u dit ervaren/opgelost?

• Wat zou u achteraf gezien anders gedaan hebben? Project gerelateerd

• Wie zijn volgens u belangrijke spelers in NL mbt heterogene samenwerking en business modellen (in de creatieve industrie)?

docenten (HBO, Universiteit), wetenschappers, consultants, onderzoeksinstituten, bedrijven

• Kent u voorbeelden van succesvolle (hier nog de focus toevoegen ‘heterogene’)

samenwerkingen/ initiatieven/business modellen? o Wat is hierbij kenmerkend? Welke partijen en hoe wordt de samenwerking

ingericht? (probeer concreet naar namen, websites, contactpersonen te vragen)

• Kent u voorbeelden van niet succesvolle samenwerkingen/initiatieven/business

modellen? o Wat waren hierbij problemen?

• Kent u projecten (Nationaal, EU of anders) die gerelateerd zijn aan het thema van

business modellen en samenwerking?


9.2 INTERVIEW PROTOCOL – INFORMATION BROKERS

1. Agenda

1. Bespreken agenda 2. Wederzijdse introductie 3. Toelichting doel project 4. Interview 5. Afsluiten

2. Wederzijdse introductie

• Vertel wat over uw achtergrond en huidige functie. • Wat is uw betrokkenheid bij de "creatieve industrie"?

3. Toelichting project Het doel van dit project is om kennis en expertise te inventariseren op het gebied van heterogene samenwerking en business modellen in de ICT gerelateerde creatieve industrie

• Kennis en expertise. De kennis en expertise wordt verzameld bij kennisinstituten (zoals TNO, Universiteiten), kleine organisaties en grote organisaties.

• ICT gerelateerde creatieve industrie. Deze industrie bevat organisaties die zich onder andere (maar niet uitsluitend) focussen op gaming, sociale software, artificial intelligence, ontsluiten van persoonlijk‐ of cultureel erfgoed, nieuwe media, wearables and ambient technology.

Bij deze samenwerking komen meerdere problemen kijken zoals 'Hoe richten we de samenwerking m.b.t.'

• Verdelen van Intellectual Property • Welk business model te hanteren • Welke samenwerkingsvorm past

Dit project probeert beter inzicht te krijgen in de problemen die er spelen en concrete probleem/onderzoeksgebieden bloot te leggen waar zowel vanuit de praktijk als vanuit de theorie behoefte aan is. 4. Interview

• Welke uitdagingen ziet u rondom samenwerking tussen heterogene organisaties (klein met groot) in de creatieve ICT industrie

• Hoe is/wordt deze samenwerking vaak gefaciliteerd?

o IP, Business modellen (value for all partners), type of collaboration (JV, project, ....)

o Wat zijn de trends op met moment?

• Welke kennis is er – voor zover u weet ‐ momenteel aanwezig m.b.t. het inrichten van een succesvolle samenwerking?

o Denk aan business model frameworks/templates, of types o Best Practices


• Welke kennis ontbreekt m.b.t. het inrichten van een succesvolle samenwerking? o Waar is voornamelijk nood/gebrek aan? o Wat zijn belangrijke aspecten? o Zijn deze problemen specifiek voor deze sector?

• Kent u voorbeelden van succesvolle ‘heterogene’

samenwerkingen/initiatieven/business modellen? o Wat is hierbij kenmerkend? o Welke partijen en hoe wordt de samenwerking ingericht? o kosten/baten? o Hoe word het risico gedeeld?

• Kent u voorbeelden van niet succesvolle samenwerkingen/initiatieven/business

modellen? o Wat waren hierbij problemen? o Zijn er andere typische problemen die naar voren komen in een heterogene

samenwerking?

• Wie zijn volgens u belangrijke spelers in in NL mbt heterogene samenwerking en business modellen (in de creatieve industrie)?

• Wie zijn volgens u belangrijke spelers in de creatieve industrie mbt heterogene

samenwerking en business modellen in de creatieve industrie? docenten (HBO, Universiteit) wetenschappers consultants onderzoeksinstituten bedrijven

• Kent u projecten (Nationaal, EU of anders) die gerelateerd zijn aan het thema van business modellen en samenwerking?

• Wilt u verder nog iets kwijt? iets wat nog niet aan bod is gekomen?

• Welke personen zouden we nog verder moeten interviewen volgens u?


9.3 BUSINESS MODELS

(see next pages)


KP

Investments companies (ING, ABN) which enable innovation development‐ and deployment (examples, see interview transcriptions)

Knowledge institutes (e.g. TU/e, TNO, PWC, Ordina)

KR

Intellectual resources; IP from Philips

CS

Segment depends on the nature of IP.

Customers need to have an ‘entrepreneurial spirit’.

For subsidy trajectories two main segments are served; navigation & mobility, and care & wellbeing.

KA

Broker position between Philips and other companies

Set up and manage cooperation projects

VP

Critical technologies/ knowledge which are needed for certain innovations

C$

Most costs are already made by Philips and nonessential.

Fixed costs; employees of CCF (currently only 1)

Variable costs; how much effort they put in their projects.

RS

Customers are willing to pay for knowledge / particular resources if they can use, exploit and develop an IP.

Licensing fees (e.g. percentage of turnover, fixed amount per product, lump sum)

CRCo‐development and open innovation. Only via licensing methods, because Philips typically never sell IP.

CHAwareness is created via networking

Purchases are made via negotiations

Philips participates by offering knowledge and human capital to the innovation team.


KP

- (in progress) Creating a strategic‐alliance with a large insurance company that provides insurances to instructors.

- Company that provide online payment possibilities (not functioning well)

KR

- Traffic specialist (human resource);

CS

All (dutch) youngster that want to get their theory diploma in order to get their driving license.

