Afhandling/Master Thesis
Indlevering af afhandling på Cand.merc., Cand.IT, Cand.ling.merc. og HD-studier / Delivery of the Master Thesis for the Master programmesDer afleveres til Studieadministrationen / To be handed in at the Registrar’s Office:- en kopi af indberetningskvitteringen fra Theses@asb / a copy of the receipt from Theses@asb- 2 trykte eksemplarer af afhandlingen / 2 printed copies of your thesis- 2 udfyldte eksemplarer af denne formular / 2 filled in copies of this formHD-afhandlinger afleveres på samme måde til instituttet / Likewise, Graduate Diploma theses are to be delivered to the Department.
Titel (brug venligst blokbogstaver) / Thesis Title (capital letters) HUSK - også titel på fremmedsprog - kun for CLM / REMEMBER – Title in the foreign language – only for CLMRelationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study
Evt. undertitel / Subtitle
Emneord / Subjects (min. 3 words)
Relationship marketing Relationship management Knowledge management
Opgaveløser(e) / Author(s)NAVN / NAME Esben Nørris Christensen E-MAIL [email protected] / STUDENT NO
401153 STUDIE / COURSE
MACC
NAVN / NAME E-MAILSTUDIENUMMER / STUDENT NO
STUDIE / COURSE
NAVN / NAME E-MAILSTUDIENUMMER / STUDENT NO
STUDIE / COURSE
VEJLEDER / INSTRUCTOR BIVEJLEDER / CO-INSTRUCTOR INSTITUT / DEPARTMENT
Chiara Valentini Faculty of Business and Social Sciences
VIL DU TILLADE ONLINE ADGANG VIA BIBLIOTEKETS DATABASE / WOULD YOU PERMIT ONLINE ACCESS FROM THE LIBRARY DATABASE
JA / YES NEJ / NO
DATO OG UNDERSKRIFT / DATE AND SIGNATURE
Udfyldes af instituttet / To be filled in by the departmentLOKALE / PLACE DATO / DATE KL. / HOUR
CENSOR / EXAMINER
Handelshøjskolen
Aarhus UniversitetFuglesangs Alle 4DK – 8210 Århus V
Tel. 89 48 66 88Fax 89 48 61 26
Web www.asb.dk
Esben Nørris ChristensenStudy no.: 401153
August 1st 2012 Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus University
Supervisor: Chiara Valentini
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Foreword
I would like to thank the employees of SustainAgri who were kind enough to let me use their
company as a case study and provided me with sufficient information regarding the daily workings
of a foundation.
Without them, this thesis would have been impossible to write.
Additionally, I also want to thank the contact persons who completed the sent out questionnaires
and thereby provided me with vital information about their view on relationships between
companies.
The abstract contains 3,226 characters equivalent to approximately 1.5 page (excluding spacing)
This thesis contains 172,229 characters equivalent to approximately 78 pages (excluding spacing).
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Abstract
The objective of this thesis is to explore the area of relationship management within a non-profit
foundation functioning on a B2B (business to business) market.
Relationship management has become increasingly important for companies to partake in, in order
for them to be able to stay competitive on an ever-increasing global market. This has recently been
relevant for larger companies and organisations to participate in since it can have the effect of
reducing costs. Relationship management has also become more relevant for SME’s (small and
medium-sized enterprises) and the opportunity to create relationships has also increased with
companies now being able to create shared research and development projects. This way SME’s are
able to create products and services that they would otherwise not have been capable of.
The first part of the thesis consists of a literature review which looks into the development of
relationship management and its similarities with relationship marketing. This is relevant because I
investigate relationship management in a real-life context consisting of a foundation and its partner
companies. However, whereas the focus of relationship marketing is to reduce costs for a company,
the focus of relationship management is to develop and maintain relationships, which also focus on
the cooperation between companies in order to reach a shared goal.
This section has also been used to explain knowledge management and how this is used to share
and gather knowledge both interdepartmentally as well as among organisations.
From the literature review, it becomes clear that a combination of relationship management and
knowledge management in the scholarly world has not been looked into. Moreover, there also
seems to be a need for more research into the aspect of non-profit foundations working on a B2B
market.
The second section of the thesis involves the case study of SustainAgri. SustainAgri is a non-profit
umbrella foundation, receiving EU grants, functioning within a B2B market.
The current relationship between SustainAgri and its partner companies lacks a common goal to
work towards. Furthermore, a lack of commitment and trust appears to be present which seems to
prevent the relationship from developing. In addition to this, there seems to be a consensus among
the partner companies that they entered into the relationship in order to also share knowledge across
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
the cluster of companies. However, currently knowledge does not seem to be shared between the
partner companies and, in some cases, not even with the foundation.
The third section focuses on which improvements can be made in the relationship between
SustainAgri and the partner companies in order for the relationship to develop and thereby become
stronger.
Three suggestions have been created based on the discussion about the current relationship.
All suggestions focus on the need for the relationship to have common goals and objectives, giving
the relationship a purpose which it presently seem to lack.
Additionally, the increase in commitment, trust, two-way communication and the exchange of
knowledge across companies can be achieved by creating smaller segments within the cluster of
companies. These will encourage a greater level of commitment and a sharing and gathering of
knowledge, which presently does not exist.
On the basis of these suggestions, two models have been created in which relationship and
knowledge management aspects are used. These models are indented to increase the level of
cooperation, communication and dependency among all involved parties.
The thesis also shows that by combining relationship and knowledge management factors a greater
organisation-public relationship can be created than if the management functions were used
separately.
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Table of contentsPart I: Theoretical background.........................................................................................................................1
1.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................................1
1.1.1 Personal motivation.............................................................................................................................2
1.2 Problem formulation..............................................................................................................................2
1.2.1 Research questions..............................................................................................................................3
1.2.2 Delimitations.......................................................................................................................................3
1.3 Limitations..............................................................................................................................................4
1.3.1 Other data collection processes..........................................................................................................4
1.4 Thesis structure......................................................................................................................................5
1.5 Critical realism........................................................................................................................................6
1.6 Case study approach...............................................................................................................................9
1.7 Case study: SustainAgri.........................................................................................................................11
1.8 Qualitative research.............................................................................................................................13
1.9 Quantitative research...........................................................................................................................14
1.10 Mixed methods...................................................................................................................................15
1.11 Data collection....................................................................................................................................17
1.12 Processes and methods......................................................................................................................18
1.12.1 Primary data....................................................................................................................................18
1.12.2 Secondary data................................................................................................................................19
1.13 Time period........................................................................................................................................19
1.14 Interviews as data collection..............................................................................................................19
1.15 Semi-structured interviews................................................................................................................20
1.16 Questionnaires as data collection.......................................................................................................21
1.17 Questionnaires...................................................................................................................................22
1.18 Ethical considerations.........................................................................................................................23
Part II: Literature review.................................................................................................................................24
2. The importance of relationship management between organisations.......................................................24
2.1 Relationships........................................................................................................................................24
2.2 Relationship marketing.........................................................................................................................26
2.3 Relationship management....................................................................................................................34
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
2.4 Knowledge management......................................................................................................................40
Knowledge sharing and gathering..............................................................................................................43
2.5 Conclusion............................................................................................................................................45
2.6 Results of the literature review............................................................................................................47
Part III: Discussion..........................................................................................................................................49
3. Case study: SustainAgri’s current relationship with its partner companies................................................49
3.1 Relationship factors..............................................................................................................................50
3.2 Cooperation..........................................................................................................................................53
3.3 Satisfaction...........................................................................................................................................57
3.4 Findings................................................................................................................................................61
Part IV: Improvements...................................................................................................................................63
4. Creating better relationships for SustainAgri and the partner companies.................................................63
4.1 Setting objectives..................................................................................................................................63
4.2 The management of knowledge...........................................................................................................64
4.2.1 Knowledge+Relationship Management Model..................................................................................68
4.3 Creating an intranet..............................................................................................................................69
4.4 Theory based on the case study of SustainAgri....................................................................................73
4.4.1 Relationship+Knowledge Management Model..................................................................................76
4.3 Reliability..............................................................................................................................................77
4.4 Generalisation......................................................................................................................................78
4.5 Validity..................................................................................................................................................78
4.6 Findings................................................................................................................................................79
Part V: Final conclusion..................................................................................................................................81
5. Conclusion..................................................................................................................................................81
5.1 Further research...................................................................................................................................84
Bibliography...................................................................................................................................................85
Appendix 1: SustainAgri’s overall purpose (2002)..........................................................................................93
Appendix 2: SustainAgri’s current EU goals....................................................................................................95
Appendix 3: Organisational structure of SustainAgri.....................................................................................97
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Appendix 4: Interview transcription – Carsten Møller....................................................................................98
Appendix 5: Interview transcription – Christian Sønderup...........................................................................115
Appendix 6: Interview transcription – Lasse Bork Schmidt...........................................................................126
Appendix 7: List of partner companies.........................................................................................................136
Appendix 8: Interview agreement forms......................................................................................................140
Appendix 9: Questions for interview............................................................................................................145
Appendix 10: Interview guide.......................................................................................................................149
Appendix 11: Mail introducing questionnaire to partner companies...........................................................154
Appendix 12: Questionnaire.........................................................................................................................155
Appendix 13: Completed questionnaires.....................................................................................................165
Kongskilde A/S..........................................................................................................................................165
JMS Management ApS..............................................................................................................................169
EnergiMidt................................................................................................................................................174
Ingvald Christensen A/S............................................................................................................................179
Influx.........................................................................................................................................................184
Industri-Montage Vest A/S.......................................................................................................................188
Danish Farm Design..................................................................................................................................192
Little Dane ApS.........................................................................................................................................196
Nordic Environment ApS..........................................................................................................................201
S.A. Christensen & CO...............................................................................................................................206
Appendix 14: Mail thanking contact persons for participating.....................................................................211
Appendix 15: Questionnaire guide...............................................................................................................212
Appendix 16: Partnership agreement contract............................................................................................218
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Part I: Theoretical background
1.1 IntroductionThe creation of relationships has always been important in people’s lives. Each person gains
intangible value from these interpersonal relationships, helping form and develop the people
involved.
Many of the same relationship aspects have been recognised as important when developing
relationships between companies. Companies also develop relationships based on the intangible
values which can be gained from the cooperation between two or more companies. The most
important dimensions were developed by Hon and Grunig in 1999 and are very similar to those of
personal relationships: Trust, commitment, satisfaction and control mutuality (The dimensions will
be further explained on page 30).
During the last two decades, relationships have played an increasing role in larger organisations.
However, in recent years it has also become important within SME’s (small and medium-sized
enterprises) due to the increasing globalisation of the markets and the need to stay competitive.
Reasons can be found in the need for organisations to cooperate in order to reach objectives that
would otherwise not be possible to reach. Examples of cooperation could be when organisations
create common research and development projects where they all share the relevant knowledge
needed and create more competitive companies. Another advantage is the fact that relationships can
lower costs and generates more wealth to each organisation involved in the relationship.
Although the above-mentioned dimensions are of great importance to the development of
organisation-public relationships, other factors such as knowledge creation and knowledge sharing
have had an increasing relevance for the development and maintenance of relationships.
During this thesis, I will look into the research made by scholars within the areas of relationship
marketing, relationship management and knowledge management. By doing this, I will seek to find
areas which have not received much attention.
In addition, I will include a case study focusing on a non-profit foundation, called SustainAgri,
which operates on the B2B (business to business) market. There does not seem to be any relevant
Page 1 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
research focusing on non-profit organisations on a B2B market but rather on non-profit
organisations which operate on a charitable basis. Furthermore, I will look into how knowledge
management and relationship management might help develop better relationships between
companies.
As a result of the research in SustainAgri, I will provide suggestions of how to improve relationship
management, knowledge management and level of communication between SustainAgri and its
partner companies.
1.1.1 Personal motivation
My motivation for choosing SustainAgri as a case study is due to having been an intern there during
my previous semester. This has also provided me with knowledge I would otherwise not posses
about the internal workings of the foundation and some of its problems regarding relationship
management.
Since I am researching the concept of relationship management between an organisation and
companies within a specific sector, I decided to include SustainAgri as a case study. This is also
done in the hope of being able to shed light on certain areas which the foundation has not previously
been aware of.
1.2 Problem formulationThe globalisation of national markets together with the demolition of national trade barriers have
made it more important than before for organisations to work together and to learn from each other.
This has been especially true for SME’s who have learned to share technology and knowledge with
each other while at the same time creating new products or services together. By doing so the
companies stand stronger and can by doing so create wealth and cut costs, making them more
competitive.
The main objective with this master thesis is to investigate the importance of the role of relationship
communication between a non-profit, EU-granted foundation and its partner companies. With this, I
hope to discover how the foundation’s communication affects the relational activities with the
partner companies. To investigate this in-depth, as previously mentioned, I have included a case
study of a non-profit, umbrella foundation, SustainAgri. This is done in order to explore how it
Page 2 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
manages its relationships with the partner companies based on theories from the areas of
relationship marketing, relationship management and knowledge management.
I will investigate the importance of relationship communication within SustainAgri, which is also
an SME, and how relationship communication and relationship management between the
foundation and its partner companies are conducted and if improvements can be made.
This will be done on the basis of existing theories and models created within relationship marketing,
relationship management and knowledge management.
1.2.1 Research questions
On the basis of the above, I have chosen to investigate the following research questions:
1.Why is relationship management important for B2B organisations?
2. How is the relationship between SustainAgri and its partner companies currently?
3. How can SustainAgri create better relationships with the partner companies?
1.2.2 Delimitations
Even though organisation-public theories, scholarly articles and research have been consulted in
order to collect as much information about relationship management as possible, the majority of
these seem to focus on how to develop and maintain relationships within B2C (business to
consumer) markets. Those theories have been used for this thesis, which might result in a focus on
the relationship between a company and its publics and not so much on what is required when two,
or more, companies seek to develop relationships. The reason for this is the fact that while the
partner companies, as the title would suggest, are companies in their own right, they are also
customers of SustainAgri. They are customers in the sense that the foundation needs partner
companies in order to survive and the relationship would as a result not be as equal as between two
companies.
After having looked through a vast amount of theories about organisation-public relationships, a
clear-cut definition of the word relationship, and what this entails, has not been possible to find.
Page 3 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
This has resulted in the use of an Oxford English Dictionary in which a short and concise
explanation was offered. This definition can be found on page 25.
Due to my time as intern at SustainAgri, I have sensed a lack of commitment and willingness to
cooperate from the partner companies’ side. Also it took Lasse Bork Schmidt, the Managing
Director of SustainAgri, four months to set up individual meetings with the contact persons from
the partner companies and he did not manage to have meetings with all. Because of this, I chose to
only send questionnaires out in order to get as many of the partner companies’ points of view on the
relationship with SustainAgri as possible. I believe this would be a better way of collecting data
than only interviewing two or three partner companies. Even though the level of information would
then have been higher and more data could be collected, these contact persons would have to
answer for all partner companies. Since this was not the objective of the thesis, I did not do so.
Moreover, due to having been an intern at SustainAgri, my opinion might have been affected by the
views of the employees. Therefore, I saw questionnaires for the partner companies as the best data
collection method since I could not affect the answers of the contact persons and because they could
then answer more freely and honestly.
1.3 LimitationsSome of the self-reflections regarding theories used and the chosen methods have been mentioned
throughout the thesis but will be elaborated on during this section.
For the thesis, I chose to use both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods. However, if I
had had the opportunity to interview both the key employees from SustainAgri as well as the
contact persons from the partner companies it would have made the collected information richer in
details. This way it would also have been easier to analyse and discuss the collected data because
the answers to the semi-structured interviews would have made for a better analysis and the answers
given by the partner companies could be explored further.
1.3.1 Other data collection processes
I ended up interviewing three key employees of SustainAgri and then sending questionnaires based
on the answers to the contact persons of the partner companies. However, data collection processes
such as focus groups and observation have been considered also.
Page 4 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
The reason for not using focus groups for the thesis is due to the fact that it would have taken longer
than the time allocated for the data collection processes. Additionally, contact persons would have
to be willing and able to participate. This would mean finding a date and time which would suit all
participants. In addition, the focus group participants would have to be able to represent the entirety
of the partner companies and not just their own company and its views. This realisation led me to
believe that even if I had the time for using focus groups, there was a chance of the data collected
becoming distorted. Not all the partner companies would have the opportunity to state their opinion
of their relationship with SustainAgri, and this could change the final result.
Observation as a primary data collection method was also an aspect which was considered but
rejected again. Its contribution to the thesis might have been too limited compared to the data
collection methods which were used. The main concern behind this was the fact that it might focus
too much on areas within the daily workings of SustainAgri which are not relevant to the topic of
relationship management.
1.4 Thesis structureThe thesis is divided into five parts:
The first part of the thesis includes the introduction (personal motivation, problem statement and
research questions) as well as the section regarding the scientific approach and the method chosen.
The overall scientific approaches are explained during this part and, moreover, the data collection
methods are explained and discussed. During this, there is also an explanation of the definitions of
primary and secondary data collection as well as qualitative and quantitative research methods. This
is done in order to establish a theoretical basis for the outline of the thesis.
The second part of the thesis focuses on a literature review which explains the relevant definitions
and theories within the areas of relationship marketing, relationship management and knowledge
management. This will function as the theoretical background and will be referenced to during the
remainder of the thesis. This part will also answer the first research question concerning the
importance of relationship management on a B2B market. Finally, this also explains why a case
study is relevant and which aspects are looked into.
The third part of the thesis introduces the current relationship between the non-profit foundation of
SustainAgri and its partner companies. Here the interviews of the three key employees of the
Page 5 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
foundation and the questionnaires received from the partner companies are analysed and discussed.
Differences in opinion between the partner companies and SustainAgri are looked into and a deeper
level of understanding of the current relationship is provided.
The fourth part of the thesis then looks at the results of the discussion and offers suggestions for
improvements for the relationship. During this, both relationship management and knowledge
management are used in order to show a connection between the two areas. This is done with the
intent of proving this connection as well as using knowledge management within the area of
relationship management.
The fifth and final part discusses the generalisablility of the results of the previous part. The aspects
of reliability and validity connected to the thesis and the research are discussed.
Finally, during this part of the thesis a final conclusion of all the findings connected to the thesis is
presented and a section regarding further research highlights the interesting aspects to be looked
further into on the basis of this thesis.
1.5 Critical realismCritical realism was first used as a scientific approach during the 1970’s by Roy Bhaskar (Bhaskar,
1998) who had created it to counter the points of view of interpretists/constructionists and
positivists. Bhaskar thought of the existing paradigms as being superficial (Alvesson & Sköldberg,
2009) since they did not focus enough on understanding the researched problems in-depth, as well
as the mechanisms which affected the problems.
The definition of what is real within the realm of (McEvoy & Richards, 200 6) critical realism is
very simple. Anything that has a causal effect on the behaviour of people can be deemed to be real.
This means that actions (Pratschke, 2003) are real due to the effect they have on one or more
persons, however, ideas are also deemed real since they can also affect people. This can for
example be the case with the ideas and aspirations of Karl Marx’s philosophies about distributing
the wealth amongst people1 (Pratschke, 2003).
1 Karl Marx is mentioned because many scholars, among others Pratschke (2003), Losch (2009) and Alvesson and Sköldberg (2009), seem to agree with the fact that some inspiration behind critical realism has come from his writings.
Page 6 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
The goal within critical realism is not to create generalisable theories or models but to create a
deeper understanding of the world and how different actors, for example people, technology and
culture, affect each other. However, if the researcher finds that the above mentioned mechanisms
have a great effect on the research topic, the theory or models derived from the research will
become easier to generalise. This only becomes relevant when the result of research is new theory,
or models, that include more factors than already existing ones. Is this the case the new theory will
be preferable to the existing theory (Pratschke, 2003).
By creating, for example, a new theory it will also become possible to explain how mechanisms
from one subject area are connected with other areas and how it affects them. This knowledge will
then make it possible to change these mechanisms and improve the area of research (McEvoy &
Richards, 2006).
Critical realism is at one end of the spectrum, with idealism being at the other end of the spectrum
(Pratschke, 2003). This is due to the critical nature of critical realism and that facts are not accepted
in blind faith whereas facts are not reflected on within idealism. This is also the reason for idealism
being called “Naive idealism” (Losch, 2009).
Critical realism shares many similarities with positivism, for example the need for understanding
patterns within society and what causes these patterns. At the same time positivism is regarded as
being too superficial since it does not find unobservable mechanisms of importance (Alvesson &
Sköldberg, 2009).
At the epistemological level, the job of the researcher is to look into, and understand, the real
domain and how the mechanisms within this affect other domains (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2009).
This is important since it helps explain the interconnectivity of phenomena and how they function
in addition to why they do what they do (Jeppesen, 2005).
Within critical realism ontology is prioritised over epistemology and methodology because
knowledge does not only reside in one person but is something which is influenced by external
factors outside the control of one person (Reed, 2001). The reason for dividing ontology into three
domains is that critical realists, this way, will be able to isolate the specific problem related to a
research problem. This way it will also become apparent which mechanisms have an effect on the
specific problem and how this can be changed in order to improve the problem (Alvesson &
Sköldberg, 2009).
Page 7 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Within critical realism there exist three ontological domains:
The empirical domain – what is possible to experience directly or indirectly as part of reality
(McEvoy & Richards, 2006).
The actual domain – aspects of reality occurring independently of research (Alvesson &
Sköldberg, 2009)
The real domain – focuses on the mechanisms causing certain events to occur outside the main
field of research and how this creates phenomena connected to the relevant research topics
(Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2009).
On the methodological level it is important to understand and explain the world; and with this
knowledge be able to change the mechanisms which may affect the relevant areas of research
(Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2009). This is done by unifying and using the best aspects from each
existing paradigm to reach the best research results (Fox, 2009). This also means that using both
qualitative and quantitative research methods is a possibility within critical realism (McEvoy &
Richards, 2006).
This is the reason for critical realism having included these aspects from the
interpretivist/contructionist worldview. There is a need to see every aspect within its context to fully
understand the mechanisms affecting it, just as interpretivism does, but critical realists however find
the focus on social constructions to be insufficient. The reason for this is the fact that many, if not
most, of the things happening in the real world does not only include the mechanisms which operate
within the mind of people and the actions made by the same people. It also includes the actions
made separately from their specific context (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2009).
Critical realism also perfectly relates to my thesis and to the case study because it focuses on
gaining a deeper level of understanding of SustainAgri and its relationships. Finally, due to the use
of critical realism it should also become clear how mechanisms, both the observable and the
unobservable, affect the relationship between SustainAgri and the partner companies.
Page 8 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
1.6 Case study approachPrimarily, case studies are used within research with the objective to investigate and explore
situations, such as the relationship between specific types of companies and their context (Ghauri &
Grønhaug, 2010). Therefore, most case studies are exploratory or inductive; meaning that they aim
to discover new theory, new models or create hypotheses for future tests (Ghauri & Grønhaug,
2010; Daymon & Holloway, 2010).
This makes the case study of SustainAgri relevant since it focuses on a small foundation and how it
deals with relationship and knowledge management (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010).
The advantages of case studies are many, and one of the main ones is that a higher level of
information can be included during the research process. Simultaneously, it is looking into a real-
life context and tries to apply theoretical knowledge to the degree it is possible.
Another aspect which is also used, is the possibility of including more participants in the research,
thereby, getting multiple points’ of views (Daymon & Holloway, 2010).
An aspect which can be both a benefit and a disadvantage is that case studies are situated within a
specific context at a specific point in time. This can be a benefit if it creates knowledge which can
be used by other companies in a similar context (Daymon & Holloway, 2010).
However, it can also be a disadvantage if for example theory cannot be produced through case
studies. If this is the case, the study can be seen to be a wasted chance of contributing to the
scholarly discussions within the specific field (Daymon & Holloway, 2010).
Another disadvantage of case studies is their need to be descriptive. If research connected to case
studies become too descriptive, the aspect of generalising the findings becomes more difficult,
simply because new research has to find similar cases in order to test new theory and concepts
(Daymon & Holloway, 2010).
Another disadvantage is the difficulty of researchers to create theory which can be generalisable and
thereby be used by other companies or researchers (Daymon & Holloway, 2010). Again this
disadvantage is not relevant in connection with my thesis since the aim of critical realism is to gain
a deeper understanding of the mechanisms within specific settings. By doing so, critical realists
acknowledge that the mechanisms discovered through the use of case studies might be too specific
for creating a general theory or model (McEvoy & Richards, 2006).
Page 9 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Case studies can be difficult to carry out if participants do not wish to be part of the research. One
reason can be that the information may be used by competitors. Internally, employees might then
receive knowledge which they were not meant to have (Daymon & Holloway, 2010).
In order to investigate the relevance of relationship marketing, relationship management and
knowledge management within a B2B market, the non-profit foundation SustainAgri has been
chosen as a case study. This also makes it possible to look into existing theory and see if the
combination of more management areas affects their relationships (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010).
The case study of SustainAgri has been used in order gain more information and knowledge
regarding the foundation and to explore whether new knowledge can be derived from this. The case
study will help me answer the second and third research question since it will provide me with a
greater understanding of the mechanisms influencing a foundation. It will also make the discussion
(Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010) more accurate since the data has been collected in the natural settings
of the studied company.
The case study is chosen in order to get a deeper look into the different mechanisms affecting the
management of relationships and knowledge and how these aspects influence the overall
relationship (Daymon & Holloway, 2010).
In addition, the case study will be used to investigate whether relationship management and
knowledge management can be combined when it comes to improving relationships between
companies. It will make it possible to determine if new theory can be created (Daymon &
Holloway, 2010).
The limitations of time for writing this thesis has restricted the data collection period to
approximately one and a half month in which it has been possible to collect all the data necessary
for the completion of the discussion/analysis section (Daymon & Holloway, 2010).
Even though it can be difficult to gain access to the company used for the case study as well as
getting access to the internal documents required for the research this has not been the case
(Daymon & Holloway, 2010). Since I have been an intern at SustainAgri and therefore gotten to
know the employees. Moreover, I believe it has helped break down the barriers which could
otherwise have created problems when collecting the relevant data for the thesis.
Page 10 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
The nature of the data collection itself and the interview and questionnaire participants will be
presented in the following sections.
1.7 Case study: SustainAgriSustainAgri is a non-profit umbrella foundation functioning on the B2B market.
It is non-profit because it is part of an EU project where specific goals are to be reached. These
goals last for a four year period. Afterwards, new EU goals lasting for another four years can be set
and a new grant will be received.
The money from the grant is divided into eight parts and paid out every six months in accordance
with the costs. This means that the money from the grant is not divided into equal parts when being
paid out. In addition to this, approximately half of the funding is based on the hours accumulated by
the contact persons from each partner company. When working together with SustainAgri on
projects, the contact persons send in their payslips and SustainAgri is then compensated for these
hours.
This means that it is very important for SustainAgri to maintain a good relationship with all partner
companies since the contact persons have the possibility of refusing to send in the payslips. If this is
the case, the foundation will otherwise lack the money from the partner companies and it may then
result in the foundation having to close down.
The goals set by SustainAgri must be reached during the four year period. These EU goals thus
determine the framework of the relationship between SustainAgri and its partner companies.
SustainAgri was formed in 2002 and the employees at that time created the overall purpose of the
foundation. This purpose is what SustainAgri, in addition with its EU goals, tries to live up to
(appendix 1):
Developing environmentally friendly solutions within farming
To market the Danish products on international markets
To support Danish farming companies in international markets by making international
visits and create projects benefiting these companies
To ensure Danish companies an easier entry into foreign markets
Page 11 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
In this connection, SustainAgri has listed some of the advantages Danish companies will receive
when becoming part of the cluster of partner companies. Some of these advantages are (appendix
1):
Danish companies become part of an umbrella organisation
The possibility for the partner companies for increased visibility in foreign markets
Greater access to market information
An increased innovation within the partner companies
The possibility to get projects financed by SustainAgri
SustainAgri started its second EU project in 2011 and it became necessary for the foundation to
create new goals lasting for another period. Listed below are the goals which are relevant to the
current EU period, from 2011-2013 (the entire list of the current EU goals can be found in appendix
2):
Joint and dynamic market process (becoming better at unifying information and knowledge
from the partner companies in brochures and general information for the end-users of the
products)
Anchoring of new organisation models (SustainAgri and the partner companies have to be
better at collaborating with each other and in by this gain the most possible from the
relationship)
Knowledge sharing and practical learning (creating a better knowledge sharing and
knowledge gathering system that allows SustainAgri, as well as the partner companies, to
have the relevant information from all companies when developing new projects)
Maturation of the cluster (the partner companies and SustainAgri have to become more
equal within the relationship in order to develop the relationship)
In order for SustainAgri to live up to the overall purpose, as well as the current EU goals, it has to
be good at managing its relationships as well as the partner companies’ expectations.
SustainAgri works together with two other foundations who are also receiving EU grants. These
foundations are: Danish Energy Solutions and Danish Water Services. These foundations have the
same purposes as the ones SustainAgri made in 2002, for each of their respective sectors: energy
and water (appendix 3 shows the organisational structure of SustainAgri).
Page 12 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
1.8 Qualitative researchDuring this thesis, I have chosen to make use of semi-structured interviews and have therefore
included this section explaining the advantages and disadvantages of qualitative research as well as
which research tools are included within this concept.
In the words of Van Maanen (1979): It [qualitative research methods] is [...] an umbrella term
covering an array of interpretive techniques which seek to describe, decode, translate, and
otherwise come to terms with the meaning, not the frequency, of a certain more or less naturally
occurring phenomena in the social world.” (Van Maanen, 1979: 520).
In other words, qualitative research methods include the use of unstructured, semi-structured and
structured interviews, the setting up of focus groups to answer relevant questions, analysing the
participants’ use of semantics and providing knowledge which would otherwise have not been
obvious to the researcher (Daymon & Holloway, 2010).
With the use of qualitative methods, it becomes easier to gather the correct information and gain
knowledge on a deeper level. There will be a greater focus on understanding the interview
participants and the different mechanisms influencing the participants’ views and decisions within
the context of a professional life (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010). It provides a greater knowledge when
analysing and understanding the data from which the thesis will be based.
By interviewing three of the key employees at SustainAgri, it will also become easier to compare
their answers with each other to find out whether they all have the same view on the same topics
(Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010). On the basis of this, qualitative research is primarily focused on the
meanings, concepts, understanding and descriptions of specific people or situations (Ghauri &
Grønhaug, 2010).
The main disadvantage of using qualitative research methods is the quality of the research is
dependent on the skills and knowledge of the researcher. This applies both to the theoretical
knowledge acquired before carrying out the research but also the knowledge of the interview
participants and the organisation in which they function. Moreover, the quality of qualitative
research is often influenced by the level of experience of the researcher in other words whether the
researcher is an expert or novice of data collection (Libarkin & Kurdziel, 2002).
Page 13 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Furthermore, since the conclusions and generalisations will be based on the information received
from qualitative research, which tends to be a smaller sample than quantitative research methods, it
can become difficult to reach a final conclusion due to the data being based on the participants’
views, beliefs and experience within certain areas. This can also influence the researcher as it can
become difficult to make actual correlations between the cause and effect mechanisms from a broad
perspective (Libarkin & Kurdziel, 2002).
Finally, the education and values of the researcher may influence the questions within an interview
and this could cause the interview participants’ to answer in ways which they would otherwise not
have (Libarkin & Kurdziel, 2002).
1.9 Quantitative researchIn order to get the opinions of most of the contact persons within the partner companies, I have
chosen to send out questionnaires as well as gather internal documents and make a literature review.
Due to this, I have included this section explaining more about quantitative research methods and its
pros and cons.
According to Daymon and Holloway (2010):”[...] quantitative [research] techniques seek to
distance the researcher from the data, both in the methods of collecting the data (say, by sending
out a survey rather than listening to the voices of informants) and also in analysis where numbers
and statistics are favoured over words and the organization of language.” (Daymon & Holloway,
2010: 8).
Compared to qualitative researchers, quantitative researchers collect statistical or mathematical data
which is then used to analyse situations, practises and opinions of a large number of participants
(Libarkin & Kurdziel, 2002).
A strength of the quantitative research method is its ability to focus on the main research facts
which means that the participant only has to answer the most relevant questions of the researcher.
Also there is not the same concern, as with qualitative research, that the interview may influence the
answers of participants (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010). This ensures that the data becomes more
objective than with qualitative research methods. Usually, the information gained from quantitative
research is more result-oriented than with qualitative research methods because there will not be the
same amount of data from one participant as with e.g. interviews (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010).
Page 14 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
The main reason for using quantitative research methods is the ability to test or validate information
or hypotheses because the collected data is easier to use in statistical analyses which can quickly
point the researcher in one specific direction (Libarkin & Kurdziel, 2002). Additionally, the
researcher does not need the same level of experience as when using qualitative research methods
(Libarkin & Kurdziel, 2002).
Some of the disadvantages of using quantitative research are that the data collection within
quantitative research normally takes a long time, since e.g. questionnaires are not all sent out at
once. This is due to large number of participants needed. However, the context may have changed
from the when the data was first sent out (Libarkin & Kurdziel, 2002). Furthermore, the data has to
be analysed by using already existing models which might not fully correspond to the needs of the
researcher (Libarkin & Kurdziel, 2002).
Lastly, due to the choices of participants being limited within this research type, there is a risk of
participants being forced to answer in a way that might not fully correspond to their responses and
views in general (Libarkin & Kurdziel, 2002).
1.10 Mixed methodsThis thesis is created using a mixed methods approach since both qualitative and quantitative
research methods are present. As a result of this, I have included this section explaining mixed
methods.
Hon and Grunig (1999) argue that it is important to gather information from all involved companies
within an organisation-public relationship, the organisation being SustainAgri and the publics being
its partner companies. Therefore, I have interviewed key employees within SustainAgri and sent out
questionnaires to the contact persons from the partner companies. The reason for doing so has been
numerous and the most pressing ones have been the limitations of time, since it would take up an
inordinate amount of time to set up interviews, conduct interviews and transcribe interviews with
the 14 contact persons. In addition to this, it would also be time intensive to analyse all interviews
in-depth.
Another factor has been a geographical one, since most of the partner companies are scattered on
Funen and in Jutland this would result in much of my time being spent on travelling back and forth
between them to conduct the interviews.
Page 15 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Since the qualitative and quantitative data collection methods do not mutually exclude each other
(Niglas, 2009) and since the research objective should decide the research design, mixed methods
has been chosen for the approach of this thesis.
Although this thesis has been created by using mixed methods, meaning the use of both qualitative
and quantitative methods, the results will be qualitative (Niglas, 2009).
Since the data collection is carried out in the manner described above, it becomes easier to find any
conflicting views between SustainAgri and the partner companies – views which could otherwise
not have been presented in the data (Niglas, 2009).
The reason for using qualitative research methods (semi-structured interviews) is because of the
open-ended questions used making it possible for the interview participant to give many different
answers which cannot be planned by the researcher beforehand. However, even though this is
possible, the researcher has decided the main questions and research areas in advance. The great
advantage of for example interviews is the possibility for different themes and connections, which
had otherwise not been noticed, to become clear for the researcher (McEvoy & Richards, 2002).
This has only been done in connection with SustainAgri’s employees since they are the ones
managing the overall relationship with the partner companies.
By using quantitative methods and qualitative research methods in my thesis, there is a greater
chance of finding new, unexpected correlations between mechanisms both within the relevant areas
of relationship marketing and relationship and knowledge management. This becomes possible
because the contact persons have been sent a questionnaire in which there are very limited
possibilities of answering which will make the correlation between the mechanisms clearer than if
only qualitative research methods had been used (McEvoy & Richards, 2006). The reason for this is
that qualitative research methods are based on the views, thoughts and experiences of the
participants whereas quantitative research methods are more objective. When the methods are used
within the same research the disadvantages of either method are lessened by their strengths
(Libarkin & Kurdziel, 2002).
This will also contribute to the field of knowledge in connection with how these mechanisms
operate when used by a non-profit foundation within a B2B market (McEvoy & Richards, 2006).
Also, as it has previously been pointed out, there is a greater chance that the information received
becomes more objective because the participant will then have more time to decide on an answer
Page 16 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
without any influence from the researcher. Inadvertently, this might be a factor within interviews
but by also using questionnaires the possibility of, unconsciously, influencing all participants in the
research has thereby been eliminated (Libarkin & Kurdziel, 2002).
Additionally, my inexperience of conducting interviews will not affect all participants since only
the employees of SustainAgri, and not the contact persons, participated in semi-structured
interviews (Libarkin & Kurdziel, 2002).
1.11 Data collectionFor the qualitative research methods, semi-structured interviews were conducted. I chose to
interview three key employees of SustainAgri who have a vast amount of knowledge concerning
SustainAgri’s relationships. The following three key employees are the interview participants:
Carsten Møller, Vice Director of SustainAgri (interviewed on May 10th , lasting 49 minutes)
(appendix 4):
Mr. Møller has a great amount of knowledge about creating relationships among companies. He is
primarily used as a consultant assisting with the decision-making process within SustainAgri, and is
Managing Director of Danish Water Services and Danish Energy Solutions (the two other
foundations sharing an office, and some of the employees, with SustainAgri).
Christian Sønderup, Head of The Development Group (interviewed on May 10th, lasting 45
minutes) (appendix 5):
The Development Group was created so the three foundations can learn from each other and
exchange knowledge within the more administrative aspects, e.g. when dealing with EU related
applications. Mr. Sønderup has worked in both SustainAgri and Danish Water Services since 2008
and has a lot of knowledge with communicating with stakeholders.
Lasse Bork Schmidt, Managing Director of SustainAgri (interviewed on May 30th, lasting 24
minutes) (appendix 6):
Mr. Schmidt is concerned with the overall communication with the partner companies of
SustainAgri as well as finding relevant projects for them. He was employed as Managing Director
Page 17 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
in 2006 and has a great deal of knowledge concerning the different partner companies and their
contact persons.
Having conducted the semi-structured interviews and created the literature review, the
questionnaires were created and sent out to the partner companies.
I wanted to send questionnaires out to all 14 partner companies of SustainAgri, however, since one
company did not wish to participate, only 13 were sent out.
In appendix 7 is a complete list of SustainAgri’s partner companies, information of the companies
and contact persons, their job title.
1.12 Processes and methodsBefore describing and explaining the data collection process used during this thesis, I have chosen
to include two short sections explaining the difference between primary and secondary data
collection methods. This is done to clarify the differences between the two data collection processes
since they are both used during this thesis.
1.12.1 Primary dataPrimary data is when the researcher collects all the data needed in order to gain insights into a
specific topic where data is sparse or where context specific knowledge is needed. During this
thesis, I have conducted semi-structured interviews as well as sent out questionnaires which are
both ways of collecting primary data. The interviews were conducted with the key employees of
SustainAgri. The information received from this, was used to create questionnaires which were sent
out to the partner companies of SustainAgri. The questionnaires were used in order to gain
information from the partner companies who would be able to provide an outside view of the
relationship and state their opinions regarding the relationship.
Additionally, I have used primary sources, which mainly consists of articles and books discussing
relationship marketing, relationship management and knowledge management, to make a literature
review. The literature review will then be used as the theoretical basis for the subsequent discussion
of the current relationship between SustainAgri and the partner companies as well as for the
suggested improvements.
Page 18 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Disadvantages connected to primary data collection are the time-consuming nature of data
collection and the dependency on other people to participate for the research to be completed
(Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010).
1.12.2 Secondary dataThe secondary data collection methods used for this thesis are articles and books produced by
scholars within the fields of marketing, communication and management as well as relevant
websites such as the website for the Institute of Public Relations. Mainly, secondary data has been
used to describe SustainAgri and the context in which it operates. This means that among other
things a partnership contract and the current EU goals of SustainAgri have been added. This should
help paint a picture of the foundation, its requirements for the partner companies and the EU goals it
is meant to fulfil (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010).
Moreover, since I have worked for SustainAgri during my period as an intern, the knowledge
acquired will be used in order to explain about the foundation during the section about SustainAgri
as well as the discussion section.
1.13 Time periodThe data has been gathered through two different data collection processes. This process contained
an interview stage followed by the sending out of questionnaires to the contact persons. The semi-
structured interviews were conducted between the 10th and the 30th of May 2012 and the
questionnaires were sent out the 29th of May 2012 with a deadline of return the 5th of June 2012.
1.14 Interviews as data collectionAs with all methods within data collection, there are benefits and disadvantages connected to
conducting semi-structured interviews. The advantages of using interviews for data collection are
that they are flexible and it is possible to ask follow-up questions and in this way gain more
information. Additionally, the researcher can ask the participant to provide examples which is not
possible with other data collection methods (Daymon & Holloway, 2010). This creates a clearer
picture of the person being interviewed which can help the interviewer gain a deeper level of
understanding of the relationships (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010). There is a high response rate
(Daymon & Holloway, 2010) for interviews which is not possible to reach by using other data
Page 19 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
collection methods. When using interviews, it becomes possible to create a relationship with the
participants making the participant answer questions more in-depth (Daymon & Holloway, 2010).
Finally, a benefit of conducting interviews is that it allows the interviewer to decide which topics
are most important and develop the main questions before conducting the interview (Daymon &
Holloway, 2010).
However, there are also disadvantages connected to semi-structured interviews which are important
to know about beforehand. This makes it easier for the researcher to avoid elementary mistakes
when conducting interviews – this is especially important for novice researchers (Daymon &
Holloway, 2010).
When conducting interviews, one disadvantage a novice researcher should be aware is its time-
consuming nature. This is due to the many stages of an interview: the development of questions and
subject areas, pre-testing and possible revising, the interview itself and finally a transcription
(Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010).
Also because of the time-consuming nature of interviews, it is not possible to conduct many of them
– thereby making the variety of people involved in the research smaller than many other data
collection methods (Daymon & Holloway, 2010).
One of the most important disadvantages is that the interviewer might lead the participant to answer
questions in a specific way because the participant thinks the interviewer wants certain answers
(Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010).
1.15 Semi-structured interviewsThe first stage in the data collection process included three semi-structured interviews, lasting
between approximately 24 to 49 minutes, with three key employees from SustainAgri. They all
have knowledge regarding the daily routines of the foundation combined with insights into their
relationships with the partner companies.
The areas of relationship marketing, relationship management and knowledge management together
with the relationship dimensions created by Hon and Grunig (1999): Trust, commitment,
satisfaction and control mutuality, have laid the foundation for the interview questions (The
definitions can be found on page 30). In addition, another article written by Grunig (2002), further
Page 20 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
explaining the four dimensions mentioned above, has also been used for inspiration for the
questions concerning the dimension of trust.
Beforehand, the employees participating in the interviews were asked to read through and sign an
agreement form, explaining the objectives of the thesis as well as the procedure of the interview
(appendix 8).
All three interviews have been conducted in Danish as all participants are native Danish speakers
and the interviews, due to this, should flow more freely and without the same amount of
grammatical mistakes, hesitations and constrictions which might have occurred had the interviews
been conducted in English (questions for interviews in both English and Danish can be found in
appendix 9).
More information about the relevance of the questions for the semi-structured interviews can be
found in the interview guide, which is appendix 10.
