Openness and Trust in Value Co-Creation: Inter-Organizational Knowledge Transfer and New Business Models

Abstract

The on-going paradigm shift from industrial production to value co-creation increases the importance of openness as a central competitive factor. From a systemic point of view, this means that external and internal interfaces within the value creation system need to be created in a way that knowledge can be exchanged more efficiently. However, openness in inter-organizational settings is often blocked by a lack of trust. Hence, concepts are needed to manage trust with regard to varying context-depending degrees of openness. The conceptual framework of this interpretive study is based on the theory of openness, which describes the dependency of the success of networks on the incidence of emergence. The developed concept of trust circles is based on empirical data selected from the aeronautical cluster Hamburg Aviation. It serves to identify circles of trust within the system and activate their potential to enable inter-organizational knowledge flows and new joint ventures.

Full text

Openness and Trust in Value Co-Creation:
Inter-Organizational Knowledge Transfer and New Business Models
Tobias Redlich, Sissy-Ve Basmer, Sonja Buxbaum-Conradi,
Pascal Krenz, Jens Wulfsberg, Franz-L. Bruhns
Helmut-Schmidt-Universität, Hamburg, Germany
Abstract--The on-going paradigm shift from industrial
production to value co-creation increases the importance of
openness as a central competitive factor. From a systemic point
of view, this means that external and internal interfaces within
the value creation system need to be created in a way that
knowledge can be exchanged more efficiently. However,
openness in inter-organizational settings is often blocked by a
lack of trust. Hence, concepts are needed to manage trust with
regard to varying context-depending degrees of openness. The
conceptual framework of this interpretive study is based on the
theory of openness, which describes the dependency of the
success of networks on the incidence of emergence. The
developed concept of trust circles is based on empirical data
selected from the aeronautical cluster Hamburg Aviation. It
serves to identify circles of trust within the system and activate
their potential to enable inter-organizational knowledge flows
and new joint ventures.
I. INTRODUCTION
The increasing number and economic importance of
production networks is one sign of the on-going paradigm
shift from industrial production to value co-creation. Synergy
and emergence become central aims of value co-creation,
because they result in competitive advantages by utilizing
previously not exploited resources. The most valuable
resource is the pool of very heterogeneous specialized
knowledge. This knowledge has to be shared to foster effects
of emergence and synergy. Simultaneously, it has to be
protected against outsiders in order to ensure the
competitiveness of the overall system and its actors. In other
words, the cooperation in inter-organizational settings such as
industrial clusters is characterized by a permanent oscillation
between the extremes of openness and closeness. Openness
and knowledge transfer are, however, in most cases blocked
through a lack of trust. The conceptual framework of this
interpretive study is based on the theory of openness, which
describes the dependency of the success of networks on the
incidence of emergence. The developed concept of trust
circles is based on empirical data selected from the
aeronautical cluster Hamburg Aviation and serves to identify
circles of trust of different intensity. They can be used as an
initial point for optimizing the harmonization of value chains
as well as fostering the innovative capacity of the whole
value creation system.
A. Bibliometric analysis
To give a first hint on the relevance of the topic, the
authors performed a bibliometric analysis of scientific
publications in the “Web of Science”-database (Thomson's
ISI Web of Knowledge). Referring to the considered
categories1, 2.352.273 articles have been recorded with an
average annual growth rate of more than 5 % between the
years 1995-2013. This rate is used to standardize the
following analysis of the specific topics of openness, trust
and networks. In the next step, all publications addressing
“openness” or “networks” or “trust” in some way were
counted based on various search term combinations2. 9.543
entries were addressing “production networks” and
“clusters”, 61.812 articles were containing the word “open”,
9.623 the word “trust” within the topic. A number of 336
articles comprised both “openness”- and “network”-terms.
124 articles comprised “trust” and “network”-terms.
The number of annually published articles in the database
grows continuously. A trend in a specific subject can only be
derived, when it is normalized compared to the general
development. For this, all values were standardized to the
respective value in 1995, which was set at 100%. Only the
deviations of the development of the specific-subject matter
compared to the general record development is considered in
the following.
After the standardization with the overall growth an
increasing use of the terms open (164%), trust (443%),
networks (299%) within scientific publications can be
observed. A trend can also be stated regarding the
development of contributions that address both openness and
networks as well as both trust and networks. Here, the authors
found an increase up to 282% and 456 % in the latter within
the observation period (cf. Fig. 1).
Despite reasonable criticism of the bibliometric method
and the incompleteness of the database, these figures lead to
the conclusion that these issues attracted disproportionally
high attention by researchers in recent years3. This indicates
that the understanding of the relationship of openness and
trust is essential to the management of networks. In the
following sections, first the concepts of openness, trust and
networks are explained in detail.

1“operations research management”, “economics”, “management”,
“engineering”, “business”
2“regional cluster”, “business cluster” , “industrial cluster”, “industry
cluster”, “production network”, “open” and “trust”
3 In comparison, other terms record a downward trend (eg. “Six Sigma” with
peak in 2009).

