The best argument for developing supplier relationships involves the concept of non zero sumness i.e. by working together, we can achieve benefits that are beyond the sum of what we could get working separately.
In game theory, non zero sumness is crucial in determining how people play the games – e.g. divide the benefits amongst them.
In reality, people behave according to a number of factors, one of which is a conscious calculation of their costs versus their benefits. Most factors are unconscious, but we’ll leave that one for a later post.
Constant blame (the default setting) generally leads people to dig in, both at an individual level and organizational level. Incentives for cooperation and openness are achievable albeit rare. So, if we are to create a significant jump in profits/performance/improvement by working together, we need to have keep non zero sumness in the forefront of our minds. Conscious over unconscious. For some…impossible, but for some, a goal worth pursuing.
Now, I just need to throw in a line about football, so that lots of people check out this post. Google, are you listening?
- In dog we trust (economist.com)
- Ariel Rubinstein on Game Theory (choiceandinference.com)
- Computer science tackles 30-year-old economics problem (phys.org)
- Game theory and the bomb (agtb.wordpress.com)
- The cooperative game theory of networks and hierarchies ebook (yhotbcb.typepad.com)