1.16 Questionnaires as data collectionSince questionnaires have been included as a data collection method for this thesis, the following
section explains the pros and cons of this particular method.
A main benefit of questionnaires is that they can be answered quickly since no transcription of
audio files are needed and as a result are less time-consuming than qualitative data collection
methods. This, of course, is depending on the desired number of participants (Ghauri & Grønhaug,
2010). This way it becomes easier for more people to be included in the research population,
meaning the total number of participants of the interviews and questionnaires. Additionally, they
are also an easy way to gain needed information from people with specific knowledge (Ghauri &
Grønhaug, 2010).
The researcher constructs the research design beforehand and thereby decides which questions are
most important (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010). In this case, the research design was based on the
information and answers given during the semi-structured interviews with the employees. However,
the questionnaires are primarily quantitative because it provides an easy way of measuring all the
results provided (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010).
Page 21 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
The disadvantages of using questionnaires are important to know before embarking on the creation
of them because it, as a result, becomes easier to avoid making the most obvious mistakes.
If the language of questionnaires is not clear and concise, participants may misunderstand the
questions (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010). A disadvantage which can be difficult to completely prevent
is that questionnaires can be subject to bias. It can be the case, both when seen from the researcher’s
point of view, who creates the questionnaires, and from the participant’s point of view when
interpreting the questions (Daymon &Holloway, 2010).
Compared to the when conducting interviews, the level of participation is lower and it is not
possible to include the same level of in-depth information in the quantitative research (Daymon &
Holloway, 2010).
1.17 QuestionnairesBased on the answers from the interviews, the questionnaires have been created and sent out to all
partner companies of SustainAgri.
It should be noted that there are 14 partner companies of SustainAgri, however, one partner
company did not wish to participate because they did not participate in projects with SustainAgri
and have not participated in any meetings or planned events. However, the company is still a
partner company since it has paid its membership fee.
Questionnaires were sent out, with an introduction, via mail, to the remaining 13 partner companies.
Resulting in 10 being completed and sent back, giving a response rate of 77% (the introductory mail
can be seen in appendix 11). The questionnaires were sent out on 29th of May and the deadline was
the 5th of June (Both the English and the Danish version of the questionnaire can be seen in
appendix 12).
The questionnaire has been divided into four sections: 1. General information in which a few
questions regarding the partner companies are asked. 2. Communication where the type of
communication used by SustainAgri, the regularity of the communication between SustainAgri and
the partner companies and the importance of personal contact with the contact persons are looked
into. 3. Membership information concerning how long the partner companies have been members,
the advantages and disadvantages as well as the number of projects together with SustainAgri are
Page 22 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
explored. 4. Satisfaction, this is the section which concerns itself with the level of satisfaction, the
information and knowledge sharing and gathering and the overall satisfaction with the membership.
In the process of creating the best possible questionnaire, both in terms of it being easy to
understand and quick to fill out, two SustainAgri employees agreed read it through and eliminate
any difficulties in terms of understanding. The Managing Director of SustainAgri, Lasse Bork
Schmidt, also looked through the questionnaire in order to provide insights into the formulation of
the questions as well as how to best approach the contact people (all completed questionnaires can
be seen in appendix 13).
Since there was a chance of the questionnaire becoming too long, I decided to write the introduction
of the questionnaire, the subject of my thesis and the possible benefits for the partner companies in
an email accompanying the questionnaire. Furthermore, although there is a small section at the end
of the questionnaire thanking the participants for their time and effort, every contact person also
received an email thanking them for participating (appendix 14).
Questionnaires are typically thought of as being connected with quantitative data collection since
many of the questions will be measurable due to the possibility of answering will be restricted to a
five-point scale (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010).
This is also done in the questionnaires constructed for the partner companies; however, I have tried
to also include qualitative questions – which are open-ended. This was done to gain an insight into
specific areas of the overall themes of the questionnaire (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010).
More information regarding the questionnaire can be found in the enclosed questionnaire guide
(appendix 15).
The questionnaire has been distributed in Danish since this is easier for the participants to quickly
answer and understand.
1.18 Ethical considerationsAll the participants for the semi-structured interview, as well as the questionnaires, participated
without any influence regarding what to answer or any type of coercion.
Page 23 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Part II: Literature review
2. The importance of relationship management between organisationsI have chosen to centre my literature review on three fields within communication, marketing and
management: relationship marketing, relationship management and knowledge management. These
are closely interrelated with many overlapping point of views, especially when it comes to
relationship dimensions, the importance of internal culture, an organisation’s interorganisational
structure and the positive contributions of relationship management in organisation-public
relationships. These areas are of importance to B2B organisations as they all, in their separate ways,
provide openness, transparency and an increased knowledge of the public, plus a more efficient way
of sharing knowledge across an organisation, which can help all organisations trying to increase
their reputations and image as well as their general standing with the different publics.
2.1 RelationshipsEven though there are many opinions regarding the word relationship, the word itself (Bruning &
Ledingham, 1999) is such a widely used word describing many different aspects, both within the
corporate world but also in the day-to-day life of people in general, that experts within the field of
public relations and marketing had difficulty for a long time creating a clear-cut definition of this.
Also, since the area of relationship management shifted the area of public relations from, roughly
speaking, concentrating on manipulation of publics into creating and maintaining relationships with
the public, this had to be taken into consideration when a definition was created (Bruning &
Ledingham, 1999).
One reason for developing a relationship on the B2B (Phillips, 2006b) market is that one
organisation may want to be associated with another due to, for example, its superior service,
specific well-known and accomplished employees or companies that are well-known for a specific
product. Phillips (2006b) describes this as using the relationships as tokens, which is a way for a
smaller organisation to garner reputation through the relational connection with a commonly known
organisation.
Effective communication in an organisation-public relationship creates stable and productive
relationships where conflicts, as well as the costs are reduced. Another aspect of this is increased
Page 24 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
interest in shared activities, e.g. meetings, seminars and workshops, which also serve to increase the
corporation between the parties and reduce the possibilities of conflicts occurring (Huang, 2001).
The Concise Oxford Dictionary (1995) gave the following explanations of relationships:
1. the fact or state of being related.
2a. a connection or association (enjoyed a good working relationship)
b. an emotional (esp. sexual) association between two people.
3. a condition or character due to being related.
4. kinship (The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 1995: 1160)
The word relationship (O’Malley & Tynan, 1999) is a very emotionally-laden word, which makes it
difficult to define it with any precision. It is important to remember however, that relationship
marketing as it is, is a not a tool to be used by organisations who then expect instant relationships
with all its publics. It has to be seen as a framework explaining the human natures of relationships
and, according to Barnes and Howlett (1998), two aspects have to be fulfilled for a relationship to
be present. A relationship has to be perceived as a relationship by both the organisation and its
public, and the relationship will have to achieve a special status in which more than just products or
services are exchanged – but among other things also knowledge (Egan, 2005). If only one of the
involved parties sees itself as in a relationship, reciprocity will not exist, and as a result of this no
actual relationship is present (Tadajewski, 2009). According to Hung (2005), when organisations
accept that that they are interdependent with their publics, they can either choose to compete or
collaborate with the public in order to get the resources needed for the survival of the company.
Hung (2005) describes this as companies going into either a win-win situation, where all parties
involved gain from the relationship, or a win-lose situation, where the organisation exploits its
publics to acquire the relevant resources.
During this thesis, I will be using definition 2a as the appropriate definition for a relationship in
general, since it emphasises the fact that a relationship occurs when there can be found:” a
connection or association” (The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 1995: 1160) between two or more
parties when these parties share a common ground.
Page 25 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
2.2 Relationship marketingTo begin this section concerning relationship marketing, I will start by defining it. This was done by
Grönroos (1994), who wrote a definition of relationship marketing in which he stated that the
objectives of relationship marketing are to: “[...] identify and establish, maintain and enhance and,
when necessary, terminate relationships with customers and other stakeholders, at a profit so that
the objectives of all parties involved are met; and this is done by mutual exchange and fulfilment of
promises.” (Grönroos, 1994: 9)
Relationship marketing became a continuously researched and debated area within marketing
because marketing is mainly viewed as a profession in which profitability is the main factor
together with the possibility of terminating marketing relationships, if they are not profitable
enough (Egan, 2005).
The psychologist scholar Rogers (1959) wrote about the three basic universal needs within inter-
personal relationships, and these universal needs became the aspects which were used as the
cornerstone of relationship marketing in the beginning of the 1990’s and later in the cornerstone of
relationship management. The three basic universal needs are:
Maintenance: consisting of among other things accountability and commitment shared by all
parties involved
Enhancement: the ability of the involved parties to learn from each other as well as the
ability to further educate employees either through work or through formal education
Positive regard: meaning the expressions of acceptance and general friendliness towards the
involved people
In the early 1990’s the first scholars of marketing began to see a connection between what had been
written by Rogers (1959) and its usefulness within the area of marketing. One of the first scholars to
make this connection was Kotler (1994) who found a correlation between the retention of customers
and cost-effectiveness, since it could save an organisation up to five times more to keep the current
customers instead of constantly seeking to gain new customers when old ones did not stay loyal.
With this statement relationship marketing became relevant for organisations to invest in and
Rogers’ (1959) writings concerning the three basic universal needs became relevant within the field
of marketing. When the concept of relationship marketing (Egan, 2005) became popular it was
difficult to determine the precise function of this area within marketing, since many different
Page 26 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
definitions and explanations of relationship marketing were present in various scholarly articles and
books.
Ledingham (2000) agrees with Rogers (1959) by stating that an organisation-public relationship is
equal to an interpersonal relationship between people, since both relationship types consists of
almost the same aspects and the same development within relationships. This is also the reason for
the similarity in the two following definitions.
The original definition of interpersonal relationships was made by Schutz in 1958 (Mahoney &
Stasson, 2005) and focused on a three-dimensional behaviour which is present in people within an
interpersonal relationship. The first was control (the ability to be the one in charge of a
relationship), inclusion (focuses on the negative or positive aspects contributed by one person in a
relationship) and affection (which focus on the importance of the emotions and emotional impact of
one party within a relationship) (Mahoney & Stasson, 2005).
Ledingham and Bruning (1998) define an organisation-public relationship as: “the state which
exists between an organization and its key publics in which the actions of either entity impact the
economic, social, political, and / or cultural well-being of the other entity” (Ledingham & Bruning,
1998: 62). The similarity in connection in which organisations can affect its publics, and people
within interpersonal relationships can affect other people, is the main reason for Ledingham’s
(2000) previously mentioned argument.
With the above mentioned organisation-public relationship definition, Ledingham and Bruning
(1998) established a clear connection between the actions made by an organisation and how these
actions affect its public – and how an action made by one party could affect the other in either a
negative or positive regard. Moreover, the statement indicates that the communication within
organisation-public relationships should seek to become two-way communication and symmetrical
between all involved parties (Bruning & Ledingham, 1999).
McCort (1994) saw relationship marketing as a customer-driven process which at the same time
made use of direct marketing in order to create long-term relationships. The motivation behind this
statement is the fact that all main benefits related to non-profit organisations are intangible and as a
result of this are difficult to properly market. It is discussed by Varey and Ballantyne (Bejou &
Palmer, 2005) that relationship marketing between a company and its customers should not make
use of the word ‘relationship’ since the organisations are not interested in the customers but only
Page 27 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
want to profit from them. However, the same authors make clear that while this is possible within a
business to customer setting it will not be possible on the B2B market since all organisations were
only interested in making profits and these organisations are not interested in exchanging
technology and knowledge with other organisations because these could be, or might become,
possible competitors. They also found that mutual openness were one of the main objectives
(Johannesen, 1971; McCort, 1994) within the B2B environment where the focal points are on the
shared responsibility between both parties, where it is possible to share honest conversations and to
do all this without any use of manipulation within the communication channels used. These focal
points (McCort, 1994) should help organisations develop relational strategies which are then used to
create a closer connection between the organisation and its publics.
By doing this (Bejou & Palmer, 2005), the original way of viewing marketing relationship is
expanded to the dialogical level – which, according to Varey and Ballantyne, is an integral aspect of
B2B marketing as this makes the relationship marketing co-created, meaning the creation of a
product or service on the basis of knowledge sharing, communication, shared values and objectives
between the involved parties in the relationship. Also, the more often communication occurs
(McCort, 1994), the greater commitment and accountability between all parties within a B2B
relationship. McCort suggests that this can be achieved by making communication towards the
involved parties more personal.
However, Varey and Ballantyne (Bejou & Palmer, 2005) argue that the marketing communication
is not equal to regular communication due to the preset definitions within the field of marketing.
The statement refers to the common understanding among scholars that marketing relationship is to
a large extent based on exchange relationships, where one party provides e.g. a service and then
expects something in return at a later stage, and this is not seen as being enough to build an
organisation-public relationship around.
Three years after Kotler (1994) published his book of marketing management, Broom, Casey and
Ritchey, in 1997, stated that there was no, or at least very few, definitions of relationships as well as
a lack of explanations of how it was connected with the other areas of communication, public
relations, management and marketing. They continued by stating that the definitions for
relationships within the academic literature was not defined since most, if not all, scholars
apparently assumed that their readers would not need this outlined. However, measures for
organisation-public relationships had been used for some years at that point, although it seems like
Page 28 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
an impossible task to measure something when there does not exist any clear definition of
relationships (Broom, Casey & Ritchey, 1997).
After a decade, different definitions had been produced through research and Bruning (2000) had
provided a framework – explaining the different aspects involved in marketing relationships.
Bruning (2000) stated that in order to gain the best relationship possible, it is important for the
organisation to know its publics on an individual level so that it becomes easier for the organisation
to know what is expected by the different publics as well as which expectations they have and how
they can be fulfilled (Bruning, 2000). In this connection Bruning (2000) also states that lasting
relationships cannot be expected to be build by using the same concept for every public but that
different approaches are needed for each public.
In 1997, Brennan conducted research on British automotive and telecommunications industries and
wrote that there exists either a high degree partnership or a no degree partnership amongst the
different organisations. In this article the aspect of partnership and organisation-public relationship
are seen as the same – however, with the reasoning that when the organisation-public relationship
becomes closer the degree of partnership also becomes higher.
The high degree of partnership “[...] with both parties accepting responsibility for efficiency
improvements [...]” (Brennan, 1997: 763) explained that this meant that the automotive company
would send out engineers to help its suppliers overcoming difficulties in the production and
planning stages, something which all involved companies would benefit from and as a consequence
the companies would develop through collaboration. It could for example take place with the
creation of interorganisational problem solvers and quality checking. Additionally, knowledge and
know-how would be shared across organisations and all companies involved would together find
the best solutions for current problems. Having a high degree partnership also entailed that the
involved parties would want constant information and updates going far beyond what was otherwise
expected by a partner company (Brennan, 1997).
According to Brennan (1997), the companies communicating based on the aspects of interpersonal
relationship communication are the most successful. Here the parties involved held many meetings
involving the top management from the different partnering companies. The result of this was a
more trusting atmosphere among the companies, the ability to share all relevant information across
organisations and to agree to common objectives. By doing so, a shared trust was created, which is
Page 29 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
defined as: “a cyclical process of bargaining, interaction, commitment and execution” (Kale &
Singh, 2009: 50), which made the managers become more involved and willing to share information
and experiences in the meetings (Brennan, 1997). To have a relationship, it is important to build up
trust and develop a common set of norms which may lie as the foundation for the relationship. The
closer an organisation-public relationship becomes the more aligned the values and beliefs of the
involved parties become (Phillips, 2006b). Furthermore, common aspects within communication
such as creating two-way communication and listening to and answering questions are of course the
most important aspects when creating a relationship (Andersen, 2001). When relationships evolve
and trust is established the dependence of the members involved in the relationship increase (Ford,
1980).
Grunig together with Hon (1999) later explained the relationship factors within an organisational-
public setting as: Control mutuality (when there is not one controlling party but all involved have
the same control over the relationship), trust (the trust amongst the involved parties), satisfaction
(when the outcome of the relationship outweighs the costs included in building and sustaining a
functional relationship) and commitment (when all parties involved feel that the relationship is
worth spending time and resources on), all of which should be measured to get an idea of the status
of the relationship. Hon & Grunig (1999) stresses that it is important to interview both the public
and the organisation in order to get a valid result when measuring the status of a relationship. If
only one party is interviewed only the perceived status of the relationship will be measured.
Before most scholars, Grunig, in 1993, wrote that the most important aspects to measure within
relationships between organisations were: “[...] reciprocity, trust, credibility, mutual legitimacy,
openness, mutual satisfaction, and mutual understanding [...]” (Grunig, 1993: 135). The
understanding of these areas within relationship management would create a clear idea of how the
relationship between the organisations has developed over time (Grunig, 1993). Within the field of
communication, especially the public relations area (Andersen, 2001), a concern with the measuring
of intangible elements of an organisation has arisen because as elements are creating value to the
organisation and looks at service benefits and social benefits concerned with relationships among
other things (Phillips, 2006b). Phillips (2006a) argues that without the establishment of
relationships many, if not all, intangible aspects of an organisation are worth very little or may even
have a negative effect on the tangible aspects of an organisation such as, for example, its economic
status (Phillips, 2006a).
Page 30 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Brennan (1997) also described the characteristics for a partnership with no shared commitment
where aspects such as joint problem solving and information sharing are only present on a small
scale. In this kind of partnership the different partners involved are expected to meet the
expectations in the partnership contract – but no efforts other than these are made for improving the
relationship between the parties (Brennan, 1997).
Brennan (1997) mentions that there may be barriers within a partnership since this, normally, will
consist of smaller and larger companies and this aspect could hinder any true development between
the companies and they would not have the same needs for their companies to develop. In fact,
(Brennan, 1997) if there is a large difference in organisational size the smaller companies, in most
cases, end up being subordinate to the larger companies because the small companies depend on the
larger companies in order to sell their products whereas there is not the same dependence the other
way around (Brennan, 1997). As with everything, an advantage to having a partnership consisting
of smaller and larger companies is that the larger companies can take on a paternal role towards the
smaller companies and offer them assistance with tasks relevant to the partnership. Having mid-
level managers from both companies meet up to work each day and solve problems together could
for example, do this. Brennan (1997) also emphasises that actions such as these can give the
companies, as well as the midlevel managers, a common purpose, something which will then reflect
on the relationship between the two companies. This especially is a good idea, as it is the midlevel
managers who normally fear losing their jobs when partnerships and relationships with other
companies start to evolve (Brennan, 1997). Within an asymmetrical relationship (Hung, 2005) it is
always the larger organisations who decides what is relevant and should therefore be focused on in
the relationship. As a result of this the smaller organisations do not have a say in what is important
for them to gain from the relationship.
An important aspect to bear in mind (Egan, 2005), is the fact that the power structure within
partnerships are always asymmetrical – meaning one, or a few, organisations wield more power
than the rest, typically this will be the larger organisations. Due to this, Palmer (2000) stated that
partnerships work best between SME’s, as the quality of the partnership will then reach its full
potential because of the avoidance of larger organisations and, thereby, limit the potential for power
asymmetry within the partnership. Moreover, within organisation-public relationships (Blois, 2010)
an asymmetric power structure can also occur if all parties involved agree that one party is, for
example, better at research and development or one organisation simply is much larger than the
Page 31 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
other. If this is the case, the aforementioned organisation will then be the dominant partner within
the relationship. This, however, can change over time as the other parties within the relationship
develop their competencies and this way could overtake the powerful partner and have acquired the
powerful position within the relationship.
To reach a level of organisation-public relationship communication (Brennan, 1997) which is the
most profitable for all parties involved, it is important to focus on the long-term goals set forth by
the companies because on a short-term basis the companies will most likely experience a negative
impact. The second aspect mentioned by Brennan (1997), is a fact which is often overlooked,
namely that if one company within a partnership makes a successful transaction from one company
culture and organisational structure to another it will not have any important effect if it is not also
done by the other involved companies within the partnership (Brennan, 1997).
Some of the aspects of organisation-public relationships discovered by Brennan (1997) were further
discussed by Smyth and Fitch (2009) who stated that through the use of strategic decisions (Smyth
& Fitch, 2009), systems (e.g. organisational structure within the organisation) and behaviours,
relationship marketing developed from only being implemented by B2C organisations to also being
widely used by B2B organisations.
If organisation-public relationships are created with certain objectives to reach, it becomes easier to
measure the impact of a relationship on an organisational basis and as a result also find out if the
organisation-public relationship is beneficial for all parties involved (Bruning & Hatfield, 2002)
With this in mind a list containing 17 relational dimensions was created by Ledingham and Bruning
(1998) all of which are relevant to organisation-public relationships. These dimensions are as
follows: “investment, commitment, trust, comfort with relational dialects, cooperation, mutual
goals, interdependence/power imbalance, performance satisfaction, comparison level of the
alternatives, adaption, non-retrievable investment, shared technology, summate constructs,
structural bonds, social bonds, intimacy, and passion” (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998: 58).
Out of the abovementioned 17 dimensions by Ledingham and Bruning (1998), found on the basis of
their research, the parties involved in an organisation-public relationship were mainly concerned
with the aspects of trust, involvement, investment, commitment, an open and honest dialogue and
discussing (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998; Ledingham, Bruning, Thomlinson & Lesko, 1997). At the
same time these dimensions were the important factors when it came to companies staying as part
Page 32 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
of the relationship or leaving to be part of another organisation-public relationship (Ledingham &
Bruning, 1998). Another aspect which could change the public’s decision to either stay or leave was
whether or not the public was aware of what was being done by the organisation to maintain and
develop the relationship. If the publics were aware of this the level of satisfaction was higher as not
only the organisation but also the publics perceived themselves as being part of an organisation-
public relationship (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998).
Later, Huang (2001) used the following five dimensions to evaluate the effects of organisation-
public relationships: symmetrical-ethical communication, two-way communication, interpersonal
communication, mediated communication and social activities. She found that there was a
significant connection between the dimensions and the effect they had on an effective organisation-
public relationship – however, Huang (2001) concentrated on behaviours of public relations
practitioners in East Asia and due to this had included more interpersonal and social factors in her
analysis than would be done for a Western market. She had done this, not because they are not of
importance on Western markets too, but because factors such as a person’s honour and the aspects
of saving face are more important in East Asia, and therefore had to be included in her analysis
(Huang, 2001).
Huang (2001) found through her research that as an organisation-public relationship grew closer
and trust was developed, fewer confrontations occurred. However, if confrontations did occur,
attempts to create a win-win situation, where all parties would gain from the situation, within the
organisation-public relationship took place.
Based on their research of the dimensions within organisation-public relationships, Ledingham and
Bruning (1998) saw it as important for organisations to: “(1) focus on the relationships with their
key publics, and (2) communicate involvement of those activities/programs that build the
organization-public relationship to members of their key publics” (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998:
63).
In 1984, Ferguson presented a paper where on the basis of a set of criteria it became possible to
measure relationships between organisations and its key publics by looking into the following
aspects of relationships: dynamic versus static, open versus closed, mutual satisfaction, distribution
of power and mutual understanding, and agreement and consensus (Ledingham, Bruning & Wilson,
1999). Furthermore, Grunig in a different research project within the field of organisation-public
Page 33 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
relationships has found that “[...] trust, satisfaction, commitment and control mutuality [...]”(Yang
& Grunig, 2005: 306) are the main factors when creating a relationship. Grunig (Hon & Grunig,
1999; Grunig & Huang, 2000), in multiple research projects, has developed criteria for measuring
organisational-public relationships. His main contribution to Rogers (1959) theory is the factor of
control mutuality, which states that both the organisation and its publics should be able to control
each other to do things that would otherwise not be done. However, the mutuality control should be
based on persuasion through communication channels on the basis of the facts presented and should
not consist of manipulation.
2.3 Relationship managementAs more and more aspects from different fields, such as relationship marketing and psychology as
well as process and knowledge management appeared, many scholars thought that the aspects of
relationships should be moved away from relationship marketing and have its own field –
relationship management. This resulted in a shift in focus from a sales-oriented approach within
relationship marketing, to becoming more people-oriented. Further, this resulted in horisontal
management, meaning the use of a more informal and non-hierarchical organisational structure
being used more frequently than previously (Smyth, 2000) by, for example, introducing Key
Account Managers to constantly be in touch with the involved businesses. Hon and Grunig (1999)
contributed to this discussion by stating that the ability to build and maintain communal
relationships is what differentiates relationship management from relationship marketing.
Relationship marketing, to a larger extent, concentrate on the exchange relationships, since
marketing in general will not do anything on a more short-term basis without expecting something
in return, be it money or increased sales (Hon & Grunig, 1999).
Hung (2005) further developed the different organisation-public relationship view with the creation
of the figure below:
(Hung, 2005: 416)
Page 34 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Within an exploitive relationship one of the organisations gains from the relationship whereas the
others do not. In a manipulative relationship one organisation manipulates the other in order to get
out of the relationship what is wanted – however, there is still only one organisation gaining from
this type of relationship. Hung (2005) mentions that contractual relationships can be a self-serving
act made by one organisation towards another. At the same time this type of relationship can also be
a good point to start since all the goals and objectives of the relationship are written down and
accepted by all organisations involved and there is a possibility that this and the following types of
relationships can involve into a communal relationship (Hung, 2005).
Within a symbiotic relationship, no real desire to be in a relationship with one another exist,
however, both organisations are in some way dependant on each other, for example one
organisation produces a bolt which is not produced anywhere else and the other organisation is the
largest buyer of these. This is a symbiotic relationship since the organisations did not set out to be
in a relationship but they ended up being dependant on each other (Hung, 2005).
Within covenantal relationships the organisations involved agree to work together and exchange
knowledge but, in contrast to communal relationships, they do not protect each other from possible
critical periods (Hung, 2005).
In addition to exchange and communal relationship which are explained above by Hon and Grunig
(1999), there exists mutual communal relationships where all organisations involved in the
relationship gain from the relationship and help each other with possible problems by for example
setting up joint task forces to solve specific problems within one or more of the organisations
(Hung, 2005).
Lastly, Hung (2005) has discovered the existence of one-sided communal relationships in which
one organisation takes on a paternal role and help the other organisation with all problems or
difficulties that should occur – also those that do not affect the objectives of the organisation-public
relationship (Hung, 2005). This is also possible to have a one-sided communal relationship with the
public as one party can give away resources, such as knowledge, without wanting anything in return
(Hung, 2005). This is, of course, a possibility with communal relationships when one side has more
resources available than the other, and as a result of this only one party within the relationship really
gains from this experience. This also makes the relationship more paternal than an equal
relationship between an organisation and its publics. As a result, a pure communal relationship can
Page 35 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
then become rather inconvenient, since the organisation will then not only have to concentrate on its
own activities but also on what is done and needed by the publics with whom the organisation is
involved in a communal relationship (Hung, 2005). This being said, Hung (2005) discovered a
correlation between the organisations with the most communal relationships – they are also the ones
with the greatest amount of public support. This is extremely useful in case anything should go
wrong.
According to Hung (2005), exchange, covenantal, mutual communal and one-sided communal
relationships are all within the win-win zone in which all organisations involved gain from the
relationship. More often than not relationships develop into these types within time.
The main reasons for this division of relationship management and relationship marketing (Doyle,
2002) were that relationship management is more concerned with nurturing, developing and
measuring the organisation-public relationships and that relationship management is more closely
connected to public relations than marketing which is also the basis of the figure created by Hung
(2005). This is supported by scholars such as Ledingham and Bruning (1998), Bruning and Hon
(1999) and Huang (2001) and many others. Phillips (2006b) further supports Doyle’s (2002)
statement by explaining that relationship management should not be part of relationship marketing
because relationship management also includes: “a cultural approach to value creation” (Phillips,
2006b: 222), which he does not regard relationship marketing as able to offer (Phillips, 2006b).
Phillips (2006a) further explains that relationship management in its basic form is concerned with
the ability to create value for an organisation through relationships with the key publics as well as
being able to create more wealth in an organisation than it would be able to without any
relationships (Phillips, 2006a). Moreover, relationship management can also be about the need for
organisational survival, by developing new products or services together with the partners of the
relationship, or change, by observing other ways of setting up organisational culture and structure
within an organisation and change on the basis of this acquired knowledge (Phillips, 2006b).
Moreover, relationship management sets objectives for organisation-public relationships which
results in the communication being used in a strategic way. This happens since communication is
the tool by which the objectives set by the organisation are to be reached (Ledingham & Bruning,
1998).
Page 36 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Hon and Grunig (1999) recognised two types of organisation-public relationships: exchange
relationships, which have previously been explained, and communal relationships (concentrating on
the long-term goals of the organisation, the benefits received from the relationship e.g. greater
knowledge and the creation of organisational reputation).
Hung (2005) recognised the possibility for more than one relationship type to be present at the same
time during the course of an organisation-public relationship. This could, for example, be due to a
relationship both being communal but also due to it being an exchange relationship. This is
primarily the case because exchange relationships develop into communal relationships over time;
however, they never start at this level. The closer an organisation-public relationship gets to a pure
communal relationship, the stronger the relationship becomes, while at the same time the parties
involved become more mutually dependent on each other as well as more trusting towards one
another (Hung, 2005). First the people from the organisation and the different key publics have to
become acquainted with each other, then the expectations of both parties are discussed and
afterwards a common ground is found where the parties agree on main points concerning social and
economic aspects. From this a trusting and mutually dependent relationship may be created
(Ledingham, 2000). Gruen et al. (2000) further described how an organisational-public relationship
could be positively affected when a satisfying execution of the core services provided by the
organisation took place. The publics should also participate in a positive manner in the actions
planned by the organisation, e.g. provide feedback or constructive criticism which could then be
taken into account, as this created a more rewarding co-production between the organisation and its
publics and could result in a more honest and frank atmosphere between these parties.
Bruning and Hatfield’s (2002) research into relationship management showed that key publics who
felt they had a relationship with an organisation felt more satisfied than publics who did not feel a
relational connection between themselves and the organisation (Brunning & Hatfield, 2002).
Furthermore, if the organisation-public relationship provides value-creation, which is recognised by
all parties involved and has satisfied both the organisation and the publics, both organisation and
publics have a greater tendency to become mutually dependent in order to create an even stronger
relationship in the future (Bruning & Hatfield, 2002). One of the ways to achieve this is suggested
by Gao (2007) who argues that it is important for a relationship within a B2B market to have all
companies involved agree on shared objectives. Gao (2007) also suggests that companies, when
working together on shared goals and objectives, create a white book where all decisions made in
Page 37 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
order to reach these objectives are written down. By doing this, Gao (2007) concludes, it will then
become possible for the parties involved to have a closer look at this white book when new goals
and objectives are set, in order to determine which actions were good and which were bad when
needing to reach the agreed upon goals.
With a point of departure in Rogers’ theory of human interrelationship (1959), Grunig and Yang
(2005), on the basis of researching 300 organisations in the US, Canada and the UK, suggested a
theory explaining the value creation made possible by public relations within an organisation-public
relationship. The first step should be to indentify the strategic public from an organisation’s point of
view, followed by creating and maintaining a symmetrical relationship with each of the publics
identified on the basis of the first step. With this connection in mind, Elizabeth Toth set up four
criteria for a thriving interpersonal relationship: “(1) there exists a balance in the relationship, (2)
both parties in the relationship feel that the other is investing of time and themselves, (3) both
parties are willing to make a commitment to the relationship, and (4) both parties can be trusted to
act in a manner that supports the relationship” (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998: 58).
An important factor for relationship management is the ability to measure the impact of a
relationship and the fulfilment of objectives and goals and thereby also evaluate the state of a
specific relationship between an organisation and its publics. This is important to an organisation,
since reaching goals and objectives is the most efficient way of finding out whether an organisation-
public relationship is reaching its potential and whether or not more time and effort should be put
into a relationship (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998).
When measuring for results and effectiveness within public relations (Hon, 1998), it is important to
create relationships with their own goals and objectives which are linked to the overall goals and
objectives of the organisations because this makes the effects of the relationships easier to measure.
This should be done while still preserving symmetrical communication between the organisation
and its publics. A previous problem mentioned in the literature concerns how public relations
employees have always found it difficult to measure the effect of relationships, since this effect is
more often than not intangible. However, if specific goals and objectives for an organisation-public
relationship have been agreed upon before entering into to it – it becomes easier to measure the
effect of public relations on the organisation-public relationships as well as how this effects the
entire organisation (Hon, 1998; Ledingham, Bruning & Wilson, 1999; Brunning & Ledingham,
1999). When setting goals, objectives and evaluation criteria, as described above, the strategic
Page 38 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
relevance of public relations then also becomes more obvious to all within the organisation, not
only the public relations employees themselves, because the goals of the relationships, and of the
public relations department, helps reach the overall goals of the organisation (Hon, 1998). Partner
companies, in a B2B relationship, can then be segmented in accordance with the goals and
objectives of each company. Kale and Singh (2009) suggest that companies are segmented
according to the goals and objectives set by each of them. By doing this it will then become easier
to serve each individual company (Gao, 2007) according to its expectations. It will also make it
easier for companies with different products or services to cooperate on projects as well as research
and development if these companies then fulfil their goals and objectives as a result.
The time spent in a relationship has an effect on an organisation’s key publics regarding whether or
not the publics would still want a relationship with the organisation. Ledingham, Bruning and
Wilson (1999) described the first length of time within an organisational-public relationship as a
honeymoon phase where the parties involved were pleased with the relationship. However, after the
initial phase ends organisations will have to work hard in order to keep the public content with what
is offered through the relationship. This will change again later in the relationship-process as trust
between the organisation and its public has been developed, and the above-mentioned five
dimensions by Ledingham together with other scholars (Ledingham, Bruning, Thomlinson &
Lesko, 1997) who have been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the all parties involved and thereby:”[...]
provide publics with positive experiences [...]” (Ki & Hon, 2007:430). A suggestion to reach this
goal is to segment the different publics with whom the organisation are involved in a relationship
(Ledingham, Bruning & Wilson, 1999).
Grunig and Yang (2005) then stated that if their research result were applied correctly, an increase
in loyalty from the public together with a huge increase in the organisation’s profit would be
achieved. This claim is corroborated by e.g. Duncan and Caywood (1996), who have also studied
the field of organisation-publics with a focus on the impact of creating an effective organisation-
public relationship on the basis of the organisational structure and how this, when done effectively,
might increase the profitability of the organisation on a long-term basis.
Bruning and Ledingham (1999) introduced the notion that an organisation-public relationship is
multidimensional because it consists of three equally important parts that are hugely important
aspects within relationships. 1. The professional relationship, which involves the services provided
and the ability to meet the needs of the parties involved. 2. The personal relationship, involving the
Page 39 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
knowledge of and willingness to invest time and resources to the key members of the involved
organisations on a more personal level. 3. The community relationship, consisting of supporting and
organising events with the goal to support the local community thereby getting a chance to target
relevant key publics and as result. By introducing these three aspects within relationships Bruning
and Ledingham (1999) sought to “provide a more focused approach to organisation-public
relationship initiation, development, maintenance, and / or recovery” (Bruning & Ledingham,
1999: 166).
2.4 Knowledge managementKnowledge management (Kale & Singh, 2009) focuses on the transfer of knowledge across
organisations in order to increase the level of information within the organisations as well as
contributing to a greater level of know-how and knowledge creation. Knowledge is both explicit (all
material written down and gathered) and tacit (personal judgement, experience and know-how)
(Dimitriades, 2005).
Hume and Hume (2008) define knowledge management as:” [...] the process that ‘manages’
(collection, categorisation, analysis and distribution) information across the organisation’s value
chain to support operational and strategic decision-making. More specifically, KM [knowledge
management] is the process of developing and managing both the explicit and tacit elements of data
and information to provide operational and strategic insights for the organisation to develop
competitive advantage” (Hume & Hume, 2008: 129). The external knowledge sharing and gathering
are also ways of developing a competitive advantage and the managing of knowledge which can
help all companies involved. This means that even though Hume and Hume (2008) use this
definition in connection with knowledge sharing and gathering internally in a company, the same
aspects are of importance when sharing and gathering knowledge between for example a foundation
and its partner companies. One aspect of this is the importance of the organisations knowing what
their publics expect and want and in order to keep the publics, both on B2C but also on B2B
markets, satisfied (Hume & Hume, 2008). Strategies for gathering and sharing knowledge across an
organisation is an important practise since knowledge is of high value, especially within
organisations that are not-for-profit companies, and the knowledge is to be given strategic value
within such organisations (Hume & Hume, 2008).
Page 40 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
The transfer of knowledge can be achieved by focusing (Kale & Singh, 2009) on three different
aspects of knowledge management all of which contribute positively to the performance within a
relationship, namely: complementarity, commitment and compatibility.
Complementarity (Kale & Singh, 2009) amongst the partner organisations focuses on whether or
not the partner organisations produce goods or services which are not in direct competition with
each other, but could complement one another by providing services or goods which the other
company could not. A result of this would be companies working together to either develop new
products or services or collaborate on reaching objectives and goals for each company. This way the
organisations could benefit from a synergy process between the parties which should help to reach a
common goal or objective (Kale & Singh, 2009). According to Kale and Singh (2009), the greater
complementarity existing between an organisation and its partner organisations, as well as the
complementarity between the partner organisations themselves, the greater likelihood there is for a
successful relationship.
Commitment (Kale & Singh, 2009) focuses on the importance of the partner organisations’
willingness to work together to reach long-term benefits of a relationship and not simply focus on
short-term goals. However, the long-term benefits may take between 5 to 10 years to achieve, which
can make it difficult to persuade managers in possible partner organisations to join if they are not
truly committed from the beginning.
Compatibility (Kale & Singh, 2009) between an organisation and its partner organisations is very
important as this makes for the best possible cooperation between the parties involved in the
relationship. It refers to the compatibility between the work conducted in the organisations as part
of the relationship as well as the organisational structure within each partner organisation, as well as
the compatibility of values between all organisations involved. During this phase within a
relationship, it is important that organisations involved coordinate their actions in order to reach
common goals and objectives. This will require similar cultures and organisational thinking within
all organisations involved in the partnership, which will then result in the best outcome (Egan,
2005). However, this can be a difficult process (Kale & Singh, 2009) since this means that each
organisation involved in the relationship has to know what the other organisations are doing in
order to avoid overlapping when trying to reach the common objectives set beforehand.
Page 41 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
A small amount of overlapping (Kale & Singh, 2009) is however, advisable, to gain information
from different specialist areas, working within the different organisations involved. The result of
this should be to end up with information, knowledge and know-how which are applicable when
developing goods and services for future use.
SME’s have better chances at creating a knowledge organisation, which are organisations focusing
on the generation, use and transfer of knowledge created within an organisation while at the same
time learning from knowledge gathered in earlier processes and by previous mistakes made,
because there are fewer communication channels to go through and because employees have jobs
containing a broader range of responsibilities. This in turn makes it a necessity for them to
exchange knowledge. For example one SME could learn from the actions of another SME within a
similar situational context which could help resolve specific issues quicker than if the SME had to
start from scratch. Within larger organisations the employees can easily be very restricted, since all
employees have clearly defined roles which can make it more difficult for employees to exchange
knowledge on an individual, departmental and organisational level (Hume & Hume, 2008).
However, smaller organisations are often unaware of how to handle knowledge and how this is
exchanged to reach a synergy effect. Furthermore, employees often have an unstructured knowledge
sharing process and one of the reasons for this is the storing of knowledge on computer hard drives
and within personal filing cabinets of each employee (Hume & Hume, 2008).
Through neuroscience it has been proven that people holding the same knowledge might interpret
this knowledge in different ways due to culturally and environmentally based perceptions within
each person. This also means that the importance of the knowledge changes depending on the
perceptions of the people holding it (Phillips, 2006b). This may be one of the reasons why SME’s
are more successful when it comes to knowledge sharing across an organisation since, as it has been
mentioned earlier during this literature review, more communication leads to an increase in
knowledge sharing, which then leads to a shared sense of understanding of the organisational
culture and increases the knowledge of each individual employee. This all results in organisations,
in this case SME’s, gaining a greater social understanding of other organisations as well as an
increased level of understanding the information needs of both employees and organisations.
However, another scenario concerning knowledge sharing is the increase in silos, meaning an
increase in people, or companies, who do not wish to share relevant knowledge and as such create
silos where knowledge and information does not reach any other party within the relationship. This
Page 42 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
is usually done when people, or companies, think that they themselves can gain more from
withholding the information than they feel would be possible when sharing the information and
knowledge with others (Klein, 2009).
An organisation can become a learning organisation (Dimitriades, 2005) by developing an
organisational structure with as little organisational hierarchy as possible, thereby making the
structure flat (Claver-Cortès et al, 2007), and an organisational culture, which encourages values
and acknowledges information exchange across departments and hierarchical statuses (Claver-
Cortès et al, 2007). In order to get the most out of the knowledge and information within the
organisation and thus make knowledge sharing and knowledge creation easier for all employees –
this process is called organisational learning (Dimitriades, 2005).
Dimitriades (2005) states that it is important for organisations specialising within the field of
knowledge management to be: “ [...] continuously challenging their mission, vision, strategies and
culture and constant questioning existing products, processes, structures and systems in view of the
future market place” (Dimitriades, 2005: 320-321).
Knowledge is seen as being context-specific as it derives from specific experiences at a certain
point in time and therefore it is one of the main factors for companies seeking to increase and create
a continuing growth. These aspects make the need for strategic knowledge management important
because knowledge is almost impossible for competitors to recreate or copy and organisations
should therefore take advantage of this to the best of their abilities (Claver-Cortès et al, 2007).
Knowledge proactivity is the organisation’s ability to make use of and transfer knowledge on the
basis of information and knowledge gathering. When knowledge management becomes part of the
organisational strategy, the organisation will be able to respond in more emergent ways when
problems concerning the organisation, both internally and externally, arise (Claver-Cortès et al,
2007).
Knowledge sharing and gatheringIf individual knowledge is achieved, the members of the organisation-public relationship, both on
B2C and B2B markets, have the opportunity (Egan, 2005) of co-creation. According to Egan
(2005), this also makes it more important to have a close relationship to the partner organisations as
it is of the utmost importance to know what they want in order to create fitting products or services.
Page 43 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
As an organisation during its lifetime will need to develop partnerships with other organisations, the
chance of a shared distribution chain arises, which can lower the costs of delivering and producing
products and services on their own – as well as provide greater knowledge and better technologies
than organisations could on their own (Egan, 2005).
Egan (2005) further stated that the downside to partnerships could be the chance of the
organisations involved not working as much on research and development as previously, thereby,
creating a stale partnership in which none of the organisations get a required outcome – the
organisations would, as a result, have been better off not having entered into the relationship. Egan
(2005) mentions that one of the best ways to not have a partnership become stale, on a B2B market,
is to have organisations with new and creative ideas enter into the already existing relationship.
Knowledge amongst employees is often seen as power, and this makes employees afraid to share
their knowledge because they are afraid to be perceived as worthless for the organisation (Lee &
Ahn, 2005).