Fig. 1: Bibliometric analysis of the terms openness, trust and networks and their co-occurrence in scientific publications
B. Openness
The increasing importance of the abstract concept of
“openness” can be observed in particular in the areas of
innovation, R&D and technology management. The open
innovation approach [5] has notably promoted this
development. The scientific discussion on open innovation
focuses on the effects of openness on innovation capability.
Openness in terms of open innovation can be examined with
respect to different levels of analysis [57] (individual,
enterprise, area etc.). Mostly, however, the enterprise-level
becomes the object of analysis and in general the
permeability of the corporate boundary is concerned in terms
of knowledge, resources and personnel [7]. LAURSEN and
SALTER examine openness as related to the number and use
of external resources [19]. Another perspective for viewing
the permeability of organizational boundaries as a
manifestation of openness is the inter-organizational
knowledge management [16,17]. LICHTENTHALER
describes inbound and outbound transfer of knowledge [7]
and the need for a dynamic management of knowledge in
inter-organizational systems, without necessarily
internalizing it [21].
In terms of the value creation taxonomy proposed in this
paper a comprehensively concept of openness is developed. It
encompasses a predominant conceptual framework for
identification, description, analysis and configuration of
structures, processes and actor relationships in value creation
systems [39].
C. Trust
In economics there is no specific “theory of trust”
although any economic relationship is actually based on trust
and implies certain norms of reciprocity. However, trust is an
interdisciplinary research topic, which is investigated on three
different levels: the individual, the group and the system
[3,38].
Considering trust as the result of a subjective-rational
calculation, the decision to trust another person is associated
with an ambiguous outcome. The trustor is always taking a
risk. After all, a leap of faith might be disappointed [29,45].
Therefore, risk and uncertainty always play a role in trust
situations [22,32,46]. The higher or more intense the trust, the
higher the risk one is likely to take. Interpersonal trust always
implies the expectation of an intangible equivalent value [32];
it can therefore be referred to as a reliance on reciprocity.
On a more abstract level, systemic trust means to have
trust in norms, values and behaviors defined by systems such
as organizations or institutions (e.g. the monetary system or
the transport system) [6]. The expected equivalent value in
case of the impersonal (often referred to as “face-
independent”) systemic trust is more abstract [11,42]. It is
trust in the functionality of a system and its norms. In the
case of a value creation system, the systemic trust would
correspond to the trust in the fulfillment of its purpose (i.e.
creating new value, e.g. producing an airplane). In the sense
of LUHMANN systemic trust serves the reduction of social
complexity, since no individual is able to process all the
information available [3,23]. Systems and organizations are,
however, generally represented by people (e.g. officials,
managers, politicians). Thus, systemic trust implies also a
personal component. According to SCHWEER both trust
components are mutually dependent, because systemic trust is
essentially the result of the experiences with trusted
representatives of the system [45]. In order to assess the
trustworthiness of a person or organization people refer to
experiential knowledge they have gained during previous
interactions. A trustor needs information about the trustee in
order to be able to trust [23,32]. In other words, if the trustor
had complete information, he would not need to trust at all
[9]. The assessment of the trustworthiness of a system, just
like that of a person, depends on the particular experiences
concerning the interaction with the system and the associated
risk with regard to future interactions and their expected
outcomes.
The central role of (experiential) knowledge in terms of
interpersonal trust becomes evident in the model of
LEWICKI & WIETHOFF [20], in which the development of
trust is divided into three stages. In the first stage of the
calculus-based trust partners try to calculate the risk of co-
operation without knowing each other. It is therefore also
referred to as “fake-“ or “non-trust”. In the second stage of
the knowledge-based trust mutual experiences and
0%
100%
200%
300%
400%
500%
600%
"trust"
"networks"
"open"
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%
350%
400%
450%
500%
"trust" and
"networks"
"open" and
"networks"

information are available. Within this stage the trust
expectation implies competence-, integrity- and benevolence
expectancy (reciprocal behavior). In the last stage of the
identity-based trust, the partners share common values and
standards that foster the groups social cohesion [3,20].
Finally, we consider distrust not as the simple absence of
trust [20,23], but as a coexisting phenomenon that can feature
productive aspects, if they are institutionalized (e.g.
protection against excessive group cohesion that renders an
independent decision making impossible, monitoring of
processes etc.).
1) Functional Aspects of different types of trust from a
systemic perspective
The level of identity-based trust as well as systemic trust
are the basis for social cohesion and therefore, of central
importance for the viability of long-term inter-organizational
relations in value creation systems (e.g. industrial clusters)
[2,3,30]. With regard to the initiation of new projects and
joint ventures, trust in interpersonal relations can activate the
capital character of social capital and foster the width and
depth of cooperative activities. With regard to the whole
value creation system, systemic and identity-based trust
ensure its viability through common norms and standards that
facilitate its fulfillment of purpose. In Fig. 2 the presented
types of trust are assigned to a specific system function they
fulfill in the context of an abstract value creation system. The
motivation for cooperation and an open knowledge transfer
directly depends on the level of trust between the actors.

