Bebo

Gabor Keller <kaposlogisztika>

"What can you: hear - will be forgotten, what perceive - will be noted, what making - will be learned"

	Your opinion better important than You can think!	418 Tage her
	... in case of carrier companies not only on local but regional level it can be said that they treat each other as competitors/rivals. By implication the intention of co-operation, innovational initiative is very low. Therefore it can not be talked, in a new composition, about the so called “co-opetition = co-operation + competition” because companies, enterprises concentrated regional, situated geographical near to each other competite, but they did not establish co-operational connectios. The size of the company does not do a part in that. All the carriers protect their own values and information in the highest degree. They are not willing to co-operate at all in order to obtain a possible efficient action, or a larger order. This approach might be able to originate in the general statements below: * We think to know, the western and eastern undertaker mentality is different! Eastern enterprises think generally in structures and static standards, instead of goals, see an ideal circumstance in the future, have an utopian idea of the future, live in the present and care about the past, have a consumption orientated aspect, need labour-power subordinated to the goal and structur. The western enterprises have a goal orientated thinking, think in goals and procedures, their characteristic is a dynamic idea of the future, a quantitative aspect, furthermore they focus on constitute the future, they are not developing structures, but adapt quickly the achievements of technical developement and research. They are production orientated; need freedom in the management and creative labour-power. * There is another reason for the differences above: in Eastern-Europe those who wanted to start an enterprise had the opportunity only after the change of the state system, while for those living western to us could pursue it for long decades! * To understand the differences arising from the above mentioned reasons we have to face those developmental phases, through which a company goes during its life. As they were created by human beings they bear the seals of life like birth, ceasing, growth, increase, getting ill or learning. Instead of the analysis amplifying the phases of the lifetime of small and medium enterprises/companies I prefer to summarize some statements, conclusions to be generalize: In the phase of the quickly growth at the beginning the shortcomings come more and more to the front, therefore they have to face such new challenges they have never done before and often they do not even like! The turning-point, namely the key of further development is whether the manager will be able to give up to meddle in everything, to know about everything why, when, where and how it is happening? (General experiences so far make me say, for example the majority of Hungarian SMEs, also because of their age, live and work in this phase, while their managers do not have the faintest idea that their temporary situation is not a result of a stroke of fate, but a necessary intervening station of development of establishments.) In the phase of differentiation, when the manager wakes up that it is time to change, a frame and logic is getting on in the processes and the managers attend to work, to an efficient action. Motivation is constantly provided; the conscious, strategic and yearly planning of market work is realized. The risks of that are that the establishment becomes inflexible and over-controlled, the workers start to stick by their groups instead of the company, and they get interested in group-goals, at the same time they lose their relation to the company-goals. Let us not forget, in the meantime the managers on the top lose their connection not only to their workers, members of the collective, but their partners, too. Instead of people they only face marketing and economy problems, instead of talk controlling-reports, and during that they have to throw all their energy into an efficient working! (It is the common opinion that the majority of western European enterprises is over the phase of differentiation and got to a higher level of development with comparative success.) In the so called phase of integration it has to be decided whether they start take up questions like “why do we exist, what is the mission of the enterprise, who needs us, what is the relation of the firm like to the out world?”. Here exist already an idea of the future, strategies, goals, the workers will be integrated to their group, to groups to the company, and the company will be integrated to a higher social milieu, clusters appear (!). The opportunity of self-control will be built: the workers do not only see the results of their work, but they can also check it up. (Today the majority of western European enterprises are in the phase of integration. People fully realize the connections between economic sphere and communities, and see the point that the task of a community realized with an economic motive is to satisfy the real human demands, to serve social aims. These aims are successfully composed in their mission to find out the use of action and the goal of an enterprise. If it is a well-written and collectively composed it affects the action of the collective in a positive way. That requires the higher level of awareness which is a characteristic of the process of integration.) I think the following statement is acceptable: if a man or enterprise lives and works almost a half of a century in one of the different minded system – shall it be eastern or western –, that affects its present situation, its ability to estimate the situation in the same way, like the level of its development they can get at as an individual or an enterprise. Because of that those, who lived and worked in a western-minded structure, can only think in goals and question always the results he has to achieve in a given time. He knows, he needs economic safety and freedom to achieve his goals, and it is essential to have creative co-workers. In those, who lived and worked in an eastern-minded structure, the following aspect predominates: adapted structures are the most important and those need to be reorganized only once in a while. In these structures they need people who can subordinate themselves to the future aim, while the managers only have the role to keep the structure which serves the realization of the future aim...” Co-opetition – (’Koopkurrenz’): In a qualified sense P. Weichart’s term for the style of organization of flexible post-Fordian industrial areas, it bears upon the concurrence and co-operation of SMEs, which compete on the market and are concentrated in a region or industrial area, evolving on the field of production, innovation and market-presence. Advantage of it is, through the co-operation the SMEs can reduce their disadvantage on the market arising from the scale of a company, at the same time with conversation of independence and competition they are still innovative. In a wider sense after A. M. Brandenburger and B. J. Nalebuff the characters of trade competition can make profit of their co-operation. It’s trade strategy (with terms of game theory) is a game with positive sum-total, where at the end of the game the total profit of all economic characters owing to the co-operation is more than at the beginning of the game.
	geschrieben von Gabor Keller