However, in order for organisations to improve knowledge sharing (Yang & Maxwell, 2011), both
interorganisationally and intraorganisationally, different initiatives can be initiated so all parties
involved can gain from the tangible and intangible knowledge within each organisation. Different
ways of sharing knowledge exist but based on the literature within the field it seems that the most
used methods involve using a shared computer database where all knowledge can be stored and
afterwards automatically shared between the organisations (Zhang et al., 2010). This way it also
becomes easier for each employee to see how the knowledge is used by the organisation and to gain
greater access to knowledge from other employees as well. Another method is by using knowledge
stewards, who are experts when it comes to knowledge management (Smith, 2005). These stewards
then gather knowledge from all employees and create an organisational knowledge bank or database
for the most useful knowledge, for example the knowledge that can be used to solve current
problems in the organisation itself or other organisations within the relationship (Oye et al., 2011).
Yang and Maxwell (2011) suggest that the knowledge steward should then grade the knowledge
provided by the employees, which will then create a clear picture of who contributes most to the
knowledge bank.
A third option described within the knowledge sharing literature, is for managers to find the opinion
leaders and use them to collect knowledge from within their respective departments and then use
Page 44 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
them when solving shared problems faced by all organisations within the organisation-public
relationship. These opinion leaders are other employees who are usually asked for advice by fellow
employees and who thereby have a greater knowledge of the goings-on within a department as well
as a greater overview than most other employees (Smith, 2005).
The knowledge collected internally will then help the organisation become better equipped for the
competition on the market as well as more valuable in a relationship with other organisations
(Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, 2011). The shared knowledge helps all involved as every organisation’s
knowledge is valuable and unique and as a result becomes more difficult to copy for competitors.
Additionally, by sharing knowledge all organisations involved should then become more creative
and innovative, thereby making them a stronger competitor on the market (Ngah & Jusoff, 2009).
2.5 ConclusionTo conclude the literature review and sum up why relationship management is important for B2B
organisations, I have summed up all the advantages mentioned during this section of the thesis and
explained them in a shorter fashion to create a short overview.
Rogers (1959) described the main aspects of relationships by stating that they:
increase accountability as well as commitment between the parties involved.
increase the possibility of achieving greater knowledge.
increase the possibility of a friendly relationship between organisations.
Moreover, relationship management makes it easier for organisations to retain their current
customers without it being too costly (Kotler, 1994). Additionally, relationship management creates
value for an organisation through the relationships in which it is invested and this results in more
wealth for the organisation, not only through more profit but also through more knowledge and co-
creation and collaboration (Phillips, 2006a). As well as creating wealth, relationship management
also reduces costs (Huang, 2001) since there is a possibility of sharing the distribution chain and
delivering costs with the other parties involved in the relationship which will then also increase the
level of knowledge and technology when this is made possible (Egan, 2005).
When an organisation-public relationship is initiated (McCort, 1994), an organisation becomes far
more customer-driven than before, which increases the chances for creating long-term relationships.
These relationships will then lead to organisational benefits such as increased openness towards the
Page 45 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
publics (Johannesen, 1971) and an increased level of shared responsibility within the relationship,
meaning that none of the organisations in the relationship will have to battle problems on their own
but rather share the burden – thereby collaborating to find a shared solution (McCort, 1994;
Brennan, 1997) and, as a consequence, also share the advantages of co-creation (Bejou & Palmer,
2005). Co-creation can be achieved through a synergy-effect where the parties involved in the
relationship improve goods or services in a way which they could not have done alone (Egan,
2005).
Through collaboration organisations develop, increase the information sharing across organisations
and create an increased level of trust towards one another (Brennan, 1997). As this is achieved the
publics will show an increased level of loyalty towards the organisation (Grunig & Yang, 2005).
Furthermore, by being in an organisation-public relationship it also becomes easier for the
organisation to know what the publics expect from it (Brennan, 1997).
A result of relationships can also be a change in the inter-organisational structure and the
behavioural culture of an organisation – a change which may have been needed for a while but not
detected before the creation of the relationship (Smyth & Fitch, 2009). This can also lead to an
increased horizontal management style which, from the outside, makes the organisation seem
stronger than a hierarchical organisational structure since information, knowledge, creativity and
ideas are thought to flow more freely in an organisational environment such as this (Smyth, 2000).
Ledingham and Bruning (1998) described the most important attributes of relationship management
as being: trust, involvement, commitment, an open and honest dialogue and the possibility to find
the right solution through constructive discussions. These are all benefits achieved through the use
of relationship management. (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998).
If relationship goals and objectives are set for each organisation-public relationship which at the
same time is connected to the overall goals and objectives of the organisation, the result is
especially beneficial. Relationship management becomes more tangible than previously while also
becoming easier to measure – thereby making the effort of an organisation’s public relations efforts
easier to measure; this has previously been very difficult to achieve (Hon, 1998; Ledingham &
Bruning, 1998). This is all made possible by relationship management being used as a strategic tool
to achieve the above mentioned goals and objectives (Ledingham, Bruning & Wilson, 1999).
Page 46 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
All above mentioned aspects can, however, only be achieved if organisations make use of
knowledge and information sharing both across the departmental and hierarchical barriers within
the organisation but also between the parties involved in the relationship (Phillips, 2006b;
Dimitrades, 2005).
Through research it has become acknowledged that organisations must allow their employees to
talk to one another across hierarchical barriers since organisations this way will gain as much as
possible from the organisation’s assets e.g. a variety of knowledge from different employees
(Phillips, 2006b).
2.6 Results of the literature reviewThe literature review has not only pointed out the important aspects of relationship management for
a B2B organisation but also made clear the focus of research within this area.
When writing my literature review it has become obvious that there is a very small number, if any,
articles concerning non-profit organisations operating on a B2B market. All articles regarding non-
profit organisations are concerned with charitable organisations as it has been the case with both
McCort (1994), Dart (2004), Hume and Hume (2008) and Andreasen, Goodstein and Wilson
(2005). The main difference between these two aspects is that non-profit organisations on a B2B
market have the same considerations and objectives as all other organisations except the fact that
their existence is based on grants from public organs such as EU grants, for example. In the case of
these non-profit organisations the organisational objectives normally have to be clarified before
gaining a grant for one year or more.
During my case study, I will look into SustainAgri to find out how a non-profit B2B organisation
operates since one of the main strengths in this connection is the ability to create a knowledge
organisation, thereby making the organisation more innovative and competitive on its respective
market. Another important aspect is that of being able to share knowledge with other organisations,
resulting in SustainAgri being just as much a consultancy as a foundation. However, for this to be
possible it is important that a working relationship is created between SustainAgri and the partner
companies and that each party involved has an idea of what is being done by the other
organisations. For this successful dimensions, such as trust, commitment, satisfaction and control
mutuality (Hon & Grunig, 1999), must be present and this is not the case for charitable non-profit
organisations since they rely on donations from people and that most work is done by volunteers.
Page 47 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Charitable organisations also have a relationship with the publics which are based far more on
emotions and feelings than that of non-profit organisation on a B2B market as e.g. SustainAgri.
However, charitable organisations have an entirely different agenda since they normally have an
agenda of working to collect money and awareness for one specific cause.
Since there do not seem to be any scholarly articles with the focus on relationship management
within non-profit organisations operating on a B2B market, I have chosen to investigate this further
by the use of a case study.
By doing this, I plan to investigate if the aforementioned theories are relevant when taken from the
original context and used as basis for the case study.
Almost no research has been done on the relationship expectations of paying partner companies of
non-profit organisations and how these expectations can be met in a satisfactory manner for all
parties involved. This has mainly only been relevant for the previously mentioned scholars who
have investigated this in connection with charitable organisations, however, since B2B
organisations are not equal to charitable ones, this could be relevant to investigate as well.
Furthermore, organisation-public relationship literature has a very limited focus on the aspect of
knowledge management even though I find the success of these two aspects as very dependant on
each other. As a result of this, I will also try to integrate organisation-public relationship literature
with knowledge management literature in order to make this interdependence as clear as possible –
and in this way contribute to the existing literature of both fields as well as the scholarly discussion
within both fields.
In connection with this, it will also be relevant to investigate whether Hon and Grunig’s (1999)
dimensions regarding organisation-public relationships can be used within a B2B non-profit setting
since this does not seem to have been looked into previously.
Lastly, the focus of knowledge management has primarily been on how to create knowledge
organisations, such as the foundation SustainAgri which bases its existence on being a knowledge
organisation, and which I will use as case study during this thesis (Smyth & Fitch, 2009; Smyth,
2000; Dimitrades, 2005; Phillips, 2006b; Egan, 2005; Kale & Singh, 2009 and Claver-Cortès et al.,
2007). Another important area to research as part of this case study is the aspect of how a
knowledge culture can be created by companies that are all members of a non-profit organisation.
Page 48 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
My research will seek to gain further information regarding the above mentioned aspects within
relationship management and thereby shed some light on the area of non-profit organisations
operating on a B2B market and investigate how an organisation-public relationship can be
improved by using the theories mentioned during this section of the thesis.
Part III: Discussion
3. Case study: SustainAgri’s current relationship with its partner
companiesIn order to investigate the areas of: Relationship marketing, Relationship management and
Knowledge management and their effect a non-profit foundation on a B2B market, SustainAgri has
been chosen as a case study.
To illustrate the interconnectivity between relationship management and knowledge management, I
have chosen not to divide the analysis on the basis of theoretical areas but on different relational
factors. In literature, these factors determine the overall state of the relationship. Instead I have
focused on the three main areas within relationship management which SustainAgri seems to have
the most difficulty with in terms of its relationship with the partner companies.
This has been done because the relationship marketing, relationship management and knowledge
management are so closely connected and because it is my belief that the analysis will have a
greater holistic perspective than would have been possible by dividing the analysis into the three
areas of communication and management, which have been described above.
In this connection, it should also be mentioned that since I have been an intern at SustainAgri, as
well having a computer and desk provided by the foundation – which has resulted in the majority of
the thesis being written there – the interviews may not have been as formal as if I had met the
employees of the foundation for the first time at that point (Daymon & Holloway, 2010).
Additionally, during the execution of the semi-structured interviews, the three interview participants
were not asked any leading questions since the interview guide was used as a point of departure and
further questions, connected to the explanations given during the interview, were asked. The
questions were all based on the literature collected and discussed during the literature review and
Page 49 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
therefore were not based on my opinion of SustainAgri, its relationship management skills or its
way of communicating with the partner companies. I chose the areas of the interview guide based
on what I perceived to be the most relevant to investigate (Daymon & Holloway, 2010).
3.1 Relationship factorsThe Head of the Development Group, Christian Sønderup, stated that the partner companies pay a
sum of 15,000 Dkr. a year to be become a partner company of SustainAgri. Because of this the
companies may have higher expectations to what is offered than if they did not pay a membership
fee. In half of questionnaires (50%) it is mentioned that the partner companies had an expectation of
receiving new projects from SustainAgri, however many of the partner companies have not been, or
only been slightly, satisfied with the outcome of this (60%).
The fact that the partner companies have to pay a small fee to become a partner company of
SustainAgri, would seem to describe a contractual relationship between SustainAgri and the partner
companies. All partner companies have to sign a contract when joining the cluster agreeing to
certain terms and conditions (appendix 16), one of them being the amount of working hours they
contribute to SustainAgri’s projects (these aspects are all covered by the paragraph cited in
appendix 16). This seems to correspond to the lack of satisfaction, as mentioned above, from the
partner companies. This also means that they, according to Hung (2005) are in a win-lose
relationship where only one party, or in this case a few companies, gain from being in the
relationship.
Most of the partner companies (80%) have answered that they have personal contact with
SustainAgri between once a month and every three months. According to Brennan (1997) it is
important to meet on a regular basis to share information and to get to know each of the parties
involved in the relationship. This would help develop trust in the relationship and set up a
framework of norms, rules and values which could create the guidelines within the relationship.
Additionally, they could set up cross-organisational workgroups that could focus on different issues
or problems faced by their partner companies. It could create the development within an
organisation-public relationship (Hung, 2005; Hon & Grunig, 1999) which could move towards
becoming a communal relationship. This, however, does not seem to be practised by SustainAgri
since it primarily has personal contact (meaning face-to-face meetings) with the partner companies
once every month or less.
Page 50 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Brenan (1997) categorises such a relationship as a relationship with no degree partnership since
information, knowledge sharing and general communication only takes place in small amounts.
This means that only the most necessary information is shared and that no shared problem solving
between companies occurs. According to the questionnaires, 60% of the partner companies state
that they rarely, or ever, share information and knowledge with the other partner companies, or with
SustainAgri (40%), and almost all of the contact persons answered that they do not think that
SustainAgri makes enough use of their companies’ competencies (60%). These answers all lead me
to think that the relationship indeed is a partnership where nothing, except the required minimum, is
shared (Brennan, 1997).
An aspect which SustainAgri seems to have problems with is the symmetrical communication
between all involved parties and where each member acknowledges that they have the ability to
affect the other involved parties (Bruning & Ledingham, 1999). This seems to be apparent based on
the questionnaires. Here 70% of the partner companies are satisfied with the level of information
received concerning the current affairs of SustainAgri, although they do not feel that they have any
influence in the decision-making.
Also, the questionnaires indicate that the sizes of the partner companies differ, they are between 1-5
and 201+ employees, and as a result of this there could be a problem of the larger partner
companies having too much power compared to the smaller ones (Blois, 2010). In other words, a
power asymmetry (Blois, 2010) could be a potential problem for SustainAgri, since larger
companies often have more resources and might also have more power within the relationship than
those companies who do not have the same number of employees or resources at their disposal.
Even though this could be the problem, it would seem that there is a more likely reason for the
apparent power asymmetry. It could seem that the power asymmetry does not exist in the form of
one partner company being more powerful than others but more that SustainAgri wants to be in
control. This has resulted in the foundation creating a distance between itself and the partner
companies.
This may have happened as a result of the partner companies joining SustainAgri with the
expectations of becoming part of a network focusing on working together to reach common goals
and objectives. However, from the reaction of the partner companies it could seem that they do not
feel they have any influence. This way SustainAgri could be seen to only concentrate on its own
goals and not what is wanted and expected by the partner companies. Additionally, the lack of any
Page 51 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
shared goals and objectives within the relationship, created on the basis of the overall purpose and
the current EU goals of SustainAgri, also makes it difficult for the partner companies to set their
expectations accordingly. SustainAgri itself has to reach the EU goals and, therefore, the foundation
does have goals and objectives. These goals and objectives do not seem to have been properly
explained to and understood by most of the partner companies. If these goals had been explained
then common goals and objectives which fit into SustainAgri’s EU goals, should have been possible
to reach for all the partner companies (Brennan, 1997). Christian Sønderup has explained that the
EU goals are something which is explained continuously on the general meetings taking place every
third month with all the contact people. Yet because of the period of time between each meeting this
might not be enough for the partner companies to fully understand the EU goals.
It could seem that the partner companies would like a more equal relationship since 80% of the
contact persons answered that they did not feel that they had any or very little, influence in the
decisions made by SustainAgri. The same contact people stated that they did not feel that they got
anything, or very little, out of the relationship (60%). On an overall basis they did not feel better
equipped for future competition.
Furthermore, this could indicate that the communication between SustainAgri and the partner
companies is not symmetrical but actually asymmetrical. This could also explain the overall lack of
commitment (Brennan, 1997) which seems to be present. The Managing Director of SustainAgri
has stated that most of the information and communication takes place via email and via the
telephone and the general meetings. All other personal information has to take place on request of a
contact person who is in need of further information. This approach not only creates a
communicational asymmetry but also the power asymmetry mentioned earlier.
The Managing Director of SustainAgri has also stated that after the initial objectives set during the
first EU period of four years had been reached there could not be found any common ground as to
what the next objectives should be. However, according to Hon (1998), results can only be reached
by achieving objectives since this is also an indicator of how the relationship is going and if it is
fulfilling its purpose.
By setting long-term objectives within the relationship, there is also the possibility (Duncan &
Caywood, 1996) of the relationship becoming more profitable and in this way the benefits become
more apparent than they would otherwise have been. All partner companies who stated that they
Page 52 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
joined in order to cooperate with a network of other companies have not had their expectations
fulfilled. This could be due to the lack of overall commitment which (Brennan, 1997) is connected
with the no degree of partnership which has previously been explained on pages 29 and 30. Another
reason for this could be that SustainAgri seemingly does not introduce the partner companies to
each other, which could hinder their opportunities of future cooperation and (Gao, 2007) shared
research and development.
An important aspect is that, which has also been stated by Lasse Bork Schmidt, as well as by Hung
(2005), the development of the relationships is also based on the amount of work, effort and
dedication from both SustainAgri’s but also from the partner companies’ side. Due to this it is also
important for the partner companies to be patient since relationships take time to develop (Kale &
Singh, 2009) and the benefits of them will not be clear at the beginning of the process. It has been
stated by two of the ten contact persons in the questionnaires that the meetings take too much time
compared to what is gained from them. This could indicate a lack of satisfaction with SustainAgri
as well as the results of the relationship (Brennan, 1997). Furthermore, it could also indicate a lack
of commitment since these partner companies are not willing to spend the required time in order to
reach the expected results of the relationship (Kale & Singh, 2009).
3.2 CooperationAccording to Huang (2001), effective communication is the cornerstone when creating a stable and
effective relationship. This means that even though all partner companies are satisfied, or very
satisfied, with the level of information provided from SustainAgri, it could seem there is not the
same level of two-way communication. This is an aspect which was also mentioned during the
previous part in connection with the communication asymmetry.
It is indicated by 80% of the contact persons that they did not feel that they had any, or very little,
influence on SustainAgri’s decisions. This lack of influence could stem from a lack of
communication between SustainAgri and the partner companies and result in making the partner
companies feel without any influence. However, as stated by the Managing Director of SustainAgri,
the partner companies are seen as customers and not equal partners in the relationship. This does
not seem to be a good basis for a relationship with other companies because it very likely could
create a power and communication asymmetry from the very beginning (Blois, 2010).
Page 53 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
If the foundation sees its partner companies as customers it will not be able to offer the services
which are crucial to creating a functioning relationship, with co-creation (Phillips, 2006b), a high
level of commitment (Brennan, 1997; Kale & Singh, 2009) and a high degree partnership (Brennan,
1997) being some of them.
One of the reasons for this may be due to the lack of shared activities between SustainAgri and the
partner companies. Even though Christian Sønderup stated that shared activities indeed occur, the
Managing Director of SustainAgri stated that it primarily takes place when general meetings are
planned. Again this seems to correspond with Brennan’s (1997) definition of a no degree
partnership where shared goals and objectives, as well as interorganisational teamwork are part of
the relationship.
Since this is the case, SustainAgri has not become a knowledge organisation in which knowledge
can be exchanged and gathered. The reason for this is the lack of trust among all the participating
companies (Hume & Hume, 2008). Trust is developed through the continual work between the
partner companies and SustainAgri (Brennan, 1997; Hung, 2005).
Additionally, without the aspect of trust it will not be possible to ensure the level of satisfaction
(Hon & Grunig, 1999) which is needed to create a functioning relationship. Furthermore, the
required level of commitment which is needed both within the four relationship dimensions (Hon &
Grunig, 1999) and within knowledge management (Kale & Singh, 2009) will not be present either.
Another aspect is the apparent need of the partner companies to get instant results when joining the
cluster. This could again have something to do with a lack of communication between SustainAgri
and the partner companies since it would seem that the partner companies have not been properly
informed before entering into the relationship. It could be relevant for them to know, from the start,
that the development of a relationship can take between five to ten years before all benefits will
become visible for the partner companies, e.g. a reduction in costs (Kale & Singh, 2009). In this
connection, it is also important for the partner companies to be committed (Brennan, 1997)
otherwise the relationship might not develop into the relationship it is expected to become.
SustainAgri has to live up to EU goals, however, 50% of the partner companies know nothing, or
very little, about these goals. This can either be due to a lack of commitment from the partner
companies or a lack of communication from SustainAgri (Bruning & Ledingham, 1999). Based on
the questionnaires, there seems to be a lack of commitment since the partner companies feel that
Page 54 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
SustainAgri is not living up to the expectations they have. This in turn affects the level of
satisfaction which for the majority of the partner companies is quite low. This could hinder the
necessary trust (Egan, 2005) that is paramount in a relationship and which is necessary in order to
reach shared goals and objectives.
However, as the relationship is now it could seem it is not developing from the contractual
relationship (Hung, 2005) which is the starting point of its relationships with the partner companies.
This also means that, as previously mentioned, the overall relationship is within the win-lose zone
according to Hung (2005). Even though it is most likely not planned, SustainAgri seems to be the
party gaining the most from the relationships because it will then be able to fulfil its EU goals in
time. The problem has arisen due to SustainAgri having to firstly fulfil its agreement with the EU
by reaching the EU goals and then secondly trying to fulfil the expectations of the partner
companies. The EU goals are clearly more important for SustainAgri to reach, since the foundation
would otherwise not have any money and would have to close down, which might have had a
negative effect on the relationship with the partner companies.
Many of the partner companies agreed to become members of SustainAgri in order to become
members of a network (50%) and this way become able to work with many other companies.
However, it seems that the partner companies wanted not only a network where the possibility of an
exchange or even a communal relationship could develop. They also wanted to become part of a
network in which knowledge management, in the forms of knowledge sharing and knowledge
gathering, could exist as part of the relationship. The definition by Lynch (2009) seems to agree
with their expectations since he states that relationships are developed between organisations in
order to generate value-adding aspects. These value-added aspects (Lynch, 2009), within a B2B
relationship, seem to be unlikely to exist if there is not some degree of knowledge sharing and
gathering between them because this is the primary way one company can help another reaching its
goals and objectives.
During the interview with Carsten Møller, it was mentioned that the partner companies within the
cluster are segmented according to the services and products which they can offer the end-
consumers. From the apparent lack of common objectives, it would not be possible to segment the
partner companies in any other ways. However, Kale and Singh (2009) argue that a better way of
segmenting will be to divide the partner companies in groups in which the companies with
Page 55 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
matching objectives and expectations can work together. This makes it easier for the partner
companies not producing the same agricultural products or services to work together (Gao, 2007).
This could also make it easier for the partner companies to achieve their expectations and moreover
this should also improve their level of satisfaction (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998).
Had the required amount of trust been present within the relationship there would, according to
Brunning and Hatfield (2002) and Phillips (2006b), be a greater amount of value-creation which
would enrich the relationship and help all companies create a unique product, or a unique service,
which could be used by all partner companies alike. This should also greatly improve the overall
satisfaction with SustainAgri and increase the commitment level amongst the partner companies.
When reaching the above mentioned factors in the relationship Gao (2007) mentions that shared
research and development projects are also a possibility.
However, the managing Director of SustainAgri, Lasse Bork Schmidt, claims that this is only
theoretically possible and does not work in reality. A reason for this can be found in a statement
made by the Managing Director who explains that it is difficult for busy professionals to take the
time to get to know everyone involved in the relationship with SustainAgri as well as knowing the
strengths and weaknesses of the partner companies (Egan, 2005).
In my mind, there is no doubt that what has been discovered through research and tested thoroughly
will also be possible to implement on a more practical level. However, since it primarily has been
tested through research on a B2C market, scholars have not taken into account the difference when
implementing the same theories within the context as e.g. SustainAgri. For example the theories do
not seem to take into consideration the current workload of the contact persons. This is likely to be
seen as more pressing to the contact person than maintaining and developing the relationship with
SustainAgri. Additionally, there may also be a differing level of commitment amongst the partner
companies which could be a result of the size of the partner company (Blois, 2010). Another factor
connected to the commitment of the partner companies could be the position of the contact person
within his respective company. All contact persons might not hold the same power, from a
hierarchical viewpoint, and this could influence the level of commitment from the partner company
if the specific contact person is not able to make any decisions related to the relationship himself. A
contact person may have more difficulties with persuading the right people within the partner
company to participate in projects with SustainAgri, if the contact person is not viewed as a key
Page 56 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
employee as opposed to a partner company where the contact person is also the Managing Director
(Brennan, 1997).
The last aspect in this section relates to SustainAgri and its role as a shared secretariat which is how
the employees view the role of the foundation. The important functions for SustainAgri would then
be the aspects connected to knowledge gathering and sharing as well as planning export drives and
producing relevant brochures and information material to be used. Of the participating contact
persons, 70% recognise this as being an important function for the foundation. However, 60%
stated that the expectations had not, or only to a slightly, been met. As a result of this, it could seem
that SustainAgri does not fulfil its role as a shared secretariat for the partner companies and is does
not live up to the role of a knowledge organisation which it also sees itself as (Claver-Cortès et al.,
2007).
A consequence could be the overall lack of satisfaction amongst partner companies and a feeling
that SustainAgri does not fulfil their expectations. Of the partner companies, 70% of seem to want a
tighter relationship with the other partner companies within the cluster.
Additionally, there seems to be a lack of communication, not only between SustainAgri and many
of the partner companies, but also across the cluster. This means that the partner companies and
SustainAgri are not contacting each other, except for the general meetings every third month, unless
the partner company has questions to be answered.
3.3 SatisfactionIn 60% of questionnaires the contact persons were not, or only slightly, satisfied with the
relationship in its current form. Also it could be connected to the partner companies stating that
SustainAgri only slightly, or not at all, made use of the competencies provided by them (60%) and
the knowledge they provided (40%).
Since this is the case there could seem to be a clear connection between knowledge management
and its effects on an organisation-public relationship. Even though much information within this
relationship is provided by SustainAgri, and all companies involved seem to be satisfied with the
current amount of information, many of the partner companies only share a slight amount of
knowledge (30%) with the other partner companies or none at all (30%). Furthermore, only 20% of
the partner companies state that they share knowledge and information with SustainAgri often.
Page 57 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Even though the information provided by SustainAgri in most cases are viewed as sufficient, the
knowledge sharing and gathering between the companies and SustainAgri does not appear to be.
This seems to affect the overall evaluation when it comes to the level of satisfaction. In other words,
knowledge management is something which seems to have an effect on a relationship.
An area, which according to relationship management scholars (Smyth & Fitch, 2009; Brennan,
1997), is often forgotten is the creation of similar organisational structures and cultures within all
partner companies. This will make objectives and expectations easier to reach since the internal
processes will become more alike, e.g. the strategic decisions. Furthermore, if partner companies
assimilate, it will also improve the interorganisational knowledge sharing and knowledge generation
since the exchange of knowledge becomes easier, and to some degree more relevant, when the
internal communication and relationship management aspects are alike (Egan, 2005; Kale & Singh,
2009).
By segmenting the partner companies, as described earlier, (Kale & Singh, 2009) knowledge
sharing and gathering could transpire on a larger scale and this could make the specific partner
companies create relationships by working together on projects and by increasing the knowledge
being exchanged between them. This would also be a step in the direction of becoming a good
relationship (Brennan, 1997).
This could suggest that relationship management and knowledge management are connected when
it comes to creating relationships since an increase in knowledge sharing and knowledge gathering
can also improve relationships on a B2B market due to an increased alignment of company values
within each company involved. Furthermore, an increase in organisational structures and cultures
(Kale & Singh, 2009) will also create similarities within the organisational thinking.
However, as already discussed, the partner companies do not seem to think that SustainAgri, and
the appertaining network, works well enough to be an incentive for similar organisational thinking
and increased knowledge sharing.
This could create silos in which all involved have knowledge concerning relevant projects which
they do not wish to share. A reason for this could be that the partner company then does not control
how it will benefit from this and what it will gain from sharing the knowledge with others (Klein,
2009). This could also be the general thought among the partner companies, or individual contact
Page 58 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
persons, that as soon as knowledge is shared the perceived power which the company or individual
previously had will then have disappeared (Lee & Ahn, 2005).
It could seem that most of the partner companies are unwilling to share information and knowledge
with each other (30%), or only seldom do so (30%), because they do not want any unnecessary
competition and knowledge sharing might initiate this. This seems to clearly indicate that the
element of trust which is required to develop and maintain relationships does not exist, resulting in
the creation of many silos (Klein, 2009). Instead of a closer relationship, which is the biggest
advantage for relationships between companies (Hung, 2001), individual silos are then created
(Klein, 2009).
Had the relationship between SustainAgri and the partner companies been better, and had the
relevant information and knowledge been shared across the partner companies and SustainAgri, it
could have been more proactive and emergent regarding new export opportunities (Claver-Cortès et
al., 2007).
This could also increase the commitment of the different partner companies and increase their
willingness to work together, both on projects initiated by SustainAgri and on projects initiated by
the different partner companies (Kale & Singh, 2009). As a result of this, (Dimitriades, 2005)
SustainAgri could become a knowledge organisation and thereby better adapt to new situations and
future changes on its current markets. However, at the present time this does not seem to be the case
and instead SustainAgri, due to the lack of knowledge gathering and sharing within the cluster, is
almost unable to adapt to new market situations.
Based on the interviews, SustainAgri’s employees seem to think that the foundation collects the
information and knowledge from all the partner companies on a regular basis. This does not
correspond to the view of the partner companies, who state that they almost never, or only seldom,
share any information and knowledge with SustainAgri (40%). In other words, it could seem that it
has not been possible for SustainAgri to be a knowledge steward, and gather all information and
pass it onto the partner companies. This is simply due to the fact that there is no relevant
information for them to pass on (Smith, 2005).
Although knowledge gathering can exist as described above, it does not correspond to Huang’s
(2005) two-way communication which focuses on dialogue and exchange of knowledge between
the involved parties. And as such this does not happen within SustainAgri since the collected
Page 59 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
knowledge is only distributed to the partner companies if it is viewed as relevant to a current
project. As result of this, the communication could seem to be an asymmetrical because there seems
to be a greater focus on one-way communication because some partner companies share their
knowledge but does not receive anything in return. Instead the knowledge is stored with the
employees of SustainAgri who then only pass it on when they think it will benefit a new project.
Around 40% of the partner companies seem to think that they do not gain from providing
SustainAgri with new knowledge since it does not directly lead to new projects. This could also
indicate that the level of commitment amongst the partner companies is not particularly high. This
may have an effect on each partner company’s satisfaction level.
During his interview the Managing Director of SustainAgri stated that there are not any ways in
which the relationship is measured. He mentioned that common objectives are very important when
companies want to create relationships but again did not see them as being possible to create outside
the world of theoretical thinking. Due to this, the foundation’s only indicator of a partner
company’s level of satisfaction with the relationship was whether it stayed as a partner company of
left the relationship when the one-year contract expired.
According to Hon (1998), measuring the level of satisfaction within a relationship is in fact
possible. Satisfaction within relationships depends on the setting of objectives and the reaching of
those objectives within a set period of time. This could also be one of the reasons that almost all
contact persons are not satisfied with the current relationship. There does not seem to be any clear
objectives meaning that there is no clear direction for the relationship to follow.
The fact that SustainAgri does not measure its relationships, according to the Managing Director,
makes it impossible for the foundation (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998) to be certain of the level of
satisfaction amongst the partner companies. Furthermore, it also becomes difficult for the
foundation to know if it is providing the best service possible to its partner companies. The reaction
from the partner companies seems clear since most of them are not satisfied, or only slightly
satisfied, with the relationship in its current form (60%).
Additionally, it seems to be almost impossible for SustainAgri to change the way in which the
relationships are managed since the foundation does not encourage any feedback from the partner
companies. SustainAgri does not then have the possibility of changing anything before the
unsatisfied partner companies choose to dissolve the relationship.
Page 60 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
3.4 Findings As it has briefly been explained during the cooperation part of the analysis, the theories used during
the analysis of SustainAgri have all been created for B2C markets and therefore there may be a
slight difference in the results compared to if the theories had all been created for B2B markets. For
example the theories used during this section of the thesis, have not taken into consideration the
current workload of the contact persons within partner companies as well as the difference in
commitment depending on the size of a partner companies and the position of the contact person
within the partner companies itself.
Based on the analysis, the current relationship between SustainAgri and the partner companies can
be described as a contractual relationship since the partner companies do not seem to gain from it in
the form of new projects. Furthermore, 60% of the partner companies do not feel, or only slightly
feel, that their company has gained anything from the relationship and 80% of them feel that they
have no, or only slightly, decision-making power. All these aspects all contribute to the current
relationship as being described as contractual.
Another decisive factor, is that the relationship overall seems to be a no shared commitment
partnership and as such the involved parties only contribute with the bare minimum. This also fits
within the description of a contractual relationship.
However, there seems to be a mismatch between how the relationship should be when looking at
the answer of SustainAgri’s Managing Director and the answer from the partner companies. The
Managing Director sees the partner companies more as customers and in this way does not make
use of the relational strategies within relationship management as well as knowledge management.
Additionally, this makes the contrast between the partner companies all the more apparent since
70% the partner companies joined the cluster in order to be part of a network of companies where
knowledge and information flows freely and where all partner companies can work together.
Unfortunately, it seems that there is a general lack of commitment, satisfaction and trust across the
cluster of partner companies. This seems to stem from a lack of communication between
SustainAgri and the partner companies and also SustainAgri, and the cluster in general, does not
appear to be living up to the expectations of the partner companies. Also there seems to be a general
lack of satisfaction with the role of SustainAgri as a shared secretariat since it could seem that the
Page 61 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
partner companies do not believe it to properly fulfil its role and the requirements associated with
this.
Furthermore, since, according to the Managing Director of SustainAgri, there is no personal contact
between SustainAgri and the partner companies other than the general meetings which are held
approximately every third month, a trust between all the involved parties has not been established –
thereby hindering cooperation between the partner companies both on projects facilitated by
SustainAgri and projects which are not directly relevant to SustainAgri.
A reason for this might be found in the lack of shared goals and objectives. Since objectives and
goals have not been developed, it could seem difficult for the partner companies, and indeed
SustainAgri, to know exactly what the cluster is aiming to achieve. The only indicator of this is the
EU goals set by SustainAgri in order to receive the EU grant; however, since these goals are set for
a four year period, these might be a too long-term seen from the point of view from the partner
companies.
Lastly, during my analysis I found that there has been shown a clear connection between
relationship management and knowledge management since a lack of knowledge gathering and
knowledge exchange across the cluster could seem to have a negative effect on the overall
relationship. Furthermore, one of the most frequently used reasons for joining SustainAgri was in
order to join a network of companies and this way gain experience and knowledge from the other
companies already involved in the relationship, thereby citing knowledge gathering and knowledge
sharing as one of the main contributors to joining an organisation-public relationship on a B2B
market.
Page 62 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Part IV: Improvements
4. Creating better relationships for SustainAgri and the partner
companiesDuring this part of the thesis, suggestions for improving the relationship between SustainAgri and
the partner companies will be put forward.
This part contains three suggestions which focus on the aspects found during the discussion which
seem to be a problem for SustainAgri within its current relationship.
Also relationship management and knowledge management theories have been used in the search
for finding the best possible improvement suggestions.
4.1 Setting objectivesIn his interview, Lasse Bork Schmidt stated that shared goals and objectives, set together with the
partner companies for the relationship, did not exist. He elaborated this statement by saying that it
had not been possible for the entire cluster of partner companies to agree on specific goals and
objectives within the relationship. However, according to many scholars (Ledingham & Bruning,
1998; Hung, 2005 & Hon, 1998) there is a basic need to set up goals and objectives for a
relationship which will help fulfil the overall objectives of each individual company. This will not
only make the relationship measureable, in the sense that it becomes possible to asses if the goals
and objectives have been reached, but also contribute to reaching a shared objective.
During the interviews with Carsten Møller and Christian Sønderup, it was mentioned that the
overall goals and objectives of the relationship are the EU goals which are set by SustainAgri.
These goals are, as previously explained, set in order for the foundation to get the funding from EU.
However, 50% of the partner companies did not know, or only slightly knew, what SustainAgri’s
EU goals were. This could affect those partner companies since they do not know how the EU goals
might affect the relationship and if it will then be possible to fulfil the expectations of this company.
This could seem to indicate that there is a need for more information regarding the EU goals to the
partner companies, combined with information from SustainAgri in connection with how these
goals will affect the overall relationship. In this connection, it could also be relevant for SustainAgri
Page 63 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
to emphasise what it can offer the partner companies and how the EU goals might affect the
expectations of the partner companies.
When this is made clear, there is a greater possibility of the partner companies being satisfied since
their expectations will then correspond to what SustainAgri is able to offer.
Currently, it is difficult to be sure whether the majority of the partner companies have set their
expectations in accordance with the EU goals, since 50% of the partner companies did not, or only
slightly, know about them and 60% felt that the expectations of SustainAgri had not, or only
slightly, been fulfilled.
To improve these numbers, and the apparent lack of overall commitment within the cluster,
suggestions for improvements of the relationship, and changes to SustainAgri’s way of managing
these, will be explained during the following sections.
4.2 The management of knowledgeIn order to avoid confusion, let me clarify that I will make use of the aspects of commitment during
the following two sections. Specifically, this aspect refers to Brennan’s (1997) definition of
commitment. I will also make use of the definition of commitment created by Kale and Singh
(2009) but have chosen to call it knowledge exchange, meaning the sharing and gathering of
knowledge among companies.
As mentioned previously, SustainAgri attempts to collect knowledge from all the partner
companies. When this is done, the foundation tries to distribute the relevant knowledge to the
relevant partner companies, for example in connection with new projects. By doing this,
SustainAgri has tried to fulfil the role of a knowledge steward (Smith, 2005) in which all
knowledge is gathered in order to provide the partner companies with as much information as
possible when it becomes relevant.
As mentioned during the discussion, 70% of the partner companies joined SustainAgri in order to
join a network of companies. Additionally, the majority of partner companies did not think that
SustainAgri made use of their competencies in a satisfying way (60%), and 50% of the partner
companies did not share their knowledge with the other members of the cluster or the foundation.
Page 64 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
The questionnaires did however show that the partner companies in general were satisfied with the
level of information provided by SustainAgri, which relates to what has been done by the
foundation. Of the contact people, 50% believed it to be average and 50% rated it above average.
However, this was purely based on information delivered by the foundation to its partner companies
and not the exchange of knowledge between them.
In order to create knowledge sharing and gathering between the partner companies, it is important
to break down the silos between these parties so knowledge can flow freely between partner
companies and SustainAgri (Klein, 2009).
The silos are created when a partner company, or the contact person, does not want to share
information and knowledge with the other companies. In this connection, it appears to happen since
many of the partner companies are not particularly committed to the relationship. They might not
feel comfortable with sharing their knowledge in case other partner companies might take
advantage of this knowledge. This could, for example, be by starting to export based on the
acquired knowledge. Furthermore, as the Managing Director of SustainAgri mentioned, some of the
partner companies might not wish to share their knowledge if this affects their own export
opportunities. The foundation and partner companies might then enter a market where one partner
company already is established, resulting in that company losing much of its income on that market
(Klein, 2009).
One method to increase the likelihood of the exchange of knowledge among the partner companies
is to segment the partner companies according to their objectives and goals. As explained earlier,
these goals and objectives should reflect the goals and objectives of the relationship.
The partner companies should then be divided into smaller groups, for example 3 groups in total,
where their expectations for the most part correspond to each other (Kale & Singh, 2009). When
these segments, or groups, are created, it will become easier for SustainAgri to service the
individual needs of each partner company, instead of making the decisions based on what it think
will be best for all parties. Additionally, since the partner companies within these segments share
common goals and have shared objectives, the incentive to exchange knowledge among the others
will become greater. This should happen when the partner companies acknowledge that the
exchange of knowledge will benefit themselves and contribute to the realisation of the
aforementioned goals and objectives as well as create better relationships. The creation of said
Page 65 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
relationships might then later in the process turn out to be a good investment for the partner
companies.
When this is accomplished, it will become possible for the different segmented partner companies
to set up meetings among themselves. These meetings will both be held together with an employee
from SustainAgri but also held on their own. The contact persons will then be able to discuss what
can be done in order to gain the most from the relationship and what they would like to achieve
from the relationship. By creating the initial framework for the relationship, the sharing of
knowledge will be initiated as a way in which the goals and objectives of each partner company can
be achieved. This may also encourage the contact persons to become better at gathering knowledge
from their respective companies and in this way share a greater amount of knowledge than
previously.
If these segments are created, there is also a greater possibility of the partner companies becoming
committed to the relationship. They might then see a potential outcome which will also create trust
among them. This will start within the different segments and then be able to spread to cover an
equal amount of trust between all partner companies.
The more trust exists between the partner companies within each segment; the less an employee
from SustainAgri is needed at the meeting. Naturally, an employee should be present some of the
time both to explain what can be done to reach the particular goals and objectives, and also to
uncover how the meetings are conducted and if more trust, knowledge exchange and commitment is
being displayed. This presence of the employee will also help create a more open dialogue between
SustainAgri and the partner companies, one in which two-way communication is more present than
currently (Hon & Grunig, 1999).
For the first meetings within the different segments without any employees from SustainAgri
present, an agenda for the contact persons should be created. This agenda should be pre-approved
by the contact persons in the specific segments and should serve to build up knowledge exchange,
by sharing and gathering knowledge connected to their specific goals and objectives. By doing so,
the partner companies should also develop trust in each other.
When the aspect of knowledge exchange has been achieved, and all involved have shared the
knowledge relevant for achieving their goals and objectives, trust will then develop in the form of
creating a shared framework of norms and values specific to each segment. This will have an
Page 66 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
impact on the cooperation between the contact persons from each segment. Both the partner
companies and SustainAgri should then be able to work more efficiently in order to reach the goals
and objectives of all involved.
With the increase in knowledge exchange, trust, commitment and two-way communication, the
different segments will then also move from (Brennan, 1997) being a no degree partnership towards
becoming a more committed relationship in which the parties work to reach shared goals and
objectives.
When the above aspects are met within each of the segments it becomes possible for one person
from each segment to act as a knowledge steward. This knowledge steward will then, together with
the knowledge stewards from the other segments, hold meetings with SustainAgri on a regular
basis. Here the gathered knowledge from each segment will be shared between the appointed
knowledge stewards. The employee from SustainAgri will act as a secretary, by writing notes in
accordance to the subjects discussed, as well as being able to contribute with the expertise with
which the foundation is able to assist.
After such meetings, the foundation will then be provided with a clearer picture of what is expected
as well as having gathered the knowledge from the segments. SustainAgri will then be able to send
out information to all partner companies explaining the topics discussed. Furthermore, this
information will also include which actions will be taken in order to reach the all goals and
objectives. This will also be based on the suggestions and ideas of the partner companies in
connection with how they perceive the expectations to be fulfilled.
This will create a more open dialogue in which two-way communication is seen as an important
tool to reach the expectations of the partner companies. It will also become a more important aspect
of the communication than it currently is.
When asked if there were any disadvantages with being a partner company of SustainAgri, 30%
answered that they used too much time on meetings. However, by setting up communication
channels in this way, meetings could become more worthwhile.
The reason for this is partly because there are not as many people present at the meetings and this
ensures that the partner companies can have more influence in the decision-making process.
Another way this will be more efficient is that only one contact person from each segment will meet
Page 67 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
with the foundation to discuss ideas and exchange knowledge. This appointed knowledge steward
could, if all within the segments are equally committed, share the responsibility of being a
knowledge steward with the other contact persons from the segment. This way they can take turns
representing their segments at the meetings with SustainAgri and a greater level of trust and
commitment will then also be created.
Even though this should improve the knowledge exchange, trust, commitment and create two-way
communication, it is not meant as a replacement for the general meetings held by SustainAgri
approximately every three months. However, creating the segments should be seen as a step in the
direction of creating a relationship where the partner companies are involved to a greater degree
than now. Also all partner companies are given a chance in participating in deciding the future
direction of the foundation.