Fig. 2: Functional aspects of different types of trust
D. Networks
The aim of cooperation with other companies within value
co-creation systems such as production networks or clusters
is the realization of larger overall revenue by realizing
common efficiency gains, synergies, coordination and
emergence [61] that may also improve the individual
performance and competitive position [49]. Cooperation in
networks and clusters is based on viable structures and
principles that have to be established, maintained, and may
have to be adjusted to occurring changes [39,40]. A number
of scientific papers have discussed the effective design and
management of production networks and network practices
[4,18,26] as well as specific elements of openness such as
changeability [55,58] and complexity [8]. A fundamental and
comprehensive examination of openness from a general point
of view of production networks does not occur. However, it is
essential for the maintenance of the viability of a network.
II. CHANGING PATTERNS OF VALUE CREATION
The basis for the following analysis is a value creation
taxonomy, which includes the structures, processes and the
object of value creation [35,39]. These three central elements
are subject to lasting changes, the cause of which can in turn
be found in technological change. Key criteria are further
developments and spread of information and communication
technologies (I&C technologies) as well as production
technology (see Fig. 3).
The transformation of value creation structures can firstly
be attributed to globalization [10,56,58]. The spread of I&C
technologies and the accompanying fall in transaction costs
means that the benefits of widely dislocated value creation
activities are increasing, which is followed by permanently
changing relations between the worldwide operating actors.
However, as the pressure of competition increases, this is also
accompanied by a potential expansion of sales opportunities.
Secondly, an increase in the importance of the customer’s
role can be detected. Since knowledge work is gaining
importance as part of value creation processes, customer’s
power over the producer is rising due to a better access to
I&C technology and networks. Therefore, the value creation
and production cannot longer be seen within the boundaries
of a company. It is no longer possible to achieve a clear
demarcation between the domains of customers and
producers (‘prosumer’) and, accordingly, the role of
traditional companies is changing [33,50].
Fig. 3: Value creation taxonomy [39]
The transformation of the value creation processes
directly stems from the influence of the value creation
structure. The need for individualized products and
globalization thus calls for changeable production systems
and processes. In addition, the number of actors involved in
the value creation process is increasing. Coordination of these
actors takes place less through hierarchical organizations:
With the decreasing importance of conditions of time and
space, the value creation processes are increasingly based on
interaction, collaboration and self-organization [43] of the
worldwide distributed actors to cope with the increasing
complexity.
Value Creation
Taxonomy
Value
System
Structure
Value
Crea tion
proc ess
Artifact
I&C
technology Production
technology
Globalization
Customer role
Customization
Intangible values
Property rights
Chan geabilit y
Di sp er sio n
Self organ iza tion
Interaction

Concerning the value creation artifact, three essential
aspects of change can be identified. Firstly, customers are
increasingly demanding individualized products and services.
This involves an additional challenge for the manufacturer.
Secondly, the ratio of intangible components of the product is
rising in proportion to tangible components, which among
other factors can be attributed to the increasing importance of
software and service components. The third aspect is closely
linked to the second. Here, the issue concerns the property
rights constellation of the value creation artifact. While the
benefits of regulated exclusive property rights are accepted
for physical goods, this acceptance requires a revaluation in
the case of goods with an increasing intangible or
informational character [39].
A. Bottom-up economics
The transformation in the three core areas of value
creation taxonomy is leading to new patterns of value
creation, which can be summed up under the term ‘bottom-up
economics’. It differs essentially in its structure-related and
process-related character from traditional industrial
production, which represents a manifestation of top-down
economics.
Bottom-up economics is characterized by a fusing of
production and consumption, by distributed structures and
processes and by collaboration as the most intensive form of
interaction between actors [52]. In all areas of value creation,
such as research and development (e.g. user innovation, open
innovation), production (e.g. crowdsourcing, production
networks [44], mass customization [34,44], collaborative
engineering [24]) and marketing (social commerce, viral
marketing, collaborative filtering), signs of this paradigm
change can be found. Essential features of bottom-up
economics in relation to the underlying value creation model,
organization and production structures will be explained in
the following subsections. UEDA et al. describe the
transformation in value creation using three value creation
models [53]. While the providing value model is appropriate
for describing forms of industrial production, the adaptive
value model is better suited to describe the current state of
production. However, an increase of the importance of the
co-creative value model can be expected in the future (see
Fig. 4).
While the problems that occur in the providing value
model may be regarded as optimization problems, the
adaptive value type of model can be used to consider
problems that may be regarded as adaptation problems.
However, in the co-creative value model, the values for
producer and customer cannot be independently determined
from one another. Furthermore, poor predictability of the
environmental behavior and of the motivation and demands
of customers is assumed. A large number of the value
creation patterns under observation (e.g. collaboration of
producer and customer, user innovation, allowing access to
product data) can be better explained by the co-creative
model than by the previously described models.
Fig. 4: From providing to co-creative value model [53]
Classical industrial organization is geared towards the
central idea of mass production. However, mass production
can only be regarded as an ideal model under certain
conditions. These include uniform production independent of
external influences, which in turn calls for homogeneous
mass markets in the long term and a stable demand. The
transition to the information age has, however, promoted the
removal of these assumptions. The concept of interactive
strategy represents the starting point for the scientific
discussion concerning interactive value creation, which
results in a re-evaluation of the relationships between the
actors involved in value creation [31]. Together with the
application of modern production principles [27] it forms an
integrating strategic approach for the design of future value
creation systems that correspond to the present and future
requirements. Increasing individualization and the
discontinuous demand behavior associated with it, as well as
the increase in complexity of expected services represent new
challenges for manufacturers. Such challenges can only be
managed through structural and strategic changeability, an
extension of the range of services and intensified cooperation.
The reality resulting from the transformation described can
no longer be managed precisely with the existing “closed”
understanding of value creation in production systems as the
prerequisites of the logic of mass production have become
obsolete in many cases. The consequence is the need for a
redefinition of the object under consideration, namely that of
production sciences, which takes the premises of a
changeable, open value creation into account.
B. Theory of Openness
According to the presented study, openness is interpreted
in terms of systems theory and cybernetics [25,39].
Consequently, it concerns one of two system conditions. In
contrast to a closed system, an open system is distinguished
by the fact that at least one of its elements is involved in
interactions with elements of another system. As organized
social systems are always in interactive relationships with
surrounding systems, they can be viewed as open systems as
a matter of principle. In the past, for reasons of simplification
companies and production systems were considered as closed
systems. Through changes in the environment, the
P C
VA
E
P C
VA
E
P C
VA
E
P
E
CVACustomer
Producer
Envir onmen t
Value creati on artefact
Inform ation Direc tion of valu e creation
Interactio n
Domain of value creationAdapt ation
Providin g
Value Model
Adaptive
Value Mode l
Co-cr eative
Value Model

