Co-Opetition - Adam M. Brandenburger [14]
On the horizontal dimension, there’s another symmetry. Go back to the definitions of complementor and competitor. You’ll see that the only difference between them is that where it says “more” in the definition of complementor, it says “less” in the definition of competitor. At the conceptual level, complementors are just the mirror image of competitors. That’s not to say that people are equally good at seeing the mirror image. Just as people have been playing catch-up when it comes to thinking about suppliers, there’s a lot more work to be done in recognizing and benefiting from complementor relationships.
Symmetries of the Value Net
Customers and suppliers play symmetric roles.
Competitors and complementors play mirror-image roles.
It’s easy to focus on only one part of your business, and miss others. The Value Net is designed to counter this bias. It depicts all four types of players you interact with, and it emphasizes the symmetries between them—the symmetries between customers and suppliers, and between competitors and complementors.
3. Surfing the Net
To understand the game you’re in, start by going around your Value Net. This approach applies to any organization—private, public, or nonprofit. As an example, we’ll take you on a tour of the Value Net we know best—namely, our own.
Drawing a Value Net for a university gave us a better understanding of some of the issues facing our home institutions.11 And, in our consulting work, we’ve found that the best way to begin assignments is by helping clients draw their own Value Nets. This exercise is an essential input into the process of generating new strategies, as we’ll see later in the book when we lay out our PARTS model.
The University’s Customers
Who are the customers of a university? Students, primarily. Strangely, universities don’t always treat their students as if they are the customers. Some people say that’s the way it should be; after all, the faculty has know-how that students don’t yet have. To the extent that’s true, we say that makes students “clients.” They’re employing a professional service—like a doctor or lawyer—and should follow the guidance of the faculty. And, in return, the faculty should listen carefully when students express satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the service they get.
Universities have other customers. Parents are customers when they pay for their children’s education. Companies are customers of business schools when they pay to send employees there, or when they pay schools to put on special programs for them. And the government is a customer when it pays for tuition scholarships. The government is a customer of a different sort when it commissions research from universities.
Another very important customer group is donors. Donors as customers? Yes. They seek fulfillment, prestige, or the opportunity to shape future generations in return for their contributions. Viewing donors as customers might give some universities pause for thought. Too often, a university fund-raising campaign starts with a list of priorities—a “mission”—and tries to persuade donors to fund them. This is hardly listening to the customer. Like all customers, donors are free to take their “business” elsewhere. Perhaps universities should pay more attention to what donors want. Asking donors what they would like to fund would build better relationships and likely raise more money, both now and in the future.
Of course, these different customer groups sometimes have competing views as to what type of education a university should provide. A university may not be able to listen to all