Of course this approach will only work as long as the partner companies within each segment have
roughly the same goals and objectives. In situations where the differences between partner
companies’ goals and objectives within one segment are too significant, new segments should be
created. Within the new segments, partner companies, and contact persons, who have not previously
worked together, will need to develop a common level of knowledge exchange and trust before the
aspect of commitment can be reached.
A model based on the aspects explained above has been created:
4.2.1 Knowledge+Relationship Management Model
Page 68 of 234
Dependency
Knowledge
exchange
Trust
Commitment
Two-way
communication
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
The idea is based on Kale and Singh’s (2009) statement concerning a company’s need to segment
its publics, or in this case partner companies, in order of their expectations.
However, based on the case study of SustainAgri, there seems to be a need for the partner
companies to work together more. This will facilitate, to a larger extend than currently, in
exchanging knowledge thereby helping each company reach their goals and objectives for the
relationship. Since it seems that few partner companies work well together and the majority do not
work with any partner company, it could be more productive to create smaller groups, or segments.
This way the partner companies are able to contribute more than in the larger general meetings,
which are normally attended by a majority of them.
In this way SustainAgri will also be able to slowly raise the levels of the knowledge exchange and
trust amongst the partner companies. As more knowledge is gathered and shared, both within the
segments and with the foundation, it will help SustainAgri become a knowledge organisation.
During this process, SustainAgri will also participate in letting the relationships expand from being
contractual relationships (Hung, 2005), in which the parties only do what is required by the
contract, to become communal relationships (Hon & Grunig, 1999) where the partner companies
help each other in reaching the best results for the entire cluster.
4.3 Creating an intranetIt has been mentioned during all three interviews that SustainAgri functions as a shared secretariat
for all 14 partner companies. However, as it has also been mentioned previously, SustainAgri does
not seem to live up to the expectations of the partner companies. Approximately 70% of the partner
companies joined SustainAgri in the hopes of joining a network of companies, all working within
the same sector. The majority of the partner companies do not feel that their expectations have been
realised.
The Managing Director of SustainAgri said during his interview that:” […] I […] see our partner
companies as customers of SustainAgri” (appendix 6: Interview transcription – Lasse Bork
Schmidt: 132). It would seem that the relational aspects of the relationship with the partner
companies are not seen as important.
This could lead to a lack of commitment and satisfaction from the partner companies since
SustainAgri, with the above statement, does not take into consideration the expectations of the
Page 69 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
partner companies. It also makes it difficult for trust to be developed because this requires the
companies to become dependent, to some degree, on each other (Ford, 1980). Additionally, 30% of
the partner companies never share information or knowledge with the other partner companies, even
in situations where SustainAgri has coordinated a project with several companies.
These partner companies were the same ones who stated that they joined SustainAgri in order to
join a network of other companies. In other words, these companies had, before joining
SustainAgri, a clear picture of the importance of relationship and knowledge management aspects.
As mentioned during the discussion, there does not seem to exist two-way communication between
SustainAgri and the partner companies. The partner companies seem to share the sentiment that
even though SustainAgri is average or above average at informing them, they do not feel included
in the decision-making process. As a result, the partner companies might not be as committed to
making the relationship work as they could have been. This, in turn, could affect the level of
satisfaction of the partner companies.
A solution to these problems, which improve the situation, could be for SustainAgri to introduce an
intranet, which is possible for SustainAgri and the partner companies to access.
The intranet should be accessible for the contact persons of the different partner companies; with
SustainAgri having the main responsibility for sharing information and knowledge.
This would make it possible for SustainAgri to send out the information regarding for example new
projects, changes in project schedules or the sending out of newsletters. With the intranet it would
seem that SustainAgri could save a lot of time which is currently being spent on informing the
different partner companies, either via telephone, mail or, in some cases, in person. Of course, this
should not be used as a substitute to the general meetings; however, it could reduce the time spent.
This may then be used for information and knowledge gathering that could prove useful for future
projects.
Moreover, this could also make it possible to set up more personal meetings in which only
SustainAgri and a few of the partner companies are present. Since 30% of the partner companies
stated that they spent too much time on meetings which did not result in anything, the intranet could
be used to collect all information and knowledge. If the intranet is used in this way, the meetings
themselves do not have to take as long as they currently do – where general meetings take between
Page 70 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
three and four hours. However, with the setting up of segments, as discussed earlier, the meetings
can be seen to have a more immediate effect which could change the current perceptions of the
meetings.
The intranet will make it easier for the partner companies to know what is happening within
SustainAgri, if for example SustainAgri once every month sent out a short summary of the aspects
with which it had concerned itself and what the results of the month’s work. This could also
improve knowledge sharing across the cluster, since some of the partner companies might then be
able to share knowledge connected to the information provided by SustainAgri.
By creating an intranet, the possibilities of quick and effortless information and knowledge sharing
relating to current or future projects can be written down and shared with all partner companies and
the foundation.
This could also make SustainAgri seem more inclusive, since it will then not only be the employees
of the foundation and the specific contact persons who will know what is currently happening
within the relationship. This could also make it easier for other people within the partner
companies, who are either interested in the relationship as a whole or just aspects of it, to become
aware of activities within the cluster. Since this could be a natural outcome of the creation of an
intranet, the knowledge of SustainAgri will increase among the employees of the partner
companies. The result of this could lead to more committed employees of the partner companies
since the communication will now be able to flow freely. The result of this will be an open
dialogue, thereby changing the communication from one-way to two-way (Bruning & Ledingham,
1999).
This should also make it possible for the partner companies, together with the employees of
SustainAgri, to develop the relationship in the way they see fit. This could for example include a
network focusing on relational aspects as well as the exchange of knowledge.
By creating this, more partner companies will be able to share and gather knowledge which should
increase the levels of commitment and satisfaction since SustainAgri will then live up to, or even
exceed, the expectations set by the partner companies. If this happens, SustainAgri and its partner
companies (Brennan, 1997) would then be able to move from a no degree partnership to a high
degree partnership due to the increased level of commitment among all partner companies.
Page 71 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
When moving towards a high degree partnership, it will become easier for the partner companies to
work together with each other, both on projects initiated by SustainAgri but also on other projects.
An example of this could be a shared research and development phase (Gao, 2007) between some
of the partner companies where new products, services or company concepts are developed by
using the expertise of specialists within each of these partner companies.
If collaboration on this level could take place between the partner companies not only the contact
persons but people from the different companies, who are otherwise not working with SustainAgri,
will become more committed to the relationship (Brennan, 1997). The result of this possible
development will also improve the level of trust within the cluster. An increased level of trust could
also result in the partner companies becoming more outspoken regarding their expectations of the
relationship with the effect of the partner companies being more involved in the decision-making
process. This change will develop the relationship into a high degree partnership (Brennan, 1997).
Of course, the influences of the implementation of a shared intranet, as described above, are all
based on a best-case scenario. A scenario, where the intranet could create a domino effect, which
will help SustainAgri and the partner companies realise the potential of their relationship. By doing
this, they will create a more equal relationship without any power asymmetry and two-way
communication.
In case the introduction of an intranet does not have the effect described above, it should still be a
step closer two-way communication. This will mean that the partner companies will still receive
more information and knowledge than previously, which is mentioned earlier in this section.
The biggest difference (Brennan, 1997) will be that the move towards a fully committed
relationship will fail to happen and this, in turn, will mean that the shared research and development
(Gao, 2007) projects will not become a reality. This means that even though the levels of
commitment, satisfaction and trust will be improved, there will still need to be taken more action in
order to gain the most from the organisation-public relationship between SustainAgri and the
partner companies.
However, even if the intranet does not have the described effect on the relationship, there seems to
still be improvements in the relationship. This is due to the creation of two-way communication
between within the relationship, which would make it a sound investment to create. SustainAgri
Page 72 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
will then also have implemented the intranet, which could be used as the main channel for
communication between the foundation and its partner companies.
4.4 Theory based on the case study of SustainAgriAs already mentioned during the discussion of the current state of the relationship between
SustainAgri and its partner companies, the theories used are created for the B2C market and not for
B2B relationship management. Brennan (1997) is the main exception because he studied the
relationship between companies in the UK.
Due to the theories focusing on B2C markets, different factors such as the workload of a contact
person, the power of the contact person (in terms of power within his own company) and the overall
company commitment also could affect a B2B relationship. Vice Director of SustainAgri, Carsten
Møller, also mentioned that it was easier for a foundation to be accepted by a company if its contact
person was the Managing Director.
From the information gained from questionnaires and interviews, together with the results of the
discussion, it appears that knowledge management, in particular the exchange of knowledge, is a
larger factor in relationship management than previously assumed. Again it is important to mention,
that there does not exist much research within this particular area and specific models and theories
therefore have not been developed.
The reason for this assumption is the fact that 70% of the questionnaires stated that they entered the
relationship in order to be part of a network and almost just as many had not been satisfied with the
results of the relationship. A reason for this could be that SustainAgri does not make much use of
knowledge management aspects and as a result of this, the partner companies are not satisfied with
the relationship.
From the collected data, it could also seem that SustainAgri is not a knowledge organisation, even
though this is its primary objective. According to Christian Sønderup, it is one of the most
important aspects of the creation of a relationship between a foundation and its partner companies.
It could seem that knowledge management and relationship management are interconnected if a
foundation, such as SustainAgri, and its partner companies are to develop a relationship.
Therefore a greater amount of trust is needed between the partner companies. When this is
developed it will increase the level of commitment.
Page 73 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
This will happen by increasing the knowledge exchange among the partner companies (the aspect of
knowledge management and the willingness to share and gather knowledge), the aspect of trust (the
development of shared norms and values), commitment (the resources spent on reaching goals and
objectives) and two-way communication (an equal dialogue between all parties involved in the
relationship). This can be described as a cycle in which each of its components affects the other.
When all four aspects are affected, a greater level of dependency among the partner companies is
developed. And the cycle begins again (This further explains the Knowledge+Relationship
Management Model on page 69).
As a result of this, new knowledge will be exchanged in order to reach new objectives and goals
which results in an increased level of trust. Trust will be improved as the development of new
norms and values, based on the new goals and objectives, are created.
The aspect of trust amongst the partner companies will help them create a shared framework for the
relationship. This framework will also help the partner companies, and the foundation, reach goals
and objectives set by all involved. Each time the framework, consisting of shared values and norms,
is adjusted, the partner companies will become more aligned in their organisational way of thinking
(Brennan, 1997). This could also result in an alignment of company culture and horisontal
management between the partner companies. This will have a positive effect on the exchange of
knowledge (Kale & Singh, 2009).
Knowledge exchange and trust will then affect the commitment level – when the involved
companies see good reason for investing time and resources on reaching the goals and objectives
set. An increase in commitment will occur when the company can reach the goals and objectives at
a lower cost than if they were to do the same work alone (Hon & Grunig, 1999). The more of the
partner companies’ expectations the foundation meets, the more likely the foundation is to expand
its portfolio potentially attracting more partner companies.
The increased levels of knowledge exchange, trust and commitment will then affect the
communication, which will become more open and symmetrical. This should then ensure a constant
two-way communication in which the foundation and its partner companies discuss and plan ways
in which communication can be improved as well as how every partner company can contribute. By
including all partner companies, as well as the foundation, in the act of two-way communication, an
Page 74 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
increased level of knowledge exchange should take place. Lastly, the dependency of the partner
companies towards each other, and the foundation, should then again be increased.
This way the cycle is then starting again and all previous processes will thus be improved on
accordingly to reach new goals and objectives. The more the aspects of the
Knowledge+Relationship Management Model are improved, the closer an organisation-public
relationship moves away towards becoming (Brennan, 1997) a fully committed relationship.
This way, there is interconnectivity between knowledge management and relationship management
which makes it clear that one management function cannot fulfil its potential without the aspects of
the other management function as well.
The Knowledge+Relationship Management Model is based on the assumption that all partner
companies have set up goals and objectives in connection with entering into the relationship. This
way it becomes possible for the partner companies to better influence the choices made by
foundation. When the Knowledge+Relationship Management Model has been completed a number
of times, a greater possibility of shared problem solving, both related and unrelated to the shared
goals and objectives (Brennan, 1997), and a shared research and development stage arises (Gao,
2007).
During the shared research and development stage, the partner companies work together with
employees from all partner companies in order to develop new products and services. This could
strengthen the relationship as well as help the partner companies reach the goals and objectives set
at the beginning of this process (Gao, 2007).
This again will increase the dependency of the involved companies (Ford, 1980) and will, as part of
the process, improve all the aspects of the Knowledge+Relationship Management Model
(knowledge exchange, trust, commitment and two-way communication) as a result of the
cooperation within research and development.
Another consequence of the Knowledge+Relationship Management Model would seem to be its
ability to move from being part of a win-lose relationship (Hung, 2005), where only one party gains
from the relationship, to becoming a win-win relationship such as an exchange or a communal
relationship (Hon & Grunig, 1999). When reaching this stage within relationship management, the
Page 75 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
possibilities for further cooperation, such as those explained above, become more likely (Hung,
2005).
In order to further prove the connection between relationship and knowledge management
functions, the Relationship+Knowledge Management Model has also been created.
Compared to the first one, this cycle includes the element of knowledge exchange later in the
process. It consists of the same elements as the Knowledge+Relationship Management Model but
starts out by focusing on relationship management factors (Hon & Grunig, 1999) before focusing on
knowledge management factors (Kale & Singh, 2009).
The definitions of the elements used within the Relationship+Knowledge Management Model are
the same as the ones explained, and used, for the Knowledge+Relationship Management Model
mentioned previously.
The model can be seen underneath:
4.4.1 Relationship+Knowledge Management Model
As previously explained, this model starts with the implementation of relational factors: trust and
two-way communication.
Page 76 of 234
Dependency
Knowledge
exchange
Trust
CommitmentTwo-way
communication
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Trust needs to be established in the beginning of every new relationship and this is done by setting
up the framework, consisting of values and norms, in order to gain as much as possible from the
B2B relationship.
The creation of trust within the relationship, and the need for all involved to reach their objectives
and goals, will improve the two-way communication between all companies within the relationship.
The two-way communication will be improved since the companies, in order to fulfil their goals
and objectives, will need to work together. This can only happen if an increase in the level of
communication occurs.
When the step of two-way communication has been reached a natural development of this, and of
the relationship as a whole, will be the increase of the exchange of knowledge. This will take place
in order for the companies to reach their goals and also in order for the relationship to be proven a
success because, at this stage, many resources have been used to develop it.
As the three first factors have been reached, the last factor, commitment (Brennan, 1997), will then
have to be dealt with. This will happen by all companies working together to reach their goals and
objectives which will increase the level of commitment.
When all four stages have been reached it will create a greater level of dependency between the
companies. This will help develop the relationship and reach new goals and objectives. These
aspects will instigate a move towards a high degree partnership (Brennan, 1997).
The consequences of the completion of the model should be the same as the ones explained for the
knowledge and relationship model.
4.3 ReliabilityIn order to ensure reliability of the research, I have, during my sections regarding the current
relationship between SustainAgri and the partner companies and how this can be improved, talked
to the employees of SustainAgri and asked them about how they see the current relationship status.
The employees have been able to recognise the main issues with the current relationship which I,
through the qualitative and quantitative data collections methods, have identified. This way the
reliability of the thesis has been secured (Daymon & Holloway, 2010).
Page 77 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Furthermore, the employees have also, on a regular basis, agreed to look through the main points of
my discussion section to see if there were aspects which they though should be included.
4.4 GeneralisationMy models may be generalisable in specific instances where a relationship between two companies
on a B2B market does not live up to the expectations set by one or both parties involved. However,
at this stage, it is difficult to know since they have not been tested. However, what may make them
generalisable is the fact that the aspects, and the definition of those, are very broad. Therefore, they
are not constricted to only being used within a specific context. But further research and testing of
them, and the areas in which they function, is needed to be able to know anything with certainty.
However, even though it, at this point, is not clear whether or not the models themselves are
generalisable, they do seem to indicate that the combination of relationship management and
knowledge management will improve the success when developing relationships on a B2B market.
This is an area which has not previously been investigated but there seems to be a reason to
combine these two areas of research when looking into relationship management on B2B market in
the future. Furthermore, whether the models are generalisable or not, the combination of
relationship management and knowledge management shows a significant interrelation which has
been shown with this thesis but needs to be looked into further.
4.5 ValidityThe area of the thesis and the originality of the research results make the findings within this thesis
valid research which might assist other when doing future research. The validity of my thesis is due
to the relevance of the thesis. The areas within marketing, communication and management, which
have been discussed and explained during the thesis, are of relevance to scholars doing future
research in proving a connection between the two above mentioned management areas which is not
covered by existing literature and research. It will also help strengthen the argument of why
relationship management is relevant for companies within B2B markets (Daymon & Holloway,
2010).
Page 78 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
4.6 FindingsDuring this entire section of the thesis, I have put forward some suggestions to improve the
relationship between SustainAgri and the partner companies.
The first suggestion was for the partner companies to set up goals and objectives for the relationship
and that these goals and objectives be made clear to SustainAgri. This way it would be possible for
the foundation to divide the partner companies into smaller segments, groups, in which the
companies had similar goals and objectives. It would then be easier for them to work together in
reaching those and then use SustainAgri both as a shared secretariat as well as a consultant. This
would increase the commitment of the partner companies as well as the sharing and gathering of
knowledge both for the partner companies but also for SustainAgri. In this connection, it should
also increase the influence of the partner companies in the overall decisions made by the foundation
which should improve the overall commitment of all involved.
In addition, two models were created which highlight the most important aspects for SustainAgri to
focus on when improving the relationship. The first model focused on: knowledge exchange, trust,
commitment and two-way communication and how this created dependency between the partner
companies and SustainAgri. This could also help progress the relationships (Brennan, 1997) from
being no shared commitment partnerships to becoming high degree relationships. It could also
(Hung, 2005) develop the contractual relationship between the involved parties, which is located
within the win-lose zone of Hung’s (2005) model, into either exchange or communal relationships
which are both within the win-win zone, meaning that all parties gain from the relationship. Both
models seem to indicate that further improvements to relationships on B2B markets can be found by
combining the research from both relationship management and knowledge management.
The second model, which was explained during the previous section, also focused on combining
relationship management with knowledge management and how this could improve relationships on
B2B markets. The same aspects have been included for the creation of this model, as the previous
one; however, the aspect of knowledge management is placed later in the process. This is done to
further illustrate the improvements of relationships when combining relationship management with
knowledge management.
Page 79 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
These models may be generalisable, in the sense that they may be usable within a similar context
involving relationship management between a foundation and its partner companies. However,
testing of the models will be needed in order to fully know if they are generalisable.
The models do show, as explained above, that even if the models are not generalisable the
combination of relationship management and knowledge management, in order to further improve
organisation-public relationships, is relevant to researchers and scholars alike.
Furthermore, a suggestion concerning the creation of an intranet has been discussed. By doing so,
there could be an increase in commitment from the partner companies as well as an increased
interest in the projects of SustainAgri. Not only from the contact persons, as it is currently the case,
but from the entire companies as it becomes easier to follow the development of e.g. projects. This
could increase the relevance of SustainAgri inside the partner companies and result in the increase
of commitment and knowledge exchange – not only between the partner companies but also
internally. This would also provide the contact persons with more relevant information which they
might not posses currently. Additionally, this would increase the two-way communication between
all parties in the relationship as both SustainAgri and the contact persons should be able to post new
information or comments on the intranet. Further developments to the intranet could be made,
depending on the level of satisfaction and involvement from the partner companies. Finally, it
would make it easier for the contact persons to involve other employees from their own companies,
when all relevant information as well as the relevant discussions could take place via this
communication channel, and it this way can easily be shared with other employees. These
employees might then be able to contribute with information and knowledge which is not being
done currently.
Page 80 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Part V: Final conclusion
5. ConclusionMy thesis focused on three research questions and due to this my thesis is be divided into three
sections answering the relevant research question.
The reason for the importance of relationship management within companies operating on the B2B
market is the additional benefits each company involved can gain from this.
By forming a relationship, there is a possibility for one company to collaborate with other
companies in order to reach a common goal which would otherwise not have been possible to do.
There is the possibility of having expert employees work together on shared projects and, if the
relationship develops into a communal relationship, there is also the chance of creating cross-
organisational task forces where specific problems which might not be related to the relational goals
are looked into and solved together. Within relationships between companies, there is also the
chance for the involved parties to share and gather knowledge which can help them all reach their
relationship goals and objectives. This can help companies become emergent because they hold
more knowledge than previously. This increase in exchange of knowledge across companies can
increase the possibility of the companies making research and development projects together. This
will make it possible for all expert employees with knowledge of the relevant areas to work together
and co-creation between the companies will take place.
Finally, relationships on B2B markets and an increase in collaboration will make it possible for the
companies to cut costs since the cost itself would be split between more companies and expert
employees.
Within the case study of SustainAgri and its partner companies, there seems to be a general lack of
commitment and cooperation among the partner companies.
By using the relationship management dimensions set up by Hon and Grunig in 1999 (trust,
commitment, satisfaction and control mutuality) SustainAgri’s current relationship with the partner
companies has been analysed.
From the analysis, it would seem that some aspects, such as the power of a contact person within his
own company and aspects such as the current workload might have an effect on relationships
Page 81 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
between companies on a B2B market. However, since the dimensions created by Hon & Grunig
(1999) are based on a B2C market there may some differences, for example connected to the
importance of the relationship from the contact persons’ point of view, which might be connected to
the above mentioned aspects of the contact persons.
The majority of the partner companies do not feel that they have any influence in the decisions
made by SustainAgri. This could be the reason for the current contractual relationship between the
parties in which the partner companies only do what is required of them in connection with the
partnership agreement which they sign before becoming a partner company.
Also, a majority of the partner companies went into the relationship because they thought that they
would become part of a network of companies in which they would be able to exchange knowledge
and help each other. However, since this is clearly not the case in the current state of the
relationship, there seems to be a distinct lack of commitment, satisfaction and trust between the
parties. These aspects hinder the development of the relationship and of the cluster of companies
becoming a network and SustainAgri as a knowledge organisation.
In general there also seems to be a lack of communication between SustainAgri and the partner
companies, which might be the reason the partner companies see themselves as not having a say in
the decisions.
Within this section there seems to be a clear connection between relationship management and
knowledge management since both were something which the partner companies expected when
they entered the relationship. Also the lack of knowledge exchange seems to have a negative effect
on the overall relationship.
In connection with the proposed improvements for the current relationship the creation of an
intranet and the segment of the partner companies were proposed.
The intranet should become a platform from where newsletters, updates and information, both from
SustainAgri but also from the partner companies, could be shared. This should increase the
commitment and satisfaction within the relationship and should help the companies work together.
The intranet should also make it easier for the contact persons to involve other people from their
companies; in order to make SustainAgri a more integrated part of the partner companies. Also this
Page 82 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
might encourage more knowledge exchange amongst the partner companies which would increase
the current level of cooperation in the cluster.
The second suggestion was for the partner companies to express their goals and objectives with the
relationship to SustainAgri. The foundation would then make segments in which partner companies
with the same, or similar, goals and objectives would be able to work together and have meetings
on their own and with an employee from SustainAgri. This should be created in order to increase
the level of knowledge sharing and knowledge gathering and be another way of the partner
companies to reach their expectations. One person from each segment should then have regular
meeting with each other, as well as an employee from SustainAgri, and by doing so knowledge
could be exchanged more efficiently.
As a result of this, two models containing aspects from relationship management theories and
knowledge management theories were created. The models focused on the creation of trust, two-
way communication, knowledge exchange, commitment and dependency.
Due to the findings of the discussion and the suggested improvements of the relationship between
SustainAgri and the partner companies, it seems that there is a connection between knowledge
management and relationship management. It seems that relationships on a B2B market functions
better when knowledge which can help one or more parties in a relationship is exchanged. This
could also have an impact on the development of relationships, shared research and development
projects and the dependency of the parties involved.
The models, Knowledge+Relationship Management Model and Relationship+Knowledge
Management Model, may be generalisable and possible to use within other contexts based on B2B
relationship management. This is possible since the aspects, and definitions, used for the models are
very broad and therefore do not constrict any future use. However, since they are developed based
on a case study, it will be important to further test them to find out their applicability for other
companies and within other contexts. If they are generalisable, they may help other B2B
relationships improve their exchange of knowledge and levels of trust, commitment and two-way
communication.
Page 83 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
5.1 Further researchA definitive explanation of the word relationship in connection with its use within communication
literature is needed. Almost no definitions exist within this area since the researchers only
investigate the meaning of relationship management. In this regard, the definition of relationship,
which Broom, Casey and Ritchey (1997) also could not find, seems to weaken the area of
relationship management as no scholarly definition really seem to be present within the literature.
Further research into the connection between relationship management and knowledge management
is needed in order to uncover if these two areas are equally important when developing and
maintaining relationships or if one area requires more focus than the other.
In this connection it will be relevant to investigate whether the models I have produced for
SustainAgri are generalisable when it comes to other B2B companies wanting to optimise their
relationship. If this is the case, it will be important to also uncover the precise benefits connected
with the use of the models. The benefits might change compared the predicted benefits they would
have on SustainAgri. Either way, a validation or rejection of the models is needed. Research is also
needed in connection with the models’ implications on the fields of relationship management and
knowledge management.
Finally, the development of theories and models for the use of relationship management solely
within B2B markets is needed. At the moment they primarily focus on the B2C market.
Furthermore, more investigation into non-profit foundations using relationship management and
knowledge management with its public (partner companies) is needed. This area does not seem
present in the minds of researchers, when they are considering which areas to investigate next in the
hope of generating new and theoretically useful results for future use by other researchers.
Page 84 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
BibliographyAlvesson, Mats; Skölberg, Kaj (2009): “Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative
Research”, SAGE Publications Ltd., London.
Andersen, Poul Houman (2001): ‘Relationship development and marketing communication: an
integrative model’, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 167-182
Andreasen, Alan R.; Goodstein, Ronald C.; Wilson, Joan W. (2005): ’Transferring”marketing
knowledge” to the nonprofit sector’, California Management Review, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp. 46-67
Barnes, J. G.; Howlett, D. M. (1998): ‘Predictors of equity in relationships between service
providers and retail customers’, International Journal of Bank Management, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 5-
23
Bhaskar, Roy E. A. (1998): “Critical Realism Essential Readings”, 1st edition, Routledge, London.
Blois, Keith (2010): ‘The legitimacy of power in business-to-business relationships’, Marketing
Theory, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 161-172
Brennan, Ross (1997): ‘Buyer/supplier partnering in the British industry: the automotive and
telecommunications sectors’, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 13, Issue 8, pp. 759-775
Broom, Glen M.; Casey, Shawna; Ritchey, James (1997): ‘Toward a concept and theory of
organization-public relationships’, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 83-98
Brown, Chris (2007):’ Situating Critical Realism’, Millennium – Journal of International Studies,
Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 409-416.
Bruning, Stephen D. (2000): ‘Examining the role that personal, professional, and community
relationships play in respondent relationship recognition and intended behavior’, Communication
Quaterly, Vol. 48, No. 4, pp. 437-448
Page 85 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Bruning, Stephen D.; Hatfield, Marty (2002): ‘Linking Organization-Public Relationship Attitudes
and Satisfaction Outcomes’, Journal of Promotion Management, Vol. 8, Issue 2, pp. 3-19
Bruning, Stephen D.; Ledingham, John A. (1999): ‘Relationships between organizations and
publics: Development of a multi-dimensional organization-public relationship scale’, Public
Relations Review, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 157-170
Claver-Cortès, Enrique; Zaragoza-Sáez, Patrocinio; Pertusa-Ortega, Eva (2007): ‘Organizational
structure features supporting knowledge management processes’, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 45-57
Dart, Raymond (2004): ‘Being “Business-Like” in a Nonprofit Organization: A Grounded and
Inductive Typology’, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 290, pp. 290-310
Daymon, Christine; Holloway, Immy (2010):”Qualitative Research Methods in Public Relations
and Marketing Communications”.Routledge. Chippenham, UK.
Dimitriades, Zoe S. (2005): ‘Creating strategic capabilities: organizational learning and knowledge
management in the new economy’, European Business Review, Vol. 17, Issue 4, pp. 314-324
Doyle, Peter (2000):”Value-Based Marketing: Marketing Strategies for Corporate Growth and
Shareholder Value”, John Wiley & Sons Ltd. West Sussex, England.
Duncan, T.; Caywood, C. (1996) have written the section: ‘The concept, process, and evolution of
integrated marketing communication’, in Thorson, E.; Moore, J.: “Integrated communication:
Synergy of persuasive voices”. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mahwah. New Jersey.
Egan, John (2011):”Relationship Marketing: Exploring relational strategies in marketing”. 4th
edition. Financial Times/ Prentice Hall. Pearson Education. Essex, UK.
Page 86 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Ford, D. (1980): ‘Buyer/seller relationships in international industrial markets’, European Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 339-354
Fox, Stephen (2009):’ Applying critical realism to information and communication technologies: a
case study’, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 27, Issue 5, pp. 465-472.
Gao, Ping (2007): Using Structuration Theory to Analyze Knowledge and Process Management in a
Consortium: A Case Study, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 14, No. 2 pp.-104-116.
Ghauri, Pervez; Grønhaug, Kjell (2010):” Research Methods in Business Studies”. Fourth edition.
Prentice Hall – Financial Times/Pearson Education Limited. Essex, England.
Grönroos, C (1994): ‘From marketing mix to relationship marketing: towards a paradigm shift in
marketing’, Management Decisions, Vol. 32, Issue 2, pp. 4-20
Gruen, Thomas W.; Summers, John O.; Acito, Frank (2000): ‘Relationship marketing activities,
commitment, and membership behaviors in professional associations’, Journal of Marketing, Vol.
64, No. 3, pp. 34-49
Grunig, James E. (1993): ’Image and substance: From symbolic to behavioral relationships’, Public
Relations Review, Vol. 19, Issue 2, pp. 121-139
Grunig, James E. (2002): “Qualitative Methods for Assessing Relationships Between Organizations
and Publics”. Institute for public relations. Can be found via this link:
http://www.instituteforpr.org/topics/organizations-publics-relationships/
Hon, Linda Childers (1998): ’Demonstrating effectiveness in public relations: goals, objectives, and
evaluation’, Public Relations Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 103-135
Hon, Linda Childers; Grunig, James E. (1999): Guidelines for Measuring Relationships in Public
Relations, Gold Standard Paper of the Commission on Public Relations Measurement & Evaluation.
Can be found via this link:
Page 87 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
http://www.aco.nato.int/resources/9/Conference%202011/Guidelines_Measuring_Relationships
%5B1%5D.pdf.
Hume, Craig; Hume, Margree (2008): ’The strategic role of knowledge management in nonprofit
organisations’, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 13, Issue
2, pp. 129-140
Hung, Chun-ju Flora (2005): ’Exploring types of organization-public relationships and their
implications for relationship management in public relations’, Journal of Public Relations
Research, Vol. 17, Issue 4, pp. 393-426
Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia (2011):’Enabling collaborative innovation – knowledge protection for
knowledge sharing’, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 14, Issue 3, pp. 303-321.
Ipe, Minu (2003): ’Knowledge Sharing on Organizations: A Conceptual Framework’, Human
Ressource Development Review, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 337-359
Jeppesen, Søren (2005):’Critical Realism as an Approach to Unfolding Emperical Findings:
Thoughts on Fieldwork in South Africa on SMEs and Environment’, The Journal of
Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies, Vol. 4, no.1, pp. 1-9.
The article can be found via this link: http://research.cbs.dk/da/publications/critical-realism-as-an-
approach-to-unfolding-empirical-findings(658c42b0-8eb4-11db-a124-000ea68e967b).html
Johannesen, R. L. (1971): ‘The Emerging concept of communication as dialogue’, The Quarterly
Journal of Speech, Vol. 57, No. 4, pp. 373-382
Kale, Prashant; Singh, Harbir (2009): ’Managing strategic alliances: what do we know now, and
where do we go from here’, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 23, Issue 3, pp. 45-62
Ki, Eyung-Jung; Hon, Linda Childers (2007):’Reliability and validity of organization-public
relationship measurement and linkages among relationship indicators in a membership
organization’, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, Vol. 84, Issue 3, pp. 419-438.
Klein, Daniel (2009): ‘Disintegrated Marketing’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 81, Issue 3, pp.
19-20.
Page 88 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Kotler, P. (1994): “Marketing Management”. 8th edition. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Prentice-
Hall.
Ledingham, J. A.; Bruning, S. D.; Thomlinson, T. D.; Lesko, C. (1997): ‘The applicability of
interpersonal relationship dimensions to an organizational context: Toward a theory of relational
loyalty; A qualitative approach’, The Academy of Managerial Communications Journal, Vol. 1,
No.1, pp. 23-43
Ledingham, John A. (2000): ‘Guidelines to Building and Maintaining Strong Organization-Public
Relationships’, Public Relations Quarterly, Vol. 45, Issue 3, pp. 44-46
Ledingham, John A.; Bruning, Stephen D (1998): ‘Relationship management in public relations:
dimensions of an organization-public relationship’, Public Relations Review, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 55-
65
Ledingham, John A; Bruning, Stephen D.; Wilson, Laurie J. (1999): ‘Time as an indicator of the
perception and behavior of members of a key public: Monitoring and predicting organization-public
relationships’, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 11, Issue 2, pp. 167-183
Lee, Dong-Joo; Ahm, Jae-Hyeon (2005): ‘Rewarding Knowledge Sharing under Measurement
Inaccuracy’, Knowledge Managaement Research & Practice, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 229-243.
Losch, Andreas (2009):’ On the Origins of Critical Realism’, Theology and Science, Vol. 7, No. 1,
pp. 85-106.
Lynch, Richard (2009):"Strategic Management", 5th edition. Pearson Education Limited. Essex,
England.
Maanen, J. van (1979):’ Reclaiming qualitative methods for organizational research: a preface’,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 520-526.
Page 89 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Mahoney, John M.; Stasson, Mark F. (2005): ‘Interpersonal and personality dimensions of
behavior: FIRO-B and the big five’, North American Journal of Psychology, June-July, Vol. 7,
Issue 2, pp. 205-216.
McCort, Daniel J. (1994): ‘A framework for evaluating the relational extent of a relationship
marketing strategy: The case of nonprofit organizations’, Journal of Direct Marketing, Vol. 8, No.
2, pp. 53-65
McEvoy, Phil; Richards, David (2006):’ A critical realist rationale for using a combination of
quantitative and qualitative methods’, Journal of Research in Nursing, Vol. 11, Issue1, pp. 66-78.
Ngah, Rohana; Jusoff, Kamaruzaman (2009):’ Tacit Knowledge Sharing and SMEs’ Organizational
Performance’, International Journal of Economics and Finance, Vol. 1, No.1, February, pp. 216-
220.
Niglas, Katrin (2009):’ How the novice researcher can make sense of mixed methods design’,
International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, Volume 3, Issue 1, April, pp. 34-46.
O’Malley, L.; Tynan, C. (1999):‘The utility of the relationship metaphor in consumer markets: a
critical evaluation’, Journal of Marketing Theory, Vol. 15, Issue 7, pp. 587-602
Oye, N. D.; Salleh, Mazleena; Noorminshah, A. (2011):’ Knowledge Sharing in the Workplace:
Motivators and Demotivators’, International Journal of Managing Information Technology, Vol. 3,
No. 4, November, pp. 71-84.
Palmer, A. J. (2000): ‘Co-operation and competition: a Darwinian synthesis of relationship
marketing’, European journal of Marketing, Vol. 34, Issue 5, pp. 687-704
Phillips, David (2006a): ‘Relationships are the core value for organizations: A practitioner
perspective’, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 34-42
Page 90 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Phillips, David (2006b): ‘Towards relationship management: Public relations at the core of
organisational development’, Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 211-226
Pratschke, Jonathan (2003):’Realistic Models? Critical Realism and Statistical Models in the Social
Sciences’, Philosophica, Vol. 71, Issue 1, pp. 13-38.
Reed, Michael I. (2001):’Organizations, Trust and Control: A Realist Analysis’, Organizations
Studies, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 201-228.
Rogers, C. R. (1959): ‘A theory of Therapy, Personality, and interpersonal relationships as
Developed in the Client-Centered Framework’ in Koch, S.: Psychology: A Study of Science , Vol. 3,
pp. 184-246, Boston. Houghton Mifflin.
Smith, Peter A. C. (2005):’Knowledge sharing and the strategic capital: The importance and
identification of opinion leaders’, The Learning Organization, Vol. 12, No. 6, pp. 563-573.
Smyth, Hedley (2000): Marketing and Selling Construction Services, 1st edition. Wiley-Blackwell,
Oxford.
Smyth, Hedley; Fitch, Tim (2009): ‘Application of relationship marketing and management: A large
contractor case study’, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 27, Issue 4, pp. 399-410
Tadajewski, M. (2009): ‘The foundations of relationship marketing: reciprocity and trade relations’,
Marketing Theory, Vol. 9, Issue 1, pp. 9-38
The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (1995), ninth edition. Clarendon Press. Oxford.
Varey, Richard J.; Ballantyne, David have written the chapter: ‘Relationship Marketing and the
Challenge of Dialogical Interaction’, pp. 11-28, in Bejou, David; Palmer, Adrian (2005): “The
Future of Relationship Marketing”. 2nd edition. The Haworth Press, Inc., Binghamton, NY.
Page 91 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Wilson, Laurie J. (1994): ‘Excellent companies and coalition-building among the Fortune 500 A
value- and relationship-based theory’, Public Relations Review, Vol. 20, Issue 4, pp. 333-343
Yang, Tung-Mou; Maxwell, Terrence A. (2011): ‘Information-sharing in public organizations: A
literature review of interpersonal, intra-organizational and inter-organizational success factors’,
Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 28, Issue 2, pp. 164-175.
Zhang, Xi; Chen, Zhenjiao; Vogel, Doug; Yuan, Minghui; Guo, Chuanjie (2010):’ Knowledge-
Sharing Reward Dynamics in Knowledge Management Systems: Game Theory-Based Empirical
Validation’, Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, Vol. 20, No.
2, pp. 103-122.
Page 92 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Appendix 1: SustainAgri’s overall purpose (2002)
Page 93 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Page 94 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Appendix 2: SustainAgri’s current EU goals
As of July 1, 2011, SustainAgri has initiated its second EU project, which will run until October 2013. The goals of the EU project include internal anchoring of the cluster as well as moving up the value chain. The EU project provides for SustainAgri to research and develop the potential of the cluster collaboration.
The EU project includes six sub-projects, and the overall goal is to create the foundation for collaboration between Danish companies for project export. Focus will be on both the cluster in total as well as the unique needs for development of the single company. The sub-projects are conducted jointly between SustainAgri and our partners.
1. Joint and dynamic market processes
Goal: Completed market initiatives, as well as the pilot and customer projects.
Result: They show great need for the development of a common work process for market and customer information. This project is to develop solutions for a dynamic knowledge flow to be of use for the sales process.
2. Anchoring of new organization models
Goal: This project is to anchor the cluster collaboration within the partner companies in order to obtain the full advantage of the collaboration and ensure coherence between the cluster and the corporate strategies as well as business models.
Result: Project evaluation shows that the cluster initiative has not been fully implemented in the partner companies, as no organizational changes within the companies have been performed.
3. Knowledge sharing and practical learning
Goal: This project aims to develop feedback loops to ensure learning and thereby improve knowledge sharing at both the cluster and company levels.
Result: Learning by doing is one of the cornerstones of project organization. Throughout SustainAgri’s three years of developing solutions and testing them in pilot projects, different problems have occurred, but the experience of the problem-solving activities has yet to be converted into practical learning tools.
Page 95 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
4. Standardizing and templates
Goal: To develop a common best practice for sales, tender and planning processes to ensure the necessary changes implemented within the companies.
Result: This sub-project focuses on determining the relationship between the partner companies in order to develop standards and templates, common processes and generic models adaptable for the given customer project.
5. Maturation of the cluster
Goal: SustainAgri is currently witnessing a need among customers as well as potential partner companies to involve companies with focus on the next step of the value chain: the processing of agricultural products.
Result: The 2007-2010 SustainAgri cluster initiative has formed the basis of the commercial breakthrough in turn-key solutions which the partner companies have experienced. With the inclusion of these companies, the communication and the visibility of the cluster as well as business models and arrangements will have to be revised to follow the cluster development.
6. Competency development: From Component Supplier to Cluster Participant
Goal: This sub-project is created to speed up the learning process and the process of the development of networks between old and new companies to ensure a smooth reconciliation of the cluster.
Result: This sub-project focuses on the development and testing of an effective method of implementing the cluster procedures in new partner companies and introducing new colleagues to the work process, tools etc. in a fast and efficient way.
Page 96 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Appendix 3: Organisational structure of SustainAgri
Page 97 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Appendix 4: Interview transcription – Carsten Møller
Interview between the participant Carsten Møller (CM), Vice Director of SustainAgri and Managing Director of Danish Water Services and Danish Energy Solutions, and the interviewer Esben Nørris Christensen (ENC).
The interview took place May 10th and lasted roughly 49 minutes.
ENC: Først inden vi går i gang, vil jeg høre om der er noget, som du gerne vil spørge om?
CM: Nej, jeg synes vi er klar til at begynde.
ENC: Jamen det er også bare helt i orden, så fortsætter vi bare. For at kunne få et indtryk af dig, vil jeg spørge hvad din stillingsbetegnelse i SustainAgri er?
Page 98 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
CM: Den er Vicedirektør. Det eneste jeg lige vil nævne i denne forbindelse, er at det mere er en rådgivende funktion jeg har, og jeg har kun 3 timer om ugen. Så det er jo et begrænset ansvarsområde.
ENC: Ja, men du har stadig noget viden om SustainAgri?
CM: Ja.
ENC: Ja, men så fik vi jo også det på plads. Jeg ville også spørge, hvad dit job indebærer, men det har du jo sådan set svaret på. Hvor lang tid har du så arbejdet for SustainAgri?
CM: Jeg startede SustainAgri i 2003, eller rettere sagt, der eksisterede noget der hed SustainAgri her på Fyn. I 2001 tror jeg det blev etableret. Og i 2003 blev jeg bedt om, af den daværende bestyrelsesformand, som i øvrigt stadig er bestyrelsesformand Thorbjørn Sørensen, om jeg ville hjælpe nogle unge mennesker, der sad med et projekt. Og få et indhold i det, som gjorde at det også, ville kunne være en bæredygtig forretning. De havde nogle ideer om, at det skulle være Fyn, om man kunne klare, om jeg så må sige, det hele på Fyn. Men hvis man vil lave eksport, må man jo nok meget hurtigt erkende, at det simpelthen ikke kan lade sig gøre. Fyn er altså for lille. Så jeg blev bedt om, som konsulent, om at udvikle virksomheden. Da det jeg kom med, var det de ønskede at lave, og den daværende direktør, åbenbart, havde fundet et andet arbejde, blev jeg spurgt om jeg ville overtage det. Så fra 2004 og frem til for halvandet år siden, var jeg direktør.