requirement for openness is increasing and no longer remains
negligible. Openness is therefore not a completely new
feature, but an inherent system property that is becoming
increasingly relevant. In this sense, openness describes the
ability for interaction with other elements and at the same
time it is a prerequisite for the long-term viability of systems
[39].
The spread of I&C technology as well as production
technology and the accompanying networking together with
the increasing interaction potential demand a strategic,
structural and procedural opening in form of interactive value
creation [51]. This is synonymous to the claim that
“networking” and “openness” are complementary strategies.
If this corresponds with reality, the result for companies is
that a rational approach demands a change of the two
activities at the same time and in the same direction.
However, as the increased networking that delivers the
growing potential for interaction is an exogenous influence,
the only logical consequence for companies would be to
pursue more intensively a strategy of openness [30,39].
1) Openness in the context of value creation
The theory of openness is derived from the observation
that among the currently prevailing conditions in the business
world, more open approaches to the configuration of value
creation are acquiring greater importance than the more
closed approaches [39]. Here, the spheres of influence of
value creation systems can be subdivided related to the
notions of the value creation taxonomy into the categories of
value creation structure, architecture of the value creation
artifact and value creation process (cf. Fig. 5) [39]. For each
of these spheres we identified indicators that characterize the
level of openness or closeness of a system [39].
Fig. 5: Openness in value creation4

4For further details and the related literature review according to the
taxonomy please view [39].
2) Openness of the structure of the value creation system
Two aspects are considered with respect to the openness
of the structure of value creation systems. Firstly, it is
necessary to examine the relationship between the system and
its environment, which means: defining the system’s position
to its surrounding systems and the permeability of the
system`s boundary [2]. Secondly, the inner structure of the
systems can be investigated in terms of whether they meet the
requirements of openness [28,47]. Consequently, the
investigated driving forces are differentiated into the spheres
of influence of intra-organizational and inter-organizational
openness [39,60].
3) Openness of the architecture of the value creation artifact
In addition to the structure, the object of value creation
itself, the value creation artifact, has the potential to be
designed in an “open” manner. As an artificial system, an
artifact differs from a natural system in a way that it has been
consciously created by humans for a specific purpose.
Correspondingly, a value creation artifact is the result of a
value creation process. It is always a combination of tangible
and intangible constituents [48]. The architecture of such an
object extends over the spheres of influence of structure and
function [31]. While the structure, which can in turn be
classified as property rights constellation and physical
structure, tends to be regarded as the means to an end, the
function tends to be linked with the actual defining purpose.
The property rights constellation assumes a key role in the
design of the value creation artifact. It is decisive for the
opening of the value creation process [39].
4) Openness of the value creation process
The degree of openness in the value creation process is
determined by value creation strategies and activities of the
actors [35]. Open value creation strategies focus customers`
benefits by means of an individualized offer [54]. Openness
aims in this context at exploiting synergies by virtue of
cooperation with other actors and allows at least partial
decommercialization of traditional business areas in order to
be able to achieve competitive advantages, which can be
monetized in other “new” areas [7,14,33]. Co-activity shapes
the openness of the value creation process and includes all the
co-actions between actors aimed at maximizing value
creation [39].
Open structures and processes that cope with the changing
patterns of value creation always require for a certain amount
of interpersonal as well as systemic trust and well accepted
norms of reciprocity. Depending on the type of network
(R&D, buyer-supplier, production networks, horizontal and
vertical network constellations etc.) and the architecture of
the value creation artifact, different levels of openness can
evolve and related to that, different levels of systemic and/or
interpersonal trust are needed [39].
Modular ity
Type of service
Property rights
§
Architecture
of the value
creation
artifac t
Function
Structure
Gran ular ity Coarse Fine
Low High
Private goods Public goods
Product or
service
Co-creation
experi ence
Product-serv ice
Systems
Value
creation
process
„Width “ of
Co-activity
Business model
Value
creation
strategy
Value
creation
activitiy
Competitive
strategy
Competitive
advantage
„Depth “ of
Co-activity
Low (bilateral) High (mass...)
Coordina tion
(integration)
Cooperation
( participation)
Collaboration
(interactio n)
Comptetition Coopetition Cooperation
Unique Hybrid
Closed
source
Partial de-
commerci aliz ation Open Sour ce
Intra-
organi-
zational
Inter-
organi-
zational
Value
system
structure
Changeability
Configuration
Organizational
structure
Interorgan.
coordination
Networking
Role dynamics
Hierarchic Heterarchical;
Adhocratic
Monolith ic Mod ular,
fractal
Low High
Hierarchic MarketHybrid
Virtual netw ork
Bilateral
cooper ation
Static DynamicFlexible
Communication
culture Partici patory Reflexive
Closeness
Low
Openness
Indicator