Specialized in youngsters with dyslexia

KA

- Keeping tests up to date

- Developing offline/online games

- (now) Finding finance/investment for their offline game.

VP

Providing (as close to reality as possible) instructions for getting your car theory license by offering candidates:

1. An online examination room in which they can practice and test their knowledge with ultimate experience (www.haaljetheorie.nl)

2. On online game (in development)

3. On offline game (to be developed)

C$

- Most costs are fixed costs (hosting website / renting e‐payment services; - Outsourcing of (game)development

RS

For 1: Asset Sale. Customers need to pay to conduct a test. For 2: Usage Fee and Advertising. Customers need to pay to play the game for a pre‐specified amount of time. Companies can advertise in the game itself. For 3: Unknown. Possibly via Asset Sale

CR

There is no customer relationship. The concept is aimed at self‐serving customers.

CH

For 1 and 2 (see VP):

- Individual car driving schools

- Websites

For 3

- In development.


KP

- Network of (well‐known) investors;

- Production companies; companies that can actually transfer Waleli’s wireless solutions into a physical product.

KR

Individuals that excel in a specific field (like drawing pictures) and want to cooperate with Waleli ánd are open to approach the market under Waleli’s brand.

CS

1. Larger companies that substantially invest in R&D activities;

2. Niche markets of 1) customers that are willing to use innovative products 2) larger institutions.

KA

Developing and championing innovative products.

VP

1. Bring innovations to the market based on a company’s own IP/techniques;

2. Enable entrepreneurs to get into contact with relevant parties (broker function)

3. Offering products that make use of ‘wireless’ technologies that really fulfill a market need.

C$

- Waleli mainly focuses on value creation and as such, costs are not that important.

- For Waleli own products, the costs consists of producing a product.

RS

1. Hourly paid advice; 2. Allocated dividend. (Waleli gets shares in companies they help) 3. Asset Sale; Every product sold generates money

CR

1. Invest in the quality of the network with larger companies (sometimes employees from well‐known companies are attracted for their relations)

2. Intensive relationship and coaching

CH

Larger companies that have a direct relation with mass markets and that can use the new techniques in their products [difficult to establish]

Own network

Note: The numbers used in the boxes do refer to each other.


A (1) in the business model refers to the soundsteps, while a (2) in the text refers to the interactive wall

KP

‐ Korein kinderplein helps to get in touch with care institutions around the Netherlands

‐ Octopus group for financial affairs

‐ Philips because of IP ‐ TU/e close cooperation

between academia gives you (in)direct advantages (“its giving and taking”)

KR

‐ IP Philips (intellectual) ‐ 2 ID students from

TU/e to further develop the sound ‐steps

‐ Close contact with CS

CS

‐ Nyoyn serves a segmented market;

‐ Examples: Care Institutions Revalidation centers Primary Schools (1) Museums (2)

KA

‐ Maintain relationships with market (sense)

‐ Production solving; developing new products and new software

VP

‐ The value they create is an interactive and sustainable playing product which enhances interaction and fantasy creation from children(1 ), to adults(2)

‐ Nyoyn uses customization to tailor to customer needs (only for Software)

‐ Performance is better compared to other interactive playing solutions

‐ Newness is related to the interactive wall, these wall are new on market and new in technology (2)

C$ ‐ Value driven company ‐ Own investments and investments of the octopus group. One guy of this

group is working for Nyoyn as well. ‐ Because Bart is an experienced entrepreneur, there is trust which

benefits investor – entrepreneur relations

RS- Asset sale in which the customer is buying a sound step / interactive

wall - Subscription fee in order to get new firmware and software updates

(e.g. new interactive games, new extensions possibilities, etc)

‐

CR

‐ Bart is in personal touch with the customers aimed at

‐ Intensive customer relationship because need of customer acquisition.

CH‐ ‘ Korein kinderplein’ as

a launching CH ‐ Developing own

distribution channels, (DC)

‐ Exploiting existing DC (e.g. Heutink)

‐ Connecting with healthcare institutions world wide


KP

‐ Buyer supplier relationships (e.g. chess which manufactures the ‘tik tegel’ (this partner also shares some risks)

‐ Strategicalliances to get creative and pedagogy input (e.g. Jegro)

KR

‐ RFID antenna IP

CS

‐ value for primary schools, especially to teachers to lower work pressure

‐ Most important customers are primary schools, and other educational systems / networks.

KA

‐ Production of the ‘tik tegel’

‐ Development of new games in‐house

‐ Managing partnerships

VP

‐ Lower work pressure on teachers at primary schools

‐ children can play and learn by themselves

‐ gain deeper insights into the development of every single child

‐ Custom learning programs for children who have difficulties with their personal development

C$

‐ Value driven company; focus on value creation rather than cost reduction ‐ Fixed costs are relatively low, however initial development cost are

substantial ‐ Variable costs depends purely on qty of products

RS

‐ Several possibilities (still in development); o Selling the ‘ tik‐tegel’ for fixed amount o Extra games are relatively cheap o Subscription model

‐

CR

‐ Co‐creation: customers can develop own teaching programs

‐ This part is still in development, since there is only one prototype available yet.

CH

‐ Existing channels for educational products (e.g. uitgeverij Zwijsen)

‐ Direct sales at platforms for primary schools


Collaboration business models - rapport

Design

somespecificquestionsforfurtherresearchonbusinessmodelsforheterogeneouscollaborationsare

convince policy

bas van oosterhout

great extent

eindhovenuniversityoftechnologyisinterestedinstudyingthesequestionsinthecreativeindustryand

effective

integrated

academicliteratureon