ENC: Der arbejdede du fuldtid for SustainAgri?
CM: Nej. Jeg har jo haft et par virksomheder ved siden af: Danish Water Services og Danish Energy Solutions.
ENC: Nå, ja selvfølgelig. Men vil det sige, at du har delt din 37 timers arbejdsuge op i 3?
CM: Nu findes der i en direktørkontrakt, ikke noget der hedder 37 timer.
ENC: Nå, okay.
CM: Der er man jo så heldig, at man kan arbejde alt det man har lyst til.
ENC: Ja?
CM: Der hedder det bare, at løse opgaven. Kan man gøre det på 3 timer om ugen, så er det jo fint. Kan man lave det på 200 timer om ugen, er der heller ingen der siger noget til det.
ENC: Nej, okay. Der kan man bare se. Først her i interviewet, vil jeg høre dig mht. forholdet mellem SustainAgri og deres partnervirksomheder. Så til at starte med, vil jeg så høre dig om, hvordan du vil definerer et godt arbejdsforhold mellem virksomheder.
CM: Mellem SustainAgri og virksomhederne? Det, det efter min mening, drejer sig om, er at vi tilfører noget værdi, som virksomhederne aktivt kommer til at bruge – på en sådan måde at de tager ansvar, på det vi fælles [SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne] laver. Og får en forståelse af, at
Page 99 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
hvis Danmark skal klare sig, eller hvis virksomhederne skal klare sig, internationalt skal de kunne komme med løsningsmodeller. Kunderne forespørger, i dag, løsninger, og ikke at få et enkelt element til en stald, fordi det er i sig selv lidt uinteressant. Styrken ligger i, at kan du få en samlet løsning, der gør at partnervirksomhedernes kunder i virkeligheden har en produktionsfremgang, fx får forbedret indeklimaet, får produceret flere grise eller hvad det end skulle være. Så når vi skal sige, hvad der er godt i et samarbejde, så er det hele den der værdibaserede del, som jeg har nævnt, men også at partnervirksomhederne forstår at indgå i konsortier. Indgå i alliancer. Indgå i samarbejdsprojekter, hvor de alle bidrager på en fornuftig måde, til et fælles projekt.
ENC: Altså bliver mere holdspillere, end de var før.
CM: Ja, og forstår hvad det vil sige, at være holdspiller. Stadig kunne levere helt skarpe priser, når man går ind til et projekt. For hvis man nu er fem virksomheder sammen, og der er bare en, der synes at, nu kan vi godt få lidt ekstra ud af det, så ødelægger han det jo totalt for de øvrige. Så der er utroligt meget arbejde, med at få sådan nogle konsortier til at forstå, hvordan man arbejder sammen, og hvordan man får, om jeg så må sige, givet et fælles tilbud der også holder.
ENC: Okay, ja. Du har jo så svaret på, hvilke aspekter du mener, er de vigtigste. Det er, som jeg har forstået de: Værdibaserede, at partnervirksomhederne kunne arbejde sammen og lave noget i fællesskab?
CM: Ja, og hvor jeg så synes, at SustainAgris rolle i den forbindelse er jo, at være med til at skabe rammerne. Være med til i virkeligheden at finde kunderne. Og så er det jo virksomhederne der skal tage over derfra. Og der er SustainAgris arbejde, at få virksomhederne, til at arbejde sammen. Altså få lavet de der konsortiedannelser, eller samarbejdsaftaler mellem virksomhederne. Og så kan vi jo hjælpe dem igen, når det kommer til finansiering. At vi i virkeligheden medbringer finansieringen, til at få projekterne, reelt kan blive gennemført. Og det er jo vigtigt, jo sværere markeder man beskæftiger sig med, og SustainAgri fokuserer jo mest på Ukraine, Rusland, Rumænien, Bulgarien og sådan nogle lande, hvor finansieringen jo i virkeligheden er meget central for at projekterne kan blive gennemført. Så hvis du kigger alene på SustainAgri, så er det projektudvikling, det er også at generere projekter, det er at skabe rammer for virksomhederne. Og så skal vi følge processen, monitere processen, og så sikre at finansieringen også kommer med, hvis der er et behov for det. Og det er der jo ofte.
ENC: Ja, det er der vel. Hvordan vil du så sige, at SustainAgri gør brug af det, du har nævnt i praksis? Det er ved at de går ud finder kunder, og så laver de der pakkeløsninger til kunderne?
CM: Hvis vi nu tager Ukraine som eksempel. Der har SustainAgri et lokalt kontor, med tre ansatte, som forsøger at finde kunderne. De forsøger simpelthen at sortere alle dem der er blålys [ikke relevante kunder] fra, og finde dem der kunne være interessante, og reelle kunder. Dvs. at de tjekker, om kunderne er kreditværdige.
ENC: Ja?
Page 100 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
CM: Hvis de ikke er kreditværdige, så kan de jo ikke få et lån. Og arbejder man med sådan en kunde, i et år på et projekt, så kan du have mistet det hele den dag, hvor projektet skal finansieres og det ikke kan lade sig gøre. Så kontorets opgave er sådan set, at få de rigtige kunder fundet frem. Når de rigtige kunder så er der, og salgsarbejdet er indledt, og SustainAgri måske har været dernede, og fortælle om de finansielle muligheder, jamen så er det, at få det samspil mellem virksomhedsgruppen og kunden i gang. Og så eller supportere den proces og hjælpe med finansieringen. Det er sådan set hovedformålet, og derfor er det typisk SustainAgri der kommer med projekter. Der kommer med kunderne, og som så skal få det hele til at fungere. Når man snakker om konsortier, skal der, for at sådan et projekt kan lykkes, være nogen der fronter [er hovedansvarlig for projektets udførelse], og typisk er SustainAgri af sted med den virksomhed, der fronter netværket, konsortiet eller hvad der ellers kan være tale om. Det er det spil, der i virkeligheden er interessant at få til at hænge rigtig godt sammen.
ENC: Ja. På hvilken måde mener du så, at SustainAgri drager fordel af partnervirksomhedernes kompetencer?
CM: De kompetencer virksomhederne har, dem har SustainAgri ikke. Vi er jo ikke fagligt tekniske. Vi har i virkeligheden de opgaver, der handler om projektudvikling. Altså være gode til at generere projekterne, være gode til at skabe rammerne for projekterne, og være gode til at få finansieringen på plads. Det er jo vores speciale. Vi aner ikke noget om grise, vi aner ikke noget om foder og specialfoder, vi aner ikke noget om mikroklima, vi aner ikke noget om staldindretning i forhold til hvilke dyr der skal være der. Om det er søer, smågrise eller hvad det er. Der er alle fagfolkene jo netop samlet i virksomhederne. Af de virksomheder er der nogen der leverer grise, der er nogen der leverer staldinventar, der er nogen der leverer ventilation, der er nogen der leverer vand og varme, der er nogen der leverer rør til gylleanlæg, der er nogen der leverer gyllebeholdere, der er nogen der leverer biogasanlæg osv. Så på den måde, kan du samle en totalpakke til kunden.
ENC: Så SustainAgri tager sig af det mere overordnede forhold og det mere kommunikationsprægede mellem virksomhederne?
CM: Ja.
ENC: Hvordan vil du så sige, at SustainAgri primært kommunikerer med partnervirksomhederne. Er det fx via mail, telefon eller nyhedsbrev, eller noget helt andet?
CM: Det kan Lasse [Bork Schmidt, Managing Director for SustainAgri] nok bedre svare på. Men jeg kan svare på, hvad der blev gjort for halvanden til to år siden.
ENC: Ja.
CM: Der blev lavet nyhedsbreve, for at sikre at alle fik lidt information, så de ved at der faktisk sker noget. Mere er det ikke. Så blev der skrevet mange mails, naturligvis, til de virksomheder som er involverede, men det væsentligste af det hele er interaktionen mellem menneskerne. Fordi det er jo ligegyldigt hvilken virksomhed det drejer sig om, i sidste ende handler det altid mennesker. Den personlige kommunikation er meget vigtig, især i de indledende processer indtil man har skabt det
Page 101 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
nødvendige ejerskab, blandt partnervirksomhederne, for projektet. Jeg vil sige at meget af det, er personlig kommunikation og delvis styring af processen, og så vil det efterfølgende bevæge sig mere over på mail og aftalegrundlag der udarbejdes osv. En række møder og den slags. Men den personlige kommunikationer meget central i det her, hvis du skal have folk til at arbejde sammen. Det gør man ikke via en mail.
ENC: Nej, der må det jo være svært, at få den samme personlige kontakt.
CM: Ja, det er det.
ENC: Men det vil så sige, at kommunikationen varierer meget alt efter, hvilken partnervirksomhed der er tale om?
CM: Ja, det gør det.
ENC: Men kommunikationen er vel også, som du selv siger, meget projektbaseret?
CM: Og meget af kommunikationen er i virkeligheden, med dem der fronter det pågældende projekt.
ENC: Ja.
CM: Hvor deres opgave så er, at sørge for at holde projektets underleverandører aktive.
ENC: Okay.
CM: Underleverandøren bliver så også, via nyhedsbreve og andet, også informeret om hvad der sker på de konkrete projekter. Så det er ikke os [SustainAgri] der kommunikerer til alle involverede parter. Det vigtigste er så, hvis vi kan få skabt det ejerskab, som vi lige snakkede om, hvor virksomheden holdes engagerede i projektet, og hvor der bruges de ressourcer der er nødvendige. Fordi det koster at lave eksport. Der skal virkeligt bruges nogle ressourcer.
ENC: Ja?
CM: Og jo større partnerskab, og jo mere af den slags der skal laves, jo flere ressourcer koster det. Men til gengæld har du så også det, som kunderne efterspørger. Nemlig den samlede pakke. Efter min mening bliver sådanne fremgangsmåder mere og mere nødvendige.
ENC: Ja, det gør det vel. Især for mindre virksomheder?
CM: Ja, for der er jo ingen af dem der kan det hele. De er jo netop specialiserede i staldinventar, eller salg af grise. Du ser dem ikke begynde at samarbejde selv, vel?
ENC: Nej. Det er egentligt utroligt at det har taget så lang tid, før man fik den ide, at man egentligt godt kunne slå sig sammen.
CM: Altså, jeg tror det her emne har været brugt, til festmiddagstaler over det hele de sidste 20 år, eller de 30 år som jeg jo har været involveret efterhånden. Men fra festtalerne og så ned til det
Page 102 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
konkrete, det er jo der det svære det er. Alle kan sige de her ting, som jeg sidder og siger nu, og synes at det lyder rigtig fint. Men når du skal sidde og virkelig lave noget, som man senere også kan være økonomisk afhængig af, og at to forskellige slags udstyr lige pludseligt skal spille sammen. Hvem har så ansvaret hvis noget går galt? Det er der det begynder at blive rigtig spændende. Så det er ikke fordi, man ikke har snakket om det her, men der er bare ikke rigtigt skabt modeller. Der er ikke rigtigt skabt øvelser, hvor man har gjort noget ved det. Og det er der jeg mener, at det er det lille bidrag SustainAgri giver. Altså forsøger at give.
ENC: Men det må da også være noget af en barriere, som man så møder på det tidspunkt, man skal tage højde for alle de ting et samarbejde indebærer. Så mister man vel også lidt lysten, til at oprette det samarbejde, fordi man så kommer til at stå med alle de problemer. Det kunne jeg da forestille mig, ville være meget generelt.
CM: Du oplever virksomheder der simpelthen siger, at det gider vi ikke. De synes at det er for voldsom en opgave. Og så forsvinder lysten lige så stille igen. Men så er der jo også andre, der bliver og siger, at det er en spændende udfordring. Og der er altid nogen der kan se lyset, og så nogen der føler at de skal bruge for mange ressourcer for et for lille udbytte. Og så holder de bare fast ved det de er gode til.
ENC: Ja.
CM: Det er jo ikke sådan, at SustainAgri kan tage æren for det jeg siger nu, vel. Men i 2008 begyndte det at gå fuldstændig galt for SustainAgris samarbejde med virksomhedsgruppen investeringsmæssigt. Du ved hvordan prisen på jord, og meget andet er gået ned og landmændene blev insolvente, og kan simpelthen ikke investere mere. Og det betød i 2008, 2009, 2010, at landmændene simpelthen ikke købte danske produkter. Tidligere der væltede det jo op, med nye stalde og nye ideer osv., men det stoppede på det tidspunkt. Og det er kun de virksomheder der nåede at flytte deres produktion fra at være salg i Danmark til eksport. Så vi har virksomheder der er gået fra, 70% på det danske marked og 30% eksport, til at have det omvendte. 70% eksport og 30% på hjemmemarkedet. Og jeg tror, et eller andet sted, at vi har haft en lille medvirken i det der, men det er en proces. Men en proces der ikke er slut endnu. De danske landmænd er ikke derhenne endnu, hvor de er på det vilde forbrugerræs. Det er de simpelthen ikke. Og det er svært for dem, at skaffe finansiering, til at lave nogen som helst forbedringer, og det kan de danske virksomheder godt mærke. Så de skal ud, hvordan de vil gøre det.
ENC: Ja.
CM: Det er min personlige holdning, som du hører her.
ENC: Jamen det er også helt fint. Det var jo også den jeg spurgte efter. Så har jeg et spørgsmål, der måske ikke er så relevant for dig, men hvor lang tid, sådan rent generelt, bruger du på at kommunikere med partnervirksomhederne?
CM: Hvis man tager det samlede forbrug, fordelt på alle tre virksomheder [SustainAgri, Danish Water Services og Danish Energy Solutions], så vil jeg sige at halvdelen af tiden, faktisk går med at
Page 103 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
sidde og snakke i telefon, og få fat i dem, og få dem drejet i den retning, som forhåbentligt er, den vej som et fælles projekt kan drives. Så det er rigtig meget af min tid. Og så skal jeg jo også servicere, og kommunikere, og måske også, føre frem mod et eller andet, som man tror er det der kan være den rigtige fælles løsning.
ENC: Vil det så sige, at fonden får en funktion som mere svarer til, at være fælles sekretariat for partnervirksomhederne?
CM: Ja det gør det. Typisk, når sådan nogle projekter går i gang, så går al korrespondance over os, og det er der vi skal være gode til at sikre, og måske også lære, at være gode til at sikre at korrespondance går fra, at vi måske har den, til at vi i virkeligheden kun kommer til at være CC [mailfunktionen når mail sendes eller modtages] på den, når det er hele det faglige forløb der kører. Fordi der skal vi ikke fronte, fordi det er ikke vores spidskompetence. Så vores arbejde er i virkeligheden, mere at få virksomhederne til at arbejde sammen, og komme ud og møde kunderne, og få skabt den troværdighed omkring det hele. Og så er det ellers virksomhederne, der må fronte på hele det faglige område. Hvor vi mere får, hvis det er mailfunktionen, CC funktion, så vi ved hvad der sker, men kun styrer der hvor processen drejer sig om, at få samarbejdet til at fungere eller hvis det handler om finansieringen.
ENC: Ja. Så man går over til, en lidt mere rådgivende eller motivator rollen?
CM: Ja.
ENC: Ja. Hvilke aspekter vil du så sige er de vigtigste, for at man kan opbygge tilliden mellem SustainAgri og så de partnervirksomheder der er?
CM: …
ENC: Altså jeg kan sige, at i faglitteraturen der står at man skal fokusere på integritet, pålidelighed og de kompetencer man kan stille til rådighed fra de forskellige virksomheder.
CM: Det svarer lidt til det jeg også siger, ikke?
ENC: Ja.
CM: Vi har tre-fire kompetencer, og det er dem vi skal holde fast ved. Vi skal ikke prøve at gå ind på andre gebeter. Tværtom, vi skal holde os til det vi er gode til, og det mener jeg stadigvæk er projektudvikling, projektgenerering, rammebetingelser og finansiering. Det er vores kerne. Og hvis det bliver gjort professionelt, så får du også skabt tilliden hos virksomhederne. Og hvis de kan se, at det faktisk først kan komme til at fungere, mellem virksomhederne, ved at have os med så er det et stort skridt. Det kan godt være at det ikke betragtes sådan, men det er det faktisk. Fordi det er noget, der ikke rigtigt findes så mange steder.
ENC: Nej, ikke endnu i hvert fald.
CM: Nej.
Page 104 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
ENC: Hvilket tillidsniveau vil du så sige der eksisterer mellem SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne lige pt.?
CM: Jeg tror et eller andet sted at tilliden er der.
ENC: Ja.
CM: Men det er en tynd is, og der skal ikke meget til at bryde den. Men den er der. Og hvis den ikke havde været der, ville SustainAgri ikke eksistere i dag.
ENC: Nej.
CM: Så den er bygget op fra nul, og så til at være en institution der bliver taget alvorligt.
ENC: Ja.
CM: Og hvor der jo er 20 virksomheder med, som er interesserede i at bruge de faciliteter og de værktøjer, som vi har udarbejdet. Så der er en tillid, fra dem vi har med at gøre. Men en virksomhed er jo ikke en mand, eller to mænd. Og vi oplever jo, nu snakker jeg lige lidt bredt igen [om alle 3 fonde], at det afhænger meget af hvem i virksomheden det drejer sig om. Vi kan jo ikke servicere alle mennesker i en virksomhed, så vi har en kontaktperson.
ENC: Ja.
CM: Og det der cirkler om ham, har en rimelig høj troværdighed. Men nogle gange ser du, at medarbejdere i virksomhederne vil selv. Og også vil tage æren for det selv.
ENC: Ja.
CM: Og derfor kan der være en interesse i, at koble os af. Og det oplever vi også. At enkeltmedarbejdere ligesom lukker af, for at sige at det klarer jeg selv.
ENC: Nå.
CM: Og det er helt fint. Et eller andet sted, har vi jo ikke brug for at blive fremhævet, for at have lavet et eller andet stort. Men det er jo nogle problematikker der gør, at den der tillid, også afhænger af hvem det er, i de enkelte virksomheder.
ENC: Så det vil sige, at mængden af tillid afhænger af, hvem i har mest kontakt til?
CM: Ja, og hvis du har nogle sælgere. Det er den ene sælger der er hos os, ikke?
ENC: Ja.
CM: Det er jo ikke ensbetydende med, at de andre sælgere synes at de vil følge vores regler, hvis de har en anden vinkel på det. Så vi er meget afhængige af den der kommunikation, vi har med de centrale personer i partnervirksomhederne.
ENC: Men de plejer også tit, at være højt placeret i hierarkiet, gør de ikke?
Page 105 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
CM: Jo.
ENC: Og netop derfor, går jeg ud fra, at det kan fungere sådan?
CM: Det gør tingene lettere. Så er det direktøren man snakker med, så bliver tingene sendt ned i systemet, og så fungerer det langt, langt bedre.
ENC: Hvor meget tillid, vil du sige, der er virksomhederne imellem i SustainAgris klynge?
CM: Det er jo der, det begynder at blive vanskeligt. Altså de helt svære øvelser i det her, det er jo, og jeg tror faktisk at jeg glemte at sige det før, det med konsortiedannelser.
ENC: Ja?
CM: Og for reelt at få virksomhederne til at arbejde sammen, når der også er økonomi imellem dem.
ENC: Ja.
CM: Få sikret at der er nogle back-to-back aftaler [samarbejdsaftaler mellem virksomhederne i et projekt], som de kan leve med, og som de synes er retfærdige også. Og der vil jeg sige, at det betyder rigtig meget, at de sidder sammen. At de snakker sammen. Fordi virksomheder som sådan, har jo ikke tillid imellem sig, men det kan personer, der bærer de her virksomheder, have.
ENC: Ja.
CM: Og der betyder det meget, at man kommunikerer på fornuftig vis, og får bygget et tillidsforhold op fordi det er det der bærer det, i sidste ende. Selvfølgelig skal de have nogle hamrende gode produkter, og nogle priser der er konkurrencedygtige internationalt, men i sidste ende drejer det sig altså også om, at der er den tillid mellem dem der skal bære det igennem.
ENC: Ja.
CM: At man kan blive enige. Fx hvis man laver et projekt, og der er fem virksomheder med, i Bulgarien eller hvor det nu er, hvor man så siger, at der er ingen grund til, at man tager fem virksomheder af sted derned sammen med Lasse [Bork Schmidt]. Så sender vi en mand af sted, og skal vi så ikke alle sammen kaste nogle penge i det, og deles om de omkostninger der måtte være?
ENC: Ja.
CM: Jamen, for at gøre det, kræver det jo en troværdighed, det kræver en tillid. Det kræver især en tillid til den mand der tager derned, ikke kun kæmper for sit eget produkt men kæmper for det projekt, den løsning, som de samlet repræsenterer.
ENC: Ja.
CM: Sælger du staldinventar, og er den der tager derned, og så projektet ender med kun at være om staldinventar, vil det ikke skabe lykke i resten af kredsen. Så derfor er det utrolig vigtigt, at den
Page 106 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
person har den opbakning, men også respekterer det konsortium, eller den opgave, han i virkeligheden er sat på. Og ikke kun gå, efter sin egen lille del af sådan et projekt, men gå efter det samlede.
ENC: Ja. Jamen der er det vel også vigtigt, at man så tænker over, når man er en del af et konsortium, at man måske optræder mere som en form for ambassadør for det samlede konsortium.
CM: Ja. Du er ambassadør. Du er repræsentant for den virksomhed du er i, og så er du ambassadør for de andre. Og det er egentligt et meget godt udtryk. Du er vitterligt ambassadør for de andre. Og de vil kun være taget med, hvis de har nogle gode produkter, ellers kan du heller ikke være ambassadør for dem, hvis du inderst inde synes at deres produkter ikke er gode. Så er det jo den dårligste ambassadør man kan have.
ENC: Man skal jo gerne kunne stå inde for det, de andre laver.
CM: De skal stå inde for det, og de skal kende det, og vide hvad de har med at gøre.
ENC: Ja, jamen det er jo rigtigt nok. Det leder også meget godt, hen til næste spørgsmål. Som er, hvordan SustainAgri samarbejder med partnervirksomhederne. Og her tænker jeg ikke så meget på projekter, men det de gør for, ligesom du sagde, at have noget mere kontakt til deres kontaktpersoner i de forskellige virksomheder, for at skabe et bedre samarbejde.
CM: Det har vi været noget inde på. Jeg tror at det sker en del i grupperinger.
ENC: Ja.
CM: Det kan være nogen der tager sig af kvæg. Det er en gruppe virksomheder du arbejder med. Der kan være nogen der tager sig af svin, det er en anden gruppe. Der kan være nogen der tager sig af mejerier, og det er en tredje gruppe. Og det er jo dem, du så servicerer som grupper.
ENC: Okay.
CM: Og får dem til at arbejde sammen. Og så engang imellem, så laver du et stort arrangement, hvor du tager dem alle sammen med på tværs af grupperne. Fx har vi lejet et skib nogle gange, og har haft måske 20 farmere, på det her skib. Og der kan de så være alle sammen. Fordi der kan jo både være interesse for slagterier, mejerier, grisefarme, kvæg, kyllinger og hvad ved jeg.
ENC: Ja.
CM: Så du arbejder i de der delklynger af klyngen. Der har et fagligt indsatsområde, og så prøver du engang imellem at få det bredt ud. Også ved at du holder nogle virksomhedsmåder om året, hvor alle virksomhederne mødes og udveksler erfaringer.
ENC: Ja. Hvordan vil du sige partnervirksomhederne hjælper til, i forbindelse med opbygningen af arbejdsforholdet med SustainAgri? Hvad kan de byde ind med?
Page 107 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
CM: De byder så ind med de kompetencer, som de nu sidder med. Det er hele den tekniske faglige kompetence. Den har de. Og det er i virkeligheden den de byder ind med. Og så byder de ind med de ressourcer, som de er villige til at kaste ind, i det her fællesskab. De er de to ting, som de kommer med, og som er vigtige. Og der har du forskellige kategorier af virksomheder. Du har nogen der er med, og som vil det og mener det, du har nogen der er med som vil det, men ikke rigtigt kan finde ud af, hvordan de skal gøre det. Du har nogen som er med, og som er der for at være der, og høre hvad sker der, og som helst ikke vil gå glip af noget. Og du har nogen, nu er jeg nok lidt grov, som er der, for at sørge for at andre ikke kommer ind. Uden at man dermed har intentioner om, at kaste en masse ressourcer efter det. Og dvs. at du også har forskellige niveauer af entusiasme, hos disse virksomheder. Og det er virkeligheden. Den kommer du ikke udenom.
ENC: Nej.
CM: Sådan er det desværre.
ENC: Men det er sjovt at tænke på, at der kan være forskellige ambitionsniveauer, når man skulle tro, at de alle er der, for at komme til at eksportere deres produkter.
CM: Ja. Sådan er det. Og sådan er det lidt med danskere. En dårlig vittighed er: Fire rådgivere der sidder på et værtshus i Rumænien, eller hvor det nu er, og sidder og griner og hygger sig. Og så kommer der en anden af deres bekendte hen, og hører dem hvad de griner af. Om de har vundet en ordre? Nej, men de havde sørget for, at en femte virksomhed ikke fik den.
ENC: [Griner]
CM: Og sådan har vi det lidt i Danmark, ikke også?
ENC: Ja.
CM: At egen lykke er godt, men andres ulykke skal man jo heller ikke, helt kimse af.
ENC: Nej. Det er selvfølgelig rigtigt nok.
CM: Det er lidt groft sagt, ikke? Men lige det der spil med virkelig at hjælpe hinanden, og være de der ambassadører, og være 100% engagerede. Det er et stort krav. Som ikke altid kan honoreres. Og der oplever vi virkelig, at der er stor forskel på den entusiasme, og den grad af ressourceindsats, som de enkelte virksomheder kommer med. Og så oplever man en anden ting, som jeg synes er vigtigt også at fremhæve, at den reelle ressourceindsats og deltagelsen, den kommer på det konkrete projekt.
ENC: Ja.
CM: Den teoretiske del, som vi har brugt rigtig lang tid på at bygge op, er ikke lige det partnervirksomhederne synes er mest spændende. Det er omkring konkrete projekter, det er der man får afprøvet de teoretiske baggrunde, som vi har brugt masser af ressourcer på, og arbejdet meget med.
Page 108 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
ENC: Det er vel med projekterne, man får partnervirksomhederne til at blive ved med, at holde interessen for samarbejdet med SustainAgri?
CM: Ja.
ENC: Sådan at de også kan mærke, at det bliver til noget?
CM: Ja.
ENC: Ved du hvilke tiltag SustainAgri, enten har gjort, eller tænker på at gøre mht. at udvikle forholdet mellem dem selv og partnervirksomhederne? Der tænker jeg om man fx vil lukke flere ind i klyngen.
CM: Det man prøver på, det er at finde flere virksomheder, der kan komplimentere, dem man allerede har.
ENC: Ja.
CM: Man har udviklet en gruppe nu med mejerier. Det har man ikke haft før.
ENC: Nej.
CM: Så man kan sige, at det er endnu et led, i den samlede ”jord til bord” øvelse. Og det passer smukt sammen med de andre ting man har haft.
ENC: Ja.
CM: Og man er i gang med også, og det er nok en lidt sværere øvelse, at lave slagteridelen. Og der er vi jo ved at være derhenne, hvor vi jo i hvert fald har, nogle ganske, ganske få kæmpeslagterier i Danmark, og så har vi nogle gårdslagterier.
ENC: Ja.
CM: Og det kan godt være, at det er den der gårdslagteridel, der skal arbejdes lidt med på nuværende tidspunkt. Fordi Ukraine og den struktur de fx har, kan være interesseret i at få etableret de der mindre slagterier rundt omkring i landet.
ENC: Ja. Okay.
CM: Så de bygger op, og komplimenterer efterhånden den gruppe af virksomheder, der kunne være interessante.
ENC: Ja.
CM: Og ellers vil Lasse [Bork Schmidt] nok fortælle mere om det.
ENC: Ja. Det er også det jeg tænker. Det er jo noget af det, han ved noget om.
CM: Det ved han noget om.
Page 109 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
ENC: Altså vi har jo nok været inde på det: Men hvilke forventninger tror du partnervirksomhederne har til samarbejdet med SustainAgri?
CM: De har den forventning at vi kommer med nogle projekter, som vi kan få gennemført. Og der har vi for få, på nuværende tidspunkt. Og det gælder ikke kun landbrug men også de andre fonde. Der er for få projekter, hvor vi har de samlede løsninger, der bare kan gennemføres. Og det er det de forventer.
ENC: Ja.
CM: At det her på et tidspunkt, kan mærkes på deres bundlinje. Det er interessen.
ENC: Men altså. De har vel en eller anden form for forventning om, at når de træder in som ny virksomhed, så om x antal år, så begynder de at sælge?
CM: Ja. Og det behøves ikke være noget der giver credit til SustainAgri.
ENC: Nej.
CM: Men når du tager en virksomhed som Skov [en af SustainAgris partnervirksomheder] fx, jamen så i den tid de har været med i Ukraine, der har de fået bygget en flot virksomhed op.
ENC: Ja.
CM: Og det ved jeg ikke, om de havde fået gjort uden os. Men i hvert fald, har de fået adgang til kunderne, fået bygget op, deres folk har været med os ude adskillige gange. Så et eller andet sted har vi jo spillet en rolle i det her, om ikke andet så hjulpet med en klarlæggelse af, hvad er deres strategier for det pågældende land. Så jo, jeg tror faktisk at vi på mange punkter, har været med til at bidrage til det. Om vi nogensinde får credit for det, det skal jeg ikke kunne sige. Men jeg tror også at alle partnervirksomheder vil sige, at nu skal der altså vises nogle resultater. Og resultater måles faktisk på, at der kommer noget på bundlinjen. At der kommer nogle projekter ud af det, som man kan måle og veje. Det projekt kom hjem til os. Alt imens de får opbygget en viden om markedet, og kommer ind på det. Det vil de måske ikke engang, sådan rigtig fortælle om, eller tænke på.
ENC: Nej, de synes vel at det alligevel er lidt ligegyldigt, fordi de ikke tjent noget ved det?
CM: Nej, sådan tror jeg ikke, at de vil se på det. Men jeg tror bare ikke, at de vil tænke over den viden, og den mængde af informationer og den opbygning af kunderelationer, som vi har startet. Og hvor meget det så betyder, for mange af de efterfølgende beslutninger, de så har truffet.
ENC: Ja.
CM: Fordi der er jo flere af dem, der så har fået kontorer dernede, og som arbejder i Ukraine. Og hvor der ikke var det før.
ENC: Nej.
Page 110 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
CM: Så noget positivt er der jo sket.
ENC: Så noget er der da sket.
CM: Ja. Men du spurgte hvad de ville sige?
ENC: Ja.
CM: Og der kunne jeg godt tro, at de ville sige at nu mangler vi nogle flere konkrete projekter. Som viser, at det her med at arbejde sammen, at det virkelig er løsningen.
ENC: Ja. Og som du så også siger. Partnervirksomhedernes måde at vurdere forholdet på, er at kigge på bundlinjen, og se hvad der er sket.
CM: Har vi fået nogle ordrer? Det betyder det.
ENC: Men hvad er SustainAgris måde at gøre det på? Er det på den samme måde, med at tælle ordrer for at se, hvordan det går med forholdet?
CM: Det er jo om virksomhederne bliver i netværket. Om de deltager, om de er aktive, og så i sidste ende også, om det giver os noget. Fordi vi har to ting der skal give på bundlinjen. Det er timer fra de deltagende virksomheder, og det er delfinansieringen fra den ene side, og det andet der skal give noget på bundlinjen, kan man sige, det er at de finansielle øvelser på et tidspunkt skal til at tage over. Så det er dem, der i virkeligheden bidrager til driften af SustainAgri.
ENC: Ja. Det er vel også nødvendigt på et tidspunkt, når man kommer dertil?
CM: Ja. Der er måske en to-tre år til. Så skal det kunne finansiere sig selv. Og det kan kun være på projekter. Og der mærker man fra dag et, hvis ikke projekterne kommer ind.
ENC: Der vil det vel også være mere konsekvent, mht. entusiasmen fra partnervirksomhederne? Der er man bare nødt til at have nogen der gider.
CM: Og uden dem, så bliver der ingenting.
ENC: Nej.
CM: Så det hele er bundet op på, at der er nogle virksomheder der tror på ideen, der tror på at finansieringen kan være den lim, der i virkeligheden binder dem sammen. Og så at vi forstår, at få de her ting, til at fungere i praksis. Det er jo dejlig simpelt.
ENC: Ja, altså når man sidder og siger det på den måde, så er det jo dejlig simpelt. Jeg ved bare ikke, om alle folk ville være enige i det, når først man står med problemet.
CM: Det er jeg heller ikke sikker på. Og man ryger jo ind, i mange forskellige problemer.
ENC: Ja, det er jo også det. Og det virker jo egentligt fantastisk, for jeg synes at det altid virker som nogle simple problemstillinger, hvis man ser helt objektivt på det. Men hvis man så går længere ind
Page 111 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
i det, og bliver lidt mere subjektiv, og kigger på de forskellige folk involverede i tingene, så bliver det lidt mere nuanceret. Og måske også mere besværligt at træffe en beslutning.
CM: Ja.
ENC: Ja. Den sidste del jeg sådan lige, vil høre noget om, det er mht. knowledge management, som er vidensindsamling.
CM: Ja.
ENC: Og mht. indsamling af viden, hvordan gør SustainAgri, eller fondene generelt, for at indsamle viden? Det er jo selvfølgelig nok mest baseret, på de projekter de har. Men hvad gør de, for at få fat i den viden der kan være relevant i den sammenhæng?
CM: Det er faktisk svært sådan lige at sige, for meget af den viden som skal være en baggrund, ikke kun for os men for alle virksomhederne, bliver til ved simpelthen at samle ind på national basis. Og finde ud af, hvad kan lade sig gøre?
ENC: Ja.
CM: Hvad er kornpriserne, hvad er oliepriserne, hvad er grisepriserne, hvad er slagtepriserne? Sådan nogle helt almindelige ting. Hvor mange grise får du per årsso? Får de 13 og vi kan lave 30? Hvordan finder vi så ud af, hvordan bundlinjen bliver, når vi laver sådan et projekt? Så vi forsøger at skabe en fælles forståelse for en vare, og det ved hele tiden at samle informationer, og følge hvordan udviklingen på det her marked så er. Og det kan faktisk svinge temmelig meget.
ENC: Okay.
CM: Og det er vi med til. Og så prøver vi jo velsagtens, at få informationer af de enkelte virksomheder, og få det samlet, således at flere arbejder ud fra det samme vidensniveau.
ENC: Ja.
CM: Fordi er der nogen der mangler viden, så går det jo galt.
ENC: Jamen det er jo også det. Så kan man jo ikke helt, have en ligelig fordeling.
CM: Nej, det kan du jo ikke. Det gør det lidt vanskeligt. Og jo mere professionel kunden er, jo lettere er det at agere. Og ofte har du jo, en gruppe af danske virksomheder på lidt forskellige niveauer, med en kunde der slet ikke er professionel. Det kan give nogle specielle konflikter.
ENC: Ja.
CM: Et typisk eksempel, som jeg da kender til, er at kunderne kun tænker på billige løsninger. Når de så har set løsningerne, tænker de på, hvordan kan jeg skære det i småbidder, så vi kan købe en skrue der, og et søm der, og et murebor der, osv. for at gøre det billigere. Og så glemmer de helheden.
Page 112 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
ENC: Ja.
CM: Og det kan godt være at de kan få det 40% billigere, måske, men jeg har set flere eksempler på, især i Ukraine, hvor de har bygget et projekt op, med basis i noget de har været med, til at få udviklet hos os, men er blevet enige om at de nok kan gøre det 20-30-40% billigere selv.
ENC: Ja.
CM: Så får de bygget det op, og så går der fire år, så kommer kunden tilbage og siger ”Årh, det duede altså ikke, det vi fik lavet.” Vi har lige et eksempel fra SustainAgri, med en farm, hvor kunden byggede et slagteri selv, og det er aldrig kommet i gang.
ENC: Nå.
CM: Men han troede at han kunne gøre det billigere og bedre selv.
ENC: Ja.
CM: Og han lavede lige nøjagtigt den der, så køber jeg lidt hist og her. Og så kommer de alligevel igen. Så tog det projekt, der kunne laves på et halvt år, lige to et halvt år i stedet for. Og det er aldrig kommet i gang.
ENC: Nej. Men så er der vel også meget forarbejde fra SustainAgris side, som er gået tabt pga. at kunden vælger at lave det hele selv.
CM: Ja. Det hele er jo et eller andet sted tabt.
ENC: Ja.
CM: Fordi så prøver de at finde ud af, om de kan få billigere staldinventar i Rumænien eller om de kan få noget fra Kina. Fordi reelt får vi det jo også produceret i Kina, og det ved kunderne jo, for de er aldrig dumme. Heller ikke fra østlandene. Så de vil gerne krejle sig igennem processen, fordi det er jo noget de alle dage har været vant til. De vil gerne de samlede løsninger, men de forstår måske ikke helt processen. De forstår ikke alvoren i, at man så også skriver en samlet kontrakt. De elsker at få det dechifreret ned i skruer og bolte og møtrikker.
ENC: Okay. Jeg tror vi har været igennem alle spørgsmålene.
CM: Har vi været det hele igennem?
ENC: Ja, det sidste jeg så har, er ang. vidensdeling partnervirksomhederne imellem, og om det er noget der finder sted, eller om alting går igennem SustainAgri?
CM: Jeg ved at det finder sted. Og jeg ved også, at det finder sted i SustainAgri. For der er fx nogle af virksomhederne der er gået sammen, og har lavet partnerskaber.
ENC: Nå.
Page 113 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
CM: I Serbien ved jeg, at der er fire af vores partnervirksomheder, der har været ned, og faktisk få en meget, meget stor ordre. Altså over 100 millioner kroner.
ENC: Nå.
CM: Som de sammen udfører dernede. Altså det er jo bare et eksempel på, at det jo godt kan lade sig gøre.
ENC: Ja, okay. Jeg har hørt meget om SustainAgriklyngen, at de ikke er så gode til at arbejde sammen.
CM: Det er de heller ikke, men der er nogen der gør det. Og det her er jo også med til at lære dem, hvordan de kunne arbejde sammen.
ENC: Ja.
CM: Og hvis du så finder fire virksomheder, der alle siger, jamen skulle vi ikke gøre det, og de kan blive enige om, at ham der tager af sted, og repræsenterer dem, han er ambassadør for de andre også. Og man går efter det. Man går ikke efter et delprojekt. Det er et fælles projekt der bliver lagt på bordet, og en fælles pris på det samlede projekt. Så kan det lade sig gøre, og det er der et par stykker der har bevist.
ENC: Ja, det lyder da godt at det kan.
CM: Ja, ja. Jamen selvfølgelig kan det lade sige gøre. Og hvis det ikke kunne lade sig gøre, kunne vi jo også lige så godt pakke sammen, kan man jo sige. Fordi det her er jo måske nok svært, men det er jo ikke umuligt. Og det er måske der, vi kan adskille os fra nogle franskmænd, tyskere og spaniere. Og så bygge videre på det, ved at demonstrere at det fungerer. Kunderne kan tage ud på enhver farm, og se at der er 27 smågrise per årsso. Og det er der bare. Det kan dokumenteres. Så vi har jo et helt demonstratorium i Danmark. Og det er jo en stærk ting, både at kunne gå ud og sælge et samlet koncept, men du kan også vise, at det rent faktisk bliver brugt, og at det fungerer.
ENC: Det fik mig lige til at tænke på, at jeg skrev noget i december om konsortier. Hvor der faktisk var nogen der havde skrevet, at for konsortier ville den vigtigste opgave være at man havde medlemsvirksomhederne i et vidst antal år, og at man vidste at man var succesfuld på det tidspunkt, de meldte sig ud for at kunne arbejde selvstændigt og eksportere selv.
CM: Ja. Sådan vil det også komme til at fungere. Partnervirksomhederne kan jo sådan set sige, at nu har vi brugt en masse ressourcer, på at være med i det her, og nu mener faktisk godt at vi kan selv. Sammen med nogle andre virksomheder. Og det er jo fint. Altså vores opgave er at støtte danske virksomheder. Vi har ikke andre opgaver. Vi skal ikke forsøge at binde dem til os. Man kan sige at i danske virksomheder, vil det være meget få, der fx kan finde på at uddanne sig, så de kan klare finansieringsdelen selv.
ENC: Ja, det er selvføleligt rigtig nok.
Page 114 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
CM: Og derfor vil de jo, formentligt og forhåbentligt, komme tilbage. Og sige, kunne i ikke hjælpe mig. Men hvis de kan klare det andet selv, så er vores øvelse jo lykkedes. Så har de nogle værktøjer de kan bruge, og det er bare perfekt. Så det må vi aldrig komme til at klage over.
ENC: Nej.
CM: Tværtom.
ENC: Nej.
CM: Så det behøves ikke at være negativt, at partnervirksomhederne går ud og siger, at nu kan vi selv.
ENC: Ja, det er jo selvfølgelig rigtigt nok. Men når man først tænker over det, kan det godt lyde lidt negativt, fordi man så tager forretningsgrundlaget væk fra fondene.
CM: Forhåbentligt ligger det forretningsgrundlag så på det finansielle side i den sidste ende.
ENC: Ja, det er jo også det. Det er jo noget der skiller alle tre fonde ud fra så mange andre.
CM: Ja. Det er projektudvikling, konsortiedannelse og så finansiering. Ikke også?
ENC: Ja.
CM: Mig bekendt i hvert fald.
ENC: Ja. Jeg tror egentligt at det var det, så med mindre du har andet at tilføje, vil jeg afslutte interviewet her, og sige mange tak fordi du ville afsætte tiden til det.
CM: Perfekt. Jamen, jeg har ikke mere at tilføje. Og det var så lidt. Du kan jo bare komme, hvis der er mere du gerne vil have svar på.
Appendix 5: Interview transcription – Christian Sønderup
Interview with the participant Cristian Sønderup (CS), Project Manager of the Development Group – a group working with SustainAgri as well as Danish Energy Solutions and Danish Water Services.
The interviewer is Esben Nørris Christensen (ENC).
The interview took place 10th May and lasted about 45 minutes.
Page 115 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
ENC: Først vil jeg sige mange tak, fordi du gider at deltage I dette interview. Til at starte med, vil jeg forklare lidt mere om opgavens formål.
CS: Ja, det vil jeg gerne høre om.
ENC: Opgaven går ud på, at jeg kigger på kommunikationen mellem SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne, og hvordan kommunikationen påvirker forholdet parterne og om forholdet kan forbedres på nogle måder. Og jeg kigger nærmere på knowledge managment – hvordan man laver vidensdeling og vidensindsamling, og om det er noget der har en effekt på forholdet mellem de involverede parter. Og om det muligvis er noget der kan forbedres, for at gøre forholdet bedre. Så det var i grove træk det opgaven går ud på. Først vil jeg så spørge ind til dig, mht. hvad din stillingsbetegnelse er og hvad dit job går ud på?