III. CIRCLES OF TRUST IN VALUE CREATION
NETWORKS
A. The hidden potential of social capital
According to the resource-based view competitive
advantage comes from strategically valuable resources that
can be material as well as immaterial. These resources need
to be identified, as they are essential for the viability of a
company [1]. Formal and informal networks are considered
as a form of social capital (active relationships that are able to
expand the scope of actions) and thus as a valuable resource
[13,37]. However, the potential of social capital in production
networks often remains inactive as competitively sensitive
resource [13,37]. Therefore, a central super-ordinated
management task is to support emergence and synergy based
on managing the inter-organizational knowledge flows
between the heterogeneous actors and activating the potential
of already existing formal and informal networks. There exist
many situations where the transfer, diffusion or generation of
knowledge is prevented by concerns of losing competitive
knowledge or simply the lack of effective interfaces for
exchange. In order to achieve the rather contradictory aims of
protecting intellectual property as well as profiting from
emergence and synergy a permanent oscillation between the
extremes of openness and closeness (resp. exclusion and
inclusion) is necessary.
The network structures of a cluster consist of multiple
relationships and network configurations whose potential
need to be recognized and developed. Furthermore,
individual actors have ties in different network types and
relationship constellations, which influence their actions
additionally. The question is: how can the potential of the
different social network types within the cluster be activated
in a way that the permeability of the institutional boundaries
increases and knowledge can be exchanged more effectively?
The answer to this question might also lead to a deeper
understanding of the interrelation between trust, openness and
the modeling of interfaces within the value creation system
structure in inter-organizational networks.
B. The Case of the German Aeronautical Cluster Hamburg
Aviation
The tradition of Hamburg's aircraft industry goes back to
the year 1909 and had its heyday with the establishment of
the technical base of Lufthansa in the 1950s and the Franco-
German Airbus program in 1969. In the following decades,
Hamburg became the world's third largest center of civil
aviation industry. For the coordination of cluster activities,
the association “Luftfahrtcluster Metropolregion Hamburg
e.V.” was founded. Currently, the cluster encompasses more
than 300 SMEs, the major sites of Lufthansa and Airbus and
several universities involved in research programs. More than
40,000 jobs are assigned to the Aviation Cluster [12]. As part
of the development of a concept for a knowledge
management system for the cluster Hamburg Aviation, semi-
structured open expert interviews were conducted with senior
staff, project managers and professors from the cluster in the
period from August 2011 to April 2012. The survey focused
on the current mode and experiences of the cooperation
within the network as well as requirements and expectations
for an efficient knowledge management. The data were
analyzed according to the principles of Grounded Theory.
Not surprisingly, trust proved to be a key category regarding
the willingness of managers, entrepreneurs and researchers to
exchange or to provide their internal knowledge.
C. The “situation of trust” in Hamburg Aviation
In order to identify the hidden potential of existing trust in
the cluster and to illustrate the need for trust management, the
current “situation of trust” in the cluster is presented based on
the empirical findings from the qualitative data collection.
Fig. 6 shows empirical evidences concerning factors that had
a positive impact on interpersonal and/or systemic trust.
Hamburg Aviation is a network of very heterogeneous
actors joining value creation processes with a high degree of
autonomy, which leads to loose ties between the system
elements and consequently a fairly low social cohesion of the
whole system. Moreover, the horizontal interrelations among
the clusters’ actors are marked through competition that
rather fosters distrust and nondisclosure. On the vertical level,
Fig. 6: Trust building factors in the cluster Hamburg Aviation
Cohesion
Experiental
know ledge
Interaction /
Conta ct
Sphere of infl uenc e
common language and communication culture
perception as a community
common vision, objectives
situative/systemic
situative/personal
information available on the interaction partner
institutionalized, regularly exchange/transfer
personal contact (face-to-face; formal/informal)
Empirical evidence
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Int erperso nal trust Systemic trust
x
Normative, ethical
framework common codex
x
formal rules of communication and behavior x
formal cooperation agreements (contracts, NDAs)
x
common umbrella brand/ coporate identity

