Practical Contributions

The practical contribution is achieved when by using the model a company learns practical, concrete means to develop its activities and is able to perform a new, better way to cooperate with its suppliers. The practical means are possible to adopt after seeing them in action in the “best practice” company and getting information about the effectiveness of them. With the help of graphs a company can determine the activities that it wants to develop and also the target stage of those activities. The focus during the benchmarking discussions is aimed at the activities to be developed with the help of graphs, too.

Literature offers empirical evidence of different benchmarking types but it is limited to the world-class companies having plenty of resources and multiple techniques to process a huge amount of data and information. The easy, effective and resource saving methods for benchmarking are still missing. The empirical contribution of this study is seen in the applicability of the new model being well focused and versatile at the same time. It does not need expensive hardware/software systems or laborious data gathering projects. It also works among the companies operating in the different industry areas, which is often a necessity because of a competing arrangement among small and medium sized companies in the same industry.

The model is general when benchmarking and knowledge creation are concerned. The limits for its application are determined by the content of the boundary object i.e. the Form. In this study the context is supply chain management and network of suppliers concerning especially small and medium sized enterprises with limited resources. Supply chain management concerns companies among different industries widely. Therefore, the model can be applied also to many other business areas.

157 9.3 Discussion of the Results

9.3.1 The Main Objectives

The results of the study can be divided into the following three main categories according to the objectives of the study. The first objective was to show that a new model for developing supply network with the help of benchmarking method can be constructed and it is feasible. The target was achieved first by examining literature of supply chain, supply chain management and benchmarking. Based on this literature, the weaknesses of existing methods in the fields were explored and a new construction was formed combining the appropriate methods of both fields. The methods of the new construction are: ABC-classification, Supplier’s portfolio classification, Strategic Supply Chain Positioning Matrix and Benchmarking, which consists of four types of different benchmarking methods. The empirical case studies seemed to give an evidence of the model feasibility on two separate researches. The first one showed that the methods could be performed in the same development project forming a useful combination. The second case study proved that each of the benchmarking types in the model is possible to go through among the group of organizations and they form a workable wholeness giving benefit for all the participants in the group.

The second objective aimed at exploring the connection between the benchmarking concept and especially the new construction; Group Benchmarking and knowledge creation concept as a learning environment. Benchmarking is a method for efficient learning and to be functional, it needs to be compatible with learning theories i.e. knowledge creation. In the study the autopoietic epistemology was chosen being the most appropriate basis for learning in benchmarking processes. In order to explore the connection, the literature study of knowledge management was conducted. The study revealed the main principles of creating knowledge. The knowledge conversion spiral was presented as a famous theory of the field. The theory was then reflected to the new construction and the tendencies of similar processes during both operations were revealed. The knowledge creation in Group Benchmarking happens via socialization, externalization, combination and internalization.

The third objective was to explore network context related to supply chain management and the methods for developing buyer/supplier relationships in the context. It was more like a sub- objective to the first objective. The conceptual analysis explores the features that are relevant when supply operations are developed from chain format toward network format. In order to do that, the specific methods are needed. In this research the literature study of supply chain management includes these subjects resulting to the review of both the relationships of

158 buyer/suppliers and the developmental methods for them. In the study one of the methods for analyzing the relationships was chosen for the new construction. In addition to analyzing the relationships, the new construction offers a model for developing them further.

9.3.2 The Minor Objectives

During the study while examining the conceptual background some minor objectives for this study were realized. It seemed that there are no general and simple methods to apply in every buyer/supplier relationship in order to make it work as an effective partnership in which both partners benefit. It is also understandable that different suppliers need to be operated within a different way. The supplier of strategic bottleneck component is more important to a company than the supplier of ordinary volume product. In order to develop the best possible relationship with each supplier, the company needs a lot of the right kind of information and a good insight of its own situation.

Benchmarking is a common development method also in Finnish industry. There are experiences of companies participating benchmarking processes in which the visitors have spent a few hours in another company i.e. best practice company. They have drunk nice cups of coffee and eaten sandwiches. They have also made a tour on the plant. They have gone home and continued working in a similar way as before. They have learnt very little, if anything. This study revealed features that seem to cause problems in learning during benchmarking process.

− Metrics and practices are difficult to gather, combine and illustrate. Available tools and techniques are demanding.

− The gaps between present and the target are difficult to evaluate, analyze and determine. The special tools and techniques are laborious and difficult.

− The target of the better performance is set by best practice. Is it relevant and suitable for the strategy of the benchmarking company?

− Finding the appropriate best practice target is difficult. The given guideline is very ambitious and not necessarily useful.

− Knowing who is better and how much better is difficult.

The new construction considers the problems and offers solutions for them. Practices are transformed into metrics and illustrated in the graphical format. The measures of practices are used as metrics in longitudinal development projects. The performance gaps are determined by setting targets for development and analyzed from graphs. A company itself according to business strategies sets the targets. The best practice companies are found among the co-

159 operative group according to the graphs. The graphs also reveal the superiority of companies in the group.

It is concluded that the Form as a boundary object and the graphs drawn according to the Form decrease essentially the general problems of benchmarking process. Therefore, the first objective of this study, the constructed model is successful especially because it focuses on the chosen activities helping the companies get into the subject and create the needed trust to each other. It, efficiently, guides the members of the project to discuss about the right things to learn and even solve the problems together while creating new knowledge. Utilizing the experience of each other seems to be possible.

It is concluded that more and more especially small and medium sized companies with limited resources need to cooperate also in research field. To do so, they need applicable methods. The developed model may seem to be quite theoretical in nature. When introduced to people in companies, they may be a little suspicious. The most important thing is to engage the people to the project who will be most in touch with the changes that the project will cause. Fortunately, “if it ain’t invented here, it can’t be any good”, is no longer valid.