CS: Jamen, min stillingsbetegnelse er at jeg er leder af en udviklingsafdeling, som ligger fælles for de tre fonde, der har kontorfællesskab her. Det er SustainAgri, Danish Water Services og Danish Energy Solutions. Min rolle er i den sammenhæng, at være med til at assistere de tre fonde i udviklingen af forskellige produkter, og samtidigt også forestå den rapportering der er i forbindelse med Erhvervs- og Byggestyrelsen. Derudover over har jeg også den rolle, mere eller mindre, at være limen der får det hele til at hænge sammen i dagligdagen
ENC: Ja.
CS: Så det er sådan meget kort. Men specifikt i forhold til SustainAgri, der har jeg tidligere været studentermedarbejder, og jeg har nu, flere gange, været af sted med direktøren, Lasse Bork Schmidt, hvor vi har været i udlandet på forskellige eksportfremstød, og der har jeg fortalt om vores finansieringsprodukter til relevante kunder. Så har jeg også hjulpet virksomhederne med forskellige opgaver.
ENC: Ja. Og hvor lang tid har du så arbejdet for SustainAgri?
CS: Jeg blev studentermedarbejder i 2009, var der i et år, blev flyttet over i Danish Water Services, hvor jeg var i halvandet år, hvor jeg var indtil jeg blev flyttet ind i denne tværfondslige stilling. Så det er noget der ligner to år i alt [med 37 timer om ugen], men over en længere periode.
ENC: Ja. Okay. De næste spørgsmål har jeg delt ind i kategorier, svarende til de kategorier jeg har været inde og kigge på til min opgave. Så spørgsmålene kommer lidt slavisk i forhold til, hvordan jeg har beskæftiget mig med emnerne.
CS: Selvfølgelig.
ENC: Det første handler om forhold. Forholdet mellem SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne.
CS: Ja.
ENC: Og hvordan du vil definere et godt arbejdsforhold mellem to virksomheder?
Page 116 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
CS: Jeg vil sige at et godt arbejdsforhold mellem to virksomheder, i denne her sammenhæng, er lidt atypisk i forhold til hvad man nok ellers vil klassificere som et godt arbejdsforhold mellem to almindelige kommercielle virksomheder. Man kan sige, at her er vi i en fond, som faciliterer en gruppe virksomheder, og skal få denne gruppe af virksomheder til at arbejde sammen om nogle konkrete projekter. Det vil altså sige at partnervirksomhederne, har et behov for SustainAgri på nogle bestemte tidspunkter, og har et behov for at SustainAgri informerer om, hvad der generelt sker i gruppen. Så såfremt SustainAgri kan, dels facilitere når partnervirksomhederne har et behov for det, og dels kan informere når der sker noget i gruppen. Så er man allerede der langt. Spørgsmålet er så om partneren gør tilpas opmærksom på når der er et behov, og om SustainAgri er gode nok til selv at kommunikere.
ENC: Ja.
CS: Umiddelbart vil jeg, i denne sammenhæng, mene at begge dele godt kan forbedres. Men jeg synes som udgangspunkt, at der er en udmærket kommunikation i gruppen.
ENC: Kan du komme med et eksempel på, hvad du mener mht. ikke at være så gode til at kommunikere?
CS: Det er fx i forhold til, hvis en partner i gruppen kommer med et projekt, og vi arbejder videre med projektet. Spørgsmålet er så hvornår i forløbet vi skal orientere gruppen. Der kunne man godt have en kortere reaktionstid. Det kan være at en partner er blevet lovet nogle informationer, eller noget materiale, og de så får det på et senere tidspunkt end aftalt. Det kan også være, at partneren reelt set er for langsomme, til at give os de informationer som vi har behov for.
ENC: Så det handler om, at være lidt bedre til at kommunikere?
CS: Det handler meget om at være bedre til at reagere. I sidste ende, er det at være omstillingsparat og hurtig til at reagere, vigtigt i sådan en sammenhæng, som vi er i her.
ENC: Ja.
CS: Samtidigt vil jeg også sige, at mængden af information også godt kunne være større.
ENC: Okay. Ud fra alt det du lige har sagt, hvilke aspekter mener du så er vigtigst, i forhold til at kunne få et godt arbejdsforhold?
CS: Jeg vil helt sikkert sige, at det handler om gensidig forståelse for, hvorfor partneren har valgt at være med i SustainAgri, og at partneren har oprigtig interesse, for SustainAgris formål. For hvis man ikke har det, bliver man let skuffet, hvorimod dem som er gået ind i SustainAgri, med de rigtige forudsætninger, også er glade for den kommunikation der finder sted.
ENC: Ja.
Page 117 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
CS: Så gensidig forståelse og også en fokus, fra vores side, på at holde partnerne opdaterede hele tiden, sådan at de mærker at SustainAgri lever og fungerer, og ikke bare er to til tre årlige virksomhedsmøder. Men at der sker noget løbende.
ENC: At de føler at de får noget ud af at være medlem?
CS: Lige præcist. For de betaler jo både med timer og med kontant tilskud, så selvfølgelig skal de også føle, at de får noget ud af det.
ENC: Ja. Nu du lige nævner det, mht. penge. Partnervirksomhederne betaler et kontingent?
CS: De betaler et kontingent på 15.000 kr.
ENC: Ja. På hvilken måde mener du at SustainAgri drager fordel af de forskellige partnervirksomheder?
CS: SustainAgri drager jo fordel af partnervirksomhederne, på flere forskellige måder. Dels er SustainAgris grundide at man kan levere komplette løsninger inden for forskellige områder i landbrugssektoren. Det kan fx være at sælge en komplet svinestald med ventilation, svinestier, og selvfølgelig også svinene til at putte i dem. Så det er det med, at en enkelt dansk virksomhed, kan måske kun levere en enkelt komponent, men ved at være med i SustainAgri, så har man en mere holistisk tilgang til en bondemands problemstilling.
ENC: Ja. Jeg tror det var meget dækkende. For så at komme videre, til den mere kommunikationsrelaterede del. Hvilke måder kommunikerer SustainAgri mest med deres partnervirksomheder?
CS: Det er jo igennem mails, igennem hjemmesiden. Det er de to, som man generelt modtager information på. Der er et nyhedsbrev der bliver sendt ud hver tredje måned ca., og så er der en hjemmeside, der også indeholder nyheder og informationer omkring fonden. Derudover afhænger det også af, at partneren selv giver udtryk for, at den har brug for noget sparring. Og den kommunikation foregår direkte gennem Lasse, Carsten eller mig, eller gennem vores ukrainske kontor. Og så er der jo en direkte kommunikation gennem både telefon og e-mail, som også finder sted der. Så det er mest de metoder vi gør brug af. Og så selvfølgelig også virksomhedsmøder, hvor man har de her direkte samtaler om, hvor man er på vej hen, hvor man gerne vil hen, og hvad der er sket i den forgangne periode. Og så er der også individuelle partnermøder. Derudover har nogle af partnerne også møder, hvor SustainAgris sekretariat ikke er til stede.
ENC: Ja, og som du også selv siger, så er personlig kontakt vel en vigtig del af kommunikationen.
CS: Det er det helt bestemt.
ENC: Altså vil du sige, at det er den vigtigste måde at kommunikere på?
CS: Jeg vil sige at flere af kontaktformerne, definerer jo forskellige aspekter af SustainAgri. Man kan sige at der er den generelle information af hvad der sker. Og det er jo fint nok at den er mere
Page 118 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
skriftlig, men i forhold til at lykkedes med at lave projekter, handler det også langt hen af vejen, om personlige relationer. Personlige relationer får man meget, meget sjældent gennem telefonen eller med e-mails, så derfor ser vi ofte at dem som kender hinanden bedst, er dem der har lettest ved at lave projekter sammen. Derfor er denne direkte kommunikation også et vigtigt element i forhold til at klyngen fungerer.
ENC: Okay. Hvor ofte vil du sige SustainAgri kommunikerer med partnervirksomhederne? Nu har du jo sagt, at det ikke finder sted så ofte som det burde.
CS: Jeg vil sige, at der er nyhedsbrevet som, hvis det bliver sendt ud hver tredje måned, egentligt er fint i forhold til aktiviteterne der finder sted. I forhold til hjemmesiden, og hvornår den bliver opdateret, kunne det godt være hurtigere når der sker noget, og der kunne godt være flere informationer på. Det er det ene sted hvor der er plads til forbedring. Det andet sted er den kommunikation der forgår direkte mellem partnervirksomhederne og SustainAgri. Der skal partnerne også gerne være hurtige i forhold til, at sige til hvornår de har brug for hjælp, fordi vi ikke altid kan vide hvornår de har behovet. Og samtidigt skal vi jo selvfølgelig også, når vi lover vores partnere noget, være gode til at overholde de tidsfrister selv.
ENC: Ja. Ellers er det jo svært, at have et arbejdsforhold der fungerer.
CS: Selvfølgelig.
ENC: Generelt set hvor meget tid bruger du på at kommunikere med partnervirksomhederne i alle 3 fonde? Nu har du jo ikke en stilling, hvor du kun beskæftiger dig med en fond.
CS: Altså, jeg vil sige at jeg i løbet af en uge, kommunikerer jeg med en håndfuld partnervirksomheder fordelt på de tre fonde. Så derudover står jeg jo også for at holde øje med hjemmeside, og det sker jo også løbende. Så jeg har i hvert fald en eller anden kommunikation med partnerne ugentligt.
ENC: Ja.
CS: Men det er jo altid svært at vurdere, om det at noget på en hjemmeside er kommunikation til virksomhederne. Når der er tale om den direkte mailkorrespondance, har jeg kontakt til en håndfuld.
ENC: Man kan jo så også sige, at i forhold til Carsten [Møller] og Lasse [Bork Schmidt] har du jo nok også en mere intern rolle.
CS: Jeg har en meget større intern rolle end de har, og det er dem der skal forestå kommunikationen. Det er mere praktisk kommunikation jeg har i forhold til partnerne. Hvis der er materiale de mangler, eller materiale de skal have. Eller hvis der er noget de skal indrapportere [til EU] som de ikke har fået indrapporteret, så er det min rolle at være i kontakt med de partnervirksomheder.
ENC: Så du har lidt en sekretariatsrolle?
Page 119 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
CS: Det er meget mere en sekretariatsrolle end en projektrolle. Her tænker jeg på projektudvikling.
ENC: Ja. Så kom vi til det næste aspekt af arbejdsforhold, som handler om tillid mellem virksomheder. Hvilke aspekter vil du sige er de vigtigste, for at man kan opnå tillid mellem SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne?
CS: Jeg vil sige at der er to punkter, som jeg ser som meget vigtige. Det ene er at man overholder de aftaler man laver med partnervirksomhederne, og at der også er en god personlig kemi mellem både sekretariatet og partnerne.
ENC: Ja. Man kan jo også sige, at den personlige kemi spiller en overraskende stor rolle mellem en fond og en virksomhed.
CS: Ja, men man må bare sande at dem som man kommer godt ud af det med, også langt hen af vejen også er dem, som man har lyst til at arbejde sammen med. Og det er noget som vi har været meget fokuserede på, også i forhold til eksportfremstød, hvor vi har sørget for at holde partnere og kunder meget tæt på hinanden, på fx en båd. Hvor man er sammen, og gør noget sammen, og får knyttet bånd. Det har vi gode erfaringer med, og derfor er vi også opmærksomme på, at det er en del som man ikke skal glemme i forhold til partnere.
ENC: Og vil du så også sige, at det har hjulpet at lave de her forskellige events?
CS: Det er der ingen tvivl om. Det er noget som vi og vores partnere vender tilbage til, og snakker om ved andre lejligheder, og som gør at man har nogle fælles oplevelser, og derigennem også en fælles samhørighed.
ENC: Ja.
CS: Så det gør helt bestemt, at opstår der problemer undervejs i samarbejdet, har man lettere ved at acceptere dem. Så det er helt bestemt vigtigt.
ENC: Ja. Og overordnet set ud fra de kriterier du lige nævnte, der var nødvendige for at tillid mellem to virksomheder kunne eksistere, hvilket tillidsniveau vil du så sige, der er mellem SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne?
CS: Jeg vil sige at der er et rigtig godt tillidsniveau mellem SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne. Partnervirksomhederne bruger SustainAgri, og SustainAgri er også klar ti at hjælpe partnerne. Når partnervirksomhederne komme med projekter, som de gør, så får Lasse [Bork Schmidt] også hurtigt sendt finansieringstilbud ud til virksomhederne. Der er en god sparring imellem partnerne, som også gør at virksomhederne bruger SustainAgri. I forhold til at få EU projekter, som er underliggende SustainAgri, har vi stadig nogle udfordringer i forhold til at få virksomhederne til at acceptere det. Men så snart partnervirksomhederne også ser, at EU projektet også er bundet op på konkrete opgaver, som netop har et fokus på dem, får de også forståelse og tillid til at det der bliver lavet, også skaber værdi for dem.
ENC: Ja.
Page 120 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
CS: Men når de hører om et EU projekt, så er det ikke det der har deres interesse. Det er mere at EU projektet indeholder nogle elementer, som rent faktisk har en værdiskabende effekt. Så jeg vil sige, at der er en god tillid, til det arbejde som bliver lavet.
ENC: Ja. Og der er en god tillid imellem alle partnervirksomhederne også?
CS: Imellem partnervirksomhederne er der, som jeg også nævnte tidligere, nogle man kan bedre med end andre. Vi ser også at de partnervirksomheder som er i konkurrence, har en større forsigtighed overfor hinanden end de virksomheder, som kan komplementere hinanden i forhold til at levere løsninger og derigennem også arbejde sammen. Men vi har virksomheder som normalt ikke arbejder sammen, og derfor er der ikke den samme tillid der, som mellem dem der normalt arbejder sammen.
ENC: Nej. Hvordan vil du sige partnervirksomhederne bidrager til opbygningen, af et godt arbejdsforhold med SustainAgri?
CS: Jeg vil sige at partnervirksomhederne bidrager med det, som man kan forvente af dem. De bidrager dels med konkret arbejde, de bidrager i form af at komme til virksomhedsmøderne, komme med godt humør og et åbent sind i forhold til møderne. Derudover bidrager de ikke ret meget. Hvis vi ikke var her som sekretariat, og var fokuserede på at mange af disse bånd skulle knyttes, så ville der sikkert også være nogle af fondene der ikke ville være med. Så derfor er vi også nødt til, at forcere det at skulle arbejde sammen, og være en klynge.
ENC: Det er ikke alle der har den samme forståelse for, hvad sådan et samarbejde indebærer?
CS: Det er det ikke. Der er nogen der er meget fokuserede på, at et samarbejde skal udmønte sig i profit hurtigt, og der er andre der har et mere langsigtet mål, hvor de godt ved at udviklingsarbejdet tager tid. Og at det er okay at det tager tid. Så man har forskellige forventninger. Og dem der har forventninger om, at det skal udmønte sig i profit fra dag et, er mere besværlige i en klynge end dem der godt ved, at det kan tage tid. Så der er nogen der ønsker resultater hurtigere end andre.
ENC: Men det er vel også fordi, at de virksomheder har sat sig et mål om, at om et eller to år, skal vi have en indtjening på så og så meget?
CS: Helt bestemt. Det er jo også fair nok at de har. Men der er det også vigtigt, at det bliver kommunikeret, hvad man bør kunne forvente at få ud af projektet, og at man også fokuserer på, ikke at opbygge forventninger hos de forskellige virksomheder, som vi så ikke kan indfri. Men det kommer ofte også an på hvad virksomhederne selv forventer, for vi kan ikke komme og servere projekterne til virksomhederne på et sølvfad. De er også selv nødt til at komme med projekterne, så vi kan hjælpe dem. Så der er en forventningsafstemning der er meget vigtig.
ENC: Men det er vel også måden man bliver ved med at opretholde et godt forhold, ved at sørge for at lave projekter sammen, og få fordelt arbejdsbyrden?
CS: Det er meget, meget vigtigt at man har nogle konkrete projekter at arbejde sammen om. Fordi udsigten til at tjene penge, som jo er det bærende element i samarbejdet, også kan virke
Page 121 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
motiverende mht. at arbejde sammen, hvorimod det at vente på at der reelt set kommer noget konkret, kan virke meget demotiverende. Det kan vi også tydeligt mærke på virksomhederne, om de er motiverede eller demotiverede.
ENC: Man kan vel også sige, at selvom det ikke er meget virksomhederne betaler i kontingent, så går de vel ind med en forventning om, at de penge der er skudt ind i samarbejdet, bliver betalt tilbage, hvis ikke mangedoblet, i løbet af deres medlemstid?
CS: Det er svært at sige, fordi et kontingent på 15. 000 er jo ret billigt, for at have adgang til en række konsulenter, der gerne vil hjælpe din virksomhed. Så det at få fx Lasse [Bork Schmidt] til at udarbejde et finansieringsudkast, vil du ikke kunne få en konsulent til, der vil arbejde meget mere end 15 timer på det, til den pris. Så derfor er det vel rimelig billigt at være med, og man får også meget, hvis man selv er villig til at gøre brug af det der bliver stillet til rådighed. Men hvis man selv sidder og læner sig tilbage i stolen, uden at bruge klyngen, så vil jeg give dig ret i, at man som virksomhed også vil kunne blive skuffet, i forhold til hvad man betaler og det man håber på at få ud af det.
ENC: Ja. Ved du om SustainAgri har gjort sig nogle ideer om at udvikle klyngen? Eller måske udvide den?
CS: SustainAgri har tidligere fokuseret meget på, at have en klynge der kunne tage det første skridt, i forhold til landbruget. Altså det med at kunne lave en svinestald, og derigennem have slagtesvin, have en kostald og derigennem kunne sælge mælk osv. Nu der er det næste at bevæge sig op i værdikæden, sådan at vi også inkluderer mejerier og slagterier, og derigennem skal klyngen også udvikles til at vi kan levere de elementer. Der er vi nået et stykke, men vi er ikke færdige med det endnu.
ENC: Okay. Og det er også den måde de udvikler forholdet, mellem de forskellige virksomheder, ved at klyngen bliver mere diversificeret?
CS: Vi forsøger at have en gruppe, der er velfungerende. Dvs. har virksomhederne nogle gode ”legekammerater”, der ikke er med i klyngen, så overvejer vi om de kan tages med i klyngen, og derved udvide klyngen med virksomheder, som fungerer godt sammen med de virksomheder der allerede er i klyngen. Selvfølgelig er det en åben klynge, hvor vi gerne vil have mange med, men det handler også om at have en velfungerende klynge. I forhold til at udvide klyngen, ser vi ikke så meget på, at få virksomheder som er ens med, men mere at få virksomheder der kan komplimentere hinanden med.
ENC: I din mening og med den erfaring du har, kan du så komme med et bud på, hvilke forventninger partnervirksomhederne kan have til SustainAgri når de indtræder i klyngen?
CS: Mit bud ville være, at partnervirksomhederne har en forventning om, at når de træder ind i samarbejdet med SustainAgri, så vil de kunne få et stykke arbejde udført billigt. Samtidigt har de nok også, nogle forventninger om, at de vil kunne få nogle projekter og få de projekter finansieret. Det vil jeg umiddelbart sige, er deres primære forventninger. Samtidigt har de nyere virksomheder,
Page 122 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
som ikke har prøvet at eksportere så meget, nok en forventning om at lære hvordan andre virksomheder agere på eksportmarkedet. Men det er de to første dele, der er de primære forventninger fra partnervirksomhederne.
ENC: Ja. Og det man så gør, for at kunne leve op til forventningerne, er at sekretariatet prøver at udarbejde nogle projekter for dem?
CS: Ja, og samtidigt også bistå virksomhederne i forbindelse med eksportfremstød. Her kan SustainAgris ukrainske kontor jo fx hjælpe. Sådan at når partnervirksomhederne står og prøver at sælge en løsning, at vi så står sammen med dem, og kan assistere i forhold til at vi har udviklet en finansieringsmodel som de kan bruge. Vi kan forklare hvordan den kan bruges, således at finansieringen også kan blive et sælgende element for virksomhederne. Så vi forsøger på flere forskellige måder, at hjælpe virksomhederne. Også mere konkret.
ENC: Ja. Ud fra det du har sagt, så er SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne ligeværdige partnere, på den måde at SustainAgri kommer med nogle forslag, og partnervirksomhederne kommer med nogle forslag, i forbindelse med nye projekter, og også hvordan man bør gøre fremover?
CS: Ja delvist. SustainAgri er jo bundet til et EU projekt, og i det EU projekt, er der defineret nogle retninger, som vi skal gå i. Det vi så forsøger, er at høre virksomhederne, hvordan vi så kan, dels gå i de definerede retninger, men dels også gøre det på en måde, der kan være interessante for virksomhederne. Og så partnervirksomhederne kan se, at de får en værdiskabelse ud af det, og der handler det o meget om, at føle at man bliver hørt. Og derfor har vi jo, for kort tid siden, været rundt og tale med alle virksomhederne, og det skulle netop også gerne være med til, at skabe en fællesskabsfølelse, og skabe en ide om at hver enkelt virksomhed bliver hørt.
ENC: Ja, det er selvfølgelig rigtigt nok. Og mht. det du lige sagde med EU projektet, og de målsætninger der er sat der, er det vel også en af de måder man bruger, for at måle om fonden og det man får ud af partnerskabet, går den vej man gerne ville have det til?
CS: Man kan sige, at vi har i EU projektet en række milepæle, som vi jo gerne skulle nå, og derfor er det jo også vigtigt at vi når dem. Og det kan vi jo konkret måle, om de bliver nået. Så det er helt sikkert en måde vi måler fremgangen på.
ENC: Hvad så mht. at leve op til partnervirksomhedernes mål? Fordi de er jo nok noget anderledes.
CS: Det er jo selvfølgeligt det, fordi hvis vi har gjort vores arbejde godt nok fra dag et, så har de jo også en forventning, der stemmer nogenlunde overens med vores EU projekt. Der har vi prøvet, ikke at have kommunikeret klart nok, i forhold til hvad EU projektet gik ud på, og at partnervirksomheden så havde en anden forventning end det vi de havde fået stillet i sigte. Og det betyder jo, at vi på virksomhedsmøder har været nødt til, at ridse op hvad EU projektet gik ud på, og hvad kernen i det projekt er. Hvor nogen af virksomhederne så har overvejet, om det stadig var et projekt de kunne se sig selv som en del af, og det er selvfølgeligt vi altid vil kunne blive bedre til. Sikre at der er den rigtige forventningsafstemning fra starten, så det ikke bliver et problem.
Page 123 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
ENC: Ja. Så det hænger lidt sammen med det, du startede med at sige. At SustainAgri kunne godt være bedre til at kommunikere, men samtidigt kræver det også, at partnervirksomhederne også vidste hvad de gik ind til, og havde lavet nogle forventningsafstemninger i forbindelse med hvad EU projektet gik ud på, og hvad selv gerne ville have ud af samarbejdet?
CS: Ja, det kan man godt sige. Det vigtige er at virksomhederne kan se sig selv i klyngen, og derfor er det at blive lovet noget fra starten, som vi så ikke kan leve op til, er selvfølgeligt noget vi gerne vil undgå. Fordi så får vi jo partnere, der ikke er glade. Og det prøver vi jo selvfølgeligt at undgå, men selvfølgelig er et sælgende argument også fra vores side, at vi har erfaring, og er lykkedes med, at lave projekter på eksportmarkeder. Men vi ved jo ikke, om det lykkes for den enkelte partnervirksomhed. Derfor kan de jo stadig godt blive skuffede, selvom vi har erfaring med, at det er lykkedes tidligere. Det betyder jo ikke at det kommer til at lykkes, efter de er kommet med.
ENC: Nej, det er vel også det. Man kan jo som SustainAgri vel sagtens gå ud og sige, at vi kan de her forskellige ting, og vi har lavet en masse projekter, og det har skabt en masse værdi for forskellige virksomheder. Så kan man jo som ny partnervirksomhed sagtens tænke, at så får vi en masse profit ud af det.
CS: Ja, så får vi nok også en masse ud af det.
ENC: Ja.
CS: Det er ikke sikkert. Det afhænger jo af, hvor meget de også selv engagerer sig, om de også selv har et produkt og om der er nogen der er villige til at købe det, og at man også har det fornødne held på markederne, for det kræver det også nogle gange. Det kræver at man møder den rigtige kunde.
ENC: Ja.
CS: Og det er svært at vide, om man lige finder det match. Men det er da noget vi har erfaringer med, at det kan lykkes.
ENC: Ja. Så skifter vi lidt spor til knowledge management. Hvor det første spørgsmål handler om, hvad SustainAgri gør for at indsamle viden fra partnervirksomheder? Det gælder jo nok mest, når man prøver at gå ind og lave projekter.
CS: Altså, man kan jo sige, at SustainAgri indsamler en viden fra partnerne om, hvad de [partnervirksomhederne] kan, i forhold til den rolle som de er tiltænkt. Så de generelle virksomhedsinformation, mht. hvilke produkter de har osv. er selvfølgeligt gode at have. I forhold til konkrete projekter, så er det Lasse [Bork Schmidt] der sammen med virksomhederne sammensætter den samlede pakke, hvortil virksomhederne også kan komme med deres informationer, mht. leveringstider og hvordan tingene kan skrues sammen.
ENC: Ja. Og den viden der så bliver samlet ind, den bliver så brugt til når der bliver planlagt projekter, og når man påbegynder samarbejdet generelt?
Page 124 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
CS: Ja, og så bliver den også brugt i forhold til materiale, som bliver taget med ud til eksportfremstød, så kunderne kan se hvad vi kan tilbyde. På nuværende tidspunkt er vi ved at lave, den samlede beskrivelse af, hvad man kan i forbindelse med kvæg. Og derigennem får man også præsenteret problemstillinger, som man så vil kunne løse. Så det er jo også en måde, udadtil at få vist hvad det er for en klynge, og hvad vi har at tilbyde.
ENC: Ja. Man kan vel også, at det er en god måde, også internt i klyngen, at indsamle viden, og prøve at have det hele et sted.
CS: Lige præcist.
ENC: Og folk kan så nyde godt af hinandens viden.
CS: Ja. Præcist. Og derigennem også sikre, at når fx en virksomhed står på et eksportfremstød, vil de, ved at have vores folder med, stort set også kunne sælge en af de andre partnervirksomheders produkter. Fordi den folder indeholde sælgende argumenter, for hvorfor man skal bruge det og det produkt.
ENC: Ja, men man kan vel også sige, at hvis en virksomhed er ude ved en kunde et sted, så repræsenterer de vel hele klyngen, og ikke bare sig selv?
CS: Lige præcist.
ENC: Og hvor ofte vil du så sige, at der er en form for vidensdeling mellem SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne?
CS: Det er et svært spørgsmål. Der er en vidensdeling, hver gang der er et projekt, selvfølgeligt. Og det er flere gange om måneden der er det. Så er der virksomhedsmøderne, og der er også vidensdeling der. Og så er der sådan noget, som det her materiale som vi lige snakkede om, der er ved at blive udarbejdet. Og så også at videregive de informationer til partnervirksomhederne som er nødvendige. Så det vil jeg sige, at der er en løbende proces, som er svær at fastsætte et konkret antal på, men jeg vil sige, at der ofte er en kommunikation hvor vi, eller en virksomhed, har brug for noget konkret viden.
ENC: Ja.
CS: Og der har vi da helt bestemt en opgave i også, at lagre den viden så vi ikke skal bede om den flere gange.
ENC: Ja, og hvad så med virksomhederne imellem mht. vidensdeling? Er det noget der finder sted eller går det alt sammen igennem SustainAgri?
CS: De virksomheder som er vant til at lave projekter sammen, de kommunikerer direkte med hinanden, eller foregår vidensdelingen primært igennem SustainAgri, som så står for vidensfordelingen.
ENC: Men det er vel også en måde at sikre sig, at alle virksomheder får lige meget viden?
Page 125 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
CS: Og det er jo netop det. Det er også det der er ideen. Det er jo ideen med at være i en klynge, at der er et sekretariat, der sørger for at alle bliver informeret, og at alle har glæde af hinandens erfaringer.
ENC: Ja. Jeg tror sådan set det var det, jeg havde at spørge om. Så med mindre du har noget, som du gerne vil tilføje til det vi har været inde på?
CS: Det tror jeg ikke at jeg har.
ENC: Nej, men så skal du have mange tak fordi du gad deltage i interviewet.
Appendix 6: Interview transcription – Lasse Bork Schmidt
Interview between the participant Lasse Bork Schmidt (LBS), Managing Director of SustainAgri, and the interviewer Esben Nørris Christensen (ENC).
The interview took place May 30th and lasted roughly 24 minutes.
Page 126 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
LBS: Du starter bare når du er klar.
ENC: Ja. Det er bare helt i orden. Mit første spørgsmål, har med arbejdsforholdet mellem SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne at gøre. Så det første er sådan set, hvordan du vil definere et godt arbejdsforhold mellem firmaer?
LBS: Generelt?
ENC: Ja. Hvad der er det vigtigste, for at få det til at fungere.
LBS: Jamen det vigtigste, for at få det til at fungere, er at man har en fælles målsætning, som det første. Det vigtigste er jo, at få afklaret sådan nogle ting. Så alle er afklarede med, hvad de er. Og så må de jo afgøre, om de så vil med på de vilkår.
ENC: Ja. Okay. Det er så også det vigtigste for dig, at have en fælles målsætning?
LBS: Ja.
ENC: Ja. Super. Hvordan vil du så sige, at SustainAgri gør det. Altså hvordan sætter SustainAgri en fælles målsætning, som alle kan være enige om?
LBS: Det har også været vanskeligt, for de har skiftet lidt. Så det har været vanskeligt. Bl.a. vil jeg sige, at dem der er kommet med, indenfor de sidste to år, og så dem der er kommet med for fem-seks-syv år siden, har ikke nødvendigvis samme målsætning. De [målsætningerne] har desværre skiftet undervejs.
ENC: Ja.
LBS: Der har udfordringen jo så været, når målsætningerne har ændret sig, at forklare de gamle at der nu er kommet en ny målsætning. Det har været vanskeligt.
ENC: Okay. Men det er lykkes, at få det forklaret?
LBS: I en vis grad, ja. Men ikke 100%. Der er nok stadig nogle af dem, der har været med i lang tid, som ikke helt har fundet ud af, at der er kommet en ny målsætning.
ENC: Okay. Ja. Christian [Sønderup] nævnte, at mange målsætninger selvfølgelig også var nødt til, at være noget der stemte overens, med de EU målsætninger der er sat.
LBS: Det er klart. Det er bl.a. det jeg mener med, at målsætningen er skiftet. Dengang SustainAgri startede, var der ikke noget [EU] tilskud, så der var man mere fritstillet i forhold til målsætningen, kan man jo sige.
ENC: Ja.
LBS: Så det er den ene grund.
Page 127 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
ENC: Okay. På hvilken måde vil du så sige, at SustainAgri drager fordel, af alle de her forskellige partnervirksomheder der er med?
LBS: Altså på det konkrete plan, der er hele opbygningen af SustainAgri, bygget op på den måde, at vi har forsøgt at samle en gruppe, som supplerer hinanden. Og ikke i alt for stor grad konkurrerer med hinanden. Så det er på det praktiske plan. Så kan man sige, at så er der nogle andre fordele, ved at der er virksomheder på forskellige niveauer, størrelser og den måde de gør ting. Og der prøver vi at udnytte det, at der er den forskellighed, ved at de så også kan lære af hinanden.
ENC: Ja. Men ville du så, på noget tidspunkt, lukke nogle virksomheder ind, som ville være i direkte konkurrence med de nuværende partnervirksomheder? Eller ville det bare slet ikke fungere?
LBS: Vi ville gerne, men det vil ikke fungere.
ENC: Nå, okay. De ville heller ikke kunne arbejde sammen så?
LBS: Nej.
ENC: Jeg har haft læst noget om, og det er selvfølgelig bare rent teoretisk, at virksomheder der er i konkurrence med hinanden, og kan drage fordel af hinanden med fx fælles udvikling.
LBS: Det siger alle teorier også. Men en ting er teori, og noget andet er praksis. I praksis virker det ikke.
ENC: Så der er et stort spring?
LBS: Ja.
ENC: De næste spørgsmål handler om det rent kommunikative. Hvordan kommunikerer SustainAgri med partnervirksomhederne, sådan generelt set?
LBS: Jamen det gør vi alt for lidt i virkeligheden. Kommunikationen er svær, fordi at det er svært at finde en entydig kanal til virksomhederne, så vi kan være sikre på, at de læser det. Altså det primære har jo været, at sende e-mails rundt og holde møder. Det er standarden. Problemet er at med møderne, er det jo, af naturlige årsager, aldrig alle der møder op på en gang. Og e-mails bliver enten overhovedet ikke læst, eller læst meget sporadisk.
ENC: Ja.
LBS: Men det er sådan set det eneste. SÅ kan man sige, at så har vi forsøgt os med noget nyt, nemlig at holde individuelle møder med dem. Det prøvede vi over foråret for første gang. Det har egentligt virket godt, i forhold til at forklare forskellige ting, men det er også en tung omgang at komme igennem. Jeg tror at besøge alle virksomheder, på nær en eller to, tog vel omkring 4 måneder. Så det er noget langsommere. Så er det jo hurtigere at sende brevduer ud, ikke? Så man kan sige, at vi mangler stadig det endegyldige, og fantastiske, svar på, hvordan man kommunikerer mest effektivt. Så jeg il sige, at vi forsøger med fællesmøder og e-mails stadigvæk. I mangel af bedre.
Page 128 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
ENC: Ja.
LBS: Og så har vi jo, som sagt forsøgt at holde individuelle møder, og det vil vi nok gøre en gang til.
ENC: Hvor ofte vil du så sige, at SustainAgri, rent gennemsnitligt kommunikerer med partnervirksomhederne?
LBS: Ca. en gang hver anden måned.
ENC: Ja. Okay. Hvor meget af din tid, bruger du, sådan overordnet set, på at kommunikere med dem, som fx at skrive e-mails, og snakke med dem i telefonen?
LBS: Der bruger jeg nok noget, der ligner en tredjedel af min tid. Udover det jeg nævnte, kommer telefonsamtaler så ved siden af. Det er jo mest dem der ringer til os. Vores udadvendte kommunikation, er det jeg beskrev før. Så er der kommunikationen den anden vej rundt, og det er mest dem der ringer til os. Men vi gør sjældent brug af telefonen til kommunikation, nemlig fordi at så bliver det meget individuelt, det de får ud af det.
ENC: Ja. Det er selvfølgelig rigtigt nok, så er der jo forskel på hvad folk de ved. Jeg kom til at tænke på noget Carsten [Møller] sagde, nemlig at når man skulle til at lave projekter, prøvede man mest muligt, kun at kommunikere med den der frontede [partnervirksomheden der er hovedansvarlig for projektets udførelse] projektet.
LBS: Lige præcis.
ENC: Og at den virksomhed så sørger for den videre kommunikation.
LBS: Lige præcis. Men det virker da slet ikke, for de kommunikerer ikke noget som helst videre.
ENC: Nå.
LBS: Det er der det store problem ofte opstår. Nemlig det med, at så hører dem længere ude i rækken ikke noget.
ENC: Nå. Okay. Så dvs. at den dør efter kommunikationen er givet videre til den hovedansvarlige?
LBS: Ja.
ENC: Nå. Ja okay. Mht. tillid mellem to virksomheder, eller SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne, hvilke elementer vil du så sige er de vigtigste, for at kunne opbygge en tillid der gør, at man kan udveksle informationer og viden?
LBS: Jamen, jeg synes noget af det vigtigste er en høj grad af tålmodighed og fokus på målsætningen.
ENC: Ja.
Page 129 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
LBS: Også forstået sådan, at man skal være parat til, at det ikke nødvendigvis lykkes første gang. Man skal holde målsætningen for øje. Man har nogle bestemte målsætninger der skal nås, men derfra kan det jo godt være, at der er nogle punkter undervejs, som fejler, så man må starte forfra, og lave noget om. Der synes jeg, at noget af det værste, er at starte på noget og prøver at forcere processen, for at opnå de hurtige resultater, frem for at have tålmodighed.
ENC: Okay. Og igen rent overordnet, hvordan ser du tillidsniveauet mellem SustainAgri og den samlede klynge?
LBS: Det er svært at sige, for det hænger igen sammen med, at vi i perioder har forsøgt at skifte målsætningen. Og det har været et problem. Jeg vil sige, at dem der er kommet ind ud fra, at den nye målsætning passer bedre sammen med vores EU projekt, synes jeg at der er en høj grad af tillid, og samtidigt en høj grad af åbenhed. Åbenhed og tillid hænger meget sammen.
ENC: Ja.
LBS: Der er en høj grad af åbenhed, og dermed også en høj grad af tillid. Så er der nogen i den anden gruppe, der har haft sværere ved at se den nye målsætning. Og der er der ikke nogen tvivl om, at der er nogle ting, som de er knap så åbne om i den forbindelse.
ENC: Er der nogle partnervirksomheder i klyngen, som mere bare er medlemmer for at være der, uden at gøre noget aktivt?
LBS: Ja. Det gør sig gældende for ca. en tredjedel af dem.
ENC: Nå. Vil du så sige, at størstedelen af dem, er dem der var med fra starten, der så er gået lidt døde hen af vejen?
LBS: Ja, helt klart.
ENC: Okay. Det næste er selvfølgelig lidt svært at svare på. Men igen, mht. tillidsniveauet, hvordan vil du sige at det er partnervirksomhederne imellem?
LBS: Uha. Det er svært at svare på, fordi det er svingende. Der er nogen hvor der er en høj grad af tillid, og nogle hvor der slet ikke er tillid. Og der er ingen tvivl om, at jo mere de opfatter sig selv, som mulige konkurrenter, jo mindre tillid er der. Men generelt, er der ikke noget voldsomt højt tillidsniveau.
ENC: Nej. Men igen afhænger det lidt af, hvad de laver, og om de kan komplimentere hinanden?
LBS: Ja, men generelt vil jeg ikke sige at der er nogen tillid.
ENC: Så det hele afhænger af at SustainAgri, skal have det til at fungere?
LBS: Ja.
Page 130 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
ENC: Hvordan vil du så sige, at SustainAgri samarbejder med partnervirksomhederne, mht., som du sagde, at lave møder for at finde en fælles målsætning. Laver i så også workshops eller seminarer, eller holder i jer bare til møder?
LBS: Vi holder det primært til møder. Men man kan jo så sige, at vi prøver mere og mere at få lagt et seminaragtigt præg på nogle af møderne. Vi ville rigtig gerne, kunne bruge flere ressourcer på det. Men det er generelt et problem for de enkelte virksomheder, at afse tid, og så er det jo lidt skuffende at afholde et større seminar, hvis det kun er en ganske lille del af gruppen der møder op.
ENC: Ja, det er da rigtigt nok. Det skulle jo gerne være dem alle sammen der møder op. Hvordan vil du så sige, at partnervirksomhederne bidrager til opbygningen af arbejdsforholdet til SustainAgri? Nu har du jo sagt, hvad SustainAgri gør, fx vha. den fælles målsætning og møder, men hvad vil du så sige, at partnervirksomhederne skal bidrage med?
LBS: Hvad de bidrager med, eller hvad de bør bidrage med?
ENC: Ja, vel egentligt begge dele. Fordi en ting er hvad de bidrager med, men hvad synes du at de bør bidrage med, for at et forhold skal kunne fungere?
LBS: Jeg synes generelt ikke, at bidraget lige pt. Er særlig stort. De har svært ved at finde ressourcer generelt. Men som minimum bør de i hvert fald bidrage, med faste kontaktpersoner, så man ved hvem man skal have fat på. Og det gør de selvfølgelig også i et vist omfang.
ENC: Ja.
LBS: Det gør de nogenlunde, så den del fungerer. Det de har svært ved at bidrage med, er det tidsmæssige ressourcer. Det ville jo være ønskeligt, at de havde større mulighed for det. Men der er jo ikke nogen, af de virksomheder vi har, der har mulighed for at deltage i møder, i et særlig stort omfang. Vores samarbejdsniveau ligger jo sådan set på sælgerplan i de forskellige virksomheder. Og en sælger i vore dage, har ikke tid til andet end at sælge. Så alt hvad der ikke giver et salg med samme, gider en sælger ikke deltage i. Og deri ligger vi jo, med vores netværk.
ENC: Så de deltager ikke i noget, hvor de ikke kan se et outcome i den nærmeste fremtid?
LBS: Ja.
ENC: Okay. Nu nævnte du det med kontaktpersoner, og jeg kom til at tænke på, om du så synes at kontaktpersonerne en rimelig god viden om hvad SustainAgri laver, og hvad de kan få ud af det?
LBS: Ja de fleste.
ENC: Ja, det kunne man jo så også, håbe at de havde.
LBS: Ja.
Page 131 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
ENC: Det er lidt det samme, men hvordan vil du så sige, at partnervirksomhederne skal bidrage i forbindelse med vedligeholdelse af et godt arbejdsforhold? Det er jo så nok igen om kontaktpersonerne.
LBS: Ja, og så vil jeg sige, at så bør de afsætte nogle flere ressourcer til selve mødeaktiviteterne. Fordi i forhold til netværksdannelse, er det jo nødvendigt at mødes engang imellem.
ENC: Ja, man skulle jo tro, at man med netværksdannelse, var nødt til at møde rimelig jævnlig for at få det til at fungere.
LBS: Ja.
ENC: Hvilke tiltage vil du så sige, at SustainAgri har gjort, for at kunne udvikle forholdet mellem dem selv og partnervirksomhederne?
LBS. Jamen, der er der jo bl.a. indført det med individuelle møder, rundt hos alle virksomhederne, for at kunne sørge for, at bringe dem de rigtige informationer.
ENC: Ja, og måske få lidt mere viden om, hvad de forventer?
LBS: Ja. Lige præcis. Så det er nok et af de væsentligste tiltag vi har foretaget. Så kunne jeg som sagt, også godt tænke mig, at vi fokuserede noget mere på seminarer og workshops, for at gøre det mere interessant at deltage i møderne. Det har været svært at finde på den rigtige recept indtil videre.
ENC: Ja.
LBS: Men det er vel de to elementer, som vi har mest fokus på.
ENC: Ja. Jeg kom til at tænke på, mht. de individuelle møder, hvordan synes du at de har fungeret? Nu har du jo lavet dem.
LBS: Jamen de har fungeret rigtig godt. Groft sagt kan man jo sige det på den måde, at det vi har fortalt, kunne lige så godt være skrevet på en e-mail. Men så ville vi ikke, have fået nogen respons på det overhovedet. Og jeg er ikke sikker på, at det så ville have været, mere end halvdelen der ville have læst det.
ENC: Nej.
LBS: Så på den måde kan man sige, at vi er sikre på at alle har hørt budskabet, og ved hvad det drejer sig om. Og vi har også fået, en eller anden respons fra alle. Det Har været kortfattet, det kan have været et ja eller nej, eller et eller andet, men der har dog været en respons.
ENC: Ja. Og så har i fået noget personlig kontakt samtidigt.
LBS: Ja.