Fig. 7: Levels of interpersonal trust in the cluster
asymmetric intra- and inter-organizational links are reflecting
the power relations within the cluster. First and foremost,
actors focus on access, control and position in the supply
chain. Additionally, a recent event seems to have strongly
disturbed the established long-term economic relationships on
the vertical level. When AIRBUS came to the site in 1969, it
built up its value chains resp. supplier networks focusing
mostly on local companies. This evolutionary emerged
system based on long-term relations of trust as well as short
and direct communication channels changed, however, when
the system integrator AIRBUS launched a huge consolidation
and restructuring of its supply chain, which had major
impacts on the local SMEs. The organizational turbulences
that occurred due to changing interfaces and communication
channels lead to a decrease of trust in the overall system and
made lots of companies search for other business fields.
However, new inter-organizational institutions such as a
cluster management or a center for applied aeronautical
research are only some factors that can support building and
rebuilding trust between the cluster’s actors.
Furthermore we identified network characteristics/ types
that can be also used as indicators for a certain stage of trust
according to the model of LEWICKI (cf. Fig. 7) [20]. The
characteristics of the stages provide the framework for the
concept of circles of trust. We could observe that in the
narrower “circles of trust” information and knowledge flow
more freely and joint projects are initiated more often.
owever, an exact determination of the levels of trust and
their relation to certain network characteristics requires
further quantitative studies. Since competitive advantages
come from strategically valuable resources, it is important to
identify them. Knowledge is recognized by all interviewees
as competitively sensitive resource. In general, the provision
and exchange of information and knowledge (as particularly
sensitive resource) is perceived as extremely risky, the
protection of intellectual property and core competencies
plays a major role for all actors. This risk aversion can be
attributed to a lack of trust in the whole value creation system
as well as between single actors within this system.
Nevertheless, most interviewees recognized that the
particular trustworthiness can be better assessed; the more
knowledge about each other is available (understanding of
processes, competencies and attitudes). On the other hand, a
lack of trust applies as the reason for the retention of
knowledge and information as well as the reluctance of future
joint ventures (especially outside the R&D division). Thus,
the central question is: How can the potential of the outlined
circles of trust be effectively and systematically exploited?
And how can such circles with a lack of trust be managed
effectively?
D. Activating the potential of social capital through building
circles of trust in VCNs
The identification of existing circles of trust within the
system can serve as a basis for deducting new cooperative
activities and joint ventures (see Fig. 8). Depending on the
different processes within the cluster (fields of technology,
maturity of the technologies) different legal forms of
cooperation are proposed. The more intense the trust within a
trust circle, the more openness can be risked and the higher is
the expected synergy.
Fig. 8: Concept of trust circles
The task of managing trust should be fulfilled by a neutral
person with an extended knowledge of the sector and the
ability to consider inter-organizational contexts from a
holistic perspective. Since this person also functions as a
trust level: identity-based trust
e.g. based on common achieved goals like winning the
the cross-industry excellence cluster co mpetition,
engagement in the cluster management
trus t level: know ledge-ba sed trust
e.g. through common project experience as well as
informal relationships such as club memberships etc.
trust level: calculus-based trust
e.g. vi a a first conta ct at the aviati on forum,
exhibition or conference
network characteristics: inst itut ional ized his to rical ly
grown networks, strong network ties
network characteristics : project networks, R&D
networks, informal networks
network characteristics: very loose network ties,
no common experiences
trust manager
systemic trust base d on a normative
framework (system, sub-system)
degree of openness: closed
risk: low
degree of openness: granular open
risk: medium
degree of openness: open
risk: high
lev el o f trus t: c alcu lus- base d
risk tolerance: l ow
level of trust: knowledge-based
risk tolerance: medium
level of trust: identity-based
risk tolerance: h igh

representative of the whole value creation system, the
interactions with him can also have an impact on the
development of systemic trust. The fundamental tasks of the
trust manager involve:
 identification of the trust circles and their actors
 moderation of initiating phase
 adjustment of the degree of openness
 balancing interests
 establish congruent goals and expectations
 conflict resolution
The aim is a balanced ratio of openness with regard to the
demand for protecting intellectual property. In this way, an
outward as well as an inward trustworthiness can be
established. The balance can be achieved through a so-called
granular openness of interfaces. Every inter-organizational
team (project) should determine which of its domains is
characterized as open or rather closed - based on the advices
of the trust manager.
E. Impact of the architecture of the value creation artifact,
system and process on the level/ degree of openness and the
associated level of trust
Cooperation models inside the cluster should be created
referring to the intensity of trust within the trust circles. The
architecture of the value creation artifact and the value
creation system structure affects the particular demand for
openness (cf. 2.2). In this sense, ‘semi-open’ does not
correspond to ‘granular open’. The granularity of openness as
a ceaseless variable has to be adapted to the respective
context taking the interdependencies between openness, trust
and features of the value creation artifact and system
structure into account. For example, a decentralized
manufacturing and assembly calls for a modular constructed
product (e.g. an aircraft cabin). Therefore, the degree of the
modularity of a product and the related number (and quality)
of interfaces often enables openness in diverse areas of the
production. On the other hand, the width and depth of the co-
activity as a multilateral collaboration directly depend on the
level of trust among the actors as well as systemic trust in the
functioning of the system. Heterarchical cooperation models
require for instance a high intensity of trust.
Trust circles are able to form a nucleus for new business
models. In this regard, the role of the trust manager is
important: the trust manager acts as a sensor for the demands
of the community, recognizes trust circles and their potential.
The most significant prerequisite for the fulfillment of the
task of the trust manager is his independence regarding the
individual aims of the single actors of the cluster [16].
Granular openness means that more openness (permeable
interfaces) can be risked in those areas, in which social trust
situations permit it and the configuration of the cooperation
model requests it.
IV. SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK
Manufacturers face the prospective challenge of designing
value creation through suitable developments in product,
process and structure. In doing so, they tend to primarily
focus on classical parameters such as time, costs and quality.
Anyhow, globalization and the spread of I&C technologies
are leading to completely new patterns of value creation,
which can be summed up under the term ‘bottom-up
economics’. As the classical models for designing and
explaining value creation configuration are predominantly
based on top-down approaches, they are less suitable for
modelling value creation. More open designs, providing
interfaces for inter-organizational exchange need to be
promoted in order to tap of the potential inherent to value co-
creation.
Companies and stakeholders, who cooperate within value
creation networks, do often act in a field of competition,
uncertainty and distrust. A lack of systemic and interpersonal
trust often poses a barrier for openness and a related
permeability of institutional boundaries. Nevertheless, the
higher the degree of openness, the more intense is the
synergy, which evolves from the cooperation. This article has
shown how to manage different levels of trust and exploit so-
called circles of trust as a resource for new business models.
Within this specific concept, the degree of openness and the
arrangement of the business model (value creation artifact,
process and system) can be established in a demand-oriented
way depending on the level of trust by an intra-cluster trust
manager.
REFERENCES
[1] Barney, J. B. and W. S. Hesterley; Strategic management and
competitive advantage – concepts and cases. Boston et al.: Prentice
Hall, 2010.
[2] Beer, St.; The Heart Of Enterprise. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons,
1979.
[3] Blank, N.; Vertrauenskultur: Voraussetzung für Zukunftsfähigkeit von
Unternehmen. Wiesbaden: Gabler, 2011.
[4] Carneiro, L. M., P. Cunha, P. S. Ferreira and A. Shamsuzzoha;
“Conceptual Framework for Non-hierarchical Business Networks for
Complex Products Design and Manufacturing,” Procedia CIRP, 7, pp.
61-66, 2013.
[5] Chesbrough, H.; Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating
and Profiting from the Technology. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press, 2003.
[6] Coleman, J.; Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1990.
[7] Dahlander, L. and D. M. Gann; “How open is innovation,” Research
Policy, 39, pp. 699-709, 2010.
[8] ElMaraghy, W., H. ElMaraghy, H. Tomiyama and L. Monostori;
“Complexity in engineering design and manufacturing,” CIRP Annals,
61, 2, pp. 793-814, 2012.
[9] Endreß, M.; Vertrauen. Bielefeld: transcript, 2002.
[10] Fleischer J., M. Herm and J. Ude; “Business capabilities as
configuration elements of value added networks,” Prod Eng Res Dev, 1,
2, pp. 187–192, 2007.
[11] Giddens, A.; Konsequenzen der Moderne. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp,
2010.

