There are situations in which, to achieve the objective, you have to call on the resources and skills of actors outside the company. Not service providers or subcontractors, over whom you have real levers, contractual and/or financial. Actors with whom you share, a priori, the same stakes, or at least similar ones. But who may decide to commit with you. Or not.
The aim may be to offer a wider range of services; or a regional development project, for example, bringing together private and public actors, small and large; or an association, in which members may be mere spectators or contributors, and may decide to stay, or to leave.
The truly extended enterprise
The concept of the “extended enterprise” might describe these situations, but it is not actually suited to these extreme cases. Because it has been used to describe an “ecosystem” (another catch-all term) that is in fact very often structured around contractual relationships between a centre and a periphery. The advantage for the “centre”: relying on outsourced resources, and therefore enjoying flexibility in the event of a change of course or difficulties. For the “periphery”: a source of business, nothing more.
In the cases we are referring to, there is not necessarily a “central” actor, because the collective dynamic brings together very different skills and resources, which therefore cannot be ranked against each other.
Each can move forward in their own field of action and expertise and pursue their own goals. But it is by moving forward together that they will create more value: for themselves, but also for the group. Because the whole is sometimes greater than the sum of its parts.
The pitfall of bureaucracy
In these systems, characterised by a great diversity of actors – and therefore of motivations and resources – the worst pitfall is bureaucracy. Because whether public or private, it is characterised both by “silos” and by the exclusive use of “authority” (power “over”).
We all probably have in mind many examples illustrating the drawbacks, or even the harm, of these systems: duplicated resources, hostility between departments, clashes of egos, passivity, disengagement. Delays, cost overruns… Because bureaucracy is designed to hold a position, not to produce – and therefore not to adapt to needs, constraints and available resources.
In informal dynamics, bureaucratic habits and ways of working are unsuitable – and above all to be avoided.
Because in a “coalition of the willing”, resorting to coercion (with no real means, and therefore ineffective anyway) will at best cause people to leave, or perhaps to fight – to the detriment of the joint output expected.
Because, in the complexity that characterises these projects, areas of expertise are complementary rather than competing, and the jealous defence of “prerogatives” kills the cross-functional working and creativity required.
Because the “know-it-all” posture reduces contributions to criticism and general ideas, whereas concrete achievements call for always pragmatic implementation and fruitful interaction between “experts” and “users”, between “those who know” and “those who do”. For “compromises”, or for risk-taking and virtuous creativity.
For some, used to a more or less freely accepted submission, these ways of working come as a “culture shock”. And few are able to accept it. Often they will flee them, ignore them, or even fight them – because informal dynamics always move faster than bureaucratic ways of working, whose limits they then cruelly expose… Too bad for them: the voluntary dynamics will move ahead on their own…
The remarkable adventure of the “TGV Clubs”
Unlike the six other articles describing the full power of synergies – in which, for reasons of confidentiality, we did not name any company – we can illustrate these principles of action with a shared dynamic in the public domain: the remarkable adventure of the “TGV Clubs” (East European, Rhine-Rhône, Brittany – named after French high-speed rail lines).
At the root of the idea: the wish of decision-makers at SNCF, the French national railway company, to involve a region’s economic actors in anticipating the “TGV effects” before a new high-speed service came into operation.
These systems of voluntary actors thus brought together the rail operator – an expert in mobility and related services – and a multitude of local actors, keen to benefit from, and for the most committed to take part in, the positive effects of the arrival of high-speed rail (local mobility, tourism, attractiveness and place marketing…). Or even to limit unwanted consequences, such as the region turning into a “dormitory area” for business centres that had become more accessible. Or rising property prices, benefiting certain rent-seeking calculations but not productive activities.
Elected officials and local authorities were of course invited to take part in these shared dynamics. Not because of any particular “prerogatives” – there is no hierarchy between the two worlds, other than that of the common law drawn up by the nation’s representatives. But quite simply because State and local government services are potentially involved in a number of fields – and not just funding.
And because interaction can help better direct public projects, or even speed them up or enrich them, with third-party skills and resources.
These “TGV Clubs” generated virtuous human and organisational synergies. First of all between actors in the same region. And in support of employment, attractiveness, quality of life… All on the basis of voluntary contributions: providing expertise or mobilisation… Accounts of these fine adventures can be found online and in some books.
Partner rather than co-actor
The common key to all these projects is the ability to create synergies: dynamics that cut across silos and contribute to better mutual understanding, the prerequisite for shared action. Because it is counter-productive to look for “guilt” in others, whereas understanding the other’s stakes and constraints often makes it possible to move beyond ignorance and antagonism, and to seek “win-win” results.
These synergies are also a way of going beyond the status of “co-actor”, which locks each person into their own field, their own silo. And of truly bringing the role of “partner” to life. Not in the sense of a marketing argument that dresses up a customer-supplier relationship. But in the sense of seeking concrete, shared contributions. Because everyone’s time is precious, especially in a voluntary dynamic.
All this can be designed, structured and brought to life – often over the long term. It is real know-how, passed on throughout these dynamics. And it can be shared more widely. Let’s talk about it.
Leave a Reply