Page 132 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
ENC: Mht. tilfredshed i klyngen. Hvilke forventninger tror du partnervirksomhederne har, når de begynder at samarbejde med SustainAgri?
LBS: De har en forventning om, at det vil skabe et større salg.
ENC: Ja. Og de fleste har vel også brug, for hjælp til at eksportere?
LBS: Jo, de har brug for hjælp til at eksportere. Det kan både være generelt, men det kan også være i forhold til de specifikke lande, som vi arbejder på.
ENC: Nå, okay.
LBS: Det kan også være i relation til, at de fleste godt kan se, at i teorien skulle ideen, om en række virksomheder der supplerer hinanden, burde kunne medføre at hvis den ene sælger noget, så anbefaler man også den næste i rækken at eksportere. Det kan jo også føre til et højere salg. I hvert fald i teorien.
ENC: Ja. Men hvad gør SustainAgri så, for at kunne leve op til de her forventninger, hvor partnervirksomhederne jo egentligt gerne bare vil have projekter og kunder?
LBS: Jamen vi prøver jo så at undersøge den proces, ved også at tage med dem ud og holde kundemøder, ikke fordi vi egentligt skal varetage selve processen, men vi prøver, i hvert fald lidt, at lege formidler for dem også, for at se om det kan hjælpe noget i gang.
ENC: Ja.
LBS: Og vi betaler en række udgifter for dem også, for at hjælpe det i gang.
ENC: Ja okay. Men det er vel også, for at få samarbejdet til så at fungere bedre?
LBS: Ja lige præcis.
ENC: Så kan de jo også se nogle konkrete fordele.
LBS: Ja.
ENC: Vil du sige, at SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne er ligeværdige partnere? Altså vil du sige, at partnervirksomhederne måske kommer med forslag til, hvor der kan laves projekter, som de synes er en god ide?
LBS: Det var et godt spørgsmål. Jeg vil sige, at jeg opfatter os som ligeværdige partnere, på den måde forstået, at vi med de fleste har en åben og ligefrem dialog. Så på den måde ja. Men så er det jo alligevel ikke anderledes, end at jeg også stadigvæk betragter vores partnervirksomheder, som kunder i butikken hos SustainAgri. Så på den måde er vi jo ikke ligeværdige. Jeg vil sige, at det er en kombination af et partnerskab, og en kundevirksomhed.
ENC: Ja. Så du har aldrig forventet, at de skulle byde ind med så meget?
Page 133 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
LBS: Nej.
ENC: Okay. Bruger du nogle metoder, for at finde ud af hvordan tilstanden er, mht. forholdet mellem SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne? Bruger du nogle målsætninger, som du kan holde det op imod?
LBS: Nej.
ENC: Nej? Så dvs. den måde ud kan se det på, er om virksomhederne bliver i klyngen?
LBS: Ja, præcis.
ENC: Hvad vil du så sige, der bliver gjort for at indsamle viden, fra de forskellige partnervirksomheder? Er det med mailkorrespondance frem og tilbage, eller er det mere på møderne?
LBS: Det er mere på møderne. Vores er faring er jo, at med mailkorrespondance, er der ikke rigtigt nogen der svarer. Så det er på møderne.
ENC: Ja. Okay. Og den indsamlede viden, bliver så brugt i forbindelse med nye projekter, går jeg ud fra?
LBS: Ja.
ENC: Og er det så alle virksomhederne, som du vil sige byder ind med lige meget?
LBS: Nej. Slet, slet ikke. Det er meget forskelligt. Tit er det også os, der kommer med forslag, hvor partnervirksomhederne så siger ja eller nej. Oprindeligt var der jo også en målsætning om, at alle skulle være enige. Den målsætning er vi også gået bort fra, for det satte tingene i stå i lang tid.
ENC: Ja. Det kan vel også tage noget tid, får alle bliver enige om noget som helst?
LBS: Jamen, det kunne slet ikke lade sig gøre. De blev aldrig enige om noget som helst.
ENC: Nå.
LBS: Det var ikke en mulighed.
ENC: Nej okay. SÅ dvs. at der var stilstand, så længe alle skulle være enige?
LBS: Nej, men oprindeligt blev SustainAgri jo startet, med det formål at gå efter det ukrainske marked. Den gruppe af virksomheder der var dengang, 14 eller 15 virksomheder, var enige om at lave en fælles indsats i Ukraine. Så langt så godt. Men efter der så var andre, der gerne ville ind andre steder, kunne man ikke nå til enighed.
ENC: Nå.
Page 134 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
LBS: Og det er så det, der har forsinket processen. Samtidigt er der så nogen der er faldet fra i Ukraine, uden at der er kommet helt så mange til. Og nogen vil så gerne andre steder hen og forsøge sig. Det har man ikke kunne opnå enighed om.
ENC: Nå, okay. Jeg ville ellers have troet, at der ville have været enighed om, at sprede det til flere markeder.
LBS: Nej, det var der ikke. Man ville ikke sprede sig, fordi der trods alt er konkurrenter i gruppen, og man ville jo ikke have konkurrenterne med over på andre markeder. I Ukraine blev man enige om hvordan man skulle dele kagen, så at sige. ”Jeg laver det produkt, du laver det produkt”. Men der er måske nogen, der laver tre eller fire produkter, og det gør de andre også, så derfor er der jo noget overlapning.
ENC: Nå. Ja okay.
LBS: I Ukraine blev man enige om, at dele det på en bestemt måde, men det kunne man ikke blive enige om det andet sted, nemlig.
ENC: Nå, okay. Jeg ville ellers bare have troet, at det var den samme model, som man førte over på et andet marked.
LBS: Nej, nej.
ENC: Men det er jo selvfølgelig også svært, hvis der er nogen der træder ud.
LBS: Ja, og hvis der var nogen, der allerede var i gang på det marked.
ENC: Nå. Ja, okay. Så kommer du jo, og tager deres del af markedet.
LBS: Ja.
ENC: Jamen selvfølgelig. Og hvor ofte vil du så sige, at den videndeling mellem SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne finder sted? Altså hvis du siger at det finder sted på møderne, hvor ofte er det så?
LBS: Ja. Jamen det gør det vel to til tre gange om året.
ENC: Ja. Til virksomhedsmøderne?
LBS: Ja, ja.
ENC: Okay. Ved du så, om partnervirksomhederne deler viden med hinanden på tværs af klyngen? Udenom SustainAgri?
LBS: Ja nogen gør, og nogen gør ikke.
ENC: Så det er sådan fifty-fifty?
LBS: Ja.
Page 135 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
ENC: Okay. Jamen det var sådan set, de spørgsmål jeg havde. Så det var dejligt at du havde tid til det.
LBS. Ja. Det var så lidt.
ENC: Men tak for det.
Page 136 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Appendix 7: List of partner companies
Partner companies participating in the questionnaire:
Danish Farm Design
Danish Farm Design is a consultancy providing its customers with knowledge and information regarding planning and financing of projects within the building of piggeries and byres.
Danish Farm Design is located in Odense, Denmark.
Contact person: Bjarne K. Pedersen , Managing Director
More information can be found on the company website: http://www.danishfarmdesign.dk/
EnergiMidt
EnergiMidt is an electric company which provides energy for households as well as for farm buildings.
The company is located in Silkeborg, Denmark.
Contact person: Kurt Mortensen, Energy consultant within the farming sector
More information can be found on the company website: http://energimidt.dk/privat/sider/privat.aspx
Industri-Montage Vest
Industri-Montage is a consulting engineer company within refrigeration equipment for the food industry as well as ventilation and air conditioning systems for e.g. piggeries and byres.
The company is situated near Vojens, Denmark.
Contact person: Palle Lemminger, Managing Director
More information about the company can be found at: http://im-vest.industri-montage.dk/
Page 137 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
JMS Managament ApS
JMS Management ApS is a consultancy company specialising in providing strategic development strategies and making market analysis for especially SME’s.
The company is located in Odense, Denmark.
Contact person: Jørgen Meier Sørensen, Managing Director
More information can be found at: http://www.jmsmanagement.dk/default.htm
Little Dane ApS
It is a consultancy company providing customers with knowledge and know-how regarding the building of piggeries in Eastern Europe.
The company is located in Moscow, Russia.
Contact person: Lars Thode Kristensen, Managing Director
Its website is: http://www.marcon.ru/ (It is only available in Russian)
Nordic Environment ApS
It is a consultancy company specialising in environmental solutions and process technologies.
The company is located in Charlottenlund near Copenhagen.
Contact person: Alan Rasmussen, Managing Director
The website is: http://www.nordic-environment.com/
S.A. Christensen & CO.
The company is one of the world’s largest producers of milking equipment.
It is situated near Kolding, Denmark.
Contact person: Oksana Lunderskov, Area Sales Manager
The company’s website can be found via this link: http://www.sac.dk/showpage.php?pageid=695356&displayid=2450674
Page 138 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Kongskilde A/S
Kongskilde A/S is a consultancy company which specialises in the combination of cultivation and industrial techniques, knowledge and know-how for the farming sector.
The company is located in Sorø, Denmark.
Contact person: Michael Andersen, Head of the Project Department
The company website: http://www.kongskilde.com/Corporate/
Ingvald Christensen A/S
The company produces, sells and service machinery for the slaughtering of animals.
The company is located in Odense, Denmark.
Contact person: Leif Hye-Knudsen, Area Sales Manager
The company website can be found at: http://www.ingvald.dk/
Influx
The company produces and services equipment made for the dairy and food industries.
It is located in Vissenbjerg, Denmark.
Contact person: Ebbe Bojer, Managing Director
The company website is: http://influx.dk/
Partner companies not participating in the questionnaire:
Jyden Bur A/S
Jyden Bur produces pigs and cattle housing to be used within piggeries and byres.
The company is located in Vemb, Denmark.
Contact person: Jens Agergaard, Managing Director
More information about the company can be found at: http://www.jydenbur.dk/
Page 139 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Porc-Ex A/S
Porc-EX A/S sells pigs for breeding as well as weaners, slaughter pigs and sows to farmers who are just setting up business.
The company is located in Kolding, Denmark.
Contact person: Holger B. Sørensen, Owner
The website is: http://www.porc-ex.dk/
Skov A/S
Specialises in the production of air conditioning within piggeries and byres as well as the monitoring of animal production within farming.
The company is located in Glyngøre, Denmark.
Contact person: Peter B. Kierklo, Regional Sales Manager Eastern Europe
Company website: http://www.skov.com/DA/Pages/Default.aspx
Partner company that did not wish to participate:
Bovi Danmark
Bovi Danmark is an exporter of different types of breeding cattle used within the farming sector.
The company is situated in Rødding, Denmark.
Contact person: Evald P. Madsen, Managing Director
The company website is: http://www.bovi-denmark.dk/
Page 140 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Appendix 8: Interview agreement forms(From all three interviews)
Page 141 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Page 142 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Page 143 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Page 144 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Page 145 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Appendix 9: Questions for interview(In English and Danish)
Interview questions (English)
Introduction:
My name is Esben and, as you might know, I am looking into how SustainAgri manages its relationships with its partner companies.
Before I begin, do you have any questions?
In order to provide some information about you as a person, I will start by asking you some relevant information concerning you.
What is your job title?
What does your job entail?
How long have you been working for SustainAgri?
Relationships:
How would you define a good working relationship?
Which aspects of a business relationship do you feel are the most important?
In practice, how does SustainAgri use these aspects when dealing with the partner companies?
How does SustainAgri benefit from the partner companies? (Tangible as well as intangible ways they benefit.)
Relationship marketing and communication:
Communication - How does SustainAgri communicate with the partner companies? (E.g. via mail, newsletters, telephone conversations etc.).
Communication - How often does SustainAgri communicate with its partner companies?
Communication - In general, how much of your time is spent on communicating with the partner companies?
Trust – Which aspects are the most important when building trust between SustainAgri and the partner companies? (E.g. literature states that trust is created through integrity, dependability and competence).
Page 146 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Trust – What is the level of trust between SustainAgri and the partner companies?
Trust –What is the level of trust among the partner companies in the cluster?
Cooperation: How does SustainAgri build relationships with its partner companies? (E.g. by seminars, workshops, meetings, projects etc.)
Commitment - How would you describe the relationship between SustainAgri and the partner companies in general?
Commitment - How do partner companies contribute to building relationships?
Commitment - How do partner companies contribute to maintaining relationships?
Relationship management:
Commitment - What has been done by SustainAgri to develop relationships between SustainAgri and the partner companies?
Satisfaction - In your opinion, which expectations do the partner companies have about SustainAgri?
Satisfaction – What is done to live up to these expectations?
Control mutuality – In your opinion, is SustainAgri and the partner companies equal partners within the relationship? (E.g. do all involved parties decide everything together or does SustainAgri make most of the decisions?)
Measuring – How does SustainAgri measure the status of a relationship? (E.g. by reaching goals and objectives set by the different partner companies together with SustainAgri)
Knowledge management:
Knowledge gathering - What is done to gather knowledge from the partner companies?
Using knowledge - How is this knowledge used in practice?
Knowledge sharing - How is knowledge shared between SustainAgri and the partner companies?
Knowledge sharing - How often is knowledge shared between SustainAgri and the partner companies?
Knowledge sharing - How do the partner companies share knowledge with each other?
Page 147 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Interview spørgsmål (Danish)
Introduktion:
Mit navn er Esben og som du sikkert ved, er jeg ved at skrive mit speciale, der handler om SustainAgris håndtering af kommunikationen med fondens partnervirksomheder.
Før vi starter, vil jeg lige høre dig ad, om du har nogle spørgsmål før vi begynder?
Jeg vil først spørge om lidt relevant information, som vil give et bedre indtryk af dig som person.
Hvad er din stillingsbetegnelse?
Hvad indebærer dit job?
Hvor lang tid har du arbejdet for SustainAgri?
Forhold:
Hvordan vil du definere et godt arbejdsforhold?
Hvilke aspekter mener du er vigtigst i forbindelse med et godt arbejdsforhold?
Hvordan gør SustainAgri, i praksis, brug af disse aspekter, når de beskæftiger sig med partnervirksomhederne?
På hvilken måde drager SustainAgri fordel af partnervirksomhederne? (Både mht. konkrete/fysiske fordele, såvel som immaterielle fordele).
Relationship marketing og kommunikation:
Kommunikation – Hvordan kommunikerer SustainAgri med partnervirksomhederne? (Fx. via mail, nyhedsbreve, telefon osv.)
Kommunikation – Hvor ofte kommunikerer SustainAgri med partnervirksomhederne?
Kommunikation – Generelt set, hvor meget af din bruger du på at kommunikere med partnervirksomhederne?
Tillid – Hvilke aspekter er de vigtigste, for at bygge og vedligeholde tillid mellem SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne? (Fx. står der i faglitteraturen at tillid er skabt gennem integritet, pålidelighed og kompetencer).
Tillid – Hvilket tillidsniveau er der mellem SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne?
Tillid – Hvilket tillidsniveau er der blandt partnervirksomhederne på tværs af klyngen?
Page 148 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Samarbejde - Hvordan samarbejder SustainAgri med partnervirksomhederne? (fx. Ved afholdelse af seminarer, workshops, møder, projekter etc.)
Engagement – Hvordan vil du beskrive forholdet mellem SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne rent overordnet?
Engagement - Hvordan bidrager partnervirksomhederne til opbygningen af arbejdsforholdet med SustainAgri?
Engagement - Hvordan bidrager partnervirksomhederne til vedligeholdelsen af arbejdsforholdet?
Relationship management:
Engagement – Hvilke tiltag har SustainAgri brugt/gjort/gjort sig, for at udvikle forholdet mellem dem og partnervirksomhederne?
Tilfredshed – Efter din mening, hvilke forventninger har partnervirksomhederne til SustainAgri ?
Tilfredshed – Hvad bliver gjort for at leve op til disse forventninger?
Kontrol gensidighed – Efter din mening, er SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne ligeværdige partnere i arbejdsforholdet?
Afmåling af forholdet– Bruger du nogle metoder for at vurdere tilstanden af forholdet mellem SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne, som fx. målsætninger?
Knowledge management:
Vidensindsamling – Hvad bliver gjort for at indsamle viden fra partnervirksomhederne?
Brug af viden- Hvordan bliver den indsamlede viden brugt i praksis?
Videndeling – Hvordan bliver viden mellem SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne udvekslet?
Videndeling – Hvor ofte bliver viden mellem SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne udvekslet?
Videndeling – Hvordan udveksler partnervirksomhederne viden med hinanden?
Page 149 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Appendix 10: Interview guide
Interview guide for semi-structured interviews
The interview is divided into five sections:
Introduction
Relationships
Relationship marketing and communication
Relationship management
Knowledge management
The interviews last between 24 and 49 minutes and took place between the 10th of May and the 30th of May 2012.
The interview participants are:
Managing Director of SustainAgri, Lasse Bork Schmidt, interviewed on 30th of May 2012 – lasting approximately 24 minutes.
Vice Director of SustainAgri, Carsten Møller, interviewed on 10th of May 2012 – lasting about 49 minutes.
Head of the Development Group, Christian Sønderup, interviewed on 10th of May 2012 – lasting about 45 minutes.
Introduction:
This section is used to inform the interview participant of the project and gives them a chance of asking questions regarding the project. However, beforehand the participants have been asked to read through and sign an interview agreement form with more information about the project and how the interview will be conducted.
The questions for the participant within this section are easy and should be quickly answered but will provide me with some information which is useful when finding out which areas of relationship marketing, relationship management, knowledge management and communication with the partner companies they might know most about. However, these questions provide me with more information about the participant and how they might view certain aspects of the relationship
Page 150 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
between SustainAgri and the partner companies as well as how they perceive the reality of the relationship dimensions and the aspect of knowledge management.
My name is Esben and, as you might know, I am looking into how SustainAgri manages its relationships with its partner companies.
Before I begin, do you have any questions?
In order to provide some information about you as a person, I will start by asking you some relevant information concerning you.
What is your job title?
What does your job entail?
How long have you been working for SustainAgri?
Relationships:
This section concerns the aspect of relationships between two companies and which aspects might be most important for the interview participant in this connection.
The participant is asked to define a good working relationship as well as point to which aspects, in their opinion, are the most important. This way the participant explains his specific definition of relationships which will then be the one used during the interview. It is important to find out how the participant, since they are all working for SustainAgri, define relationships and the most important aspects. The definitions of the participants will also be compared to the definitions made by scholars within relationship management during the analysis section. As a conclusion of this, the participant is then asked what they think of the relationship between SustainAgri and the partner companies and which benefits are created both tangible and intangible.
How would you define a good working relationship?
Which aspects of a business relationship do you feel are the most important?
In practice, how does SustainAgri use these aspects when dealing with the partner companies?
How does SustainAgri benefit from the partner companies? (Tangible as well as intangible ways they benefit.)
Page 151 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Relationship marketing and communication:
The third section in the interview guide is Relationship marketing and communication. Here questions regarding the communication between SustainAgri and the partner companies are asked as well as how often communication takes place.
In connection with the above mentioned questions, the participant is again asked to make a definition, this time for trust, when trust exists between companies and which aspects are the most important for SustainAgri. This is done, as previously with relationships, to look into what is deemed important by the participants and if these answers correspond to Grunig and Hon’s (1999) dimensions of trust: Integrity, dependability and competence. This will be further discussed during the analysis section of this thesis.
The definition provided by the participants will then make it possible to ask questions regarding the level of trust existing between SustainAgri and the partner companies.
Finally during this section, one question regarding cooperation and three questions regarding commitment shown both by SustainAgri and the partner companies are asked – including how the partner companies maintain the relationship with SustainAgri.
As the headline of this section states, the following questions are primarily concerned with the aspect of relationship marketing.
Communication - How does SustainAgri communicate with the partner companies? (E.g. via mail, newsletters, telephone conversations etc.).
Communication - How often does SustainAgri communicate with its partner companies?
Communication - In general, how much of your time is spent on communicating with the partner companies?
Trust – Which aspects are the most important when building trust between SustainAgri and the partner companies? (E.g. literature states that trust is created through integrity, dependability and competence).
Trust – What is the level of trust between SustainAgri and the partner companies?
Trust –What is the level of trust among the partner companies in the cluster?
Cooperation: How does SustainAgri build relationships with its partner companies? (E.g. by seminars, workshops, meetings, projects etc.)
Commitment - How would you describe the relationship between SustainAgri and the partner companies in general?
Commitment - How do partner companies contribute to building relationships?
Commitment - How do partner companies contribute to maintaining relationships?
Page 152 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Relationship management:
During the fourth section, Relationship management, questions concerning commitment, satisfaction, control mutuality and measuring are asked. These questions will try to uncover which expectations the participants think the partner companies have and whether or not these expectations are fulfilled. As a consequence of these questions, I have chosen to include a question concerning measuring of relationships in order to find out if measures between SustainAgri and the partner companies have been developed.
This section also looks into three of the four dimensions by Hon and Grunig (1999): Commitment, Satisfaction and Control Mutuality.
Commitment - What has been done by SustainAgri to develop relationships between SustainAgri and the partner companies?
Satisfaction - In your opinion, which expectations do the partner companies have about SustainAgri?
Satisfaction – What is done to live up to these expectations?
Control mutuality – In your opinion, is SustainAgri and the partner companies equal partners within the relationship? (E.g. do all involved parties decide everything together or does SustainAgri make most of the decisions?)
Measuring – How does SustainAgri measure the status of a relationship? (E.g. by reaching goals and objectives set by the different partner companies together with SustainAgri)
Knowledge management:
This section is primarily about the knowledge management part of the relationship between SustainAgri and the partner companies and how knowledge is gathered, used and shared between all the companies involved.
Knowledge gathering - What is done to gather knowledge from the partner companies?
Using knowledge - How is this knowledge used in practice?
Knowledge sharing - How is knowledge shared between SustainAgri and the partner companies?
Knowledge sharing - How often is knowledge shared between SustainAgri and the partner companies?
Knowledge sharing - How do the partner companies share knowledge with each other?
All interview participants are thanked for participating in the interview and taking the time to answer my questions.
Page 153 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
The answers to these questions will form the questions used in the questionnaires which will be sent out to the partner companies.
Page 154 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Appendix 11: Mail introducing questionnaire to partner companies
Kære SustainAgri partnervirksomhed,
Mit navn er Esben, og jeg er praktikant hos SustainAgri. Jeg er i gang med at skrive mit speciale, der undersøger forholdet mellem SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne, med fokus på tilfredshedsgraden, mængden af videns- og informationsdeling, og kommunikationen imellem de involverede medlemmer og SustainAgri.
Som resultat af dette har jeg lavet et spørgeskema til partnervirksomhederne, som tager ca. 5 minutter at udfylde.
Den indsamlede viden fra spørgeskemaerne, har til formål at analysere kommunikationen, og det samlede arbejdsforhold, mellem medlemmerne og SustainAgri, samt at kigge nærmere på om forbedringer kan foretages.
Resultatet af specialet skulle gerne kunne bruges, i den fremtidige kommunikation mellem SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne.
Spørgeskemaet er lavet til at kunne udfyldes på computeren, men kan selvfølgelig også udfyldes i hånden.
Det ville være dejligt, hvis spørgeskemaet kan blive udfyldt og mailet, eller postet, tilbage til SustainAgri; helst inden tirsdag d. 5/6.
Jeg håber, at du vil være behjælpelig med udfyldningen af spørgeskemaet.
På forhånd tak for hjælpen.
Venlig hilsen,
Esben Nørris Christensen
SustainAgri
Sanderumvej 16B
5250 Odense SV
Page 155 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Appendix 12: Questionnaire(In English and Danish)
General information (English)
1. What is your company’s main field of work?
Supply Production Consulting Providing knowledge
Other:
2. Number of employees in your company: 1-5 6-20 21-50 51-100 101-150 151-200 201+
3. What is your position within the company (e.g. Project Manager, CEO)?
Page 156 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Communication
How do you normally communicate with SustainAgri (e.g. by telephone, mail, in person etc.)?
Email Phone Regular mail In person Other:
4. How often do you have personal (face-to-face) contact with an employee from SustainAgri? Once a week Once every two weeks Once every three weeks
Once a month Once every two months Once every three months
Please tick the boxes below according to your degree of satisfaction with the information and services provided by SustainAgri.
Not at all satisfied
Slightly satisfied
Moderately satisfied
Very satisfied
Extremely satisfied
How is SustainAgri at informing you about new activities within the cluster, e.g. through updating their website and sending out newsletters?
What do you think of the amount of information provided by SustainAgri?
How important is the personal contact for you?
Does SustainAgri provide sufficient information in connection with new export projects?
Membership information
5. How long has your company been a member of SustainAgri? (> means less than)
>1 year >2 years >3 years >4 years More than 4 years
6. How many projects has your company participated in, together with SustainAgri, since becoming a partner?
Page 157 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
7. What were your expectations when joining SustainAgri?
8. To what degree have the above mentioned expectations been met?
Not at all Slightly Moderately Very much Extremely much
Eventual comments:
9. Please name minimum 3 advantages of being a member of SustainAgri:
10. Are there disadvantages in connection with being a member of SustainAgri? Yes No
If yes, please state the disadvantages?
11. How has the membership of SustainAgri contributed to your company as a whole?
Not at all Slightly Moderately Very much Extremely much
Level of satisfaction
12. Have you at any time cooperated with other partner companies within the cluster? Yes No
13. In a few words, please describe your relationship with the other partner companies of SustainAgri:
Page 158 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Please tick the boxes below according to your degree of satisfaction with the questions regarding the information provided by SustainAgri.
Not at all satisfied
Slightly satisfied
Moderately satisfied
Very satisfied
Extremely satisfied
Do you often share information and knowledge with SustainAgri, e.g. in connection with meetings and the planning of new projects?How much information and knowledge do you generally share with SustainAgri?To what extent, do you think SustainAgri makes use of the competencies provided by your company, e.g. in connection with export projects?How much do you know about the goals of SustainAgri’s EU-project?
Overall, how dedicated are your company in the cooperation with SustainAgri?
Please tick the boxes below according to your degree of satisfaction with your cooperation with the questions regarding the other partner companies of SustainAgri.
Not at all satisfied
Slightly satisfied
Moderately satisfied
Very satisfied
Extremely satisfied
Do you cooperate with the other partner companies outside of the projects made with SustainAgri?
Do you share project-related information and knowledge with the other partner companies of SustainAgri?
14. To what extent do you feel you are able to influence decisions made by SustainAgri?
Not at all Slightly Moderately Very much Extremely much
Page 159 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
15. Please explain how you influence the decision-making process of SustainAgri?
Page 160 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Please tick the boxes below according to your degree of satisfaction regarding the questions about how your company feels about working together with SustainAgri and what benefits there might be.
Not at all satisfied
Slightly satisfied
Moderately satisfied
Very satisfied
Extremely satisfied
What is your level of satisfaction with SustainAgri?What is your level of satisfaction with the projects carried out by SustainAgri?Are you satisfied with the level of information provided by SustainAgri?How do you rate working with SustainAgri?Has the membership of SustainAgri made your company more competitive than previously?
16. To what extent do you feel that cooperation with other partner companies benefits your company?
Not at all Slightly Moderately Very Extremely
Satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied
Thank you very much for filling out the questionnaire. This has been a huge help for me and hopefully it will also benefit you in future dealings with SustainAgri!
Generel information (Danish)
17. Hvad er firmaets hovederhverv? Leverandør Produktion Konsulent Videninstitution
Andet:
18. Antallet af ansatte i firmaet: 1-5 6-20 21-50 51-100 101-150 151-200 201+
Page 161 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
19. Hvad er din stillingsbetegnelse (fx. Project Manager, Direktør eller lign.)?
Page 162 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Kommunikation
20. Hvordan kommunikerer firmaet normalvis med SustainAgri? (Du må gerne sætte kryds ved flere felter).
Email Telefon Post Personligt Andet:
21. Hvor ofte har du personlig kontakt med en ansat fra SustainAgri, fx et møde hvor to, eller flere, er det samme sted på samme tidspunkt? En gang om ugen En gang hver anden uge En gang hver tredje uge
En gang om måneden En gang hver anden måned En gang hver tredje måned
Afkryds venligst felterne i skemaet nedenfor i forhold til dit tilfredshedsniveau, i forbindelse med de informationer og services som SustainAgri tilbyder.
Slet ikke tilfreds
En smule tilfreds
Nogenlunde tilfreds
Meget tilfreds
Virkelig tilfreds
Hvordan er SustainAgri til at informere virksomheden om nye aktiviteter i klyngen, fx. gennem hjemmesideopdateringer og udsendelse af nyhedsbreve?
Hvad synes du om den samlede mængde af information, som SustainAgri sender ud?
Hvor vigtig er den personlige kontakt for dig?
Sørger SustainAgri for nok information, i forbindelse med nye eksportprojekter?
Medlemskabsinformation
Page 163 of 234
Andet:
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
22. Hvor lang tid har firmaet været medlem af SustainAgri? (> betyder mindre end)
>1 år >2 år >3 år >4 år Mere end 4 år
23. Hvor mange projekter har firmaet deltaget i, sammen med SustainAgri, siden optagelsen som partnervirksomhed?
24. Hvilke forventninger havde i, da firmaet blev optaget som medlem?
25. Er forventningerne blevet indfriet?
Slet ikke En smule Nogenlunde Meget Virkelig meget
Eventuelle kommentarer:
26. Nævn venligst minimum 3 fordele ved at være medlem af SustainAgri:
27. Er der nogen ulemper forbundet med at være medlem af SustainAgri? Ja Nej
Hvis ja, skriv venligst hvilke ulemper:
28. Generelt set, på hvilken måde har medlemskabet af SustainAgri hjulpet firmaet?
Slet ikke En smule Nogenlunde Meget Virkelig meget
Tilfredshedsniveau
Page 164 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
29. Har firmaet på noget tidspunkt samarbejdet med andre partnervirksomheder fra klyngen? Ja Nej
30. Beskriv venligst jeres arbejdsforhold med de andre partnervirksomheder i SustainAgri:
Afkryds venligst felterne i skemaet nedenfor i forhold til dit tilfredshedsniveau, i forbindelse med den samlede information ydet af SustainAgri.
Slet ikke En smule Engang imellem
Ofte Meget ofte
Deler firmaet ofte informationer og viden med SustainAgri, fx. i forbindelse med møder eller planlægningen af nye projekter?
Deler firmaet normalvist meget information og viden med SustainAgri?
Synes du at SustainAgri gør nok brug af de kompetencer, som jeres firma tilbyder. Fx i forbindelse med eksportprojekter?
Hvor meget ved du om SustainAgris mål i forbindelse med EU-projektet?
Arbejder firmaet dedikeret, på at få det størst mulige udbytte ud af samarbejdet med SustainAgri?
Page 165 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Afkryds venligst felterne i skemaet nedenfor i forhold til dit tilfredshedsniveau, i forbindelse med samarbejdet med de andre partnervirksomheder i SustainAgri.
Slet ikke En smule Engang imellem
Ofte Meget ofte
Samarbejder i med de andre partnervirksomheder, udover projekter der involverer SustainAgri?
Deler i projektrelaterede informationer og viden med de andre partnervirksomheder i SustainAgri?
31. Føler du, at dit firma har indflydelse på beslutninger truffet af SustainAgri?
Slet ikke En smule Nogenlunde Meget Virkelig meget
32. Beskriv venligst på hvordan firmaet har indflydelse på beslutningsprocessen?
Afkryds venligst felterne i skemaet nedenfor i forhold til dit tilfredshedsniveau, i forbindelse med hvad dit firma synes om samarbejdet med SustainAgri, og hvilke fordele der er ved dette.
Slet ikke tilfreds
En smule tilfreds
Nogenlunde tilfreds
Meget tilfreds
Virkelig tilfreds
Hvad er dit firmas tilfredshedsniveau mht. samarbejdet med SustainAgri?
Hvor tilfreds er i med projekterne?
Er i tilfredse med det nuværende informationsniveau som SustainAgri yder?
Hvad synes i om samarbejdet med SustainAgri?
Har det at være medlem af SustainAgri, gjort firmaet mere konkurrencedygtigt end tidligere?
Page 166 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
33. Hvordan synes du at samarbejdet med SustainAgri har gavnet dit firma?
Slet ikke En smule Nogenlunde Meget Virkelig
tilfredsstillende tilfredsstillende tilfredsstillende tilfredsstillende tilfredsstillende
Mange tak fordi du tog dig tid, til at udfylde spørgeskemaet. Det er en stor hjælp for mig, og forhåbentligt vil det også komme dig og din virksomhed til gode, i den fremtidige kontakt med SustainAgri!
Page 167 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Appendix 13: Completed questionnaires
Kongskilde A/SGenerel information
1. Hvad er firmaets hovederhverv?
x Leverandør Produktion Konsulent Videninstitution
Andet:
2. Antallet af ansatte i firmaet: 1-5 6-20 21-50 51-100 101-150 151-200 x 201+
3. Hvad er din stillingsbetegnelse (fx. Project Manager, Direktør eller lign.)? Project manager
Page 168 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Kommunikation
4. Hvordan kommunikerer firmaet normalvis med SustainAgri? (Du må gerne sætte kryds ved flere felter).
x
Email Telefon Post Personligt Andet:
5. Hvor ofte har du personlig kontakt med en ansat fra SustainAgri, fx et møde hvor to, eller flere, er det samme sted på samme tidspunkt? En gang om ugen En gang hver anden uge En gang hver tredje uge
En gang om måneden En gang hver anden måned En gang hver tredje måned
x højst en gang om året
Afkryds venligst felterne i skemaet nedenfor i forhold til dit tilfredshedsniveau, i forbindelse med de informationer og services som SustainAgri tilbyder.
Slet ikke tilfreds
En smule tilfreds
Nogenlunde tilfreds
Meget tilfreds
Virkelig tilfreds
Hvordan er SustainAgri til at informere virksomheden om nye aktiviteter i klyngen, fx. gennem hjemmesideopdateringer og udsendelse af nyhedsbreve?
x
Hvad synes du om den samlede mængde af information, som SustainAgri sender ud?
x
Hvor vigtig er den personlige kontakt for dig? x
Sørger SustainAgri for nok information, i forbindelse med nye eksportprojekter?
x
Medlemskabsinformation
Page 169 of 234
Andet:
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
6. Hvor lang tid har firmaet været medlem af SustainAgri? (> betyder mindre end)
>1 år >2 år x >3 år >4 år Mere end 4 år
7. Hvor mange projekter har firmaet deltaget i, sammen med SustainAgri, siden optagelsen som partnervirksomhed? Et par tilbud
8. Hvilke forventninger havde i, da firmaet blev optaget som medlem? Salg af et anlæg per år , efter 1-2 års
9. Er forventningerne blevet indfriet? x
Slet ikke En smule Nogenlunde Meget Virkelig meget
Eventuelle kommentarer: Kongskilde har ikke været aktiv selv, grundet mangel på salgspersonale.
10. Nævn venligst minimum 3 fordele ved at være medlem af SustainAgri: Fælles eksportfremstød, lokalt kontor, deltagelse i lokal agro udstillinger
11. Er der nogen ulemper forbundet med at være medlem af SustainAgri? Ja x Nej
Hvis ja, skriv venligst hvilke ulemper:
12. Generelt set, på hvilken måde har medlemskabet af SustainAgri hjulpet firmaet? x
Slet ikke En smule Nogenlunde Meget Virkelig meget
Tilfredshedsniveau
13. Har firmaet på noget tidspunkt samarbejdet med andre partnervirksomheder fra klyngen?
Page 170 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
x Ja Nej
14. Beskriv venligst jeres arbejdsforhold med de andre partnervirksomheder i SustainAgri: Udarbejdelse af tilbud for Egebjerg maskinfabrik, i forbindelse med fælles projekt
Afkryds venligst felterne i skemaet nedenfor i forhold til dit tilfredshedsniveau, i forbindelse med den samlede information ydet af SustainAgri.
Slet ikke En smule Engang imellem
Ofte Meget ofte
Deler firmaet ofte informationer og viden med SustainAgri, fx. i forbindelse med møder eller planlægningen af nye projekter?
x
Deler firmaet normalvist meget information og viden med SustainAgri?
x
Synes du at SustainAgri gør nok brug af de kompetencer, som jeres firma tilbyder. Fx i forbindelse med eksportprojekter?
x
Hvor meget ved du om SustainAgris mål i forbindelse med EU-projektet?
x
Arbejder firmaet dedikeret, på at få det størst mulige udbytte ud af samarbejdet med SustainAgri?
Afkryds venligst felterne i skemaet nedenfor i forhold til dit tilfredshedsniveau, i forbindelse med samarbejdet med de andre partnervirksomheder i SustainAgri.
Slet ikke En smule Engang imellem
Ofte Meget ofte
Samarbejder i med de andre partnervirksomheder, udover projekter der involverer SustainAgri?
x
Deler i projektrelaterede informationer og viden med de andre partnervirksomheder i SustainAgri?
x
Page 171 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
15. Føler du, at dit firma har indflydelse på beslutninger truffet af SustainAgri? x
Slet ikke En smule Nogenlunde Meget Virkelig meget
16. Beskriv venligst på hvordan firmaet har indflydelse på beslutningsprocessen?
Afkryds venligst felterne i skemaet nedenfor i forhold til dit tilfredshedsniveau, i forbindelse med hvad dit firma synes om samarbejdet med SustainAgri, og hvilke fordele der er ved dette.
Slet ikke tilfreds
En smule tilfreds
Nogenlunde tilfreds
Meget tilfreds
Virkelig tilfreds
Hvad er dit firmas tilfredshedsniveau mht. samarbejdet med SustainAgri?
x
Hvor tilfreds er i med projekterne? x
Er i tilfredse med det nuværende informationsniveau som SustainAgri yder?
x
Hvad synes i om samarbejdet med SustainAgri?
x
Har det at være medlem af SustainAgri, gjort firmaet mere konkurrencedygtigt end tidligere?
x
17. Hvordan synes du at samarbejdet med SustainAgri har gavnet dit firma?
x
Slet ikke En smule Nogenlunde Meget Virkelig
tilfredsstillende tilfredsstillende tilfredsstillende tilfredsstillende tilfredsstillende
Page 172 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Mange tak fordi du tog dig tid, til at udfylde spørgeskemaet. Det er en stor hjælp for mig, og forhåbentligt vil det også komme dig og din virksomhed til gode, i den fremtidige kontakt med SustainAgri!
JMS Management ApSGenerel information
1. Hvad er firmaets hovederhverv?
x Leverandør Produktion Konsulent Videninstitution
Andet:
2. Antallet af ansatte i firmaet: x 1-5 6-20 21-50 51-100 101-150 151-200 201+
3. Hvad er din stillingsbetegnelse (fx. Project Manager, Direktør eller lign.)? Direktør
Page 173 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Kommunikation
4. Hvordan kommunikerer firmaet normalvis med SustainAgri? (Du må gerne sætte kryds ved flere felter).
x x x
Email Telefon Post Personligt Andet:
5. Hvor ofte har du personlig kontakt med en ansat fra SustainAgri, fx et møde hvor to, eller flere, er det samme sted på samme tidspunkt? En gang om ugen x En gang hver anden uge En gang hver tredje uge
En gang om måneden En gang hver anden måned En gang hver tredje måned
Afkryds venligst felterne i skemaet nedenfor i forhold til dit tilfredshedsniveau, i forbindelse med de informationer og services som SustainAgri tilbyder.
Slet ikke tilfreds
En smule tilfreds
Nogenlunde tilfreds
Meget tilfreds
Virkelig tilfreds
Hvordan er SustainAgri til at informere virksomheden om nye aktiviteter i klyngen, fx. gennem hjemmesideopdateringer og udsendelse af nyhedsbreve?
x
Hvad synes du om den samlede mængde af information, som SustainAgri sender ud?
x
Hvor vigtig er den personlige kontakt for dig? x
Sørger SustainAgri for nok information, i forbindelse med nye eksportprojekter?
x
Medlemskabsinformation
Page 174 of 234
Andet:
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
6. Hvor lang tid har firmaet været medlem af SustainAgri? (> betyder mindre end)
>1 år >2 år >3 år >4 år Mere end 4 år x
7. Hvor mange projekter har firmaet deltaget i, sammen med SustainAgri, siden optagelsen som partnervirksomhed? 5 (forundersøgelser etablering)
8. Hvilke forventninger havde i, da firmaet blev optaget som medlem? Netværksudvikling + projekter
9. Er forventningerne blevet indfriet? x
Slet ikke En smule Nogenlunde Meget Virkelig meget
Eventuelle kommentarer:
10. Nævn venligst minimum 3 fordele ved at være medlem af SustainAgri: Godt netværk
Info. omkring eksportkredit m.m. samt ESCO
11. Er der nogen ulemper forbundet med at være medlem af SustainAgri? Ja x Nej
Hvis ja, skriv venligst hvilke ulemper:
12. Generelt set, på hvilken måde har medlemskabet af SustainAgri hjulpet firmaet? x
Slet ikke En smule Nogenlunde Meget Virkelig meget
Tilfredshedsniveau
13. Har firmaet på noget tidspunkt samarbejdet med andre partnervirksomheder fra klyngen?
Page 175 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
x Ja Nej
14. Beskriv venligst jeres arbejdsforhold med de andre partnervirksomheder i SustainAgri: Tilskudsordninger i.f.m. etablering
Afkryds venligst felterne i skemaet nedenfor i forhold til dit tilfredshedsniveau, i forbindelse med den samlede information ydet af SustainAgri.
Slet ikke En smule Engang imellem
Ofte Meget ofte
Deler firmaet ofte informationer og viden med SustainAgri, fx. i forbindelse med møder eller planlægningen af nye projekter?
x
Deler firmaet normalvist meget information og viden med SustainAgri?
x
Synes du at SustainAgri gør nok brug af de kompetencer, som jeres firma tilbyder. Fx i forbindelse med eksportprojekter?
x
Hvor meget ved du om SustainAgris mål i forbindelse med EU-projektet?
x
Arbejder firmaet dedikeret, på at få det størst mulige udbytte ud af samarbejdet med SustainAgri?
x
Afkryds venligst felterne i skemaet nedenfor i forhold til dit tilfredshedsniveau, i forbindelse med samarbejdet med de andre partnervirksomheder i SustainAgri.
Slet ikke En smule Engang imellem
Ofte Meget ofte
Samarbejder i med de andre partnervirksomheder, udover projekter der involverer SustainAgri?
x
Deler i projektrelaterede informationer og viden med de andre partnervirksomheder i SustainAgri?
x
Page 176 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
15. Føler du, at dit firma har indflydelse på beslutninger truffet af SustainAgri? x
Slet ikke En smule Nogenlunde Meget Virkelig meget
16. Beskriv venligst på hvordan firmaet har indflydelse på beslutningsprocessen?
Afkryds venligst felterne i skemaet nedenfor i forhold til dit tilfredshedsniveau, i forbindelse med hvad dit firma synes om samarbejdet med SustainAgri, og hvilke fordele der er ved dette.