[12] Hamburg Aviation e.V., “Exzellenz aus Tradition – Geschichte der
Hamburger Luftfahrt“, Retrieved 20/01/14 World Wide Web,
http://www.hamburg-aviation.de/de/ueber-uns/geschichte.html.
[13] Häuberer, J.; Social Capital Theory. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, 2011.
[14] Jin, C., B. Wu and Y. Zhou; “What makes it open: factors affecting the
openness of power equipment manufacturing firms in Open
Innovation,” Proceedings IEEE ICMIT, pp. 543-549, 2010.
[15] JoungIn, C., B. J. Wook, L. B. Chul and K. Y. Bae; “The Impact of
Openness on Innovation Efficiency: Manufacturing and Service
Industry,” Proceedings of PICMET, pp. 997-1009, 2013.
[16] Krenz, P., S.-V. Basmer, S. Buxbaum-Conradi and J. P. Wulfsberg;
“Hamburg Model of Knowledge Management,” in: Enabling
Manufacturing Competitiveness and Economic Sustainability, M. Zäh,
Ed. Heidelberg et al.: Springer, 2014, pp. 389-394.
[17] Krenz, P.,S. Basmer, S. Buxbaum-Conradi, T. Redlich and J. P.
Wulfsberg;“Knowledge Management in Value Creation Networks:
Establishing a New Business Model through the Role of a Knowledge-
Intermediary,” Proceedings of the 6th CIRP Conference on Industrial
Product-Service Systems, 2014, accepted.
[18] Lanza, G. and R. Moser; “Strategic Planning of Global Changeable
Production Networks,” Procedia CIRP, 3, pp. 257-262, 2012.
[19] Laursen, K. and A. J. Salter; “Open for innovation: the role of openness
in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing
firms,” Strategic Management Journal, 27, pp. 131-150, 2006; quoted
from Dahlander L., D. M. Gann; “How open is innovation,” Research
Policy, 39, pp. 699-709, 2010.
[20] Lewicki, R. J. and C. Wiethoff; “Trust, trust development, and trust
repair,” in: The handbook of conflict resolution: theory and practice,
M. Deutsch and P. T. Coleman, Eds. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers, 2000, pp. 86-107.
[21] Lichtenthaler, U.; “Relative capacity: retaining knowledge outside a
firm’s boundaries,” Journal of Engineering and Technology
Management, 25, pp. 200-212, 2008.
[22] Loose, A. and J. Sydow; “Vertrauen und Ökonomie in
Netzwerkbeziehungen. Strukturationstheoretische Betrachtungen,“ in:
Management interorganisationaler Beziehungen, Sydow, J. and A.
Windeler, Eds. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, pp. 160-193, 1997.
[23] Luhmann, N.; Vertrauen - ein Mechanismus der Reduktion sozialer
Komplexität. Stuttgart: UTB, 2000 (1968).
[24] Lu, SCY, W. ElMaraghy, G. Schuh and R. Wilhelm; “A scientific
foundation of collaborative engineering,” CIRP Annals, 56, 2, pp. 605-
634, 2007.
[25] Malik F.; Management. The essence of the Craft. Frankfurt: Campus-
Verlag, 2010.
[26] Matt, D. T. and E. Rauch; “Design of a Network of Scalable Modular
Manufacturing Systems to Support Geographically Distributed
Production of Mass Customized Goods,” Procedia CIRP, 12, pp. 438-
443, 2013.
[27] Milgrom, P. and J. Roberts; “Complementarities and fit-strategy,
structure, and organizational change in manufacturing,” J Account
Econ, 19, 2–3, pp. 179–208, 1995.
[28] Mintzberg, H.; “Organization design: fashion or fit?,” Harvard
Business Review. 59, 1, pp. 103-116, 1981.
[29] Möllering, G.; Trust: Reason, Routine, Reflexivity. Oxford: Elsevier,
2006.
[30] Nalebuff, B. and A. Brandenburger; Co-opetion. New York:
Doubleday, 1996.
[31] Normann, R. and R. Ramirez; Designing interactive strategy: from
value chain to value constellation. Chichester: Wiley, 1994.
[32] Peters, M. L.; Vertrauen in Wertschöpfungspartnerschaften zum
Transfer von retentivem Wissen. Wiesbaden: Springer, 2008.
[33] Picot, A., R. Reichwald and R. Wigand; Die grenzenlose
Unternehmung. Wiesbaden: Gabler, 2003.
[34] Pine, B. J. and J. H. Gilmore; The Experience Economy: Work is
Theater and EveryBusiness a Stage. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press, 1999.
[35] Porter, M. E.; Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining
Superior Performance. New York: Free Press, 1985.
[36] Prahalad, C. K. and G. Hamel; The Core Competence of the
Corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68, 3, pp. 79-91, 1990.
[37] Putnam, R. D.; Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American
Community. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000.
[38] Puusa, A. and U. Tolvanen; “Organizational Identity and Trust,”
Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, 11, 2,
pp. 29-33, 2006.
[39] Redlich, T. and J. P. Wulfsberg; Wertschöpfung in der Bottom-up-
Ökonomie. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, 2011.
[40] Redlich, T., P. Krenz, S. Basmer, S. Buxbaum-Conradi, S. Wulf and J.
P. Wulfsberg; “The Impact of Openness on Value Co-Creation in
Production Networks,” Proceedings of the 6th CIRP Conference on
Industrial Product-Service Systems, 2014, accepted.
[41] Reichwald, R. and F. Piller; Interaktive Wertschöpfung - Open
Innovation, Individualisierung und neue Formen der Arbeitsteilung,
Wiesbaden: Gabler 2006.
[42] Rupf Schreiber, M.; Identifikation und Vertrauen in Organisationen.
Eine empirische Untersuchung der Bankenbranche. Universität
Freiburg, 2006.
[43] Schuh, G. and S. Gottschalk; “Production engineering for
selforganizing complex systems,” Prod Eng Res Dev, 2, 4, pp. 431–
435, 2008.
[44] Schuh, G., T. Potente, R. M. Varandani and T. Schmitz; “Methodology
for the Assessment of Structural Complexity in Global Production
Networks,” Procedia CIRP, 7, pp. 67-72, 2013.
[45] Schweer, M. K. W.; Vertrauensforschung 2010 - a state of the art.
Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, Internationaler Verlag der
Wissenschaften, 2010.
[46] Schweer, M. K. W.; “Vertrauen als Organisationsprinzip in
interorganisationalen Kooperationen,“ in Vertrauen und Kooperation in
der Arbeitswelt, C. Schilcher, M. Will-Zochol and M. Ziegler, Eds.
Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, 2012.
[47] Senge, P. M.; The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the
Learning. New York, London: Currency Doubleday, 2006.
[48] Shapiro, C. and H. R. Varian; “The Information Economy,” in:
Intangible Assets. Values, Measures, and Risks, J. R. M. Hand and B.
Lev, Eds. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.
[49] Siebert, H.; “Ökonomische Analyse von Unternehmensnetzwerken,“ in
Management von Netzwerkorganisationen, J. Sydow, Ed. Wiesbaden:
Gabler Verlag, pp. 8-29, 2010.
[50] Spur, G.; Vom Wandel der industriellen Welt durch
Werkzeugmaschinen. München, Wien: Hanser, 1991.
[51] Sydow, J.; Strategische Netzwerke. Evolution und Organisation.
Wiesbaden: Gabler, 1992.
[52] Tapscott, D. and A. D. Williams; Wikinomics. München: Hanser, 2007.
[53] Ueda, K., T. Takaneka, J. Vancza and L. Monostori; “Value creation
and decision-making in sustainable society,” CIRP Annals 58, 1, pp.
681–700, 2009.
[54] von Hippel, E., S. Ogawa and J. P. J. de Jong; “The Age of the
Consumer-innovator,” MIT Sloan Management Review, 53, 1, pp. 27–
35, 2011.
[55] Warnecke, H.-J.; The fractal company: a revolution in corporate
culture. Berlin et. al.: Springer, 1993.
[56] Wagner, C. and P. Nyhuis; “A systematic approach to analysis and
design of global production networks,” Prod Eng Res Dev 3, 3, pp.
295-303, 2009.
[57] West, J., W. Vanhaverbeke and H. Chesbrough; “Open Innovation: a
research agenda,” in: Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm,
H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke and J. West, Eds. Oxford: University
Press, 2006.
[58] Wiendahl, H.-P. and S. Lutz; “Production in networks,” CIRP Annals,
51, 2, pp. 573–586, 2002.
[59] Wiendahl, H.-P. et al.; “Changeable Manufacturing - Classification,
Design and Operation,” CIRP Annals, 56, 2, pp. 783-809, 2007.
[60] Wu, Y.-C.; B.-W. Lin and C.-J. Chen; “How Do Internal Openness and
External Openness Affect Innovation Capabilities and Firm
Performance?,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 60, 4,
pp. 704-716, 2013.
[61] Wulfsberg, J. P., T. Redlich and F.-L. Bruhns; “Open production:
scientific foundation for co-creative product realization,” Production
Engineering, 5, 2, pp. 127-139, 2011.