Slet ikke tilfreds
En smule tilfreds
Nogenlunde tilfreds
Meget tilfreds
Virkelig tilfreds
Hvad er dit firmas tilfredshedsniveau mht. samarbejdet med SustainAgri?
x
Hvor tilfreds er i med projekterne? x
Er i tilfredse med det nuværende informationsniveau som SustainAgri yder?
x
Hvad synes i om samarbejdet med SustainAgri?
x
Har det at være medlem af SustainAgri, gjort firmaet mere konkurrencedygtigt end tidligere?
x
17. Hvordan synes du at samarbejdet med SustainAgri har gavnet dit firma?
x
Slet ikke En smule Nogenlunde Meget Virkelig
tilfredsstillende tilfredsstillende tilfredsstillende tilfredsstillende tilfredsstillende
Page 177 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Mange tak fordi du tog dig tid, til at udfylde spørgeskemaet. Det er en stor hjælp for mig, og forhåbentligt vil det også komme dig og din virksomhed til gode, i den fremtidige kontakt med SustainAgri!
EnergiMidtGenerel information
1. Hvad er firmaets hovederhverv?
x Leverandør Produktion Konsulent Videninstitution
Andet:
2. Antallet af ansatte i firmaet: 1-5 6-20 21-50 51-100 101-150 151-200 x 201+
3. Hvad er din stillingsbetegnelse (fx. Project Manager, Direktør eller lign.)? Energirådgiver
Page 178 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Kommunikation
4. Hvordan kommunikerer firmaet normalvis med SustainAgri? (Du må gerne sætte kryds ved flere felter).
x x
Email Telefon Post Personligt Andet:
5. Hvor ofte har du personlig kontakt med en ansat fra SustainAgri, fx et møde hvor to, eller flere, er det samme sted på samme tidspunkt? En gang om ugen En gang hver anden uge En gang hver tredje uge
En gang om måneden En gang hver anden måned x En gang hver tredje måned
Afkryds venligst felterne i skemaet nedenfor i forhold til dit tilfredshedsniveau, i forbindelse med de informationer og services som SustainAgri tilbyder.
Slet ikke tilfreds
En smule tilfreds
Nogenlunde tilfreds
Meget tilfreds
Virkelig tilfreds
Hvordan er SustainAgri til at informere virksomheden om nye aktiviteter i klyngen, fx. gennem hjemmesideopdateringer og udsendelse af nyhedsbreve?
x
Hvad synes du om den samlede mængde af information, som SustainAgri sender ud?
x
Hvor vigtig er den personlige kontakt for dig? x
Sørger SustainAgri for nok information, i forbindelse med nye eksportprojekter?
x
Medlemskabsinformation
Page 179 of 234
Andet:
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
6. Hvor lang tid har firmaet været medlem af SustainAgri? (> betyder mindre end)
>1 år >2 år >3 år x >4 år Mere end 4 år
7. Hvor mange projekter har firmaet deltaget i, sammen med SustainAgri, siden optagelsen som partnervirksomhed? 2
8. Hvilke forventninger havde i, da firmaet blev optaget som medlem? Nemmere adgang til udenlandske markeder
9. Er forventningerne blevet indfriet? x
Slet ikke En smule Nogenlunde Meget Virkelig meget
Eventuelle kommentarer:
10. Nævn venligst minimum 3 fordele ved at være medlem af SustainAgri: Klyngedeltagerne kan være ambassadører for hinanden
11. Er der nogen ulemper forbundet med at være medlem af SustainAgri? x Ja Nej
Hvis ja, skriv venligst hvilke ulemper:
Vi brugte meget tid på møder i.f.m. finansieringsmodeller, efter finanskrisens indtog
12. Generelt set, på hvilken måde har medlemskabet af SustainAgri hjulpet firmaet? x
Slet ikke En smule Nogenlunde Meget Virkelig meget
Tilfredshedsniveau
Page 180 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
13. Har firmaet på noget tidspunkt samarbejdet med andre partnervirksomheder fra klyngen? x Ja Nej
14. Beskriv venligst jeres arbejdsforhold med de andre partnervirksomheder i SustainAgri:
Afkryds venligst felterne i skemaet nedenfor i forhold til dit tilfredshedsniveau, i forbindelse med den samlede information ydet af SustainAgri.
Slet ikke En smule Engang imellem
Ofte Meget ofte
Deler firmaet ofte informationer og viden med SustainAgri, fx. i forbindelse med møder eller planlægningen af nye projekter?
x
Deler firmaet normalvist meget information og viden med SustainAgri?
x
Synes du at SustainAgri gør nok brug af de kompetencer, som jeres firma tilbyder. Fx i forbindelse med eksportprojekter?
x
Hvor meget ved du om SustainAgris mål i forbindelse med EU-projektet?
x
Arbejder firmaet dedikeret, på at få det størst mulige udbytte ud af samarbejdet med SustainAgri?
x
Afkryds venligst felterne i skemaet nedenfor i forhold til dit tilfredshedsniveau, i forbindelse med samarbejdet med de andre partnervirksomheder i SustainAgri.
Slet ikke En smule Engang imellem
Ofte Meget ofte
Samarbejder i med de andre partnervirksomheder, udover projekter der involverer SustainAgri?
x
Page 181 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Deler i projektrelaterede informationer og viden med de andre partnervirksomheder i SustainAgri?
x
15. Føler du, at dit firma har indflydelse på beslutninger truffet af SustainAgri? x
Slet ikke En smule Nogenlunde Meget Virkelig meget
16. Beskriv venligst på hvordan firmaet har indflydelse på beslutningsprocessen?
Afkryds venligst felterne i skemaet nedenfor i forhold til dit tilfredshedsniveau, i forbindelse med hvad dit firma synes om samarbejdet med SustainAgri, og hvilke fordele der er ved dette.
Slet ikke tilfreds
En smule tilfreds
Nogenlunde tilfreds
Meget tilfreds
Virkelig tilfreds
Hvad er dit firmas tilfredshedsniveau mht. samarbejdet med SustainAgri?
x
Hvor tilfreds er i med projekterne? x
Er i tilfredse med det nuværende informationsniveau som SustainAgri yder?
x
Hvad synes i om samarbejdet med SustainAgri?
x
Har det at være medlem af SustainAgri, gjort firmaet mere konkurrencedygtigt end tidligere?
x
17. Hvordan synes du at samarbejdet med SustainAgri har gavnet dit firma?
x
Slet ikke En smule Nogenlunde Meget Virkelig
Page 182 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
tilfredsstillende tilfredsstillende tilfredsstillende tilfredsstillende tilfredsstillende
Mange tak fordi du tog dig tid, til at udfylde spørgeskemaet. Det er en stor hjælp for mig, og forhåbentligt vil det også komme dig og din virksomhed til gode, i den fremtidige kontakt med SustainAgri!
Ingvald Christensen A/S
Generel information
1. Hvad er firmaets hovederhverv?
x Leverandør Produktion Konsulent Videninstitution
Andet:
2. Antallet af ansatte i firmaet: 1-5 x 6-20 21-50 51-100 101-150 151-200 201+
3. Hvad er din stillingsbetegnelse (fx. Project Manager, Direktør eller lign.)? Area Sales Manager
Page 183 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Kommunikation
4. Hvordan kommunikerer firmaet normalvis med SustainAgri? (Du må gerne sætte kryds ved flere felter).
x
Email Telefon Post Personligt Andet:
5. Hvor ofte har du personlig kontakt med en ansat fra SustainAgri, fx et møde hvor to, eller flere, er det samme sted på samme tidspunkt? En gang om ugen En gang hver anden uge En gang hver tredje uge
En gang om måneden X En gang hver anden måned En gang hver tredje måned
Afkryds venligst felterne i skemaet nedenfor i forhold til dit tilfredshedsniveau, i forbindelse med de informationer og services som SustainAgri tilbyder.
Slet ikke tilfreds
En smule tilfreds
Nogenlunde tilfreds
Meget tilfreds
Virkelig tilfreds
Hvordan er SustainAgri til at informere virksomheden om nye aktiviteter i klyngen, fx. gennem hjemmesideopdateringer og udsendelse af nyhedsbreve?
X
Hvad synes du om den samlede mængde af information, som SustainAgri sender ud?
X
Hvor vigtig er den personlige kontakt for dig? X
Sørger SustainAgri for nok information, i forbindelse med nye eksportprojekter?
X
Medlemskabsinformation
Page 184 of 234
Andet:
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
6. Hvor lang tid har firmaet været medlem af SustainAgri? (> betyder mindre end)
>1 år X >2 år >3 år >4 år Mere end 4 år
7. Hvor mange projekter har firmaet deltaget i, sammen med SustainAgri, siden optagelsen som partnervirksomhed? ET projekt
8. Hvilke forventninger havde i, da firmaet blev optaget som medlem? Vi havde en stor forventning
9. Er forventningerne blevet indfriet? X
Slet ikke En smule Nogenlunde Meget Virkelig meget
Eventuelle kommentarer:
10. Nævn venligst minimum 3 fordele ved at være medlem af SustainAgri: 1 Vi er mange forskellige firmaer --- 2 Sustain Agri har kontor i landet (Ukraine) --- 3 Der kan arbejdes på tværs af firmaer
11. Er der nogen ulemper forbundet med at være medlem af SustainAgri? Ja x Nej
Hvis ja, skriv venligst hvilke ulemper:
12. Generelt set, på hvilken måde har medlemskabet af SustainAgri hjulpet firmaet? x
Slet ikke En smule Nogenlunde Meget Virkelig meget
Tilfredshedsniveau
Page 185 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
13. Har firmaet på noget tidspunkt samarbejdet med andre partnervirksomheder fra klyngen? Ja x Nej
14. Beskriv venligst jeres arbejdsforhold med de andre partnervirksomheder i SustainAgri:
Afkryds venligst felterne i skemaet nedenfor i forhold til dit tilfredshedsniveau, i forbindelse med den samlede information ydet af SustainAgri.
Slet ikke En smule Engang imellem
Ofte Meget ofte
Deler firmaet ofte informationer og viden med SustainAgri, fx. i forbindelse med møder eller planlægningen af nye projekter?
x
Deler firmaet normalvist meget information og viden med SustainAgri?
x
Synes du at SustainAgri gør nok brug af de kompetencer, som jeres firma tilbyder. Fx i forbindelse med eksportprojekter?
x
Hvor meget ved du om SustainAgris mål i forbindelse med EU-projektet?
x
Arbejder firmaet dedikeret, på at få det størst mulige udbytte ud af samarbejdet med SustainAgri?
x
Afkryds venligst felterne i skemaet nedenfor i forhold til dit tilfredshedsniveau, i forbindelse med samarbejdet med de andre partnervirksomheder i SustainAgri.
Slet ikke En smule Engang imellem
Ofte Meget ofte
Samarbejder i med de andre partnervirksomheder, udover projekter der involverer SustainAgri?
x
Page 186 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Deler i projektrelaterede informationer og viden med de andre partnervirksomheder i SustainAgri?
x
15. Føler du, at dit firma har indflydelse på beslutninger truffet af SustainAgri? x
Slet ikke En smule Nogenlunde Meget Virkelig meget
16. Beskriv venligst på hvordan firmaet har indflydelse på beslutningsprocessen?
Afkryds venligst felterne i skemaet nedenfor i forhold til dit tilfredshedsniveau, i forbindelse med hvad dit firma synes om samarbejdet med SustainAgri, og hvilke fordele der er ved dette.
Slet ikke tilfreds
En smule tilfreds
Nogenlunde tilfreds
Meget tilfreds
Virkelig tilfreds
Hvad er dit firmas tilfredshedsniveau mht. samarbejdet med SustainAgri?
x
Hvor tilfreds er i med projekterne? x
Er i tilfredse med det nuværende informationsniveau som SustainAgri yder?
x
Hvad synes i om samarbejdet med SustainAgri?
x
Har det at være medlem af SustainAgri, gjort firmaet mere konkurrencedygtigt end tidligere?
x
17. Hvordan synes du at samarbejdet med SustainAgri har gavnet dit firma?
x
Slet ikke En smule Nogenlunde Meget Virkelig
Page 187 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
tilfredsstillende tilfredsstillende tilfredsstillende tilfredsstillende tilfredsstillende
Mange tak fordi du tog dig tid, til at udfylde spørgeskemaet. Det er en stor hjælp for mig, og forhåbentligt vil det også komme dig og din virksomhed til gode, i den fremtidige kontakt med SustainAgri!
Page 188 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Influx
Page 189 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Page 190 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Page 191 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Page 192 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Industri-Montage Vest A/S
Page 193 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Page 194 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Page 195 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Page 196 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Danish Farm DesignGenerel information
1. Hvad er firmaets hovederhverv?
x Leverandør Produktion Konsulent Videninstitution
Andet:
2. Antallet af ansatte i firmaet: 1-5 x 6-20 21-50 51-100 101-150 151-200 201+
3. Hvad er din stillingsbetegnelse (fx. Project Manager, Direktør eller lign.)? Direktør
Page 197 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Kommunikation
4. Hvordan kommunikerer firmaet normalvis med SustainAgri? (Du må gerne sætte kryds ved flere felter).
x x x
Email Telefon Post Personligt Andet:
5. Hvor ofte har du personlig kontakt med en ansat fra SustainAgri, fx et møde hvor to, eller flere, er det samme sted på samme tidspunkt? En gang om ugen En gang hver anden uge x En gang hver tredje uge
En gang om måneden En gang hver anden måned En gang hver tredje måned
Afkryds venligst felterne i skemaet nedenfor i forhold til dit tilfredshedsniveau, i forbindelse med de informationer og services som SustainAgri tilbyder.
Slet ikke tilfreds
En smule tilfreds
Nogenlunde tilfreds
Meget tilfreds
Virkelig tilfreds
Hvordan er SustainAgri til at informere virksomheden om nye aktiviteter i klyngen, fx. gennem hjemmesideopdateringer og udsendelse af nyhedsbreve?
x
Hvad synes du om den samlede mængde af information, som SustainAgri sender ud?
x
Hvor vigtig er den personlige kontakt for dig? x
Sørger SustainAgri for nok information, i forbindelse med nye eksportprojekter?
x
Medlemskabsinformation
Page 198 of 234
Andet:
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
6. Hvor lang tid har firmaet været medlem af SustainAgri? (> betyder mindre end)
>1 år >2 år >3 år >4 år Mere end 4 år x
7. Hvor mange projekter har firmaet deltaget i, sammen med SustainAgri, siden optagelsen som partnervirksomhed? > 10
8. Hvilke forventninger havde i, da firmaet blev optaget som medlem? Forventning om mange realiserede projekter
9. Er forventningerne blevet indfriet? x
Slet ikke En smule Nogenlunde Meget Virkelig meget
Eventuelle kommentarer:
10. Nævn venligst minimum 3 fordele ved at være medlem af SustainAgri: 1. Netværk med andre danske virksomheder, 2. finansieringsmulighed, 3. Udarbejdelse af konsortiemodel for eksport af teknologi/know-how
11. Er der nogen ulemper forbundet med at være medlem af SustainAgri? x Ja Nej
Hvis ja, skriv venligst hvilke ulemper: For stort tidsforbrug i forhold til udbyttet
12. Generelt set, på hvilken måde har medlemskabet af SustainAgri hjulpet firmaet? x
Slet ikke En smule Nogenlunde Meget Virkelig meget
Tilfredshedsniveau
Page 199 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
13. Har firmaet på noget tidspunkt samarbejdet med andre partnervirksomheder fra klyngen? x Ja Nej
14. Beskriv venligst jeres arbejdsforhold med de andre partnervirksomheder i SustainAgri: Samarbejde om konkrete projekter, hvor en eller flere samarbejdspartnere kan tilbyde ydelser til den samme kunde
Afkryds venligst felterne i skemaet nedenfor i forhold til dit tilfredshedsniveau, i forbindelse med den samlede information ydet af SustainAgri.
Slet ikke En smule Engang imellem
Ofte Meget ofte
Deler firmaet ofte informationer og viden med SustainAgri, fx. i forbindelse med møder eller planlægningen af nye projekter?
x
Deler firmaet normalvist meget information og viden med SustainAgri?
x
Synes du at SustainAgri gør nok brug af de kompetencer, som jeres firma tilbyder. Fx i forbindelse med eksportprojekter?
x
Hvor meget ved du om SustainAgris mål i forbindelse med EU-projektet?
Kan ikke besvares med disse svarmuligheder
Arbejder firmaet dedikeret, på at få det størst mulige udbytte ud af samarbejdet med SustainAgri?
do
Afkryds venligst felterne i skemaet nedenfor i forhold til dit tilfredshedsniveau, i forbindelse med samarbejdet med de andre partnervirksomheder i SustainAgri.
Slet ikke En smule Engang imellem
Ofte Meget ofte
Samarbejder i med de andre partnervirksomheder, udover projekter der involverer SustainAgri?
x
Page 200 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Deler i projektrelaterede informationer og viden med de andre partnervirksomheder i SustainAgri?
x
15. Føler du, at dit firma har indflydelse på beslutninger truffet af SustainAgri? x
Slet ikke En smule Nogenlunde Meget Virkelig meget
16. Beskriv venligst på hvordan firmaet har indflydelse på beslutningsprocessen?Deltagelse i møder, bestyrelsesmøder, projektmøder
Afkryds venligst felterne i skemaet nedenfor i forhold til dit tilfredshedsniveau, i forbindelse med hvad dit firma synes om samarbejdet med SustainAgri, og hvilke fordele der er ved dette.
Slet ikke tilfreds
En smule tilfreds
Nogenlunde tilfreds
Meget tilfreds
Virkelig tilfreds
Hvad er dit firmas tilfredshedsniveau mht. samarbejdet med SustainAgri?
x
Hvor tilfreds er i med projekterne? x
Er i tilfredse med det nuværende informationsniveau som SustainAgri yder?
x
Hvad synes i om samarbejdet med SustainAgri?
x
Har det at være medlem af SustainAgri, gjort firmaet mere konkurrencedygtigt end tidligere?
x
17. Hvordan synes du at samarbejdet med SustainAgri har gavnet dit firma?
x
Slet ikke En smule Nogenlunde Meget Virkelig
Page 201 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
tilfredsstillende tilfredsstillende tilfredsstillende tilfredsstillende tilfredsstillende
Mange tak fordi du tog dig tid, til at udfylde spørgeskemaet. Det er en stor hjælp for mig, og forhåbentligt vil det også komme dig og din virksomhed til gode, i den fremtidige kontakt med SustainAgri!
Little Dane ApSGenerel information
1. Hvad er firmaets hovederhverv?
x Leverandør Produktion Konsulent Videninstitution
Andet:
2. Antallet af ansatte i firmaet: x 1-5 6-20 21-50 51-100 101-150 151-200 201+
3. Hvad er din stillingsbetegnelse (fx. Project Manager, Direktør eller lign.)? Direktør
Page 202 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Kommunikation
4. Hvordan kommunikerer firmaet normalvis med SustainAgri? (Du må gerne sætte kryds ved flere felter).
x x
Email Telefon Post Personligt Andet:
5. Hvor ofte har du personlig kontakt med en ansat fra SustainAgri, fx et møde hvor to, eller flere, er det samme sted på samme tidspunkt? En gang om ugen En gang hver anden uge En gang hver tredje uge
x En gang om måneden En gang hver anden måned En gang hver tredje måned
Afkryds venligst felterne i skemaet nedenfor i forhold til dit tilfredshedsniveau, i forbindelse med de informationer og services som SustainAgri tilbyder.
Slet ikke tilfreds
En smule tilfreds
Nogenlunde tilfreds
Meget tilfreds
Virkelig tilfreds
Hvordan er SustainAgri til at informere virksomheden om nye aktiviteter i klyngen, fx. gennem hjemmesideopdateringer og udsendelse af nyhedsbreve?
x
Hvad synes du om den samlede mængde af information, som SustainAgri sender ud?
x
Hvor vigtig er den personlige kontakt for dig? x
Sørger SustainAgri for nok information, i forbindelse med nye eksportprojekter?
x
Medlemskabsinformation
Page 203 of 234
Andet:
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
6. Hvor lang tid har firmaet været medlem af SustainAgri? (> betyder mindre end)
>1 år >2 år >3 år x >4 år Mere end 4 år
7. Hvor mange projekter har firmaet deltaget i, sammen med SustainAgri, siden optagelsen som partnervirksomhed? Ingen
8. Hvilke forventninger havde i, da firmaet blev optaget som medlem? Høje forventninger til finansiering og salg
9. Er forventningerne blevet indfriet? x
Slet ikke En smule Nogenlunde Meget Virkelig meget
Eventuelle kommentarer:
10. Nævn venligst minimum 3 fordele ved at være medlem af SustainAgri: Ikke sikker på der er nogen
11. Er der nogen ulemper forbundet med at være medlem af SustainAgri? Ja x Nej
Hvis ja, skriv venligst hvilke ulemper:
12. Generelt set, på hvilken måde har medlemskabet af SustainAgri hjulpet firmaet? x
Slet ikke En smule Nogenlunde Meget Virkelig meget
Tilfredshedsniveau
13. Har firmaet på noget tidspunkt samarbejdet med andre partnervirksomheder fra klyngen?
Page 204 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
x Ja Nej
14. Beskriv venligst jeres arbejdsforhold med de andre partnervirksomheder i SustainAgri: Godt
Afkryds venligst felterne i skemaet nedenfor i forhold til dit tilfredshedsniveau, i forbindelse med den samlede information ydet af SustainAgri.
Slet ikke En smule Engang imellem
Ofte Meget ofte
Deler firmaet ofte informationer og viden med SustainAgri, fx. i forbindelse med møder eller planlægningen af nye projekter?
x
Deler firmaet normalvist meget information og viden med SustainAgri?
x
Synes du at SustainAgri gør nok brug af de kompetencer, som jeres firma tilbyder. Fx i forbindelse med eksportprojekter?
x
Hvor meget ved du om SustainAgris mål i forbindelse med EU-projektet?
x
Arbejder firmaet dedikeret, på at få det størst mulige udbytte ud af samarbejdet med SustainAgri?
x
Afkryds venligst felterne i skemaet nedenfor i forhold til dit tilfredshedsniveau, i forbindelse med samarbejdet med de andre partnervirksomheder i SustainAgri.
Slet ikke En smule Engang imellem
Ofte Meget ofte
Samarbejder i med de andre partnervirksomheder, udover projekter der involverer SustainAgri?
x
Deler i projektrelaterede informationer og viden med de andre partnervirksomheder i SustainAgri?
x
Page 205 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
15. Føler du, at dit firma har indflydelse på beslutninger truffet af SustainAgri? x
Slet ikke En smule Nogenlunde Meget Virkelig meget
16. Beskriv venligst på hvordan firmaet har indflydelse på beslutningsprocessen?
Afkryds venligst felterne i skemaet nedenfor i forhold til dit tilfredshedsniveau, i forbindelse med hvad dit firma synes om samarbejdet med SustainAgri, og hvilke fordele der er ved dette.
Slet ikke tilfreds
En smule tilfreds
Nogenlunde tilfreds
Meget tilfreds
Virkelig tilfreds
Hvad er dit firmas tilfredshedsniveau mht. samarbejdet med SustainAgri?
x
Hvor tilfreds er i med projekterne? x
Er i tilfredse med det nuværende informationsniveau som SustainAgri yder?
x
Hvad synes i om samarbejdet med SustainAgri?
x
Har det at være medlem af SustainAgri, gjort firmaet mere konkurrencedygtigt end tidligere?
x
17. Hvordan synes du at samarbejdet med SustainAgri har gavnet dit firma?
x
Slet ikke En smule Nogenlunde Meget Virkelig
tilfredsstillende tilfredsstillende tilfredsstillende tilfredsstillende tilfredsstillende
Page 206 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Mange tak fordi du tog dig tid, til at udfylde spørgeskemaet. Det er en stor hjælp for mig, og forhåbentligt vil det også komme dig og din virksomhed til gode, i den fremtidige kontakt med SustainAgri!
Nordic Environment ApSGenerel information
1. Hvad er firmaets hovederhverv?
Leverandør Produktion Konsulent Videninstitution
x Andet: Ingeniørfirma som både sælger rådgivning og udstyr.
2. Antallet af ansatte i firmaet:
x 1-5 6-20 21-50 51-100 101-150 151-200 201+
3. Hvad er din stillingsbetegnelse (fx. Project Manager, Direktør eller lign.)? Direktør
Page 207 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Kommunikation
4. Hvordan kommunikerer firmaet normalvis med SustainAgri? (Du må gerne sætte kryds ved flere felter).
x x
Email Telefon Post Personligt Andet:
5. Hvor ofte har du personlig kontakt med en ansat fra SustainAgri, fx et møde hvor to, eller flere, er det samme sted på samme tidspunkt? En gang om ugen En gang hver anden uge En gang hver tredje uge En gang om måneden En gang hver anden måned x En gang hver tredje måned
Afkryds venligst felterne i skemaet nedenfor i forhold til dit tilfredshedsniveau, i forbindelse med de informationer og services som SustainAgri tilbyder.
Slet ikke tilfreds
En smule tilfreds
Nogenlunde tilfreds
Meget tilfreds
Virkelig tilfreds
Hvordan er SustainAgri til at informere virksomheden om nye aktiviteter i klyngen, fx. gennem hjemmesideopdateringer og udsendelse af nyhedsbreve?
x
Hvad synes du om den samlede mængde af information, som SustainAgri sender ud?
x
Hvor vigtig er den personlige kontakt for dig? x
Sørger SustainAgri for nok information, i forbindelse med nye eksportprojekter?
x
Medlemskabsinformation
6. Hvor lang tid har firmaet været medlem af SustainAgri? (> betyder mindre end)
>1 år >2 år >3 år >4 år Mere end 4 år x
Page 208 of 234
Andet:
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
7. Hvor mange projekter har firmaet deltaget i, sammen med SustainAgri, siden optagelsen som partnervirksomhed?
Ingen
8. Hvilke forventninger havde i, da firmaet blev optaget som medlem?
Målet var at indgå i Turn Key projekter med så højt kvalitetsniveau at svinefarme med tilhørende slagterier var i stand til at blive ISO 22000 certificerede. Dette gjorde det muligt for de ukrainske landmænd at eksportere til Vesteuropa og andre lande, som betaler høje priser for god kvalitet. Nordic Environment ApS ville stå for certificering samt vand- og spildevandsbehandling gennem formidling til danske virksomheder og rådgivere.
9. Er forventningerne blevet indfriet?
x
Slet ikke En smule Nogenlunde Meget Virkelig meget
Eventuelle kommentarer: Finanskrisen satte en stopper for investering i Turn Key projekter.
10. Nævn venligst minimum 3 fordele ved at være medlem af SustainAgri:
1. En organisation som kan stå for markedsføring og alt det praktiske, 2. Virksomheder står stærkt ved at samarbejde i klynger. 3. Bedre muligheder for at få støtte gennem fondsmidler og støtteordninger.
11. Er der nogen ulemper forbundet med at være medlem af SustainAgri?
Ja x Nej
Hvis ja, skriv venligst hvilke ulemper:
12. Generelt set, på hvilken måde har medlemskabet af SustainAgri hjulpet firmaet?
x
Slet ikke En smule Nogenlunde Meget Virkelig meget
Tilfredshedsniveau
Page 209 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
13. Har firmaet på noget tidspunkt samarbejdet med andre partnervirksomheder fra klyngen? Ja x Nej
14. Beskriv venligst jeres arbejdsforhold med de andre partnervirksomheder i SustainAgri:
Afkryds venligst felterne i skemaet nedenfor i forhold til dit tilfredshedsniveau, i forbindelse med den samlede information ydet af SustainAgri.
Slet ikke En smule Engang imellem
Ofte Meget ofte
Deler firmaet ofte informationer og viden med SustainAgri, fx. i forbindelse med møder eller planlægningen af nye projekter?
x
Deler firmaet normalvist meget information og viden med SustainAgri?
x
Synes du at SustainAgri gør nok brug af de kompetencer, som jeres firma tilbyder. Fx i forbindelse med eksportprojekter?
x
Hvor meget ved du om SustainAgris mål i forbindelse med EU-projektet?
x
Arbejder firmaet dedikeret, på at få det størst mulige udbytte ud af samarbejdet med SustainAgri?
x
Afkryds venligst felterne i skemaet nedenfor i forhold til dit tilfredshedsniveau, i forbindelse med samarbejdet med de andre partnervirksomheder i SustainAgri.
Slet ikke En smule Engang imellem
Ofte Meget ofte
Samarbejder i med de andre partnervirksomheder, udover projekter der involverer SustainAgri?
x
Page 210 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Deler i projektrelaterede informationer og viden med de andre partnervirksomheder i SustainAgri?
x
15. Føler du, at dit firma har indflydelse på beslutninger truffet af SustainAgri? x
Slet ikke En smule Nogenlunde Meget Virkelig meget
16. Beskriv venligst på hvordan firmaet har indflydelse på beslutningsprocessen?
Sustain Agri arbejder hen mod igen at deltage i Turn Key projekter med støtte fra EKF.
Afkryds venligst felterne i skemaet nedenfor i forhold til dit tilfredshedsniveau, i forbindelse med hvad dit firma synes om samarbejdet med SustainAgri, og hvilke fordele der er ved dette.
Slet ikke tilfreds
En smule tilfreds
Nogenlunde tilfreds
Meget tilfreds
Virkelig tilfreds
Hvad er dit firmas tilfredshedsniveau mht. samarbejdet med SustainAgri?
x
Hvor tilfreds er i med projekterne? x
Er i tilfredse med det nuværende informationsniveau som SustainAgri yder?
x
Hvad synes i om samarbejdet med SustainAgri?
x
Har det at være medlem af SustainAgri, gjort firmaet mere konkurrencedygtigt end tidligere?
x
17. Hvordan synes du at samarbejdet med SustainAgri har gavnet dit firma?
x
Slet ikke En smule Nogenlunde Meget Virkelig
tilfredsstillende tilfredsstillende tilfredsstillende tilfredsstillende tilfredsstillende
Page 211 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Mange tak fordi du tog dig tid, til at udfylde spørgeskemaet. Det er en stor hjælp for mig, og forhåbentligt vil det også komme dig og din virksomhed til gode, i den fremtidige kontakt med SustainAgri!
S.A. Christensen & CO.
Generel information
1. Hvad er firmaets hovederhverv?
x x Leverandør Produktion Konsulent Videninstitution
Andet:
2. Antallet af ansatte i firmaet:
1-5 6-20 21-50 x 51-100 101-150 151-200 201+
3. Hvad er din stillingsbetegnelse (fx. Project Manager, Direktør eller lign.)? Area sales manager - flere lande
Page 212 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Kommunikation
4. Hvordan kommunikerer firmaet normalvis med SustainAgri? (Du må gerne sætte kryds ved flere felter).
x x
Email Telefon Post Personligt Andet:
5. Hvor ofte har du personlig kontakt med en ansat fra SustainAgri, fx et møde hvor to, eller flere, er det samme sted på samme tidspunkt? En gang om ugen En gang hver anden uge En gang hver tredje uge En gang om måneden En gang hver anden måned x En gang hver tredje måned
Afkryds venligst felterne i skemaet nedenfor i forhold til dit tilfredshedsniveau, i forbindelse med de informationer og services som SustainAgri tilbyder.
Slet ikke tilfreds
En smule tilfreds
Nogenlunde tilfreds
Meget tilfreds
Virkelig tilfreds
Hvordan er SustainAgri til at informere virksomheden om nye aktiviteter i klyngen, fx. gennem hjemmesideopdateringer og udsendelse af nyhedsbreve?
x
Hvad synes du om den samlede mængde af information, som SustainAgri sender ud?
x
Hvor vigtig er den personlige kontakt for dig? x
Sørger SustainAgri for nok information, i forbindelse med nye eksportprojekter?
x
Medlemskabsinformation
6. Hvor lang tid har firmaet været medlem af SustainAgri? (> betyder mindre end)
>1 år x >2 år >3 år >4 år Mere end 4 år
Page 213 of 234
Andet:
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
7. Hvor mange projekter har firmaet deltaget i, sammen med SustainAgri, siden optagelsen som partnervirksomhed?
?? hvad mener man under projekter?, aktiviteter-3, salg-0
8. Hvilke forventninger havde i, da firmaet blev optaget som medlem?
netværk
9. Er forventningerne blevet indfriet?
x
Slet ikke En smule Nogenlunde Meget Virkelig meget
Eventuelle kommentarer:
10. Nævn venligst minimum 3 fordele ved at være medlem af SustainAgri:
Netværk, information
11. Er der nogen ulemper forbundet med at være medlem af SustainAgri?
Ja x Nej
Hvis ja, skriv venligst hvilke ulemper:
12. Generelt set, på hvilken måde har medlemskabet af SustainAgri hjulpet firmaet?
x
Slet ikke En smule Nogenlunde Meget Virkelig meget
Tilfredshedsniveau
13. Har firmaet på noget tidspunkt samarbejdet med andre partnervirksomheder fra klyngen? x Ja Nej
14. Beskriv venligst jeres arbejdsforhold med de andre partnervirksomheder i SustainAgri:
Vi sælger supplerende produkter til kvag.
Page 214 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Afkryds venligst felterne i skemaet nedenfor i forhold til dit tilfredshedsniveau, i forbindelse med den samlede information ydet af SustainAgri.
Slet ikke En smule Engang imellem
Ofte Meget ofte
Deler firmaet ofte informationer og viden med SustainAgri, fx. i forbindelse med møder eller planlægningen af nye projekter?
x
Deler firmaet normalvist meget information og viden med SustainAgri?
x
Synes du at SustainAgri gør nok brug af de kompetencer, som jeres firma tilbyder. Fx i forbindelse med eksportprojekter?
x
Hvor meget ved du om SustainAgris mål i forbindelse med EU-projektet?
x
Arbejder firmaet dedikeret, på at få det størst mulige udbytte ud af samarbejdet med SustainAgri?
x
Afkryds venligst felterne i skemaet nedenfor i forhold til dit tilfredshedsniveau, i forbindelse med samarbejdet med de andre partnervirksomheder i SustainAgri.
Slet ikke En smule Engang imellem
Ofte Meget ofte
Samarbejder i med de andre partnervirksomheder, udover projekter der involverer SustainAgri?
x
Deler i projektrelaterede informationer og viden med de andre partnervirksomheder i SustainAgri?
x
15. Føler du, at dit firma har indflydelse på beslutninger truffet af SustainAgri? x
Slet ikke En smule Nogenlunde Meget Virkelig meget
Page 215 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
16. Beskriv venligst på hvordan firmaet har indflydelse på beslutningsprocessen?
Afkryds venligst felterne i skemaet nedenfor i forhold til dit tilfredshedsniveau, i forbindelse med hvad dit firma synes om samarbejdet med SustainAgri, og hvilke fordele der er ved dette.
Slet ikke tilfreds
En smule tilfreds
Nogenlunde tilfreds
Meget tilfreds
Virkelig tilfreds
Hvad er dit firmas tilfredshedsniveau mht. samarbejdet med SustainAgri?
x
Hvor tilfreds er i med projekterne? x
Er i tilfredse med det nuværende informationsniveau som SustainAgri yder?
x
Hvad synes i om samarbejdet med SustainAgri?
x
Har det at være medlem af SustainAgri, gjort firmaet mere konkurrencedygtigt end tidligere?
x
17. Hvordan synes du at samarbejdet med SustainAgri har gavnet dit firma?
x
Slet ikke En smule Nogenlunde Meget Virkelig
tilfredsstillende tilfredsstillende tilfredsstillende tilfredsstillende tilfredsstillende
Mange tak fordi du tog dig tid, til at udfylde spørgeskemaet. Det er en stor hjælp for mig, og forhåbentligt vil det også komme dig og din virksomhed til gode, i den fremtidige kontakt med SustainAgri!
Page 216 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Appendix 14: Mail thanking contact persons for participating(The mails varied a little but all contained the same message to the participant.)
The contact person’s name has been deleted.
Hej XX.
Tusind tak for besvarelsen af spørgeskemaet, det er en stor hjælp.
Hav en fortsat god dag.
Med venlig hilsen,
Esben
Page 217 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Appendix 15: Questionnaire guide
The questionnaire is divided into four sections and asks the most relevant questions based on the interviews with the employees of SustainAgri as well as questions regarding the four dimensions: Trust, commitment satisfaction and control mutuality, created by Hon & Grunig (1999).
Normally, during a questionnaire it is custom to have a short introduction of the project and the benefits it may give to the relationship between themselves and SustainAgri. However, I did not feel that there was sufficient spcae for this since the questionnaire would otherwise have been too long. As a result of this, the introduction was written in the mail which was sent out to the contact persons together with the questionnaire.
It should take about five minutes to fill out and has been teste don two people before being sent out. The two people looked for grammatical and spelling errors, wrong values within the figures and how long the questionnaire took to fill out.
General information
The first section concerning general information asks questions regarding the main field of the different companies as well as the number of employees and the occupation of the person filling out the questionnaire. This is relevant since the different types of partner companies might have different views on the relevance of being a partner company of SustainAgri.
1. What is the main field of occupation for the company?
Supply Production Consultancy Knowledge institution
Page 218 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Other:
2. Number of employees in the company: 1-5 6-20 21-50 51-100 101-150 151-200 201+
3. What is your occupation within the company?(fx. Project Manager, CEO etc.)
Page 219 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
This sections is primarily made in order for the participant to answer some easy questions without having to think too hard and thereby ease them into the following questions (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010). This is also mentioned by (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010) as the best way to introduce the participant to the questionnaire.
Communication
The second section is looking deeper into how SustainAgri communicates with its partner companies. This is very important to the relationship which was also reflected in the interviews with the employees of SustainAgri. The most important of these communication methods is personal communication since communication from both SustainAgri and the partner companies can be shared and new information can be explained in detail.
Furthermore, the consistency, relevance and level of information from the partner companies’ point of view are asked during this section. This is done to find out how regularly communication between SustainAgri and the partner companies take place.
4. Normally, how does the company communicate with SustainAgri? (You may tick more than one box).
Email Phone Post Personally Other:
5. How often do you have personal contact (face-to-face) with an employee from SustainAgri? Once a week Once every other week Once every third week
Once a month Once every other month Once every third month
Please tick the boxes in the figure underneath in connection to your level of satisfaction and the services provided by SustainAgri.
Not at all Slightly Moderately Very Extremely
Page 220 of 234
Other:
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied
How is SustainAgri at informing you about new activities within the cluster, e.g. through updating their website and sending out newsletters?
What do you think of the amount of information provided by SustainAgri?
How important is the personal contact for you?
Does SustainAgri provide sufficient information in connection with new export projects?
Membership information
During the membership information section questions regarding the duration of the membership will be addressed as well as the expectations the partner companies had as they joined SustainAgri and whether or not these expectations have been fulfilled.
6. How long has the company been a member of SustainAgri? (> means less than)
7. >1 year >2 years >3 years >4 years More than 4 years
8. Since joining SustainAgri, how many projects have the company participated in?
9. Which expectations did you have when the company joined as a member?
10. To what degree have the above mentioned expectations been met?
Not at all Slightly Moderately Very much Extremely much
Page 221 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Eventual comments:
11. Please write 3 advantages of being a member of SustainAgri:
12. Are there disadvantages in connection with being a member of SustainAgri? Yes No
If yes, please state the disadvantages?
13. How has the membership of SustainAgri contributed to your company as a whole?
Not at all Slightly Moderately Very much Extremely much
Level of satisfaction
During this last section the general level of satisfaction is looked into together with questions regarding knowledge management and how knowledge is shared across the companies and with SustainAgri. This section also ends with a question concerning if the cooperation has benefitted the specific partner company.
14. Have you at any time cooperated with other partner companies within the cluster? Yes No
15. In a few words, please describe your relationship with the other partner companies of SustainAgri:
Please tick the boxes below according to your degree of satisfaction with the questions regarding the information provided by SustainAgri.
Page 222 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Not at all satisfied
Slightly satisfied
Moderately satisfied
Very satisfied
Extremely satisfied
Do you often share information and knowledge with SustainAgri, e.g. in connection with meetings and the planning of new projects?How much information and knowledge do you generally share with SustainAgri?To what extent, do you think SustainAgri makes use of the competencies provided by your company, e.g. in connection with export projects?How much do you know about the goals of SustainAgri’s EU-project?
Overall, how dedicated are your company in the cooperation with SustainAgri?
Please tick the boxes below according to your degree of satisfaction with your cooperation with the questions regarding the other partner companies of SustainAgri.
Not at all satisfied
Slightly satisfied
Moderately satisfied
Very satisfied
Extremely satisfied
Do you cooperate with the other partner companies outside of the projects made with SustainAgri?
Do you share project-related information and knowledge with the other partner companies of SustainAgri?
16. To what extent do you feel you are able to influence decisions made by SustainAgri?
Not at all Slightly Moderately Very much Extremely much
17. Please explain how you influence the decision-making process of SustainAgri?
Page 223 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Please tick the boxes below according to your degree of satisfaction regarding the questions about how your company feels about working together with SustainAgri and what benefits there might be.
Not at all satisfied
Slightly satisfied
Moderately satisfied
Very satisfied
Extremely satisfied
What is your level of satisfaction with SustainAgri?What is your level of satisfaction with the projects carried out by SustainAgri?Are you satisfied with the level of information provided by SustainAgri?How do you rate working with SustainAgri?Has the membership of SustainAgri made your company more competitive than previously?
18. To what extent do you feel that cooperation with other partner companies benefits your company?
Not at all Slightly Moderately Very Extremely
Satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied
The questionnaire ends with a thank you from me to the people who have filled out the questionnaire. Also a mail is sent out to each person returning the questionnaire thanking them for their time.
Thank you very much for filling out the questionnaire. This has been a huge help for me and hopefully it will also benefit you in future dealings with SustainAgri!
Page 224 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
Appendix 16: Partnership agreement contract
Erklæring om deltagelse som partner
Nedennævnte virksomhed/institution/myndighed/fond/forening
Navn:
bekræfter hermed at være partner i pågældende projekt under et af de danske strukturfondsprogrammer i perioden 2007-2013.
Projekttitel: SustainAgri.
Virksomheden/institutionen/myndigheden/fonden/foreningen er som partner bekendt med indholdet i ansøgningen om strukturfondstilskud af
(dato/måned/år)
og accepterer, at strukturfondstilskuddet udbetales til tilsagnsmodtageren, og at virksomheden/institutionen/myndigheden/fonden/foreningen figurerer på den liste over støttemodtagere, projekttitler og tilskudsbeløb, der offentliggøres i henhold til artikel 7, stk. 2, litra d) i Kommissionens gennemførelsesbestemmelser for strukturfondene, KFO 1828/2006.
Page 225 of 234
“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st
Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153
For rigtigheden af de afgivne oplysninger:
Navn på virksomhed/institution/myndighed/fond/forening:
Juridisk status for virksomhed/institution/myndighed/fond/forening:
(A/S, ApS, I/S, K/S, A.M.B.A., personligt ejet virksomhed, erhvervsdrivende fond,
selvejende institution, offentlig myndighed, forening eller andet)
CVR-/CPR-nr. for virksomhed/institution/myndighed/fond/forening:
Tegningsberettigedes navn: ___________________________
Adresse:
________________________________________
Dato / underskrift
Page 226 of 234